The vote was 17-6.
Here’s the story from Wicked Local Newton and here’s the story from the Boston Globe
by Greg Reibman | Dec 8, 2015 | Newton | 60 comments
The vote was 17-6.
Here’s the story from Wicked Local Newton and here’s the story from the Boston Globe
September 13, 2023
Men's Crib September 13, 2023 5:20 am
I cannot believe I left.
Good!
I’m grateful to all the aldermen and alderwomen who had the courage (with a nod to Ald. Johnson on that!) to vote for this project. A big step forward for Newton!
What an evening. Congratulations to all of the aldermen — no matter how you voted — for being done with this part of the process.
Congrats to everyone, especially all of those who worked so hard and did so much research and advocacy!
The Cowardly Lion has nothing on Alders Sangiolo, Brousal-Glaser and Baker! They too showed great courage. Marcia Johnson’s terrific recitation of the classic speech from “The Wizard of Oz” might just have given them inspiration and seemed to change the mood and turn the tide. I’m so proud to be from Newton tonight. Fear was the BIG loser.
Well said, Andy. So thankful for our many forward-thinking aldermen, and for the army of activists from across Newton that pushed so hard for this.. A proud day for the Garden City.
This was clearly an emotional evening. Many Aldermen made powerful, eloquent statements on both sides of the issue but for me Marc Laredo hit it out of the ballpark. Hit close to home on many levels.
I wish I’d stayed to hear Marcie speak.
What a great night! Proud of my city and the aldermen who displayed COURAGE tonight. And special thanks to David Albright and Hattie Gawande, two young adults who give me faith in the future
@Andy
“fear was the big loser”? Not exactly gracious.
On other thread, I congratulated ASP. Should add the Mayor, too. Very well played.
Regarding courage: It’s not an act of courage to vote with the majority. The pressure to vote yes was overwhelming. The folks that voted no are the ones who had the real courage. But it was a good debate, and all vote their conscience.
@Andy: The hour is late and I am still up and still digesting the events that unfolded this evening. But your statement is exactly the kind of thing that almost made me vote against this project. My vote was not about courage or fear. It was a painfully thorough examination of the petition before us — made better with the addition of the 6 units of affordable housing against the genuine adverse impacts this will create during construction and whether those concerns had been or will be mitigated enough to make this a project I believe would be in the best interest of the immediate neighborhood and the community as a whole.
Courage.
Greetings from Gorky Street in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, where they’re constructing a high-rise apartment building on the site of some demolished communist dormitories just outside my hotel window.
For those of you who may not be too familiar with the project and are saying “Tell me more, Mихaил”, let me share some important details: first of all, most of the units will be affordable (approximately 25,000 soum per month).
Nearby transport is good, with the #5 trackless trolley passing down Gorky Street and providing good connections to Osh Bazaar, although whenever the bus hits the potholes, the passengers have to wait because the antennae become detached from the overhead electrical line and it can take a while for the driver to get them bounced back into place.
In terms of parking, it looks like there about a half-dozen rusted Lada Nivas on the south side of the lot, and I’m not sure what they intend to do with those.
AFAIK, there were no community hearings (there are unsubstantiated rumors that the first family may be involved). Nevertheless, I fully support the plans of Gorky Street Partners (GSP), largely because I’ll be long gone before they block my splendid view of the Ala-Too mountain range.
Getting to the topic at hand, I’ve been regrettably avoiding V14 since Thanksgiving, since I find the topic of Austin Street to be the most boring issue known to mankind, and I cannot fathom the amount of energy and resources that have been devoted to it by both sides. So, today I was elated to come across the Globe headline alerting me that it may soon be okay to come back to one of my favorite websites.
I do have a genuine question for those who know more about this subject than I: does this mean that the topic is now, for the most part, behind us, or will this be the story that keeps on giving (me heartburn), like the Tsarnaev appeal process?
@Greg, do you have the breakdown of who voted yes/no? And what time did they finally vote? I fell asleep…
I did not interpret Andy Levin’s comment about fear as being directed toward the aldermen but toward members of the community who made public comments revealing a certain amount of fear.
I doubt any of us would envy the role Board members played in this long process. And I very much agree with the sentiment Alderman Sangiolo expresses above. There are genuine benefits and adverse impacts to this, or any, development, and the role of the Board is to take a disinterested accounting of the positives and negatives and vote on which course of action is best for the city. They did that. The process may not be pretty, but it works.
Thanks to the entire Board for the open dialogue, the effort and the deliberation in seeing the process through.
People opposed and supported the project for a diverse set of good reasons. One of the strongest themes of the opponents was the giveaway of valuable public land. The venture capital backing the project will flip it into mortgage securities in the coming year or two, and immediately pocket a lump sum profit on the difference between the value of the project and the price paid.
If you assume the subsidy required to convert a market rate unit to affordable is $1500/month (a rough guess), and if the affordability is sustained for the 198 year lease+extension, in theory the value of the deal to the developers goes down by roughly 6 x 12 x $1500 x 198 = $21.4 million in today’s dollars.
So what the mayor could have instead announced Monday, to the same effect, would be that the developer has effectively agreed to purchase the lot for $22 million rather than the original price of $1 million AND the city and the taxpayers have agreed to immediately donate this money to fund the creation and supply of 198 years of an additional six subsidized units for the public good.
So the city and taxpayers appear to have a much better deal at the moment than they had 48 hours ago, which is great. If the developer intends to fund this from excess profits, then this reflects poorly on the negotiation and the AIG Real Estate CEO analysis. If they intend to obtain funding from taxpayers (at local, state, or federal level) to cover these units, then the deal hasn’t improved in the broad sense. If they intend to come back and dial down the number of affordable units when attention has waned based on lack of profit or subsidy, then we will all be back to long evenings in city hall.
@Mike S. — if you could provide a more accurate 1-off change in investment value the deal with the framework above, that would be instructive. Extending the logic to all the affordable units raises the land value to $80 million, which seems high. Perhaps the horizon is just too long for the analysis.
I had to leave ‘early’ but the speeches I heard were impressive in their thoroughness and care for the city. Thank you to all the Aldermen/ Alderwomen for their hard work!
Wonderful. Now its time to focus on Kessler Woods. I believe there are 88 units being built there.
How many are affordable? The arm twisting to maximize the affordable units there should begin now, not at the
eleventh hour. 5 million dollars of CPA funds were spent on Kessler Woods years ago in Ward 8 which has ZERO
affordable housing. Ward 8 voters overwhelmingly rejected the CPA tax and the 2 & 1/2 school override. Between Angino farm(CPA $$)
Kessler Woods(CPA $$), and the Memorial Spaulding school( 2 1/2 $$), which was bumped to the top of the school projects queue years ago,
its time for ward 8 residents(some of the wealthiest residents in the state) to start bearing some of the responsibilty for housing and schooling the least fortunate among us. For the record, 68 units at Austin St is squat compared to 277 units at Avalon Bay on Needham St, just saying…
I commend aldermen on both sides of this issue who had the courage to vote their conscience. I forget which of my colleagues said it, but the lobbying by both proponents and opponents was as intense as I can remember on almost any other issue (and continued in the hall outside the Chamber even after the vote), and no matter which way you voted, each of us was going to disappoint a whole lot of people on one side or the other.
Ald. Sangiolo is absolutely right. Each and every one of us was called on to thoroughly review all the facts and decide whether this project was in the best long term interests of the community. Reasonable people can disagree about the outcome, but I am confident that each of my colleagues took their job seriously and did the best they could do to be fair minded and strike the right balance. When it came down to it, we all did our jobs, and I think we can all be proud of that.
My sense is that, without the last minute improvement of 6 more affordable housing units, this might have only received 14 or 15 votes, still a majority, but not enough. So, kudos to ASP for recognizing that all its upfront “investment” in promoting this project would have been wasted if it didn’t do something more.
I’m pleased with the final result, and feel quite comfortable that the votes cast were well thought out by the various alders.
Let’s not miss that the spirited arguments for and against within the community had the effect of improving the final proposal. Congrats to the alders and to us as a community.
At some point, it might be instructive to find out what really made this project so much more contentious than the norm.
“At some point, it might be instructive to find out what really made this project so much more contentious than the norm.”
I agree, Dan. I hope Mayor Warren spends some time debriefing on this whole process. While there will almost always be opposition to development projects, something about this one made it more divisive than most.
@Ted,
Well said.
@Charlie, who said “Regarding courage: It’s not an act of courage to vote with the majority.”
I don’t feel that’s accurate. Aldermen had pressure from both sides on this issue, so however they voted, there would be disappointed folks. Some alders were really torn, and had a tough decision to make, not just those who voted “no.”.
Jack P is right. “People supported and opposed the project for a variety of GOOD REASONS”. I heard people I respect on both sides give convincing reasons about the good and bad of this project. I stiffened when personalities began trumping principles so I jumped into the fray when the attacks on Emily Norton became relentless, coordinated, and over the top. I particularly resented the charge that Emily should not be opposing this project because of her position with the Massachusetts Sierra Club because it is on record as supporting high density housing and affordable housing. It may be written or unwritten, but the position of each ward alderman exists in my mind to represent what they ascertain to be the interest and needs of people who live in their ward. This is a broad mandate, not one limited to identifying and fixing potholes. This is what motivated Emily and I think it took real “courage” to stand against the aggressive and prevailing voices and interests from within and outside Newton that were championing the project.
If one’s professional background or work should dictate how one votes then what is to say that an alderman with ties to financial, development, real estate, affordable housing, transportation and a variety of non profit interests in this City should not use whatever avenues are within the law to promote the agendas of these interests in Newton or anywhere for that matter.
It’s ironic, but the opponents who were often tagged unfairly as anti affordable housing stalwarts were the ones that ultimately forced the addition of 6 more affordable units to the equation. I hope and trust that the developer will honor this commitment now that the project has been approved. If the ASP proposal had sailed through without opposition, these additional units probably would never have been included. I know this may be thin gruel for those that opposed this project for other reasons, but there may be 6 more families or individuals that have a shot at living here who otherwise would have to look elsewhere.
@Bob: As usual, you are spot on.
Undoubtedly, the Austin Street debate was divisive and (in my opinion) did a lot of damage to our community fabric. That’s especially true since many proponents of the project wrongly painted opponents to the deal that was on the table with a broad brush. As someone who understands the need and implications of affordable housing based on real life experiences in Newton, I resented a lot of what was said throughout this process.
Effective leadership is all about doing something with constituents, stakeholders and opponents, instead of to them, by: Rallying everyone around the goal, clearly communicating what it is, why it’s important, and inspiring everyone to support/do what’s required. It’s also necessary to fend off the naysayers without disrespecting them and thus unnecessarily elevating the emotional intensity of the debate/opposition. Some may disagree, but I did not see sufficient leadership displayed throughout this process, which was an eye opening disappointment for me. Thankfully, Newton is comprised of some of the smartest people around, which ultimately turned a terrible proposal into a much better deal for Newton. How only roughly 20% of registered voters vote for our leadership is beyond me.
Now that the Austin Street vote is over, here’s my challenge to all of those who played a role in the unprecedented lobbying campaign – use similar resources, energy, and advocacy to fix some of the pressing and persistent problems that currently face Newton residents. Despite the perspective of many that Newton is only a place for the rich, within our borders, we’ve got kids going to bed hungry, very real domestic abuse problems, residents dying from drug overdoses, an increasing culture of drug and alcohol abuse at our schools, a middle-class that’s being financially forced out of the city, elderly and other residents living through the winter without sufficient food or heating, and countless other problems.
Assuredly, we’ve got the resources and intellect in Newton to solve any number of pressing problems. However, after closely following the Austin Street debate, my concern is that for whatever reason, we lack the right perspective.
Now that proponents of Austin Street proved successful in lobbying for a private developer, the new challenge on the table is to ensure that the positives of this project – which were relentless touted – come to fruition.
Like John Sisson, I didn’t think Andy Levin’s remark about fear referred to the aldermen. They all invested countless hours in preparation for last night’s vote, and I sincerely appreciate all of the work and thought that went into the final decision.
Well said, Bob. Emily Norton was not elected Ward Alderman by the Sierra Club. She clearly viewed this project based on the merits as she saw them in the context of this particular situation. She fought for her beliefs, articulated them thoughtfully and thoroughly, and in the end can hold her head high when she walks past those shops on Walnut St. She spoke out clearly, compellingly and unequivocally against the project, as did a few other aldermen (Lenny Gentile stood out in my mind). I was impressed.
On the other hand, certain members expressed significant misgivings about the project, spoke extensively about their concerns, and basically gave everyone reason to think they must be voting no, only to vote yes in the end. That makes me think they were trying to have it both ways: speak for the anti-crowd, vote with the pro-crowd. Is that courage? If you really feel the thing is problematic, vote against it. I saw the same thing on the Zervas votes. It makes me wonder how much arm twisting is going on behind the scenes. Saying uncle is not courage – it’s giving in to external force.
But I was impressed with many members of the board on both side. I thought Ted Hess-Mahan, Marc Laredo, Lenny Gentile and others spoke well and made good points. I found it striking when Lenny, who defends the decisions to close schools years ago, spoke against the sale of public land.
Now that this is over, I hope everyone can move past polarization and work for the best interests of residents and businesses in the city. Let’s ditch the divisiveness and develop sustainable plans for the city in a more inclusive and harmonious way.
Oh,.. this will be So Much Fun to watch !
Steven, what you saw is the quasi-judicial process. Just like every case that actually goes to trial, every special permit project that goes to a vote has facts in its favor and facts that are not in its favor. Our job is to decide whether, on the whole, the balance of facts tips one way or the other.
I asked for, and got, more income diversity in the permanently affordable units than was originally proposed by getting 6 units set aside for very low income households that are eligible for housing vouchers. Amy asked for, and got, 6 additional units affordable to households making up to 80% of the area median income.
As I said last night, if I had my druthers, I would have preferred that those 6 additional units were affordable to middle class households making 80-120 percent of the area median income to provide even more income diversity in the project for a segment of the population that is often squeezed out of Newton. (When we get to implementing the Mayor’s housing strategy, amending the inclusionary zoning ordinance to require middle class as well as low to moderate income housing will be something I plan to push for.) But 6 additional units affordable to households making up to 80% AMI was also a good result, and certainly did not tip the scales against the project in my mind, and apparently tipped it in favor of the project in the minds of others.
So what you saw was not aldermen pandering, It was us doing our jobs.
Jeez, what are you guys gonna blog about now?
I agree with Bob Burke about Emily Norton. Though I happen to be strongly in favor of Austin Street (and Turtle Lane too–let’s make it happen, folks!) and am very pleased that the project passed last night, I believe Emily is one of our best aldermen. I value strong voices and hard work on the board above all else–even when I disagree on a particular issue. And let’s be clear: if there’s one person who will work towards ensuring that the construction phase proceeds in a way that will keep things healthy in Newtonville, it’s Emily. Keep on keepin’ on Emily Norton and many thanks to all of our aldermen who worked so hard, considered so many opinions, and ultimately put ALL of themselves out there for critique when the votes came rolling in. Everyone knew they were disappointing someone no matter how they voted. That’s a tough job.
First off, I want to thank Aldermen Richard Blazer, Allan Ciccone Jr., Jim Cote, Leonard Gentile, Jay Harney and Emily Norton for having the courage to stand against political correctness and vote no.
Having watched most of the proceedings last night, I find it interesting that only Alderman Harney (while I was watching) actually talked to the “findings” in the board order – pretty much every other Alderperson rehashed political points on one side of the issue or the other. Very sad.
Finally – can anyone point to a copy of the final board order, as it was voted on. I have a somewhat morbid interest in reading the final version of the findings.
Amy, re: “Fear was the BIG loser.” This didn’t refer to any of the individual board members who voted against the special permit. They had major problems with the plan from the time it was docketed, even earlier, and they did what they felt was in the best interests of Newtonville and the city as a whole. I appreciate that. My reference related to what I sense is great apprehension of change, reflected in the comments of some in the community about the Austin Street project and other potential multi-unit development. Comments about a looming “urbanization of Newton” and the city’s inability to absorb new residents. Comments about “the character of the neighborhood” perhaps, just perhaps, being a veiled reference to the type of people who could move in. Regarding “McMansionization” in more modest neighborhoods, changing “character” might be a very appropriate thing to say – but Austin Street is in the middle of a business district, across the street from a high-rise supermarket.
I do think it took courage for those on the fence, yourself included, to vote in favor of an extremely controversial project. Despite what Charlie Shapiro said, this was actually a very close vote because a super majority was required for approval.
I watched the entire discussion and was impressed with the debate. No matter what side you were on the quality of our elected officials and the level of the discussion was never in question.
What Dana said.
I’m glad it passed. I give tremendous credit to all those who struggled with this, and I owe a special call-out to Amy Sangiolo, who from our conversations on this blog I knew to have significant reservations regarding the project, and still had the courage to weigh the positives and negatives and make a difficult vote.
A few quick points:
1) I don’t think it moves things forward to address the comments above, as I know feelings are still running hot. I’m hopeful that now that the decision is done, the community can move forward together.
2) I think it is on all of us, supporters and opponents to the project, to support our local businesses throughout the construction. As I’ve noted in other posts, between this construction and the Walnut Street improvements, our local merchants are going to take a hit unless we have a strong local movement to buy local. I’m planning on changing my buying habits as much as possible to buy from local merchants, and I hope others do the same.
3) Parking. The city needs to do a bang-up job on parking during construction. Every space will be important. I have not been impressed thus far about their ability to think outside the box and increase the numbers of meters around the village. Ask the local residents to make suggestions. Ask the local merchants to have their employees park a little further away. Make sure that commuters don’t park in the lots behind the buildings (they do on occasion). Supply adequate signage to identify where parking is. This can’t be half done.
4) ASP: Austin Street Partners needs to deliver on their promises. Timing, quality of work, parking availability, amenities. A lot of the supporters have backed ASP on faith and reputation of its partners. Deliver what you promised. A lot of us are going to be watching. I’m going to be watching. This was a hard decision for our community and every change is a leap of faith. In this case, that faith rests in your hands. Don’t disappoint, don’t delay, don’t complain, and be a good neighbor.
5) Walnut Street Improvements: The City and Mayor needs to deliver on their promises. We took a leap of faith that project would start first and the improvements second. I agreed with Amy 100% when she complained about the timing. We are trusting you to deliver. If our $1,000,000 in village improvements gets us a few planters and a bench, with the rest being spent on paving, you’ve just lost the trust of 100s of folks in Newtonville. We are expecting and were promised real improvements. The City can’t use this money as a shell game. Supporters and opponents are watching. It make take a while, but you had better deliver.
6) Aldercritters. I hope the Charter Commission figures out a way to pay them more. How we expect them to do what they do on the limited salaries is something I don’t understand. I still think we should shrink the board and pay them more, but regardless of size, they are underpaid. That meeting last night was insane.
7) I want to thank the opponents and specifically those who posted on this blog. The project is better for your involvement. And I sincerely hope those folks who have posted over the past year or so stay on as blog participants. I’d rather talk with you directly on the blog, and our leaders seem to occasionally check in as well. Online meeting places are the new community square. Respectful debate and disagreement makes us better as long as we are respectful and as long as we all are willing to put up with the occasional comment that makes our blood boil a bit. No blog is perfect, but I’m glad to be a part of this one.
Cheers (and on to other topics!)
Yes, absolutely what Dana said.
A lot of good points Fig.
One area to watch for is that the quality of materials going into the units doesn’t get cheapened in order to make this work cost-wise for the developer.
Regarding parking during the construction period, I can’t imagine that if the businesses and the city and the developer sit down that they can’t come up with better ideas. Perhaps some of the slots set aside for NNHS students near the village get freed up for that period?
On the parking, I would make better use of Washington Street. Right now you’ve got long term commuters parking in the spots close to the village. I’d eliminate the 12 hour meters to encourage more parkers closer to Harvard Street where those 12 hour meters often go unused. I’d also move the postal trucks a block west and put meters in those spaces for commuters. Then I’d go street by street to see where an additional meter or two could be put in.
And then I’d ask the merchants to help, perhaps my dedicating some spots on Washington Street as employee only parking with a special sticker.
Dan,
There is always a cheaper mobile home .
Fig,
Wait a minute , I thought we were going to encourage the development of and around out transit hubs. Let’s build some more housing so that we will have even more density and fewer parking lots. Who needs parking anyway when everybody will be walking, on bicycles and car free.
Hey Blue!
Sarcastic to the last. Newtonville is a transit hub. I know, I use it every day. It isn’t perfect but it gets me to Boston, with the possibility of getting to Back Bay or South Station at least once an hour (express bus), with return trips late at night (Bus 555) until about 9:45 or commuter rail until past midnight.
Anyway, if you bothered to read the posts instead of trolling, I think you’d see I was just trying to deal with the parking crunch during construction. I think parking will be fine post-construction, especially if some of the improvements to parking (signage, Washington Street) stay in place.
On a side note, for someone who clearly has a host of life experiences and is a smart dude, you do seem to be more interested in being the resident wise-acre than anything else. I’m a wise-acre myself. But I occasionally I still give a hoot…
And I don’t give a hoot .
And I don’t give a hoot ?
And I don’t give a hoot !
Parking during construction will be most interesting. Wait till the cranes are brought in and we will see how many of the 50 cars parking on site will remain there
Andy,
If you don’t understand why someone might worry about the character of their neighborhood changing upon the addition of a multi-unit housing development, you might ask what they mean rather than assuming they don’t want “that type of people” to move in. Don’t you edit a newspaper?
And if you think it is OK to worry about bigger houses overshadowing smaller houses thereby changing the character of that neighborhood, why can’t people worry about a multi-unit housing project changing the character of their single family-zoned neighborhood? Do you think that the people living in smaller houses have the right to discriminate against the people in the bigger houses? Or is it all just too un-PC for you to swallow that people might actually have spent their entire savings on a single family house and want to maintain its value?
Not assuming SoccerMommy. There have been comments made at public hearings, and in private that I have heard about from people I trust. I’m not saying most opponents feel that way, but there is an undercurrent. By the way, what do you make of this comment (under today’s Globe story on the vote)?
“This is part of the mayor’s vision to Dorchesterize Newton and alter the city’s demographics – after all so little crime really isn’t fair to Boston, spread the crime around”
Andy you are off the deep end now. Comments at public hearings ?! Really ? Talk about unsubstantiated BS !!
@blueprintbill, you said, “There is always a cheaper mobile home .”
The point being…?
Oh, Jaaaaayzes, Mary, and Joseph (as my grandmother would say) … Trying to make a point about the motivation of local opponents by citing an inflamatory anonymous online comment from the Boston (!) Globe? That really should be beneath the editor of the local paper.
We use the word “data-driven” often, but no one seems to be producing data. In 5 years we need to revisit Austin Street and assess the veracity of assertions that both sides made, especially on the business impact. It would be great if the Chamber (i.e. Greg!) or City Hall, would commit to collect data on how Austin Street businesses fared relative to other Newton businesses. Sources of data might include MA Commonwealth tax receipts, commercial property values, or the commercial vacancy rate. Let’s also revisit the impact on Newton Public Schools. Let’s figure out how many Austin Street residents actually work in Newton–which many claimed was needed to help local businesses. We can’t go through the Austin Street scenario over and over again with no data, or even worse, bad data.
My expectation is that absolutely, positively no one is going bother to do anything other than throw the word “data-driven” around. I hope I am wrong.
Being a supporter, I am cautiously optomistic that things will come together as planned – with a lot of oversight. I’m looking forward to the new families in my neighborhood. I too am going to make an extra effort to shop at local stores, particularly during construction.
I couldn’t believe the length of the meeting last night and the commitment our Alders made.. I listened to the heartfelt, thoughtful remarks given by all of alders and the obvious struggle with the decision about the costs vs the benefits. It’s never an easy decision. So thank you to all of our Alders for taking the time and effort to get the best proposal you could.
I agree with just about every point Fig has made. I hope this development doesn’t create a permanent division in Newton; that has been the unhealthy part of the process. We are all residents of Newton but this process has brought out the worst in those who speculate what others “really” mean and lump groups together. I’m talking to you Andy Levin, and certainly their were others, who take anecdotes, hearsay and website posts and use them to not only generalize but superimpose meanings not intended. Even after being on the “winning” side you are still making assumptions. Yes, Newtonville has a character. I am disappointed that the building will look like almost all things new mixed use in the region instead of designing something more creative that looks more like the older buildings in Newtonville that are long gone. It would bring back the character of Newtonville.
I think most opponents had valid concerns and I definitely agree we are taking that keep of faith that things will work out as expected as it is in most any endeavor.
SoccerMommy, sometimes it’s hard to understand where you are coming from. This lot never was in a single family zoned neighborhood and there is multi unit housing all over Newtonville. That is part of its character. Your single family house’s value won’t be affected by this mixed use development on a parking lot in the village center. Yours will still be comped by what other similar size houses are selling for in your neighborhood. So really I have no idea what “character” you are talking about, but I’m glad these conversations are over.
Shout out:
In Alderman Albright’s remarks last night, there is one detail that was omitted. The Economic Development Commission (EDC) Chair to which she referred was Jack Leader. Jack had the vision as to how we could transform a parking lot into a development that would revitalize our village center, and provide a more diverse and affordable housing stock.
Jack is a neighbor and friend….Thank you so very much.
And a Shout Out for Marcia, who can put into her column the significant set of accomplishments in her years as an alderman!
What a way to go out, Marcy. We will miss you.
@fignewtonville – the $1 million in Newtonville improvements you’re referring to is supposed to be in addition to the improvements to Walnut Street that were going to happen anyway regardless of whether Austin Street was approved, right? I agree you should watch like a hawk to make sure they are truly in addtion to, not instead of, what was going to happen anyway. And unless inflation is zero, that $1 million is not going to buy as much in four years or whenever this project is done, as it would if used earlier. It’s really a shame that the Walnut Street improvements were not done, say, last year, instead of being put on hold until the project was approved. That would have helped keep Newtonville an appealing destination during the construction period.
Dan Fahey,
As posted previously / recently check out http://www.cm-h.com where you can buy in New Hampshire a 2 bedroom mobile home for $42,000. A single goes for $34,000.
I don’t know what a Green Staxx mobile unit goes for but assuming they are a more expensive premium product, it would seem that in the event ASP were looking to recover a few dollars due to some indiscriminant promises, there is probably some flexibility in the development of the product.
A mobile home isn’t built like your home. Bathrooms are plastic modules , not hand laid tile, floors come carpeted, not with conventional hardwood, etc etc. The land costs only $14,700 a unit. A great retirement destination this.
Somehow, when it comes to “those people” and Austin Street – we’re talking folks who can afford what is mostly NOT affordable for millennials or middle-income seniors (such as my kids and ourselves), and who will need cars, because transit in Newtonville sucks beyond belief. So when I think of “those people,” I think of anti-social financial types. Like we need more of those in Newton.
Miles, I’m a regular transit user in Newtonville. I realize it isn’t perfect, but it certainly doesn’t suck in comparison to most towns outside of Boston proper. Have you taken the green line recently?
Now is it as good as the Long Island Railroad or even the subways of NY or DC? No. No. No.
But it gets me to work every day. And gets me home every evening. Parking is $40 in Boston. Express Bus is pretty cheap. Commuter rail is expensive for what it is from Newtonville.
Now the station can use a lot of work. I don’t understand why they can’t install a better fence to block out the Mass Pike a bit, why they can’t have better seating and benches, why they can’t make the stairs more secure. And handicap access should be at every station, not just one.