After a months of keeping a low profile, the Newton Village Alliance’s Kathleen Kouril Grieser resurfaced this week with a new TAB column.
And she is very, very, afraid for our city’s future.
“Newton is up for grabs,” warns the self-described resident of “soon-to-be demolished Newtonville,” before launching into a litany of concerns that seem inspired more by Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and even Bernie Sanders, than anything that actually happening in the Garden City.
Setti Warren supports “a housing agenda that hurts residents,” Kouril Grieser exhorts. We should be alarmed about “overseas investors,” “speculative land transactions” and “politicians who benefit by rapid growth even as their constituents suffer.” She declares that some Newton leaders favor adopting “policies that make it harder for low-income people to climb out of poverty or the middle class to own houses and land.” She frets about displacing children while attempting to draw parallels between Newton’s future “apartment towers” and those in Manhattan and housing prices comparable to San Francisco, Seattle and London.
How embarrassing.
Look folks, Newton has real challenges and good people can disagree over how to shape our city’s future. But carrying on like Chicken Little or mimicking the fear-mongering that thrives on the cable news networks won’t solve a thing.
Sorry for the cut and paste but this quote from the article: “The administration’s answer: incentivize developers to demolish Newton’s commercial tax base and modest houses to build high-priced, stack ‘em and pack ‘em apartment buildings for middle-class families, but call them “affordable housing” because they contain a small percentage of subsidized units. Policies that make it harder for low-income people to climb out of poverty or the middle class to own houses and land, and instead concentrate land ownership and assets in the hands of wealthier individuals and corporations are regressive, anti-democratic and the antithesis of the American Dream.”
especially this last part, merit discussion. It is one thing to have differing visions of the future housing structure of the city, but it is a real worry that all the power, money and control is weighted on one side.
Sorry for the cut and paste but this quote from the article: “The administration’s answer: incentivize developers to demolish Newton’s commercial tax base and modest houses to build high-priced, stack ‘em and pack ‘em apartment buildings for middle-class families, but call them “affordable housing” because they contain a small percentage of subsidized units. Policies that make it harder for low-income people to climb out of poverty or the middle class to own houses and land, and instead concentrate land ownership and assets in the hands of wealthier individuals and corporations are regressive, anti-democratic and the antithesis of the American Dream.”
especially this last part, merit discussion. It is one thing to have differing visions of the future housing structure of the city, but it is a real worry that all the power, money and control is weighted on one side.
Sounds more like Bernie Sanders.
Sounds more like Bernie Sanders.
Greg, Why can’t you accept someone has a different view of newton than you. why can’t you let people have their opinions, what are you afraid of??? I know you are going to say “I’m not afraid of nothin'” . It’s just how it looks to me.
Greg, Why can’t you accept someone has a different view of newton than you. why can’t you let people have their opinions, what are you afraid of??? I know you are going to say “I’m not afraid of nothin'” . It’s just how it looks to me.
As often happens when I read Kouril Grier written pieces, my brain hurts.
Even more interesting this time around is,that I think I may agree with some points that she’s making, though it’s hard to tell for sure. Her periodic op-ed’s always,seem to be a barrage of half-truths, false comparisons, heart tugging details that may have no bearing on the points she’s making, etc.
Now in this,case her taking off point seems to be the proposal for the Orr Building property. Personally, I don’t like the proposal. I think it’s,much bigger development than i’d like to see there.
A private property owner has put together a plan to build a very large 5 – 6 story mixed use apartment-retail block. The only way it can be built is with zoning changes and special permits granted by the city. So far, no action of any kind has been taken by the city, and I imagine it will be an extremely difficult undertaking to get the kind of zoning changes/relief that the developer is looking for.
In Kouril Grieser’s fever dream though this is all about unnamed, dastardly, political leaders plotting to throw poor children on the street by “incentivizing” greedy developers. The only problem with that “analysis” is that this is,entirely a private project with no incentives offered by the city.
In Kouril Grieser pieces no one ever has good intentions, there are never honest differences of opinions, and everything that she personally doesn’t agree with is always the result of shadowy political figures, cutting backroom deals to undermine the city.
I’m never quite sure whether that cowering paranoid view is what she personally thinks or is just a polemic writing style that she thinks will rile people up to her position. Whichever it is, it has the opposite effect on me. Even when I agree (I think) with the point she’s making I don’t agree with her.
Well said Jerry.
@Tom: If I wanted to live in a city where no one was allowed to have “a different view of Newton” than me, I would have started a blog that didn’t allow comments.
As often happens when I read Kouril Grier written pieces, my brain hurts.
Even more interesting this time around is,that I think I may agree with some points that she’s making, though it’s hard to tell for sure. Her periodic op-ed’s always,seem to be a barrage of half-truths, false comparisons, heart tugging details that may have no bearing on the points she’s making, etc.
Now in this,case her taking off point seems to be the proposal for the Orr Building property. Personally, I don’t like the proposal. I think it’s,much bigger development than i’d like to see there.
A private property owner has put together a plan to build a very large 5 – 6 story mixed use apartment-retail block. The only way it can be built is with zoning changes and special permits granted by the city. So far, no action of any kind has been taken by the city, and I imagine it will be an extremely difficult undertaking to get the kind of zoning changes/relief that the developer is looking for.
In Kouril Grieser’s fever dream though this is all about unnamed, dastardly, political leaders plotting to throw poor children on the street by “incentivizing” greedy developers. The only problem with that “analysis” is that this is,entirely a private project with no incentives offered by the city.
In Kouril Grieser pieces no one ever has good intentions, there are never honest differences of opinions, and everything that she personally doesn’t agree with is always the result of shadowy political figures, cutting backroom deals to undermine the city.
I’m never quite sure whether that cowering paranoid view is what she personally thinks or is just a polemic writing style that she thinks will rile people up to her position. Whichever it is, it has the opposite effect on me. Even when I agree (I think) with the point she’s making I don’t agree with her.
Well said Jerry.
@Tom: If I wanted to live in a city where no one was allowed to have “a different view of Newton” than me, I would have started a blog that didn’t allow comments.
I’m closer to you on this particular issue, but I have to say this post is shaming you more that it does her.
I’m closer to you on this particular issue, but I have to say this post is shaming you more that it does her.
I am inspired by KKG as to what I do not want to be..
I am inspired by KKG as to what I do not want to be..
I think everyone (except the developer) agrees that the Orr building proposal is too big. The problem is that Newton allows so little new development as of right, requiring the developer to get a special permit or variance for anything meaningful.
To play the game the developer has to ask for more, and then retreat to the more reasonable position. That way it looks like the developer gave up something to get approval.
I question KKG’s waiver of basic economic theory by throwing some Latin into her comment. Newton needs more housing if it wants more affordable housing.
I think everyone (except the developer) agrees that the Orr building proposal is too big. The problem is that Newton allows so little new development as of right, requiring the developer to get a special permit or variance for anything meaningful.
To play the game the developer has to ask for more, and then retreat to the more reasonable position. That way it looks like the developer gave up something to get approval.
I question KKG’s waiver of basic economic theory by throwing some Latin into her comment. Newton needs more housing if it wants more affordable housing.
I think anyone that is concerned about all the additional housing developments being added or considered in Newtonville should drive down Pleasant Street in Watertown ( Actually try to drive down there around 4-5 pm which is almost Impossible) and you can get a glimpse of what Newtonville can become. And in Watertown they haven’t even finished as they are adding an additional 200- 300 hundred more apartments/retail/restaurants. These apartments are NOT affordable – as they rent for $2500 – 3000/month. It seems to me that before Newtonville becomes like Pleasant Street – there should be some serious consideration given to these proposals. We can barely park in Newtonville now without Austin Street being taken off line – what will it be like after all those apartments are built. And if they add additional apartments to the Orr Building area – what will that do to an already congested area?
I think anyone that is concerned about all the additional housing developments being added or considered in Newtonville should drive down Pleasant Street in Watertown ( Actually try to drive down there around 4-5 pm which is almost Impossible) and you can get a glimpse of what Newtonville can become. And in Watertown they haven’t even finished as they are adding an additional 200- 300 hundred more apartments/retail/restaurants. These apartments are NOT affordable – as they rent for $2500 – 3000/month. It seems to me that before Newtonville becomes like Pleasant Street – there should be some serious consideration given to these proposals. We can barely park in Newtonville now without Austin Street being taken off line – what will it be like after all those apartments are built. And if they add additional apartments to the Orr Building area – what will that do to an already congested area?
Like Jerry’s, my brain was hurting while trying to interpret what she was saying; her thoughts were veering widely, her ideas were swirling madly and her conspiracy theories were flowing rapidly, reminding me of a combination of Sarah Palin and Alex Jones. She, like a lot of our politicians now, uses a bit of “doublespeak” – making blanket statements that actually mean something quite different from the conclusions she draws.
Property speculators have been buying real estate in Newton because of its location between 128 and 495 and proximity to Boston because of an economic boom that has been growing for years and probably won’t slow down much until interest rates go up. There is money to be made even if the new owners have to restrict changes to those rights that come with the property.
I know many lower income renters are right to “fear” their displacement. Several long-time residents renting on Court Street lost their homes and now the long-time renters in the small multi-family homes on Webster Place will lose theirs. I hate for that to happen, but don’t have a solution. Even if the city or some philanthropic foundation buys all of the the multi-family homes whose rents are lower, they won’t be able to keep them that way; their cumulative prices are high and they will need renovation.
But it wasn’t the city’s policies who put them “up for grabs,” it was the economy and their location. The owners of those multi-family homes have rights too and were ready to sell them for a good price. The developers who purchased them to demolish them will make a profit. Property values will continue to rise.
From the article: “Policies that make it harder for low-income people to climb out of poverty or the middle class to own houses and land, and instead concentrate land ownership and assets in the hands of wealthier individuals … ” This is an incorrect assumption – doublespeak again. Restrictive land use policies like those Newton has now are doing this already not land use policies that are more flexible.
I think she may be using “incentivize developers” to mean the city’s policies are an incentive to developers because they offer an apparently successful way for developers to build what they want either by being granted a new zone, special permits or amendments. (I’m not completely sure.)
Many studies have been done on income and labor convergence as well as human movement finding a causality relationship between the above and housing prices. One http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shoag/files/ganongshoagjan2015.pdf
done at Harvard in 2015 concentrates on housing regulation and finds:
“…housing supply constraints reduce permits for new construction, raise prices, lower net migration, slow human capital convergence and slow income convergence.”
This study would indicate that city policies that are welcoming to new construction do the exact opposite of KKG’s claims.
“High density urban areas have higher income disparities than suburban sreas.”
Newton is part of Boston’s Metro Area, making it somewhere in between the two. On the pike, the exit after Newton is in Boston. On the commuter rail, Fenway is the first stop after Newtonvlle. On the other side, Newton has large homes on acre lots, great schools and a good local economy which tilts it toward its suburban side.
Incomes in suburbs traditionally are more homogeneous because of local land-use regulations that keep housing prices higher and promote income segregation. (Per Robert Reich, they facilitate the “secession of the successful.”)
The incomes in rural areas are also more homogeneous on the other end of the income scale.
“Urban areas that have higher income diversity are traditionally those that have a strong local economy and extensive cultural institutions so have disproportionately more very wealthy people—executives of major corporations and nonprofits, star performers in the arts and sports and Fortune 500 CEOs.
Traditionally, American cities have also had a disproportionate share of people whose incomes are very low. There are a lot of unsavory historical reasons for this, from redlining to exclusionary zoning, but there are also some advantages for low-income people to living in cities. A big one is transportation costs: a household can save thousands of dollars a year by living in a place where they can walk or take transit to most of their destinations instead of driving. And, as jobs and amenities increasingly re-concentrate in cities, they improve low-income residents’ access to essential quality-of-life goods.”
http://cityobservatory.org/why-are-metropolitan-areas-more-equal-than-their-central-cities/
My brain needs a rest.
Like Jerry’s, my brain was hurting while trying to interpret what she was saying; her thoughts were veering widely, her ideas were swirling madly and her conspiracy theories were flowing rapidly, reminding me of a combination of Sarah Palin and Alex Jones. She, like a lot of our politicians now, uses a bit of “doublespeak” – making blanket statements that actually mean something quite different from the conclusions she draws.
Property speculators have been buying real estate in Newton because of its location between 128 and 495 and proximity to Boston because of an economic boom that has been growing for years and probably won’t slow down much until interest rates go up. There is money to be made even if the new owners have to restrict changes to those rights that come with the property.
I know many lower income renters are right to “fear” their displacement. Several long-time residents renting on Court Street lost their homes and now the long-time renters in the small multi-family homes on Webster Place will lose theirs. I hate for that to happen, but don’t have a solution. Even if the city or some philanthropic foundation buys all of the the multi-family homes whose rents are lower, they won’t be able to keep them that way; their cumulative prices are high and they will need renovation.
But it wasn’t the city’s policies who put them “up for grabs,” it was the economy and their location. The owners of those multi-family homes have rights too and were ready to sell them for a good price. The developers who purchased them to demolish them will make a profit. Property values will continue to rise.
From the article: “Policies that make it harder for low-income people to climb out of poverty or the middle class to own houses and land, and instead concentrate land ownership and assets in the hands of wealthier individuals … ” This is an incorrect assumption – doublespeak again. Restrictive land use policies like those Newton has now are doing this already not land use policies that are more flexible.
I think she may be using “incentivize developers” to mean the city’s policies are an incentive to developers because they offer an apparently successful way for developers to build what they want either by being granted a new zone, special permits or amendments. (I’m not completely sure.)
Many studies have been done on income and labor convergence as well as human movement finding a causality relationship between the above and housing prices. One http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shoag/files/ganongshoagjan2015.pdf
done at Harvard in 2015 concentrates on housing regulation and finds:
“…housing supply constraints reduce permits for new construction, raise prices, lower net migration, slow human capital convergence and slow income convergence.”
This study would indicate that city policies that are welcoming to new construction do the exact opposite of KKG’s claims.
“High density urban areas have higher income disparities than suburban sreas.”
Newton is part of Boston’s Metro Area, making it somewhere in between the two. On the pike, the exit after Newton is in Boston. On the commuter rail, Fenway is the first stop after Newtonvlle. On the other side, Newton has large homes on acre lots, great schools and a good local economy which tilts it toward its suburban side.
Incomes in suburbs traditionally are more homogeneous because of local land-use regulations that keep housing prices higher and promote income segregation. (Per Robert Reich, they facilitate the “secession of the successful.”)
The incomes in rural areas are also more homogeneous on the other end of the income scale.
“Urban areas that have higher income diversity are traditionally those that have a strong local economy and extensive cultural institutions so have disproportionately more very wealthy people—executives of major corporations and nonprofits, star performers in the arts and sports and Fortune 500 CEOs.
Traditionally, American cities have also had a disproportionate share of people whose incomes are very low. There are a lot of unsavory historical reasons for this, from redlining to exclusionary zoning, but there are also some advantages for low-income people to living in cities. A big one is transportation costs: a household can save thousands of dollars a year by living in a place where they can walk or take transit to most of their destinations instead of driving. And, as jobs and amenities increasingly re-concentrate in cities, they improve low-income residents’ access to essential quality-of-life goods.”
http://cityobservatory.org/why-are-metropolitan-areas-more-equal-than-their-central-cities/
My brain needs a rest.
I recommend the play “1984” at the ARC in Cambridge for a treat and a great refresher course on newspeak and doublespeak. Hearing something for long periods of time over and over again can cause belief. This is a tactic KKG uses whenever she gets the chance. She is a very smart woman!
I recommend the play “1984” at the ARC in Cambridge for a treat and a great refresher course on newspeak and doublespeak. Hearing something for long periods of time over and over again can cause belief. This is a tactic KKG uses whenever she gets the chance. She is a very smart woman!
Greg, I overreacted when I saw you write how embarrassing. I apologize for overreacting. Sometimes it seems to me that you put up a differing viewpoint just to bash that person. I looked over the thread again and you haven’t really done that in this case, I’m sorry….but you still do it in other threads, :).
That being said, I mostly disagree with her, but I will fight for her to have the right to say it. So yes, it was a bit much but she is not alone in Newton who feel this way. Instead of bashing some of the people, maybe we can educate them.
Thanks Tom but you may have overlooked my point which was in response to you writing:
I co-created this forum because I wanted a place for other views and because I wanted a forum to express my views. Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive.
As for using the word “embarrassing,” that was inspired by the video (It’s what Chicken Little’s dad says towards the end).
KKG’s column was embarrassing and the other members of the NVA should be asking themselves if they really want her as their spokesperson. But that’s not the same as me saying she doesn’t have the right to say whatever she wants, or me the right to say I disagree. (In fact, it makes for interesting blog fodder so from that perspective I hope Andy Levin gives her a weekly column. And KKG, you’re welcome to join the conversation here too.)
The Orr Project deserves a serious discussion. A column in the TAB this week that outlined the NVA’s concerns without all the hyperbole would have been entirely appropriate and helpful. But that’s not what this was.
Greg, I overreacted when I saw you write how embarrassing. I apologize for overreacting. Sometimes it seems to me that you put up a differing viewpoint just to bash that person. I looked over the thread again and you haven’t really done that in this case, I’m sorry….but you still do it in other threads, :).
That being said, I mostly disagree with her, but I will fight for her to have the right to say it. So yes, it was a bit much but she is not alone in Newton who feel this way. Instead of bashing some of the people, maybe we can educate them.
Thanks Tom but you may have overlooked my point which was in response to you writing:
I co-created this forum because I wanted a place for other views and because I wanted a forum to express my views. Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive.
As for using the word “embarrassing,” that was inspired by the video (It’s what Chicken Little’s dad says towards the end).
KKG’s column was embarrassing and the other members of the NVA should be asking themselves if they really want her as their spokesperson. But that’s not the same as me saying she doesn’t have the right to say whatever she wants, or me the right to say I disagree. (In fact, it makes for interesting blog fodder so from that perspective I hope Andy Levin gives her a weekly column. And KKG, you’re welcome to join the conversation here too.)
The Orr Project deserves a serious discussion. A column in the TAB this week that outlined the NVA’s concerns without all the hyperbole would have been entirely appropriate and helpful. But that’s not what this was.
a good lobby will say the same thing over & over until they themselves start to believe; others dignify the love of what they wish for in their visions.
a good lobby will say the same thing over & over until they themselves start to believe; others dignify the love of what they wish for in their visions.
I do love that video clip.
I do love that video clip.
This is a different side of Greg Reibman….I like it.
This is a different side of Greg Reibman….I like it.
Great video clip. I can’t comment on the column because I didn’t read it and have no plans to read it. I don’t read Joshua Norman columns either. I have no interest in reading the same hyperbole over and over.
It’s kind of like the Republican debates. Listening to the repeated warnings of calamity and fabrications makes my head hurt.
Great video clip. I can’t comment on the column because I didn’t read it and have no plans to read it. I don’t read Joshua Norman columns either. I have no interest in reading the same hyperbole over and over.
It’s kind of like the Republican debates. Listening to the repeated warnings of calamity and fabrications makes my head hurt.
The interesting thing is, I’m not sure the same support is there for the Orr building as there was for Austin Street. I know NVA isn’t Mrs. Grieser and vs versa, but in terms of NVA I’d recommend that they learn to compartmentalize. Every project isn’t the same, and the themes don’t always fit so neatly. If you want to oppose the Orr project there is plenty to object to based on that project alone. I’m not opposed to having NVA be another advocate voice in our community, and many of their issues I do agree with. And then they go and overreach.
The Orr building is going to be a topic of conversation for months. But until the developer actually comes back with a realistic proposal, I’m not all that interested in discussing it. As formulated, it never gets approved. If it comes back as a 40B, or a new proposal gets generated, I’ll be the first to comment.
The interesting thing is, I’m not sure the same support is there for the Orr building as there was for Austin Street. I know NVA isn’t Mrs. Grieser and vs versa, but in terms of NVA I’d recommend that they learn to compartmentalize. Every project isn’t the same, and the themes don’t always fit so neatly. If you want to oppose the Orr project there is plenty to object to based on that project alone. I’m not opposed to having NVA be another advocate voice in our community, and many of their issues I do agree with. And then they go and overreach.
The Orr building is going to be a topic of conversation for months. But until the developer actually comes back with a realistic proposal, I’m not all that interested in discussing it. As formulated, it never gets approved. If it comes back as a 40B, or a new proposal gets generated, I’ll be the first to comment.