Nathan Phillips posted an interesting comment on a different thread that seems worthy of its own conversation…
This election is a referendum on the status quo, but on balance, the incumbents tend to represent change, while more (not all) of the challengers seek to maintain the status quo, like maintaining parking lots over transit oriented development. … Newton needs change, not status quo, and if residents are calling for change they need to think about who best will work for it.
Do you agree with Nathan?
I’m hoping that Jake wins in Ward 2 and I think he will. We need some new people on the Board.
I think Nathan’s comment lumped together the challengers, and misrepresented their positions. Because of that, I think this thread is ridiculous.
@Mike and Doug: Jake Auchincloss may be the exception but the three other challengers on the Newton Villages Alliance slate — LeBlanc, Pitts and Malakie — seem to have fully embraced the NVA’s mantra of saying no to everything without proposing a single solution to anything. How is that change?
As you pointed out, Greg, Nathan’s comment does not accurately reflect Jake’s position on Austin Street. But it’s this part I found ridiculous and factually incorrect…
“The status quo would also favor keeping plastic bag litter on our streets and sidewalks, doing nothing to improve the safety of our sidewalks, crosswalks, roads, and letting our leaking water main continue to leak.”
The status quo is about allowing Newtonians and not the BOA determine how they want to live their lives; the size and type of residence in which they wish to reside, whether they want to use plastic bags, paper, or reusables, the implements with which they wish to clear detritus from their lawns, etc. etc. Clearly, this who think the Board Knows Best will prefer nanny-statists like Ms. Leblanc and Ms. Malakie. Those of us who prefer, at some point in the future, to see the full return on the investment made in their homes and properties will support candidates with a more enlightened view on development.
There is some value in Nathan’s observation.
Being an alderman requires being able to deal with a myriad of issues. Most of the challengers, possibly excepting Jake, are one issue candidates, and their approach is definitely a “no-change” mantra. And I do worry that Jake is just being more circumspect than the others.
I imagine that the NVA challengers would actually agree with Nathan’s assessment regarding development, arguing that when a city is consistently ranked as amongst the most liveable in the country, then the status quo of scale and character is worth defending.
However, I can’t and don’t speak for them. I am not on the NVA slate. I have run this whole campaign independently and will continue to make decisions independently if elected, including on Austin Street if that special permit decision is rolled over.
I am pro development but cannot understand the inconsistencies demonstrated by Newton’s current leadership. Why spend four and a half million dollars to buy tax generating residential properties and destroy a public park on Cabot Street to provide parking at Zervas and Cabot schools and at the same time deny residents and merchants a heavily used parking lot to allow a private entity to build a multi use development which includes housing? The inconsistencies are enormous. Has anyone been able to determine if we will be receiving commercial tax revenue on the Austin Street project? Will the building permits preceed the land lease agreement with Dinosaur Partners? This is information I have not seen yet. This land is currently not taxed as it is city owned property. Too many hypotheticals in the conversation.
On the same note I have not seen any solutions presented by the incumbents in their quest to get reelected.
NO ‘MO STATUS QUO.
I’d argue that support for development, for development’s sake, has become the status quo. We need to look carefully at how we plan, make decisions about surprising property & special permits, and change how we govern ourselves. That might involve changes in the balance of representation (ward vs. at-large aldermen); a professional city manager vs. a politically driven mayor; who makes planning and zoning decisions & how they make them; greater transparency in decision making & better processes for citizen input; etc.
We need Charter Commissioners who understand both how we do things today in Newton, and who have broad experience in how other communities govern themselves.
If you agree, remember to vote early, vote often, and vote Fidelman for Charter Commission!
Miles Fidelman
facebook.com/milesfidelmanforchartercommission – NOW WITH VIDEO!
Jake — Did you see the mailer sent out this week by the 5 NVA candidate committees? They were sure to include your name, just as they have in so many emails. I recognize you can’t control who they endorse/praise, but they are definitely trying to associate themselves and their agenda with you. And they plan to claim credit if you prevail. How do you feel about all of that?
I also never heard any clarification from you on the anti-“Millennial Mecca” line you used in the candidate forum. That didn’t strike me as particularly change-oriented (or even substantively different from the agenda/rhetoric by the NVA slate), but perhaps I misunderstood.
You and I both got to come back to Newton after college (and in your case military service). A lot of people in our age cohort weren’t able to. Not enough housing and opportunities. I wish they could have, if they wanted to, since it’s where we grew up. You seemed to suggest with that remark (and your elaboration on it at the forum) that they shouldn’t come home, by and large. I can’t really figure out why.
On a different note, I have to admit I was baffled by Julia Malakie’s response to my question at the candidate forum tonight at the senior center. I asked the candidates to explain their vision of a responsible city plan to create additional housing capacity (and schools capacity by logical extension, since there would be more kids) in Newton, given that it’s reasonable to assume the population will continue to increase (births, longer lifespans, etc.) and a fact that the population has been increasing in the region fairly rapidly in recent years (births, people moving to MA, longer lifespans, etc.)…
Unless I totally misunderstood her answer, it was that Newton should not ever build any additional housing units of any kind, end of story.
I’m pretty sure I *didn’t* misunderstand her, however, because she later followed up by asking if Ted Hess-Mahan is able to put a number on how many housing units citywide is “enough.”
I can’t be alone in being totally puzzled by a vision of the city that assumes there will never, can never, and should never be even one additional home or apartment built in Newton — or that there even if any reasonable expectation that any city would somehow just suddenly stop adding housing even as the surrounding population grows. Is “enough” an actual concept we’re aiming for?
But what I would have liked to ask as a follow-up is how this vision of capping the number of housing units can possibly co-exist with the NVA slate’s mission of keeping Newton affordable (for its existing residents or anyone else)… As I noted in a thread before on Village 14, if you cap the supply permanently and the regional demand keeps rocketing up, then the prices and (taxable!) assessed land value will go up way, way, way faster as it chases demand.
As has also come up in the threads before, I don’t even think I’m really disagreeing with the underlying, broad *stated* principles of the NVA slate — things like preserving the broad character of Newton and keeping it affordable to existing residents, and so on — but every policy goal they have announced to that end seems to directly contradict those principles when we map out what the resulting effects would be.
I’m trying really hard here to understand this, but so far I’m just not seeing it add up. My family has been here far longer than some of the slate’s members (I’ve been alive longer than some of them have been here) and the static version of Newton being presented doesn’t make much sense to me. If we want to preserve the *character* of Newton, that goes to much wider values than what they’re presenting.
Newton should, in my view, strive to be a welcoming and diverse community for all types and backgrounds of people, including a broad range of incomes and occupations. And it should be one where people want to move to and people who are here can stay (and their children and grandchildren can stay). We can’t do any of that if we pull up the drawbridge to all but the very wealthiest in society.
Hopefully, Jake will focus his election, not on you.
I support Jake because he is energetic, bright, and darn motivated to make a difference. I support Lynne Leblanc because her policy message on zoning coincides with mine. Jake and Lynne are very different candidates. I wish some parts of Jake were more like Lynne and some parts of Lynne were more like Jake, but that won’t happen. They are different people. I can only vote for the choices in front of me. They both dominant the incumbents.
Jake is running for office. Should he throw away my vote because I also like Lynne? Should he say, “I don’t want anyone who votes for Lynne to vote for me?” Of course not. All politicians, including your favorites, appreciate the votes they get. I think there is unhappiness with the incumbents that drives some commonality between NVA supporters and Auchincloss supporters. My advice to you is to focus on the positive aspect of your candidates, instead of incoherently attacking. Please, tell us about the great job they done. Likewise, I hope Jake focuses on getting his positive message out to the voters.
Bill, my first sentence above was insensitive. I am sorry.
Right or wrong, I feel that pro-incumbent camp for this election has focused on throwing barbs at the challengers, not on highlighting the accomplishments on the incumbents.
@Greg-
Saying no to large new residential developments is, in fact, a solution to those who view greater density and overcrowded schools as going in the wrong direction. It’s actually a very positive and proactive approach that should be applauded and supported.
Personally, I’m neutral on “growth” in housing stock. What I’m VERY concerned about is how we make decisions. I contrast our approach to the mandated approach in California, where a community’s Master Plan starts from demographic and economic trends, and very deliberately moves toward implications for housing, infrastructure, services, etc. – and in establishing zoning, reviewing development plans, etc. addresses the full range of issues from new infrastructure requirements, impact on traffic, impact on schools, etc.
When WE address development, we seem to immediately start with a bias toward approving a developer’s proposal, and backfilling plans to justify it. Maybe we need more housing, maybe we don’t. But we need to start with a look at what kind of housing, and what approaches can be taken. (For example, replacing multi-family houses with huge, single-family McMansions does not seem to be exactly the wrong way to meet avowed needs for older folks who are downsizing after the kids move out.)
My take is that the structure and process we use for planning and development approval is incredibly dysfunctional (unless you’re a developer), and is precisely the kind of structural issue that can be addressed by a Charter Commission.
Miles Fidelman
facebook.com/milesfidelmanforchartercommission (now with video!)
@MILES I agree understanding the data first makes a ton of sense. The city did an amazing Comprehensive Plan in 2007 that clearly laid out the need for more housing and more variety of housing. This is how the whole Austin St. plan started. I believe you can find this on the city website. There have been many, may regional studies since then that continue to support the need for more housing. One study I think you should look at is http://www.tbf.org/~/media/TBFOrg/Files/Reports/2014%20-%202015%20Housing_Report.pdf done by the Dukakis Center of Northeastern that clearly lays out the regional housing crisis.
@Alicia,
You have to understand that the 2007 Comprehensive Plan was written with a strong inherent bias in favor of housing without an open view of demographic trends that Miles refers to. It was assembled by politicians and planners with an agenda supported by their developer contributors. It’s s seriously flawed prescription that is toxic to the existing fabric of the Garden City and should not be the ongoing basis for decision making going forward such as zoning reform .
If these three challengers win, it will only be a referendum on their masterful spin tactics.
It will be because of their presentation of issues residents are concerned over, their skillful manner of weaving them together and their masterful confusion/distraction tactics. They will have convinced enough voters that they are Newton’s savior.
I think the incumbents and their supporters have posted, talked about and written opinions for the Tab on their various accomplishments. I don’t see that lacking. I wish more voters and opponents had pointed out specific problems with any of the incumbents, past “they don’t listen,” or they are pro all development, vague generalizations. I have learned things from the few who did. It has been interesting, to me, to hear about Alders who argue their points but when it comes to a vote, if it looks like their position won’t win, instead of voting no or abstaining (if there is reason) and going on record, they just leave the room and don’t vote at all. I don’t like their actions or the law that allows it. It’s a political ploy that allows them to say they “didn’t vote against” or “didn’t vote for” depending on expediency.
W know this is politics and there is no “pie in the sky” but wouldn’nt it be great if the sitting members told of their frustrations with each other.
Boards and committees generally do a better job when fresh perspectives and ideas are introduced into the mix but in this particular election, I think there are few challengers who offer real policy ideas or better solutions. Already there are board members who disagree with each other over development so there are voices on each side. The three challengers on a slate together seem to bring nothing to the table but gridlock on their one issue. It doesn’t seem they will be open to listening to any other alternatives. They say their not being heard and represent a large section of Newton but I hear them and they certainly don’t represent many I know in Newton.
So true, Marti. I don’t want to hear our elected officials attacking each other but there is an unwritten code of behavior among aldermen that is taken to an extreme. I’d venture that there are aldermen who would sit quietly while an incompetent or even destructive colleague gets elected mayor rather than publicly share their opinions. I understand the unwillingness to engage in free-for-alls, but I’m not sure the public is helped when elected officials put their relationships with each other over their allegiance to their communities.
Miles, I agree with you maybe 80%. We have no detailed plan for moving forward and desperately need one.
I’m not exactly sure why we don’t have one. I suspect it’s because the Mayor, his staff and the BOA believe it would be a long and arduous process and this piecemeal development is their way to get around having to deal with it. Otherwise, I think one would be in the beginning stages. A bright side to Chapter 40R is that a detailed plan must be submitted and approved first.
I don’t agree that everything is stacked in the developer’s direction. With no master plan for the city, developers must wait years to get an answer costing them money, but still if they are willing to wait out the process, pay the fees and mitigation funds or go to court to build their development, they must be clearing a profit.
I do think too many special permits are approved adding to the large house replacing small house problem.
Alicia, the 2007 Comprehensive plan gets way too much mention and credit. It is a vague document expressing a vision for Newton’s future that itself says a master plan needs to be completed for each village. It has been amended many times over the 8 years since its completion. It can be used to support just about anything. Eight years ago Newton was in a very different place than it is now. The reasoning behind three municipal parking lots being determined surplus has changed too. Newton Center’s is overflowing most of the time. The vitality it was seeking for 3 of Newton’s Villages has happened mostly because of new destination restaurants . Traffic has increased dramatically with more commuters using our streets to by pass the main arteries into/out of Boston and the huge influx of businesses on the 128 corridor.
So using it as “how the Austin Street plan started” is saying Austin Street is based on an old, incomplete document. I think adding the Zone MU4, then surplusing the parking lot years later is because of these changes to Newton with mega land prices, screwy zoning and non enforcement of present zoning (large houses on small lots), and the need now for both affordable housing and “workforce” housing.