The final vote on the Austin Street project is likely to take place in eight days and insiders who’ve been trying to predict if the project can get the required 16 votes to pass say it’s very close. A few aldermen are still undecided – or at least reluctant to discuss their decisions – making the Dec. 8 board vote too close to call.
But based on conversations I’ve had, one trend seems clear: The majority of Newton’s 16 at-large aldermen support the Austin Street project while the majority of the city’s eight ward aldermen do not.
Of Newton’s ward aldermen, five of the eight are said to be either opposed to the project or thinking about voting against it: Emily Norton (Ward 2), Barbara Brousal-Glaser (Ward 3), Jay Harney (Ward 4), Dick Blazer (Ward 6), and Lisle Baker (Ward 7).
Of Newton’s 16 at-large aldermen, a maximum of five is believed to be opposed or undecided. They are: Allan Ciccone, Jr. (Ward 1), Jim Cote (Ward 3), Lenny Gentile and Amy Sangiolo (Ward 4), and Brian Yates (Ward 5).
If the votes stay consistent with the backroom talk, then the project would be supported by 69 percent of at-large aldermen and 38 percent of ward aldermen. Yet it would be defeated.
Considering that ward aldermen are elected by such a small percent of Newton (typically about 700-800 voters each), does it make sense that they could stop a project that is supported by most of their colleagues who’ve been elected with city-wide support? In 2015, is it appropriate that ward aldermen – whose job is not to serve the entire city — are making decisions for the entire city?
Theoretically, a ward alderman could know that a vote that will make her constituents happy is a bad decision for the city but still believe she is doing the right thing by voting no. Or ward aldermen might trade votes on projects as in an “I’ll vote against your project if you vote against mine” kind of deal, often without repercussion from constituents.
Obviously this question aligns with a discussion I’d expect the Charter Commission may have regarding possibly reducing the size of the Board of Aldermen.
But my question is not: Should we eliminate ward aldermen to reduce the size of the board?
My questions are this: Does the role of ward alderman deter the city from progressing as a whole? Or, is this representation at the neighborhood level necessary?
*Disclaimer: I support the Austin Street project. However, I have no financial, political or emotional stake in it whatsoever. My life will continue as is regardless of the board’s vote on Dec. 8.
I would recommend that the question of the role and power of the Ward Aldermen not be intertwined with the Austin Street project …or any other particular issue. Unless of course there is some inherent reason why, for this project, the Ward Aldermen (apparently) may be clustering on one side of the issue while the At-Large Aldermen are on the other. No such reason comes immediately to mind. Is that split a coincidence, or is it due to something inherent in this project and the issues it raises? Has this Ward-vs-At-Large split been seen with any other issue before the Board?
The Ward Aldermen function at the municipal level in some respects as U.S. Representatives and Senators do at the national level, representing one geographic area but voting on issues at a higher and broader level. There’s bound to be horse-trading in both national and municipal legislatures. If we get rid of Ward Aldermen in a revised charter, would the same reasoning hold at the national level? Should the U.S. consider amending the Constitution so that Congress is elected at-large? I think not.
@Bruce: The question of the role and power of ward aldermen doesn’t have to revolve around Austin Street but it is intertwined with development. A ward alderman’s vote on development issues carries a lot of weight in proportion to the size of the electorate he or she represents. That’s my point.
Ward Alderman have a disproportional weight compared to At-Large on any issue. Why does this concern you over development only?
The other Ward Alderman (and At-Large for that matter) will vote for the interests of their constituencies. Some times they will allign, sometimes not. So, to answer your question: No, the role of Ward Aldermen does not deter the city from progressing. They are the voice of the will of the people!
I wouldn’t want to eliminate Ward Aldermen; The smaller electorate unit (Ward) needs to know that there is someone responsive to their interests.
@Terry Malloy: My concern really isn’t over development only; I’m just focusing on it here because development issues are so prevalent right now. I’ve always found it disturbing that ward aldermen can hold positions of power on the board, like president and vice president.
Great question, Gail. It applies to other issues as well. Look at the Zervas vote. Two ward aldermen from unaffected parts of the city voted against acquiring properties abutting the site. As I recall, at least 2 other ward aldermen spoke out against acquiring the properties but in the end voted Yes. That’s half of the ward aldermen. My concern is that ward aldermen who are elected by a mere hundreds of votes can’t be held accountable for their actions in the following election.
On the other hand, when I have a local issue, I’m more likely to call my ward alderman and I’ve lived in 3 wards with about 5 ward aldermen.
It’s a conundrum.
Your bolded question can only be answered by a data collection of at-large aldermanic votes compared to ward aldermanic votes over an identified period of time.
Personally, I feel that at large aldermen are a mistake. If something is of citywide benefit, then there will be agreement among the ward aldermen. If we are truly a “city of villages” then ward aldermen should be where the power lies.
I think recommending a change of this magnitude because of one vote would distort representative government in this City. Sounds to me as though we have a nice balance between ward specific and at-large interests with our current arrangement. I do think ward aldermen might be more sensitive to how a large project affects the residents in another ward alderman’s district because it’s the ward alderman in an affected district that most feels the fallout and consequences of any large or disruptive project.
Personally, I think this is healthy for representative government here and in most other cities. We might have saved Boston’s old West End if there had been strong ward city council members in place at the time. Centralization can promote efficiency, but it can also foster arrogance and hubris in those that exercise it.
Keep in mind, too, that attempts to reform or rearrange things often boomerang on those proposing such changes. FDR found this out in quick order when he attempted to pack the Supreme Court for political gain; the Republicans later found when their term limiting amendment turned some of their most powerful Presidents into lame ducks because there was no opting for a 3rd term.
Miles hit it out of the park. Can we redo the charter election?
The ward alderman have to pay attention to their constituents. They have to listen and pick up the phone. If we want to find out what is really going on in Newton, I think you are better off asking the ward alderman, not the at-large alderman.
Jane asks the question, “Who is more accountable?” In some sense, the answer is, “at-large alderman are accountable to the general population and ward alderman are accountable to the people in their ward.” We live in a city where most voters don’t go overboard analyzing candidates. I think this problem is worse the more removed the candidate is. Votes for a an alderman-at-large are more likely to be votes for a recognizable name, whereas votes for a ward-alderman are more likely to cast by people who are informed.
This answers to this question need data. I hope to put some statistics together that shed light on this. It will be a first cut and pale in comparison with the data-driven reports that charter commission will produce on these topics (I hope!).
We need to be able to retract errors.
“The answer to this question needs data.”
I agree with Jeffrey that this question needs data collection on aldermanic votes over time as well as citizen input.
I share Gail’s perspective in her various posts.
And I’m more cynical that she perhaps: the ward aldermen are more likely to respond to a minirity position. Helpful for dialogue purposes but gives them more power than appropriate when a 2/3rds majority is needed.
And I have continually felt their being able to serve as president or Vice President ought not be the case. I have respect for both Lyle Baker and Scott Lennon but felt they ought to be required to take the leap to al-large before they could serve as president. Although in Scitt’s case I understood why he didn’t run against senior at large aldermen in his ward I was delighted when he actually became an at large alderman.
Interesting thread Gail.
I find it troubling that Austin Street might be defeated in spite of support from 69 percent of our at-large aldermen and 38 percent of ward aldermen, especially after the latest election election results suggests that the anti-development fever in Newton isn’t nearly as feverish as the NVA wanted us to believe.
But I wouldn’t change the current set-up, without considering a lot more data. (Sounds like a job for Jeffrey Pontiff.)
In fact, I’d rather consider eliminating the ward residency rules for our at large aldermen. In other words, elect our at-larges like we did our charter commissioners: Top vote getters from the full field get in, no matter which ward they live in. And then have 8 ward aldermen.
Of course, we’d need fewer at-largers or staggered terms because we wouldn’t want 16-plus at-largers on one ballot every two years.
Not sure what I think about ward alderman positions. Honestly, I don’t see any reason why a ward alderman would vote differently from an at-large alderman from the same ward (or from Newton in general, it’s really not that big). In any case, the “trend” you cite – 5/8 vs. 5/16 opposed – is little more than random noise. The probability of 5 or more ward aldermen out of 8 voting a certain way is 72%. The probability of 11 or more at-large aldermen out of 16 voting a certain way is 21%. The combination of both events going in opposite directions is 7.6% on any given vote, and such a distribution of votes is certain to occur in the course of many voting events.
I know the point you’re trying to make is not specifically about Austin Street, and the topic is worthy of serious discussion. Just felt the use of statistics was a bit misleading.
@Greg. Based on your non-residency idea, I would have voted for you for charter commission. Did you run? Is there a a time machine?
@Jane. When it comes to the alderman voting records, be careful. I think (perhaps mistakenly) that you are saying that aldermen voting tell us something about the quality of the official. I don’t know how alderman quality can be measured. My ideal alderman might disagree with everyone. Your ideal alderman might always agree. We both might be wrong. On the other hand, I think the behavior of voters at elections might tell us something.
It would be interesting to know, though, over time, if ward aldermen as a group vote differently than at-large aldermen.
Greg,
The fever you refer to re the NVA and their development / no development positions , may or may not be as virulent as your apparent fever in constantly bringing up and posting their position. Thanks for keeping those arguments hot on the front burner. I’m sure the NVA appreciates it.
Cheers.
I would be curious to know if they vote differently over time, as Gail stated, and I’m sure that’s something the Charter Commission could take a look at.
I would also note that while people like to use the colloquialism that we are a city of villages, we are in fact a city and not a small town. Our decision-making is intentionally controlled by a mayor and legislature representing a larger population.
On Austin Street, I’ve always thought it was a really tough road to get passed at supermajority levels. Needing 16 out of 24 is just too difficult for anything remotely controversial. Many of our aldercritters have made a career out of not taking difficult stands on issues, but instead passing things like the plastic bag ban and calling it courageous. I call it vapid. A perfectly fine thing to vote for, somewhat good for the environment, but one of those types of things that make it look like our leaders are actually accomplishing something, but really are barely moving the ball forward. That’s our big accomplishment? a good minor step forward. But that’s it? Where is zoning reform? Pension reform? Accessory apartments? Affordable housing? Lots of voting no on major issues by a significant minority and very little thoughtful exchange of ideas. And so the world turns, another year, another discussion of leaf blowers.
A few other thoughts:
If Austin Street doesn’t pass, and let me go on record saying I don’t think it will, I think Emily Norton deserves the credit/blame depending on which side of the project you stand. Having the ward aldercritter from Ward 2 oppose the project gives cover and incentive for other ward aldercritters to do the same. I don’t say that to cast stones on Emily’s stand (or lack thereof), but to just point out the major challenge to the project. Where I do fault Emily, and where I find her stand lacking, is that I’ve never been able to pin her down as to what type of project WOULD have earned her vote. How small? How affordable? How much parking? Do we really keep it the same for all time?
The opponents have always had the luxury of not defining the alternative to this project, and thus have been able to appeal to all sorts of folks. I’ve had neighbors tell me that if the project isn’t built that the city would eventually add trees and a mini-park (look at the pictures at the NVA website about alternative uses), I’ve had neighbors tell me that their was a possibility of a local community center or theater, I’ve had neighbors tell me that if this project fails, next year a new RFP will come out for a smaller project.
I think all of these options aren’t likely to come to pass. In fact, let me go on record that 10 years from now we’ll be looking at the very same crappy parking lot. The reality is that the lot will stay a lot, underused. We’ll have easy parking and that’s it. That’s fine I guess, I like the easy parking. I’m lazy. But such a lack of imagination in our aldercritters is upsetting. You don’t like the ASP proposal? Fine. It is far from perfect. But tell me what you are FOR, with specificity. I expect that from my ward aldercritter, from my aldercritters at large. I fault Emily for not providing that, and I will remember that the next time I get a chance to vote.
As for the ward aldercritters vs. the at-large aldercritters, I think some of our at large aldercritters think that voting for Austin Street invites a challenge from the right. That might be right. But I’ve heard a lot of chatter from folks that we need to gather a group of “progressive” candidates to run as a slate like NVA ran as a slate. I do note that either way Austin Street goes down, a lot of the supporters of the project are going to remember the Aldercritters who voted against it (or abstained, don’t not take a stand). One way or the other, this is going to leave a bad taste in someone’s mouth. Not sure if that means anything yet.
Considering how that went with the Charter Commission, I’d think that the at-large aldercritters should fear that possibility far more than the challenge from the NVA. As for the ward aldercritters, they have more power if they stick together. Who knows when the other ward aldercritters will need Emily’s support to kill a project in their ward?
But I wouldn’t do away with the ward aldercritters. Far from it. What I would do is PAY THEM ALL MORE, and shrink the entire thing in half. 4 ward aldercritters, 8 at large, each getting paid 4 times as much money. Make it more like a job.Attract better candidates. Churn things up a bit. I’m happy to listen to others tell me I’m wrong, but when I tell myself I could never run for aldercritter due to the money, you may not like me, but that shouldn’t be the reason. We pay them a pittence and expect them to conquer all our problems. And at-large should have no residency requirements. I’ve never understood that.
Cheers to all. Sorry for the long post.
Bryan, when you say:
…I can’t help but think that that’s the sort of assumption you and your colleagues on the charter commission should be challenging. It’s certainly been true until now. Should it continue to be true? I’m not saying it shouldn’t. I’m just saying that I’d prefer that the charter commission examine such assumptions.
Wait, Jeffrey, you agree with me on residency requirements for at-large? Common ground!
Seriously though, can someone more steeped in the tea-like wisdom of our ancient Aldercritters explain to me why things were designed this way when we already have ward aldercritters?
Also, are the wards occasionally balanced out for population growth? Always wondered that as well.
@fig – Yes, the ward boundaries are changed after each census to adjust for population changes. If you go into City Hall, the maps on the wall across the hall from the City Clerk’s office will show the latest (2010) changes.
To your other question, the answer may be found here.
In short, Newton used to have a bicameral legislature. Until 1897, voters would elect both a common council (14 seats for the – at that time – 7 wards) and a board of Aldermen (7 seats). This was consolidated in 1897 (with one at large and one ward alderman per ward) and then moved to something approximating our current structure in 1937.
The data needs to be examined over an identified period of time. Individual aldermanic votes shouldn’t be part of the data collection.
PS – Can someone just double check my memory regarding the basis for the boundary changes (US census)?
Gail,
You’ve brought up a different wrinkle to your first question:
“I’ve always found it disturbing that ward aldermen can hold positions of power on the board, like president and vice president.”
I agree with this sentiment.
At-Large and Ward Alderman have different constituencies. A Ward Alderman’s natural priority is the Ward. They must do the bidding of the Ward to keep their job. Having a leadership position- whether President, V.P., Committee Chair- puts them in a position to have major influence on city wide decisions while only being answerable to a ward.
I think one remedy would be to require that all leadership positions be held by At-Large. This would be more equitable for the overall city-no ward favoritism- and would encourage Ward Alderman to move “up the chain” to At-Large positions, creating more healthy competition and opportunity in the board.
Chris, here is the 411 on redistricting (please note every member of the ad hoc committee was a ward alderman). All of the precincts are required to be about equal in size, and in the last redistricting, a precinct was added in Ward 2.
FWIW, I would urge the Charter Commission to look at taking the special permit granting authority (SPGA) away from the City Council entirely instead of focusing on the voting patterns of ward vs. at-large. The SPGA is a quasi-judicial function, which really should not be vested in a legislative body. It creates an inherent conflict of interest, since we are elected to represent the community but at the same time are supposed to be fair, unbiased and impartial in deciding whether to grant special permits. While I agree that it is probably harder on a ward aldermen to vote for a special permit that is controversial in their particular ward, none of the aldermen are immune from being influenced by political concerns. In order to keep politics out of special permit decisions, the SPGA ought to be vested in an independent body comprised of members appointed by the Mayor and members appointed by the City Council, who have the requisite skills, expertise and experience in various areas related to land use to decide on special permits. That is why judges are appointed and not elected in Massachusetts.
Just my two cents.
I meant to add that taking the SPGA away from the City Council would kill two birds with one stone, in that it would also justify reducing the size of the council.
Great point and questions Fig. And I agree: If this goes down, Alderman Norton gets the blame/credit.
Your story about what neighbors are saying about what will happen if the project is defeated reminded me of the site that is now occupied by Avalon Bay on Needham Street. After the BOA rejected Stop and Shop’s special permit many years ago, Stop and Shop closed its store at the corner of Route 9 and Elliot Street, leaving the area without a grocery store. I remember then-Alderman Paul Coletti telling me that the same people who were so vehemently opposed to a Stop and Shop on Needham Street asked him if there was anything he could do to make the grocery store stay in its Route 9 location. Some of those same people are still complaining about the children Avalon Bay added to the Newton schools.
Situations like these always make it clear to me why so many kids have problems with transition.
@Bryan & Jane: Specifically, for what reason(s) are you curious about a possible voting pattern distinction? If there is in fact one, then what? What inferences would you attempt to draw?
I would like the Charter Commission to consider if defined roles for Ward and At-Large City Councillors would be appropriate. I have been told by some At-Large folks an issue is for a Ward person, “Not My Job”. I frequently ask one of my At-Large folks (in my Ward) or the Ward person in a neighboring Ward to tackle an issue since they are much more responsive. Should the constituent services be attached to a particular elected position or do we continue to find the responses people and hope the others see themselves in contested races.
Thanks for the link @Ted
Thanks for this link Chris Steele. I’d never seen this document.
It’s clear that Greg and Gail support the Austin Street development as currently presented and since it’s their blog, they have the prerogative to continually insert their digs at NVA and those who don’t support it. It almost seems obsessive on their part, but again, it’s their blog.
However, I would like to point out that it is not Emily Norton’s job as an alderperson to answer the questions posed by fignewtonville. She represents Ward 2 and what the people want in that ward. She’ll vote on what people want. As a big fan of Emily, I think it’s great that you give her credit for such a big decision in Newton, though we all know that what you are really doing is trying to discredit her and get your digs in.
Go Emily!!
p.s. I am LOVING the plastic bag ban!!
@SoccerMommy:
Anyone can “insert their digs at NVA and those who don’t support it,” just as they can with those who do support it.
I would like to clarify that I was not criticizing Emily Norton. I disagree with her but I think she’s doing what she believes is right. Furthermore, I think she’s the only person on the board who absolutely owes it to her constituents to vote against Austin Street. But I disagree that it’s not her job to answer Fig’s questions. She’s an alderman in a ward where the city plans to sell what it has labeled as an underutilized piece of property. If it’s not her job to help with a solution, then it shouldn’t be her job to help prevent a solution either. Which might bring us back to the topic at hand…
Sorry to be catching up on this thread so late, but for the record this is not just Greg and Gail’s blog. There are presently 19 thread contributors on Village 14, including one former alderman candidate who was on the NVA slate (and we recently invited a second former NVA candidate; she says she’s thinking about it). Any of us can start threads on any Newton topic. As fig, points out, Austin Street’s a defining topic right now and I expect there will be a lot of conversation about it over the next two-plus weeks. I make no apologizes for wanting to discuss it or for my views.
But I always find it funny when folks complain that we spend too much attention on one issue when those very same folks never comment on other topics here. Anyway, carry on.
Any one part of the structure/function of the city government can be discussed as a separate entity, but ultimately the parts must work as an integrated whole. Discussions such as this one are a valuable part of the process of examining government, but I fully understand that the question Gail posed (the influence of the ward aldermen) is outside the context of the whole and doesn’t reflect data collected over an identified time period.
Tom – The data over time would provide direction to the questions I’d ask.
@Ted. The question then becomes — If we take SPGA away from the Board, who or what do we transfer that authority to? That is the concern I have heard from several different and often disparate sources throughout Newton who fear that it could would ultimately evolve into a rubber stamp for developers. In fact, it is this concern, more than the actual size of the Board itself that is underpinning much of the nascent opposition; at least that’s what I’m hearing.
@Bob, ironically, the complaint I hear most often is that the Board of Aldermen already IS a rubber stamp for developers.
@SoccerMommy
You’re right.
First, the parking lot is not a “problem”, but that is another discussion. Why does Emily have come up with a list of possible scenarios that would make her want to develop the lot? What if those scenarios aren’t what the ward 2 residents want? Even if she favors a particular development or whatever, it does not mean she’ll vote that way because she votes the way her ward wishes. See?
Are you challenging Alderman Ted to come up with possible scenarios that would make him vote NO on Austin Street? If more alderman voted no, then maybe the majority of the BOA would be NO.
Personally, I don’t really care on way or another about the project, though if the majority of ward 2 residents and businesses does not want it, then it shouldn’t be built.
I never said “problem.” Fact: The city has determined that it wants to do something with an underutilized parking lot in Ward 2. Aldlerman Norton has not changed that determination. Something is going to be done with that lot.
If the ward alderman — no matter who that might be — knows that a project in his/her ward is going to happen, at some point it would make sense for that ward alderman to demonstrate a willingness to work proactively with the city toward a goal. Vote no, but be realistic. I would think that would be the best way to serve one’s constituents.
Gail,
When you said this “She’s an alderman in a ward where the city plans to sell what it has labeled as an underutilized piece of property. If it’s not her job to help with a solution…” I assumed solution was in response to a “problem.’
Anyway, you’re right if an alderman knows that a project is going to move forward, they should definitely work with the city and the residents to make it work for everyone if possible. I am sure Emily will do so on the Austin Street project or others if they arise and are approved. But right now, the ASP project is still on the table and realistically, it may not move forward.
As far as working with the city toward a ‘goal’, that is up to each board member to interpret as they are elected to serve the residents.
Hi there SoccerMommy:
First of all, welcome to the blog, hope you post here more often.
As for this blog’s focus on Austin Street, I think mostly it is the topic of the day. Lots of different aspects, challengers to incumbent aldercritters based on a focus on development, 40B projects coming up (and comparisons to same), a large community asset coming up for development, a 8 year development project that may end in failure, the mayor being strongly involved (up until the end when it really matters), the whole Engine 6 debacle and how this interplays with affordable housing, etc. Multiple controversial columns in the TAB, dozens of community meetings, etc. When was the last time two separate organizations were founded to focus on different aspects of development (NVA and Engine 6) and both found a cause in the next project up? If it doesn’t pass, I think the conversation will largely cease except for my yearly reminders that the parking lot remains a parking lot with no other amentities that so many opponents talk about, and with no redo of Walnut street with seating and street lamps etc. If it happens we’ll be discussing parking during construction and such. But much less frequently. So I don’t view it as an obsession, more like an obvious focus on a major issue facing our city: namely do we grow/change? If so, how?
As for Emily and her answering (or not answering) my particular questions over the many many back and forths this blog has had, the public meetings, the various times aldercritters have spoken on these issues publicly…well…she doesn’t owe me in particular any answers. I’m just an anonymous blog poster. But I do live in Newtonville. I do care about Newtonville. And if the last election showed us anything, is that a very large portion of the population of Newtonville at least on the surface supports the project. Lynne placed third in Ward 2, remember?
So let’s say that 50% of the population of Newtonville support Austin Street, and 50% of the population doesn’t support it.
You state : “She represents Ward 2 and what the people want in that ward. She’ll vote on what people want.” But do I suddenly not count? How about the many folks who support the project? Perhaps you say it is less than 50%, say it is 40% or 30%. Does Emily not represent us as well? How do YOU know what the people want? How does she, after the last election?
As for my trying to discredit Emily and get my digs in, I’m doing nothing of the sort. First of all, I’ve always found Emily to be very nice personally, and I’m sure she is trying to do what she views is best for Newtonville. I just happen to disagree with her on some of her positions. I’m not getting my “digs” in, I’m making sure I voice my viewpoints on important issues in my community. How is posting her involvement in killing the Austin Street project an effort to discredit Emily? She is going to take the vote. It is in her ward. Votes have consequences. Clearly you will be happy with Emily if she votes no on the special permit. I won’t be. But it is not an effort to discredit her by pointing out the obvious. Again, votes have consequences. Elections have consequences. Calling out our politicians on their difficult choices is part of democracy.
What I’d love Emily and the other folks who plan on voting against the project do is to tell us what type of project they would accept for Austin Street. Do they prefer the parking lot as is? A smaller residential project? An affordable project? A Park? How will they end up paying for affordable units/park/parking with a reduced size project?
I don’t need her to explain it to me personally. I want her and the other 8 folks who plan on voting against this project to explain it to the city. What is HER vision for the site? If the status quo is good enough, that is fine, I just want her to tell us. I want all of the opponents to tell us if not this, then what? This isn’t personal SoccerMom. This is my village, just like it is yours. I use that parking lot every day, as I’m sure you do. If a minority of the city’s leadership was acting in a manner that obstructed something you supported, wouldn’t you want to know what would work? What vision (or lack thereof) those folks were following? We know the vision of the supporters of Austin Street since they actually supported something. Ted may not love the project for instance, but we know not just where he stands but why. All I’m asking is for those who vote no to give us the same courtesy, and go one extra step and lay out briefly what they’d rather see on the site.
And I’m going to ask the above of all of the folks who vote no. I may not get many answers, but there are a lot of us asking the same thing. Eventually perhaps we’ll get a response or two, publicly. And yes, I do feel the COMMUNITY is owed that response.
Just my 2 cents, SoccerMom. Thanks again for posting a response.
@Fig: For what it’s worth, when Jess and I were canvassing this summer, we were impressed by the amount of support that Emily has as compared to nearly all other Aldermen. Not only did we find that Emily has particularly high name recognition, but she also has a good reputation of being both a doer and an effective representative of her constituents. If I were her, I’d look forward to and welcome a challenge in two years.
I think Tom is right in wondering what inferences should be drawn if data shows certain voting patterns among Newton’s at-large versus ward aldermen. If disparities exist, is it because ward aldermen favor ward over city-wide interests or because ward aldermen are more directly connected to the sentiments of Newton residents? If the former, is it because Newton’s peculiar board structure fosters the expectation that ward aldermen are there to look out for ward interests?
Based on my quick research, of the 55 cities in Massachusetts (those with a city form of government), 37 have more ward or district members than at-large members on their city councils. Ten have no ward members at all, leaving just eight mixed councils having a majority of at-large members. Of the 29 cities with city councils of more than nine members, only six have more at-large than ward members. Four of those six tip the balance in favor of at-large by just one member. Only Newton (2/3 of 24 members are at-large) and Agawam (all 11 members are at-large) have boards of more than nine members that are heavily at-large.
Well said Fig. Wouldn’t it be nice if the aldermen who vote no answer your questions when they have the microphone on Dec. 8? Maybe we should all call our aldermen with that request.
@SoccerMommy – Could not have said it better!
@fig – we can all interpret the election results as we would like to.
However, If I were an incumbent aldercritter, I would be worried. I would be worried, that come elections two years from now people will see the disruption to Newtonville. Disruption, that was forced down upon them. I would be worried that mayor’s plan to add 2,400 new housing stock to Newton is underway and is causing development in their neighborhoods. I would be worried that my vote for ASP set this dominos going. I would be worried that 2 out of 3 aldercritters from Ward2 are voting against the development, and I still did (BTW – 2 of 3 is an educated guess).
My bet is 2 years from now, people will be questioning judgement of aldercritters who votes YES for ASP, and ask for justification.
Sam S – Austin St. has been turned into a circus. Other communities are completing similar developments without the uproar this one has turned into. In fact, the (unintended) consequences may very well be something very different from your predictions.
Most likely two years from now the city will have moved on from Austin St. to another brouhaha. You gotta love Newton.
SoccerMommy, it’s an incorrect statement that “the community” in Ward 2 want Emily to vote against the Austin Street development. There are many in the Newtonville community, including me, who are in favor of the development. Alder Norton has been against developing the parking lot from the beginning and I believe she made that decision because she thinks it’s the right one. If she made that decision based on the desires of the minority who are against it, I will be hoping for a contested race the next time we vote. Remember, the non-development slate did not win the election.
I think putting the Special Permit granting authority with a jointly appointed board is a good idea. I also agree about not having residency requirements for at-large councilors and not allowing Ward Councilors to be committe chairs or President or Vice President.
Tom Davis: I have no doubt that Emily is popular, especially among the folks most likely to talk with you. It would certainly be a challenge to knock off any incumbent ward alderman. And as I said, I’ve always found Emily to be very pleasant. I have disagreed with her on the Cabot Elementary School issues/park issues and also this Austin Street project. I’m sure there are others that agree with me on both issues, and there are certainly a number of Cabot parents that were frustrated by the lack of Aldercritter support regarding the recent conversations on the use of Cabot Park (and that is both Emily and Susan for that particular issue, although Susan did get up and explain her position in front of the P&R meeting that got so contentious, and I give her credit for that). I’m sure Emily can keep her position as a ward aldercritter for as long as she likes. But that doesn’t mean we should stop calling out our politicians if they fail to deliver or lack vision. And that is all I have been doing in these posts.
Sam S.: How do you figure that 2 out of 3 from Ward 2 are voting against Austin Street. I think it is just Emily. But regardless, I doubt this one issue will cause a wave election next time up. It is fine for those of us in the thick of things to throw that around, but look how far it got the NVA and their “slate”. Who knows what will happen in 2 years? But if there was going to be a wave election for the NVA and its slate, wouldn’t it have been this one? Perhaps if Lynne and Julia run again they would win, but I don’t see Julia knocking off Brian. Perhaps the anti-development folks can win seats by running for empty seats. That is always a possibility.
I’m with Marti and others on the special permit powers being taken away from the Aldercritters. Also, I repeat my hope that we pay them more, so that more people run. How much do they currently make? I’ve heard very little but I wasn’t sure if the pay goes up over time. Pay them more, shrink them down, and spin off their duties that require independent evaluation.
I am glad everyone except me know Emily’s exact position on Austin Street. My guess is it not as black and white as implied by words like “for” and “against.” “Against” can be a nuanced position that opponents only view as against.
Two things about Emily. First, she takes communication seriously. This goes back to her Newton Public Schools blog. More than any alderman, she reaches out. She listens. She emails. She has office hours. The other alderman can learn a lot from her. I am curious if Jake Auchincloss will follow Emily in this respect. His campaign would suggest so.
Second, I don’t know the right word, but I would describe ward alderman as being more populist than at-large alderman. Emily fits the bill in this respect. This is something I like.
Alderman Ted was crystal clear that he would not vote for the project unless (1) a minimum of 25% of the units were affordable and (2) that those units would be affordable to a mix of income levels. And Alderman Ted got what he asked for.
Writing in the third person is weird for Alderman Ted.
@Alderman Ted. Do we have clarity on Austin Street will affect the numerator and denominator of the fraction that is used to assess 40B compliance?
@Jeffrey, that is the intent.
I humbly ask Alderman Ted to never use the 3rd person again. I suggest speaking in a Yoda like voice instead in honor of Star Wars. That would be less weird and more amusing.
Jeffrey, I’m happy you like Emily and I’m glad you feel she is responsive. Perhaps she is more responsive one on one. My issue is leading in public. The fact that you don’t know her position on Austin Street could be one of the following: that (i) you haven’t been paying attention, (ii) don’t want to acknowledge the obvious, or (iii) for all of Emily’s praised communication skills, she hasn’t spoken publicly about the biggest development in her ward in 20 years. Or perhaps you are just trying to imply that Emily has shades of grey in her position. That she is against it she likes certain aspects of something. Which would be EXACTLY my point. If she has shades of grey, if she is a mixture of for and against, let us see those shades.
I’m really not trying to pick on Emily. I will do my best to call out every one of the folks that votes against the proposal in the same way, unless they clearly explain why, as well as what they want for the site. I’m fine if they want a parking lot, even if I disagree. But after all of this don’t we deserve a little clarity from our elected officials.
And lest folks think I’m giving the mayor a pass, I’m on record that he completely botched this entire thing. No matter what the vote ends up being.
@figawan: Ah, strong am I with the Force. But not that strong.
@Ted. Just put it in Latin and you’ll have the aura of infallibility.
Marti/Fignewtonville:
According to the candidate, who won ward 2 at large, there is about a 3:1 opposition to ASP development in that ward. This information was obtained from knocking on doors and campaigning.
If, for example, Emily, voted YES, she would be catering to special interests and therefore not representing the majority of her ward.
Regardless, whichever way she votes, I am confident she will present her well thought out reasons at the BOA meeting, as appropriate.
@Kathy: You got it. Members of the Charter Commission have made clear that they want the data to make inferences, yet none have put on the record what inferences they’d seek to make with the data. Given that Newton already has an arguably unusual representative structure, it’s important to properly use any such data and to ask the right questions so as to not make things worse.
@Jane: What other cities are completing substantially similar projects without the uproar?
I’ve read articles just this week about mixed use developments in Medford and Somerville.
An inference is a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning. By definition you can’t make an inference without evidence. I’ve spent my career teaching this to students.
The only vote that will count is when the Board of Aldermen meet and vote. As it stands now, the proposal will be voted down. The project doesn’t have the necessary Board votes to carry. I don’t think the TAB editorial will make one bit of difference.
Given that Somerville is the most dense or one of the most dense cities in the United States of America, I’d caution using them as an example as that’ll only fuel the fire of many who oppose Austin Street.
Of the articles that you cite, specifically, which projects are being developed on publicly held land to the tune of millions of dollars in private profit? I’d be interested to compare conditions, affordability thresholds, and process (i.e., did the city first pick the developer or project?).
No doubt composition and responsibilities of the Board of Aldermen were front and center on the minds of Newton voters earlier this month when they selected nine reform-minded members for the nascent charter commission.
As such, the Board’s upcoming vote on the requested Austin Street special permit presents a timely opportunity for incumbent Aldermen to display their understanding of their duties and responsibilities.
Unfortunately, as alluded to in the posts above, it appears some Aldermen — and citizens — are not clear about what a special permit is and what it is not.
In spite of comments to the contrary by some members of the Board, the upcoming vote is not a referendum on housing affordability or village density or use of city land or transit access or the future of Newton or capitalism or even the Mayor. It is, as Alderman Hess-Mahan correctly notes above, a quasi-judicial vote to grant a special permit.
Therefore, the SOLE consideration for each Alderman can ONLY be whether or not the proposed project meets the criteria for granting a special permit. Fortunately, these criteria are exceedingly familiar. They were created by a UNANIMOUS prior vote of the Aldermen to rezone the site and thus create the exact criteria by which this or any proposal must be judged. Let’s be very clear: the Aldermen unanimously determined the shape of this project with debate and input from concerned citizens TWO YEARS before this proposal was selected.
Given the nine years of consideration of the concept, the 18 months of review and discussion and modification and yes, improvement, of this specific proposal, as well as the 22-page draft board order that was carefully crafted over 8 hours by the Aldermen’s Land Use Committee — with nine nights of prior public comment over six months — to document in precise detail how every aspect of this proposal meets the very special permit criteria set by the Board itself, it is hard to see how any member of this Board who votes against granting a special permit — even in spite of her or his own potential personal opposition or political considerations — could be seen as properly understanding and executing the role and responsibilities of a quasi-judicial special permit granting authority.
In fact, the Board’s quasi-judicial role REQUIRES each member to set aside personal opinions and political considerations and make a determination SOLELY on the facts. In this case, the Board must determine only whether the proposal before them meets the criteria they established for granting a special permit. Nothing else.
A vote against granting a special permit is not a protest or personal expression but instead the last piece of evidence necessary to conclude that this Board is broken and not worthy of considering special permits. No doubt the Charter Commission, concerned citizens of Newton and the Commonwealth are watching very closely.
We respectfully ask every Board member to consider the Austin Street special permit request before them without prejudice and with an open mind in full adherence with their duties and responsibilities as a quasi-judicial special permit granting authority.
I’m still not clear on exactly what “quasi-judicial” means.
Ted wrote:
@Ted: If your requirements had not been met and you had voted against the project, would you have been acting responsibly in a quasi-judicial role? And, if the board order does meet all the special permit criteria yet is still rejected, won’t ASP have good cause for legal action?
So now ASP is stirring the Charter Commission pot as well. Now this corporation is lobbying on V14 for political change,.. no doubt for their advantage ? Where does it stop ? Maybe they should be given a seat at that table as well ?
@Bill: And why shouldn’t local businesses have a seat at the table when it comes to discussing how our government functions?
Greg,
Ahah , so we’re back to the Corporations are People decision of the Supreme Court.
Let’s give the corporate community ( the Chamber of Commerce ? ), a seat at the Charter Commission table ?
Glad to know your position here.
And why shouldn’t our charter commissioners want to hear feedback from businesses?
It certainly seems to be more prudent than hearing from some blog curmudgeon who only likes to tear ideas down, without ever offering any positive suggestions of his own.
Gail, yes, I think so. The RFP and the Real Property Reuse Board Order both required 25% affordable units, with a mix of low to moderate income (50-80% area median income). Although the law department disagrees with me on this, I believe that the inclusionary zoning ordinance also applies to this project, and was prepared to go to the mat for that based on both the RFP and RPR Board Order. The IZO requires 15% affordable units and a mix of incomes that averages no higher than 65% of area median income. As it worked out, 25% of the units are affordable, of which 6 may go to households making 30% AMI and are eligible for Section 8 vouchers and the other 11 are for households making up to 80% AMI. That is because I was willing to work hard to get to that result and was willing to negotiate and think outside the box a little. Major kudos goes to Judy Jacobson, who is on the Newton Housing Partnership, for coming up with this solution.
“Quasi-judicial” means that the BOA is supposed to act like a panel of judges and determine whether the project satisfies the special permit criteria and, if so, to impose conditions that mitigate the impact of the project. Those conditions are most often negotiated, since as a practical matter if a petitioner rejects a particular condition it will appeal, albeit not necessarily prevail on the merits. Based on all the information presented to the Board, I believe that the project satisfies the special permit criteria for the MU4 zone. The BOA nevertheless has discretion to deny a special permit if it otherwise satisfies those criteria, unless the denial is based solely on a legally untenable ground, or is otherwise “unreasonable,” “whimsical,” “capricious” or “arbitrary.” A condition of a special permit may be challenged on the basis that is lacks a “nexus” to the relief granted or that it effectively prohibits the use altogether.
Class dismissed.
I’d say the charter commission members wouldn’t be doing their jobs if they weren’t reaching out to all types of constituencies to give the broadest picture before making recommendations.
You can be sure the commission members will be also receiving all sorts of unsolicited feedback, and is there anything wrong with that? The members need to be able to distill all the info they garner as part of their process, and then make sound decisions. To the extent that I think the commission is made up of thoughtful folks that should work fine…
It’s always annoying to me when ASP joins the discussion to arrogantly tell our Alderman their business. They seem to want to alienate even their supporters.
Granting a special permit is not as uncomplicated as, “it meets the criteria so you have to vote for it,” particularly when the petitioner is asking for multiple waivers, as ASP is. There is leeway for the Alders to add conditions, which they have done.
If there is an final Board Order, I can’t find it so I’m assuming we’re still looking at a Draft Board Order which articulates several things an Alderperson could disagree with.
#15 says: The Board finds that the Reuse Board Order #150-09(6) resolves “That funds at least equal to the monetary bid received for the lease of the property be used to enhance the redevelopment of the site and improve Newtonville center more generally,”
There is a big difference between “improve Newtonville Center” as we have been told and “enhance the redevelopment site.”
#17 says: The Board finds that the Site is an appropriate location for a small (~1,500 square feet) shared-office “innovation center” on the ground floor and for a restaurant with up to 75 seats, as the proposed uses are appropriate for the commercial center of the village.
When you put this with the 80 parking stall waiver, it could cause disagreement.
#18 says: The proposed site plan and building form is compatible with the neighborhood context.
Not everyone agrees with that.
#20 says: The Board finds that exceptions to the parking requirements including a waiver for 80 required parking stalls … to waive the dimensional requirements for some parking stalls, … and to waive the off-street loading requirements, are in the public interest … [Because]
b. The parking for the market rate residential units will be charged separately and in addition to the residential rent so as to reduce demand for parking by the market rate residential units. … the Project is within walking distance of the Newtonville commuter rail station, MBTA bus routes.
e. The allowance for reduced size of parking stalls will not create a nuisance or hazard to vehicles … maneuvering aisles.
That is up to interpretation.
g. The waiver for off-street loading facilities is justified … Adequate provision is made for deliveries and trash and recycling pick-up through a service corridor at the rear of the building, and deliveries to the portion of the properties to be used for office will be minimal. 22. The provision for off-street loading facilities is sufficient for the servicing of the building. Adequate provision is made for deliveries through a service corridor at the rear of the building, and deliveries to the portion of the properties to be used for office will be minimal.
Where is the SERVICE CORRIDOR AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING? I keep asking this question but don’t have an answer.
The Project shall include 17 income restricted units (25%) that shall be made available to households earning up to 80% of Area Median Income. In addition, the Petitioner shall work with the City and DHCD in good faith to provide a preference for up to 6 (3 one bedroom units and 3 two bedroom units) of the 17 income restricted units for lower income households with rental assistance vouchers, including those under the Federal Section 8 program.
Will there be 6 units affordable to 50% or lower AMI or not?
Tom, the Charter Commission was elected to “properly” use data and ask all questions that pertain to it, not just the “right questions” because there is no one definition for the “right questions.”
This statement “the Charter Commission have made clear that they want the data to make inferences, yet none have put on the record what inferences they’d seek to make with the data.” is an impossibility.
Inferences can’t be defined until there exists something (data) to draw inferences from. Data is just data at first. After putting it together, it can imply many things. It’s then that questions can be asked and conclusions can be drawn.
I’m sure the Charter Commission will reach out to businesses in Newton. I’m confident that we elected commissioners who know what there job is and will do it well. It seems ridiculous to continue to question their methods when they are just getting started. At least wait until they aren’t doing something right to complain about their work.
ASP, on the other hand, isn’t a Newton business, even if they are owned or run by people who live in Newton. They are a conglomeration of Oaktree, Dinosaur Capital, etc. In addition, we don’t know who is commenting as their representative. Their attorney, an employee or just a PR person assigned to social media. They are attempting to define the job our Alders do now and influence the changes in government they want to see in our future. This is arrogant and certainly not their ballywick. What other businesses have done that? What Newton businesses comment as businesses?
I am surprised just how often the Charter Comm. is mentioned on this thread. So far 2 people from the Commission have made biased political statements which I find misleading. My take on the 9 people elected to the comm. is that it is a very unbalanced political representation of Newton voters. From what I have read so far today I do not trust their role in Newton’s future well being.
I am particularly concerned about implications about the role of the aldermen/women in land use decisions.
Why should you be surprised that the Charter Commission is mentioned in a thread that’s about an matter the charter commission is both likely and empower to consider? (And Gail said as much in her original post.)
I am thrilled that Jane, Bryan and Chris are commenting here and I hope they didn’t take my earlier comment as any sort of criticism. I was just questioning whether, given our Board’s unusual structure, you’d be able to answer Gail’s questions by examining Newton’s B of A voting data. I am not sure it will tell you enough about ward representatives per se. I hope the CC will look at similar data from other cities with differing proportions of ward representation.
What Kathy said. Looking at data from other communities will definitely part of the process.
Which other communities are approximately the same size as Newton with the same sort of village-centered structure?