Tags: Newton’s Land Use Committee approved the proposed mixed use project at Austin Street Thursday night, 6-1, with one abstention.
Voting in favor Marc Laredo, Greg Schwartz, Scott Lennon, Susan Albright, Deb Crossley, Rick Lipof
Opposed: Jim Cote
Abstained: Jay Harney
The project now goes to the full board Monday night, Nov. 16, where the vote is expected to be much closer. It’s likely that the full board won’t vote Monday and that the decision will be delayed until December.
UPDATE: Boston Globe story here
Like.
Why did Alderman Harney abstain?
According to a couple of tweets I saw, he’d been sick and hadn’t had a chance to catch up on his emails. https://twitter.com/JuliaMalakie/status/665026525058768896
Despite this endorsement from our “representative” government the people’s vote is still 606 opposed to the Austin St Development vs 385 in favor of the project.
606 vs 385 of the people “who signed petitions” not the “people’s vote.”
As one who creates a lot of on-line polls, I believe I’m more than qualified to warn how unreliable they are as a any measure of public sentiment.
Janet, if you would like to go strictly by petitions (which I wouldn’t recommend…), the Friends of Austin Street petition had 706 signatures as of 11/12/15.
How ’bout that, you know, kinda official thing that was like an internet poll, but it used paper and you had to go someplace and get the paper and then put it in a machine? You couldn’t actually say “I like intense development” or “Don’t you dare add one more unit of housing to my village center,” but you could kinda, you know, express a preference for one position or the other by picking a person who, sorta, lined up with your position.
How did that turn out?
@Native Newtonian, please share the link to the petition supporting your comment.
I believe some guy named Greg from Needham is discrediting online petitions (even tho he is an admitted heavy user of online petitions and appears to advocate for this when public opinion is in his favor).
@Sean, are you implying that local elections matter? Or am reading too much into you comment 🙂
@Sean
Just to know what you’re talking about:
Are you talking about that kinda official thing where many people don’t really clarify their specific positions to stay under the radar on divisive issues so few people are going to the polls even aware of what they believe?
Or the kinda official thing where less than 20% of voters participate?
Or the kinda official thing where the people who are incumbents win 95% of the time?
I’m good with a kinda official thing on the actual issue in question– you too or do you just like pretending that the current system is working well?
Janet, you can find the link within the body of the website for Friends of Austin Street – friendsofaustinstreet.org
So Paul, what would you suggest? We go by letter writing campaigns for every issue? Because it does seem to me that if your candidates had actually won at the polls, you’d be signing a very different tune…
Look, I’ve got no idea if the Aldercritters actually have enough courage to vote for something even remotely controversial. I get the sense that many of them are on the fence. Some of them seem to be on the fence out of fear of taking a controversial stand. I hope they understand that it will be controversial either way they vote, and resolve to just vote for whatever they feel is best for Newton. It is always hard to get to a supermajority, but we will see how it goes I guess.
But the election did happen. Incumbents winning could mean that folks don’t care, or…it could mean the incumbents are doing a good job and your opinions are in the minority. No shame in that, my opinions are in the minority a great deal of the time.
But resting your argument on emails to aldercritters or online polls and discounting the value of actually voting kinda sorta makes me feel you aren’t serious. Kinda sort.
Yes, Groot.
Paul, first of all, I laughed through your entire comment. Well done.
Look, municipal elections — heck municipal governments — are flawed. Particularly in Newton. No question. But, they are the mechanism(s) we’ve got for expressing our preferences on a variety of issues. And, I’d put them up against online polls or a count of for/against emails.
As for your suggestion of a referendum, count me heavily against. Referenda are a lousy way to run a city. For one, they channel decisions to be narrowly cast and decided on, when they require a broader context.
I found the falsely-named ‘petition’ to which Native Newtonian is referring. It is a not a petition. It is a compilation of names and not actual signatures. I saw many names on this list of people whom I know are against this project.
BTW the online petition against the proposed development has grown since this thread has been up! 😀
For me, the icing on the cake, or maybe nail in the coffin is a better metaphor, for this misbegotten project, was when attorney Schlesinger got up and said they’d agree to no banks or nail salons for five years. This was right after Emily Norton said this project would be a huge failure if all we got was banks and nail salons. Five years? That’s all they’re willing to promise?
This is a perversion of what we’ve been led to believe about ‘Mixed Use.’ It’s luxury residential with a fig leaf of commercial so they can call it Mixed Use. I would be embarrassed to call this Mixed Use.
Even Deb Crossley, in arguing for parking flexibility, said (and I think I got this quote exact while live-tweeting the last hour or so last night) “this is such a tiny amount of commercial space.”
And that’s just one problem. We’re being asked to take it on faith that all the units would count on the Subsidized Housing Inventory. I have no faith that DHCD or HAC will count them. Let’s get that in writing before any vote.
If you don’t want to wait for the audio to appear on the Land Use page on the city website, you can listen to last night 11/12 and also Tuesday 11/10 here:
http://yourlisten.com/NewtonVillagesAlliance/land-use-committee-austin-st-nov-12-2015
Tweets at twitter.com/NewtonVillages (minus 40 minutes or so when the iPad battery died 🙁 )
Julie,
Imagine a development proposal with more commercial space. What would the anti’s have demanded? My guess, more parking. The parking demands are (at least in part) what constrain the benefits that this project could deliver.
I feel like Jan Brady: Parking, parking, parking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICVXf8Vznec
@Sean
Clearly voting results are a more legitimate indicator than non-scientific polls and email counts, but I think we should take caution in over-interpreting results. Particularly in an election where many aldermen have not been clear on their intent and turnout so extremely low.
On the referendum question– as I’ve said before, we’re due for a referendum on an overall approach to growth. Not an individual projects, which would create havoc, but an overall plan. We currently lack a coherent comprehensive plan, nor clear support from the citizens that more growth is desired. For an issue that has such strong feelings on both sides, the city would be well-served by a one-time, transparent, democratic process on whether people in Newton actually desire growth beyond state requirements.
@ Fig
“Look, I’ve got no idea if the Aldercritters actually have enough courage to vote for something even remotely controversial. I get the sense that many of them are on the fence.”
Your words. That’s precisely my point in claiming any evidence of democratic support for Austin St. People don’t know if they voted for incumbents who support it or oppose it.
“But resting your argument on emails to aldercritters or online polls and discounting the value of actually voting kinda sorta makes me feel you aren’t serious. Kinda sort.”
As I’ve said before, stop putting words in people’s mouths. Stop knocking down straw men that I didn’t make. I didn’t say a word about the legitimacy of online polls or emails. I think both are silly data points. But as I’ve written, I don’t think the election provides much evidence one way or the other either.
Your inability to articulate your viewpoint without making stuff up kinda sorta makes me feel you aren’t serious. Kinda sort.
Huh? I can’t recall a Newton municipal election where the intent of the candidates was clearer. We had a slate of three no-growth candidates taking on four smart growth candidates. Three of those smart growth folks decisively finished first in their contests. The fourth was defeated by a non-slate challenger who spent a lot of time saying he favored smart growth too.
There is no other possible way to interpret the results. None.
You’ve never demonstrated being intellectually honest in your discourse with me in the past, so I don’t know even know why I’m responding, but I’ll try you one more time:
There are multiple other ways to interpret the results, and they are reasonable to boot:
Is a 25% challenger success rate better than average? Given the incumbency advantage highlighted in the other thread, does it really make sense to say that multiple of them had to win to prove the point?
Malakie went against an Alderman with some of the highest name recognition, having previously run for Mayor. She lost roughly 55-45. Again, given incumbency advantage, being even greater in this case, isn’t 45% a surprisingly high showing exceeding historical norms for a first-time challenger?
Was there ever a case where two challengers beat BOTH incumbents in the same Ward? Was that even a reasonable expectation?
You’ve got the talking points down well– spoken like a true partisan in a spin room. But you’re talking about four data points, thinking in overly simplistic binary terms of wins and losses instead of vote percentages, completing ignoring the systematic advantages with incumbency and looking solely in absolute terms rather than relative to historical norms.
So, yeah– if you ignore all of that, then perhaps you’re limited to thinking about the results in one way.
Paul:
You were responding to a post from Janet where she gave more weight to the “people’s vote”, instead of an actual vote. I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth, just taking your post in context. So basically, you were discounting actual election results, but don’t claim any support of online polls or petitions. Fine, I stand corrected. You never did address my point about how if your candidates had won that you’d be talking up the importance of the election, but that’s ok. Would you feel any election is legitimate? If Julia/Chris/Lynne had one, would you be complaining about incumbents not being honest and low turnout? From your initial post, the only clear evidence that would convince you that the system was “working” would be if your candidates won. Because fewer incumbents winning and clearly folks saw the light of wisdom of YOUR candidates. That’s not a broken system, Paul. That’s just your not liking the election results.
As for your comment about my post:
I said: “Look, I’ve got no idea if the Aldercritters actually have enough courage to vote for something even remotely controversial. I get the sense that many of them are on the fence.”
You said: “Your words. That’s precisely my point in claiming any evidence of democratic support for Austin St. People don’t know if they voted for incumbents who support it or oppose it.”
Actually, your point has nothing to do with mine. Austin Street vote requires a supermajority. Of the races that were challenged, ALL of them except for Jake were won handily by the aldercritter that supported Austin Street. We CLEARLY know where Ted/Susan/Deb, etc. stood. We CLEARLY knew where Lynne, Julia and Chris stood. Lord knows where Jake stands in the long run. My comment was based on the fact that the Austin Street vote needs 16 votes out of 24. That is a tough vote to get on any issue, never mind something as contentious as Austin Street. Many of our Aldercritters are thinking about running for Mayor and may vote on that basis. Your point ignores the reality of the need to get to 16, where many of the unchallenged aldercritters have never had to go on record. But EVERY SINGLE CHALLENGED ALDERCRITTER is on record, and we know where each of them stood. So for you to challenge the election results on that basis is just, again, in my opinion, ignoring reality. Each of your candidates that ran on NVA and Austin Street lost. You maintain that means nothing. First time candidates, incumbent bias, low turnout. And you accuse Greg of spin?
Also Paul, every time you get challenged, you complain in your post of straw men, or folks being intellectually dishonest with you, etc. You post sarcastic or mocking posts, and then complain when others question your sincerity. I’d respect your posts a lot more if you did what Jeffrey or Steven have done, which basically means engaging with facts, occasionally taking some time to appreciate another posters viewpoint, and generally being less of a blog troll.
Back to the Land Use Public Hearing and vote. At the end of the second hearing this week, the vote went basically the way it was going to go before, but it seems to me they left many of the Alders’ questions up in the air.
I had thought a restaurant was gone from the commercial portion because of the smaller size of the space allotted and instead would be shared office space and 3 small boutiques. I had also thought when a restaurant was in the plans, it was to be 50 seats or less because of size and parking. They ended with the idea of having a 75 seat cap on a restaurant which was predicted to take up 2000 sq ft. What happened?
The 1.5 million goes into the general fund and it is up to the mayor to follow throug to spend it on Newtonville so it can’t be in the board order.
ASP agrees to not lease to nail salons and banks for 5 years.
Alders want Undergrounding in Board Order but city and ASP aren’t sure.
In between closing the public hearing and voting by the full Board, the aldermen have the task and ability of crafting a Board Order that addresses whatever key elements they see fit.
After discussion, I sincerely hope no Alder will just leave the room and not vote, as has been done before, thereby being able later to say “I didn’t vote yes for Austin Street” or “I didn’t vote no for Austin Street” depending on the political climate in future elections. Is this a possibility in these circumstances?
@Fig
“You were responding to a post from Janet where she gave more weight to the “people’s vote”, instead of an actual vote.”
No I wasn’t. There was nothing in my post that remotely suggested that I was responding to Janet’s post. Stop making stuff up.
“You never did address my point about how if your candidates had won that you’d be talking up the importance of the election, but that’s ok.”
I never said this, stop making stuff up.
“From your initial post, the only clear evidence that would convince you that the system was “working” would be if your candidates won.”
I never said this, stop making stuff up.
Generally, I’m not interested in engaging in a discussion with you when you have a consistent history of making up things about my positions or thinking. Its disingenuous and not honest. Not worth my time.
@ Paul, you may not have intended what fig has attributed to you, but he is not the only one who walked away from your comments inferring that is what you meant.
@Marti: I don’t recall any point where a restaurant was not part of this proposal. In fact, I’m not sure how you can have an outdoor cafe (and every rendering shows one) without one.
And what Dan said.
How is this restaurant going to be a functional model when less than half of the year people will not be being served outdoors ? Is the kitchen to be sized for 3000sf or for 6000 ? This isn’t Ibiza ! Time to get real with our ‘visions’. ( Halucinations?).
Paul:
On your 3 quotes about me making stuff up.
1) My next sentence after the one you quote you were referring back to Janet’s post. “I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth, just taking your post in context. So basically, you were discounting actual election results, but don’t claim any support of online polls or petitions. Fine, I stand corrected.” So, how was I making stuff up when I acknowledged my assumption? It can be helpful to read the full sentences following something you quote.
2) On the second one, that was my opinion, not saying you said that. That is very clear in context. Considering your posts backing your candidates before the election, I have my doubts you’d be casting any doubt on the election being not legitimate or a proper judge of public opinion if your candidates won. If your candidates had one, I’m on record as saying it would have been pretty clear guidance of the direction the city wants to take. Because, democracy. The opposite is also true. Many of the folks who supported Lynne/Julia and Chris acknowledge that, even if they hope for better results next time. I haven’t heard you say a word about the incumbents victories except to crap on them. So, nope, not making stuff up when I state an opinion and you conveniently ignore it and post your typical post about no one is honest with you and this isn’t worth your time, etc etc.
3) Regarding your third assertion, again, learn the difference between me putting words in your mouth and my stating an opinion about your post. To me, it seems clear that you would only view the results as legitimate if your candidates won. You are free to disagree. But that isn’t me making anything up, that is me having an opinion about your posts. Sort of the purpose of the blog.
Paul, I’ve been posting on here for years. I don’t make things up. I do challenge people’s posts occasionally. You don’t have to engage in a conversation with me. Feel free to ignore my posts. Or continue to post responses like the ones you did, and we can let the wider blog audience weigh in regarding who is being dishonest or not. I’ll not that every time someone questions one of your posts on substance you tend to respond by having the equivilent of a blog tantrum. While fun to respond to, they get a bit tiring…. Why don’t you and I just stick to responding to the positions in the blog posts? There was plenty in my post I’m sure you disagreed with…
@ Gulia, re the 5 year promise of no Banks and Nail Salons.
It’s common practice in the real estate development business to bail out of properties within a 5 years period. This is because these sorts of buildings are built on the cheap to maximize profits,.. Longevity and long term maintenance issues don’t really concern them. ASP would be placing a limitation on the sale of their property to limit a purchaser his right to make decisions re future tenancy.
Real Estate Investment Trusts ( not the greatest investment opportunities ) are the mechanism of choice in the disposal of a developers windfall. They work out great in an inflationary economy which we ( or the development community ) are currently enjoying.
For the record, here’s Paul’s comment after the September preliminary. I can predict how he will defend it but I don’t want to put words in his mouth:
Blue, are you two different people today. A post on rent for 10K, and then two posts I agree with on REITs and 5 year holds. Wow.
I thought the same exact thing regarding the 5 year hold on nail salons and banks. Developer may sell within 5 years or soon thereafter. We agree on something!
I personally was a bit disappointed in the conditions. Why can’t they bury the utility lines? Why doesn’t the city want this? Very confusing. I’ve heard some folks say that they want it done for the whole street. Ok, so do I. But you can MAKE ASP do it for the immediate area outside their property as a condition to the permit. Don’t just take money to do it, make them do it. Can’t believe this didn’t happen. Maybe the aldercritter vote can require it.
I’m less concerned about banks and nail salons then others. We’ve seemed to reach peak nail salon in NEwtonville, as several have gone out of business. And I’m not sure what bank branches are left to move into Newtonville, especially now that Citi is closing and Santandare just opened a new huge branch on Washington Street.
I will say that regardless of the conditions, I really have no idea how the aldercritters will vote. By my rough count I’m never seen how they get to 16. I’ve always assumed the mayor had pushed this to this point, so he must have done a vote count along the way. But really I’ve got no idea. That said, despite my level of posts on all this, I’m really not at all in the know, so who knows? 😉
Greg, when the commercial space was reduced to 5000 sq ft, this is how I thought it was divided:
September 24, 2015 – Working Session SP #119-15, 28 Austin Street Page 2 of 8
* The retail space is now imagined as three small boutique sized shops (such as a book store, a toy store, and a prepared food shop), plus a 1,500 square foot shared office/co-working space.
The ground level will have approximately 1,500 square feet of shared office space and 3,500 square feet of retail.
* 2-3 new boutique shops will enhance the retail mix
* Innovation Center for entrepreneurship
* Possibly a gourmet shop with outdoor seating
I guess I interpreted the above to mean that because of the space reduction, there would be an outdoor seating public space or a take out gourmet with outside seating. I don’t see any room for a 75 seat restaurant or for its parking. I haven’t seen a restaurant mentioned again until this week. If a 75 seat restaurant takes 2000 sq ft, plus 1500 sq ft for shared office space, that leaves 1500 sq ft for 3 shops. Plus parking.
Obviously I’ve misinterpreted something.
Janet, perhaps you are looking at the list of people who are “Friends of Austin Street”? There is indeed an online petition within the website, for people to click on. How dare you say that there isn’t, or that there are names of people that you “know” are against the project? Ridiculous, Janet. But even more importantly, I spent many hours at village days and the harvest festival collecting actual signatures on a petition in favor of Austin Street. I spoke with countless individuals committed to it. Two boards on which I serve, the Council on Aging and the Fair Housing Committee, spent many hours debating whether or not to support this development and ultimately decided to do so. Further, Janet, the implications that those of us in favor of this development neither love Newton nor know or understand what we are supporting are insulting and ludicrous. Just as insulting and ludicrous as the label DEMPAC and the implication that all of us are blind supporters of Setti Warren. Maybe not ALL the people of Newton voted in this last election (shame on those who did not), but those who cared passionately one way or another, certainly did, and they SPOKE. Me…I am getting tired of the sore loser dialogues. We shall see what happens on Monday night.
@Gail
As you suggested, here is what I wrote before:
“Are you willing to acknowledge that you’re in the minority and support the wishes of your fellow neighbors if the opposition wins in Ward 2?”
Actual Ward 2 results:
Auchincloss 944
Albright 791
LeBlanc 787
Johnson 645
Votes for opponents to Austin St: 1731
Votes for supporters of Austin St: 1436
The opposition had more votes in Ward 2. LeBlanc missed coming in second by a nose. Seems clear to me what Ward 2 thinks about Austin St. To the degree we’re using election results.
To the extent we’re using election results, the whole city votes on electing at large candidates, not just one ward.
LMAO… We are really taking our reactions to V14 comments to an uprecedented level
I made no implications. Native Newtonian indicated his/her own inflamed reaction to my commentary. A few more thoughts… when NN and other blog participants refer to the Newton DEMPAC it only gives it’s existance creedance.
Also when reviewing the supporter “name compliation” list on the for Friends of Austin St webpage (which NN referred to), I read Tom Mountain’s name and laughed out loud. My reaction was to this list was… “assuredly this list is bogus” 😀
For the record: NN referred to a made up name for a nonexistent group as “insulting and ludicrous”.
Paul, you wrote, “I believe in democracy, unlike others here who only think votes matter if they reach their personal turnout metrics. (Or whatever other crazy rationalizations when votes don’t go their way.)”
Democracy, in this case, means that the at-large candidates with the most votes citywide win. If you want to split the votes similarly according to Austin Street lines:
Votes for Ward 2 opponents of Austin Street: 8,285
Votes for Ward 2 supporters of Austin Street: 9,698
Wards do not have their own separate budgets. They don’t their own public property. A Ward 2 vote is worth the same as a Ward 8 vote or a Ward 6 vote. Any other interpretation about Austin Street is a crazy rationalization that people make when elections don’t go the way they want.
@Gail
I agree that the full at-large election is ultimately what matters. But let’s call this for what it is. Ward 2 opposes Austin St. The rest of Newton supports it. I expected as much– look at my other posts in the same thread from September. This was sadly the expected result.
I’m amazed people are so quick to jump to their positions that they don’t slow down and pause. Ward 2 doesn’t want Austin St. Doesn’t that matter?
This project would be forced upon the citizens who are closest to it.
Thank you, Jane, for clarifying my reference to DEMPAC! As far as I know, this is a nonexistent group, Janet. At least, no one has invited me…..! I have never, ever referred to it before! So please explain how my refuting its existence could possibly give credence to its existence??? hmmmm. Further, my reference, once again, was NOT to the list of Friends of Austin Street: it was to the LINK to a petition. The LINK is found on the FAS webpage. You asked about the existence of a petition and I answered that question. I am sorry if I have offended you.
Perhaps Jake Auchincloss is opposed to the Austin St project, but that was not his position before the election. In fact, a lot of folks complained that he wasn’t taking a clear position. So counting his vote under the column as “opposed” for the election doesn’t seem right.
@Dan: I can’t argue with your logic.
Janet, once again you contribute nothing to the conversation but fallacies and insults.
You comment about “people’s votes” which was a fallacy that really was “people who signed petitions.” Do you not know the difference between votes and signing petitions? You even get the numbers wrong.
Native Newtonian said there was a link to the petition with the supporters of Austin Street on the Friends website with 706 names. You refer to it as a “falsely named petition,” say that it’s “not a petition,” “it’s a compilation of names, not signatures.” You say you know people who are against Austin Street who are on the “name compilation,” such as “Tom Mountain,” so “assuredly this is bogus.” These things insult Native Newtonian. Yet it is NN who is “sorry if you are offended.”
Are you saying Tom Mountain gave his support bogusly or that the friends of Austin street are lieing about the names on their list? Are you saying that the petition doesn’t exist? Are you saying that NN was lieing in saying there was a link to the petition when you said the list s/he referred to was a “falsely named petition?”
You are the one who should be apologizing. Why are you obsessed with a bogus acronym? Why are you a member of the NDCC.? What is the Newton City Committee of which you are a member? Add something constructive to the conversation.
@NN – I am not offended. You seem to be taking my commentary personally. (BTW the published PDF list on the FoAS website says it is a compilation of names. I would not make this up!) What’s to stop anyone from making up similar lists using the voter rolls for their purposes.
The DEM-PAC must exist as there is too much denial of it to not even acknowledge the possible existence of this group.
I am still entertained by the great boner of the 2015 election season – the NDCC’s endorsement of registered Republican Wenhua Zhang on their website. I reiterate, Zhang is so qualified in the powerplay move, some genius (?) made the assumption he was a Democrat.
Janet – You clearly are not enamored with the NDCC. Given your differences with the NDCC, do you intend to run for Chair of the Ward 1 chairperson again in April?
I’ve removed a few comments here that were not useful, arguably I should remove more but I’m busy. This is an important topic and I’d urge everyone to go back to the issue.
Fig,
The city has been given numerous opportunities to mandate the burying of utilities but for some reason fails to do so. The primary examples prior to Austin Street are along Needham Street. I have been mystified and frustrated on a number of occasions when as special permits are issued to businesses and the under grounding of utilities are discussed with petitioners,.. to get them to bury utilities in front of their properties and to their new buildings nothing of the sort is done. Should not this be mandated for each property contingent on permits being issued ? I have argued for these Needham Street improvements since Mayor Mann was in office, when I did a series sketches of before and after images showing said improvements.
Why won’t our political leaders insist on this? Why won’t they insist on this for Austin Street ?
We did insist on undergrounding the utilities for Austin St. – we have made it a condition in the Board Order. The Needham st conditions you refer to are a condition to pay a certain amount into and undergrounding fund. Every Needhams st. project over the last number of years has had to agree to this. As you probably know – i’ve been working on undergrounding Needham st for a number of years. The cost is very high. There are not a lot of good options to get this work payed for. I plan to get back to this work now that the election is over – I was pretty busy for the last 6 months.
Susan, I thought you did a great job talking about not letting the city off the hook undergrounding utilities at the hearing on Austin Street. I also really like your bringing up using the shared office space for community meetings at times.thanks.
Just a point of information: Wenhua had informed me he registered as a Democrat during the election.