On Monday night at 7:45 p.m,, Mayor Warren will deliver his annual State of the City address in the Council Chambers of Newton City Hall. What do you hope he will say? And what do you think is the state of our city?
The state of our city is “_________________”
by Village 14 | Jan 30, 2016 | Newton | 35 comments
It’s hard to imagine that anything the Mayor will talk about would be more important than the health of Newton’s school children. We have 3000 teens that are being unnecessarily exposed to serious physical and mental health issues every day, because the Newton School Committee is incompetent and derelict in their responsibility. The Mayor should show some genuine leadership, and use his authority to change the early morning start times at our high schools. I don’t expect that he will. But I fully anticipate that as this issue drags on, much of the blame will shift from the School Committee to the Mayor, who is the one person that could actually fix this problem with the stroke of a pen.
I hope the mayor will outline the steps he will take to bring more affordable and workforce housing to Newton as well as a commitment to revitalizing Wells Ave.
I agree with both Mike and Greg. Forget about the Lego’s and start leading from the front instead of leading from the back.
@Greg, why doesn’t Wells Av take steps to revitalize itself?
Dan: Best question of the week! Responsibility doesn’t always fall to the government for best results!
It just strikes me that the ones with the current vested interest in having a viable Wells Av development are its owners. Where are they in all of this? Have they lifted a finger over time to revitalize their own properties? Not asked in an accusatory way; just would like to know what the answer might be.
@Dan and Doug: I suppose I need to remind you that a property owner had offered to invest millions of dollars in infrastructure improvements to Wells Ave in exchange for approval of their mixed use/workforce housing project there. Generally speaking the tenants at Wells Ave supported this project (and the Newton-Needham Chamber’s board unanimously supported it) but the administration and aldermen prevented it from moving forward.
The best explanation as to why this would have made sense for Wells Ave can be found here.
Presently three buildings in the park are approved for extensive renovations. But only the city could orchestrate the single biggest thing needed there, which is creating a second egress in and out of Wells Ave.
I agree Wells Ave. is a private/owner development. No need for the City of Newton to commit financial resources here.
….and, as usual, Dan hits the nail on the head. Bam.
Not to disagree with Dan, but I think most cities/towns do take an interest in getting the highest and best use out of potential development area. I completely agree that the owner has to take a lead role, but why can’t the city be creative and try and work hand in hand with a development entity?
Many cities/towns use tax increment financing to help boost development, especially in areas that are deemed underdeveloped or depressed. Before folks jump down by throat, I’m not suggesting a TIF here for Wells. But it does show you how cities often take an aggressive approach to managing and assisting development. The TIF or other soft financing comes with a price in amenities or agreed upon concessions by the developer.
I’ll often note that in my experience, property owners tend to take their lead from the zoning/city leaders. If responsible development is encouraged within a known framework and there is a collaboration, owners tend to push projects forward. Do folks think the city welcomes that type of engagement? Why would a property owner continue to scream into the wind, hoping someone will hear? There are easier places in the Commonwealth to do business.
So in short, yes, the property owner has to care. But the city sets the agenda. And we get better projects and long term outcomes if they both try to come to the table. Just my 2 cents.
I agree with fig… conceptually. And there is a tremendous opportunity to accomplish something really grand at Wells Ave. But because of the developer’s previous threats, the burden is entirely on them to come forward with a plan that makes sense for the city. There are two ways they could go. Cabot, Cabot & Forbes could offer more money than they did previously. I think $5M in “linkage” sounds about right for the size and scope of their proposal. Or, they could offer the same $3M they offered previously, and increase the affordable component to 30% of the units. Perhaps a deal lies somewhere in between. I’d love to see a proposal I could support, because there’s a lot of merit to the concept of residential housing on Wells Ave.
@Mike: I agree. The unfortunate part about the Wells Ave. proposal was that there did not appear to be any attempt at negotiating a smaller or more affordable project, it was just rejected.
There is another option. Proactively seek out another developer who’s vision is similar to the cities.
@Tom: First of all: Another developer doesn’t own that property this one does. Are you suggesting that the city should pick who owns what properties? Second: Remember, many owners and employers in the park like this vision (and so did the business community overall) why should the city be seeking another vision? And what is that vision anyway?
@Greg– That was then, this is now. How do we get the ball rolling? There’s a deal in there somewhere! I think Mayor Warren learned a thing or two about deal making at Austin Street. Wells Ave has even more potential to be a great project for Newton. It’s just my opinion, but I think $3M in linkage funds and 30% affordable, is something that might find a lot of support.
…800 affordable units in 5 years, innovation zoning, and of course cake sales in every school..
It strikes me that if the deed restriction is governing, even a “better” proposal ought not go anywhere. And wouldn’t that lead to any developer needing to propose something that doesn’t run afoul the deed restriction?
Dan, there’s the rub. The deed restriction seems to be enforced occasionally, but not consistently.
The Wells Ave project is dead. The deed restriction does not have to be lifted therefore, no residential housing in Wells Ave.
Does anyone know the history of the deed restriction? Why would the former owners have determined that the property be developed as industrial or commercial with no residential use? What would they have thought that they were protecting by adding that restriction to the deed?
Yes, fig, I’ve heard that, but for a project as large as this one, I can see applying the restriction. Though it always hurts when one makes exceptions. City councilors, take note.
The aldermen have voted many times to approve an exception to the deed restriction, including to Solomon Schechter, William James College, Newton Wellesley Hospital, Excel Gymnastics, the Russian School of Math, Good Shepherd Community Care, Boston Sports Club, etc.
Greg…none of those entities are residential…why did they need exceptions from the restriction?
Any non-commercial use requires lifting the deed restriction.
Sallee, I believe that when Sylvania bought the land they wanted to change the zoning from single family to limited industrial and afterward tacked several restrictions to the deed keeping it that way. Perhaps the above exceptions were found to be in the letter of the law mainly because they are not residential.
@Greg, your last comment doesn’t seem to answer why the entities you cited needed relief from the deed restriction. The ones you mention don’t seem to be residential. I must be missing something.
@Dan: I may not be explaining this correctly in zoning terms but non-profits, medical, educational use, day care centers, health clubs etc. are not considered commercial under the deed restriction.
I find that I constantly look at things very cynically. Why would Sylvania or the previous owner want to restrict the property from residential development? Immediately my thoughts go to the possibility of protection for them from lawsuits that residential development might engender if the land had somehow been made unhealthy for residential use? I am having a hard time coming up with a simpler, kinder reason. That’s why I asked. Does anyone know the history?
Aha Greg. Got it.
Perhaps the aldermen back then didn’t choose to interpret the deed restriction that way? I certainly had jumped to a conclusion those entities you cited weren’t residential uses.
Just wanted to clarify that I’m Marti with a new user name to include more of my name.
Sylvania made a “deal” with the city by giving the city an option to purchase the unbuidable land for $300.00 and the city did purchase the land for conservation. Sylvania was planning to use that site but changed its mind and sold it with the 99 year deed restriction left in tact. The alderman approved the zoning change but a private entity placed the restriction which is why it’s not considered spot zoning.
It seems to me there is a difference between the businesses Greg describes in following the intent of the deed restriction. Whereas residential would be a whole new direction.
@Marti: First thanks for using your fuller name, something I’d encourage others to consider.
There’s difference among these uses too, which I hope our aldermen considered carefully each time they choose to lift the deed restriction for a non-profit, As has happened many times.
Residential properties pay less real estate taxes than commercial properties but non-profits don’t typically pay any. And yet, concerns about the loss of tax revenue was one of the objections some had to the 135 Wells residential project.
Newton has a limited commercial tax base, I think around 15%, and I think that should be treated as a valuable asset. All other things being equal, converting that to residential purposes works against that. If the deed restriction helps make that happen i’m for it.
Greg – are you saying that all those schools/non-profits own their buildings? They’re not renting?
@Tricia: The Hospice of the Good Shepherd and Solomon Schechter own their buildings and William James College just purchased its building. Not sure about the rest but its easy for anyone to look that up.
@Dan: I feel like we’re going in circles. The reason why the Chamber and many property owners favors workforce housing there is because it would bring vitality to the park, which ultimately would improve the total tax base. Please read this if you haven’t yet.
Technology, i.e the internet, has changed the complexion and definition of business/commercial application. Thriving sub-economy business no longer relies on ‘B&M’ siting, government lagging far behind in adapting to the pace of the private sector. Progressive minded councilors of Newton should rethink their role.