The board of directors at the private Windsor Club have sent this letter to it members calling for opposition to a proposed 40B development at 1615 Beacon Street (at the corner of Windsor Street) in Waban Center. I’ve highlighted three sections highlighted in red which have generated some
conversations around the city.
Dear Windsor Club Members:
On behalf of the Trustees and the club, we are asking you to write a letter to oppose the development of the John Staples Farmstead/Peck house next door to the club on the corner of Windsor and Beacon. The development as it is planned today has the potential to seriously impact a number of club activities including swimming and tennis. These letters are imperative to increase the club’s negotiating position with Mass Housing and the developer should we have the chance to sit down to advocate for scaled down development later on in the process. Letters need to be emailed by Friday May 13th so time is of the essence.
The developer is using 40B to try to get this approved. To be clear, the Board is not opposing this development because of its 40B status. The Board is opposing this development because within 5 ft of our property a 3.5 story building (over 40 feet tall), slightly smaller than the new Angier and higher than the Green Monster at Fenway, with 31 underground parking spaces, has the potential to adversely impact our club in numerous ways:· Aesthetics: This scale has no place in our neighborhood and will dwarf the club and the surrounding neighborhood (see pictures below)
· Tennis: The shadow of the building has the potential to cover a substantial part of our tennis courts which will sour court conditions
· Swimming: From the second and third stories of this building you will be able to see into the pool. This brings up potential safety concerns as the club will have no say in who rents these units while our children swim below.
· Social Activities: Club gatherings including the Clam Bake and event rentals have in the past has lead to noise after 8 pm. Locating 24 units within 5 ft of the Club has the potential lead to noise violations that will curtail club events.What to do: Write a unique email (every email counts no matter how brief)
Write an email to Newton Planning and Mass Housing at [email protected], cc’ing the Mayor [email protected] opposing this development. In your letter identify yourself as a member of the Waban community and mention possible concerns including:-5 ft setback is too small for this type of development; 24 units is too much for 0.7 acres; structure is out of proportion with current neighborhood buildings
-Safety and security of our children swimming in the pool
-Express that the developers have shown no interest in involving the community in the design despite numerous efforts of abutters to contact them.
-The Historical integrity of the Farmhouse. The farmhouse was the original Waban Farm consisting of 93 acres. Its land and building have been put on the national registry of Historic Places. This development will clearly take away from its integrity. Also why are these developers allowed to destroy village’s history?
Please make all letters unique and be mindful that letters submitted before May 13th carry more weight in the decision making process than those submitted later.
Thank you for your help, remember if this gets built it will be next to our club forever.For more information on the development visit http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/planning/current/devrev/hip/beacon_street_1615.asp
Sincerely,
The Windsor Club Board
Without further comment at this time, it should be noted that the large single family home just to the east of the Windsor Club has similar views from its upper floor into the pool area. That house has been in place for a few years now. As is the nature of a private home, the club also has no control over who purchases or visits that home.
Without further comment at this time, it should be noted that the large single family home just to the east of the Windsor Club has similar views from its upper floor into the pool area. That house has been in place for a few years now. As is the nature of a private home, the club also has no control over who purchases or visits that home.
I had a great day, a great night, and came home in a wonderful mood …. and then just read that letter. Man oh man did it just ruin my night.
I certainly understand the Windsor Club having concerns about a big project going up in close proximity. I have no problem with them writing letters expressing their opposition in general. But hanging the whole thing on renters seeing their children makes me crazy, its reminiscent of the craziest of the Engine 6 opposition a few years ago.
I had a great day, a great night, and came home in a wonderful mood …. and then just read that letter. Man oh man did it just ruin my night.
I certainly understand the Windsor Club having concerns about a big project going up in close proximity. I have no problem with them writing letters expressing their opposition in general. But hanging the whole thing on renters seeing their children makes me crazy, its reminiscent of the craziest of the Engine 6 opposition a few years ago.
The club sent out an updated notice to members early yesterday that does not include the “pool view” language.
Did the board apologize for the pool language?
Jerry: You’re right, this is reminiscent of the Engine 6 push back. But in a way this is worse because instead of comments from individuals this presumably was sanctioned by the club’s entire board directors.
The club sent out an updated notice to members early yesterday that does not include the “pool view” language.
Did the board apologize for the pool language?
Jerry: You’re right, this is reminiscent of the Engine 6 push back. But in a way this is worse because instead of comments from individuals this presumably was sanctioned by the club’s entire board directors.
The suggestion that renters — especially those who qualify for subsidized housing — impose a threat to children swimming at an exclusive club is repulsive.
The suggestion that renters — especially those who qualify for subsidized housing — impose a threat to children swimming at an exclusive club is repulsive.
The first two notices included it. When I expressed my distress as a club member to the club president— “The blast sent to club members yesterday, and re-sent today, is the apotheosis of exclusivity, arrogance, and misinformation. It crossed a line. It’s spreading fear and hatred. I’m embarrassed and ashamed for the Windsor Club”—his reply to me included these words: “I am sorry you disagree with the position taken, but it was not taken lightly and was taken only after careful consideration of the issues. To use negative adjectives directed against the volunteers who run the Club is misguided and unfortunate.”
The first two notices included it. When I expressed my distress as a club member to the club president— “The blast sent to club members yesterday, and re-sent today, is the apotheosis of exclusivity, arrogance, and misinformation. It crossed a line. It’s spreading fear and hatred. I’m embarrassed and ashamed for the Windsor Club”—his reply to me included these words: “I am sorry you disagree with the position taken, but it was not taken lightly and was taken only after careful consideration of the issues. To use negative adjectives directed against the volunteers who run the Club is misguided and unfortunate.”
“Also why are these developers allowed to destroy village’s history?”
Well, you see, there’s this little thing called PROPERTY RIGHTS that we have in our country.
The letter was totally inflammatory and naive in its assumption that Club members (all Wabanites) would naturally be united against unsavory outsiders. There was absolutely no sense of balance whatsoever.
This foot-stamping is getting really unattractive. If you want to have input into a major village development, then be part of the process. But this letter represents the worst among us.
“Also why are these developers allowed to destroy village’s history?”
Well, you see, there’s this little thing called PROPERTY RIGHTS that we have in our country.
The letter was totally inflammatory and naive in its assumption that Club members (all Wabanites) would naturally be united against unsavory outsiders. There was absolutely no sense of balance whatsoever.
This foot-stamping is getting really unattractive. If you want to have input into a major village development, then be part of the process. But this letter represents the worst among us.
I hope it’s clear from my prior comment that I disagree with the characterization of developers “destroying our village’s history”.
I was the History chair of Waban Improvement Society for nearly 13 years. I helped produce two modest books that chronicle the life and times of Waban and its people. (Both are available at the Waban Library Center.) I care very much about history. I enjoy walking around Waban and imagining how things were.
But the knee-jerk opposition and stonewalling of developments, ESPECIALLY those that contain affordable units, which are in woefully short — dare we say nonexistent — supply in Waban, troubles me greatly. The world changes, my friends. That’s what it does! Children know this, we all know this. To try to hold back change in the name of aesthetics (and very privileged ones at that) is futile.
This over-the-top sense of entitlement has got to stop.
I hope it’s clear from my prior comment that I disagree with the characterization of developers “destroying our village’s history”.
I was the History chair of Waban Improvement Society for nearly 13 years. I helped produce two modest books that chronicle the life and times of Waban and its people. (Both are available at the Waban Library Center.) I care very much about history. I enjoy walking around Waban and imagining how things were.
But the knee-jerk opposition and stonewalling of developments, ESPECIALLY those that contain affordable units, which are in woefully short — dare we say nonexistent — supply in Waban, troubles me greatly. The world changes, my friends. That’s what it does! Children know this, we all know this. To try to hold back change in the name of aesthetics (and very privileged ones at that) is futile.
This over-the-top sense of entitlement has got to stop.
Regardless of one’s position on the development, it’s important to remember that this is not an affordable housing development. My understanding is that the vast majority of the units will be “luxury” units and only a small percentage will be affordable to meet the 40B requirements to allow them to bypass zoning. Happy to be corrected on that if I have misunderstood what has been communicated about the planned scope of the project.
Regardless of one’s position on the development, it’s important to remember that this is not an affordable housing development. My understanding is that the vast majority of the units will be “luxury” units and only a small percentage will be affordable to meet the 40B requirements to allow them to bypass zoning. Happy to be corrected on that if I have misunderstood what has been communicated about the planned scope of the project.
I walked around the site and was astonished to see the size of the proposal. Smack in the middle of the village square and totally inappropriate for the area. Perhaps 2 units would be sensible but not the plan as proposed. The Windsor Club members have a right to be upset. That site ought to ne made into a village green space for all to enjoy. I support housing development but not in the middle of busy commercial traffic areas. This site is totally wrong for dense housing.
I walked around the site and was astonished to see the size of the proposal. Smack in the middle of the village square and totally inappropriate for the area. Perhaps 2 units would be sensible but not the plan as proposed. The Windsor Club members have a right to be upset. That site ought to ne made into a village green space for all to enjoy. I support housing development but not in the middle of busy commercial traffic areas. This site is totally wrong for dense housing.
The letter is insinuating the untrustworthyness of renters in general not just those who live in the small number of those classified as affordabile. “We have no say in who rents these units.” These aspersions were used against a previous development in Waban. The words may have been removed in some copies but the fear has already been spread. Protect our children. Protect our community. If the board thinks this was the right thing to do and has rebuffed those who have complained, there must be many who approve. A sad old refrain.
The letter is insinuating the untrustworthyness of renters in general not just those who live in the small number of those classified as affordabile. “We have no say in who rents these units.” These aspersions were used against a previous development in Waban. The words may have been removed in some copies but the fear has already been spread. Protect our children. Protect our community. If the board thinks this was the right thing to do and has rebuffed those who have complained, there must be many who approve. A sad old refrain.
Colleen, just out of curiosity what housing developments have you supported? I can’t recall.
A busy village center is a great place for housing. Where would be a better site in Waban in your opinion?
Colleen, just out of curiosity what housing developments have you supported? I can’t recall.
A busy village center is a great place for housing. Where would be a better site in Waban in your opinion?
Wow. Coincidental to this was a ditty from Indira Ghandi. They always remember their rights but forget their duties. Multi unit housing should be in village centers, to allow people to take advantage of public transportation. And abandon their cars. Perhaps we should reconsider the tax exempt status of an institution that advocates its members to lobby.
Wow. Coincidental to this was a ditty from Indira Ghandi. They always remember their rights but forget their duties. Multi unit housing should be in village centers, to allow people to take advantage of public transportation. And abandon their cars. Perhaps we should reconsider the tax exempt status of an institution that advocates its members to lobby.
Pretty awful. On the Club’s board member page, it reads:
“If there is anything we can do to make your membership in the Club more enjoyable, please do not hesitate to ask us…”
Perhaps members could write and suggest: “kindly don’t demonize non-mansion owners”.
I know many fine people who, like Kathleen Hobson, are Windsor Club members. I’m sure they’re equally distressed by this. I hope they convey their outrage to the club’s leadership and that the Windsor Board apologizes to them for making this repugnant statement on their behalf. Either that or elect a new board.
These are not Newton’s values.
Pretty awful. On the Club’s board member page, it reads:
“If there is anything we can do to make your membership in the Club more enjoyable, please do not hesitate to ask us…”
Perhaps members could write and suggest: “kindly don’t demonize non-mansion owners”.
I know many fine people who, like Kathleen Hobson, are Windsor Club members. I’m sure they’re equally distressed by this. I hope they convey their outrage to the club’s leadership and that the Windsor Board apologizes to them for making this repugnant statement on their behalf. Either that or elect a new board.
These are not Newton’s values.
The Windsor Club, in my opinion, is having their property rights violated. No one wants a pool in the shadow of a 40 foot building, five feet a way.
It seems like the same story all over again. The Windsor Club made some clumsy comments. So, what happens? Everyone bashes the Windsor Club. Everyone calls the Windsor Club names, but no one focuses on real issues. Whenever there is a proposed 40B, pro-density advocates do this every time–they criticize the victim for being insensitive. They don’t talk about the real issues. It is all about name calling and being self-righteous. Speaking of self-righteous, if anyone lives next door to a 40B that is five feet from their pool, please throw a stone at the Windsor Club. Otherwise, let’s forgive them and give them a break.
The Windsor Club, in my opinion, is having their property rights violated. No one wants a pool in the shadow of a 40 foot building, five feet a way.
It seems like the same story all over again. The Windsor Club made some clumsy comments. So, what happens? Everyone bashes the Windsor Club. Everyone calls the Windsor Club names, but no one focuses on real issues. Whenever there is a proposed 40B, pro-density advocates do this every time–they criticize the victim for being insensitive. They don’t talk about the real issues. It is all about name calling and being self-righteous. Speaking of self-righteous, if anyone lives next door to a 40B that is five feet from their pool, please throw a stone at the Windsor Club. Otherwise, let’s forgive them and give them a break.
Jeffrey,
How is the need for housing — and an organization’s efforts to curtail it — not one of “the real issues?”
I can empathize with the Windsor Club Board’s concerns about the building casting a shadow on the tennis courts. If they have similar concerns about the pool, I completely get that. But that’s not what they wrote to their membership. Instead, they tried to ignite fear by raising flags about transient residents having the ability to view children swimming and playing.
I can’t imagine how they didn’t realize how snobbish they sound. I’d be embarrassed if I were a member.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone ever admit to opposing a development because of its 40B status?
Jeffrey,
How is the need for housing — and an organization’s efforts to curtail it — not one of “the real issues?”
I can empathize with the Windsor Club Board’s concerns about the building casting a shadow on the tennis courts. If they have similar concerns about the pool, I completely get that. But that’s not what they wrote to their membership. Instead, they tried to ignite fear by raising flags about transient residents having the ability to view children swimming and playing.
I can’t imagine how they didn’t realize how snobbish they sound. I’d be embarrassed if I were a member.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone ever admit to opposing a development because of its 40B status?
It will be 5 feet from the property line, not from the pool. Rough Google measuring shows that it will be 115 feet from the pool. It would have to be about 10 minutes from dawn for a 40 foot building to cast a shadow 115 feet away.
Colleen – a village center walking distance to the Green Line is the BEST place for adding dense housing, not the worst.
It will be 5 feet from the property line, not from the pool. Rough Google measuring shows that it will be 115 feet from the pool. It would have to be about 10 minutes from dawn for a 40 foot building to cast a shadow 115 feet away.
Colleen – a village center walking distance to the Green Line is the BEST place for adding dense housing, not the worst.
From my limited ability to read a survey/google maps, I think the shadow would be over the parking lot.
What this letter feels like is the Windsor Club is basically throwing mud at the 40B wall and hoping something sticks. I can understand that, although I might wish that the mud was aimed a bit better. Some of the points are actually good ones, and I can understand the concerns regarding the site, especially the history regarding the farm.
The pool concern is a dog whistle and detracts from their arguments. Jeffrey, you had me if it was actually 5 feet away, I imagined a gigantic building right on top of my house, blocking out the sun a la Mr. Burns in the Simpsons. Who shot Mr. Burns indeed. Now that I’ve googled it, I’m pretty sure that basically they just don’t want a large building as their neighbor. Not so sure it was any material effects on the shade on their property… Also not sure the shade issue will have much bearing on the 40B designation.
I doubt MassHousing or anyone else will say to themselves… “dear G-d, that 40B will impact the sun on the tennis courts and pool on that exclusive Waban club next door. However will those extremely well-off folks play tennis early in the day or late in the afternoon? This cannot stand.”
Now the historic building argument is a stronger one, although weakened by the overall area’s lack of historic integrity in nearby buildings.
This doesn’t mean that I think this is a good place for the building or this particular 40B. I need to review the site a bit more before I can draw any conclusions.
From my limited ability to read a survey/google maps, I think the shadow would be over the parking lot.
What this letter feels like is the Windsor Club is basically throwing mud at the 40B wall and hoping something sticks. I can understand that, although I might wish that the mud was aimed a bit better. Some of the points are actually good ones, and I can understand the concerns regarding the site, especially the history regarding the farm.
The pool concern is a dog whistle and detracts from their arguments. Jeffrey, you had me if it was actually 5 feet away, I imagined a gigantic building right on top of my house, blocking out the sun a la Mr. Burns in the Simpsons. Who shot Mr. Burns indeed. Now that I’ve googled it, I’m pretty sure that basically they just don’t want a large building as their neighbor. Not so sure it was any material effects on the shade on their property… Also not sure the shade issue will have much bearing on the 40B designation.
I doubt MassHousing or anyone else will say to themselves… “dear G-d, that 40B will impact the sun on the tennis courts and pool on that exclusive Waban club next door. However will those extremely well-off folks play tennis early in the day or late in the afternoon? This cannot stand.”
Now the historic building argument is a stronger one, although weakened by the overall area’s lack of historic integrity in nearby buildings.
This doesn’t mean that I think this is a good place for the building or this particular 40B. I need to review the site a bit more before I can draw any conclusions.
This is NOT a Low Income Housing building. Fact, this is a luxury apartment building, which has 9 lower income apartments out of 48. so arguments that this is low income are nonsensical. Two, the windsor club is an abutter, and under an obligation to comment. Their comment around children in the pool was just stupid. But their other arguments are not. Despite what you want to believe — this is not an crusade on low-income housing. It is a crusade on 40B, which is not the same. This is about developers using that law to circumvent zoning regulations. The guy building this property, someone I know, does not care about low income housing. He wants to build a luxury apartment building — renting or selling apartments to the WEALTHY.
This is NOT a Low Income Housing building. Fact, this is a luxury apartment building, which has 9 lower income apartments out of 48. so arguments that this is low income are nonsensical. Two, the windsor club is an abutter, and under an obligation to comment. Their comment around children in the pool was just stupid. But their other arguments are not. Despite what you want to believe — this is not an crusade on low-income housing. It is a crusade on 40B, which is not the same. This is about developers using that law to circumvent zoning regulations. The guy building this property, someone I know, does not care about low income housing. He wants to build a luxury apartment building — renting or selling apartments to the WEALTHY.
JohnF, thanks for the facts. Fig, the facts are not as egregious as I thought, but my general sentiment remains.
We live in a city where people are ashamed to say that they oppose 40Bs in general. When a 40B happens next store to them, some of them wake up and understand how goofy it is. Some of them talk about how much they still love 40Bs, just not the one that is victimizing them.
Gail asks, “Does anyone ever admit to opposing a development because of its 40B status?” Jeffrey Ernest Pontiff opposes 40Bs in general. No apologies. Am I still a warm, loving, sensitive person? Yes. Will I ever be elected to public office? No. Good intentions are not enough. I have never seen a pretty or interesting 40B nor evidence that 40Bs reduce the price of housing. Despite my general opposition, I am a realist. We are getting 40Bs shoved down our throats regardless. I have to live with the fact that there will be some 40Bs in Newton and some are better than others.
Gail, you bring up many things in few words. You are making the board’s statement sound worse than it is. That being said, I agree that their statement sounds bad. My word choice of “clumsy” was too restrained. It sounds like a statement that a crazy uncle would make after a few extra drinks. All that I am saying is that if we focus on the boorishness of the statement, we lose sight of the big picture. Does the new development make sense? I remember an op-ed where the author used the phrase “import poor people.” Everyone talked about the phrase, which sucked the air from a discussion of the veracity of the op-ed.
JohnF, thanks for the facts. Fig, the facts are not as egregious as I thought, but my general sentiment remains.
We live in a city where people are ashamed to say that they oppose 40Bs in general. When a 40B happens next store to them, some of them wake up and understand how goofy it is. Some of them talk about how much they still love 40Bs, just not the one that is victimizing them.
Gail asks, “Does anyone ever admit to opposing a development because of its 40B status?” Jeffrey Ernest Pontiff opposes 40Bs in general. No apologies. Am I still a warm, loving, sensitive person? Yes. Will I ever be elected to public office? No. Good intentions are not enough. I have never seen a pretty or interesting 40B nor evidence that 40Bs reduce the price of housing. Despite my general opposition, I am a realist. We are getting 40Bs shoved down our throats regardless. I have to live with the fact that there will be some 40Bs in Newton and some are better than others.
Gail, you bring up many things in few words. You are making the board’s statement sound worse than it is. That being said, I agree that their statement sounds bad. My word choice of “clumsy” was too restrained. It sounds like a statement that a crazy uncle would make after a few extra drinks. All that I am saying is that if we focus on the boorishness of the statement, we lose sight of the big picture. Does the new development make sense? I remember an op-ed where the author used the phrase “import poor people.” Everyone talked about the phrase, which sucked the air from a discussion of the veracity of the op-ed.
This is the second time in a week a commenter has accused other commenters of name calling. Please tell me what I’m missing. I’m not seeing any name calling, just criticism aimed at an organization.
This is the second time in a week a commenter has accused other commenters of name calling. Please tell me what I’m missing. I’m not seeing any name calling, just criticism aimed at an organization.
@Adam: This blog is full of name calling…the rhetorical device of obfuscating and clouding men’s minds with irrelevant argument is a notorious debating technique meant to detract from the force of courteous discourse. I said that I wanted to learn about Local Historic Districts. I am not interested in learning about what Greg or you or anyone else thinks about the Newton Forum blog. I referenced the article there, since 1)I had read it and do not believe in even the appearance of plagiarism; 2) I value the knowledge and opinions of many on this blog; 3)the Newton Forum blog is newer and fewer people comment on any of their many thought provoking threads. Stereotyping and prejudice and bias against those who write on the Newton Forum blog will not stop their thinking or move it or yours unless you actually engage with their comments.
@Salle: This blog adheres to series of rules but none of them are that we should only comment on topics you’re interested in. Otherwise, I suspect there’d be a heated discussion right now about the safety of recyclable cloth bags.
@Adam: This blog is full of name calling…the rhetorical device of obfuscating and clouding men’s minds with irrelevant argument is a notorious debating technique meant to detract from the force of courteous discourse. I said that I wanted to learn about Local Historic Districts. I am not interested in learning about what Greg or you or anyone else thinks about the Newton Forum blog. I referenced the article there, since 1)I had read it and do not believe in even the appearance of plagiarism; 2) I value the knowledge and opinions of many on this blog; 3)the Newton Forum blog is newer and fewer people comment on any of their many thought provoking threads. Stereotyping and prejudice and bias against those who write on the Newton Forum blog will not stop their thinking or move it or yours unless you actually engage with their comments.
@Salle: This blog adheres to series of rules but none of them are that we should only comment on topics you’re interested in. Otherwise, I suspect there’d be a heated discussion right now about the safety of recyclable cloth bags.
Adam — I don’t see people name calling. What I see is people like Gail, who incite anger against an organization and says members should be embarrassed, after the club made a stupid comment that could (and did) incite anger. The irony of this hypocritical attack on the club is it that it hides behind the guise of journalism. If there is embarrassment to be had, it is from professional journalist who incite anger and hatred. Well done — you are a credit to your profession.
Adam — I don’t see people name calling. What I see is people like Gail, who incite anger against an organization and says members should be embarrassed, after the club made a stupid comment that could (and did) incite anger. The irony of this hypocritical attack on the club is it that it hides behind the guise of journalism. If there is embarrassment to be had, it is from professional journalist who incite anger and hatred. Well done — you are a credit to your profession.
@Jon Edward – what are you talking about?
As you say “the club made a stupid comment that could (and did) incite anger”. Not only that, when a member pointed it out to them, they doubled down rather than backed off from the comment.
You seem to be making the same point and have the same opinion about their letter as Gail Spector, I and others have expressed.
Where’s the hypocrisy in pointing that out? … and if it is hypocritical when Gail pointed it out, why is it not hypocritical when you point it out?
From where I’m sitting, the comments in that letter are indefensible. Sure, people can misspeak or write carelessly and say things that were not intended. In this case though, when it was pointed out to the board of the Windsor Club, their response was ” the position … was not taken lightly and was taken only after careful consideration of the issues.”
If they choose to stand by the messages in that letter than they deserve to be called out publicly for it. I find this whole episode absolutely abhorrent.
@Jon Edward – what are you talking about?
As you say “the club made a stupid comment that could (and did) incite anger”. Not only that, when a member pointed it out to them, they doubled down rather than backed off from the comment.
You seem to be making the same point and have the same opinion about their letter as Gail Spector, I and others have expressed.
Where’s the hypocrisy in pointing that out? … and if it is hypocritical when Gail pointed it out, why is it not hypocritical when you point it out?
From where I’m sitting, the comments in that letter are indefensible. Sure, people can misspeak or write carelessly and say things that were not intended. In this case though, when it was pointed out to the board of the Windsor Club, their response was ” the position … was not taken lightly and was taken only after careful consideration of the issues.”
If they choose to stand by the messages in that letter than they deserve to be called out publicly for it. I find this whole episode absolutely abhorrent.
I love the posters who point out that this is “not an affordable housing project.” The implication is if it was 100% affordable housing units, everyone would be for it. AS IF.
I love the posters who point out that this is “not an affordable housing project.” The implication is if it was 100% affordable housing units, everyone would be for it. AS IF.
Sallee, this has really gone on too long. The “name calling” you say this blog is full of, is currently being done by you. On the thread you mentioned, you called people jerks, accused someone of sniping and called the expressions of a difference of opinion from yours nastiness, mainly because we didn’t fall in line and stick to the topic you wanted to discuss. When you start a thread or make a comment you seem to think you control what is allowable to discuss, you don’t. No one was trying to obfuscate or detract from your post about Local Historuc Districts.You say you are being ignored if no one chooses to discuss what you post, but name-call if those who do don’t discuss exactly what you want.
Now you are accusing commenters of stereotyping and expressing prejudice and bias against people on another blog. No one made comments that were derogatory of either the blog or the people who post there. No one made comments about their right to have a blog or express their opinions whatever those might be. No one cares or wants them to change. Saying that they seem to agree with the NVA is not name-calling or nasty unless you believe that being associated with the NVA or its viewpoints is a terrible thing. That belief would have to be yours because no one here has said that.
You did not just reference the blog post, by a member of the NVA expressing one of their viewpoints, you quoted from it and said that you might agree with it. No one said that was not a fine thing to do. They just made comments you didn’t want to read – they didn’t stick to your questions. You could have easily asked about Local Historic Districts with no fear of plagiarism.
There is no name-calling on this thread – there is critism of a board of a private club spreading fear of having no control over who is watching children in the pool after much thoughtful deliberation and discussion. That is the issue at hand. It is not a distraction.
Sallee, this has really gone on too long. The “name calling” you say this blog is full of, is currently being done by you. On the thread you mentioned, you called people jerks, accused someone of sniping and called the expressions of a difference of opinion from yours nastiness, mainly because we didn’t fall in line and stick to the topic you wanted to discuss. When you start a thread or make a comment you seem to think you control what is allowable to discuss, you don’t. No one was trying to obfuscate or detract from your post about Local Historuc Districts.You say you are being ignored if no one chooses to discuss what you post, but name-call if those who do don’t discuss exactly what you want.
Now you are accusing commenters of stereotyping and expressing prejudice and bias against people on another blog. No one made comments that were derogatory of either the blog or the people who post there. No one made comments about their right to have a blog or express their opinions whatever those might be. No one cares or wants them to change. Saying that they seem to agree with the NVA is not name-calling or nasty unless you believe that being associated with the NVA or its viewpoints is a terrible thing. That belief would have to be yours because no one here has said that.
You did not just reference the blog post, by a member of the NVA expressing one of their viewpoints, you quoted from it and said that you might agree with it. No one said that was not a fine thing to do. They just made comments you didn’t want to read – they didn’t stick to your questions. You could have easily asked about Local Historic Districts with no fear of plagiarism.
There is no name-calling on this thread – there is critism of a board of a private club spreading fear of having no control over who is watching children in the pool after much thoughtful deliberation and discussion. That is the issue at hand. It is not a distraction.
Jeffrey Pontiff, I think it’s the writers of the letters and the op-eds who bare the responsibility for putting in words or statements that include stupid things and cause their points to be overlooked. They put them in on purpose to attract those who might agree but they also attract those who find them despicable. It’s a cost/benefit decision. It often works in their favor because they still reach the ones who will support them, even if later they retract it to appease those who wouldn’t have anyway. The board did not make a mistake; it speculated on the effectiveness of its letter. Only those Councilors who receive their prompted emails will know how effective it was.
Im curious about May 13 being the most effective date to send emails. Anyone know why? Also about why private social clubs can be tax exempt?
Jeffrey Pontiff, I think it’s the writers of the letters and the op-eds who bare the responsibility for putting in words or statements that include stupid things and cause their points to be overlooked. They put them in on purpose to attract those who might agree but they also attract those who find them despicable. It’s a cost/benefit decision. It often works in their favor because they still reach the ones who will support them, even if later they retract it to appease those who wouldn’t have anyway. The board did not make a mistake; it speculated on the effectiveness of its letter. Only those Councilors who receive their prompted emails will know how effective it was.
Im curious about May 13 being the most effective date to send emails. Anyone know why? Also about why private social clubs can be tax exempt?
I think most school kids can identify name calling, which NeilP demonstrated so well. Merriam-webster definition:
On recent threads, I’ve seen no name calling, no mocking, just objective consideration of the facts. Sallee, while I respect that you wish to discuss a particular topic, if an NVA event is mentioned or promoted, or an NVA leader’s post on another blog is referenced, I would probably express my feelings again.
Gail’s remarks may have been harsh, but that’s hardly incitement or hatred. She objected to a statement she felt was intolerant, and I feel the same way. Perhaps calling out those remarks will help prevent them from being repeated in our community.
I think most school kids can identify name calling, which NeilP demonstrated so well. Merriam-webster definition:
On recent threads, I’ve seen no name calling, no mocking, just objective consideration of the facts. Sallee, while I respect that you wish to discuss a particular topic, if an NVA event is mentioned or promoted, or an NVA leader’s post on another blog is referenced, I would probably express my feelings again.
Gail’s remarks may have been harsh, but that’s hardly incitement or hatred. She objected to a statement she felt was intolerant, and I feel the same way. Perhaps calling out those remarks will help prevent them from being repeated in our community.
To those who want to build dense housing in village centers I believe you are wrong. I can’t think of one village that has ever considered doing such a thing. Now with increased economic pressure everyone is supposed to rethink their values and build helter skelter to satisfy immediate economic changes. What a mistake.
To those who want to build dense housing in village centers I believe you are wrong. I can’t think of one village that has ever considered doing such a thing. Now with increased economic pressure everyone is supposed to rethink their values and build helter skelter to satisfy immediate economic changes. What a mistake.
@Colleen. When you say, “I can’t think of one village that has ever considered doing such a thing,” you seem to imply that village councils have, since the beginning of time, decided not “to build dense housing in village centers.” Such a statement is startlingly ahistorical. Please spend a little time learning the history of our village centers. For example, see at the city directories of the 1920 or 1930s at the library. Prior to World War II, most village centers included a mix of uses, including residential units over retail. Look at the floors above the CVS in West Newton or above the stores on Union Street in Newton Center. Those were apartments! The people who owned those parcels of land built “dense” developments, buildings which created the character of our village centers. The assertions you continue to make against “density” are ahistorical.
@Colleen. When you say, “I can’t think of one village that has ever considered doing such a thing,” you seem to imply that village councils have, since the beginning of time, decided not “to build dense housing in village centers.” Such a statement is startlingly ahistorical. Please spend a little time learning the history of our village centers. For example, see at the city directories of the 1920 or 1930s at the library. Prior to World War II, most village centers included a mix of uses, including residential units over retail. Look at the floors above the CVS in West Newton or above the stores on Union Street in Newton Center. Those were apartments! The people who owned those parcels of land built “dense” developments, buildings which created the character of our village centers. The assertions you continue to make against “density” are ahistorical.
OMG! The irony of this conversation. The bleeding heart liberals in this blog are defending a developer, who is using 40B as a loop hole to build a Trump like luxury tower in a village. This same developer is taking down an affordable housing building complex (8) to do it. Yes…that is right…the farmhouse is already an affordable housing unit. I love the ignorance of the general population. Alex Argiros is notorious for these sorts of developments. And yet you have all been fooled into supporting him. That is hilarious! He held the match out, the club lit it, and the fire started to burn! Burn baby Burn!!
OMG! The irony of this conversation. The bleeding heart liberals in this blog are defending a developer, who is using 40B as a loop hole to build a Trump like luxury tower in a village. This same developer is taking down an affordable housing building complex (8) to do it. Yes…that is right…the farmhouse is already an affordable housing unit. I love the ignorance of the general population. Alex Argiros is notorious for these sorts of developments. And yet you have all been fooled into supporting him. That is hilarious! He held the match out, the club lit it, and the fire started to burn! Burn baby Burn!!
@ J Paul – Hmm, not sure which blog thread you’re reading. The majority of folks who commented on the project itself Joe Corkery, Colleen Minaker, Jeffrey Pontiff, Jon Edwards, yourself are all opposed to the project.
Many of the other voices, including my own, expressed no opinion on the project. I haven’t yet heard or seen the details and haven’t formed an opinion. My, and others, comments were about the Windsor Club board’s letter. Regardless of the merits or shortcomings of the project, I found the implications of that letter reprehensible.
I take your comments as an attempt to just change the subject
@ J Paul – Hmm, not sure which blog thread you’re reading. The majority of folks who commented on the project itself Joe Corkery, Colleen Minaker, Jeffrey Pontiff, Jon Edwards, yourself are all opposed to the project.
Many of the other voices, including my own, expressed no opinion on the project. I haven’t yet heard or seen the details and haven’t formed an opinion. My, and others, comments were about the Windsor Club board’s letter. Regardless of the merits or shortcomings of the project, I found the implications of that letter reprehensible.
I take your comments as an attempt to just change the subject
@Adam – Sorry I dont come to this blog that often, so sorry for the delayed response.
Greg’s tactic of FALSEly calling the newtonforum.org an NVA blog fits the Webster definition, so do tactics of Donald Trump. May you think of Donald’s Little Marco as an objective consideration of fact. You probably also consider Matt Drudge’s blog as factual, since he just links to the right wing conspiracy sites and takes a sentence or two out of context to demonize progressive people and their ideas.
Greg’s obvious factual inconsistency was pointed out by another blogger, and he then corrected the post – the post you linked above. Despite the Mea Culpa from Greg, you still consider his comments were just a consideration of facts!
Nice!
@NeilP: I’m sorry that you are so troubled that I did something open-minded people are supposed to do: They listen and consider other opinions, weigh the evidence and allow themselves to change their mind.
So no it wasn’t a “Mea Culpa” that lead me to change my perspective on the Newton Forum. I listened and observed and decided to stop referring to Newton Forum as “the NVA’s blog.”
All that said, I still regard Newton Forum as a site that largely, although not entirely, shares the NVA political platform and many of its core activists. By my count, four of the five City Council candidates who were part of the NVA slate are bloggers at Newton Forum and if I’m not mistaken all of the NVA steering committee are bloggers there.
But I no longer think that Newton Forum is an NVA blog any more than I think the Windsor Club is an NVA club even though the Windsor hosts all of the NVA’s events there and is fighting this 40B. I see them as separate with many synergies.
Please note, that I did not say there is anything wrong with sharing synergies or these connections, I’m simply observing that they exist. Nor am I “name calling” and/or challenging NVA’s right to exist or use Newton Forum or the Windsor Club to promote their agenda. In fact, I think it’s smart for them to do so.
@Adam – Sorry I dont come to this blog that often, so sorry for the delayed response.
Greg’s tactic of FALSEly calling the newtonforum.org an NVA blog fits the Webster definition, so do tactics of Donald Trump. May you think of Donald’s Little Marco as an objective consideration of fact. You probably also consider Matt Drudge’s blog as factual, since he just links to the right wing conspiracy sites and takes a sentence or two out of context to demonize progressive people and their ideas.
Greg’s obvious factual inconsistency was pointed out by another blogger, and he then corrected the post – the post you linked above. Despite the Mea Culpa from Greg, you still consider his comments were just a consideration of facts!
Nice!
@NeilP: I’m sorry that you are so troubled that I did something open-minded people are supposed to do: They listen and consider other opinions, weigh the evidence and allow themselves to change their mind.
So no it wasn’t a “Mea Culpa” that lead me to change my perspective on the Newton Forum. I listened and observed and decided to stop referring to Newton Forum as “the NVA’s blog.”
All that said, I still regard Newton Forum as a site that largely, although not entirely, shares the NVA political platform and many of its core activists. By my count, four of the five City Council candidates who were part of the NVA slate are bloggers at Newton Forum and if I’m not mistaken all of the NVA steering committee are bloggers there.
But I no longer think that Newton Forum is an NVA blog any more than I think the Windsor Club is an NVA club even though the Windsor hosts all of the NVA’s events there and is fighting this 40B. I see them as separate with many synergies.
Please note, that I did not say there is anything wrong with sharing synergies or these connections, I’m simply observing that they exist. Nor am I “name calling” and/or challenging NVA’s right to exist or use Newton Forum or the Windsor Club to promote their agenda. In fact, I think it’s smart for them to do so.
Laugh all you want, particularly at yourself. Most “bleeding heart liberals” (people who care) on this thread are defending no one. Try again.
First it is said that we are name-calling because we are not tolerant of an organization whose directors, and who knows how many members, are worried that they couldn’t control who might rent an apartment who might be watching their children in the pool. This thread was started with that part highlighted, not the project itself.
Now you say we are defending a developer and his proposal – nope. I don’t see an actual proposal being discussed at all. I don’t have any idea if I support it or not. I know very little about it. I do see commenters trying to clear up some things in the letter some commenters chose to bring up, such as where and when and if the shade would cover what area. And a more general discussion of housing in Village centers.
There are only a few commenters who are commenting about it being a 40B or anything specific about this development and most of them are commenting against it.
Reading comprehension is a marvelous thing. Not trying to insert absurdities and lies into a discussion is even more rewarding. The only irony I see is calling me a bleeding heart liberal, which bothers me not at all, and the fireworks that would explode if I labeled you or those like you on this thread.
Laugh all you want, particularly at yourself. Most “bleeding heart liberals” (people who care) on this thread are defending no one. Try again.
First it is said that we are name-calling because we are not tolerant of an organization whose directors, and who knows how many members, are worried that they couldn’t control who might rent an apartment who might be watching their children in the pool. This thread was started with that part highlighted, not the project itself.
Now you say we are defending a developer and his proposal – nope. I don’t see an actual proposal being discussed at all. I don’t have any idea if I support it or not. I know very little about it. I do see commenters trying to clear up some things in the letter some commenters chose to bring up, such as where and when and if the shade would cover what area. And a more general discussion of housing in Village centers.
There are only a few commenters who are commenting about it being a 40B or anything specific about this development and most of them are commenting against it.
Reading comprehension is a marvelous thing. Not trying to insert absurdities and lies into a discussion is even more rewarding. The only irony I see is calling me a bleeding heart liberal, which bothers me not at all, and the fireworks that would explode if I labeled you or those like you on this thread.
NeilP, why all the concern about the forum having an association with the NVA. Do you think that would be a bad thing? I don’t. So why is saying there is an association a bad thing? Why is it an insult?
Objectively considering the facts: at the time Greg was calling the forum an NVA blog, the only viewpoints on development expressed on it were in agreement with the NVA’s viewpoints. There were no dissenting comments. It was created as a platform for those who have an alternate viewpoint on housing that the “political elite” says its founder. Neither Greg or anyone else says that is a bad thing to do or that it isn’t a welcome addition to Newton and mentions the forum by name as unpaid advertisement which has priced to send more people to its site. The forum refers to V14 as “that other blog” and make disparaging remarks about its users.
More facts: There are indeed posters who have different political and other views but they either agree with the NVA viewpoints or don’t comment on them so still no facts to support that there isn’t an association. The fact that you are so offended by the forum being associated with the NVA indicates that it is you who believe it’s a bad association.
I really don’t want to talk about Trump and don’t plan to again, but here goes. The assertions you have made that calling the forum an NVA blog is comparable to Trump or Matt Drudge making crazy associations and who use no facts at all is completly ludicrous. They cast aspersions like children.
NeilP, why all the concern about the forum having an association with the NVA. Do you think that would be a bad thing? I don’t. So why is saying there is an association a bad thing? Why is it an insult?
Objectively considering the facts: at the time Greg was calling the forum an NVA blog, the only viewpoints on development expressed on it were in agreement with the NVA’s viewpoints. There were no dissenting comments. It was created as a platform for those who have an alternate viewpoint on housing that the “political elite” says its founder. Neither Greg or anyone else says that is a bad thing to do or that it isn’t a welcome addition to Newton and mentions the forum by name as unpaid advertisement which has priced to send more people to its site. The forum refers to V14 as “that other blog” and make disparaging remarks about its users.
More facts: There are indeed posters who have different political and other views but they either agree with the NVA viewpoints or don’t comment on them so still no facts to support that there isn’t an association. The fact that you are so offended by the forum being associated with the NVA indicates that it is you who believe it’s a bad association.
I really don’t want to talk about Trump and don’t plan to again, but here goes. The assertions you have made that calling the forum an NVA blog is comparable to Trump or Matt Drudge making crazy associations and who use no facts at all is completly ludicrous. They cast aspersions like children.
@Greg: You said:
“But I no longer think that Newton Forum is an NVA blog any more than I think the Windsor Club is an NVA club even though the Windsor hosts all of the NVA’s events there and is fighting this 40B…Nor am I “name calling” and/or challenging NVA’s right to exist or use Newton Forum or the Windsor Club to promote their agenda. In fact, I think it’s smart for them to do so.”
You should note that it was also smart for the developer of St. Philip Neri to rent the Windsor Club for their community engagement meeting.
The event at the Windsor Club on Sunday did draw people from all over the City. At least 70 people were there for the NVA’s excellent and extremely informative presentation on Local Historic Districts with speakers such as Brian Yates, Gretchen Schuler and representatives from the four existing LHD’s and also the one being newly formed in the Highlands, and moderated by this blog’s frequent writer, Bob Burke. I left as the last speaker was presenting and before questions were asked…but learned a lot. (Full disclosure, I do not, nor have I ever, belonged to the Windsor Club). There was no mention while I was there of 40B’s.
@Greg: You said:
“But I no longer think that Newton Forum is an NVA blog any more than I think the Windsor Club is an NVA club even though the Windsor hosts all of the NVA’s events there and is fighting this 40B…Nor am I “name calling” and/or challenging NVA’s right to exist or use Newton Forum or the Windsor Club to promote their agenda. In fact, I think it’s smart for them to do so.”
You should note that it was also smart for the developer of St. Philip Neri to rent the Windsor Club for their community engagement meeting.
The event at the Windsor Club on Sunday did draw people from all over the City. At least 70 people were there for the NVA’s excellent and extremely informative presentation on Local Historic Districts with speakers such as Brian Yates, Gretchen Schuler and representatives from the four existing LHD’s and also the one being newly formed in the Highlands, and moderated by this blog’s frequent writer, Bob Burke. I left as the last speaker was presenting and before questions were asked…but learned a lot. (Full disclosure, I do not, nor have I ever, belonged to the Windsor Club). There was no mention while I was there of 40B’s.
Windsor clubs hosts a bunch of events, so hosting NVA events isn’t a big deal to me. Plus it hosted the “Big Night” dinner a few years back and it was awesome. I’ve got no issues with them hosting community events, in fact I think that great.
And not every 40B is a good thing, or a good project. But I don’t reject them out of hand, and some of them turn out pretty good.
And Sallee you said… “This blog is full of name calling…the rhetorical device of obfuscating and clouding men’s minds with irrelevant argument is a notorious debating technique meant to detract from the force of courteous discourse”
Well obviously I disagree with you on that and can’t figure out how it relates to the majority of the comments on this thread. I think what you are trying to say is that there is this really big issue (40b) and here we are commenting on this really minor tangential issue (NVA: to blog or not to blog”). I don’t think folks are doing that to distract from the really big issue, it just that we are all somewhat like the Dog from the movie Up when he sees a squirrel.
Blogs are an imperfect form of discourse. But as someone who seems opposed to the “powers that be” and the “establishment” in Newton on some issues, isn’t having an open blog to discuss issues better than the forms of media that existed previously? Doesn’t the Newton Forum work better when it can play off of comments and posts from this blog and vice versa?
Also, I admire that turn of phrase. It is a rather elegant way of saying “we talk too much about stupid ####.”
😉
–Cheers.
Best. Description. Ever.
Windsor clubs hosts a bunch of events, so hosting NVA events isn’t a big deal to me. Plus it hosted the “Big Night” dinner a few years back and it was awesome. I’ve got no issues with them hosting community events, in fact I think that great.
And not every 40B is a good thing, or a good project. But I don’t reject them out of hand, and some of them turn out pretty good.
And Sallee you said… “This blog is full of name calling…the rhetorical device of obfuscating and clouding men’s minds with irrelevant argument is a notorious debating technique meant to detract from the force of courteous discourse”
Well obviously I disagree with you on that and can’t figure out how it relates to the majority of the comments on this thread. I think what you are trying to say is that there is this really big issue (40b) and here we are commenting on this really minor tangential issue (NVA: to blog or not to blog”). I don’t think folks are doing that to distract from the really big issue, it just that we are all somewhat like the Dog from the movie Up when he sees a squirrel.
Blogs are an imperfect form of discourse. But as someone who seems opposed to the “powers that be” and the “establishment” in Newton on some issues, isn’t having an open blog to discuss issues better than the forms of media that existed previously? Doesn’t the Newton Forum work better when it can play off of comments and posts from this blog and vice versa?
Also, I admire that turn of phrase. It is a rather elegant way of saying “we talk too much about stupid ####.”
😉
–Cheers.
Best. Description. Ever.
I think there is a lot of confusion here…I have not commented on the main purpose of this thread. I responded to Adam’s comment that linked to me on another thread:
In this thread Adam said: “This is the second time in a week a commenter has accused other commenters of name calling. Please tell me what I’m missing. I’m not seeing any name calling, just criticism aimed at an organization.”
With that comment, Adam linked to another commenter and to MY comment about name-calling on another thread, and I answered him here! I have my own private thoughts about the subject of this thread, but, since it involves an issue active in this Village, I choose to keep those thoughts private. According to OML I believe that I have to keep them to myself. That is why I refrain from commenting on a lot of issues. And that’s NOT EASY!!!!!!
By the way, Fig: as far as I know, the Windsor Club RENTS their facility for a fee. I don’t think they HOST much. Kind of like a movie theater that rents itself out for birthday parties. Big difference. That was my point to Greg…they rent to developers and community groups alike. Is there someone reading here who belongs to the Windsor Club who can illuminate further?
I think there is a lot of confusion here…I have not commented on the main purpose of this thread. I responded to Adam’s comment that linked to me on another thread:
In this thread Adam said: “This is the second time in a week a commenter has accused other commenters of name calling. Please tell me what I’m missing. I’m not seeing any name calling, just criticism aimed at an organization.”
With that comment, Adam linked to another commenter and to MY comment about name-calling on another thread, and I answered him here! I have my own private thoughts about the subject of this thread, but, since it involves an issue active in this Village, I choose to keep those thoughts private. According to OML I believe that I have to keep them to myself. That is why I refrain from commenting on a lot of issues. And that’s NOT EASY!!!!!!
By the way, Fig: as far as I know, the Windsor Club RENTS their facility for a fee. I don’t think they HOST much. Kind of like a movie theater that rents itself out for birthday parties. Big difference. That was my point to Greg…they rent to developers and community groups alike. Is there someone reading here who belongs to the Windsor Club who can illuminate further?
I’m pretty certain that voicing your opinion here or in other public forums about an issue in the Village is not a violation of Open Meeting Laws. If it were none of our elected officials would be able to talk about any significant issues or tell us where they stand.
I’d check with the City’s law office if you really believe OML precludes you from publicly voicing your thoughts on issues. I think you’ve got that wrong … but that’s just my non-legal, spout-it-anytime opinion.
I’m pretty certain that voicing your opinion here or in other public forums about an issue in the Village is not a violation of Open Meeting Laws. If it were none of our elected officials would be able to talk about any significant issues or tell us where they stand.
I’d check with the City’s law office if you really believe OML precludes you from publicly voicing your thoughts on issues. I think you’ve got that wrong … but that’s just my non-legal, spout-it-anytime opinion.
@Jerry, I think you are correct about OML. A violation would be if a “deliberation” took place on a topic that was in the purview of the organization. Sadly, or perhaps fortunately for Sallee, Area Council have little power granted to them over which they can have deliberations 🙂
@Jerry, I think you are correct about OML. A violation would be if a “deliberation” took place on a topic that was in the purview of the organization. Sadly, or perhaps fortunately for Sallee, Area Council have little power granted to them over which they can have deliberations 🙂
God forbid this development should “seriously impact swimming and tennis”!
God forbid this development should “seriously impact swimming and tennis”!
Squirrel! alert.
Greg and Groot, a “deliberation” is a discussion of a pending matter by a quorum of a public body. Whether a quorum of members of a public body participating in a discussion on a blog violates the OML that the AG’s office has not specifically ruled on. To be prudent, the members of the Charter Commission, for example, have been advised/agreed that no more than a certain number of members not constituting a quorum may participate in blog discussions of items before the CC.
Squirrel! alert.
Greg and Groot, a “deliberation” is a discussion of a pending matter by a quorum of a public body. Whether a quorum of members of a public body participating in a discussion on a blog violates the OML that the AG’s office has not specifically ruled on. To be prudent, the members of the Charter Commission, for example, have been advised/agreed that no more than a certain number of members not constituting a quorum may participate in blog discussions of items before the CC.
Sallee: Point taken on the rent. But either way, I’m fine with them renting to whomever they want. Or donating the space.
Btw, and this is not defending the letter as a whole, as some have pointed out, abutters have rights under 40B. The Club is allowed to comment. They have the right to object. I still don’t like the overall letter, but they do have rights here.
And I’d love it if Squirrel became a blog meme. I’d consider it a highlight of my blogging career. I may change my blogging name to “Dog from Up” though.
The Windsor Club’s membership chair sent this email to members at some point on Friday after the original email was distributed.
Sallee: Point taken on the rent. But either way, I’m fine with them renting to whomever they want. Or donating the space.
Btw, and this is not defending the letter as a whole, as some have pointed out, abutters have rights under 40B. The Club is allowed to comment. They have the right to object. I still don’t like the overall letter, but they do have rights here.
And I’d love it if Squirrel became a blog meme. I’d consider it a highlight of my blogging career. I may change my blogging name to “Dog from Up” though.
The Windsor Club’s membership chair sent this email to members at some point on Friday after the original email was distributed.
@Ted, nice summary. To rephrase, is it correct that provided the discussion is not a pending matter before the public body it is fair game for comments? We really don’t want Sallee to explode if she can’t release those pent up comments.
@Ted, nice summary. To rephrase, is it correct that provided the discussion is not a pending matter before the public body it is fair game for comments? We really don’t want Sallee to explode if she can’t release those pent up comments.
@Greg – I thought with your background as a journalist and as the current head of a regional public organization, you form opinions based on a broad swath of data instead of looking at the fringe minority of cases. <20% of the post on newtonforum are nva related. Consequently, I took your correction as "mea culpa" -acknowledgement of your error. Many respectable journalist have done so before, and there is absolutely no shame in doing so.
Your comments above and your tactics earlier have opened my mind. I was wrong in my assumptions. Mea Culpa!
@Marti Bowen – I think we would agree to disagree – I took a look, again, at the newtonforum and found diversity of topics and diversity of viewpoint. I do not see it scream NVA.
However, my post was less around NVA, and more around Greg's tactics – Matt Drudge style. You can make anything look devious by taking things out of context, and make anyone look unbalanced by focusing on the only divisive part of their speech, as illustrated by this very thread and pointed by others. BTW – Note – I did not comment on this post, but responded to reference to previous one.
The net result – there is no proper dialog, but just name calling. Possibly, that is the design… Sorry to bring it up – Fox New, Matt Drudge or Donal Trump propaganda style!
@NeilP: As Village 14’s new self-appointed media ethicist perhaps you can explain how I took the letter from the Windsor Club “out of context”?
I posted the entire letter — i.e. context — and then highlighted three portions that I felt were of interest. Judging by the comments others found the highlighted portions of interest too. Only you seem to have somehow found it to have violated some sort of standards.
Finally, please cite specific instances of “name calling;” other, of course, than your calling me “Matt Drudge.” (Did that make you sad Sallee?) Please tell us which thread, which post, which comment, which author, has been name calling? Or else please drop it.
As for me, I just saw a squirrel. I gotta go.
@Greg – I thought with your background as a journalist and as the current head of a regional public organization, you form opinions based on a broad swath of data instead of looking at the fringe minority of cases. <20% of the post on newtonforum are nva related. Consequently, I took your correction as "mea culpa" -acknowledgement of your error. Many respectable journalist have done so before, and there is absolutely no shame in doing so.
Your comments above and your tactics earlier have opened my mind. I was wrong in my assumptions. Mea Culpa!
@Marti Bowen – I think we would agree to disagree – I took a look, again, at the newtonforum and found diversity of topics and diversity of viewpoint. I do not see it scream NVA.
However, my post was less around NVA, and more around Greg's tactics – Matt Drudge style. You can make anything look devious by taking things out of context, and make anyone look unbalanced by focusing on the only divisive part of their speech, as illustrated by this very thread and pointed by others. BTW – Note – I did not comment on this post, but responded to reference to previous one.
The net result – there is no proper dialog, but just name calling. Possibly, that is the design… Sorry to bring it up – Fox New, Matt Drudge or Donal Trump propaganda style!
@NeilP: As Village 14’s new self-appointed media ethicist perhaps you can explain how I took the letter from the Windsor Club “out of context”?
I posted the entire letter — i.e. context — and then highlighted three portions that I felt were of interest. Judging by the comments others found the highlighted portions of interest too. Only you seem to have somehow found it to have violated some sort of standards.
Finally, please cite specific instances of “name calling;” other, of course, than your calling me “Matt Drudge.” (Did that make you sad Sallee?) Please tell us which thread, which post, which comment, which author, has been name calling? Or else please drop it.
As for me, I just saw a squirrel. I gotta go.
Unless members are complaining to the board about opposing a 4 story apartment complex next door to the club, which I sincerely doubt, this email is purposely not addressing the problems people have expressed with the wording of the letter and hoping to keep it off line.
What Marti said. In fact, what Marti has been saying in general on this thread.
Unless members are complaining to the board about opposing a 4 story apartment complex next door to the club, which I sincerely doubt, this email is purposely not addressing the problems people have expressed with the wording of the letter and hoping to keep it off line.
What Marti said. In fact, what Marti has been saying in general on this thread.
I usually find the threads about developments to be a bit of a bore. But this one’s ranged from hilarious to insightful and informative. We haven’t had a good old-fashioned V14 thread that meanders all over the place and back – about an important issue throughout. Nice job, V14!
A few highlights:
“I did not comment on this post, but responded to a reference to previous one.” (???)
“Adam linked to another commenter and to MY comment about name-calling on another thread, and I answered him here!” (Okay…)
“Greg’s tactic of FALSEly calling the newtonforum.org an NVA blog fits the Webster definition, so do tactics of Donald Trump.” (I think we have a brand new variation of Godwin’s law!)
“We really don’t want Sallee to explode if she can’t release those pent up comments.” (Sallee, please don’t explode!)
“…we are all somewhat like the Dog from the movie Up when he sees a squirrel.” (That’s why we love V14!)
“I’d love it if Squirrel became a blog meme. I’d consider it a highlight of my blogging career.”
“Squirrel! alert.”
“As for me, I just saw a squirrel. I gotta go.”
And Marti has been right on target on this one (just my opinion).
I usually find the threads about developments to be a bit of a bore. But this one’s ranged from hilarious to insightful and informative. We haven’t had a good old-fashioned V14 thread that meanders all over the place and back – about an important issue throughout. Nice job, V14!
A few highlights:
“I did not comment on this post, but responded to a reference to previous one.” (???)
“Adam linked to another commenter and to MY comment about name-calling on another thread, and I answered him here!” (Okay…)
“Greg’s tactic of FALSEly calling the newtonforum.org an NVA blog fits the Webster definition, so do tactics of Donald Trump.” (I think we have a brand new variation of Godwin’s law!)
“We really don’t want Sallee to explode if she can’t release those pent up comments.” (Sallee, please don’t explode!)
“…we are all somewhat like the Dog from the movie Up when he sees a squirrel.” (That’s why we love V14!)
“I’d love it if Squirrel became a blog meme. I’d consider it a highlight of my blogging career.”
“Squirrel! alert.”
“As for me, I just saw a squirrel. I gotta go.”
And Marti has been right on target on this one (just my opinion).
Hi NeilP:
Lots of dialogue going on in this thread and the others on similar topics. I understand you are upset about the limited focus on the NVA-NEwton Forum connections, but isn’t your myopic focus on that particular issue just what you are ascribing to Greg?
I think you are making the same point as Jeffrey, namely that the focus on the divisive part of the Club’s letter makes them look “unbalanced” and that unfairly detracts from the very real issue of the 40B going up next door. You are right, it does. But that isn’t this blog’s fault, that is the fault of the folks who wrote the initial letter. The argument to me basically is saying, forgive these folks their poor language choices and unfortunate arguments, just focus on the real issues. Which to some of us conveniently ignores a corollary real issue, which is that these poor language choices like “importing the poor” or the Waban Club warning of renters and unsafe children really are somewhat windows into what folks are really thinking, sort of artifice removed. You are making the decision to give the folks who made these choices the benefit of the doubt, but some of us, perhaps out of cynicism, or experience, or anger, are unwilling to make that same leap of faith.
But that is a real difference between you and Greg. And pointing out the language issue is real dialogue, it just is dialogue you don’t approve of. You seem eager to compare this blog to Drudge. I read Drudge on a regular basis (I read a lot of blogs on a regular basis). Drudge does tend to focus on sensationalism and racism, but he is also drawn like a magnet for hypocrisy. I’m not a fan, just like I’m not a fan of Fox news. I think you meant it as an insult, and not a criticism though. Because the idea that this blog (opinions of many, dozens and dozens of authors, posts on a wide array of topics) is like Drudge is kind of silly if you read both websites.
So here is some real dialogue for the blog and for you. You know what? I feel sorry for the folks at the Windsor Club. I really really do. That isn’t excusing the poor rhetoric. But I know a lot of nonprofit boards, the volunteers come from all walks of life and ages, they are dedicated to a good cause, and in general are the type of good neighbors and nice people that make Newton a great place to live. And knowing nonprofit boards, they don’t have legal counsel for every little thing, they are trying to figure things out on the fly, they are worried about what they see as a major issue and they sit down to write a letter, either as one person or in a small group. And they feel like they are writing for their small audience of fellow volunteers and supporters of this great little social club and kids activity center in Waban, and they meet and are angry about the 40B, the unfairness of it all, and the rhetoric builds a bit, and no one tells the board to take a deep breath, to think about how their words might be taken, to consider that their audience is not just Waban but the wider community. I doubt there was even uniformity of opinion as to all the issues raised by the 40b. This isn’t an excuse, and again, I don’t agree or excuse the language. But I am sympathetic to nonprofit boards.
Mostly I wish we could have honest conversations about these types of issues. I’m willing to try if you will.
Hi NeilP:
Lots of dialogue going on in this thread and the others on similar topics. I understand you are upset about the limited focus on the NVA-NEwton Forum connections, but isn’t your myopic focus on that particular issue just what you are ascribing to Greg?
I think you are making the same point as Jeffrey, namely that the focus on the divisive part of the Club’s letter makes them look “unbalanced” and that unfairly detracts from the very real issue of the 40B going up next door. You are right, it does. But that isn’t this blog’s fault, that is the fault of the folks who wrote the initial letter. The argument to me basically is saying, forgive these folks their poor language choices and unfortunate arguments, just focus on the real issues. Which to some of us conveniently ignores a corollary real issue, which is that these poor language choices like “importing the poor” or the Waban Club warning of renters and unsafe children really are somewhat windows into what folks are really thinking, sort of artifice removed. You are making the decision to give the folks who made these choices the benefit of the doubt, but some of us, perhaps out of cynicism, or experience, or anger, are unwilling to make that same leap of faith.
But that is a real difference between you and Greg. And pointing out the language issue is real dialogue, it just is dialogue you don’t approve of. You seem eager to compare this blog to Drudge. I read Drudge on a regular basis (I read a lot of blogs on a regular basis). Drudge does tend to focus on sensationalism and racism, but he is also drawn like a magnet for hypocrisy. I’m not a fan, just like I’m not a fan of Fox news. I think you meant it as an insult, and not a criticism though. Because the idea that this blog (opinions of many, dozens and dozens of authors, posts on a wide array of topics) is like Drudge is kind of silly if you read both websites.
So here is some real dialogue for the blog and for you. You know what? I feel sorry for the folks at the Windsor Club. I really really do. That isn’t excusing the poor rhetoric. But I know a lot of nonprofit boards, the volunteers come from all walks of life and ages, they are dedicated to a good cause, and in general are the type of good neighbors and nice people that make Newton a great place to live. And knowing nonprofit boards, they don’t have legal counsel for every little thing, they are trying to figure things out on the fly, they are worried about what they see as a major issue and they sit down to write a letter, either as one person or in a small group. And they feel like they are writing for their small audience of fellow volunteers and supporters of this great little social club and kids activity center in Waban, and they meet and are angry about the 40B, the unfairness of it all, and the rhetoric builds a bit, and no one tells the board to take a deep breath, to think about how their words might be taken, to consider that their audience is not just Waban but the wider community. I doubt there was even uniformity of opinion as to all the issues raised by the 40b. This isn’t an excuse, and again, I don’t agree or excuse the language. But I am sympathetic to nonprofit boards.
Mostly I wish we could have honest conversations about these types of issues. I’m willing to try if you will.
Groot, I have to remember not to drink coffee while checking Village 14 in the morning. Your post made me snort my java through my nose (“We really don’t want Sallee to explode if she can’t release those pent up comments.”)
Without knowing more, I cannot offer a blanket explanation. But if no item concerning a particular subject is pending before a public body, generally speaking it is alright for a member or even a quorum to discuss it outside of an open meeting. As you point out, area councils have no decisionmaking authority, but if the Waban area council were drafting its own letter regarding this project then Sallee may need to find an alternative activity to release those pent up comments.
Groot, I have to remember not to drink coffee while checking Village 14 in the morning. Your post made me snort my java through my nose (“We really don’t want Sallee to explode if she can’t release those pent up comments.”)
Without knowing more, I cannot offer a blanket explanation. But if no item concerning a particular subject is pending before a public body, generally speaking it is alright for a member or even a quorum to discuss it outside of an open meeting. As you point out, area councils have no decisionmaking authority, but if the Waban area council were drafting its own letter regarding this project then Sallee may need to find an alternative activity to release those pent up comments.
@Greg – Fair ask on your end. I unexpectedly got swarmed by work, and barely have time to breath let alone, craft a response. I will drop this topic.
@Greg – Fair ask on your end. I unexpectedly got swarmed by work, and barely have time to breath let alone, craft a response. I will drop this topic.