Jon Chesto has a story in today’s Boston Globe about businesses relocating from Newton to Needham, saying that “Newton has been on the wrong end of a number of relocation decisions lately.”
There’s not much new information, if any at all, and all the usual sources are quoted, but it still doesn’t make Newton look very welcoming. Consider this quote from developer Jay Doherty of Cabot, Cabot & Forbes:
“The culture [in Newton] is very strong in not wanting to change at all, except to add luxury retail on Route 9.”
or this one from Greg Reibman, president of the Newton-Needham Chamber of Commerce:
“If you’re a developer and you want to deal with Needham, you know what you’re going to get there. Newton’s a lot more challenging.”
or this one from Alderman Ted Hess-Mahan about getting a special permit it Newton:
“It’s an unwieldy process. It makes it a lot harder for businesses looking to come to Newton to get the permits they need.”
Like I said, nothing we haven’t heard before. But not great PR for attracting new businesses.
I agree with Gail.
It’s easy to understand why Cabot, Cabot and Forbes would want to sling mud at Newton. Less so the reasons for those who represent Newton and who want to bring business to Newton.
Sometimes I wonder if it’s time to split the chambers of commerce. It would be great for the head of a Newton Chamber of Commerce to support Newton in quotes to the paper instead of the head of the Newton/Needham Chamber promoting one over the other. There are better ways to talk about Newton, stressing the positive things for businesses in Newton and don’t say there aren’t any.
It also seems elected officials could find a better way of describing the process in Newton and, again, emphasize the positive side of having your business in Newton.
Just because you are frustrated with some things about the process in Newton doesn’t change the fact that you are elected or paid representatives of Newton. What possible positive outcome could come from those quotes? It seems more like sabotage.
@Marti: I love our city and I have devoted a large portion of my professional career to making Newton a better place. A workday does not go by when I’m not touting our many virtues and the many excellent reasons why companies should do business here.
But if someone asks me if I think Newton is particularly welcoming to business, I’m not going to lie. And I don’t believe my members want me to lie either.
And if someone asks me, “Which community is more welcoming to businesses: Newton or Needham?” I’m not going to lie then either.
The truth is Newton is in desperate need of zoning reform and needs to speed up the permitting process. A few of our aldermen have consistently stood in the way of progress. Our city staff is overworked and in need of reinforcements and a less burdensome process.
I also believe we have a mayor and many aldermen who are committed to meaningful reform. I told Jon Chesto that too and that’s what I also tell businesses.
This article wasn’t good for our ability to attract business here and it makes my day job a whole lot harder.
But it was also true. Hopefully it will motivate us to become better.
Luxury retail along Route 9 is not a change. It’s status quo.
@Marti: That’s not what I was saying. Greg and Ted both answered the reporter’s questions honestly, rather than trying to spin their answers. I would not criticize that approach.
Marti, I was candid with Jon Chesto about shortcomings in Newton’s permitting and planning processes because I want Newton to be better. I did not say anything to him that I had not heard many times before from businesses, developers and urban planners. We haven’t had a permanent planning director or a traffic engineer in quite some time, but we are deluged with applications for special permits that require both planning and thorough and competent analysis of traffic and other impacts. The Metropolitan Area Planning Commission provided Newton with a study and plan for Wells Avenue Office Park that is gathering dust on the shelf. Without a plan, the redevelopment of our commercial corridors will be haphazard and may actually choke off future redevelopment because of traffic and insufficient access/egress. Newton has $1B in unfunded liabilities for pensions and other post-employment benefits, and revenue from commercial property taxes, which are almost double residential rates, is going to crucial if we want to dig our way out of the hole we are in.
As I said, we are behind the curve, and other neighboring communities are going to eat our lunch unless we seize the day.
Greg – I agree with Marty. You show your love in a funny way. These Globe articles bashing Newton have become tiresome. Newton is a great community and our leaders should be out there letting people know that. Where’s all the negativity coming from? I would also prefer that the N/N Chamber of Commerce be an advocate for the city.
Gail – If there was no new information in the article, why do you suppose the Globe chose to print old news? Do you know for a fact that the reporter asked questions?
@Jane: There wasn’t anything new for those of us who follow everything going on in Newton. I can only speculate but the article ran in the business section, where the information probably was new to many readers. The angle on it was a little diifferent too: Needham vs. Newton.
I’m not sure I understand your question about the reporter asking questions. Three people are quoted in the article. Do I know for a fact that their statements are in response to questions asked by the reporter, as opposed to say, the sources just emailing him unsolicited statements or the reporter making up the statements? Well, no, I don’t know that for a fact because I wasn’t on the phone with the reporter. But I worked with Jon Chesto when I was at the TAB and he was at the Patriot Ledger and I know that he’s a responsible, respected and hard working journalist.
I think the Globe likes to pick on Newton but I don’t think this was one of those cases. When TripAdvisor moves, a good business reporter covers it from different angles.
Also, Jane, I think the best agents of change are people who are willing to talk openly, without complaining, about the problems. Pretending they don’t exist just feeds the status quo.
What Greg said with a few additional observations.
The Board of Aldermen has created problems by permitting haphazard development in Wells Avenue Office Park over the years, which includes everything from schools to bouncy houses. There is no rhyme or reason to the waivers of the deed restrictions, because there is no master plan. So decision are political and ad hoc rather than the result of careful planning.
The city has not kept track of the amount of office space on Wells Avenue, which is subject to the deed restriction. The amount of office space has a direct impact on traffic, and without knowing how much there is, we have no idea how to mitigate the impact. The results are obvious every morning and afternoon at rush hour.
I don’t tell businesses and developers who would like to come to Newton that it has a well earned reputation for being anti-development/hostile to change and having a difficult to navigate permitting process. They tell me. When I chaired Land Use I worked with the planning department to streamline the process, but ultimately the understaffing and outdated zoning–plus politics–make it far more difficult than it has to be. Ask yourself why a two-family in Newton Highlands has been up and down between the committee and the full board like a yo-yo, with meeting after meeting after meeting without a final vote, but the Board recently voted not to waive the summer blackout period so we could take up a proposed office building in Wells Avenue Office Park because it has too much work to do. IMHO, the Board’s priorities are totally out of whack.
Thanks. Greg for your un-spun reply. (Really) I’m sure you do work hard to bring, business to Newton, and keep it here and I wouldn’t want you or anyone else to lie. I know the word is out that “it’s a challenge in Newton” among businesses, but more so among housing developers. But I sincerely believe the questions for a newspaper article, which seem to come out weekly about Newton’s pitfalls with quotes from the “usual suspects,” could have been answered better without lying. Particularly when the “annoyed” developer is trying to build housing in Newton and you are supposedly talking about business.
So you are sending a message to Newton that we need to solve these problems, in a Globe article. I agree about the need to “fix the problems” of bringing and keeping businesses in Newton. The “problem” is in the process? And certain Alderman?
I hear a lot of conflicts over housing, but not much about about business development. There was bringing Mass Challenge to the old library, but the mayor and others said there isn’t enough money to renovate the building. You and others thought we should let them use an unsafe building while still being owned by the city. That was a conflict.
I think the Newton, Watertown, Waltham projects along the river are a great idea. They just need a lot of work bringing in the amenities workers need. I hope that isn’t impeded over the arguments, that go to extremes, over how people get there, (cars vs every other transportation option) instead of finding compromises. Obviously the fewer gas powered vehicles the better but one side needs to acknowledge cars are still a major form of transportation in this area and all better types of transportation will have to be phased in, while advocating biking, ride sharing, etc. And the other side needs to acknowledge that huge, free parking lots aren’t necessary.
There will be a need for some parking even when everyone is able to switch to electric vehicles or ones that run on something else. If a business is near a T station, near an accessible Commuter rail station, has a shuttle from either or near a fine tuned bus system, the need is less.
I do hear about lengthy and expensive processes to get permits and other issues but mostly about the need to own their building because the rents keep going up.
I know there are aldermen/women who are against certain types of housing development, but aboutnot the ones who don’t want new business.
I was writing my comment while Jane,Gail and Ted were posting so I missed them.
Gail, you know Jane meant “were the quotes recycled” not accusing the reporter of lying. And I grantee you people who read the business section already know everything in the article. It’s hard to build housing in Newton and it’s a long process to bring new business to Newton. There are also ways to talk about problems without seeming to pile on with a disgruntled housing developer. And Greg keeps saying that a Trip Adviser needed more space than Newton has and had outgrown its building. Talk about spin.
Needham does have more developable land and has a new great office park on 128 that is a great business draw.
Ted, no planning and doing things in a haphazard way is a big problem with all development in Newton. Nothing seems to have an actual plan, just a vague structure in the comp plan which calls for a specific plan. The last part has been ignored while everyone references the comp plans for whatever they want at the moment.
I don’t know much about the Wells Ave office park except to avoid the area because of the traffic. NWH has a PT facility there but even doctors advise patients to go somewhere else. I don’t know anything about the number of offices or their relationship to the deed restriction.
Exactly, you don’t tell “businesses and developer’s that would like to come to Newton” about the difficult process because they already know. So I certainly don’t see the point in being quoted in yet another Globe article, in the business section.
The problems with housing are difficult and complex. I don’t know anything about the two-family house going back and forth in committee, but I would love for Newton to keep as many current two-family houses it has. They are a unique part of the history of rental housing in this area and are great places to live. Not so much the new ones with condos that are $1,000,000. On the other hand I don’t like the rubber stamp approval of special permits to be able to build very tall new expensive house that barely fit the small lots they are on. But you do realize you are talking about housing.
@Marti: It never occurred to me that Jane was asking about recycled quotes probably because recycling quotes without indicating that you are doing so is very unethical. It is as unlikely that Jon Chesto recycled quotes as it is that he fabricated them.
@Marti: You realize that you wrote “people who read the business section already know everything in the article” while also writing that you “hear a lot about conflicts over housing, but not much about about business development.”?
@Jane: You’ve stated many times over the years that you dislike the Globe. You’ve also demonstrated that you have minimal understanding about how journalists do their jobs or how newspapers make decisions. Yet when people who have some understanding about these things offer an explanation, you appear unwilling to take that into account. I find that ironic since I’ve been willing learn much from you about being a public school teacher.
A few points:
I can attest that the wider developer and business community clearly knows something is broken in Newton. The last few years have confirmed it. Austin Street and Engine 6 have confirmed it for residential, several other projects like Wells has confirmed it commercial development.
We live in city of contradictions. Great location. Great public transport (the commuter rail could be better, the T could be better, the express bus could be better, the local bus could be better, the pike could be better, but what community has all of them?”) Relatively good schools. Good to great housing stock. Nice people who care about their community.
And yet. We don’t seem to PLAN much of anything. We seem to stumble to a result that either relies on NIMBYism or just keeping the status quo. But it feels like in my conversations with those that live in other communities that they’ve just got their @#@ # together in ways Newton can’t manage. The roads and sidewalks are cleaned faster after major snowstorms. Their school physical facilities are better maintained. Their zoning codes are clear and less bedeviling. Their politicians are fewer. City Staff is more involved instead of aldercritters. Empty positions are filled quickly.
I challenge folks to look at the city centers around the commonwealth. Look at Plymouth. Look at North Adams. Look at Dedham. They’ve worked to develop charming historic down towns. Everyone has parking concerns, money issues, school worries. And yet they manage to install nice amenities like benches and garbage cans that actually work and wide sidewalks and historic lighting. The streets have fewer potholes and the trees are better cared for, especially downtown.
I had high hopes for Setti that things will improve. But it feels like now everyone is just waiting him out. Everyone knows he is leaving for a run at higher office. EVERYONE. And so the aldercritters who want to be a mayor are more inclined to make speeches than actually govern.
So as much as I hated the article for what it said, it was 100% accurate in my experience. The city is disfunctional. Are leadership is the same. It takes us 8 years to get a project as simple as Austin street off the ground. The city works to develop Engine 6 and then kills it. The BoA will agonize over minor decisions but push off major ones like zoning reform because it is too hard. Our mayor is off fighting 40B in ways that can best be described as a long shot, at worst as foolish and silly. He seems more concerned with checking boxes on his next job than completing this one.
Very very disappointing. But don’t blame Greg and Ted. Give them some credit for pointing out the freaking obvious.
Marti, Jane and Gail, Jon Chesto called me and asked me a series of questions about Newton’s zoning and special permit process as well as planning. I answered honestly, as I always do. In addition, when I did not know the answer to some of his questions about economic development that was taking place in Newton and Needham I referred him to the respective economic planners from each community, Nancy Hyde and Devra Bailin, both of whom I know and respect. I try to maintain a good relationship with the media by returning their calls, giving accurate information when I have it, and admitting when I don’t know something and referring them to someone else who does. And I do not do “spin,” not because I am so virtuous, but because I don’t care for it when others do.
Its mostly due to geography. If that nice, big strip of land between 128 and the Charles River, fronting onto 128, were part of Newton instead of Needham, there is no proof that it would have developed much differently.
Fig,
Agreed.
Gail, you are of course right about recycled comments. I am sorry I didn’t give what I said about them more thought.
Greg, yes I wrote both. People who read the business section already know about the problems in Newton. They do.
And what I mostly hear in talking to friends and on V14 are problems with housing developments. Still true. One statement has nothing to do with the other.
Ted, I have no doubt you answered truthfully. I never indicated I thought you would do otherwise. I think you are very good at truthfully explaining how processes work in Newton and their hang ups. I use your summary about the special permit process to understand it better. On V14, I think you have a tendency toward posting with arrogant and pompous language, although I doubt that you are either. And you and Greg are good at misdirection and spin.
I’ll have to say that I agree with almost everything Fignewtonville posted. I don’t know our mayor or his aspperrations.
I stand by everything else I posted.
Pompous and arrogant language?
Well, as Muhammad Ali said, “it’s not bragging if you can back it up.” 😉
For what it is worth, after living here two years i had to look at Google maps to even find the Wells Avenue area, and, except for V14 and articles such as the Globe’s, and snow issue reports, I had not heard of it, nor the business it houses.
If it is our leading center of business, I’d think I should have come in contact with it by now.
Greg – It’s simply not in the best interest of Newton for the president of the N/N Chamber of Commerce to speak disparagingly to the Boston Globe about the city. Call me crazy, but I just don’t get that. Maybe because it wouldn’t be acceptable in my profession – not any time, under any circumstances. And very frankly, I don’t see all the learning about public education. Newton teachers/staff have been working without a contract for a year and it doesn’t seem to be a concern to anyone in the media. We’re about to enter the second year without a contract and someone from the Globe just might want to contact someone in the know about the very serious implications of that situation. I’m not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
Gail and Greg – I am a total newshound, but I’m also realistic about the corporate takeover of the MSM in recent years. It’s just not the same as it was years ago and it has nothing to do with the integrity of hard working journalists. My complaint about the Globe comes from the grassroots – how the corporate sector of the Globe treats its reporters and employees, and it’s not a pretty story. As for how they report a story – can you explain why, time after time, they call the same alderman whom we all know doesn’t like the mayor? If this was an article in the business section, why not call someone with business expertise? We have many people in the city who could have provided insight into how Newton and Needham conduct business.
Fig – The city is in the process of building 3 new elementary schools that a number of mayors let go to seed, have completed a major addition to Day MS, and added 9 new modular classrooms to relieve overcrowding. We’re also renovating 3 fire houses that were badly outdated, including the headquarters in Newton Centre. In addition, the city has finally purchased Aquinas after 15 years for $5m less than its original price. This purchase will relieve the serious overcrowding problem in the northside schools. I understand why you may not appreciate how important these infrastructure projects are if you’re not a teacher or firefighter, but I can vouch for the fact that they are game changers for the school system.
So we’re now 6 years into saying the Mayor is going to leave at ANY minute – but he’s still here. But EVERYONE knows he’s going to leave at ANY minute! I say just let’s see if he’s here at the end of his second term.
Ok, this is getting a little ridiculous. First of all this is the entirety of my quotes in the Globe story…
I’m not sure that really qualifies as speaking “disparagingly” about Newton, although I believe it is speaking truthfully.
@Jane, it’s possible that you are confusing the mission of the Newton-Needham Chamber, which is to advocate for the economic and cultural vitality of Newton-Needham with say, a chamber on the cape that largely exists to promote tourism. Newton-Needham Chamber members include many of the commercial property owners at Wells Ave. and not one of them — or anyone else for that matter — has called to complain since this article was published that I’ve “disparaged” Newton. (I did get a message from Alderman Yates who is concerned that I may have disparaged some aldermen.)
But Jane, rather than be upset about the quotes that are in the Globe, you should be upset by what’s not there and that’s a strong quote from Mayor Warren defending the gridlock and NIMBYism that has made it harder for companies to do business here than elsewhere. Perhaps he did say that to Chesto and that quote was omitted. Or perhaps he didn’t because it is not defensible.
It never crossed my mind that the Globe reporter recycled quotes. I do however think he recycled sources for his story.
It isn’t Greg Reibman’s job as head of the Chamber of Commerce to pump the Mayor’s tires; his job is to advocate on behalf of the business community in Newton and Needham. While I do not always agree with Greg or the Chamber, I think he has done an outstanding job boosting the membership, providing forums for discussion of important issues relating to business and economic development in both communities, and in facilitating the partnership between these communities through his leadership on the N2 Innovation Corridor Task Force. So it should come as no surprise that when Newton loses some high profile companies to other neighboring communities that the Boston Globe would call on him for a comment.
By the same token, when there is a story about affordable housing or fair housing issues in Newton, such as the Engine 6 story, it should also come as no surprise that the Globe calls me, since I am closely identified with and an outspoken advocate for both of these issues. Before I got into politics I was the president of the board of a non-profit developer of affordable housing in Newton, and I am currently a member of the Newton Fair Housing Committee as well as a member of the Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee, which handles 40B appeals. With respect to development, during my tenure on the Board of Aldermen, I chaired a Zoning Task Force, been a member of both the Land Use and Zoning & Planning committees, and chaired the Land Use committee for 4 years, during which time the board unanimously approved some of the largest commercial and residential developments in the City’s history, including Riverside, Chestnut Hill Square and The Street. Thus, it should not be surprising that this is not my first rodeo commenting on zoning and land use issues for the press.
So, Jane, your complaints about “recycled sources” seems a little overwrought to me. The press picks the stories reporters and editors think are newsworthy and call on the the people that have something relevant to say about them. You may quibble with the press about what is newsworthy, but I sure don’t hear you complain when the Globe does a puff piece about the Mayor as a possible Gubernatorial candidate. Why is that?
@Jane: I can give an educated guess as to why journalists call the same sources repeatedly. It’s a safe assumption that reporters everywhere are overworked and under-resourced. They’re typically working on several stories at a time, have some requirements for those stories that readers are unaware of (GateHouse, for example, required that we include specific types of stories in every issue, meaning an editor might have been penalized for running a breaking news story about a murder over a puff piece about a family business), and are working on tight deadlines. For all you know, Chesto might have called three other aldermen who didn’t return his call as promptly as Ted did, or didn’t call him back at all. Or, he might have enough experience to know that Ted is one of the only aldermen likely to return a call promptly. He also knows that Ted has extensive knowledge about land use and zoning issues, takes the time to explain issues thoroughly, provides backup information, speaks articulately, and doesn’t worry about political ramifications every time he speaks (this last one, in particular, rules out some otherwise qualified aldermen as sources). Chesto is not worrying about how the inside baseball players in Newton will read the story; he’s thinking about how Boston Globe business readers will read the story.
I agree, by the way, that the quote from Cabot, Cabot and Forbes was a cheap shot. If he was going to quote a developer who is involved in a lawsuit with the city, he should have tried to find another developer to quote as well. He may have for all we know. Maybe other developers didn’t return his calls. Maybe his editor cut a quote from the story because two developer quotes seemed superfluous.
I guess my main point is there’s a lot more to a newspaper story than what appears in the paper.
@Jane, One more thing:
Lazy reporters tend to go to the same sources repeatedly rather than seek out new sources. As someone who worked in the field for many years, though, I know enough to look at the circumstances before I blame the journalist.
@Gail: Cabot Cabot & Forbes is uniquely qualified to speak about this because they have developed a 40B project in the Needham Crossing office park and are trying to do the exact same thing at Wells Ave.
As for other developers not being quoted, well for starters, no one else has tried to do anything at Wells Ave. in decades, with the exception of the owner at 2 Wells who has an expansion project before Land Use right now so it would be inadvisable for him to want to say anything that might make jeopardize his project.
But that’s why businesses form/join associations, like oh say, a chamber of commerce so they have someone who can speak on their behalf.
@Ted on his ¨this is not my first rodeo¨ comment:
I think I saw this featured on the Daily Show recently…..
While I agree completely with the posters who say that our Chamber of Commerce and elected officials should be actively trying to attract businesses to Newton, it certainly would not behoove them to lie or mislead anyone. Greg speaks the absolute truth when he states that Newton is simply not a place that is kind to businesses or developers. To say anything different would be misrepresenting the facts; to not point it out would be doing a disservice to the business community, who needs the advocacy of our Chamber of Commerce.
I called you to ask what you meant by your quotes above in this thread;
“A few of our aldermen have consistently stood in the way of progress.”
What do you mean by “stood in the way of progress?”
What is “progress” in your view?
There are many zoning problems some of them caused by previous efforts to make progress that didn’t achieve the results that previous experts and advocates predicted. Several of
have proposed zoning changes to produce benefits sought by citizens without the realistic scope of local government powers in Massachusetts. Some members are gun-shy and want to scrutinize the substance and likely real world consequences of proposed changes .
As to your comment above, “Our city staff is overused and in need of reinforcement and a less burdensome process.” The Aldermen, particularly Zoning and Planning Commitee members, have been zealous advocates of more staff through budget resolutions and separate items. What does “a less burdensome process” mean? How much of the burden
is imposed by state law?
Please give us some specific input that will help us to complete the Zoning Reform Process in a way that balances the competing interests in the city. You have a Bully Pulpit. Please use it well.
Alderman Brian Yates
As to the basic quarrel between my birthplace (Needham) and my home for over sixty years stirred up by the Globe over the weekend,
it’s a tempest in a teapot.
As Al above says, it’s a product of geography (and history). The Needham office park that is the site for the newly pilfered companies from Newton was developed as an office park after World War II. It has multiple acess points from local roads and good immediate from 128, soon to be improved by the Add-a-Lane Project.
Welles Avenue was developed later with a different access situation and concept. A development of this scale with only one way in and out has proven to be more problematic than the officials and developers of that period predicted. The fact that Contract Zoning has never been used again in the city speaks volumes about the merit of this arcane technique .Transport Welles a short distance across the River and remove the contract zoning and you’d have a very different situation.
Incidentally, At the N Squared kickoff in Needham, many of those present expressed a desire for more outdoor amenities, cultural attractions, and quality restaurants. A map
showing them the locations of the Charles River Pathway, New England Mobile Book Fair,
and restaurants like Dunn-Gatherin’s and other Newton attractions in or adjacent to the corridor might have benefitted all concerned.
@Alderman Yates: It’s easy to dismiss the differences between the two communities as the differences in the geography of the two office parks, and certainly there are significant differences. But here’s where that theory falls short:
Needham rezoned Needham Crossing in 2001 and in 2007 designated it as an economic target area. That meant there were few permitting or zoning hurdles looming ready when Trip Advisor was looking to build their new headquarters and the same occurred late last year when Normandy was looking to purchase the general General Dynamics site in Needham.
But when CC&F proposed work force housing at Wells Ave. the city was entirely unprepared. There had been no thoughtful conversations over the past decade about what Wells Ave needs or should be. There had been no thoughtful conversations about how office parks need to change to remain viable in the innovation economy. Instead, your honorable board, which had already approved lifting the deed restrictions multiple times used that to block this proposal. And the city scrambled and contracted a Wells Ave. market study with the Mass Area Planning Council. released in May, which basically outlined a direction for the park. Has your honorable board held a single meeting to discuss that study yet?
Jane said:
“Fig – The city is in the process of building 3 new elementary schools that a number of mayors let go to seed, have completed a major addition to Day MS, and added 9 new modular classrooms to relieve overcrowding. We’re also renovating 3 fire houses that were badly outdated, including the headquarters in Newton Centre. In addition, the city has finally purchased Aquinas after 15 years for $5m less than its original price. This purchase will relieve the serious overcrowding problem in the northside schools. I understand why you may not appreciate how important these infrastructure projects are if you’re not a teacher or firefighter, but I can vouch for the fact that they are game changers for the school system.
So we’re now 6 years into saying the Mayor is going to leave at ANY minute – but he’s still here. But EVERYONE knows he’s going to leave at ANY minute! I say just let’s see if he’s here at the end of his second term.”
Jane, my response is basically…eh. I give the mayor some credit for a few of these projects. But these were the triage projects, the obvious ones that any mayor would have done (except Mayor Cohen perhaps….). I give him little credit for the elementary schools as a resident of Newtonville, as I’m still waiting to see what Cabot will look like and when it will be finished. I’ll give him more than a little credit if it comes in on time and on budget (and if the plan makes sense). As for the firehouses, again, some credit, but I guess the question is whether you are ok if he is just a little more competent than Mayor Cohen or an excellent mayor. Two different standards. Finally that you are giving him some credit for modulars is kinda hilarious, as well as for the Day rehab. As for Aquinas, he was rescued in that due to the prior sale falling through, no? And did our purchase actually go through?
As for the fact that he is going for another job, your comment seems to ignore that he tried to leave and failed, remember. The other “Warren” won. But the damage is done. And I believe there is a big difference between a mayor that wants to be a mayor and a mayor that wants to be a governor, Congressman or a Senator. If he is planning for his next job and making decisions based on optics for a run for higher office, and if the aldercritters are all moving in circles to position themselves, there is lots of speeches but not lots of accomplishments in his next few years in office. There is more than one type of lame duck politician.
I guess I want my mayor to be less political and more focused on the job at hand. Running for the next office prohibits you from taking risks. At least it seems to do that for Setti.
So to answer your question, I don’t have to wait for him to run for something else. Perception is almost as important.
I’m by no means saying that Newton is friendly to development, because clearly it’s not. It’s the finger pointing that I object to. It’s running to the Globe with stories, while it refuses to write stories about other extremely important aspects of the community. It’s a reporter writing an article about Newton being difficult for developers and ignoring the fact that we have a vocal segment of the community that opposes development. I don’t agree with those people but I certainly think if you’re going to write a credible article about Newton being unfriendly to development that you’d include them. I’d also assume that you’d want some quotes from small business owners in the village centers as well.
I’m in full agreement that reporters are too overloaded with work and are underpaid. That’s my point! Reporters are doing the best they can with limited time and resources and, and frankly, that’s often means a story isn’t well developed and misses some essential points. If they had the time, then they could seek out a variety of sources and that would serve Newton better. I don’t know where this story came from, but when I see a story that’s of minor to no interest to anyone in or outside of Newton, other than the players, then yes, I’m suspicious. Anyone who thinks that Ted doesn’t have a political agenda must have been living under a rock for the last 6 years.
As for the issue at hand, development is far more complicated here than it is in Needham. You don’t need a primer on Newton’s land use policies to see that Needham has more land to develop and Newton’s built out for all intents and purposes. Look again at the photograph of the Trip Advisor building – imagine the hue and cry if anyone tried to build anything close to that size in Newton. The most recent attempt to do so in my memory is the Stop & Shop on Needham St. about 25 years ago. That’s as commercial an area as you’re going to find and still Newton residents fought against it and it never happened. Look at the aldermanic opposition to Austin St. Same thing – aldermen fighting against development. I just think it’s fair to say that the issues surrounding development in Newton are far more complex than was presented in the article.
I don’t think anyone lied and never said or implied that anyone did. I’m not sure where that came from.
Interestingly, Jane, I read this story as being far more critical of the Board of Aldermen than of the mayor.
@Jane: Clearly you would prefer that I’d be president of the Newton-Needham Chamber of Pollyanna. But I’m pretty sure that’s not why I was hired or what my members want.
@Jane and Gail: I don’t believe overworked or underpaid reporters has anything to do with this article. I share the disappointment of many that Newton coverage has been severely reduced with the changes to the West zoned edition. But that’s not related to this story.
Fig – He ran for another office 6 years ago. He’s still here. Time to move on.
As for the elementary schools being such a minor deal or easy to deal with, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. The condition of those buildings threatened to undermine the quality of the NPS. David Cohen is often blamed for the problem, but their deterioration absolutely wasn’t his fault. He did continue the policy of deferred maintenance, but he by no means began it. Many schools needed replacement and comprehensive renovation 10 years before he came into office and even the most obvious maintenance wasn’t done on them. I remember being at a SC meeting where the condition of the boilers was being discussed and basically the solution was “we wait until one breaks down for good, then we replace it”. The SC was rightfully appalled but nothing changed.
It was a huge political battle to get the funding for these buildings (the overrides). For the life of me I don’t understand why no one thinks that having small children spend 6 hours a day – for decades – in an unhealthy environment is an important issue, or that addressing the problems created by decades of deferred maintenance of many municipal buildings is an “eh”. Those buildings were triage projects 20 years ago and they still didn’t happen. The quote to me from an alderman spitting through his teeth, “the elementary schools can wait!” That was 2006, well past the time when the buildings were in triage mode and that was the mindset in the city for years. It took a lot of work to change it.
I really didn’t mean to hijack this thread, but when you’ve spent the better part of your career working in buildings that were unhealthy and unsafe, teaching kids in winter jackets, etc., it’s hard to hear that residents are still dismissive of the conditions of the buildings in which the youngest and most vulnerable students learn. After all these years, people still don’t get it. Sigh.
As long as we are speculating on the Mayor I do think he’ll be here after two terms. Logically he won’t run against Warren and Markey and he can’t beat Baker. (Of course he can, but Baker showing to be pretty good, he is showing to be more moderate than I gave him credit for). The only way I see him getting out is if Hilary wins and asks him to work for her. She has to win first.
Second, I would love to know what alderman said to you, Jane, the elementary schools can wait….I’d like to know his/her name so I can never vote for him/her again.
Amy, how many rodeos is this for you???
Thanks, Amy. Now, here is another perspective on first rodeos.
Jane, it is odd that you are talking about my “agenda” in the context of this article. If you go back and read it again, you will see that for the most part I was talking about our special permit process. Last time I checked, the Mayor has bupkis to do with special permits. He doesn’t even sign them. While insufficient planning staff and resources can certainly be laid at the Mayor’s feet, for the most part, the Mayor can neither take the credit nor the blame for the added difficulties with the special permit process in Newton.
The process is unwieldy and unpredictable because, in part, even though it is supposed to be quasi-judicial, it is also inherently political. Although it did not appear in the article, Jon Chesto and I discussed among other things how, unlike the vast majority of communities, where the Zoning Board of Appeals issues special permits and is often appointed not elected, the Board of Aldermen is both the legislative body and the special permit granting authority in Newton. And, instead of needing a 2/3 majority of a 5 member zoning board, in Newton petitioners must get at least 16 votes out of 24 aldermen. That makes the job of getting approval more difficult and far more unpredictable by several orders of magnitude.
Do I have a political agenda? You betcha. Have I criticized the Mayor for how he, in my view, mishandled the Engine 6 and Austin Street projects, or for not testing for PCBs at the Aquinas building before agreeing to buy it, among other things? Abso-freaking-lutely. But, in this instance at least, that is not what I was asked to comment on. Should I only talk about rainbows and kittens and unicorns whenever the press calls me to talk about important issues in Newton? Nope. I am not the Cheerleader-in-Chief of Newton. I feel obliged to call ’em as I see ’em when I think there is a problem in the community that can and should be fixed.
By the way, on a lighter note, I am getting together to have lunch with the chairman of the Needham Board of Selectmen, who is a friend of mine. He promised not to eat mine, too. 😉
Didn’t someone else mention the MAPC report? Oh, right.
Well I’ll be. Someone has pointed out that there already is a Chamber of Pollyanna.
I did as suggested and reread the article.
This article’s title is “Business policies giving Needham an edge over Newton. Migration of major firms from Newton reflects contrasting responses to change.” And then has one sentence describing Trip Adviser’s new building and later quotes their CFO, Julie Bradley, as saying, “We just ran out of expansion options.”
But really Jon Chesto is just allowing an angry housing developer who hadn’t gotten what he wanted in Newton and an alderman frustrated with other aldermen, housing and the permitting system to blow off steam. It’s not about businesses at all.
It talks about what “some local business leaders” think the move represents and that they think it is no coincidence that “Newton has been on the wrong end of these relocations.”
Throughout, it quotes Jay Doherty of CC&F, who takes every opportunity to take pot shots at Newton because of the aldermen’s decision that it couldn’t lift a deed restriction in the Wells office park for housing, and doesn’t let up here. He mostly continues to complain about Newton but does add that he tried to get Clark’s to build on the 6.5 acres in the Wells office park but didn’t succeed and he blamed their decision on the permitting process in Newton, but Clark’s didn’t.
Alderman Hess-Mahan doesn’t just emphasize the onerous special permit process, he criticizes decisions of other alderman who voted not to let MassChallenge use the old library without spending the money to make it safe and how Austin Street rental housing isn’t yet approved.
It does include the movement of businesses out of Newton, but later said these businesses had nothing bad to say about Newton, they just needed more space.
Trip Advisor’s is moving to a 280,000 sq ft complex in Needham, a much larger space. BigBelly Solar needed to more than double it’s size. Same with Clark’s. And Euro-Pro. Where would Newton put buildings that size?
Needham had 185-acres of open space and took several years to PLAN and build an office park that is on the other side of the river from the rest of the city, has many ways to get in and out and doesn’t affect residential areas or local businesses. Newton has approximately 86,000 residents and an area of 18.2 square miles. Needham has approximately 29,000 residents on 12.2 square miles. That’s a big reason that “… a town of about 30,000 people outmuscled a city that’s nearly three times its size.”
It doesn’t ever actually address it’s title. Do business policies give Needham an edge over Newton? Does the migration of major firms from Newton reflect contrasting responses to change? Not according to the businesses themselves.
Actually, Marti, MassChallenge did not even come up in my discussion with Jon Chesto, although I can see why you might think it did. Please note that comment is not in quotes. And there was no vote on it, although a number of aldermen, myself included, were not happy that the city was going to let MassChallenge use it for free, but was unwilling to spend any money to preserve the historic Newton Centre Library building, which is literally falling apart. As for your other characterizations of my comments, I think my words (in quotes) speak for themselves. I am sure Greg or Gail will point out that reporters often do not get to write the headlines of their own stories.
I know reporters don’t always write their headlines and don’t need anyone to point it out to me. That us a complete misdirection from my comment and it is annoying.
You and everyone else have been commenting as if the title conveyed the article’s content. It doesn’t.
While not quotes, the article includes the statements about MassChallange and Austin Street immediately after it quotes you, as an alderman. Since it is about aldermen voting, it certainly is made to seem like background obtained in the same interview. My apologies for making an assumption.
What Marti said.
Greg – I don’t expect you to be a Pollyanna, but I do expect that you’ll advocate for business owners that are likely to be successful within the context of Newton’s village culture. It’s what people from the full range of perspectives want to preserve. It’s what sets Newton apart from the surrounding comparable communities. We should be trying to figure out ways that businesses can thrive in such an environment, not bemoan the loss of a 280,000 complex that didn’t stand a chance in Newton.
As for the Globe, when a reporter writes an article in which he never bothers to find out how the very vocal people who oppose development in the city think about the issue, doesn’t interview local business owners, and quotes extensively from the alderman who’s held a (way too long) grudge against the mayor, AND people claim he’s a great reporter, then I think we can safely say he’s a great reporter who’s overworked and under resourced. It was a poorly researched article. Either he’s an incompetent reporter (from all feedback, that’s not the case) or he had too much to do and not enough time and/or resources to write an article that represents various viewpoints. When the comments below an online Globe article represent the range of perspectives on an issue better than the article itself, then you know something is amiss. Anyone who’s read the comments know that’s bad – really bad.
The photo of the Trip Advisor was the only part of this article that gave a clear picture of the situation to anyone who knows the 2 communities. Newton clearly doesn’t have the space for something that big and no one wants it. I’m all for bringing businesses to Newton, but this just wouldn’t make it in a built out community.
Newton is a great community. Sorry ’bout that, guys, but the news hound in me leads me to appreciate my good fortune to live here. That has nothing to do with kittens, rainbows, or Pollyanna, though I do have quite an ear for gender dog whistles.
There are two vacant storefronts on Walnut Street in Newtonville. Is someone working on attracting new businesses there?
As a matter of fact Marti, someone is! The city has developed a proposal that would place 100 or so additional potential customers within walking distance of those two storefronts seven days a week, providing long-term benefits for any business looking to lease those spaces.
Jane said:
“I really didn’t mean to hijack this thread, but when you’ve spent the better part of your career working in buildings that were unhealthy and unsafe, teaching kids in winter jackets, etc., it’s hard to hear that residents are still dismissive of the conditions of the buildings in which the youngest and most vulnerable students learn. After all these years, people still don’t get it. Sigh.”
Hey Jane, I get it. You worked for many years in bad school buildings. I acknowledge that. But not sure where you get that folks are dismissive of it, as least in this thread. My point is that the Mayor shouldn’t be given more credit than due. You choose to praise him for the schools he has done. I choose to say that what he has done was the minimum ANY mayor after Mayor Cohen would have done. I didn’t say he was an incompetent mayor in all things.
You certainly can choose to have a chip on your shoulder about how the school system works in Newton. Clearly mistakes were made with the physical plant. But from everything I’ve seen in my school experiences, Newton invests incredible amounts of time and money in its school system, as do the parents that volunteer and work to improve the lot of students and teachers alike. No one is dismissive of your concerns. If anything, my point is that the mayor could have done more, not less.
And Jane, even if you disagree with me on the schools, and say that Setti is the best mayor ever when it comes to school construction, as an economic developer and planner in chief, I still maintain that this mayor is a failure (and it is the discussion of the development/business aspects that was the topic of this thread…).
But go ahead and sigh if it makes you feel better. I’ll wait as I count the hundreds of “Support Newton Teachers” surrounding my house in all directions…. 😉
Greg,
If Welles Avenue had the kind of multiple access points over surface roads and the vacant scare footage of the Needham Office Park, the recent development rejected there would probably have been approved.
@Alderman Yates: I understand your point but you fail to acknowledge mine. Yes, the specifics are different but one community spent the past decade implementing appropriate zoning for their park while the other hasn’t.
OK – third time I am trying to post this:
From the Comprehensive Plan – p. 3-28:
For example, the
Wells Avenue area provides a substantial contribution to the City’s tax base. The area is
dominated by office and business uses (with the notable exception of a private school). Zoning
should continue to encourage office and business uses (perhaps more intensively) in this location
and exclude other uses as a means of maintaining the City’s employment and tax base.
@Alderman Sangiolo:
How’s that working out? Has anything been done since the Comp Plan was approved 2007 to our zoning code to “encourage” the Comp Plan’s recommendation for Wells Ave.?
As far as I’m aware the only thing that’s happened is several times the board has lifted deed restrictions to accommodate use by non-profits.
The MAPC study recommends mixed use at Wells Ave. in keeping with current trends in suburban office parks. It would be one thing if we as a city considered this and proclaimed “We don’t think mixed use is right, we’re sticking with the Comp Plan vision of office and business use.”
But we haven’t had that conversation and we haven’t been following the Comp Plan either.
Amy, the Comprehensive Plan is frequently used a lot like the Bible, where everyone pulls out the chapter and verse they like to support their particular world view. For example, people who support or oppose the redevelopment of Austin Street can all find succor from the words of the Comprehensive Plan (not sure if there is anything in the Bible on point). It is also a document that reflects the world as we knew it in the 2000s, when the economy was far different from what it is today. As Greg points out, office parks need to change to meet the needs of a new economy and workforce, and we have an MAPC report that has been sitting on the shelf, ignored, although I understand the Board of Aldermen will be asked to discuss it seriously.
Jane, I am not sure what you mean by “gender dog whistles,” but I am sure you will tell me (I did get a chuckle, however, out of the clever juxtaposition with “news hound”). Like it or not, neither of us controls what the press does or does not publish and who it does or does not seek out for comment. But I must say I find it ironic that you seem to apply a separate standard for what you expect of others and for your own conduct. You called Greg out for criticizing Newton–even though he represents local businesses and not the city–but then turned around and complained about the lack of a collective bargaining agreement between the public schools, whom you work for, and the teachers’ union, of which you are a member of the executive committee. Perhaps you should clean up your own backyard before you go knocking on your neighbors’ door.
I want to comment on “Fig’s” comment about other town/city centers – I agree that Dedham and others have these really nice centers with benches, affordable and unique stores, plenty of ample and free parking. Concord is another example. I have been going to both of these nice centers to shop and enjoy lunch instead of Newton Centre which is all banks and nail salons.
I’m a Newton resident and employee on Wells Ave. I’ve tracked the CC&F proposal and have gradually become a strong supporter, especially given the research I’ve done and the recent MAPC report that, in my view, largely confirmed why that project makes a whole lot of sense – just check out its conclusion:
“In summary, based on the analysis of market conditions and trends in and around the Wells Avenue office park, there is considerable market support for new and retrofitted office space, multifamily residential development, and limited amenity retail. Thus, to position the park to remain competitive in a regional office market that places a premium on connected, amenity rich, live-work-play environments, the overall value of the park would benefit from a greater mix of these uses. Should Wells Avenue continue in its current form as an insulated office park, its overall value and related tax revenues will likely decrease.”
@Alderman Sangiolo: to illustrate Alderman H-M’s point, here are some excerpts from the Comp. Plan that I’ve found:
“As mixed use development that often includes residential or institutional use alongside business use becomes more popular, it should be encouraged as a means of strengthening the viability of
business uses over the long term.”
(Page 3-28)
“We should revise zoning to actively support a mix of uses within a building, a parcel, or an area. Such mixed use can promote housing affordability and a broader variety of living circumstances. Facilitating provision of housing together with retailing can promote a more active environment.”
(Page 5-16).
See my point? It seems narrow minded to select one single quote from a 200+ page document. More importantly, I’d like to see significant focus on the MAPC report, which I believe the Planning Department itself commissioned. Why is no one focusing on this? The Comp. Plan mentions one sentence about Wells Ave a decade ago, and now we have an updated and detailed vision for the area from a highly reputable independent firm.
I commented on the local media’s over focus on one issue (to develop or not to develop) at the expense of other extremely important issues. My complete focus was on the lack of media coverage of school issues and only ask that my concern about the lack of coverage – as a crisis looms – be duly noted.
Fig – I’m going to be honest, it was those two little letters – “eh”. I’m well aware that it takes a village to get things done, and I’ve been part of the village that’s worked incredibly hard to change a very fixed mindset in the city that the condition of the elementary facilities wasn’t important. Was the Mayor a major player in changing that fixed mindset? Yes, he was. Do Newton educators still struggle to get the word out to the community that we have schools in unacceptable condition? Yes, we do. It’s our reality. However, those signs indicate that I’m by no means alone in my concern about the school system and thank goodness for them. Newton parents and residents are and always have been terrific and work in partnership with us on a daily basis.
A note about the cleanliness of my backyard: I work within the parameters set out by Mass. Teachers Retirement System, which means that I not benefit financially from a new contract. I work at no cost to the city for significant periods of time each year, have for 7 years, and this year I took on an extra time-intensive responsibility at no cost to the city. I love my job and have no complaints about my compensation, but to imply that I stand to gain from my work for either the school system or the teacher’s union is completely inaccurate.
As for the dog whistles, I’m just waiting for Greg and Ted to throw rainbows, kittens, and Pollyanna at the guys around here. Ted – your comment about news hounds was crass, really crass.
@Ted
“It is also a document that reflects the world as we knew it in the 2000s”
My understanding is that the Comprehensive Plan assumed that schools would be under capacity as they were projected to be then, so new development wouldn’t strain our school system unduly. That isn’t the case any longer, and that seems like a significant difference, calling into question the legitimacy of basing our development plans on that outdated document.
@Eric @Ted
“we have an updated and detailed vision for the area from a highly reputable independent firm.”
MAPC’s stated mission is to PROMOTE smart growth, such as mixed-used development. That is hardly independent, and I have a hard time seeing them as a credible source. Hammer-nail and all that.
MAPC’s tagline is “promoting smart growth and regional collaboration.” I would be surprised if any planning agency promoted stupid growth or isolationism.
I’m still highly skeptical of letting CCF’s proposal lead the way, but I too have softened a bit on some sort of mixed use in Wells Ave. But before we put too much stock in the MAPC report, a word of caution on MAPC reports, this one in particular: MAPC is sometimes commissioned, with a very limited budget, to explore feasibility for a narrow concept, with a goal in mind. This particular study is a market study, not a comprehensive study of what sort of balance would be most beneficial to the city or how to support or build it (though it can be inferred that piecemeal by private interests isn’t the best option) While the Comprehensive Plan likely needs updating, the important point is that whatever is done with Wells Avenue must be done in a comprehensive way… like Needham is doing.
“Newton Centre . . . is all banks and nail salons”–and over two dozen assorted restaurants, pizzerias, sandwich shops, coffee shops, ice cream shops, etc., with three more restaurants coming that I know of. My husband and I staggered in from England jet-lagged yesterday evening and nearly went tilt trying to decide which of the many possibilities to walk out to for a quick dinner. Granted parking isn’t free–hardly an unheard-of situation–but to say there’s nowhere to eat? That just isn’t true.
One the whole Greg/Ted/Gail/Jane tiff re: Boston Globe:
I’m amazed that we can have such disagreement over some elements which seems fairly clear: The Boston Globe has a history of negatively stereotyping Newton as a rich, elitist, liberal-hypocritical community and 1) disproportionately focuses on Newton over other similarly situated communities 2) has little balance in its positive-negative of coverage of the city.
No one needs to be espousing unicorns and Pollyanna’s to have some issues with the consistently biased coverage of the city. Its lazy journalism. I appreciate at a personal level there may be reasons that journalists resort to this behavior (under-resourced, under pressure, etc.), but there isn’t an excuse at a corporate level. The actual article here is pretty poorly sourced: a developer suing the city for slowing development, the head of the N-N Chamber of Commerce that will favor fewer regulations, and a visible pro-development Alderman. No real independent perspective, all with known stated positions as being heavily pro development. That isn’t trying to seek out the truth, that’s looking for evidence of a predetermined answer.
I don’t fault Greg for his quote, its not overly anti-Newton, and his job isn’t to represent the city, but the business in the city. He’s doing his job for his clients, irrespective of whether his fellow citizens agree with him or its a good idea for the city, he’s paid to push the views of Newton business. Ted, on the other hand, is a different story. You can “call them as you see them” but that presumably would also including telling the Boston Globe reporter that their collective coverage is anti-Newton, and they should be more fair in their coverage. Perhaps that was said, it absolutely should be if you’re representing the city. And at some point, the continued negative coverage should cause one to question whether they want to facilitate it– even if on a particular issue they agree with the substance. I’m not sure our representatives should be enabling a paper that consistently shows such disproportionate negative bias towards Newton.
For the record, the reporter did not just speak to Doherity, Hess-Mahan and Reibman. Mayor Warren, James Freas, Devra Bailin as well as TripAdvisor, Big Belly and Europro also receive attributions.
@Greg and Ted: The Comprehensive Plan was written in a way to allow almost anyone on any issue regarding development to be able to cite to it and say, ¨See – this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan¨. In large part, that’s because everyone’s concerns – whether it be preservation of smaller homes, or historic preservation or development of our village centers – all are valid goals to be achieved and there are many in this community who agree those are goals to pursue – the problem is that there is no consensus on how we get there or which goal should be prioritized. Again, like the broken record my kids say I am, I go back to the need for a multi-pronged approach when it comes to housing and development and I include historic preservation in that same vein.
@Ted: Yes the Comprehensive Plan was written in 2007 and is out-dated – which is why I keep saying that it is out-dated and needs to be updated but apparently, the volume on my broken record message has been muted….sigh…..
@Eric – first – sorry for the double post but just read your comment. I am not opposed to housing at the Wells Avenue site. I just thought reference was made to the Comp Plan and wanted to bring that to people’s attention because that sentiment (in that one sentence) was used during the debate on whether or not to lift the deed restriction for the proposed development. I did not participate in that debate because of a conflict of interest. If I recall, there were a few other Aldermen who also did not oppose housing at the site but instead of voting for it, stepped outside the rail.
Sorry, Jane, I’m still not getting it. Would an allusion to Candide (“all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds”) have been less of a gender dog whistle than Pollyanna, which is actually defined in the dictionary as “a person regarded as being foolishly or blindly optimistic”? As for rainbows, kittens and unicorns, I was unaware that there was some sort of gender stereotype associated with them. When I have a bad day, my kids always tell me to think about “rainbow unicorn kittens with butterfly wings and sparkles,” which I understand is a meme on the internet.
This thread has strayed way off the topic and wandered into personalities. So, peace out, all. I am done with this conversation.
@Alderwoman Sangiolo: I’m happy to hear that you’re not opposed to housing at the Wells site Dare I infer that you support the proposal? I hope that you would, especially in light of the $3M CC&F pledged to substantially upgrade the Wells Ave infrastructure (particularly the main intersection – all before they start construction!!!).
If I recall, your colleagues that also did not directly oppose the project opted to step outside the rail on the grounds that “there was no vision” for Wells Ave. So, the City commissioned the MAPC to do a study – to get that “vision”. Well, now the study is out, and it clearly supports a mixed use Wells Ave that includes multifamily residential housing.
Where are you and your colleagues now?
@Greg
That is true. None of those sources said anything about Newton being resistant to change/development. So perhaps its just a headline and sub-headline that are contradicted by the article itself. And a concluding quote that leaves the reader with a final impression that is distinctly slanted in the same “something is wrong with Newton” bias.
Greg, for the record, none of the others said anything was wrong with Newton. Paul, agree.
Alderman Yates, you are saying the deed restriction would have been lifted for housing if there was more space and better access? And Alderwoman Sangiolo, you are saying that it could have been lifted if it wasn’t for the Comp Plan? The public has been told that the the deed restriction couldn’t be lifted because it was HOUSING. Which is it?
This is one of the biggest problems with Newton’s government, touted transparency, open meeting laws or not, it is almost impossible for mere residents to know the true reasons behind what is being decided/done.
Eric, I agree with some others that MAPC is a highly, reputable promoter of “smart growth,” used in its present meaning not as the opposite of “stupid growth” as Adam uses it and not an unbiased, independent firm as you put it. http://www.mapc.org/smart-growth-principles The report’s end was a foregone conclusion. The only reason to ask MAPC to study the office park would be to have a document that contradicts the part of the 2007 Comp Plan being used to keep it as it is. I also agree with its outcome, but I don’t think just putting up a large building with 334 units of housing is a good way to start.
I was never for or against the housing proposal, mainly because it won’t affect me, but I have kept up with the area’s controversies. If we could go back in time and use the ideas that work now to plan and build a multiuse area like Needham has been doing since 2001, I’d say “Go for it!” But unless bulldozing the park and starting anew is an option then we have to work with what we have, a loop with one way in and out. The additional exit proposed with the housing development is on conservation land. With no amenities that smart growth says are necessary, walkable restaurants, appealing shops, and transit, then it seems a poor way to start. But I am really, really tired of seeing Jay Doherty of CC&F gripe, complain, whine and bash Newton so now I hope he doesn’t build anything in Newton.
We have seen the 2007 Comp Plan quoted to justify every position anyone takes about anything, like statistics, surveys and polls. I wonder if that’s because 13/24 of our present aldermen were on the board when it was passed, including Ald Hess-Mann and Ald Sangiolo, so they know it’s content well.
Updating the Plan is being done piecemeal with still no specific PLAN in sight. We want to add housing, then we will surplus 4 municipal parking lots, come up with a new zone, rezone one at a time, then build what we want. Where is a PLAN?
As Adam points out, the MAPC report says “This particular study is a market study, not a comprehensive study of what sort of balance would be most beneficial to the city or how to support or build it (though it can be inferred that PIECEMEAL BY PRIVATE INTERESTS ISN’T THE BEST OPTION) While the Comprehensive Plan likely needs updating, the important point is that whatever is done with Wells Avenue must be done in a comprehensive way… like Needham is doing.” (Emphasis mine.)
Paul, Zervas was expected to be closed for lack of students.
@Eric – I still remain conflicted out so am not able to vote on the matter. I think the project as currently configured still remains quite large and requires access.
Amy,
If I recall correctly I was at city hall for that vote where If I recall correctly 3 Alderwomen left the room almost by consensus. I was intrigued. Why would elected officials wonder off come voting time?
Hi Amanda – agree that there are lots of places to eat. My point was I used to make an afternoon of shopping in Newton Centre, and then having lunch in Newton Centre. My group of friends and I feel there is no longer a nice mix of stores with clothing, shoes, arts, unique gifts etc. We have been going to Dedham and Concord on our outings now, where an afternoon can be made of walking and going in and out of several nice stores, and parking isn’t an issue.