I’ve always considered Alderman Brian Yates to be something of a maverick.
First elected in 1987, it’s not always easy to predict where Yates would come down on many issues. It’s often even harder at times to guess his reasons behind some votes. I chalk that up to his long historic perspective as a sixth generation Newtonian, years of seeing what works and doesn’t in city government and pride in being an independent thinker and doer.
So I was surprised this August when Yates appeared as part of a slate of candidates supported (and since endorsed) by the no-growth advocacy group, Newton Villages Alliance.
My surprise wasn’t so much whether Yates didn’t or didn’t share their views, but just that any alliance with one political (and frankly predictable) group seemed so out of character with his usual mavericky independence.
So tonight I asked Yates why.
“Because they asked me,” he replied.
“Do you agree with all of their positions?” I asked.
“I don’t agree with anyone on everything,” Yates replied.
“I know. I’ve always considered you to be a maverick…”
“Thank you,” Yates said.
“…so why would a maverick want to align themselves with any group, rather than standing out as the independent, unaffiliated person you’ve always been?” I asked.
“Good question,” Yates said. And then, after a long pause. “I’ll get back to you on that.”
I will let you know when I hear from him. Or Alderman Yates, you can share your answer here in the comments section.
Alderman Yates is in a very competitive race. The issues about development are clear and compelling. The NVA is a group of people that Yates can easily identify with as they are very concerned about the dangerous accelerated growth proposals in Newton villages. Changes that will significantly impact the well being of people in our communities for the future.
I can clearly understand Yates’ choice.
So Colleen: You’re suggesting that Yates did this out of political expediency?
You’re going to have to explain that one further.
Why would he team up on a slate with Chris Pitts so as to be sure Chris Pitts didn’t unseat him?
Because even a free thinker like Yates couldn’t possibly think this was going to harm Deb Crossley’s chances of re-election. Heck even if Yates had received the Pope’s endorsement instead of the NVAs, Crossley was never going to finish third in this contest. Never.
So all he did was give Pitts some added exposure and give Crossely’s voters extra motivation to bullet vote for her while letting Yates and Pitts duke it out for second place.
@Greg,
Seems to me you are writing off Pitts – have you given him the opportunity to talk about the issues he is running on?
@Simon: I’m talking political strategy in this particular thread, not political positions. However, Chris Pitts has an opportunity to talk about the issues he is running on each and every day right here on Village 14 and he has participated here in the past. I encourage him and everyone else who is running to do so.
I agree with Greg. It seems that in both wards 3 and 5, NVA has assembled a slate competing against itself for the second seat against a particularly strong incumbent, with or without the bullet voting factor.
While I agree partially with Greg….I don’t believe everyone who votes, knows who the NVA is or their slate of candidates, but I understand Brian’s position where he might not want to do all the campaigning by himself. It’s a tough, tough job if it’s done right.
@Simon — If a candidate such as Chris Steele could only come in third to the incumbents in Ward 5, why would Chris Pitts think he can do any better?
…and Chris Steele did not run on a slate with the second-place finisher. I think his supporters might have been at least as likely to vote for Deb, putting him in a much stronger position.
Greg, I think you answered your own question. If every Pitts supporter also votes for Yates, doesn’t that seem likely to help Yates?
Ditto what Tom said. I never knew about the NVA until Greg made the introduction.
I’m voting for Brian because he is an independent thinker and doesn’t just follow the crowd.
@Doug: Exactly my point. That’s traditionally what people who like Yates like about him and why this puzzles me.
@ Greg
The NVA is not anti-growth; it is pro-the Garden City. We love our Newton and want to make sure growth is done to its advantage, nor its detriment.
@Isabelle: Of course you love “our Newton”! That’s never been in dispute. I applaud the NVA and you for caring as much as you do. I say that with all sincerity.
And I’m sure you realize that the men and women your NVA colleague derisively refers to as the “pro-high-density-housing political establishment” love Newton just as much as you all do.
But it seems to me that the Newton-loving NVA wants “our Newton” to be remain exactly as it is today, as if it were embalmed inside in a snow globe. That’s why I use the term “no growth” and will continue to do so until I see, well, the NVA come out in favor of something.
Meanwhile, a bunch of other Newton-loving, pro-Garden City folks are working to find ways to thoughtfully accommodate more millennials in “our Newton. We’re working to accommodate more low and middle income families on “our Newton.” We’re working to give seniors who’ve been the custodians of our community for so long, new options to stay the Newton they love too.
That is an intriguing statement, Isabelle. I am wondering what type of growth the NVA supports. Can you elaborate?
Isabelle, I would be interested in your answer too.
Isabelle, I think I get your meaning now. The NVA is not anti-growth but is “pro-Garden City” as Conservatives are not anti-choice but are “pro-life.” Still means the same thing.
Aren’t we all pro-Garden City? That appears to be an issue we can agree on.
I think what Isabelle and the NVA is trying to say is that we all live in a wonderful city with wonderful opportunities. The NVA doesn’t want any development that will lose that.
Yes we all love Newton! That’s why we’re all here. And we probably all want Newton to be welcoming to people of all income levels. It’s just a matter of what form that takes. I personally would like to see us keep Newton affordable for the low and moderate income people who are already here, in many cases seniors who have been here for decades but are struggling to stay under the rising cost of living including property taxes.
Greg, I can’t speak for the NVA, but I can speak for myself. I love growth that abides by the current zoning code. I love growth in commercial zoning that brings us tax revenue. What I don’t love is social-planner-micomanager growth that arbitrarily “bends” current zoning at the expense of green space, neighborhoods, and neighbors.
I have lived in high-density neighborhoods and enjoyed them. When the kids are gone, my wife and I might very well move to a high-density town. We picked Newton because we don’t want to raise our kids in a high-density neighborhood. I want to know my neighbors and I want my neighbors to know me. I also want neighbors who intend to live in the neighborhood for years, not months. This does not make me a bad person (I hope).
@Jeffrey-
I’m right there with you on the above post.
The problem is that “you can’t fight city hall”. The mayor has very clearly stated his goals. More housing, more density, more, more, more, more. It will serve him well on a broader scale than just ‘lil ole Newton.
There are a select few Aldermen who have the cajones to be responsive to the neighborhoods and stand up for what’s right without regard to political expediency. These people tend to be Ward Aldermen because they are closest to the people in the neighborhood and can’t hide as easily.
Ald Baker is a prime example. Good luck trying to do anything that changes the character of the residential areas of Chestnut Hill. It ain’t happening. he’ll protect it to his grave. As he should.
I’d be happy if we could just get the streets fixed and the sidewalks cleared off.
The problem is that “you can’t fight city hall”. The mayor has very clearly stated his goals.
I disagree. There is atleast one day every 4 years you can fight the Mayor and city hall.