Is this really how we envision Newton to be?
The Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance knows a thing or two about smart development.
Which is why it’s interesting that they have singled out Newton for not jumping on the opportunity to build Austin Street. In a blog post that’s well worth the read, the MSGA points out how places like Winchester and West Concord have embraced these concepts in areas similar in character to Newtonville. So while opponents of this project like to say that this project is about urbanization of Newton or that it’s trying to turn Newton into Boston, that simply isn’t the case. It’s really about keeping pace with the development being done by our suburban peers.
But most damning is this at the end:
Highly vocal opponents don’t visualize the future the same way as the project’s community proponents. Where proponents see new life on the street, opponents visualize auto gridlock. Where proponents see 17 units affordable to a police officer or teacher, opponents see school costs. Where proponents see 51 market rate units that will allow young professionals or downsizing baby boomers to stay in Newton, opponents see unwanted “luxury” housing and gentrification.
With two-thirds of Millennials desiring to live in walkable, transit-accessible places at the same time that seniors shift to apartment living, suburban communities have a real test before them. Communities like Newtonville need to decide between planned growth and unplanned growth. For its peers like West Concord village, Winchester Center, Andover and Newburyport, the future is already happening.
Also worth noting is the fact that the West Concord project mentioned is built by the same developer as Austin Street and larger in size and scope.
Do we really want to be known as the city that voted for a parking lot?
This week I visited an old classmate whom I had not laid eyes on for over 35 years.
He grew up in Newton his whole life, well into his 20’s. He lives in Westwood now and has not been back to Newton in many years.
Chuck wrote: “Do we really want to be known as the city that voted for a parking lot?”
If my friend is any indication, we don’t have to worry about that. We will be known foremost as the city that blew over 200 million dollars on a designer high school over anything else, for decades to come.
Mark, I bet you in 5 years no one remembers the high school cost except a rare few. Lots of expensive high schools being built around the Commonwealth and rising construction costs. Not saying I approved of the process, it was a boondoggle and showed poor management and design. But it is built and done, despite many of the neighbors objections to various aspects.
I’ve come to enjoy many aspects of it actually. And the traffic aspects are not as bad as I thought they’d be. I adjusted to the reality of the school I guess.
I hear that a lot too.
But when people say that I often respond by telling them “are you aware that the high school is also a votech school?”
Usually the answer is no.
Then I explain some of the other programs that are there, co-located with the traditional academics. So kids who are a college track can also take classes in automotive repair, hospitality, cooking, robotics, engineering or childcare.
That’s when they usually say “Oh wow, I didn’t realize that.” They reconsider the cost and it makes sense, especially when they consider other comparably sized high schools being built today.
When I look at the high school I see progress, you see a waste of money. You’re not alone, I understand that, you and I disagree.
When this vote is done we will have either progress or a parking lot. Pick one.
False choice. Total spin.
Just means an alternative TBD that the village would have a say in.
But Charlie, are you saying the NVA is not advocating to keep this a parking lot? Blueprintbill said that a parking lot was their desire. Maybe he’s mistaken and someone can clear it up?
No Charlie, the village has had a say, this has been a long process. The questions were answered, the concerns considered.
The choice now is progress or a parking lot. Any “pragmatist” can see that.
“Communities like Newtonville need to decide between planned growth and unplanned growth.”
The threat of unplanned growth in Newton is a flimsy cudgel, especially in the built-out village centers, and especially, as appears likely, the city has achieved the 40B threshold or will with already proposed projects.
The only way the cudgel firms up is if there is intense market pressure for multi-family housing in Newton. That pressure may come, but only if there are significantly higher costs imposed on driving as part of an overall plan to tax carbon emissions. Not seeing it in the short term.
Process complaints are the last refuge of the dead-ender.
Chuck, any “pragmatist” can see that, but a “populist” cannot.
Charlie, I’ll make you the same offer I made Tom Davis. If it doesn’t pass, let’s check in every year for the next decade and we’ll see who is right. Yes, it is certainly possible that the parking lot will one day be developed. Infinite possibilities in a parking lot. But I’d prefer to sit in the pocket park in m lifetime, or at least before my kids graduate from college.
And Charlie, I’m curious, what would YOU want the parking lot to be? Just parking? Housing? I didn’t view you as against development earlier in your career. If you were on the Board, what would you be advocating for?
The principles of Smart Growth, includes the premise that growth should be concentrated in compact walkable urban centers to avoid sprawl. Of course, it also includes looking at conservation, community, and mobility functions in our approach to zoning changes and transportation needs; all critically important to anyone who cares about the environment.
If we continue to plan and build for a transportation system that is focused on single occupant vehicles (SOV), as we have for the last 100 years, what you get is expansive parking lots, free or cheap parking which encourages more driving, and car centric town centers. (Newton Corner is a good example what happens to a village re-designed for SOV use. It also helps explain why 87% of all trips made in the U.S are made by car, and the parking is free for 99% of those trips).
I understand that we need to make substantial improvements in public transit, but what will help us get us there is a thoughtful, forward thinking planning process that gradually encourages the public to choose transportation options, and not be quite so wedded to single occupant vehicle (SOV) use. There is a bit of a chicken and egg problem here. Again, we all drive and cars are not going away. But if we can even just reduce the number of SOV car trips then this is a big success. This includes encouraging car sharing, HOV use, zip cars, taxis, other car services, as well as walking and biking. The goal is to give people options that will work for them.
ASP is a good example of Smart Growth, which explains why so many environmental groups support it.
As an environmentalist, I am deeply concerned about the kind of future we are leaving our children and grandchildren. A few years ago, I would have been more suspicious of this project because I identified increased density and development as “bad for the environment”. But almost everyone in the environmental movement has done a 180 degree turn on this. It’s actually sprawl that’s bad for the environment. Denser communities are much more sustainable, more environmentally friendly, use fewer resources, are more walkable and bike friendly, and actually improve the quality of life for most people.
At a certain point, we need to accept that certain issue are not amenable to compromise. Maybe at the edges, but not at the core. What the Mass Smart Growth Alliance blog post does, particularly in the portion Chuck has quoted, is establish that there are competing, irreconcilable visions at play here.
You either support a village center that is more urban or you do not.
If you look at our village centers and think that their continued viability five or ten years down the pike depends on the continued availability of free and easy parking, fine. I get it. I don’t agree. But, I get it. No question though, as Alison so nicely laid it out*, it’s not an environmentally defensible position.
One of these visions for Newtonville is going to prevail. I hope it’s the environmentally progressive, commercially viable vision. It might, however, be the status quo vision that prevails.
But, please, can the opponents stop complaining that they haven’t had a say, that people aren’t listening to them?
We. Just. Disagree.
*Since Ted’s on the thread, I’d be remiss if I didn’t note that he’s been tirelessly advocating the position Alison articulated for years.
Amen.
Another amen.
Chuck,
Just because other suburbs are doing it, doesn’t mean that developing dense multi-family housing walkable from a commercial district isn’t urbanization. It is. Those of us who support density should own “urban.”
Newton is a city. It has a mix of neighborhoods. Some, but certainly not all, should be more urban.
If denser housing within a mix of uses isn’t your definition of urban, than I worry you mean something less defensible.
Sean,
I agree that it’s urbanization, but this argument that it’s entirely changing Newton into something that is more akin to Boston is simply untrue. It’s turning Newton into something that can remain competitive for housing and talent even among its suburban brethren.
Those in favor of pockets of urbanization need to understand what’s at issue: not economics. It’s a desire to maintain the neighborhood as is. Folks are willing to pay for status quo with diminished future value of their property.
Sell the change as an improvement (tough, but doable). Or, prevail in the process and accept the resulting enmity.
Let’s talk “smart growth” and “transit centric” when we have real transit in Newtonville; or when the developer and the MBTA are making real commitments to improving transit (as New Balance and the T are doing with the Boston Landing commuter rail stop).
Let’s talk “planned growth” when we have a master plan for Newtonville, and when zoning and projects flow from that plan – not when we back-fill plans to justify opportunistic development projects.
Meanwhile, I’d much rather have a parking lot then stupid, and unplanned growth. And, the examples I’d look to are Waltham and Arlington – where well designed parking lots are an important component of their business districts.
“Meanwhile, I’d much rather have a parking lot then stupid, and unplanned growth.”
It’s very possible you’re going to get what you want.
This project is not urbanization. It is smart, transit oriented growth in a city center, which is common in similarly situated suburbs and in my opinion is “right sized” in the current plan before the board to fit the nature and character of Newtonville.
If it even looks half as nice as the artists renderings, it will also make for a far more attractive Newtonville than the current parking lot.
Miles, as has been pointed out before, it is a chicken-egg sort of thing. Public transit improvements won’t happen without additional demand. Additional demand means adding density and people who will use public transit. The same is true for adding Hubway and other alternates to SOV. Without the demand that added density brings, it simply will not happen. You can wait until the end of eternity or we can jump start the process with smart growth.
Sean, I only wish I could vote for Alison Leary, but she is not the ward alderman from my ward.
Alison, well said.
Whether or not it meets the threshold transit opportunities to technically consider it Smart Growth or transit-oriented development (oh, how my fingers itch to hit the quotation marks!), the fact of real, scheduled transit options so close to the development makes it environmentally preferable to something without those options.
Commuter rail might not be great. The Newtonville stop might not be great. But, people use the commuter rail from Newtonville as a viable alternative to driving to work in Boston. That’s the happy reality of now.
Will more people bring more service and upgrades? I hope so. It makes sense. But, the Austin Street project provides an environmental benefit even with today’s sub-optimal transit options.
Is that really our only choice… a bad deal vs. a parking lot? The term of this deal is 100 years. It seems to me we have the time to get it right. Despite a deeply discounted price enjoyed by ASP, this project does not even meet the 40B standard for number of affordable units. Under the terms of this deal ASP is getting 5000 sf or retail space, for which there are no offsetting affordable housing units. Should the taxpayers of this City be forced into a bad business deal because their Mayor is more interested in building his resume than negotiating the best deal possible? I think it’s sad affordable housing proponents are so anxious to get this project approved that they are willing to forego the additional affordable units Newton should be receiving to offset the new retail space.
Mike, affordable housing proponents understand that 17 is a much larger number than 0.
I would also point out that typically affordable housing is deeply subsidized. The benefit of a project like this is that it requires less subsidies than a project with all or mostly affordable units.
@Ted – re: jump start the process with smart growth
The 34 business petition against the project notes that there are 3500 housing units proximate to the Newtonville village center. Will this project’s 2% more potential demand really jump start the process?
TOD might actually not need transit to actually work, a relevant article that came up the other day discusses just that.
“…Developing high-density, mixed-use housing near rail stations may reduce traffic congestion and auto pollution, slowing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions caused by cars. But there is a huge caveat: those benefits may not depend much on rail access. In this study, lower auto ownership and use in TODs was not from the T (transit)—or at least, not from the R (rail). What does reduce car ownership and use? Lower parking availability, better bus service, smaller housing units, more rental housing, more destinations within walking distance,…”
Take out the bus service and you still get benefits but just not as much.
Better bus service is always needed, but until we get more housing and the 59 becomes more packed all day vs just the commuting hours the T is not interested, since we dont control our own transit it is tough. That said bus access here is pretty damn good, not Cambridge good, but still.
There are 4 different bus lines that run through Newtonville, a 5th is a couple blocks past Whole Foods. 57 access is a bit long but doable 20 min walk. The 59 is 7-7 service, not ideal but it works even with the limited service on Sat and Sun, the express buses give a one seat ride to Waltham and downtown as well as 3 other villages (59 gives one seat to 4 villages as well as Watertown and Needham) They provide service from 6 to 10 (depending on the line and direction.
Rail provides service from 6am to 1am depending on direction.
Service works great for commuters, younger couples, older residents, and can work for some trips for folks with kids.
Bus service will never provide the level of personal transport and access that a private car will, but it works fine right now and allows many Newtonville residents to get around without using a private vehicle, no reason why the current level of service wouldn’t allow new residents at Austin the same access to where they need to go (if it doesn’t they don’t move here!)
@Mike , “Despite a deeply discounted price enjoyed by ASP, this project does not even meet the 40B standard for number of affordable units”.
This project does meet or exceed the number of affordable units. The standard is 20-25% of the units have to have long-term affordability restrictions. This project comes in at 25%. It’s also important that zero public funds are being used for the affordable units. This is a huge plus for the City considering a single unit of affordable housing can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. All 68 units will be counted as part of our affordable housing inventory that gets us closer to the elusive 10% affordable goal.
@Allison — Mike’s point was that the 5000 sq ft of market rate office space and other retail is not being offset by additional affordable units beyond those that 40B would call for the residential alone.
@Allison — ASP is not transferring ~$400,000 cost affordable units to the city. It is creating “affordable” units it will collect on the order of $60 million in rent on in today’s dollars over the life of the project on a $10-$20 million dollar lot the city proposes to transfer to them for $1 million.
Should we be proud that the city will count 50 high-end market rate units as “affordable” due to a 40B loophole (e.g. same exact units would not count if they were sold as condos)?
Mike, this is not a 40B so the retail space is not really relevant to the SHI count. This project will be counted in the SHI as local action units under a local initiative plan, not 40B. But could you point to the DHCD regulation that that you think requires additional affordable units? Because I am unaware of one.
I suggest a new title.
This is embarrassing: Concerned Citizens call out Newton Officials for allowing Austin Street Developers to profit many millions off public land while kids down the street continue to go to bed hungry.
@Tom Davis: Please explain how not either approving or not approving Austin Street relates to whether or not kids down the street go hungry. Really. Explain it. Because if you can convince me, I will change my support of this project.
Just a reminder that the project that Alderman Norton espouses as the poster child for what we should have done at Austin St. – The Metro-West proposal which proposed 25 affordable units – had severe financial shortcomings for Newton. The proposed financial arrangements would have required $1.75 million of Newton public funds – through a compilation of Newton HOME, CPA and CDBG funds and that was only the Newton part of the public funds in their proposal. There were an additional $2 million in state public funds in their proposal. Their acquisition costs and building permit fees came to 1.1 million. – So on the face of this alone the Metro west proposal which was 100% affordable would have put Newton in the financial hole by at least $600,000. So apples to apples – the MetroWest proposal was not highly advantageous for Newton in many ways.
Susan Albright,
I think the City should have worked harder to make MetroWest happen. $600,000 is nothing for the City if you consider that they are essentially giving the land to ASP to use, rather than selling it. How will the City collect taxes on the ASP development if they don’t own the land? You don’t think they have already figured out a way to avoid paying property taxes? They have.
Also, 25% of affordable housing will barely fold into the current % we have and a blimp of increase will get us no closer. We need 100% affordable housing developments to meet the 10%.
The MetroWest project would not only have not diluted their contribution to the 10%, the project would have contributed greatly to the 1.5% land use for affordable housing thereby allowing Newton to not be slave to 40B.
ASP knows exactly what they are doing. Does Newton? Do you?
SoccerMommy, you are misinformed. Here is an email we received from the director of planning, James Freas:
In addition, Newton has added just 19 units to the city’s subsidized housing inventory in the past 6 years. Austin Street would add almost four times that amount, and almost three times the amount that would have been created by the Metrowest proposal. That is a significant step forward to the 10% goal.
It has been an endless source of frustration to me and other supporters of the Austin Street project that so much misinformation (disinformation?) is out there and that people are believing it. I still hear from people who believe there will be no more public parking at Austin Street when the project is done. Winston Churchill was right that “a lie gets around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”
And I forgot to add that the ASP project would contribute exactly the same land area to the 1.5% calculation, while adding almost three times as many units toward the 10%.
I understand Austin Street is not a 40B. I’m simply making a comparison…
Unlike any 40B I’m aware of, the developer of Austin Street is starting with a deeply discounted piece of public property. That fact alone warrants a larger commitment of affordable units than a traditional 40B, for which a developer pays fair market land value…
Even without factoring the additional 5000 sf of retail space associated with the project, this is a bad deal that shortchanges the city on affordable units. It becomes an egregious deal once you include the retail space in a value calculation of what each side is getting.
I’ll point out again, I have no problem with Austin Street conceptually. I’m not phased by the location, size, or style of the proposed building. My objection is a very simple one. Our primary goal at Austin Street–the reason the taxpayers are generously discounting this property, is to create as many affordable housing units as possible. To that end, the City has done a very poor job of negotiating.
SoccerMommy, Metro-West is not-for-profit so collecting property taxes would be an issue. But ASP will pay high real estate taxes.
In addition, they didn’t have any confirmed funding, they had ways they hoped they could get it. The funds from the City are limited as are the ones from the state. There’s no way to know if that $2,000,000 from the state would happen.
Because they are apartments with 25% affordable, all of the 68 units will be added to the inventory vs 25 in the other scenerio. That’s a net gain.
The city is not giving ASP land. It is gaining a $million to improve Newtonville Center, along with mitigation fees to underground utilities, redo the intersection, widen the sidewalk, add trees and plantings, pay to merchants during the construction period, etc. They are offering, free of charge, the community use of the shared office space in off hours.
And we still have the revenue generating parking lot for public use. That wasn’t even a consideration in the Metro-West deal.
Mixed income housing, particularly mixed use mixed income housing, has been found to be a very beneficial environment for all tenants. Segregated income housing works for a small number of cases, mostly small detached condos or houses, but not in apartment buildings. The concept of separate “projects” for lower income is the least healthy environment. That’s a main reason housing law requires the apartments be the same, be in the same building (rather than across town) and be scattered throughout the building.
In the prosposals that were for more money were to purchase the land for their use. They were larger but didn’t have to have 25% affordable units, since 15% is the requirement in inclusionary zoning. We would lose all parking so there would be lost revenue for the city.
Having more affordable units would be great, but with the concessions gained through this process, I think 17 units is the highest number the BOA could negotiate. If it doesn’t pass there will be no affordable units. How does that help?
What Marti said – “The concept of separate ‘projects’ for lower income is the least healthy environment.”
I find it difficult to believe that people don’t understand the disadvantages of a 100% affordable housing development. No other phrase explains why it’s a bad idea better than “segregated income housing”.
Soccemomy ASP will give 2.4 million for the project and in addition they will give $300,000 for building permit. For that they give 17 permanent affordable homes, a new parking lot to replace the one we have, a public gathering place -unlike anything Newtonville has ever seen and a pocket park. The million they give the city for the use of the land will be used to upgrade Newtonville. I know exactly what I’m doing. This is a GREAT Deal for Newton.
Mike, Mike, Mike. I am disappointed in you. Our inclusionary zoning ordinance requires 15% affordable units. Twenty five percent would be more.
Look, I am doing my best to get as much affordable housing in this city as I can get. It ain’t easy. Newton has created 19 units of affordable housing in the last 6 years. Austin Street will create 17 more, and all 68 units will be added to the subsidized housing inventory. Give me a little love here.
Ted, just to be clear: Newton has created 19 affordable units in six years and we have the opportunity to almost double that with one development that the biggest affordable housing advocate (you!) on the BOA enthusiastically supports? Yet nine aldermen might vote no, likely leaving the city with a parking lot?
That’s what’s embarrassing.
Ted– I’ve supported public-private partnerships since the cows left Newton. And like you, I’ve actually been involved in building affordable housing. So conceptually, I like Austin Street. The City wants affordable housing. A private developer wants to make money. Bring ’em together in an underutilized parking lot, and that’s a scenario with a lot of potential.
But the problem with the Austin Street deal is that it doesn’t live up to it’s potential. The city is not getting enough affordable units in exchange for the value of the land it’s giving up. I understand that’s a subjective opinion on my part, but it’s an educated opinion nonetheless.
Of course I respect and value your opinion as well, Ted. You’ve been a tireless champion of affordable housing. Rest assured I won’t be laying down in front of the bulldozers if this project moves forward. But if ever there were a time for someone in the Mayor’s office who knows how to play hardball with developers, man this is that time. Because no one will ever convince me, the right pressure couldn’t squeeze a few more affordable units out of ASP.
@Ted – I thought you had said above that the project adds 4 times as much affordable housing inventory as we previously had? Maybe that was another thread or maybe the editors allow proponents get to edit their poor word choices on Village 14?
Because the original comments would imply that we should be embarrassed by loosing the opportunity to avoid adding affordable housing by exploiting the 40B loophole that counts rented luxury apartments that wouldn’t count if they were condos (and shouldn’t count in any case ).
Jack P. – There are 17 affordable units but all the units in the development (68) would count in the city’s total number of affordable units needed to reach the 10% minimum. That’s how the law works. It has nothing to do with Village 14.
@Gail — did you edit Ted’s original comment?
Jack P., No.
@Jane: As someone from Newton who has at different points lived in public housing, a trailer park, multi-family housing, a transit-oriented apartment (in Newtonville…), single-family housing, and student housing, I’m confused about your comment re: 100% affordable housing. Given that the controlling argument for the proposed affordable units at Austin Street is that they’ll offer short-term housing opportunities to teachers, firefighters, and other municipal workers, would that not be the case with a 100% affordable housing development? If so, what exactly is disadvantages about that?
Once a development is 100% affordable units, a stigma is attached to it. To remove the stigma, you make it mixed-income.
This discussion is going nowhere. It’s time to vote and move on.
Gail, you are correct.
Jack P., I stated that 19 new units of affordable housing have been created over the past 6 years, and that this project will add 17 affordable units (including 6 that could be rented to very low income households eligible for housing vouchers) and all 68 units will be included in the subsidized housing inventory (SHI). That is almost 4 times as many units that will be included in SHI than have been created over the past 6 years. On top of that, a private developer–not the public–is paying for those affordable units. Of the 19 created over the past 6 years, 17 were heavily subsidized by a combination of federal, state and local funding, and only 2 were subsidized entirely by a private developer through Chapter 40B. That is a pretty abysmal number. A lot of affordable units have been permitted but not built, and many of those units (e.g. Chestnut Hill Square) may never get built. Others have been delayed for various other reasons, and whether and when they will be built is uncertain at best. The only one that is moving forward at present is Kessler Woods, which replaced another project with affordable units that was never built.
I have commented about this on various threads, but you may be thinking of my response to a post that suggested Austin Street would not result in significant progress toward the 40B goals of 10% affordable or 1.5% land area. Sixty-eight units, in my mind, is a significant step forward toward the city’s 10% goal–which requires around 800 more units. Personally, I believe the SHI is otherwise irrelevant, and that including market rate rental units in SHI is bad policy. But that is a compromise that the state has made in order to assist communities in reaching the goals of 40B, instead of gutting or repealing the state’s affordable housing laws.
In my experience, despite widespread support for affordable housing, every time a project comes before the board of aldermen for a special permit, there is significant resistance from neighbors and some of the aldermen. It is always, or almost always, about density. While everyone goes to great lengths to explain they are not opposed to affordable housing, per se, opponents never come up with viable alternatives that do not require heavy public subsidies. That is a drop in the bucket, because the federal, state and local money available for affordable housing is only ever enough to create a handful of units each year, as the abysmal record over the last 6 years has amply demonstrated.
I find it disheartening that 9 of my colleagues may well prevent the city from making the most significant progress toward its affordable housing goals in years.
@Ted: I wish you luck helping your colleagues understand that that’s what they are doing. Absolutely no sarcasm intended.
@Ted. I am confused. Everyone is talking about Austin Street producing affordable units. You have be very clear in the past that affordable is defined by the Commonwealth’s statute. The last time I asked, you said that Newton does not have clarity on how this development will change the percentage of affordable units in Newton. Is that still true? Are we in a situation, where, right now, none of the units are affordable? Why not put off on the vote until we get closure on this? Why are we even talking about Austin Street until we know the answer?
I’ve had many deals, in real estate and other industries, walk right up to the deadline looking as if they’d collapse. Sometimes deals just can’t get done. But oftentimes one side or the other makes a significant concession at the deadline to push a deal over the edge and make it happen…
So for the folks who really really really want Austin Street to happen NOW, I suggest squeezing ASP for more affordable units. I know it’s late in the game and the outcome is in doubt. I’m sure ASP is concerned that all of their efforts [and costs] will come to nothing. So this seems like the perfect moment for ASP to throw a bone to those still on the fence…
I’ve articulated my opinion that the ASP proposal should have 6 more affordable units than currently proposed. Six more affordable units would better balance the city’s contribution of land and the 5000 sf of retail space for which there are no offsetting affordable housing units. But at this point, I would think a lesser concession might very well win the day. It would certainly put more pressure on [and provide political cover to] the 9 holdouts on the Board.
Thanks, Gail.
Jeffrey, I don’t think that is what I said. Newton will apply for inclusion of the project in SHI as local action units under a local initiative program, which is allowed under the regulations.
Mike, ASP’s profit margin is already pretty thin–thinner than what is permitted by Chapter 40B. Any additional affordable units would likely require a public subsidy.
@Ted — Thank you for reply. I know you understand this well and I appreciate you taking time to provide background. If Village14 is going to use moralistic post titles like “this is embarrassing”, that we should be clear about what we are talking about.
There is an important difference between “68 affordable housing units”, and “68 units in the city’s affordable housing inventory”, and supporters have sometimes exploited that when appealing to folks who likely are not aware of the difference.
Similarly, I think people hear many different things when they hear affordable housing (e.g. low income, subsidized, affordable to city workers) as well as “housing for seniors”, which in this case on the market rate side, is pretty expensive housing for seniors. I certainly was not clear on all this coming into the process and appreciate the background you have provided.
The project basically has appeal on two fronts — 17 affordable units of good will, and 68 units on the “avoid-a-40B-in-my-backyard” NIMBYism. This is fine and a basis for a coalition, but opponents are going to react when the objectives are conflated.
Personally, when my family was in the affordable housing bracket, with a 1yo looking to get away from concrete apartments and pavement, we came to Newton and neighboring towns looking for wooden structures and small patches of backyard grass. We found many affordable units(67) list that fit that criteria in Newton and surrounding towns. The problem was the state’s lead paint law. No real estate agents returned our calls, and all but 2 landlords turns us away. One did this so blatantly that we asked for them to be removed from my university’s housing referral database. In the end, that could only be done with an MCAD complaint, which led to attorney general action and 5 deleaded apartments for the community.
I don’t know what the situation is like today, but if you want to make towns like Newton more welcoming and affordable to young families, I’d find ways to change laws or assist landlords on this front.
@Ted. My question is why not apply for inclusion BEFORE we permit. It sounds like this could be built and there is a chance that nothing will count as affordable. Again, I might be missing something.
Discrimination based on family status is a Fair Housing Act violation, and refusing to rent to families with children under 6 is a violation of the Massachusetts Lead Paint law that can result if an award of up to triple damages plus attorneys fees. Federal and state laws that got the lead out of gasoline and required removal of lead paint in housing have been directly responsible for a huge decrease in lead levels in children. Lead can cause all sorts of developmental and other problems in children and was once widespread in poor urban areas. I know these laws are not popular with landlords and the oil companies (I have represented landlords as well as tenants in lead paint cases), but they are probably some of the most effective laws ever. And there are programs that help landlords pay for lead paint removal.
Jeffrey, you are missing something. The City cannot apply for inclusion of units that do not exist yet, but if you comply with the regulations, they should be included. This is not ASP’s first rodeo, and the people I worked with on getting ASP to provide a mix of income levels also know what they are doing. As a reason for not acting on the special permit, this is a pretty lame one.
Thanks Ted. Is there any recourse for the city in the unlikely event that an inclusion is not granted?
Yes. As we have seen, the ZBA can assert that it has met one or more of the statutory minima under Chapter 40B and litigate the issue.
@Ted — Totally agree on the ongoing risks of lead paint.
By laws I was thinking not of weakening them, but for optimizing required mitigation methods. At the time I know it was very hard to retain the interior character of an old home with approved methods.
We directed the treble damages that came out of our effort to get the university housing office to stop facilitating discrimination (as a prime source of childless students) toward five housing units being de-leaded.
As a young family in the Newton housing market years ago, we very much wanted to find space in a wooden multi-family with a patch of grass in back rather than an apartment building. If we can help with that now in the community (e.g. by enabling accessory apartments or providing further deleading assistance) that would be great.
@Jane: I can assure you that not everyone in Newton would attach a stigma to such a development, maybe even most wouldn’t. Furthermore, the personal perspective that there’s a stigma attached to something shouldn’t keep one from making the right decision, generally speaking.
The lead-paint law in Massachusetts applies to children UNDER 6 years of age. If prospective tenants have children age six (6) or older, then Landlord is not required to de-lead. The standard rental application asks for ages of any children. If the prospective Landlord did not even allow the family to complete an application, then it’s impossible to prove discrimination.