Some readers here are probably thinking “”Of course, we’re exclusionary in Newton, our schools are too crowded now and we have too much traffic.”
Sone might even add: “I can’t believe Setti Warren is getting credit for our efforts to keep affordable housing from coming into Newton.”
Yet others might say “I’m glad our mayor is doing so much to keep Newton the way it is now. I just can’t believe he’s being criticized for doing the right thing.”
But count me as among those who are deeply embarrassed for the, more true than not, way our city is portrayed as “not willing to do our fair share” in an opinion column by Dante Ramos in Sunday’s Globe.
“If Newton gets away with this, every other city in the Commonwealth is going to do the same,” says Mark Schwarz of Marcus Lang Investments, “and affordable living will be stopped in its tracks.”
Sure Ramos oversimplified issues we know are more complex. But folks, this is the way Newton is going to be perceived unless or until we actually create –not just talk about — more affordable housing in our city.
Question: “So why are the city’s lawyers trying so hard to defang Chapter 40B…?”
Answer: They’re not!
Not sure I understand the focus and public shaming of Newton. The article included a link to other communities in the Commonwealth and the percentage of subsidized housing. Newton was under the 10% threshold per this analysis, at 7.5%. But this was better than some neighboring towns like Waltham (7.2%), Watertown (6.4%), Wellesley (6.2%) and Weston (3.6%).
Why not articles about these towns, which are doing even less toward their 40B threshold of 10%?
This is not a rhetorical question, I am truly interested why the specific focus on Newton. Can someone please explain?
@Dreamer: I don’t know enough about the situations in Wellesley and Weston but they are much smaller towns so I’m not sure the comparison is the same. But all you have to do is drive on Pleasant Street towards Russos and you’ll note that Waltham and Watertown have recently added many hundreds of units to their housing stock. I do know know for certain if those units were built under 40B or not but they look like they cater to lower income earners. If so, might it be that those units are so recent that they’re not yet counted?
I do know about Needham, which is in the process of approving a friendly 40B which will get the town over the 10 percent threshold.
@Dreamer – I think it’s because Newton is attempting to get itself exempted from 40B regulations by the claim that it has,already hit the threshold of land devoted to affordable housing in the city.
That’s not the reason this column is in the Globe.
Do tell Jane
I think one of three reasons why they point at us. 1) What Jerry said 2) the writer has a connection to the investment groups trying to get in that he isn’t willing to talk about or 3) Some reason there’s a push against the Mayor.
Regardless, I don’t think we should let one person from outside of Newton (I guess) sway on how we should act in Newton.
@Tom: That is a very serious and, unless you have substantial proof, outrageous allegation against the integrity of the Boston Globe and Dante Ramos, who is an associate editor and a respected voice. I’m assuming you’ve just pulled that claim out of your, um, thin air. You should back it up or retract it.
Ding ding ding
@Greg. Thanks for response, but not sure what the town size has to do with it, since it is a percentage of housing that is the target for the 40B threshold, not an absolute number. You could plausibly argue that in towns with less population density, it would theoretically be easier to meet the target since fewer units would be needed. (For example, a single complex could put it over the threshold).
I think it’s pretty clear that the Globe has a certain – let’s call it a preoccupation – with Newton.
@Greg – from what I have read, the developments along Pleasant Street are described as “luxury” apartments; rents seem to be in the range of around $1900 – $2400 for a two-bedroom. Not Boston/Cambridge prices, but certainly not rents that would cater to lower income earners. And the big ones are not 40B either, just the zoning required 10% set aside for affordable housing, with eligibility requirements at 80% of the median income for most of the units, and 70% for the remaining units. So the 4 biggest developments in the Pleasant St. corridor have added over 700 rental units; about 70 are affordable to folks at 70-80% median income, and the remaining 600+ are market rate. No low income from what I can find. And since these are not 40B, only the designated “affordable” units count toward the threshold, not the whole developments, so I don’t see how these move the needle at all.
Thanks Tricia
Here’s my response to anyone who is wondering why a Globe columnist would write about this:
“What did you expect?”
Let’s say a friend who used to live here calls you up and says “What’s the hottest, most controversial, divisive issue in Newton these days?”
The answer would have to be 40B and affordable housing.
Not only do we talk about it and debate it all the time but we have two complaints filed against us by HUD and there was just this settlement announced that came out of the whole Engine 6 thing. And there’s Austin Street, Grover Street, Court Street, Turtle Lane, St. Philip Neri, Wells Ave. Etc. etc.
So yeah, someone noticed.
I don’t get these arguments.
Just because we are fighting to prove that we have met a threshold does not mean Newton will no longer accept 40b developments. What it does do is give our officials a right to demand a more favorable position during discussions – and if I was a representative of our city that is certainly want I would want.
I find it very disappointing our mayor does such a bad job of PR.
Greg – Most residents are just living their lives. Other than the people who go to meetings about the issue, I haven’t had one conversation about any of this with anyone and I have lunch 5 days a week with people who are extremely involved with the city.
Someone didn’t “just notice”.
Greg,
You’re reply seems quite defensive to me. Dreamer said: “I am truly interested why the specific focus on Newton.”
I speculated 3 different possibilities why the article.
I said:”1) What Jerry said 2) the writer has a connection to the investment groups trying to get in that he isn’t willing to talk about or 3) Some reason there’s a push against the Mayor.
I don’t know why you can object, these things don’t happen all the time? Take it easy, no one else was so touchy.
I think this column is off base. Right off the bat it is claiming that Newton’s invoking a “previously obscure provision” as an “escape hatch” from 40B is somehow villainous. Connecting HUD’s conditions placed on Newton because of the violations in the process and derailing of Engine 6 to the 2 developer’s new suits is ludicrous. As is saying that, as a summary for the layperson, “Chapter 40B helps developers by letting them challenge unfavorable decisions at the local level by going to the state … ” instead of it helps developer’s by letting them disregard a town’s zoning regulations and plopping them down wherever they can find any land.
And I agree that Newton keeps cropping up in derogatory articles when other cities are doing worse. And wonder why.
Greg, in one comment you are telling Tom to back up his statement or retract it, because he insulted the author of the article as one of three possible answers to Dreamer’s question. I’m not saying I agree with what he suggested, but he didn’t claim it was true.
In the next, you make actual statements about other towns building hundreds of affordable housing units just because you think “they look like they cater to lower income earners.” And it turns out they are mostly market rate. Quite pretentious, don’t you think.
And Dreamer is correct about the size of the cities/towns not being relevant when speaking of percentages, but you knew that. In fact some of the towns are more exclusive, have much stricter zoning regulations and much more build-able land than built out Newton.
I think Newton definitely needs more truly affordable housing, has added it at a snail’s pace, has a problem with it being fought at every turn, and am glad we will get a few at Austin Street. I think it’s really good that the city is now required to supply housing for the disabled homeless or face the consequences and wish it were more than 9-12 units because force is the only way it will happen.
But I don’t know if the quote in the article that says “Newton desperately needs more rental housing … ” is necessarily true unless it is truly affordable.
I definitely do not agree that there is anything wrong with Newton continuing to fight for relief from 40B if we have truly met the 1.5% threshold. And do not agree that “Instead, it’s basically telling its neighbors, ‘We’re not willing to do our fair share.’ ” since at this moment only a handful of towns have done their fair share and met the threshold either way. There’s Boston and Cambridge.
There is a threshold in Chapter 40B for a reason. If we have met it then we have a right to claim it. It only means that developers can’t build their developments anywhere they want. They have to go through the process and the city can require mitigation and have a say in where it is built.
As for the fair housing suits filed by the two developers who don’t like not getting their way, their situations are not even close to the violations concerning Engine 6. I think they are wasting their time.
I have no guess as to why Newton is singled out so much by the Globe since they would be wild accusations. If it weren’t for the author’s remarks against our Mayor, I would wonder if Greg has a hand in it. I do wonder, with Greg’s unwavering support of the Mayor and his critical remarks about anyone who questions the Mayor’s actions, why he is not going after Ramos for blaming the problem on Mayor Warren.
There are several plausible reasons for Newton getting more scrutiny than other communities, although that doesn’t preclude the Globe just picking on Newton because it’s fun to hassle the tree-hugging plastic-bag-banning how many millionaires live there crowd that Newton represents. You have to keep reminding people that Newton, for better or worse, is a real outlier (some would say we live in a bubble) because of the physical size and population (roughly 18 sq miles and 85k) that rank it among the largest cities in the Commonwealth, but with outrageous median income, housing prices, and so on. So that’s one factor that makes it an attractive target for op-ed gunslingers. Then you have Newton’s reputation as the ultimate bastion of Massachusetts liberal progressive Democratic politics, going all the way back to the anti-Vietnam war movement and so forth. Not too many other communities in the state offer that kind of profile when you want to crank up the op-ed machine.
At some level these criticisms are somewhat legitimate. Affluent community, big liberal progressive majority, loves to brag about how safe it is, how diverse it is, great schools, blah blah blah. So why is it so hard to get any affordable housing done? Good question, as a matter of fact.
Thank you HL for trying to bring this back to the issue we should be focused on:
Rather than looking for conspiracy theories, engaging in self pity (“But ma, Billy’s mother doesn’t make him eat string beans, why do I have to?”) and lining up to shoot the messenger, how about if we discuss Newton’s poor performance record at creating affordable housing and what that means for our community and the way others perceive us?
Does anyone here know the last time Newton approved a 40B project?
@Greg
Poor performance compared to who?
The data above suggest we’re doing better than are neighboring towns, some of which have market-rate housing significantly below ours, so its an unfair comparison to start.
Is there any evidence that high-cost cities and towns have a better track record in creating affordable housing than Newton? In Massachusetts? In the US?
From the data provided so far, it looks like we have the best performance. If you actual facts to share, please do so.
The Globe doesn’t have to send journalists to Newton. Several of them live here and notice what’s going on on their own. And then they talk to their colleagues. Yes, Newton is an easy target for all the reasons HL Dewey suggests, and too often, the criticism goes way overboard. But it’s hard to dispute this:
Something isn’t working, or more likely, some things aren’t working, assuming that our elected officials and residents want to be in compliance with 40B. I’d like to believe that residents want to provide housing for a more economically diverse group of people than those who can afford a $941,000 house but I have no idea if that’s true.
I’m not sure it really matter what other communities are doing. I’ll grant that it would if 10 percent were an unachievable goal but that clearly isn’t the case, according to the Housing and Community Development chart.
I will be documenting my 40b ownership experience when my attorney relinquishes permission
But there are reasons and that’s all I can state right now
I would tune in soon as I am being handed a nightmare as we speak that is honestly book worthy of a story ….
Greg – Clearly some people have had it with the Globe articles that make Newton look elitist and foolish, and that is their issue. In this day and age, do you really think the Globe has the resources to send a columnist or reporter out to investigate something he “noticed”? These articles/columns are tiresome and have the appearance of being agenda-driven. While I am an avid supporter of increasing affordable housing in Newton, I certainly wouldn’t go so far as to do anything that would make my community look foolish in order to advance the cause.
@Jane: I’m not sure what you are suggesting. But can you accept the slim possibility that I might understand a little more about how opinion columnists work at major metropolitan newspapers than you might?
Generally speaking, columnists write about things they’ve “noticed.” In fact, that’s pretty much the job description.
Newton’s reputation as liberal and inclusive may be one reason why the Globe looked at our low-income housing numbers versus places like Wellesley or Weston.
I’m pretty sure that the timing of this piece in the Globe ties it to the conciliatory agreement reached by HUD and the City of Newton / Mayor Warren over the Mayor’s illegal stoppage of the Engine 6 public comment period. Just a thought…
The fact that the Globe writes frequently about Newton should not be a surprise to anyone. We are a large city, a leading city in terms of political thought, and a city home to a large number of thought and corporate leaders.
When we do things right, it’s noticed beyond city borders. It’s also noticed when we don’t.
The argument for and against greater density is a divisive one. It is not “just” about 40b, or senior housing, or any number of other individual elements that are lobbed into the discussion. There is a genuine feeling that Austin as well as other “greater-density” and “open space-reducing” efforts are being pushed forward regardless of overwhelming community opposition.
It is very easy to imagine how certain people could lobby for use 40b media opinion pieces to further a number of causes. Against Austin? You must be against affordable housing. Against greater density? You’re probably racist. You live in Newton? You must be elitist. It’s a very slippery slope and destroys the previously improved “tone and tenor” of discourse of which Mayor Warren has frequently spoken.
There are clearly certain types of building projects that will be of benefit to the city. Let’s try a village up approach and maybe we’d get somewhere. It’s clearly not working for anyone right now except certain hand picked developers.
Amen
In answer to the question, “[d]oes anyone here know the last time Newton approved a 40B project?”, the answer is November 2014. The ZBA issued comprehensive permits for 1) the Court Street development (36 units); and 2) the Myrtle Village development (7 units).
Court Street, Myrtle Baptist – 2014? Lexington Street – 10 units of 100% affordable – with substantial subsidy. I don’t remember when the Avalon Bay projects – Needham Street and Chestnut Hill or the Arbor Court at Woodland T project was permitted. Riverside was permitted as a special permit – but not as a 40B project. Only a small percentage of affordable units. There are smaller projects across the city – Derby Street had one several years ago.
Other issues in the city need attention right now, so why does V14 keep harping on this at the expense of discussion of these topics. If you had any dealings with City Hall or NPS, then you’d know that there’s a broad spectrum of serious issues that the city is dealing with.
We don’t live in a bubble. The housing problem is regional so what’s happening in other neighboring communities is very relevant. For this columnist to place pluck one community out of many to blame is disingenuous at best, and gives the appearance of being agenda driven, and clearly I wasn’t the only one to think so. I wouldn’t say anything that would undermine the efforts of many committed people, but articles like this do not promote the cause. It’s doing what NVA is accused of doing – going anonymous – and I can’t support that strategy.
@Jane, I think the topics are picked due to the newsworthiness of the item. The Contact Us link is on the top of the page, send something on any of the “issues in the city need attention right now” and one of us will start a discussion on that. I am happy to post something for you anytime.
Ramos is paid for his opinion and he gave it, hanging it on the news peg of the mayor’s meeting on affordable housing. I see nothing out of line here. Waltham isn’t thought of as having an exclusivity problem. Wellesley isn’t seen as a bastion of liberalism with an upwardly mobile mayor. And so on down the line. Actually, I was glad to see someone at the Globe discussing Newton in the context of something other than high school athletics. I never could fathom the paper’s failure to take seriously even the larger communities outside Boston city limits. I’d like to see more, and more nuanced, coverage of our issues, not less. The piece may have been one-sided–it’s an opinion column, not a news report–but the man wasn’t lying.
@Jane: It seems you would prefer that this would be the Globe’s policy towards covering Newton. On the other hand, I agree with Amanda. I wish we received more, not less, coverage and scrutiny. In fact, it’s unfortunate that the Globe West municipal coverage has been reduced, not just for Newton, but for our neighboring western suburban communities.
But could you please explain what you are implying when you write this (I’ve added the bold)…
You seem to be suggesting that this was a planted story and you know who’s behind it. Not only is that an attack on the Globe’s credibility but if you have enough confidence in that information to state it as a fact, then you owe it to our community to tell us what you know that the rest us don’t.
Conversely you could just admit that you really don’t know much about how this media stuff works and we can move on.
This doesn’t feel like a “placed” story to me. It’s relatively well documented and reported and fits with Dante’s overall reporting style. He’s a good reporter and, as @Greg said, a respected voice.
As @Charlie noted above, we are a large city and in that a leader in the state. We do have an affordability problem, we can try to fight it, but it’s insane. A friend who already lived in Newton was looking for a new home recently and was told by an agent that you need to make $300,000 to live in Newton.
Houses in my neighborhood on the Waltham line regularly sell for $420 to $460 per square foot, then then dumpsters show up for a full renovation. That means the actual price people pay to move into a home is much higher. A house on my street just went on the market for $517 a square foot. No idea if it will sell for that much, but the fact that it’s the asking price says something about our market.
We need more affordable housing in this city and if that means our dirty laundry gets aired out in the Globe, so be it.
I’ve heard various 40B experts say: Newton has far more subsidized housing on a percentage basis and on an absolute basis than other nearby towns have done and attaining the 1.5% standard is a reason to be quite proud. Perhaps what we should be ashamed of is asking current residents who are struggling to keep up with higher taxes and the high cost of living in their own homes to pay even more for less quality of life. How can we, in good conscience, encourage more people to share our home when the fact is we are in debt, we have overcrowded our schools, pushed the limits of our infrastructure, over promised pensions, and continue to be in reactive mode while posing as proactive. If someone invites 10 people to come share their house, that host had better be prepared or nobody will be happy!
As for adding 800 more units, that may look great on a resume for someone looking for their next job, but there is no shortage of housing in Newton, or any shortage of people willing and able to afford to move here. The problem is we are losing naturally affordable houses, and the socio-economic-ethnic diversity that goes with them, and cramming oodles of over-priced “luxury” multi-units doesn’t make housing cheaper, but more expensive. It doesn’t make Newton more affordable, just more crowded. And they will still call us elitists for sport.
@Christopher Pitts, I would be interested in knowing who these purported “40B experts” are. I don’t pretend to be one, but the people I know who are have a very different take.
I found this coverage–from the West Coast–enlightening. It also sounds many of the familiar arguments here:
This woman has a plan to fix San Francisco’s housing crisis — but homeowners won’t like it – http://www.vox.com/2015/6/15/8782235/san-francisco-housing-crisis
I absolutely agree with Chris Pitts here.
And you don’t have to be an expert, “so called” or actual, to read the numbers in chart Gail linked to above.
More to say when I have a few minutes and a real keyboard.
Julia Malakie, the 40B “experts” will tell you that the affordability restrictions on a number of units included in the SHI are running out, and that Newton has been stuck at around 7.5% (it has actually declined a little) for almost ten years. They will also tell you that Brookline has 8.1% and that Needham’s elected officials are working collaboratively with private developers to create enough affordable units to put that town well over the 10% threshold. The experts might even tell you that many of those SHI units are not truly affordable, since market rate units count in a 40B development. I cannot comment on whether Newton has achieved the 1.5% land area calculation since it is currently on appeal in the Housing Appeals Committee, of which I am a member, but like the SHI, that figure can change over time depending on various factors. Finally, the “experts” would point out that about a quarter of the units counted in Newton’s SHI are in just three 40B developments–Arborpoint at Woodland, Avalon at Chestnut Hill, and Avalon on Needham Street.
I agree with Christopher about reaching the 40B threshold. How could that be a bad thing?
“Newton desperately needs more rental housing … ” is not necessarily true unless it is forever deed restricted to remain truly affordable.
I definitely do not agree that there is anything wrong with Newton continuing to fight for relief from 40B if we have truly met the 1.5% threshold. And do not agree that it’s telling our neighbors, ‘We’re not willing to do our fair share.’ It’s more like telling our neighbors “Newton is working on doing our fair share.”
But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t add many more rental units for low and moderate income earners, mainly because that is what we are losing and those are the majority of people who live here now, regardless of the mean income or home prices.
There is a threshold in Chapter 40B for a reason. If we have met it then we have a right to claim it. It only means that developers can’t build their developments anywhere they want. They have to go through the process and the city can require mitigation and have a say in where it is built. We could also raise the percentage of low income units required in Newton’s inclusionary zoning.
“Cramming oodles of over-priced “luxury” multi-units with a pittance of moderate income housing doesn’t make Newton more affordable … And they will still call us elitists for sport.”
I lived in SF for a decade before moving to Newton in 2001. My startup was in the Mission on Capp St. I can tell you unequivocally that SF is a dense city similar to Boston and is not Newton which is a suburb.
This distinction is not recognized by many “smart growth” proponents. This philosophy, embraced by many urban designers and followed by many – especially those who profit from it such as developers, contractors, consultants, and architects – was designed for cities, big cities like Manhattan, Chicago, Houston, and Boston. It was conceived 50 years ago to combat “urban or suburban sprawl” and the inefficiencies of people commuting everyday to work and driving to get groceries and goods. But 50 years ago, there was no internet, no cell phones, no telecommuting, no fuel efficient or electric cars, no peapod, and no Amazon.
Today, many people work out of their homes, especially in Newton, and public transportation exists (it’s not good enough, that’s why people still need to drive) to shuttle people into Boston – this notion of suburban sprawl just doesn’t hold true for Newton.
I hear all day long from Newtonites that our particular mix of backyards, open spaces, winding streets, beautiful old homes, quiet ponds, village centers, and parks, with a low density of traffic, people in stores, students in schools, people biking and strolling, trees, birds, rabbits, coyotes, noise, etc. is exactly what they believe, and I believe, makes Newton, the Garden City. Without going too deep, I think we are only starting to understand how important our greenspaces, wooded areas, and open spaces really are – they need to be preserved and future Newton citizens will be glad we were smart enough to do so because once those are gone, there is no going back.
Go Chris!!! I totally agree with everything you said today!!!
Here’s my problem with 40B, while I am in favor of more affordable housing, the 10% threshhold seems to me like an arbitrary number. Can Ted or anyone else explain why the 10% isn’t 7% or 15%?
Given that it is an arbitrary number when you blanket that number across the commonwealth, some cities/towns will be able to handle it while others can’t. Maybe Brookline can handle it, while Newton can’t. It doesn’t make Brookline any better or worse about affordable housing than us. Every city/town should be able to add on affordable housing depending on the citizenry, infrastructure and other criteria within that city.
I don’t understand how every issue has become us vs them. In my opinion, we aren’t set up in many areas of the city to take on a 300 unit 40B. I know the law, I understand the law, but that doesn’t mean I like the law.
We should be proactive in telling developers where traffic, parking and schools would be less affected by new development. We were promised this 5 years ago, but it’s one more promise that went unfulfilled.
@Tom: That arbitrary number is the law. Just like the 60 MPH speed limit might seem arbitrary or a 28 percent federal tax rate may seem arbitrary. But would you tell a cop when he pulls you over, “Officer, I’ve decided 60 is arbitrary I’ve set my own speed limit at 75.” Would you write the IRS and say, “Your 28 percent is arbitrary, Enclosed is a check based on 24 percent”?
Don’t like the law, work to change the law.
Oh and by the way, if you tell the cop that pulls you over “Hey Wellesley was going 80!” Your still going to get a ticket. And if you told the IRS agent “But Weston paid 23 percent!” you’re still in trouble.
And you should be.
Or you can refer to Ted’s more nuanced response above, which he posted as I was writing mine.
Although I sill say: Don’t like the law, change it.
Fair question, Tom.
The purpose of Chapter 40B was to address racial and economic segregation from redlining and other unfair housing practices, which prevented lower income and minority households from having access to safe, decent and sanitary housing. The Massachusetts General Court does not publish a legislative history, so the exact reasons for the 10% and 1.5% statutory minima are hard to know with certainty. But it is reasonable to assume that the 10% minimum was an attempt to balance the regional need for affordable housing with the ability of cities and towns to meet that need. The 1.5% land area minimum reflects the higher density development of affordable units that can be accomplished under Chapter 40B to meet the regional needs for affordable housing.
Over the years, the Department of Housing and Community Development has adopted regulations that actually help make it easier for communities to reach the statutory minima, or reach”safe harbors” that exempt them from Chapter 40B if they hit approved targets for progress toward those goals. And since 2005, when those regulations were adopted, many more communities have reached their goals or safe harbors that exempt them from certain requirements of Chapter 40B. As of 2014, of 351 municipalities in the state, 44 communities had satisfied the 10% threshold, 4 communities had met the 1.5% minimum, and 6 communities had qualified for safe harbor protection.
Assuming that low and moderate income households earning 50-80% of the area median income comprise about a quarter of the population, and that those earning less than 50% comprise maybe a fifth, it is easy to understand why Chapter 40B gives incentives to developers that provide 25% of housing units for households earning 50-80% AMI or 20% of units for households earning under 50%. So the mix of new housing developed under Chapter 40B roughly corresponds to the need.
This does not solve the problem of housing affordability, but its implementation has made a significant dent in the Greater Boston area, where Chapter 40B is responsible for over 35% of all housing production and 80% of rental housing production. Statewide, over 60,000 units of affordable housing have been created, including 42,000 rental and 18,000 homeowner units. The challenge in Newton, of course, is greater than for Boston and Cambridge, because housing and real estate costs are far higher. But Brookline and Needham have very much the same problems that Newton has, and they have made greater progress toward their goals (as I noted above, Needham is very close to permitting enough housing to go well over the 10% threshold).
What many Chapter 40B opponents do not understand is that in order to begin to at least narrow the income/affordability gap in Newton, we have to create both affordable and market rate or above units to satisfy the demand for housing. To build all affordable units in a development would require deep public subsidies, which means very few units (hence only 17 affordable units constructed in the last 5 years, 10 of which were approved for funding more than 5 years ago). Not adding to the city’s housing stock will only drive housing costs ever higher, without producing any new affordable units. Chapter 40B is an imperfect solution, but study after study shows that it is the most successful program in the state, and one of the most successful state programs in the country.
I certainly understand the point of view that says “I don’t want any higher density development”. I don’t agree with it, but I understand it and I understand the reasons.
What I don’t understand are the folks who seem to be saying “we want to get out from under 40 B regulations” and “we don’t want to increase density” AND “we want to address the dearth of affordable housing”. I don’t see how that circle can be squared.
The only significant source of money for funding any new subsidy for housing in the City is that which comes from developers via the 40 B process. They get to build denser developments which are worth more money, and funnel a portion of the profit towards housing subsidies. You may not like that, and plenty don’t.
If you take away 40B and you don’t allow higher density, who will pay for any additional subsidy for housing?
If your answer is “no one, it’s not a problem I think we should be tackling”. I get that, though I don’t agree. If your answer is “we’ll have a better ability to address housing affordability without 40B and any added density” then you have completely lost me.
Is there a model, or an example, or something you could point me to?
Greg – I have no respect for the Globe. When it became an arm of a corporate entity, it lost its integrity, cut its staff, cut wages, broke its union – you name it. It was left as a skeleton of its former self, and I cancelled my (and my family’s) 58 year subscription.
The Globe treats its staff disrespectfully and seeks to rid itself of veteran reporters. You can pretend it’s the old Globe but it isn’t. It’s a shell of its former self with overworked reporters who don’t have time to do the investigative reporting it did in the past. Yes, this was a planted story, as have been most Globe local stories over the last ten years.
@Jane: I consider you to be an open-minded person so I’m stunned you can be so confident in your analysis of the Globe. If you were still a subscriber you’d know that they still do a LOT of investigative reporting on a regular basis (this is my favorite from last year, but there’s been many since). I’d also suggest that, while hardly perfect, all that stuff about union breaking, wage disputes, treating staff disrespectfully etc. really dates back to prior ownership/leadership/editor.
I feel privileged to know many journalists who work there. As a rule, journalists are never satisfied about anything, but the people I know are truly committed and enthusiastic about working there.
Meanwhile, you have repeatedly been throwing out this McCarthyesque allegation of the Ramos column being “planted” without backing it up.
Once again, I urge you to provide details or drop it.
@Jane: It just occurred that when you allege that the Ramos column was “planted,” you mean someone “suggested” the idea to Ramos.
The two things, of course, are very different.
Yes people suggest stories or column ideas to journalists all the time. People suggest thread ideas to use here at Village 14. Heck, you’ve suggested topic ideas to me over time and probably when I was at the TAB as well.
That doesn’t make it a “plant.” A good journalist’s job (and Ramos is a 2014 Pulitzer Prize Nominated Finalist) is to listen to all sorts of ideas and story suggestions and then do their own research to decide if its something to pursue. Some make it to print — or on this blog — some don’t.
What you’re alleging when you use the word “planted” is far more insidious than that.
I don’t know if there is a precise meaning to “planted,” particularly in regard to an opinion column. But I highly doubt Ramos accepted payment for it or allowed anyone to write it for him. That’s what planted suggests to me, assuming it isn’t being used to mean pitching an idea.
I know we will have to continue to add density and continue to allow 40B developments. I have no problem with that. I would just like Newton to be able to have some control over where they go and be able to require mitigation. Right now they can go anywhere and the town has no say, unless we have met the 1.5% threshold. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing.
I also see no reason to feel bad about meeting the threshold. Does the Globe shame the 44 communities that have satisfied the 10% threshold, the 4 communities that have met the 1.5% minimum, and the 6 communities that have qualified for safe harbor protection?
Jerry,
Naturally affordable housing exists over almost all of the city. I lost 2 x 2 family homes across the street from me in my neighborhood, that were affordable living situations. One sold for $600,000 the other for $850,000. They were modest 2 family homes that needed a little work but were habitable. They were torn down 8 months ago and are being replaced with 2 more two family homes that start at $1,100,000. The profit incentives to real estate development are too great, and the current zoning laws are too incentivized to stop or slow down these changes to our community. Amy Sangiolo’s moratorium proposal recognized these possibilities and tried to bring this issue to light and do something about it, but the political forces that see only state supported housing methodologies , failed to see the light. Until zoning reform in the form of more restrictive development are implemented the loss of affordable housing will only continue.
Jerry Reilly writes:
I certainly understand the point of view that says “I don’t want any higher density development”.
May I ask where is the nearest high density development to your home? Do you oppose have a high density development next door to you?
Just curious.
@blueprintbill – I agree that preserving some of the existing more modest housing stock in the city would be a good thing. In my neighborhood virtually every house that has been sold in the last few years is being sold as a development deal for a much bigger and more expensive house rather than for the house that’s there. That both accelerates the overall prices of housing in the city and undermines the character of the neighborhood – so we’re in agreement there.
It doesn’t however address the issue of “affordable housing”. Even at their current sizes, the most modest houses in the city of Newton are out of reach for any but the most affluent.
Bob of Newton – the nearest high density development to me is Avalon on Needham St.
Next door? yes. I live on a tiny street of small houses so it wouldn’t make any sense next door … but down the street, beside the village center, on the massive plot that will inevitably be developed in the next few years? Sure. If it was the right kind of project. There is no published plan at the moment so its hard to have an opinion one way or another. In general though, I thinking adding some higher density housing close by our struggling village center has the potential to be a very good thing for the neighborhood. As always, the devil’s in the details.
Blueprintbill, are you saying that you consider $600,00 and $850,00 to be naturally affordable? I see that as a fallacy in your position. Affordable to whom? Yes, it’s not $1,000,000. They were affordable before the newest influx of residents willing to pay exorbitant prices to live in condos and homes in Newton. They are selling for as high as the market will bear, which is most always true. As long as they keep buying them, the developers will keep raising the prices until, hopefully soon, the buyers realize the prices are more than they are willing to pay. I don’t like it but it’s what is happening.
We need to fight battles we can win. The only way to have truly affordable housing is to build smaller, denser housing with forever deed restricted limits on not only what they cost but on how much their prices can rise. So we need to make sure we have met the threshold set by 40B so that we don’t have to accept any 40B a developer wants to build.
That is when we can accomplish Jerry’s goal of building developments that have truly affordable units “If it was the right kind of project.” and “adding some higher density housing … has the potential to be a very good thing … As always, the devil’s in the details.”
And we need a faster, more efficient way to decide those details because holding public meetings to hear the same arguments for every development is getting us nowhere. I think the comments need to be limited to the actual details of a proposal and not waste time with opinions that are clearly not allowed under Fair Housing Laws. Just like developers can charge what they want to anyone they want who can pay. So must developments rent or sell to anyone who qualifies. Dispersions on those who may live there need to be weeded out before comments at hearings are taken, or at the very least allowed to be stated only one time by one person and let the others just fill up the blogs.
And even with control, right now the city needs to require a higher percentage of units and lower income requirements in our inclusionary zoning. 80% and 120% of our high Area Median Income still requires a pretty hefty income.
Jerry Reilly writes about dense developments: I live on a tiny street of small houses so it wouldn’t make any sense next door … but down the street… Sure
I always find it amazing that folks in favor of density never think it is appropriate in their neighborhood. Having had very personal, up-close experience with developers using the well-intentioned MGL 40B to build a huge development ‘on a tiny street of small houses’, I would simply warn you that your neighborhood is not immune to dense developments. Absurdity and inappropriatness don’t not stop the developers. $$$ are all that counts. I invite you to visit our street of small houses if you still believe that your neighborhood doesn’t make sense for development.
Marti,
It seems to me that in Newton a $600,000 two family house selling at $300,000 each unit is a hell of a lot more affordable than a two family building ( can’t quite bring myself to call it a house ) selling at $2,200,000 .
We have met the 40b threshold at 1.5% land area. Smaller denser housing will only clog the plumbing. And our roadways, and our schools. Come on down out of the ivory tower.
Bob of Newton –
Hmm. My comment said just the opposite. I would be in favor of the right kind of higher density project in my neighborhood. Our neighborhood is not immune to dense development and clearly looks like it will have a major new development that’s likely to be significantly bigger than Austin St, given the size of the parcel.
As for your experience of “a huge development on a tiny street of houses” it doesn’t sound like something I’d be in favor of. As I said, the devils in the details, rather than “all increased density is always bad”
Yup.
I met Dante Ramos the other night at the public hearing on Austin Street and answered some questions for him. He seems pretty sharp to me. I’ve read some of his other columns,, and he clearly has a mind of his own.
I wonder if Ramos drove himself to the Austin Street meeting or if he was “planted” there.
It seems to me that Jane either believes or knows that someone with an agenda (perhaps political or just a major proponent of affordable housing) convinced Ramos to write this piece for some reason, which is a pretty significant allegation. This type of shadowy accusation is just what provoked her many derogatory comments when someone was suggesting improprieties concerning our Mayor.
@Marti, I wouldn’t call what you are suggesting a serious allegation. I’d call it a successful public relations effort.
Greg writes: ‘I wonder if Ramos drove himself to the Austin Street meeting or if he was “planted” there.’
No way he drove. I am sure he took the commuter rail to Newtonville and then hopped a bus. Everyone knows how transit oriented Newtonville is.
Gail, well, yes there’s that.
Yes, there’s that.
Whoa, dude, I tried to go back up to the top of this thread to find out what it was about – what the hell is being discussed here? I’m probably totally confused, as I usually am, about the original thread, but I thought it was intended to discuss a Boston Globe Op-Ed about the disparity between Newton’s reputation as a liberal, progressive communithy vs the track record on affordable housing. Hell, that’s a pretty damn good question, I would say. It’s real simple, Newton has a reputation, of which some residents are quite proud, of liberal, progressive politics and policies. Maybe the actual record of action and results, with regard to something like affordable housing, however, has not been so great over the last few years. Why? What’s gone wrong, or is it just economic conditions or some other exernal factors.
There seems to be some question about the motives of Newton residents who are urging the city government to prove that at least 1.5% of developable land is devoted to state recognized affordable housing and is thus included on the State Housing Inventory (SHI). Mr Ramos, the Globe columnist, seems to think that this shows a dark side of these Newton residents.
If advocating for the 1.5% goal is not a good thing then why did Dan Violi, chair of the Newton Housing Partnership, write in a letter expressing strong support of the Austin Street project that it is a positive outcome of this development that all 68 units will count towards Newton’s SHI 10% goal even though only 17 are anywhere need affordable. If the chair of the NHP, writing for the entire membership, can be in favor of reaching the 10% goal established by MGL 40B why is it not OK for others to push for the 1.% goal?
I believe there are more efficient ways to build dense housing than selling small parcels of public land in village centers.
We have many examples of that right here in Newton. The building boom started in the 1960s. The Wells street project is a better solution.
@bob of newton – could you clarify your position a little, I”m not sure what you are saying. Is it that you believe Ramos is arguing that those in Newton who advocate pushing for recognition of Newton having met the 1.5 % threshold constitute a ‘dark side’ of some sort, i.e. they are using it as a ploy to evade the 40B minimums? I’m not sure where you are on this. Right now (as I understand it, which ain’t easy by a long stretch) the city has asserted that the 1.5% threshold has been met, the state agency (housing commission of whatever the hell it is or the assistant west coast promo man) has denied the assertion, and we’re all going to have a nice day in court and enrich the lawyers as usual.
Or, maybe what Ramos is trying to argue is that the whole ‘we’ve met the 1.5% threshold so leave us alone’ is a political ploy and maybe the city doesn’t really have the facts to back it up, but what a great delaying tactic, and/or it lets some groups, or the Mayor, or whomever position themselves as defending the poor abused populace of Newton from the nasty 40B monsters.
I don’t know, it’s all a little to complicated for me and I don’t have any insider information to help sort it all out. Maybe Mike Striar knows the answer, but I sure don’t. Any way you slice it, Newton has not yet made it through the 40B knothole and rest assured, if the litigation goes against us, more will follow until somehow or other the 40B requirements are met. In the meantime p** and moaning about 40B will get you exactly nowhere.
BTW in my opinion endless discussion and moaning about 40B has gone way past the point of useles carping at the same level as complaining about the rapacious level of federal income taxes. Yeah, I hate paying taxes, but without some major political upheaval beyond Rand Paul ranting about it, you will either pay up, find a clever accountant and lawyer to (ahem) minimize your tax liability, or lay in the boxes of ammo and wait for the feds to show up at the gate. Good luck with that.
Today, the Supreme Court issued its widely anticipated decision upholding key anti-discrimination provisions that the Obama administration has been using to enforce the Fair Housing Act and fight housing discrimination. I haven’t read the full opinion yet, but this appears to be an important victory for fair housing advocates in the battle to fight discrimination in housing across the country.