In the aftermath of last week’s municipal elections — and the resounding reelection of the three aldermen that were targeted to be unseated by the Newton Villages Alliance — Newton TAB editor Andy Levin offers this advice in his latest column:
The NVA’s voice has been heard and its candidates deserve great respect for stepping up. But rather than present itself as representing a majority of residents who are opposed to a Garden City “under siege” by developers, the Newton Villages Alliance would better serve all residents by working to help manage inevitable growth rather than trying to obstruct it.
I respect and love to talk with Andy Levin if for no other reason that he answers his phone directly and has always been honest and straightforward with me. As I stated in another posting, I split my ballot between candidates for both sides in this past election and I have no dog in the fight over Austin Street. But I don’t read the returns as one sided as I think Andy does.
I’ve never been a wizard at math, but one way to look at it is the percentage the newcomers achieved when measured against the vote for the top at-large incumbent from each contested ward. By that measure, Julia Malikie, Chris Pitts, Lynne LeBlanc all scored well above 40% while the incumbents were often only in the mid 50% range of this comparative range.
So, yes, the incumbents beat the newcomers rather decisively, but not by the overwhelming margins that quite frankly I expected they would. I never really thought the newcomers would break 33-35% at best of the vote while the incumbent candidates on the other side would get well over 60% on this scale. Maybe I’m wrong, but I can’t recall many newcomer candidates getting into the mid 40-% range their first time out.
To my way of thinking the real question is was the 40-46% range for the newcomers an aberration for this election only or it a solid base from a new coalition of motivated voters that could grow in strength during the years ahead. I really don’t know and I suspect that nobody else does either.
I’ve only read the paragraph quoted above, but based on that I totally agree with Andy Levin – and I think it is the first time.
There is a lot of valuable talent and expertise among those candidates and the ones I know in the NVA.
Switching gears to working toward putting forward great ideas for keeping people in Newton who are being priced out would be extremely helpful to Newtonville and the rest of Newton.
Bob, it depends totally on why voters voted for them. Did they believe the scare tactic propaganda that Newton would fall into great peril if development isn’t squashed? Or did they genuinely know and respect these candidates and what they, themselves and not the NVA, would bring to decision making in Newton? The latter reason sounds good to me and may affect later elections. But being supported together as a slate by the NVA sounded to me more like trying to stop the discussion altogether.
I like Andy. I think he’s a straightforward and honest guy. But I lost a little respect for him after he editorialized in favor of later high school start times, then turned around and endorsed two incumbents SC members who have done nothing but make excuses about early morning start times.
It hard to know how to interpret this, but only 19% even chose to vote this time around. No mayoral race, no presidential race. Lots of more traditional voters staying home.
For better or worse, elections are decided by the people who voted, not those who might have voted or should have voted.
The results of this election were decisive. The NVA was unable to elect a single candidate who subscribed to the NVA’s fear mongering or inflexible “no growth under any circumstances” mantra.
@Greg, I think you’re attributing way too much power to the NVA. They didn’t exactly raise much money, if the publicly disclosed campaign finance details are any indication. And I’m not sure how much fundraising, if any, they even did. No one asked me to give any money or even hold a sign on election day. I didn’t get the sense there was much going on except via their email alerts.
Jake A. won because of the time and effort he put in, and the $28,000 he spent. Lynne, Julia and Chris raised very little money compared to the incumbents and they were first time candidates. The fact that they did as well as they did, especially in the context of how first time candidates usually do in Newton (they lose), I think the NVA slate did rather well.
If the NVA candidates had raised $25-30K, had hired volunteers to knock on thousands of doors across the city, and had more of a presence leading up to election day (supporters, signs, etc.), then I would interpret these numbers as a defeat.
Instead I interpret the numbers as a great start, in the tradition of winning public office in Newton on the second or third try. If, in two years candidates like those win several seats, we will view this year as the beginning of a trend.
@Steven: My comments were directed at the topic I used to start the thread, not at Lynne LeBlanc, Julia Malakie or Chris Pitts, who are all better people than the hateful NVA rhetoric tainted them by association.
Lynne, Julia and/or Chris could very well sit on our City Council some day. But if they get there, I bet it will be more on their personal reputations as well-rounded members of our community, than as part of the NVA’s “no to everything” dogma.
@Fig: By TAB editorials, I’m guessing you mean Kathleen Kouril Grieser’s columns, not Andy Levin’s editorials, right? If so, I agree. Her infamous “import poor people” coulumn and the NVA’s not-so-thinly veiled swipe at the League of Women voters likely motivated a pro incumbent get out the vote effort.
Steven:
I guess we will have to wait and see. You are entitled to find the silver lining I suppose. But considering that Lynne didn’t place higher than 4th in either election, and that Chris and Julia weren’t close to defeating the candidates who support development even with all the negative publicity generated by NVA, I have trouble reading this election as good news for the NVA side. Sometimes your neighbors like the representation they are getting. Sometimes folks don’t agree with your chosen candidate by large numbers. It is certainly hard for non-incumbents to win, but Jake won by running towards the middle. I think the only way the NVA slate gets elected if is they run for an uncontested seat. You can read into election percentages and fundraising and the unfair nature of incumbency, but the reality is that this election had a powerful “protest” movement that is unlikely to be repeated IMO.
Personally, I think the editorials in the Tab did a great deal of harm. The rhetoric turned a lot of people off. And it certainly motivated the supporters of the incumbents. I think the strategy of NVA was to be a bit bombastic and to generate eyeballs on their issues. I think that is a great strategy if you are fundraising for a non-profit cause, but in a political situation it both encourages your supports AND your opponents. I got far more emails after the final editorial than I did the 8 weeks before.
And regardless, the election is what it is. The NVA slate was defeated. I’m assuming that the lesson from that won’t be lost on the mayor and the aldercritters. The NVA has been very vocal, but there is a majority of voters in each race who did not agree with their positions or their candidates. That is a powerful message sent to our elected officials.
Greg, I agree with your post. And yes, I was not referring to Andy’s columns. But KKG’s last column certainly seemed to motivate folks. And I really didn’t understand it, or the timing of the lawsuit. Anger only carries you so far.
And I certainly could see Julia for instance on the board. As I don’t know Lynne or Chris as well I can’t comment on those folks.
I don’t comment on here often, but I wanted to share my perspective because it’s different than what I have read.
I don’t care much about the Austin Street project. I shop in Newtonville and would welcome more useful local merchants; that’s about it. I make a point to try to vote in every election, and try to make informed choices.
But I actively withheld my vote from every single candidate endorsed by NVA. Why? Keep in mind these are my opinions and I’m not going to defend any of them on here, so don’t bother attacking them.
* Tactics. My impression (right or wrong) is that this group targeted specific standing Aldermen and identified new candidates that could run against them. This rubs me the wrong way. Where were they a few years ago when Ward 3 nearly didn’t have enough candidates to fill the 2 At-Large slots?
* Platform. The very notion of a platform or coalition in local politics rubs me the wrong way. Coalitions (parties) have made national politics ineffective and we need to keep them out of local to the extent we can.
* Illogic. The Tab editorial just prior to election was rightly torn to shreds on this very blog for its logical flaws. Regardless of whether the logical gaps could be or were explained better later, if this is the best position paper this group can put together then I don’t want them representing me.
* Single-issue. We need Aldermen who represent the residents across a wide variety of topics, who will focus their attention on the many problems facing the city. My impression (again, right or wrong) is that the NVA candidates would be laser focused on development and might not give other issues their due attention.
For me, the NVA had a great deal of influence pushing me to NOT vote for Julia and Chris but I voted for both of them anyway. I have worked with Julia through the Newton Tree Commission and with Chris with the Waban Area Council so I have gotten to know them beyond the single NVA mantra. They are thoughtful and deeper than this campaign showed them to be. I could see both of them as City Councilors but agree with others that it is likely in spite of the NVA.
@Greg, my point is that NVA or any other group that sends emails and pens op-ed pieces is not going to unseat incumbents with first time candidates, without intense campaign efforts. Unless you’ve got exit poll data that says a significant number of voters heard the NVA message and voted against their slate because they disagree, there are no conclusions that can be drawn about that effect. I’m dubious about it because I think most people are unaware or at least not thinking deeply about candidates and issues, and are more likely to vote based on allegiances.
Regarding KKG’s column, I thought it was persuasive and chose to read the “import poor people” phrase in the context of her thesis. I.e. a) we have affordable housing for the b) sizable population of low income residents already living here and who are, c) being hurt by the new high priced construction especially when it d) replaces more modestly priced existing housing stock. I get that argument and I don’t think it’s hateful fear mongering. I bet lots of people read it the same way.
But it’s good political strategy to paint it as fear mongering. The more effective arguments against NVA would be things like the law of supply and demand – that increasing the number of housing units should put downward – not upward – pressure on prices, if anything. More options at different price points should not be a bad thing. I’d rather see discussions on those kinds of points.
Steven:
First of all, I agree with your last point, regarding the laws of supply and demand. We can certainly have that discussion if you wish.
Second, I think you are forgetting the column and various discussion points after the preliminary election. NVA was quick to declare victory and discuss how important their efforts had been. They certainly got the greatest amount of media attention. This may be because I live in Ward 2, but every one of my neighbors knew who they were, knew who their candidates were. Lynne knocked on a lot of doors. I got pampleted so many times from the “slate” that I had a small stack, yet I never received anything from Ted or Susan. I did receive multiple mailings from MJ, but not visits.
And while I realize folks tend to vote for incumbents, Susan and especially Ted have been incredibly vocal incumbents on the issues of the day. You say people vote on allegiances. I agree to a point. A logical voter votes based on whether the aldercritter has been doing a good job and whether the voter agrees with the stances for the issues of the day. Ted won easily. Susan won easily. You say that is because the candidates were new. I say it is because the incumbents were good at their jobs and most folks didn’t vote on the narrow band of issues your candidates expressed. That isn’t to say Julia and Chris wouldn’t make good aldercritters.
Finally, regarding the column, I think I’d argue that the column was not persuasive. It misstated the fact that we’d met the 40B requirement (we haven’t by the only opinions that matter, although I acknowledge the city is appealing), it ignored the laws of supply and demand, it ignored the harm that limiting sales of moderately priced homes for teardowns would cause current residents, it proposed no solutions to any of the problems it sought to identify. It was certainly a good media exercise, it got people talking. But I viewed it as more polarizing than persuasive. And in an election where the one challenger to win ran towards the middle, I think polarizing columns were a mistake.
As I’ve said before, this shouldn’t detract from the fact that many of the issues the candidates talked about are real issues that as a community we will continue to talk about and struggle with. I don’t have all the answers regarding smart growth, 40B, unfunded liabilities, etc. You could argue that even by running and forcing aldercritters to consider a potential challenge from NVA backed candidates that NVA made an impact. You could also argue that the NVA issues are what are being talked about, and you’ve moved the needle. I just think your argument that the wins for the incumbents are somewhat less impressive due to the factors you mention doesn’t hold water. They won. By a hefty margin. It was a clear choice by the majority.
And on a side note, Steven, I enjoy your posts.
“only 19% even chose to vote this time around” which says to me, most people in Newton don’t have a strong opinion on Austin St., development or charter reform. Those that do voted and now we know the results.
@Steve. Kathleen’s use of the term “importing poor people” was a poor choice of words, but I don’t think it comes close to being either hateful or a slam at low income people generally. I just reread her TAB article and it’s pretty clear her real reference was to Newton residents who live on very, very low fixed incomes here and these folks do exist right i our midst.
Over the past 20 years, three elderly lifetime Newton residents have asked me to serve as their “medical proxy” because they were living alone and had no surviving family members to help them. One had a good retirement income, but the other two were virtually destitute. In effect, I became partial guardians as well as medical proxy. They lived on tiny social security or medical disability checks which required cuts to their benefits for any additional income they reported. Both relied on under the table support from friends and neighbors to survive with any sense of dignity. Both had subsidized housing here, but they would have been in a horrible circumstance without the unreported support they received from others. I think these were the kind of Newton people Kathleen was referring to; at least that is what I thought when I first read her article in the Tab.
@Bob: The term “import poor people” is right out the Ann Coulter/Tea Party playbook.
Low voter turnout is says more than anything else, to me. People don’t vote because (1) they understand the value of their vote in local elections, (2) don’t know the local elections issues (3) have an inkling of knowledge on what the local elected representatives spend hours debating and due to the demands of everyday life choose to not invest the time into endorsing the emptiness of these conversations with their time – even if it is only to vote yea or nay. Many people who voted for Charter Commission and it’s proposed participants had no idea what this entailed or for whom they voted outside of name familiarity. This has and will always be the case – regardless of the education level of the community. Even when it came to raising their property tax dollars the voter turnout was still 3 out of 10 registered Newton voters.
Agree with Fig and Greg. And just adding,
Bob, you are selling Kathleen Kouril Grieser short. She is an intelligent, gifted writer. She definitely did not make a “poor choice of words,” she knew what she was doing.
Steven, maybe you missed all of the many threads arguing just the points you mentioned and more to explain why the NVA’s platform, that wanted to freeze Newton in time, would not work. And I don’t know anyone who didn’t understand KKG’s true message.
Running on the NVA no growth platform hurt the challengers who stuck with their rhetoric. I think the idea that these candidates lost because no one knew them falls apart because Julia is active in Newton in so many different ways that most people do know her. I agree that if these candidates distance themselves from the NVA, develop a platform of their on and run individually they have a good chance in the next election.
Bob, what I don’t understand is how the McMansion’s and other things NVA is against harms your elderly friends in financial distress. I suppose her thesis is that rising property values hurts due to increased taxes? But property taxes don’t go up based on your neighbors home, but on overall value, which is dictated as much by the larger Boston real estate market as anything else. Is it simply that more apartments means more kids, which means higher taxes? Or was her argument just that we’ve got people suffering already, so we should focus on them? Why can’t we do that and build more housing too?
Anyway, I do think that folks like Jeffrey and Steven do far more for the non-development crowd than the NVA folks. I appreciate having my arguments tested and examined, in my mind that is a great use of a blog like this, the open exchange of ideas. I’d rather do that than call folks out on their bull.
So, does anyone know how the land use meeting went last night?
@Fig and Marti. I never implied or even thought that a McMansion anywhere in Newton would have harmed the 2 people I referenced. And I know that much more than what is being built here is driving the increase in housing prices and rental costs. I used these 2 simply to show that there are people already in Newton who are living on the edge and need help. I thought it at least possible that those were the kind of people Kathleen was referring to. And I only objected to having Kathleen’s positions described as somehow framed to engender various forms of “fear” and intolerance in Newton. This was as over the top as charges I heard during the campaign that those supporting Austin Street were only in hock to developers and took their marching orders from them. I know too many civic minded supporters of Austin Street and smart growth generally to know that this simply is not true. The good and bad of Austin Street gets obscured by charges that get overly personal.
Lately, I’ve become a bit sensitive to unfounded charges wherever they come from. Bernie Sanders is my candidate and I sputtered a few obscenities when he was accused of being sexist by Hillary Clinton and her spokespeople. Hillary was referencing remarks Sanders made in their first debate about not raising our voices against each other over gun issues. She stated in a subsequent speech that the charge about “raising voices” was directed at her because she’s a woman. it didn’t matter that Bernie had stated this many times before that first debate. And this was after Bernie had the decency (some would say the foolishness) to give her a pass on the email controversy.
I’ve been guilty of uttering some such charges against people over the years, but I’ve learned they cause long term harm and seldom produce the desired result over the long haul.
@Greg. I have to admit I’ve never read anything by Ann Coulter and don’t intend to start now, but thanks for that reference.
Who the heck is this fig dude?
Why do you assume Fig is a “dude”? 😉
@Marti, I did read many of the earlier comments, but feel free to link to something persuasive because I may have missed it.
Criticizing the NVA for focusing on candidates’ stances on development issues would be like criticizing NARAL for recommending candidates based on their abortion positions (I don’t know if they do or don’t, but it’s a hypothetical.) Complaining about snout houses, McMansions and dense apartment complexes is the NVA’s raison d’etre, so expect them to say which candidates support their mission. Voters ought to be able to tune them in or tune them out as they wish.
However, I do see a problem with a group that becomes a polarizing force putting their stamp of approval on candidates who don’t seek it and may not see the association as good strategy for themselves. If I were an independent candidate trying to project an image of thoughtful, open-mindedness, I’d be concerned about getting the kiss of death from a single issue group – esp one that is in opposition to a more powerful group. I would certainly want the courtesy of being asked in advance if I thought their recommendation would help or hinder my chances.
I don’t see any fear mongering being done by NVA. I do think they made a mistake not divulging who was behind the organization because that engendered a kind of bogeyman hysteria about who this shadowy anti- group was. It almost made the whole election into something befitting an episode of Scooby Doo.
By the way, in case I seem to be trying too hard to put them into perspective, I should say that I’m not in the NVA, never been to one of their meetings, and have never shown up to protest any development project in the city. I am on their mailing list because one of the founders is a soon-to-be former colleague on the NHNAC, who told me about it when they launched. So I signed up, but I rarely read the emails due to lack of time and brain cycles.
Correction – I have shown up to protest the Zervas rebuild. I guess the pain from spending a year trying to reason with officials about that project caused me to block it out of my mind. I was referring to residential and commercial development protests. (By the way, I saw that NVA does list neighborhood schools in their agenda.)
Sorry for three comments in a row, but …
@fig I appreciate for the compliment. I have enjoyed many of your comments as well, “dude”.
For what it’s worth, I always assumed Fig was a dudette.
Janet:
I’m a big fan of Fig Newtons. But mostly I’m a cookie handle and not a full name because (1) it was how I started here, (ii) my spouse would be annoyed at seeing how much time I spent posting, and (iii) I have a probably unfounded worry that my job would be annoyed at how much time I spend posting, and (iv) I tend to be a conflict avoider and the handle probably makes me a bit more brave.
A few folks pointed out earlier in the year that my posts were trending towards the snarky, and I’ve tried to focus on not doing that, since I think snarky didn’t add much value to the conversations. I do hate bull though, so if I think someone is just making something up, I tend to get annoyed.
I’ve lived in Newton for about a decade, and before the Tab blog (and now this blog) I found it hard to be connected to the city in a meaningful way. Most of my Newton news comes from this blog and my neighbors, and occasionally reading the Tab. What I enjoy most about the blog is the push and pull of the conversations. Hence why I am eager for folks who disagree with me to stay as blog posters.
If folks are really worried I’m a sock puppet for developers or someone else, I’d be fine with meeting up with Greg or Dan F. for coffee. Greg has my email too.
I’ve never found Fig to be snarky, but his/her latest contributions have been very insightful.
Jane, thank you. I admit to being occasionally snarky. Don’t blog hungry folks. I’m like a real life snickers candy bar commercial.
I learned the hard way to avoid Friday evenings for the same reason. It was never pretty.