Jack Sullivan over at CommonWealth Magazine released a lengthy article today that takes a look at Newton’s record when it comes to affordable housing. Well, honestly, it’s really about Mayor Warren’s record in affordable housing, but no one comes away from this unscathed.
It starts in the very first line in which Newton is defined as the place “where single-family home values are creeping into the million-dollar range…” and continues through a few choice sections. It slaps Newton as the home of snobs, to which Alderman Councilor Lipof says “Newton’s always going to get hit with that snob moniker because of who we are… It costs a lot to live here because it’s 12 minutes from downtown Boston. We have great schools, we are a diverse community. I think we’ve built a real special community here.”
Jay Doherty, of Cabot, Cabot and Forbes, the developer working to build housing at Wells Ave (in Lipof’s Ward), takes a pretty strong swing at Mayor Warren:
“He hasn’t blessed a major 40B [project] since he’s come into office,” says Doherty, who in December lost an appeal of the city’s rejection of his project. “Newton was routinely working with the 40B statute before Setti Warren came into office. He’s won. I congratulate the mayor. He has been a very effective barrier to this and other affordable housing projects.”
Doherty is clearly angry, as the latest rulings on the development didn’t go in his favor. Purely speculation here, but I believe the whole article likely originated from CCF public relations efforts.
Still, the article has some very interest stats and a chart that outlines where in Newton most of the affordable housing can be found. It’s a worthwhile read.
Thanks for posting Chuck. There’s easily a half dozen different blog thread topics here, including the questions it raises about the mayor’s political aspirations, questions about the administration’s 40B record, questions about vetting ZBA members and, yes, that interesting chart which shows where the 40B projects are now. (So much for the claims that Newtonville is under siege.)
I urge every one to read it. Twice.
Where is “miscellaneous” and where do they vote?
There are a lot of issues brought up in the article. “Jay Doherty is angry” is evident. Sullivan takes some shots that’s for sure but does he make it every time. I’m not sure. He writes about one court decision, to (rightly in my opinion) reject the 1.5% land area for 40B in a favorable light. But he writes derisively about the other one that agrees with the city and says chapter 40B didn’t haven’t the power to override the deed restriction derisively calling it a “half century old.”
There’s definitely a percentage of Newton that is obstructionist. It’s also true though that Newton has very little space to adequately build large developments. Building affordable housing has gone down in the state as well as in Newton.
It’s really interesting that Barbara Huggins says she thinks 40B should be thrown out – to come up with something better. Great to have her on the ZBA. s/c
Warren is definitely in the hot seat in the article. Why would he say he didn’t know her background (most did) and that the 1.5% filing is “in another department?” What department in the city is there that he wouldn’t be a part of? Certainly not the Planning Department.
That would be the 194 units of affordable housing located in Village 14, of course.
Rick Lipof nailed this issue. I guess he’s paying attention to what’s going on. Kudos. I also liked the comments by Atty Huggins and the line by Brook Lipsitt.
Boo Hoo… Let me get my hanky out. Poor little Jay Doherty didn’t get what he wanted, and now he’s gonna wine to his friends in the media about it. If he really wants to build that Wells Ave project, this is the exact wrong way to try and win hearts and minds. Doherty needs to stop acting like a baby, man-up, and break out his checkbook. Offer Newton a fair deal, Mr. Doherty. Money talks, babies crawl around in circles.
The usual misleading & lazy article looking to paint Newton as a bunch of rich snobs. Didn’t mention our 4 Title 1 schools or try to give any sense of the existing economic diversity we should be trying to preserve. Assumes SHI units are the only affordable units, leaving out swaths of Newtonville and other parts of the City that merely have cheap rent as opposed to government regulated units. Doesn’t point out the limitations of 40B, for example that it excludes mobile homes as affordable; while that isn’t relevant for Newton, it says a lot about the 40B law itself and who it really benefits — if we frame the conversation such that the only way to have affordable housing is to build new high density apartment buildings, well then of course mobile homes aren’t included and yes, conveniently wealthy developers make out well. Mr. Sullivan also did not bring up accessory apartments as a way to increase affordability both for homeowners and for renters. Nor did he make the seemingly obvious connection that when you increase school costs you have to increase property taxes, which hurts the low and moderate income people who already live here.
In short I think Mike nailed it, this is the developer community enjoying some free media.
Jay Doherty bought a property with a deed restriction and is shocked – simply shocked – that a deed is a legal document. He took a financial risk and should take responsibility for that.
And BTW, “nearly 50 years ago” I was a college student and I’m still up and running. We not talking about ancient history, folks. According to this author, the deeds on most of our homes can be discarded. I agree with Mike and much of what Emily said.
Seems to me there are two ways we can respond to this article.
1. We can poo-poo the messenger(s): Jay Doherty for blabbing to a reporter and/or the reporter for not outlining every single solution or nuance to a complex matter.
or
2. We can look in the mirror and say: I may not agree with everything about this article but at its core it calls attention to a very legitimate failing of our community (both on the leadership level and on the individual level) and I’m personally going to dedicate myself to helping solve that short coming.
Greg, I’m with you. Well said.
I’m a firm believer that once I or my outlet have our say on an issue, others should have that same opportunity so I rarely, if ever, wade into a debate about a story I’ve written. But I have to take vehement exception to the hypocrisy and hubris of Councilor Norton. You have lost all credibility and right to pontificate about what should have been in the story after you rejected a request by me for an interview for the story or to even ask a few questions. You cannot attempt to gain the moral high ground about what was missing when you were given ample opportunity more than a month before the story came out to speak about the matter. To dismiss the reporting as “lazy” because you disagree with whatever ideology you are reading into it is specious and then to go off on a tangent about what you think are salient points that should have been included is the height of duplicity, Councilor. Lazy would indicate no effort was put into developing the story. Much effort was put in to gathering, sorting, and analyzing the data and, as you can see by the number of people quoted, plenty of effort was put in to talking with people from all sides of the issue who had the courage to put their names to their views.
As for all the other comments here, I totally respect everyone’s view and welcome the feedback and insight. I have no comment one way or the other about the specifics but will say I find this encouraging because the point of our magazine is to foment public discourse. I’m glad we did.
@Jack Sullivan:
Wow. Thank you for commenting and providing context.
@Alderman Norton:
Is it true that you declined to interview with Jack? If so, why? I would think you’d have wanted to represent your viewpoint.
@Jack Sullivan– Would you clarify the nature of your relationship with Jay Doherty, and your publications relationship with Cabot, Cabot and Forbes? Had you known Mr. Doherty before you wrote the piece? Did he approach you to write it? And has Commonwealth Magazine received any advertising money from Cabot, Cabot and Forbes in the past few years? Just curious about the back-story to all this.
@Mike: I can appreciate that many people aren’t familiar with Commonwealth Magazine and I’m sure Jack can explain it better than I can. It’s a not-for-profit civic journal produced by MassInc., who’s mission is “to promote the growth of a vibrant middle class. We achieve impact by moving ideas to public policy through civic engagement.”
In my view there is not more independent, high integrity, publication in the state.
Jack Sullivan is a veteran journalist who I also hold in the highest regard. Anyone who knows him — or, as I have, been fortune enough to work with him — would dismiss any questions about his integrity.
@Councilor Norton: Your integrity, on the other hand, seems very much in question here. I hope you will respond to Gail’s question and Jack Sullivan’s comment.
As I suggested earlier, rather than trying to shoot the messengers, as a community we need take a good hard look in the mirror.
Thank you, Greg. I can’t vouch for my integrity so I truly appreciate you doing it. I don’t normally respond to these types of questions, @Mike Striar, but you asked some legitimate questions so I did want to clarify a couple things. My relationship with Jay Doherty is the same as my relationship with Mayor Warren and my relationship with Councilor Lipof and my relationship with Barbara Huggins – there is none, other than I was a reporter asking questions and they answered them.
As for advertising, as Greg explained, we are a non-partisan, non-profit publication and, as such, do not accept advertising. We are supported by donations from sponsors and subscribers, some bigger than others though I couldn’t tell you who they are other than what you see listed on the back cover of the magazine each issue. The “ads” you see are spots for sponsors. It didn’t occur to me, because it never does, until you asked so I checked to find out if Cabot, Cabot & Forbes is or ever has been a donor or sponsor. They are not and as far as I can tell never have been. But even if they were, it would not have changed anything, except perhaps a disclosure in the piece. I can tell you, however, that I learned that Councilor Norton has been a writing contributor to the magazine in the past.
As for the rest of the sausage recipe, I don’t give it out. How a story developed is how it developed. I can tell you with 100 percent surety that I have never and will never write a story because someone hands it to me and I just accept their information and parrot their view. I take great pride in my 30 years as a reporter and editor at the Globe, Herald, Patriot Ledger, Brockton Enterprise, and now here at CommonWealth, that my work is my work. I carry no one’s water. Hope that helps.
Fair enough, Jack. I appreciate the response.
That’s an excellent response, Jack. As you may or may not know, Newtonites aren’t shy about contacting the media so no harm was intended in Mike’s request.
However, I do think your article should have included, at least as a disclaimer, that Jay Doherty purchased the Wells St. property with full knowledge that it had a deed restriction. For Mr. Doherty to get so angry when he knew exactly what he was getting into was presumptuous at best. From what I understand, deed restrictions were lifted for other properties on Wells Ave., and frankly that speaks to why we shouldn’t get into the practice: the whole office park is a bit of a mess. Many people avoid it, most wish we could go back and start from scratch.
There are people in the city who are ardent supporters of affordable housing who have trouble bypassing a deed restriction. I don’t see this project and this developer as typical of what’s going on in Newton.
What I don’t understand is why is Newton the one under a microscope? Why does the Globe write a story about Newton and affordable housing and why is it their business? Do they think that what they write really will change people’s minds? Are they trying to embarrass us? Please.
@Tom Sheff:
1. This story wasn’t written by a Globe reporter. Check the link.
2. Why shouldn’t Newton be under a microscope? Would you rather that news outlets only write about Boston? Affordable housing is all we’ve been talking about for months. Of course, a journalist decided to look into it.
3. If journalists only reported news when they thought it would change people’s mind, well, I’m not sure what we’d have but it certainly wouldn’t resemble anything close to fair.
A few things:
1) first of all, let me be upfront that I support 40B. It isn’t perfect, it isn’t ideal, but I voted for it (as did 58% of the Commonwealth) a few years back. I voted for it because it works in creating affordable housing. Does it also create profits for developers? Yes. Of course it does. Are those profits above the norm for a long term commitment required to get a 40B project done? No. Does the affordable housing exist afterward? Yes. So to summarize, not perfect, I’m a supporter, I think it works. It is a blunt instrument in a field where blunt instruments are often required to get communities to build affordable housing.
2) Regarding the article, I’m surprised people think it was unfair. Newton has been at the front line lately of challenging 40B. Our position on the golf courses was in my opinion a real stretch. I really didn’t understand how we could make that argument with a straight face. Our mayor is out in public as a supporter of affordable housing, but Newton doesn’t build much if any, and Austin Street passed but produced huge controversy. So why is it shocking that our community would be called out on this? It doesn’t even mention Engine 6. I didn’t think it was unfair, it had multiple perspectives, and the author called out the mayor for both his successes and his failures.
3) Regarding the mobile home argument, I’ve always viewed that as a red herring. It certainly doesn’t apply to the majority of localities where 40b is especially controversial. Brookline, Newton, Weston, Wellesley, Lexington, Cambridge, etc. aren’t exactly swimming with mobile homes or trailer parks. And the 40B statute was revised more than a decade ago to allow for accessory apartments as long as the renter is at 80% of median income. That was a positive change, and if the author was going to bring that up in his article as Emily suggested, I would imagine it would be to criticize Newton for not making those accessory apartments legal from a zoning perspective. (guess what, even if our accessory apartments are suddenly all eligible, I doubt we’d be close to 10%. There are fewer than you think and fewer still that want to rent to an 80% tenant, but we should make that an option for other reasons besides just affordability.
4. I won’t comment on the back and forth between Emily and the author, but the idea that the fact that mobile homes aren’t included in the affordable housing rolls doesn’t prove much unless you make the corresponding argument that this type of exclusion pushes a lot of communities below 10%, and therefore causes a harm. To say that 40B is designed to benefit rich developers because of this exclusion to take a gigantic leap in logic, and since the article was on 40B and Newton, not an applicable leap of logic at that. But it is certainly on the talking points of 40B opponents. Again, I do think developers make a hefty profit on 40B deals. And I also think that competent jurisdictions find ways to use the leverage they have to maximize benefits to the local community in the face of a 40B. There is a push and pull that Mike S. talks about frequently from his 40B experience. I just think Newton seems rudderless, it wants to say it does affordable housing enough to satisfy our own moral codes and to satisfy Mayor Warren’s future political goals, but it wants to block affordable housing that might be controversial enough to attract attention (and thus really make a difference to getting us to 10%).
Therefore I agree with the premise of the author. We are a city that talks the talk, but consistently fails to walk the walk (or if we are walking, we are doing it damn slowly). Do we not expect then to be called out on our hypocrisy? If this wasn’t a planted story (which it seems clear it was not), perhaps, just perhaps, the gentlemen has a point, warts and all?
I should have prefaced my comment by saying I have been a loyal Commonwealth magazine reader since its inception. I recommend people get the magazine, I recommend people sign up for the blog. For a deep & comprehensive look at local and state issues you really can’t do any better. I also think Jack Sullivan is a fantastic reporter and love reading his pieces – and will continue to do so. I just didn’t agree with this one.
@Councilor Norton: And why did you decline to be interviewed on a topic you are so clearly passionate about? (and also not preface your criticism of the “misleading & lazy” article with that disclosure?)
Certainly it’s not because you are shy! Or lazy! 😉
It was midnight & I wanted to get my 12 year old home. I do try to be responsive to the press and believe I generally am. They have a hard job and they don’t get paid enough to do it. (And that’s before being asked to volunteer to deliver their own paper)
I don’t see that Emily Norton had ANY obligation to be interviewed. It’s entirely her choice. The burden of accurate reporting still falls exclusively on the reporter and editor. And the Commonwealth Magazine piece was a cheap shot against a community that had just done something truly generous and magnanimous [Austin Street] to address affordable housing.
I also want to respond to fig taking issue with Newton’s position on golf courses in the context of meeting the 40B threshold. As I’ve pointed out before on related threads, the Commonwealth offers a special tax status to golf courses that relinquish development rights. So the classification of those courses in Newton’s immunity claim was completely legitimate under existing law.
@Mike: Norton was not obligated to be interviewed but it takes a lot of chutzpah to come back and bash the article she declined to participate in for missing her perspective.
@Jack P: On occasion, we change headlines on this blog for any number of reasons. In this instance I changed it to the headline Commonwealth had used on its website because I felt it was less distracting.
Also, I would like to suggest that those who wonder why the Globe, Commonwealth or others located outside our city limits chose to write about Newton might want to expand your reading horizons a little more.
Those publications and journalists like Jack Sullivan, John Chesto, Dante Ramos and others write about different issues in different communities ALL THE TIME. To paraphrase those Gecico commercials “its what they do.”
However if all you do is read are some local blogs or the TAB, you won’t know that. As Fig reminds us, the affordable housing and 40B battles have been the issue we’ve all been struggling with in Newton for the past few years (it was really the only issue this past election, for example), so why are you shocked when others notice?
So instead of shooting the messenger and moaning about how the media is so darn mean to Newton, why not consider it a wake up call to do something about it.
Why not say, “Gee, our failure to address affordable housing is so bad, folks outside our city limits have noticed. It really is time that we addressed this.”
As Mike points out, Massachusetts Chapter 61B of the tax code gives golf courses and other open land used for recreational purposes significant tax breaks if they agree to keep their open space undeveloped OR repay all tax breaks if the property is ever sold to a developer. That last piece makes it a reasonable argument that the land is not developable and therefore the city 40B challenge was a legitimate claim and not a “real stretch” as Fig believes.
Gail,
1. I know this article was from the Commonwealth, I was referring to past article’s written by the Globe, not this one.
2. There are over 300 other cities/towns that haven’t made the threshhold, and yet, time and time again they single Newton out. What about Brookline? Somerville? Cambridge?
3. I didn’t feel that this article showed both sides. Why didn’t Jack interview the leader of the otherside “NVA” and put their position in there. In my opinion it was one sided and made to make us look bad. It’s not that I don’t agree that we talk a good a game and do very little, but lets see both viewpoints in an evenhanded article.
I agree with Tom that the media seems to take great delight in mocking Newton and chooses to do so more often than is accurate. In part, that’s because we’re a very active and pretty interesting community with residents who don’t think twice about calling the media. I believe that this reporter was sincere and worked hard on the article and did his homework, but I don’t think he stumbled on the story on the lack of affordable housing in Newton on his own and I can’t believe he thinks Newton is unique in having a problem with housing. It’s a huge issue in any metro-Boston/eastern Conn./NY/NJ community. So why another story about affordable housing in Newton? Hmmm….
The housing crisis isn’t unique to Newton and it’s not happening 10 years from now. It’s happening right now and if people think they just pick up and move to another community, they haven’t taken a good look around at surrounding communities, forget comparable communities because their unaffordable as well. From my perspective the article would’ve been much stronger if Jack Sullivan had been able to connect the issue in Newton with the larger issue of the housing crisis or affordable housing in the region, but he made no attempt to do so.
My son called last night, thrilled that he’d finally had a bid of $356,000 ($6000 over the asking price) accepted on a 600 square foot condo in Jersey City. Hoboken is way out of his range. At some point, we need to get out of our Newton bubble and take a broader look at this issue.
Mike, I’m happy to discuss further if you wish, but the fact that the golf courses have been classified by the Board of Accessors in Newton under chapter 61B as open space and recreation land does not mean such land is excluded for 40B purposes. This would be entirely new for a locality to be able, based on the view of the local accessors that the land is is under a separate tax break for LOCAL purposes, therefore gets to say that the land therefore can’t be used for another purpose. If Newton wanted to do that, it needed to put a deed restriction on the properties. Which doesn’t exist. The golf courses could potentially one day sell, pay taxes, and give the city the opportunity to exercise its ROFR under 61B.
Your argument rests on the premise that 61B can’t be overridden by 40B. But the general land area minimum calculation doesn’t seek to override 61B at all. This isn’t about the land is currently zoned or what tax breaks it currently has. It is about what uses are PROHIBITED on the land. And since the use for residential isn’t prohibited, it counts as land area under 40B. The city is saying “We don’t want it to count because of our zoning.” But the Housing Appeals Committee is saying, correctly in my opinion “This isn’t about 61B or your zoning or the benefits you give your golf courses from local taxes. This is about what land can be developed into housing. For this calculation, the golf course land may one day be housing.”
If the city wanted the land excluded, they could have insisted that in return for the tax break, the golf courses would agree to a preservation restriction controlled by the city. But the city didn’t do that, and NO WAY would the golf courses agree to that. Because that would wipe out millions in potential value for that land if one day we all stop golfing.
I understand the city’s argument in full. I just think it is a bad one. Also, I’m not sure how I feel about the city using a tax break argument for the private golf courses as a means to block 40Bs. The Board of Accessor’s tax status for these golf courses was never about removing the land from the 40B roles, it was to benefit the golf courses staying in business in Newton. I don’t blame a lawyer for making an inventive argument, but the argument doesn’t represent the values I want my city to have. Just sayin.
As always Mike, appreciate the discussion.
Terry, read your own statement. They can REPAY the taxes, and then develop, after a Right of first refusal to the city. That doesn’t prohibit development as residential. It just makes it more difficult. 500 acres of undeveloped land in Newton is work what? $100,000,000? $50,000,000? That can pay for a lot of taxes.
One day that land can be homes. That is the test. Not that it is difficult, not that there are hoops to jump through. Your argument sounds good, but legally something either meets the standard or it does not. I know that might be frustrating if you don’t like 40B, but if the city wanted something stronger in terms of prohibiting development on the golf courses, that remedy was and is available. But no golf course is going to go for it. Why? Because they’d be giving up future value. Which means they know it might one day be housing, which means the Housing Appeals Committee is 100% correct.
If the City wins future appeals on this, I’m happy to come back and take my lumps, but I’m very confident that we won’t.
Jane, I agree completely that this is part of a much larger issue. Commonwealth Magazine is MA focused though. As for why the focus is Newton, lots of Austin Street press, Engine 6 press, etc. And to our credit, don’t we seem to be struggling with this more than other communities, for good or bad?
When I’m wet, I don’t blame the weatherman for talking about the weather.
fig– Setting aside the cost of paying decades worth of property taxes on hundreds of acres of land in arrears, with accumulated interest and whatever other penalties may have accrued… It is a fact of life that many things are possible. And maybe someday Donald Trump wants to pay the back taxes and build a 40B tower on a Newton golf course. But the city can’t base policy on hypotheticals. Today’s reality restricts the development of those golf courses. So the 40B immunity case represented that reality. I can’t see that the city even had an option to present that evidence differently.
Fig, maybe we’re arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. My view is that the city can make a decent argument (not infallible but not unreasonable) that the golf courses are not buildable because of the tax penalty. To get more city control of 40B it’s an argument worth making. The golf courses are saving 75% of their taxes annually due to 61B. That adds up quickly and becomes prohibitive.
Guys, look at this as a legal argument. You are making a common sense judgement, namely that the golf courses taxes would be too high to ever develop the land. That isn’t the standard. A legal restriction would be a deed restriction or a preservation easement prohibiting development.
The city can make any legal argument it wants. But unlikely or prohibitively expensive isn’t prohibited by law for development. And therefore you don’t get to remove it from the usable land under 40B.
Regarding angels dancing on the head of a pin, that’s the pleasure and the pain of a matter being adjudicated. We’ll find out an answer soon enough, no?
fig– I agree with you on one point. The City is likely to lose this case. In my opinion, not on the merits. This case requires an attorney who specialize in 40B law. Someone with a ton of experience, who’s handled a lot of 40B cases. And based on our three-way conversation with Terry, I think it’s clear the case probably needs a consulting tax attorney as well. I’m not knocking the City Solicitor. I think the City’s law office is very competent. But this is a highly nuanced case. If Mayor Warren were serious about winning it [which I am convinced he’s not], the City would bring in some hired guns. That’s the way to win this case. And it’s well worth the money.
Didn’t this post go up with a different title? The one in the link?
Fig – Commonwealth may be focused on MA, but the reporter took an issue that’s a problem for a much larger region and pinned it on Newton. He had the perfect opportunity to connect the dots and from what I read, it appeared that he had the talent to do so but he didn’t.
When you say there was “lots of Austin St. press, lots of Engine 6 press”, I say where did that come from? Development is one issue in Newton, but it’s not the only one. Other issues aren’t getting the same “press” but they’re extremely important to the vitality of the city. Are we going to depend on advocacy groups to get press attention, or are we going to focus on the broader range of issues that can move Newton forward (I just made that phrase up this very minute ;))?
@Jane. You’d have a valid criticism, if it were true. Please reread the story. There’s a lengthy “dot connecting” section (longer than the Jay Doherty segments, by the way) — and a chart with statewide data — about 1/3 of the way into the article under the subhead: CLASSIC CITY-STATE FIGHT
Mike, I can’t comment on the city’s legal staffing because I know absolutely nothing about it. But I do agree that there are specialists on both sides of 40B that exist in the legal world, as there are on almost any issue. There doesn’t seem to me to be much of a legal argument from the city side, but perhaps a specialist can pull a rabbit out of a hat (or a restriction out of a deed) or some such. From the write up and what I can read online on the issue and the various appeals under 40B, this felt like a desperation heave of a legal argument.
Jane, I read Commonwealth on a regular basis. Newton isn’t a singular focus. We aren’t a punching bag. Is it easy for writers and editors to resort to certain stereotypes regarding Newton as a snob town? Sure. But space is limited in any publication. And there is also value in focusing on a locality dealing with a region wide problem. See the recent documentary on Heroin Abuse on the Cape. And to horribly paraphrase Emerson “we shouldn’t fall into the mistake of dreaming that we are persecuted whenever we are contradicted.” Right? (C’mon now, somewhere my high school english teacher is giving me a slow clap, Rudy-style. )
As for focusing on the other issues, I live for multitasking. Post on other issues of the day and I will too. The arc of the moral universe may be long, but it bends towards justice (Hey, its MLK weekend folks!). We tend to all focus on the bending towards justice, but sometimes we forget the length of the journey and the missteps along the way.
If the city is looking for an 40B attorney, it seems Barbara Huggins might be available. J/k
I agree with Fig. Cases are decided by the law determing what land could be developed using 40B, not taking into account the cost of doing so.
It seems to me that the article was more about the mayor’s stance on affordable housing we read about whenever he speaks somewhere, locally or nationally, contrasted with the facts of what he has accomplished as the Mayor of Newton. The Mayor talks a lot about his ideas and plans heading committees in Boston and nationally. He makes quite the noise about it which sets him up as fair game for reporters to check out the facts, particularly because he seems to have plans to run for higher office. I’m surprised Sullivan left out Engine 6 when the mayor himself dropped the project before it had barely started and can only assume Sullivan didn’t know about it.
On the other hand I don’t quite understand letting the article veer in the direction of giving credence to an angry developer’s defeat in court by calling the deed restriction “a half century old” – well it a century deed restriction. He did this without exposing that the deed restriction was present before the developer purchased the property letting him know in advance that the restriction had never been lifted for residential, and probably wouldn’t/couldn’t be. In addition Sullivan listed the times it had been lifted without noting their difference from what the developer wanted to do and regardless of the court decision still put the fault on Newton while mentioning what the developer was willing to do for the city.
But yes it is hard to build affordable housing in Newton for many reasons.
Emily, just to clarify, Jack Sullivan wanted to interview you at midnight wherever you were with your son and no other time would do? I don’t agree with your points about mobile homes or accessory apartments producing a large number of affordable homes in Newton – unless you are planning to build a mobile home lot and change zoning laws for accessory apartments in Newton. I do think that talking to Sullivan the next morning/afternoon should have been an option instead of at midnight.
Somehow I don’t think a mobile home project in newton would be received with open arms.
Greg – I read the whole article and didn’t think he effectively connected the dots between the issue in Newton and the entire region. The article leaves the readier with the impression that the problem is unique to Newton which isn’t the case.
Fig – I referred to the media coverage of Newton in general, not just Commonwealth Magazine.
When speaking about the CC&F component here, it’s important to put the request in context. We’re talking about the deed restriction within the Newton bubble, but it’s important to look just around the corner at Needham Crossing. There, the Town of Needham managed to approve a housing development, very similar to the one that CC&F wanted to put in Newton in a very similar setting. The area is traditionally an office park that is undergoing a transformation (thanks TripAdvisor!).
The point being, asking Newton to lift the restriction isn’t so far-fetched when you put it in a regional context.
Chuck– You’re right, there is merit to the concept proposed by Cabot, Cabot and Forbes. Their problem isn’t the idea. It’s the fact that they made Newton a wholly inadequate offer to lift the deed restriction.
Just like Austin Street, we have to look at these proposals similar to the way we would evaluate a business deal. Austin Street was, and Wells Ave effectively has become non 40B projects. Projects like these level the playing field for the developers and the city. It takes away the developer’s ability to threaten the community. So the city holds the cards, and the the entire proposal becomes a business deal.
With that in mind, Cabot, Cabot and Forbes should come back to the table with a more realistic proposal. One that offers a sizable number of affordable units, and enough cash to offset the city’s infrastructure and educational costs associated with the development.
I think these two projects, Austin Street and Wells Ave, should be a lesson for the misguided among us who support large scale 40B projects in Newton. The fact is that our city can create more affordable housing, offset more costs, and get much better deals than 40B has to offer, when we’re positioned to negotiate on a level playing field.
I agree, Chuck, but let’s face it – Wells Ave. is a bit of a mess with a mish mash of businesses rather than an office park. It appears that changes were made or deeds lifted without much of a long range plan.
Needham is fortunate to have the undeveloped land area between the river and the highway that is easily accessible from other places and more importantly 128 which is booming. Trip Advisor had nowhere to build its large building in Newton (more complicated than that I realize) so it moved instead to a large accessible area which comes with a plan from Neeham for housing and amenities for those that live and work there and other places. Needham Crossing benefits from its distance from other parts of Needham and its location.
Newton has an office/business park, with a deed restriction prohibing residential, that has one entrance/exit and is itself a screwy design. I stay away from there. NWH has its PT there but even the doctor suggested finding another place. Without starting over there is no way to turn it into a bustling area with shops, cafes, groceries, entertainment, shared office space and other amenities for those hundreds of people who would live there. In fact it would demolish its one big amenity, the athletic club, and leave only the trails for those residents who like to hike. In addition adding hundreds of people using one entrance/exit, revamped or not it’s still just one, that uses an already busy road to enter/exit. The one suggested by CC&F isn’t workable. In the scheme of smart growth, it lacks the amenities a village center brings including public transportation and a shuttle to the T, while helpful, doesn’t take the place of truly accessible transportation. In addition they offered very small mitigation fees and what they eventually offered was to forgo going to court including their statement that the offer would be withdrawn if the court case continued. There has never been a true negotiating spirit between Doughtery and Newton. It’s been similar to a 40B developer trying to hold Newton hostage and when he didn’t get his way he started crying foul to every reporter who would listen.
I’m not giving Newton a pass on supplying needed affordable housing but CC&F seem to be a nightmare to work with. At least ASP who started out being presumptuous and filled with condescension, presenting themselves as Newtonville’s savior when few felt it needed saving, which is partly the fault of the Mayor, changed tactics and worked with the city and community to negotiate a more workable project. (fingers crossed)
I’d like to remind everyone (particularly Mike Striar) here that the developer offered $4M in mitigation to quarterback and implement much-needed improvements to the local infrastructure BEFORE they open the building. These included a complete rebuild of the Wells/Nahanton intersection; landscaping “face lift” and other misc. changes that would MOST welcome.
Check it out for yourself (See attachment H):
http://www.newtonma.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=61721
AND the proposal knocked out nearly half of Newton’s current shortfall to get to 10%. What a shame.
What Eric said. The unfortunate part about the way 135 Wells Ave unfolded was that the proposal was rejected by the city and the board without any apparent negotiations about the size or scope of the project.
Successful communities have been rethinking and reinventing suburban office parks to make them relevant again. But Newton slammed the door on this proposal without first attempting to have any constructive conversation with businesses or residents.
It was the developer’s burden to get the Wells Ave proposal out of the starting gate. Not the City’s responsibility to open dialogue with businesses and residents.
The proposal failed to get people excited [in a positive way] because the scale of pros and cons leaned too heavily toward cons. In particular, the project’s impact on schools and traffic. While my recollection is that the developer offered $3M in mitigation, not $4M, either number was simply not enough for the scope of the project being contemplated. And the $1M in mitigation they initially offered–and then threatened to take back if they won the deed case in court, set the exact wrong tone from the very beginning.
The concept of an apartment building on Wells Ave has merit. But Newton would incur substantial costs as a result. The Wells Ave developer should come back to the table with a proposal that includes a higher number of affordable units, and an offer that [when combined with projected property taxes] mitigates 100% of Newton’s costs attributable to this project. In this specific case, I would support an even larger project IF the number of affordable units and the dollars made sense for the City to accept.
Speak for yourself my friend! The Newton-Needham Chamber’s Board of Directors unanimously supported workforce housing at that site. As did many others (including Paul McMorrow who now works for the Baker Adminstration), including many of the abutting businesses, colleges and non-profits in the immediate area.
And Mike you’ll have to explain to me why you hounded the mayor for not negotiating at Austin Street but say it wasn’t up to the city to enter into a constructive conversation here?
It wasn’t up to the city to rally businesses and residents in support of this project. Especially since the developer put such an inadequate proposal on the table. And just like you’ve told me in similar past cases, Greg, neither of us necessarily knows what dialogue might have taken place with the Mayor behind the scenes. It’s certainly not too late to try again. I think the ball is in the developer’s court. If they want to discuss a different deal they should call the Mayor. I’m pretty sure he’ll take that call.
@Mike: The city didn’t have to rally businesses. Like I said the Chamber and many abutting businesses enthusiastically supported it.
And I don’t think $4M in mitigation should be brushed aside as inadequate. That would have provided measurable improvements for that area PLUS much needed work force housing.
Look at the location, it’s terrible. Not near the T. Not near any useful stores, ie markets, etc.
However, I was not aware that the project would knock out nearly half the difference to get to the threshhold. Thats huge. Knowing this, if it ever came up again, I’d reconsider allowing the project in (if that matters). I am sure if those numbers were made public and the importance of getting to the threshhold than people that think like me would reconsider. Assuming it’s true.
Thanks for the info Eric
While still skeptical on housing in an Office Park without a master plan, I’ve come to appreciate Greg’s point of view. However, regarding CCF’s proposal, it remains unclear how the traffic mitigation proposal would have build a road right through a conservation area. Also, it should be noted that a Wells Ave 40B, like the much touted Needham Crossing, would provide much needed housing but wouldn’t have exactly integrated it into the city. It would have placed it on the outskirts, isolated by roadways. So much for anti-snob zoning!
@Adam, perhaps Wells Ave would need to be the 15th Village with its own character.
I understand the Marshall’s / Clark land will be under some revitalization soon. Too bad it is on Needham St. since that could be an interesting location for a school to ease housing growth that could occur in the southern parts of Newton.
Maybe there should be a 16th elementary school in that area…which poses another problem. While the traffic is an issue, all those kids going to spaulding memorial would be problematic as well. Maybe build a school on winchester st, lots of woods there, I don’t know who owns the property, but maybe it could be looked into.
Why doesn’t the city buy a piece of kessler woods and build a school there and put more affordable housing?
@Greg– Many months ago, I suggested $5M in mitigation might be a good place to start. At that time CC&F had offered $1M. They subsequently raised their offered to $3M, and now they’re apparently at $4M. So they’re moving in the right direction.
Obviously there’s more to this deal than dollars. Just like Austin Street, I would really like to see CC&F exceed the 40B model for affordable units. Because I think Newton should be aiming for 11.5% affordable, instead of the 10% required under 40B. And Wells Ave could be a big contributor.
I would love to see CC&F come back with a proposal for $5M and 30% affordable. I think a proposal in that range would find a lot of support.