Question 1: Is it fair to say that the recent, contested aldermanic races constituted, in large part, a referendum on density, urbanization, and the proposed development on Austin Street?
Question 2: If so, what do the results tell us about the city’s appetite for new residential development?
Question 3: What, if any, guidance should sitting aldercritters take from the election results when they are asked to vote on the Austin Street project later this month?
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
I think NVA certainly thought it was going to be a referendum, and if so, then they must be disappointed.
I’m not sure much of the city was all that focused on the development issue.
I think the board should just review Austin St on its merits. I don’t think the election results speak to that at all.
Don’t read into the the results as a density mandate. As a candidate I was both endorsed by regular people, that also grouped together to form the Newton Village Alliance; and then almost losing to another NVA endorsed candidate. Personally, I can attest that the outreach was extremely effective.
As a first term Alderman I was the most vulnerable, and not being endorsed by the Democratic ticket, created a heavy duty get out the vote effort from my campaign to those unenrolled.
The magnitude of the challengers efforts was huge in that you had a group of relatively unknown candidates taking on incumbents and gaining huge voting numbers. Look at the results: In Ward 3 an incumbent came very close to losing, in W2 an incumbent lost, and impressively, the 4th place finisher had a large vote count. In W5, the two incumbents won, but the voting margin between the top 2 finishers tightened to a toss-up, and the 3rd place finisher gained huge numbers. Ward 8 had their own dynamics in play and you can see that the candidate not backed by anyone finished a distant 3rd.
I do not feel entitled to my seat, and I believe that all Aldermen should feel the same way, welcoming challengers is part of what this country is all about. The founding fathers never envisioned lifelong politicians, they envisioned serve and let the next one serve. Veterans have answered the call to duty for 240 years to give people these rights.
These candidates were not just endorsed by the NVA, but by many thousands of others, as they gained votes from people with concerns about their city. Take out the “automatic” party voters and you may have seen more incumbent turnover.
Looking forward, these candidates can only get stronger by the next election, something you should be excited about!
Oh, and I had my challengers lawn sign on my lawn, and would have had the others as well but was never asked.
1) I think if the NVA won they would have declared it a referendum. It clearly wasn’t a referendum for their candidates, since none of their endorsed challengers won (Brian and James were incumbents and someone HAD to win those seats). Lynne placed 4th and couldn’t beat either incumbent. Susan placed 1st. Hard for NVA to claim any kind of mandate for those numbers.
I also think for every vote NVA brought to the table, they managed to mobilize an equal opposition vote.
If there is a referendum, is that that NVA and the anti-development voters are clearly a minority voting bloc by a significant margin. NVA’s editorials claimed victory in the preliminary election, but when the dust settled its candidates lost. I can’t claim that means folks agree with all density/smart growth, but it does mean I think that they DON’T agree with NVA (at least the majority doesn’t).
2) I think a large portion voted on other issues as well, but that it means that the city isn’t majority opposed to new development.
3) I think the aldercritters now know that the NVA and its allies don’t speak for the majority of Newton voters. They should continue to press the developer of Austin Street to get the best deal possible, but they now have the option to vote to approve knowing that the majority is behind them, and that a significant portion of voters will hold them accountable if they vote to deny a permit. I say the “option” to vote to approve, since they should be voting on the merits, as Dan F. says. But politically, it is now possible to vote to approve.
Congrats on your win, Jim. It has to feel even better in that you had competition this time around. Keep up the good work!
I was part of the 7/8ths of Newtonites and 4/5ths of registered voters who didn’t vote on Tuesday, and for what it’s worth, the issues of density, urbanization, and Austin Street are of absolutely no importance to me.
Having spent most of my life in Needham and Newton, I view this area quite simply for what it is: a safe neighborhood of Boston with decent schools and relatively easy access to the center of the city.
Beyond that, I’ve never understood the inordinate amount of energy that people in this area have wasted in a futile attempt to shape the “character” of the place.
These two towns (Needham and Newton) have never in all my years been places of beauty or character – not by a long shot. Instead, they’ve always been stuffed to the brim with functional but mostly ugly and architecturally insignificant housing stock, connected by poorly-designed and overcrowded secondary roads, and violated by a couple of repugnant interstate highways. Throw in a smattering of ugly commercial areas like Highland Av., Needham St., and Washington St. and they’re quite similar to the typical American suburban agglomeration.
Your kids will get a good education here and you don’t need to worry too much about getting mugged. On the other hand, your commute is always going to get longer, your neighbors (be they families, corporations, or interstate highways) might irritate you every once in a while or on a regular basis, the view out your window is going to be a mix of cars, neighboring buildings, and a smattering of trees, and commercial development is always going to be of the bland, piecemeal suburban variety.
This is what I’ve learned to expect, based on my own personal experience. Are there Newtonites who have come to expect something different?
As others have said, the NVA folks sought a mandate for their no growth agenda and they certainly did not get it.
Lynne LeBlanc and Chris Pitts ran well behind the other candidates, and Julia Malakie came far closer to unseating her fellow slate member Ald. Cote than to unseating Ted. The only non-incumbent elected Tuesday was a well-organized, well-funded candidate who worked hard and ran in part on a platform of creating vibrant, walkable communities through smart residential development in village centers.
The low turnout – on par with other recent municipal elections – itself disproves the idea that a significant percentage of the electorate was only waiting for the chance to “throw the bums out” over development issues.
To a point Michael, when he alluded to Newton and Needham not being “places of beauty.” I’d take that a step further and opine that our village centers as a whole, and that includes Newtonville where I live, are not all that attractive as is; they are all pretty dated.
The Austin St. development has provided an opportunity not only to upgrade the looks of the ugly parking lot, but to potentially spruce up other facets of the village. What an awful development that would be!
Dan, I agree with your last paragraph, as one of the key reasons I support the project is so the rest of the village gets both a small gathering area AND gets spruced up. The project is not supposed to happen in a vacuum.
One of my neighbors recently described Newtonville as the place where you run your errands, get back in your car, and leave. Where do you drink a cup of coffee with friends outside in Newtonville?
We can change that.
@fig, so what is it about the first paragraph you don’t agree with? Do you think the village centers as is ARE attractive?
+1 on both of Dan’s paragraphs.
With due respect to Newtonvillers, I’ve always been afraid of Newtonville because of the intimidating and nerve-grating presence of the Pike – and the ugly parking lots (Austin St. and Star Market’s) only add further insult to the senses.
In Paris, at the Porte de Vanves in the 14th arrondissement, the city paid $60 million to cover 1,300 feet of ugly, sunken highway (the Périphérique, very similar in structure to the Pike) and replace it with parks, playgrounds, and urban woodland. It’s now a beautiful and genuinely enjoyable place with healthier air quality and a reduction in noise pollution of up to 11 dB.
Of course, I know better than to ever expect any such humanistic improvements in this neck of the woods.
But note that the Ward 2 vote count was:
Auchincloss – 944
Albright – 791
LeBlanc – 787
Johnson – 645
So I think that should be taken as a pretty strong indication that the Ward 2 voters who are most affected by Austin St are pretty unhappy with the current direction of that project.
The city would do well not to jam a project down their throats without big changes.
@Michael: I agree that the Peripherique is pretty ugly and a traffic nightmare. It would be great to have the Pike covered over and Exit 17 shifted to Brighton. That together with the option of ordering une boule in the US would make my day.
@Geoff from Framingham: Great suggestion that we should listen to the residents in our own community!
@Geoff, as a heads-up in case you weren’t already aware, Frenchmen often get in trouble using that word in Quebec, so attention!
I also looked at the numbers and saw the same thing as Geoff: more votes for NVA candidates. But I come to a slightly different conclusion.
First, it’s possible that the issue itself is a bit more important and of interest to that group of people, so those who were more engaged came out and voted. Given that turnout numbers for Ward 2 tended to be on the higher side overall would support that. However, I should note that Ward 2 was not the highest voting ward in terms of numbers.
Also, NVA candidates won in some other wards that were nowhere near Austin Street. It’s possible that the candidates just did more work in those areas. I know, for example, that all the NVA candidates were out in force at Newtonville Village Day. That effort could have played a role in the numbers.
It’s a lot to read from a small sample size and a big leap to say that it’s clear the people closest to the village don’t want Austin Street.
However, assuming that those living right there don’t want it, is that how we want to govern our city? Do we want the villages making decisions entirely on their own, regardless of the greater interests if the city? If that’s the case, then should we divide the city into 13 separate municipalities, each with their own zoning boards?
Chuck, from what’s been said during this election, I think that is exactly the outcome some, in several villages, are looking for.
But I don’t accept the hypothesis that “people close to the village don’t want Austin Street.” So hopefully we will stay together as a city with objectives that put emphasis on what’s best for each village and for the city as a whole.
@Michael: Thanks for the heads up. I was thinking of une boule for ice cream where it is OK!
@Dan Fahey, fignewtonville
I agree that a spruce up would be great.
I am in Newtonville every week and would love to have a great lunch place to go to where it has an outside area with some shade trees and attractive plantings. But also has a great inside area for cold weather and dinner [@Michael, something like Les Deux Garcons, as I recall, in Aix en Provence, in fact see: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Les+Deux+Gar%C3%A7ons/@43.5270248,5.4506441,3a,75y,294.18h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQNYGz-yIxRt2wv5sZqKyyw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DQNYGz-yIxRt2wv5sZqKyyw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D301.76431%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!1m2!2m1!1srestaurants!3m1!1s0x0000000000000000:0x86e47706bcc0122c!6m1!1e1 , for a great way the Newtonville parking lot could serve as an expansion area for restaurants in that area]
The residential component of any spruce up is much less important to me. I’d love to have much more domination of the commercial piece to make the place attractive to customers.
Add an Asian market, and it would be even more attractive.
Add a book store for browsing and you got me.
@Greg,
Geoff may now live in Framingham, but I think he made it pretty clear on another thread that he is still a property owner here in Newton. Does a person have to actually live in Newton to have a voice here when they have a vested interest in the City? I think you would agree that an individual who owns a business here, but does not live here still has a strong interest in the city, no? If you are intent upon calling him out as “Geoff from Framingham” then perhaps it is more accurate to say “Geoff from Framingham who still pays taxes in Newton”. (JMHO of course – carry on, carry on.)
@Lisap: Good question. I’m glad you asked it.
It is entirely reasonable and appropriate for a property owner to have a vested interest in city matters as it relates to their investment; for example, road and sidewalk conditions, public safety, infrastructure, tax rates, regulations, parking, trash, even the quality of our schools, insofar as they relate to property values.
But non-residents should butt-out of deliberations about. for example, the design of our charter. And they certainly should not have a role in deciding which Newton residents should be on our Charter Commission.
Geoff Epstein has attacked the integrity of the process; the Newton residents who’ve raised their hands to serve; and the Newton voters who selected them of their own free will.
Plus, Epstein’s oh-so-repetitive rants remind me of some crank you’d hear on talk radio, hence “Geoff from Framingham” seems like an appropriate nickname.
I agree with Jim Cote that this wasn’t as much a referendum on development as it was a collection of issues that pulled in several different directions. I mentioned earlier how my 6 AM yoga class at the Y was focused on a range of development issues, but now I have to add that a senior water aerobics session I do twice a week showed a different twist. There the seniors in the water (some in their 90’s) were all strong supporters of Susan Albright, Brian Yates and Marcia Johnson because they had worked with them on several issues over the years and they were familiar with what all three had done for the City in many areas.
I also want to say something about Jim Cote. I know he’s a Republican and I hope I won’t be excommunicated from any political party, church, organization or institution for letting everyone know that I readily gave him a vote on Tuesday. I got to know Jim during the campaign and I found him open, tolerant, thoughtful, principled, direct and very knowledgeable. He also has a great sense of humor. What really iced the cake was the work he’s done for Habitat for Humanity and other affordable housing initiatives. Here’s a Republican who is deeply involved in a program that was essentially started by Jimmy Carter because it’s the right thing to do. That’s walking the walk.
Finally, I predicted before the election that none of the first time candidates (except Jake) would garner more than a third of the vote at best that the top incumbent received. In fact, all the newcomers (except for Frank Wolpe who didn’t ally himself with other candidates) ran at 40 percent or better to the top challenger.
The moral of this is join the Y if you really want to know what’s going on.
Could be.
Greg, do you think that the veracity or lack thereof of Geoff’s argument is a function of his location? If so, if he lived in Newton, do you think his argument would be different?
@Jeffrey: It’s not about the “veracity” of Epstein’s comments, it’s about the appropriateness of someone who does not live here seeking to influence how many aldermen we might have, if we have a strong mayor or a city manager, etc. or to criticize the individuals Newton voters elected of their own free will to serve on Newton’s Charter Commission.
@Native: Thanks for pointing that out. This blog exists to provide a forum for conversation and a platform for differing views about all things related to Newton. Epstein seems to want his right to criticize Newton, but if I exercise my right remind readers that he doesn’t live in Newton, I’m repressing his speech.
None of Geoff from Framingham’s comments have been removed/repressed from this blog.
@Greg:
The first sign of trouble in any locale is when free speech is repressed.
That is what you are trying to do and what you have attempted to do in the past.
I have a right to an opinion even if I live in Timbuktu.
My commentary was normal post election analysis.
You don’t have an election, say what a jolly outcome, and hail fellow well met to the winners.
There are real problems in Newton and each election affirms those problems.
You are an active defender of the status quo and all of these personal attacks are part of that defense.
I have property in Brookline as well and I lived there for 8 years and had my oldest sone go through the Brookline school system and from what I see that town has a much healthier political climate than Newton and in multiple instances has lead to Brookline being well ahead of Newton in its decision making process.
They don’t kill off independents in a DEMPAC crush. They welcome new opinions.
Here are some differences:
Brookline has:
– Spanish and mandarin from K onwards funded by an override
– Teachers in the GIC
– Now they are considering another school to handle population pressure
– An engineering track in HS funded through the Brookline Foundation, including teachers’ salaries, well ahead of any Newton STEM action
– Passed a debt exclusion for school improvements by a margin of 80 to 20, compared to Newton’s 60 to 40
While we have:
– Two middle school right next to each other
– Wasted tens of millions of dollars on NNHS
– Are dismantling our successful neighborhood school model
– Have opposed adding another elementary school
– Are now taking action to change the village character in Newton and make the population pressure on the schools worse
– Attempted to put capital projects into operating overrides rather than debt exclusions until forced by the state to at least split their projects out into debt exclusions
– Stuck Zervas into the operating override so that the community could never have any say on the scope of the project or its design
Brookline may not be perfect but it does not suffer from the crushing effect of a DEMPAC and that matters a great deal in achieving best practices and not wasting tax payer money.
The talent pool in DEMPAC is way too small for Newton to rely on, to get anything like the best thinking applied to its problems.
Brookline doesn’t have attack dog presidents of the local chamber of commerce pouring scorn on folks who are genuinely trying to move the municipality in a better direction.
And finally, the charter has a huge influence on how the city is governed and, when Newton is in such serious OPEB trouble and suffering from a rising student population encouraged by local government actions, it is totally appropriate to ask how the charter can be changed to foster a much better approach to democracy and problem solving in Newton.
That matters to residents and to small business owners and no president of the local chamber of commerce should be dictating what subjects local business owners can speak about.
It’s oppressive and shows terribly poor judgment.
Can the “host” of a blog, which invites open discussion, really be accused of stifling free speech? While I will admit that Greg can be snarky at times, so, too, can his critics (Geoff). But dictating our views and what subjects we can talk about? Nah.
It’s clear that Greg does not agree with the first amendment to the US constitution.
Geoff,
I find some of your comments interesting and insightful, given your background. I don’t often agree, but I do respect your opinion.
However, saying that “Greg does not agree with the first amendment to the US constitution” is not only laughable, but it undercuts everything you hope to convey. The fact that you’re saying it on a blog that Greg runs and leaves open to your comments, even though he has no obligation to do so, brings the term “irony” to a whole new level.
Just so you’re aware, as it’s clear you’re not, the first amendment guarantees rights in regards to individuals and the government. Greg isn’t the government. He’s a private citizen with a private blog that he has opened to the community.
When you make comments like this it makes it very difficult to take your other arguments seriously.
Geoff: Rather than giving money to a Newton PAC, perhaps your dollars would have been better spent here.
For those of you who think the right to free speech extends to a privately held forum, please read carefully:
It says “Congress.” It doesn’t say “Greg.” You can stand on the corner and say what you like, you can create your own blog, but you don’t get to insert your own thoughts into someone else’s work without their consent. It’s pretty simple.
Oops. Chuck beat me to it.
I do hope the charter commission does consider adding a “Greg shall make no law … ” provision to the city charter.
I guess that I think the Constitution has some pretty good principles embedded in it which apply to other territory than the that Congress operates in.
Free speech should be supported on this blog. Maybe folks think that is not true or that all participants should be vetted for whether they live in Newton or not and then told what they are allowed to blog about.
I think that at this juncture, I am the only contributor to this blog who has been rapped on the knuckles for daring to comment on Newton government but does not live in Newton.
If folks on this blog think it is quite fine that Newton has 50% of its voters being independent but has pretty much 100% of elected municipal officials Democrats, then they are entitled to their opinion.
But I think that is a matter that the Charter Commission should look at very carefully to see why it that 50% of the voters in Newton are not represented in their government.
Tom Sheff’s point about the Election Commission is well taken. There are no independents on it even though they make up 50% of the registered voters.
To enlarge the canvas a great deal more, just because things are legal doesn’t mean they are good.
Democracy in Newton is not in great shape.
Just like because of entirely legal gerrymandering, the US Congress no longer represents the population fairly. If it did, it would be Democrat.
Many times the principal problems in a community are uncomfortable to talk about.
The troubled state of democracy in Newton is one.
But it is my experience that if subjects are aired, even if uncomfortable, then progress will eventually be made.
So I shall continue to blog on any topic, despite the persistent personal attacks delivered by Greg.
@Geoff from Framingham: I’m sure I’ll just be banging my head against the wall with no benefit asking, but please explain to us non-constitutional scholars exactly how your speech is being repressed by my allowing you to comment ad nauseam on this blog?
Oh, and why do you want to repress me from referring to you as “Geoff From Framingham”?
This is endless.
I will now cease to blog on Village 14.
Seems like we’ve heard that one before.
So how about “Greg from the Chamber of Commerce ” ?
Bill, that would
greatly infringe on my free speech rightsbe true.And what Gail said.
The “Crazy Hour” is here.
@ Greg from the Chamber of Commerce,… indeed that’s true and apparently you are proud of it. Sadly, to measure development in Newton by the $ sign, in a discussion like ” Referendum on Density , urbanization, and the proposed development on Austin Street “, warps and manages the message that small minded $ sign bean counters can only reference to. So continue to frame the discussion from your limited perspective and we will all watch ( and live with ), the results,.. Like a 96% incumbent packed BoA, traffic jambs, diminished aesthetics , loss of green space and general quality of life.
To summarize my day on Village 14..
1. One participant accused me of not liking or understanding the First Amendment and accused me of repressing his speech, even though none of his comments have been removed or repressed.
2. A second participant appears to be gleeful that he exposed the fact that I work at the Chamber of Commerce.
Can’t wait to see what tomorrow brings.
,.. And general diminished quality of life.
The 50% (not quite) of voters that Geoff keeps referring to are not independent, they are unenrolled. Could it be that some people that are unenrolled are not interested in municipal politics? Some people are unenrolled not because they are such independent thinkers but because they don’t want to be labeled and connected to a party. I know plenty of liberals who are unenrolled and vote for candidates because they share the same ideology or because they don’t like the conservative viewpoint of the other candidate so they end up voting for democrats whether they know it or not. So how would you know that unenrolled voters aren’t being represented? Clearly a candidate doesn’t have to be unenrolled to represent a significant number of voters in Newton.
I didn’t see the list of candidates from either the NDCC or the NRCC or check out the party affiliation of candidates, except for one. I also didn’t know which elected officials were enrolled in a party. I have seen them now because of links posted after the election on V14, and forgotten them again. When I checked my list for charter commission with the NRCC list, I had 4 who they said definitely not to vote for, 3 they said were Ok and 2 who were just listed as running.
Speaking for myself only:
I am unenrolled purely because Massachusetts allows me to vote in either party primary- so in years like 1996 and 2012 I could vote in the Republican presidential primary as the Democratic incumbent was unopposed (reverse the parties for 2004, but same principle). That’s pretty much it.
The other consideration- or lack of one, is that I don’t consider party at all (or very little in any case) in the local races. I never felt that it mattered much, despite the efforts of DEMPAC or DEMBONES or whatever these organizations are to sway the vote. I assume most of the candidates are “D” merely due to local demographics, but really have no idea.
(fwiw, I understand the distinction between “independent” and unenrolled” and that distinction was probably coined at least in part for people like me)