Hey there Austin Street project fans, foes and followers. Thanks to Alderman Amy Sangiolo for calling our attention to the upcoming schedule from the Land Use Committee Chair Marc Laredo for the Austin Street Special Permit Application
July 21: – Framework discussion.
Sept. 24: – Discussion of the Planning Department’s vision for Newtonville and how this project fits within that vision.
Oct. 6: – Discussion of the design for Walnut Street and how this project fits within that design.
Oct. 20: – Discussion of any remaining issues.
Oct. 27 or 29 – Discussion of any remaining issues.
Nov. 10 and 12 – Final presentation, final public comments, close public hearing.
Nov. 16– Target date for Board of Aldermen vote.
This is a much better schedule than the previous one that took the final decision by the BOA into December. Alderman Laredo continues to do a great job managing this process.
What a sham that this project continues to move forward in its current state. The Mayor of Newton has taken a piece of public land, and effectively sold it at a dramatic discount to a friend who is a developer. The Mayor claims he’s doing this to create affordable housing, but in reality the Austin Street project creates a smaller percentage of affordable housing than any 40B. This is Setti putting his own future political interest ahead of the best interest of Newton. The only question is, will he stick around long enough for a smoke now that he’s screwed us?
So Mike, you are convinced that the BOA will approve this project, if they do then who do accuse of selling out the City.
Mike you previously stated that you had proposed a 40B project in Sharon but to stop the project the town purchased the land. Will you be honest and tell the primary reason they opposed the project?
@Greg: Glad that folks are reading my newsletter. Hopefully, more people will sign up and hopefully, I won’t be sending out old posts – sorry about that!
The Planning Dept.’s vision of Newtonville, what is that all about? Since when does city planning have a vision for any development in a Newton village? Maybe the mayor has a vision, I old like to know more about this grand vision. His vision ought to reflect the vision of Newtonville residents.
Setti may be a bit ahead of us boomers who have a very different agenda to his yuppie generation.
I’m interested in hearing about their vision for Newtonville and hope it comes with a specific action plan, as we have been promised for years. All I’ve heard is assorted visions. Sometimes I think they are really hallucinations because to exist in the real world, they have to be supported with something cohesive to see. What is happening, where and when for the entire center.
@Rev. Haywood– I’m not convinced the City Council will approve Austin Street. Meanwhile the project is still alive and kicking. So your guess is as good as mine.
I support affordable housing. I support more density in village centers. And I support more transit oriented development. But development of this nature requires an understanding of the real estate business, and deal making skills. Setti appears to have little of the former, and none of the latter.
If I were Mayor, I’d send this back to the drawing board, and tell the developer to “find me 6 more affordable units, or take a hike.” That’s the way deals are done in the real world. But Setti has an agenda that’s all his own.
Regarding my project in Sharon, it was a length of road provision added to the Town Bylaws, not an eminent domain taking, that derailed a 50 home subdivision in which 25% of those homes would have been dedicated “affordable.”
Your Sharon proposal sounds like a great project, why was it rejected?
@Rev. Haywood– The Town of Sharon passed a provision limiting the length of subdivision roadways, which made the large undeveloped property not developable for single family homes. My partners and I have permitted two other 40B projects in Sharon. We had some epic battles with the town. Eventually we opted to sell both projects to other developers.
I wonder if I might ask you a favor. Because I understand you have a very good relationship with the Mayor. I’d ask that you encourage him to push the developer harder for more affordable units at Austin Street. Setti got fewer affordable units out of this developer than most 40B projects. And this project also includes 5000 sf of valuable retail space. Six more affordable units and I’m sold on this project. My experience tells me right now that the city is getting shortchanged.
Mike, pursuant to the order adopted by the Board of Aldermen regarding the disposition of the Austin Street lot, the RFP that went out was for a proposal to build a mixed use, transit-oriented development with minimums of 5000 square feet of retail space and 25% of the units affordable to low to moderate income (50-80% AMI) households. It would not be fair to squeeze the developer for more affordable units, let alone legal under the public procurement laws.
Ted,
Interesting perspective.
Was it legal under public procurement laws for the Mayor to “choose a developer, not a project” at the conclusion of the RFP process?
In today’s TAB there is as article stating that Stephen Vona the owner of the Turtle Lane Property in Auburndale is considering selling the property because he can’t come to an agreement with the BOA. At the onset of Mr. Vona’s pursuit to develop the property he made a commitment to not utilize 40B but to go through the Cities convoluted Special Permit process. He has been open and transparent with the community in presentation at public meetings and based on their concerns reduced the scope of the project that would satisfy concerns regarding traffic. A proposed restaurant has been eliminated and the number of units reduced.
With all his concessions the project continues to be blocked by the lack of leadership from the Ward Alderman Jay Harney. Instead of working with both the developer and the community to create a project that will be a benefit to the Village of Auburndale he continues to make unreasonable request of the developer.
Mr. Vona, a Newton resident proposal is more than an economic opportunity for him but to restore the theatre and provide another venue for Newtons various performing arts program. So what do we gain by not supporting this project, my opinion is nothing. What do we lose, he sells to another developer and based on Mr. Vonda’s experience will proceed with a 40B project with minimal input from the community.
Think it over what is the prudent way to resolve this? My opinion is that Alderman Harney take the leadership role and bring the community and the developer together ASAP so that this very thoughtful development can proceed to the BOA for a vote.
@Howard Haywood – I’ve been watching that project from afar and was thrilled that Mr Vona had come up with a plan for preserving the theater and making it economically viable by combining it with housing (and originally a restaurant).
I think it would be a great loss for Auburndale and the city if we lose that opportunity. I do think you’re right though. If Mr Vona drops out and sells, I’m certain folks will be much less pleased with whatever his successor plans and we’ll almost certainly lose the theater too.
@Ted– You’re a lawyer. I’m a businessman. We have a different perspective about how the City should deal with developers. But more importantly, the Mayor [and City Council] have an obligation to strike the best possible deal for the people of Newton at Austin Street. And if anyone thinks the current proposal at Austin Street represents the best possible deal, they are simply lacking any real knowledge about the financial dynamic underlying these types of projects, and this project in particular. I would implore you, the Mayor, and anyone else involved to push the developer for more affordable units. This project was sold to the public based in large part on the promise of “affordable housing,” and the people are being shortchanged. Like most attorneys you’re concerned about playing by the rules. And that’s fine for attorneys. But I respectfully suggest that dotting the “i”s and crossing the “t”s is not as important as doing the right thing for the people of Newton. Someone in power needs to twist this developers arm, and get more affordable units.
Geeze Mike, the vast, vast majority of business people I work with are committed to following the law too! Your continuous suggestion that elected leaders should simply ignore rules you don’t agree with (not just on this but other issues too) leads me to wonder how you’ve avoided jail all these years! Perhaps you should write a book.
My father always used to have a saying that applies to this kind of stuff. He’d say Tom, if you don’t knock no one will know enough to answer the door.
The current Mayor is not knocking on the door. I think Mike is asking our elected officials to knock on the door and ask for more affordable units.
@Tom: Just because someone isn’t negotiating in public that doesn’t mean they aren’t negotiating. I’m not saying I know what the mayor is or isn’t doing. But I am saying that unless you have some inside information, you don’t know either. And neither does Mike.
Greg, so you are saying Mike and Tom shouldn’t say what they want the mayor to be doing if they don’t already know what the mayor is doing? Unless Mike and Tom have inside information that tells them what the mayor is doing? And you are saying you don’t know what the mayor is doing either?
There is nothing in your statements that make any sense at all.
They want the mayor to negotiate the best deal for the city, not break the law. You don’t? Sometimes you just spin around in circles.
Well actually Marti, Mike has repeatedly said that he favors our municipal leaders breaking or ignoring laws/rules on 40B, medical marihuana, same sex marriage and many other things. I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t deny that.
But no, I’m certainly not saying that folks shouldn’t advocate for things they want, which includes things they want to mayor to do.
All I’m saying is don’t state something as fact unless you know it’s a fact.
@Greg– I know you’re Mr. Clean, and would never get down and dirty in a business negotiation. But I’ve sat on the other side of that table from elected officials. I’ve had a State Rep. threaten to personally plant spotted turtles on a piece of my property in order to derail a development project. I’ve had local elected officials privately tell me they would “drain” their towns “coffers” to keep me from building a 40B. So I know how other municipalities play hardball with developers.
I also know that you like to roll out the red carpet for developers. If the City had taken your advice at Wells Ave, the developer would have bought his way out of that deed restriction for a million bucks. Because the City rejected the proposal you thought we should accept, that developer has now tripled his offer to $3M. So when you suggest it’s okay that the people of Newton lose 6 affordable housing units at Austin Street, simply because no one in a position of authority has the balls to do a little arm twisting, I’m not only going to question your judgement, I’m going to question your motivation.
I understand that your job is to represent business interests, including the interests of developers. But I’d really like to hear you tell me that in your opinion, the business deal at austin Street is the best this city could get.
@Howard: What’s the ¨unreasonable¨ request being made by my Ward 4 colleague? We received a letter from the developer’s attorney, Terry Morris, requesting a date change for the continuance of the public hearing because they are revising their plans to reduce the number of units of housing.
@Jerry: I think that front portion of the building, where the restaurant was going to go, would be a perfect space for the Newton Suzuki School of Music who has been looking for space for a long time and would love to remain in Auburndale. I am disappointed that isn’t currently being considered. It would have been a nice tie-in to the theater, a benefit for the families in the City and would provide patrons to the Auburndale Community Library and the local businesses in the square with minimal impact on the abutters. But I can dream about it, right?
For now, we will continue to review the proposal – as is apparently being amended and consider comments from all.
Mike, I was a royal pain in the rear to the administration a couple of weeks ago about testing for PCBs before we bought Aquinas, and annoyed a number of my colleagues by asking to hold up the vote on funding until the building was tested and we had the results. As it turned out, there were both PCBs and asbestos in the building which has to be removed before anyone can move in there. The city renegotiated the purchase and sale agreement and saved $400,000 on the purchase price, and the windows–which were going to be replaced anyway when the building is renovated–will be removed sooner rather than later. So I understand the value of twisting arms.
The Mayor issued an RFP and received a number of bids and signed a contract with Austin Street Partners to lease the land for $1.05M and do a project that was 25% affordable. This is not the typical situation where the developer owns or has an agreement to buy the property. Instead, the city owns, and will continue to own the property and is the co-applicant for the special permit. The Mayor has already gotten concessions on the height of the building, number of total units, amount of retail space, and number of public parking spaces out of the developer, without reducing the price paid, and has kept the same proportion of affordable units that it agreed to do. The Mayor could certainly renegotiate the deal, but neither he nor the Board can unilaterally modify the agreement between the city and the developer. But in the final analysis, it is the Mayor’s proposal that the Board of Aldermen will be voting on.
The aldermen cannot comment on the merits of a special permit application while the public hearing is still open, so, respectfully, I cannot respond to your other questions about the project at this time.
First off, thank you, Ted, for insisting that Aquinas be tested.
Howard, thank you for bringing up Steve Vona and the Turtle Lane debacle. What a shame if he backs out and resells the property. He has spent so much time and money ensuring that the project respects the neighborhood, the theatre and the architectural integrity of Auburndale Sq. Yes, Amy, it would be a marvelous spot for Suzuki, wouldn’t it?!
On Turtle Lane, shades of Stop and Shop on Needham street. Wouldn’t that have been a better use?
As for the Mike/Greg debate, I think the truth is in the middle. I agree with Ted that at this point it is difficult to negotiate. I think the affordable units are locked in due to the RFP. I would negotiate on the price, which was not locked in, and then work to apply those funds elsewhere to support affordable housing or Newton village centers.
I do think that the mayor could have and should have gotten a better deal. But as I’ve said before, if the choice is the deal in front of us vs. the status quo, I vote for the deal in front of us if the money is used to improve the village. As such I am happy to attend the meetings listed above regarding long term planning for Newtonville.
@Greg– You’re mischaracterizing my position on each issue you referenced. So I’m going to set the record straight on each one.
In Massachusetts the law prohibiting same sex marriage was ruled unconstitutional. I stood by the Constitution, rather than the unconstitutional law. And I’ll repeat again, had I been mayor prior to the Supreme Court ruling, and a same sex couple was denied a marriage license, I would have instructed the City Clerk to issue that license or find new employment. That’s what leadership is all about.
Regarding medical marijuana, nearly three years ago the people of Massachusetts voted to allow medical patients the right to use cannabis as a medication. Since then, there has been a cabal of elected officials and members of law enforcement that have actively worked to undermine the outcome of that vote, and deny medication to sick and dying people. I stand with those people who are suffering, in demanding implementation of the law, not breaking it.
Lastly, regarding 40B, you’d be hard pressed to find an example of my advocating law breaking among our public officials. I have said quite simply that representatives in other communities know how to play hardball with 40B developers, and this community would be better served by a Mayor who understood how to push back rather than roll over.
While Austin street is not a 40B, there is no greater example of Mayor Warren’s lack of business skill than the deal he negotiated there. Unlike most 40B projects, Austin Street includes 5000 sf of highly desirable retail space, for which there are no offsetting affordable housing units. That makes this a sweetheart deal for the developer, and a bad deal for the generous people of Newton who are getting fleeced.
No Mike. I fully understand your position.
Thanks Ted,
Apparently some of your colleagues forgot that they are here for the voters, not the administration….and they can take exception to that all they want, but allowing construction on a project that has a high probability of PCB’s is ridiculous. No matter who is in charge this type of ridiculous thinking gets in the way all the time. If its not asbestos in NNHS or PCB’s at Aquinas, I just dont get it.
The City Clerk is an employee of the
Board of Aldermen, not the Mayor.
@Greg– Based on your scale of justice, I’m sure you would have told Dr. King not to march. And I’m equally sure you would have told Mayor Newsom to let same sex couples wait for a marriage license. I have to accept that we have differing opinions on how best to effectuate change. I’d like to give you a second chance to answer one question though…
Do you think the City is getting the best deal possible at Austin Street?
@mike – we get it, you don’t like the deal. But the train, and the plane and the boat all left the station airport and dock a long time ago. The departure period has been lengthy – eight years, give or take? Giving anyone on board or watching from dockside plenty of time to take whatever action they deem appropriate. You are adamant in maintaining your experience and tough approach to these matters, but what exactly, from a practical point of view, are you suggesting, bearing in mind that a public transaction involving governmental bodies (Mayor, Board of Aldermen, etc) is under constraints that private parties might not be subject to. Politics is the art of the possible? Probably a misquote but the point is, instead of ranting about how you woulda coulda done it better cause you’re the main man, what exactly, from a practical, pragmatic point of view, would you suggest the City do now? First of all, Austin St is not, repeat, is not a 40B. So let’s agree to put all 40B rhetoric to one side for the moment. Your 40B experience may be wonderful, but this is not a 40B. Your generic experience in development may or may not be relevant, but a 40B it is not. So we have a project that has a long and well documented history, now it its final phases. What concrete, specific, feasible and practical steps are you suggesting, given the legal and political status of the process? Sorry, pulling a power play, pounding the table, shaking your fist at the guy across the table, all those tactics might work, but maybe not, since this is a public process with all kinds of opportunities for lawsuits and unintended consequences if you stray outside the legal boundaries. I’ve negotiated lots of contracts in the past, and my rule was always that if you let the lawyers run the negotiations, they will find all the ways not to do a deal. Instead, we find a deal that the principals can live with, and tell the lawyers to make it happen, and by the way protect my butt. I get it. But what exactly are you saying should happen here? You keep saying it’s a bad deal, the citizens are getting ‘fleeced’ as though there is some fraud or illegal transaction being contemplated. OK, you disagree with the price – boy, that has never happened in a real estate transaction before. You’re throwing the same stones over and over, they roll back and you throw them again. As several folks have pointed out many times, we need to move forward at least a tiny little bit, once in a while, and if you’re just going to revert to nothing, never, no-how, can’t do that, we have to have perfection that’s going to lead down a real rathole over time.
Mike, it seems you have two overriding points, “While Austin street is not a 40B, there is no greater example of Mayor Warren’s lack of business skill than the deal he negotiated there.” and that Greg likes “to roll out the red carpet for developers.” Those could be true. Fignewtonville says, “I do think that the mayor could have and should have gotten a better deal.” I think most agree with you and him. But as HLDewey says, “we need to move forward.” Points taken.
Some laws stand in the way of human rights and justice and breaking them is necessary and worth risking anything to “effectuate change.” You reference Dr King and others who did just that.
You also reference Mayor Newsom who waited to marry LGBT couples until the law was official. He knew that very soon their marriages would be legal, so he waited. That doesn’t fit the above situation. Idealistically, I feel the same way. But don’t fault him either.
You say, “you’d be hard pressed to find an example of my advocating law breaking among our public officials.”
But you use “I’ve had a State Rep. threaten to personally plant spotted turtles on a piece of my property in order to derail a development project. I’ve had local elected officials privately tell me they would “drain” their towns “coffers” to keep me from building a 40B. So I know how other municipalities play hardball with developers.” as your examples, so you are advocating just that.
Public officials threatening developers is illegal. And I don’t want my BOA members to break that law. Getting a better deal is not a worthy enough cause and the law you would have them break is not an unjust law.
Finally, you know Greg will never say the mayor made a bad deal. It’s time to do as you say and “accept that we have differing opinions on how best to effectuate change.”
Keep fighting the good fight and don’t let the ones not won get you down.
@ Mike @V14
Its worth remembering that Greg is effectively a paid spokesperson. If the President of N-N Chamber of Commerce acknowledged that the Mayor didn’t get a good deal, its may make future deals more difficult and his clients clearly don’t want unnecessary complications. His words are bought and paid for– literally– so his views on business-related issues shouldn’t hold much credibility here, because we don’t know what he really believes, versus what he says for his job.
So let’s let Greg focus his efforts on posting baby announcements for Joe Kennedy, and the rest of us can discuss what’s best for Newton. Greg is paid to worry about Newton business, and the well-being of the city is less of a concern for him than his paycheck.
Pfft. So my credibility — and commitment to this city — is being questioned by a troll who won’t even say what village he lives in or what he does for a living?
Not worth a response.
Paul,
Right on.
Greg discloses his position with the CoC, as well he should- and no doubt his personal views will often intersect with his professional duties (otherwise, why stay in the job). How we view what he says here (particularly about Wells Ave, for example) should take that relationship into account. If you believe he has an agenda, well at least we know who he is and who he works for (which is not the case for everyone who posts here). I also trust Greg, a former journalist, to know when to label CoC statement vs personal view. You may disagree, be my guest.
However, saying that the CoC’s mission is at odds with the well-being of either city requires more cynicism than even I can muster.
Re Turtle Lane, I support this great idea and agree with Rev. Haywood and Jerry Reilly and many other supporters. I think the restaurant would have been a great part of the project. I also think the Suzuki School being there is an excellent idea, however, I don’t think the facts have all been reported about that possibility; it is not a simple matter of the school being rejected, they need to raise money to afford the space, plain and simple. That is not an easy or fast step.
I hope our City Council will think about what a great asset a theater open to local arts groups would be to Auburndale and Newton overall. I think many people conflate the traffic that stems from the location – at the intersection of the Pike and 128 – with worries about traffic from the theater. Auburndale is a traffic jam at rush hour because of the Pike and 128; Auburndale Square is noisy because it is right next to the Pike. I had a subscription to Turtle Lane for 18 years and never parked on Ash or Melrose, there was always plenty of parking on Auburn. Those shops all close early and the square is empty. Bring back a venue for local theater and arts groups to Newton! Build smaller housing units – apartments and condos – for people who can’t afford mcmansions! There are already apartment complexes in Auburndale that are much larger, this isn’t a new type of housing.
I’m astounded that anyone would want to go forward with a bad deal. And I don’t see anyone on this thread who claims this is a good deal. Austin Street is a hundred year long commitment, and it’s worth taking the time to get it right.
25% of the units are dedicated “affordable” in most 40B projects. And most 40B projects the size of Austin Street have a significantly higher land acquisition cost. So the city is substantially discounting the cost of the Austin Street lot, in order to get a project the Mayor would like. The city clearly has the upper hand, because it controls the land, the cost, and the permitting process. Yet despite the substantial discount that brings the developer’s land cost far below fair market value, the city has somehow managed to negotiate a deal that includes a smaller percentage of affordable units than a 40B.
The physical dimensions of all the Austin Street proposals never bothered me. I don’t care how large, or tall, or how many total apartment units the building has. What I do care about, is that a project being sold to the public in large part for it’s affordable housing, actually delivers a reasonable number of affordable units. I care about the people of this city who are trying to do something magnanimous, and getting screwed because our mayor can’t negotiate his way out of a paper bag.
@Mike: Thanks Mike and sorry for the delayed response, I’ve been busy waiting for a local developer to tell me what time my lunch break would be today, so I’ve been preoccupied.
But you’ve asked how I feel about the financial terms of the Austin Street deal. Here’s my three-part response:
1. The money involved is not nearly as important to me as is the opportunity to provide an alternative form of housing to one of our village centers. Affordable housing matters to me and so does bringing new customers to our merchants and restaurants and so does providing housing that could meet the needs of seniors who are downsizing or young singles/couples who want to live in Newton but don’t want a house with a yard and a garage. Like Fig, I also hope and expect the revenue will go to other improvements to Newtonville.
2. I might be more persuaded by your belief that the finances are insufficient if the city wasn’t retaining every benefit it now enjoys from the Austin Street lot — i.e. the same number of public parking spaces and all the parking revenue — plus gaining new tax property and sales tax revenue, getting new smart meters, a landscaped lot and some public space. But we are. Essentially we are selling air rights over an ugly eye-sore of a parking lot and providing all the items I’ve listed above.
3. Since you insist on repeating this, I feel compelled to remind everyone else reading this that we do not know how or what has been said and/or offered during private negotiations with the mayor and developer. It’s fine for you to say that you are not satisfied with the negotiations or ask questions or ask for more, but you lose credibility when you claim you know what happened or has been negotiated. You don’t and, for the record, neither do I.
Also for the record (and I’ve mentioned this before), my feelings about this project are my own. The board of directors of the Newton-Needham Chamber has not yet taken a position on this. Chamber members have different views on this. And the developer is not a chamber member, although for the life of me I don’t know why because I think we do a darn good job advocating for the economic and cultural vitality of our communities and make no apologies for the work we are doing.
@Doug
“However, saying that the CoC’s mission is at odds with the well-being of either city requires more cynicism than even I can muster.”
Its a little more nuanced than that. Frequently Newton business owners and CoC want the same thing as what’s best for Newton. But inevitably there are times that what is best for Newton business isn’t the same as what’s best for Newton. Greg’s job is to advocate for Newton business, not the City. Most of us here don’t have that conflict between paycheck and our city. That’s my point. On issues about appropriate development, like Austin St or Wells Ave, Greg’s viewpoints aren’t that credible. They’ve been paid for by Newton business. Literally.
I appreciate you spooling that out with the nuance. I would say Greg’s viewpoints are more nuanced than simply being “bought and paid for” but to a point it’s up to him to make sure we know when there is a difference.
Greg is a man of character. He’s honest, and he doesn’t have any hidden agenda. Everyone here knows he runs the Chamber of Commerce. I find no fault with Greg taking positions in support of business interests. Both sides of any argument have a right to be represented. Greg and I often go head to head on this blog. But I have nothing but complete respect for who he is and what he does. I’m also very appreciative of this forum that Greg provides, so people like me can have a voice in the issues concerning our community.
@Mike
I’m not looking to besmirch his character. Many lobbyist-types have a legitimate role to play in society.
But asking Greg to acknowledge the Mayor is not getting a good deal, is pretty much the same as asking Austin St Partners if the Mayor is getting a good deal. Both have a personal financial interest in not answering the question on neutral terms. Their financial interest PREVENTS them from answering on neutral terms. They aren’t the right people to be asking that question.
@Doug
It can be difficult to tease apart the differences between client views and personal views, when someone is being paid to advocate for a certain position. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force. No one wants to believe they are advocating positions contrary to their beliefs, and so client views start becoming personal views. The influence of money is powerful.
@Greg
We’re not retaining every benefit. Specifically, the flexibility to do something different with the space in the future. We’re locked in for the next 100 years or more.
We tend to have difficulty forecasting city needs for public facilities, and so the loss of that flexibility should not be underestimated. I’m still stunned to learn that the 2007 Comprehensive Plan forecast closing Zervas, and a decade later we had an override to build a larger one. Not real good planning- I know others can provide other examples where we changed our minds, but it was too late.
My only objective regarding Austin Street is to get the fair amount of affordable units that should be associated with a project of its size and scope. I don’t care how much the developer pays the city. I only care that the people of Newton get a fair shake. This project has been sold to the public as a means to increase affordable housing. But it delivers less affordable units than the city would get from any 40B. That makes no sense! The city is practically giving the land to the developer, and we are entitled to 6 more affordable units to offset the 5000 sf of retail space.
I provided information about me the last time you pretended that not knowing anything about me was preventing you from responding to my posts. Remember?
Go back and read it yourself. If you need a reminder, you were going to explain how the Mayor hasn’t been dishonest with the public during the Austin St process– but only after I shared some basic information. I did so, yet you never followed up on your word.
Go ahead and call me a troll if that makes you feel better–I understand reading the truth can hurt. You’re paid to advocate for the positions of Newton businesses. They don’t 100% align with the interests of the city. Those are facts. If you don’t like your job choice, get another one. But enough pretending that everything you do is in the interest of the city. Sometime its not.
Paul, I’d say half your posts are meant to antagonize Greg. On behalf of a lot of us on this blog, can you stop? We all know he is part of the Chamber. We all know him from his days at the Tab as well. He has some credibility built up around these parts, and generally I’ve found him to really care about this community.
On the same hand, I realize and sympathize that you feel the mayor lied to you. I’m also frustrated with the mayor as well, and the city, and the planning department. So I’ll be going to the meetings, just like I’m sure you will, and I’ll politely try and advocate for my positions. I hope you do as well. But how about being more than a one-trick pony on this blog? Austin Street and Greg. Two trick pony I guess.
As for giving up the future use of the lot, well…I’d buy that if it didn’t take 8 years (10 once we finish something) to actually do something with the lot! at that rate, if they start over, perhaps it will be another decade or two before it gets touched. Frankly, I think that is what you want. That’s fine. A lot of my neighbors want that as well. But let’s be clear, at this point you are not advocating for a smaller project, or a project with lots of affordable housing, or any other pie in the sky project that won’t exist and which if I’m being honest I believe you’ll oppose if it ever did exist. You are advocating for an ugly, some-what busy some of the time parking lot. We are at the point of either/or. Either a new building or a parking lot. And the next project is a decade down the road.
For me, I’d rather have the good now rather than an unlikely perfect later. I am frustrated by the mayor’s incompetence. I agree with Mike a great deal. But I live near the damn lot, and I’m tired of looking at an ugly lot, when I get get some community space, new commercial, new housing, and relatively the same parking for the next 10 years. And hopefully new benches and new lighting. IF only the city was clear about the FULL benefits, more of my neighbors would agree.
@Fig,
Just to throw it out there, but the city is also looking at smart parking meters.
If a community adopts them then a percentage of revenue is pumped back in. You might get a beautiful parking lot that way!
I do not understand how anyone can view an apartment complex as a good replacement for a city parking lot. If people think the parking lot is ugly then turn your head around and look at the Pike. There is a lot of ugly in that area. A high rise apartment does not improve the beauty of N’ville.
@Colleen: Beauty, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. But facts aren’t subjective. And the fact is they not replacing the parking lot. The parking lot will still be there.
Nonetheless, “anyone” who calls this apartment complex home will likely be among those who “view” this to be an improvement.
And so would any Newtonville business that benefits from all those new customers.
Maybe it’s a small thing, but I personally think it is typical of some of the mis-information or sloppy talk and thinking that gets used in discussions of this project and others. I cannot find any credible references either in general collections of terminology or real estate sources that will categorize a five story, or alternatively, 75 foot tall (or less) building as a “high rise.” Maybe mid-rise, but high rise is usually 11 or 12 stories or higher. So let’s just try to get it right and not call the foolish thing a ‘high rise,’ because it just is not. Period. If you use the term to describe the project you are misleading yourself and other people, and contributing to misunderstanding. If you object to the project, fine, but don’t use ‘loaded’ or pejorative terms to mislead or predjudice folks about what is being proposed.
HL Dewey, I would be willing to support your calling for a cessation of opponents using “loaded or pejorative terms” if you would convince the mayor to publicly explain the full history behind his connections with the developers and why he believes that $1 million is a good price from the city’s perspective for what now appears to be a 200 year lease for the property.
I am all in favor of establishing a fair and balanced discussion. You seem only concerned about stifling the words used by one side of the issue.
BTW, for those of us who are not real estate language experts and still favor the village concept remaining in Newton, the proposed structure is a relatively high rise no matter what you want to label it. Maybe you can explain why two residential properties near me (10,500 sq ft and 11,500 sq ft respectively) just sold for $1 million each, while a 75,00 sq ft mixed use property only requires a $1 million offer. Again, being a taxpayer and a non real estate expert, from my perspective a 200 year lease is the same as a purchase and sale.