Mayor Setti Warren sent the following email to the Board of Aldermen this morning:
I would like to announce, after hearing from residents and members of the Honorable Board over the last several weeks and having a discussion with Austin Street Partners this morning, Austin Street Partners has agreed to increase the number of affordable units in the Austin Street project to 23 (33%) of the units. Six units would remain eligible for voucher holders. There would be no change in the other conditions, including money for improvements in Newtonville or the monetary compensation to the City. The Law Department is currently redrafting the Board Order. We will send out this proposed language later today. If you have questions about the Board Order, please contact Ouida Young. For other questions, you can contact me or Dori Zaleznik.
Below is a statement from Austin Street Partners:
Austin Street Partners has continued to listen to suggestions to improve the Austin Street project. Our commitment to providing affordable housing has remained strong and fundamental to the project. Based on our commitment to affordable housing, we are proposing to increase affordability in the project from 17 units (25%) to 23 units (33%). We are aware that this increase is not included in our financial projections and represents for us a risk of finding some alternative source of funding or subsidy, but Austin Street Partners is willing to assume this risk.
Sincerely,
Setti D. Warren
Mayor
Congratulations to Mayor Warren and those who helped him negotiate this. I don’t see how it won’t pass now.
Bit of a game changer now. Congrats to all who helped make this latest development happen. It’s better news than not.
Well done. ASP’s commitment to housing affordability and willingness to assume the risk for securing additional subsidies should put to rest concerns that the developer is just in it for the money.
brinksmanship
This is fantastic news. I hope the board sees fit to move on this project tomorrow!
@Ted — The project has projected rental revenues approaching $500 million over the life of the lease/extension in today’s dollars. This adjustment constitutes a subsidy commitment of about $20 million of the revenue over that period. Just want to be sure we have some context. Why wouldn’t all affordable units be eligible for voucher holders?
Ted mentioned this in another thread, but let me call out Mike Striar for insisting this was possible, continuing to advocate for it, and basically being 100% right. Mike and I don’t always agree on development issues, but he was right on this one. There was room for the developer to move, and the mayor had the force to move them. Tip of the hat to Mike.
I’ll also say that as much as I’ve argued with folks on these pages, if this does pass tomorrow, this is a better project than what was originally proposed. And that has been due to Mayor and many of the Aldercritters making it so, as well as the project opponents who have forced ASP to make concessions to get the project passed.
What Ted said. Kudos to ASP as well.
This is great news!
And yes, Mike Striar was right on this one. There was room to move and it did happen.
I hope this puts the debate to bed and we can move on.
@fig, you are right to give a shout out to Mike Striar. There is an old saying that “nothing clears the mind like an imminent hanging.”
seems to me a bit of back sheesh being paid to the powers that be. Just think of the profits they must be giving up. How cheaply must this project be being built that there is this kind of cushion!
Glad to see there was room in the plan for the additional units. Harry is right about brinksmanship. Impressive timing. I can just hear ASP in the conference room saying “this thing is going down the crapper…toss them a few more units and see if they can say no now!”
If the project was desired by the local businesses and the neighborhood, and if it wasn’t a blatant giveaway of city property, the extra units would be very meaningful – even if still not actually affordable.
But… this does bring new things to talk about. Perhaps the vote should be postponed or the item Chartered to give people time to think.
so much for Gifford’s analysis…
Blue, I think the developer is effectively taking on additional risk. I’m sure ASP is still making a profit. Just a smaller one. You can call it brinkmanship, you can call it an imminent hanging or vote counting or practicality, but this is a big give by the ASP folks.
Charlie, if folks were against any type of project in that space, this change is on the margins to them. If folks were against the project because it wasn’t a good enough deal for the city, this is a big deal. But I don’t think the 6 additional units of affordable is difficult to understand. Besides a delay tactic for a new board, what is the purpose of the delay?
I’ll also note that I wonder if Jake A. would support this revised proposal. I think one of his complaints was that the city wasn’t getting enough. He obviously doesn’t have to weigh in, and probably it is smarter for him politically not to.
I hope this gets voted on tomorrow. It’s time for a decision.
I commend Mayor Warren, thank ASP, and endorse this modified proposal for Austin Street. I encourage those on the BoA who might have been inclined to vote against it, to recognize this is now an excellent deal for Newton, and I urge them to pass it unanimously. Mostly, I’m delighted that more people will now have an opportunity to find affordable housing in Newton.
Harry, I disagree. Gifford’s analysis couldn’t take into account the fact that the developer is willing to take on additional risk. Just because the city got more doesn’t mean the last deal was bad, just that this deal is better. I think a lot of us didn’t think ASP had the ability to do this. We were wrong, and I’m glad they are doing it. But Rob just said it was a good deal. He couldn’t say it was the best possible deal, nor did he.
Mike, I was hoping you’d stop by personally. Thank you for posting, and congrats on being right. I’m still going to fight with you on the cost to build over the pike, so don’t get a swelled head or anything…. 😉
Fig, having been in on a number of behind the scenes 40B’s, this is where the head scratching really starts.
No doubt in my mind Mike Striar is the smartest guy at the table. Mike should consider running for Mayor!
Harry, when all this is over, we will probably have to have a conversation on 40Bs and what you mean. (that isn’t a misdirection, I’m less in favor of the Orr project)
@Fig-
Good point – perhaps it does make more sense to postpone for a new Board considering the change in W2 which is the Ward that the project impacts the most.
Charlie, that wasn’t exactly my point. I was saying that the vote should occur as planned. I was pointing out that the delay you advocated wouldn’t do much except get it in front of Jake. And none of us know how we’d weigh in on the new proposal.
Note that this shift will shift the RKG city economic impact analysis. Slightly less tax revenue due to slightly lower rental revenue and more students feeding to schools as the model assumes affordable 2BR units contribute 60% more students than market-rate. What is the 1 vs. 2 BR mix in the new proposal?
There was a lot of uncertainty in the slight benefit previously, but this likely shifts the annual city cost impact to a negative number. When will the Alderman have this revised number available to them?
If affordable housing truly means anything at all to folks in Newton, and given how meager have been such units in Newton over the last several years, this is indeed a big deal. 17 was going to be more than had happened over that stretch, and this new figure can really boost that impact.
In some cases, I fear that opposition now becomes more about “winning” than about the project’s virtues.
So many threads, it’s hard to know where to comment, and I guess I picked an outdated one, so here is my comment from this morning, again:
For me, nothing better illustrates that this project is about what’s good for ASP rather than what’s good for the city, than hearing their attorney Alan Schlesinger say, at the November 12 Land Use meeting, that they’d agree not to lease to banks or nail salons for five years. If I hadn’t been sitting five feet away I would have thought I’d misheard.
Five years! That’s pathetic. Would you marry someone who promised ‘I’ll be faithful for five years’? I think not! This is land the city owns, yet what’s in the “Conditions” of the Board Order is not even a condition — it’s more of an observation: “ASP has agreed to not lease the commercial space in the Project to banks or nail salons for a period of five years from the date when such commercial spaces are first occupied…” It doesn’t even say “shall not lease…”
To me, this whole process seems like a giant, slow motion “bait & switch,” where we’re not getting what was envisioned when the property was surplussed, and when the RFP was written. Remember when 32 units of housing was said to be ‘aggressive’? And what are we getting for commercial? According to the Board Order “approximately 5,000 square feet of commercial space” according to the Findings (not even in the Conditions). Up to 1,500 square feet of that can be the shared office space innovation center, and it appears that much of the remaining ‘approximately’ 3,500 square feet could be used up by an up to 75-seat restaurant. If there was one thing besides banks I would say Newtonville doesn’t lack, it’s restaurants. What happened to the retail we were thought we were getting?
What’s embarrassing is that a majority of the Board, and perhaps two thirds, will actually vote for this, and settle for the guy/girl who promises to be faithful for five years.
With regard to the affordable units, more is better, but why is there nothing in the Board Order requiring that units be affordable in perpetuity? And since the 1 5% is more critical now than the 10% of units target, why are we not getting a ruling from DHCD now, before voting on the project, on how this land will impact the numerator and denominator? (Given their unfavorable interpretation of the rules for Arborpoint at Woodland and the YMCA?)
And why no condition in the Board Order to require that ASP and the city take all the necessary steps to ensure that all units will count on the SHI? There is currently a docket item concerning how to get units in past developments on Comm Ave, Pearl Street and Eddy St that should be on the SHI, actually included, so it seems past efforts to get the paperwork in have been lacking a sense of urgency.
Congratulations to all, but 95% of the gratitude goes to Mike Striar. When all the naysayers and pundits said we can’t negotiate it can’t be done, you said…yes we can!
I’m with Doug Jacobs….you are the smartest person at the table.
While this makes the project more attractive from an affordable housing standpoint, it still doesn’t address the core concerns of many opponents. Not clear how its changed the equation. Did someone on the BOA actually share Mike Striar’s position, and was planning on voting against it because it didn’t have enough affordable housing? If not, I don’t see how this makes a difference.
It certainly doesn’t address my concerns of this project being completely out of scale for the rest of the village. All of the other concessions from ASP have been window dressing compared to this core concern– shared by many. This is still the wrong project for Austin St.
@Julia,
“What’s embarrassing is that a majority of the Board, and perhaps two thirds, will actually vote for this, and settle for the guy/girl who promises to be faithful for five years.”
Do you actually think the BOA should be the deciders of what businesses are allowed to operate in Newton ……forever?
Great news! Hoping the special permit is approved tomorrow night.
Thanks to everyone who helped negotiate these extra 6 affordable apartments.
Mark Striar has been saying over and over the extra 6 units could and should be negotiated. Congrats Mike, particularly because we get 6 more affordable housing units but also because you stuck to your guns and are now a supporter. It seems that many opponents say it needs X and when that is accomplished just move their opposition to another X but nothing leads to supporting it – like it needs more parking, adds more parking, don’t like that parking or it needs more affordable housing included, adds more affordable units, but it’s still not good enough.
It’s obvious some opponents will never want any development in the parking lot regardless of what they say. If it were smaller, 32 units, not aggressive, would still not fit the bill & there would not be enough tax revenue and the land would still be “given away.” What gets me the most is “ASP making changes requested by residents doesn’t mean they are hearing what the people are saying.” “They are just coming in with a huge deal knowing people will be happy with concessions of any kind.” I guess this means everyone who supports it is an idiot who falls for these underhanded practices. Not that they listened, heard and changed things.
I wish those opponents would just stick to wanting no development in the parking lot.
@Marti
“If it were smaller, 32 units, not aggressive, would still not fit the bill… I wish those opponents would just stick to wanting no development in the parking lot.”
The dialogue has been overly simplified along this manner. As was recently highlighted, the initial survey of Newtonville residents on Austin St. showed 75% of residents would support a project, with the ideal project being 3 stories or less.
This has always primarily been about the size of project for many, and still is. The presumption that no project would be acceptable is not supported by the data. The loud protests of NVA doesn’t change the fact that a large majority would been happy with a smaller project. This project doesn’t meet that standard.
Alison, I want to answer that question. The board of alderman should not decide what businesses operate where. We don’t know what the right number of banks, nail salons, or restaurants. We don’t want to be in the business of saying that a money lender is not a bank, but a brokerage firm is, or that a hair salon that does nails is not a nail salon. Our message should be “If you can make a living by making customers happy, welcome to Newton!”
I understand the neighbors’ concern about this project. I understand why merchants would be nervous about business during construction. I understand why Alderman Norton believes she should vote no. But I do not understand how anybody besides the Ward 2 alderman could vote against a project in which 33% of the rental units will be affordable.
And…putting aside the actual housing needs that will be met, are there really eight other aldermen who don’t care about what it would look like to reject a development that is 33% affordable? From my vantage point, voting no is akin to saying that parking and fear of short-term inconvenience and NIMBYism are all worth telling both Newton and non-Newton residents that this city wants to be an exclusive suburb.
Jeffrey:
I agree with you on the BoA role regarding commercial space. I’d rather not have them involved. The banks will sort themselves out. I guess the hope is that businesses get established in that space and stick in there after the 5 years are up. It wasn’t a big plus for me to have that restriction.
Paul, I would have preferred a slightly smaller project as well. I do like some of the changes they made along the way. Some folks saw 3 floors as a maximum height, others like me felt that was ideal but with concessions it could go higher. I do think some of the opponents played a game a rope a dope on the changes, but since ASP basically just did the same thing by adding on changes to sweeten the pot so to speak, I guess it is all part of the process.
I tend to be a positive person. I was upset at many aspects of the high school, upset about the money, the traffic, the placement of the road exits, the lack of a larger pool, the elimination of the beautification aspects of the building, etc. But a few years have passed. The parking hasn’t been as bad, and the city helped a bit with it. The high school itself is a nice resource to have close-by. I still wish the pool was bigger and had more public hours during the summer especially. But where once I would role my eyes and complain about the process, now I tend to speak about the adult education classes, the high school drama performances and the tennis courts. The process faded and the reality of the situation set in, and life goes on.
@Alison – On property the city owns, I do want the city to exercise some control over what businesses go in. I heard the laments by the alders a few years ago, in the context of too many banks and nail salons in Newton Centre, that they couldn’t control what businesses a landlord chose to rent to because it was a private transaction. Here we have city property, where we could have control, and we’re giving it up.
The Real Property Reuse report for 1/21/12 attributes the following to Ald. Linsky: Newtonville is losing more and more stores and it has like many villages become a hub for banks.
Ironically, the other night during the discussion of Turtle Lane, several alders expressed concern about what type of commercial use might go in if the theatre failed, if that property were zoned MU4. Lenny Gentile wanted the zoning to revert to residential if the theatre fail, and an opinion from Legal was being requested, but there seemed to be some doubt that the zoning could be made conditional on continued theatre use. So the desire to have some types of uses but not others is not unprecedented, but once the zoning is set, the ability to choose is gone. Except where we, the city, own the property.
To Paul and others who continue to say 82% of residents want 3 stories or less and 75% of residents want a development if it meets their criteria. But only 10% took the survey so actually, according to the listed results 76% of the 10% of residents surveyed want 3 stories or less and 74% of the 10% of residents surveyed want a development if it meets their criteria, but no criteria is associated with the question. An extremely small percentage of the residents of Newtonville.
The January 2014 survey was an on line survey meant to determine thoughts on a development in the Austin Street parking lot. It’s significant that it was completed by only
10% of Newtonville residents.
They were represented by
25% 20-44 yo
70% 45-65+ yo
Had more 20-44 year olds been represented conclusions may have been more relevant.
And 65% of local businesses.
So the resident percentages below represent a percentage of 10% of residents.
The survey asked about building scale,
22% businesses and 13% residents surveyed want 4 stories.
42% businesses and 41% residents surveyed want 3 stories.
25% businesses and 35% residents surveyed want 2 stories.
And the number of units,
60% businesses and 37% residents surveyed want 40-60 units. 7.4% businesses and 19% residents surveyed want 0 units.
And using underground or covered parking.
Of surveyed residents,
54% yes, if needed,
20% yes and
27% oppose it.
The survey states that the parking lot currently has 159 spaces but the RFP suggests 85 spaces and asks about the number you want.
42% businesses and 40% of surveyed residents want 150 spaces. 20% businesses and 22% of surveyed residents want 100 spaces. 15% businesses and 8.4% surveyed residents want 85 spaces.
Regarding affordable housing, of surveyed residents said
49% want 25% affordable,
21% want 0 affordable and
17% want 49% affordable units.
The top two primary benefits seen by residents was 65% revitalize and spruce up Newtonville and 45% outdoor public space.
The top two primary concerns were 69% loss of parking and 55% additional traffic.
reserve the right to review, knee-jerk response might be insular from recognizing other factors in play politically.
– an absent alderman is a no vote, potentially in play for the incoming freshman councilor class.
Mike Striar is playing Chess, while the rest of our elected officials are playing checkers.
Julia, the city wouldn’t own the building and the city isn’t going to build anything there.