While the no-growth advocacy group, Newton Villages Alliance, seems to be focusing current efforts on its new blog and speaker series, a new advocacy group — springing from the Friends of Austin Street — is making its debut.
Kathleen Hobson introduces the thinking behind ‘Livable Newton’ in a TAB op-ed column:
We value a Newton that is accessible, affordable, diverse, integrated, and environmentally responsible. We want a city that works for everyone, regardless of age, race, gender, faith, ability, sexual orientation, economic circumstance, or national origin. We want a welcoming, sustainable, livable Newton.
From the article: “Thoughtful planning and development in accordance with the ever-relevant Newton Comprehensive Plan is how this should happen. Austin Street was a great example – though it should never be that hard.”
Not sure what part of the process is being referred to has having been hard. The fact that opposition sprang up and thus, as part of the normal process, had to be dealt with in order to get it approved? Ironically, the developer designated more affordable units at the last moment before the vote BECAUSE of the opposition raising concerns that it was not thoughtfully planned and developed.
(The usual asterisk here that “affordable” is a relative term in the case of the Austin Street apartments).
Another irony mentioned within the article is that due to the developer razing Orr Block to the ground, a young couple who DO live in an affordable apartment are being displaced. Their plight was hugely troubling to me. The article laments that there is no affordable housing for them to move to. THEY WERE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO BEGIN WITH.
How does a $22 million dollar-to-start proposal help them?
How does building “affordable” ware-housing benefit them when they are priced out regardless, due to the developer wanting to (legally) maximize his profits?
How do these multi-story behemoths truly create REAL affordable housing?
From the article: “Thoughtful planning and development in accordance with the ever-relevant Newton Comprehensive Plan is how this should happen. Austin Street was a great example – though it should never be that hard.”
Not sure what part of the process is being referred to has having been hard. The fact that opposition sprang up and thus, as part of the normal process, had to be dealt with in order to get it approved? Ironically, the developer designated more affordable units at the last moment before the vote BECAUSE of the opposition raising concerns that it was not thoughtfully planned and developed.
(The usual asterisk here that “affordable” is a relative term in the case of the Austin Street apartments).
Another irony mentioned within the article is that due to the developer razing Orr Block to the ground, a young couple who DO live in an affordable apartment are being displaced. Their plight was hugely troubling to me. The article laments that there is no affordable housing for them to move to. THEY WERE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO BEGIN WITH.
How does a $22 million dollar-to-start proposal help them?
How does building “affordable” ware-housing benefit them when they are priced out regardless, due to the developer wanting to (legally) maximize his profits?
How do these multi-story behemoths truly create REAL affordable housing?
We will be affordable housing just like they are doing now in Waltham on Main St/ River St near the train Station and Howard St/ Bacon Street and Pleasant St in Watertown – Affordable if you would like to pay between 2500 to 3000 per month for a small apartment. In Watertown – Many people have been displaced to make room for this so called ‘affordable” housing. Try to drive down Pleasant Street after 4 pm – and the additional 300+ apartments have not even been built yet.
It will be interesting to see how Newtonville handles all this added traffic and congestion. And dont fool yourself – there will be No real Affordable housing. Just look at your neighbors in Waltham and Watertown to see how that is working out.
We will be affordable housing just like they are doing now in Waltham on Main St/ River St near the train Station and Howard St/ Bacon Street and Pleasant St in Watertown – Affordable if you would like to pay between 2500 to 3000 per month for a small apartment. In Watertown – Many people have been displaced to make room for this so called ‘affordable” housing. Try to drive down Pleasant Street after 4 pm – and the additional 300+ apartments have not even been built yet.
It will be interesting to see how Newtonville handles all this added traffic and congestion. And dont fool yourself – there will be No real Affordable housing. Just look at your neighbors in Waltham and Watertown to see how that is working out.
Mark, you are a wise man. Will I ever see the day when “affordability” describes how much something actually costs as opposed to a legal-Orwellian-doublespeak designation?
Mark, you are a wise man. Will I ever see the day when “affordability” describes how much something actually costs as opposed to a legal-Orwellian-doublespeak designation?
Building owners have the right to sell their property and the new owner has every right to raise the rent – it happens all of the time and is not under anyone’s control. The new owner has spent $22 million already spent on the Orr Block, with more to come, so he can within right demolish the buildings and build something else. I feel terribly for the residents being evicted. My guess is they will have to move out of Newton because like many of us who couldn’t afford to purchase the hones we own or the market rate rents. That is a real shame in my opinion, but I’m afraid it will continue.
I don’t see how their plight is used to support building affordable*(I’m using Mark’s asterisk) multi family housing. These folks paying $1000/month for a one bedroom apartment will most likely not benefit from deed restricted affordable* housing. Our AMI is so high that 80% is still higher income and it is ludicrous to call 120% AMI affordable. Unless we are building housing that us 50% AMI or lower, it is not truly affordable.
I disagree with the no development stance but think that each new development must be considered for its merits and not just support all development. It seems I fall somewhere in the middle. Speaking of the “ever-relevant comprehensive plan,” I would instead describe it as an ever evolving, with changes when some new theory becomes trendy, vague and ambiguous guidelines. The actual plan it calls for was never developed. It can be used to justify almost any viewpoint.
Building owners have the right to sell their property and the new owner has every right to raise the rent – it happens all of the time and is not under anyone’s control. The new owner has spent $22 million already spent on the Orr Block, with more to come, so he can within right demolish the buildings and build something else. I feel terribly for the residents being evicted. My guess is they will have to move out of Newton because like many of us who couldn’t afford to purchase the hones we own or the market rate rents. That is a real shame in my opinion, but I’m afraid it will continue.
I don’t see how their plight is used to support building affordable*(I’m using Mark’s asterisk) multi family housing. These folks paying $1000/month for a one bedroom apartment will most likely not benefit from deed restricted affordable* housing. Our AMI is so high that 80% is still higher income and it is ludicrous to call 120% AMI affordable. Unless we are building housing that us 50% AMI or lower, it is not truly affordable.
I disagree with the no development stance but think that each new development must be considered for its merits and not just support all development. It seems I fall somewhere in the middle. Speaking of the “ever-relevant comprehensive plan,” I would instead describe it as an ever evolving, with changes when some new theory becomes trendy, vague and ambiguous guidelines. The actual plan it calls for was never developed. It can be used to justify almost any viewpoint.
Right on Martibowen!!!
Right on Martibowen!!!
Thanks, Tom. I’m glad you can make some sense of what I wrote since it is embarrassingly filled with typos and grammar mistakes. I usually do a bit better at proofreading. Oh well.
I just want to point out that while using Mark’s * for “affordable,” I meant the first part stopping at relative because some of the apartments at Austin Street will be at 50% AMI because of the very thing that this group regrets – active involvement and push back. The more input the better the compromise.
Thanks, Tom. I’m glad you can make some sense of what I wrote since it is embarrassingly filled with typos and grammar mistakes. I usually do a bit better at proofreading. Oh well.
I just want to point out that while using Mark’s * for “affordable,” I meant the first part stopping at relative because some of the apartments at Austin Street will be at 50% AMI because of the very thing that this group regrets – active involvement and push back. The more input the better the compromise.