Bryan Barash, Rhanna Kidwell, Josh Krintzman, Howard Haywood, Anne Larner, Brooke Lipsitt, Chris Steele, Karen Marring Manning, Jane Frantz
Categories
[youtube-feed feed=1]
Archives
Tags
40B (20)
alien abductions (61)
Alison Leary (19)
Amy Sangiolo (21)
april fools (40)
Austin Street (48)
Barney Frank (76)
Bob Kraft (36)
Brooke Lipsitt (102)
Charter Commission (27)
Chestnut Hill (25)
Chestnut Hill Square (76)
David Fleishman (30)
Donald Trump (25)
Emily Norton (28)
Frank Santo (20)
Gail Spector (18)
history (2269)
jacobson (20)
Jake Auchincloss (38)
Joe Kennedy III (30)
MBTA (25)
NewCAL (23)
Newton (45)
Newton Centre (36)
Newton Highlands (74)
Newton Nomadic Theater (28)
Newton people (19)
Newton Public Schools (19)
Newtonville (60)
NewTV (48)
Northland (34)
politics (83)
recreational marijuana (35)
Ruthanne Fuller (77)
Scott Lennon (44)
Senate (65)
Setti Warren (38)
Susan Albright (26)
trees (39)
Upper Falls (81)
video (23)
Village 14 blog (144)
Washington Place (22)
Webster Woods (21)
ummmm…Gail? You sure? I think you made a mistake.
Bryan Barash…?
Fig: Fixed
Are you sure? Looks to me like Barash got more votes (3965) than Steele (3659).
I missed him the first time too. He blends into the top.
Although I have to say being the first name at the top HAD to be an advantage. And I say that as someone who voted for Bryan!
Congratulations to the winners!! Great looking commission, I expect big things from them.
It’s Karen Manning, not Marring.
Tom, I really respect the hard work you put in with the charter commission. I wish you had been one of the 9.
Congrats to all! The city will be watching this important process.
Outstanding victory for the DEMPAC.
It’s a great pity that we could not have a much more diverse set of folks elected.
However, if they actually reach out to the community and gather all of the ideas and opinions and act on them, they could present an interesting set of options to the voting community when they report.
The lack of diversity on the charter commission, could be countered if they proceed in an unbiased, principled, creative fashion. Possibly 2 or 3 of those elected might be brave enough to go against the DEMPAC rule book.
But that would be a triumph of hope over expectation.
Contrary to DEMPAC nature.
From the outset, it is unlikely that this group would suggest downsizing the city council as that would upset key folks inside the DEMPAC too much.
Newton remains an enclave dominated by one 800 pound gorilla: DEMPAC and it is likely to remain that way until it becomes clear that the gorilla is remaking the city in a new unappealing image and doesn’t have any idea how to solved the unfunded liabilities.
The trajectory of Newton remains the same:
– Upsizing elementary schools into less effective educational mega engines
– Squeezing the garden out of the garden city
– Densifying the villages and making the city less affordable as genuine low rental units disappear and school quality diminishes further under the rising tide of students
– Throwing away commercial property opportunities in favor of residential development, the exact opposite of the recipe to improve Newton’s appeal and bottom line
BUT … Thanks to all of the challengers who ran.
Try again in 2 years when the DEMPAC trajectory will have placed the city in a much worse position and the battle will be on again with a new mayor in the mix, so that the debate on the direction of the city will have much more edge to it.
@Geoff: Post elections are a time when folks need to come together, acknowledge that we all live here and care about our city. As others have done tonight (and I’m sure will continue tomorrow), one congratulates the winners and reaches out to those who worked their butts off but did not prevail. It’s a time for healing, not hate.
Your DEMPAC comment here was inappropriate, cynical and counterproductive.
I’ve resisted saying this until now, but you don’t live in Newton anymore. Maybe it’s time for you to butt out and allow those of us who still call this our home to find common ground and move our community forward.
Thanks Fig.
Thanks to all! Appreciate the broad support for the commission and the question. I think we’ll have a great process and hope you all will come to meetings and stay engaged in the process!
Congratulations to all the winners!
Congratulations. I expect great things from you!
Thank you so much Geoff for your significant comments. We need the truth. We miss you so much as you speak about the true realities of Newton’s financial situation and political faults. If only more residents really understood the false promises of our leaders. Please continue to contribute to the dialogue. We really miss your regular perspective. Without an alternative political view we are truly lost.
Congratulations to all the winners. This has been a great group of candidates. We are all pulling for you to make the most of the next 18 months!
@Greg: I pay more taxes in Newton than you do!
You have to stop this don’t live in Newton ridiculousness.
How about all of the business owners who have operations in Newton but don’t live in Newton?
I happen to be one of those.
I pay taxes but cannot vote but I do continue to influence things as much as I can.
Don’t you recall the no taxes without representation bit in US history!
In Newton, it’s no taxes without a say as far as I figure.
I suppose on your rules I should not have given money to Al Franken when he ran for senate etc
This narrow minded attitude does no-one any good.
There was also no hate in my commentary, so there you go again completely overstating the case and making folks wonder how you can be in such a position at the Chamber.
When pretty much the entire DEMPAC slate got elected to the Charter Commission, one has to make a comment. I am sure you got emailed the slate, so you know I am right.
I await the day when you can offer commentary in a much less biased and distorted manner.
Personal attacks get you nowhere.
I have hope for the charter commission but the starting position is not nearly as good as it should have been to ensure that all voices are heard.
@Geoff,
You raise a very interesting point I had not thought of before. It is rather odd that a business based in Newton can not vote if they do not live in Newton. Seems to me that the owner should have the same right as somebody living here too. I wonder if thats a Charter Commission item.
Indeed, aren’t corporations people?
Adam, you beat me to it- I was not assuming that Simon was literally advocating for giving business the vote.
Presumably business owners are registered to vote somewhere. Do they really expect to have voting privileges in multiple jurisdictions?
Geoff,
I’d be curious what your logic is for the following statements:
– Densifying the villages and making the city less affordable as genuine low rental units disappear and school quality diminishes further under the rising tide of students
– Throwing away commercial property opportunities in favor of residential development, the exact opposite of the recipe to improve Newton’s appeal and bottom line
The market is driving the value of land. And, the antagonism to “densifying” means that the few existing opportunities for multiple family housing will be the targets for developers hoping to do multi-family development. Want more affordable housing? Density is the only way to prevent the high cost of Newton land from keeping out or throwing out low- to middle-income families.
If your argument with density is that it’s going to dilute the quality of education, you have some good arguments. Density will ultimately lower the property tax revenue per pupil. But, any plan that protects low- to middle-income housing opportunities is going to have a depressive impact on property tax per pupil. The best funding solution for education is super low-density near enough to a city center to be attractive for super expensive housing. See, Weston and Wellesley.
So, choose one: housing opportunity or high property tax revenue per pupil. You can’t have both.
And, where are we throwing away commercial property opportunities?
First, congrats to all who ran. It was a class election cycle. Thank you to Marcia Johnson for her years of service. Good luck to the commissioners.
Sean: I would hope that the Charter Commission continues to see the wisdom in the notion that residents, not property owners, should determine matters regarding their community. Property owners had their day in the 19th century.
As for property owner Geoff, I have always been perplexed by this notion of attempting to influence an election the day after ballots have been counted. Either way, this is our public process for deciding City leadership. Whether anyone likes the results or not, those who showed up and voted decided the matter. This is how it works. If anything, now would be the time to begin lobbying the commissioners to look at certain aspects of the Charter.
Should anyone ask: I think that a bicameral system with 16 councilors, 8 at-large, with term limits like the SC, would be ideal.
That sentence “You have to stop this don’t live in Newton ridiculousness” is pretty interesting in an election where so much messaging on one side was devoted to saying what “Newton” wants/should be and how that should *only* be up to the current residents, with no input from young people who might want to come back to where they grew up (but can’t afford to and thus get no say) or potential totally new residents from other communities in Eastern Massachusetts. Just sayin’
They don’t make a Hallmark card for this one, but I wanted to extend my best wishes to all who ran for the charter commission. We enjoyed a sense of camaraderie over the last 3 months that’s often missing in a campaign season. I hope to hear from you in the future and that you stay involved in the charter review process.
I hope one of the first tasks of the Charter Commission will be to set up a way to make it easy for Newtonites to share our thoughts and concerns with you.
Congrats to all.