In a new blog post on Newton Forum, attorney Peter Harrington writes a column warning about “‘Operation Infiltration,’ the program designed to allow aliens enter and infiltrate into human society,” or more precisely, the Orr Building (Washington Place) project in Newtonville.
I’m sure Harrington thinks he’s being hilarious and, so far, two commentators on the site agree wholeheartedly. (“I’m sure you’ve earned the gratitude of every think Newtonian by alerting us,” writes the John Koot of the Newton Village Alliance). But all I could think of was the column written by NVA leader Kathleen Kouril Grieser warning of attempts to ‘import poor people’ during the height of the Austin Street debate.
Warnings about aliens, importing poor people, urbanization, not becoming the next Somerville, renters watching children swimming, etc. are all code words designed to say “we don’t want people who aren’t like us living here,” without actually saying it.
@Greg-
Quick! Check the lost and found dept. Perhaps your sense of humor was left there? :)
As a friend, I am going to check in on Peter to make sure he has not run out of tin foil for his hats. And then maybe check the cellar for pods.
Charlie, I like to think I have a pretty good sense of humor, but I also missed the joke. Especially considering NewtonForum’s mission as a kinder, gentler blog, Peter Harrington’s musings consistently come across as offensive. Harrington is once again supporting his rants with hyperbole, conspiracy theories, and analogies that are insensitive, at best. Hardly what I call constructive dialogue for our community. I’m glad this guy no longer holds public office.
I can’t wait to see which picture gets added to this post.
Whether intended or not, I agree that Harrington’s alien premise builds nicely on an ugly pattern of demonizing people-who-are-not-like-us.
The greater offense, however, may be just how unfunny the piece is. Aliens taking over peoples’ brains and making them do stupid things. What a riot! Not.
Which makes me think that those who think it’s funny, when it so clearly is not, do so because it reinforces their prejudices.
Greg: I am not an NVA member; I am not opposed to building housing that meets the needs of middle and low income residents; I am not opposed to building housing whose residents will actually be able to use the public transportation nearby. And I find the blog post Peter wrote full of humor, cleverly composed, and on point. I view Area 51 as the cubicle in which misguided State legislators, influenced by lobbying developers with deep pockets, impose their heavy hands on an unwilling populace. You can want to build housing without being blind to where it goes, what it looks like, its effect on neighbors, etc.
1.) The Newtonville public transportation (commuter line) is not at all ADA compliant. Nor is it regularly available, given its inadequate scheduling. Most seniors would find using it difficult.
2.) We have lots of people in Newton who need housing that is within their middle class means and it is not available now. Instead of trying to find a way to address that need realistically, Mr. Korff is offering to build a few units of modest income housing. And we don’t know if that includes the 15% low income or goes beyond with middle income units…only his pocketbook will eventually tell! How much does Newton need luxury housing units? Won’t the expensive pads he proposes exacerbate the dichotomous poor-rich split that everyone despises here without filling in the middle ground?
3.) Harrington says: “it has been claimed that Area 51 Aliens have secretly attacked government officials and the HAAC’s [Housing At All Costs proponents] in Newton, MA and altered their brain patterns, thereby making it impossible for them to distinguish distortions of architectural/development jargon, particularly when coupled with phrases such as Transit Oriented, Typologies, Housing, Walkability and Diversity.” What he implies there is that zealotry is rampant in our City. We need to clear our brains…all of us…and look at the choices ahead for us all. The Orr Building proposal is a game changer…it asks for more height than other proposals in our Village centers and will be the beginning of a new tunnel vision for our City. We should examine that proposed change very carefully before we jerk our knees in group think to promote any build that offers a small acknowledgment to what we really need.
By the way…just because I disagree with you on “densification at all costs”, I am not a racist. I don’t give a hoot what color anyone’s skin is! Or the size of their bank account. I want all the people of the world to be well fed, housed safely and educated to think critically.
Sallee, at least you didn’t say you don’t give a hoot whether people are black, white, brown, yellow, green, purple.
I think what some people take offense to is that the pieces Greg refers to ridicule and demean people with whom the authors disagree, intentionally or not. If I did it, some people would be asking for my head on a platter. And rightly so.
I don’t agree with much of what Peter has to or the way he says it. I certainly don’t think his posts fit the sires criteria. I am not a supporter of every development but try to look at them individually. I am a supporter of 28 Austin Street and live close by. I still don’t care for the architectural style and wish it had an older Newtonville vibe but support it anyway because I want the apartments for people to live close to what they need and look forward to having them there.
I do wonder why Court Street was approved with 36 units and limited parking when parking was already hard to be found in that lovely old neighborhood of 2 family’s that rented on the more affordable side. I think Washington Place is too big and architecturally challenged but accept something like it will happen there. I wish the commuter rail were actually credible mass transit. I can support all types of housing for all types of people and still care about other things.
This is to say that I see the humor in this sentence, “it has been claimed that Area 51 Aliens have secretly attacked government officials and the HAAC’s [Housing At All Costs proponents] in Newton, MA and altered their brain patterns, thereby making it impossible for them to distinguish distortions of architectural/development jargon, particularly when coupled with phrases such as Transit Oriented, Typologies, Housing, Walkability and Diversity.”
Ted, I didn’t see your post before mine. You have me laughing out loud. I have never seen that site before.
I admit I did not read Peter’s post, probably won’t, but took the quote from Sallee’s comment. I want to clarify that if he is saying anything that implys the people who will come to live in Newton are aliens – I agree that has no humor in it. I was thinking about brains being manipulated and laughed because sometimes it jokingly seems that way to me – even about myself.
OMG: Is every outer-space science fiction movie an assault on the racial diversity of humanity? Read Peter’s greeting: “Top of the Day to all” I don’t know what that conjures up to you, but to my racist mind it says leprechaun, a little Irish man with pointy hat and shoes, and it sets the stage for Peter’s farcical allusion to a science FICTION tale in which aliens (the kind we might find on a distant planet, complete with tentacles) who don’t have the human capacity to think clearly are in cahoots with a deranged government to install themselves in an environment that is being touted as human-friendly, but which is actually NOT human-friendly, because it is not near usable public transportation, not senior friendly, no ADA compliant transportation, etc. It also calls out the belief that housing proponents’ shallow commitment to real diversity is acceptable to them only as long as it’s not in their villages.
I still think the piece is funny. I am happy to talk race at any time with anyone. You won’t find me racist. I really don’t think Peter was belittling anybody. I think Greg, Adam and Sean need to stop demonizing those who disagree with THEIR housing policies.
Sallee, I think you may need to check the lost and found for your sense of humor. I’m just riffing on the aliens meme. I know Peter pretty well, and I assume, or will give him the benefit of the doubt, that his tongue was firmly planted in his cheek (or whatever the digital equivalent is). Nevertheless, I wonder whether you would think Peter’s piece was so funny if it were taking aim at you. And I assure you, I am firmly committed to affordable housing and diversity in my village. In fact, I lose votes every election from people in my ward who wish I weren’t (and gain them from people who do).
This kind of inflammatory language is unacceptable. I have a good sense of humor, but hiding troubling language in jokes or using code words is the way that the right wing dog whistles messages that they can’t say in polite company, not the way we should discuss policy differences in a welcoming city like Newton.
While we’re on the topic, I also was also disappointed with this week’s TAB cartoon.
I would hope that we could tone down the rhetoric around these issues in this city and have polite, reasoned debate. Fear-based messaging is deeply troubling.
@Ted: I have been commenting out loud long enough to recognize that I will one day be verbally abused by some ignorant, dim-witted, green tentacled, alien robot who has been activated by our State Legislature in an override to Gov. Baker’s veto!
BRING IT ON!!!!!!! ;)
Thank you all for your comments. Special thanks to those who stopped to think first.
Nothing like a robust discussion on who is more liberal. Ooops, more progressive. I understand we don’t use the word liberal anymore. It must offend to many.
Peter makes several important points about the failures of new development in Newtonville. Why is that lost on this blog post? Peter is not the enemy. He is the messenger. He is correct that our village is not the appropriate target for dense high rise structures. What we need for our entire city is a way to efficiently transport everyone commuting downtown. This is not being addressed. The commuter rail system needs updating before we add on to its existing deficiencies.
Or Collen if they want to see what Development Failures look like they can just drive down Pleasant Street in Watertown to get an idea what Failed Development will look like. Buildings halted mid construction, built apartment buildings with plenty of vacancy’s and buildings torn down waiting for new construction put on hold because of poor planning. Or drive to River Street in Waltham and see empty Retail space and plenty of housing vacancy’s. And a train in their backyard that brings them directly into Boston and these are still not filled.
But I am sure we can argue that Newton is more desirable because of our schools – so has the City made those calculations of extra students into the school system? And dont fool yourself that if they are only one bedrooms that they wont have kids added into the system. Because it will.
Time will tell what will happen in Newton – but if you want a look at reality – drive down Pleasant Street or River Street.
Sallee, Colleen, Joanne: You are entirely missing the point.
Like many good and bad science fiction works, Harrington’s blog post was a political allergy. And especially, in an era where anti-Mexican, anti-Muslim, antisemitic and homophobia are part of our national political discourse, it’s impossible not to interpret Harrington’s post as a warning about the same sort of aliens/outsiders who would “infiltrate” our city. Harrington is a smart fellow and knows exactly what he was doing.
Our city should have and needs a robust debate about the Washington Place project. But the debate should be on the pros and cons of the project, without turning this into “War of the Worlds.”
So let’s do that instead.
@Sallee: You’ve repeatedly stated that you are not a member of the NVA. And yesterday you let us all know that you are not a racist. Thanks for clearing that up. But certainly you’ve taken on the role here as the official apologist for Newton Forum, even when its content violates its stated mission as a home for civil discussion.
What our city needs is an articulated vision for the future of Newton and what components are needed to get there. What we have now is piecemeal development driven by developers doing what they do best. If everybody could see the same plan, perhaps we could understand the rationale behind projects like Austin Street, Orr Block, etc. Please don’t mention the Comprehensive Plan which has as many conflicting sections as our zoning laws. When I asked the Mayor what his vision was for Newton: Boston, Somerville, Portsmouth, Brookline, anything? He replied he didn’t know. This confirms the suspicions of many about who really is driving the bus.
@Chris: Great point. I agree that it’s time for Mayor Warren to release his housing plan for Newton, followed by the traffic plan. And then we should have a robust and thoughtful debate about both and how they fit with the larger vision for our community.
But scare tactics like Harrington’s political sci-fi allegory aren’t productive and don’t mesh with the stated philosophy behind your blog. As you did with the photo Peter posted of City Councilors with targets on their faces, you should remove his latest blog post too.
I disagree…Peter’s post was funny, not malicious as you had suggested it was, and engendered lots of discussion here that has led to Chris’ astute observations above!
Greg: Missed your comment above…I am not an apologist for anyone…I call them as I see them! I find that there is a mindset here that is humorless when the politics are different from the ones acceptable here, but you do see humor when it supports your own fancies (usually a snarky comment or two) Everyone needs to lighten up…Chris has introduced a thought here on which we all can jump. We can demand a plan with which ALL of us can live and be able to delight in its implementation!
What we’re witnessing is a city that’s drifting and divided. When the mayor originally ran, he ran on uniting us. I remember the many photos with folks who usually had been on opposite sides of various issues coming together in pictures with the Mayor.
That was all good. The Mayor’s outreach efforts were impressive.
Now, however, the divisions are even greater than before. Why? There are many reasons, but for starters, nothing divides a city faster than a top down approach to development. Combine that with what appears to be stripping voters of self determination…and ya got trouble. Right here in Garden City. With a capital T which rhymes with a lack of transparency.
Charlie:
I see you’re into science fiction too. When and how have voters been stripped of self-determination?
I may have to post this in two segments because my computer is jamming up on me again.
We really are taking things a bit too serious. I read nothing in Peter’s post that would lead me to believe he was talking about “aliens” in any term other than the nasty critters in science fiction who come to earth to eat humans or control our minds. My favorite has always been “To Serve Man”, that 1960’s Twilight Zone
where aliens come to earth supposedly to help us when their real intent is to fly us all away for their dinner table.
Now a few months back some of the best leaders of Newton’s Democratic Party announced they were putting together a meeting to discuss how Hillary Clinton’s supporters and the Newton Democratic establishment generally could reach out to Bernie Sanders and his supporters. I attended that meeting at the Newton Highlands Women’s Club and heard two outstanding presenters who offered road maps on just how to approach this. Their overriding message was to listen to what Bernie’s people had to say and don’t try and steam roller them. All to the good.
But the announcement for this meeting noted that one of the presenters had an extensive background dealing with cults and people with severe mental illness. So, it didn’t take long for some of Bernie’s folks here to conclude that the party regulars saw the Sanders campaign as having morphed into some kind of crazy cult with totally unhinged followers. I have to admit that something from the distant past hit me when I first read it. It was back in 1968 when Washington Post columnist Joseph Alsop dismissed Eugene McCarthy and his supporters as some kind of severe national “psychological disturbance” because of their opposition to the Vietnam War.
That said, I never thought for a moment that those organizing the meeting viewed us Bernie folks in that light, so I made light of it, called the author and exchanged a few laughs. Now for the rest of the story. The guy with the background with cults and severe mental illness voted for Bernie Sanders in the March Democratic primary here. So, you never know, but I’m virtually certain that Peter Harrington’s reference to “aliens” was made in jest and included only the extraterrestrial ones.
why not Area 51 aliens welcomed instead of Gitmo refugees – summer make-work discussion for the City Council. where’s Linsky when you need him?
I’m mostly with Bob on this one. Peter has a way of overstating an issue, as does Charlie. But for whatever differences we may have, we can agree that we’re fortunate to live in a community such as Newton. Think of how the community comes together when times are tough. This was a week when LGBT friends and neighbors were in great pain and the larger community did its best to provide support during this difficult time. I’m really proud to live in a community like that.
Your glass is half full or it’s half empty – that’s a choice for each individual to make.
I’d say my glass is 7/8ths full. Newton continues to be a great city that is not in need of risky radical change.
Charlie – What part of “a city that’s drifting and divided” is a glass 7/8 full? That’s sounding pretty half empty to me.
@Jane-
Hence, the disconnect. My feeling, and the feeling of many others, is that the folks who are trying to make major structural changes are the ones who do not recognize how full the glass really is…currently.
We are fortunate to have one of the greatest cities in America as our home. We are also fortunate to be in a position to squabble about levels of excellence. But to ignore the drifting and divided would be to bury one’s head in the sand and ignore the stark reality.
It is perfectly logical to believe that those who are arguing for the greatest change are those who are the most unhappy with the structure that made our city the great city it is.
OR, there is some other motivation to scrap it.
Either way, it’s a risky path that is draining the glass.
Ugh.
Sorry Charlie but, far from being logical, these sentences form among the most ill-informed statements I have read during the course of housing discussions on this blog.
People who are arguing for change might also be doing so because they love Newton and are willing to share it with others who need a place to live.
I don’t have a clue what you meant by suggesting they might have other motivations, nor do I want to know.
It’s your opinion that the glass is draining. Stating an opinion as a fact doesn’t make it so.
@Jane-
(Sigh) Ignoring the main point in the post does not help your case.
One of us is 7/8ths happy with how things are. That would be me.
One of us wants major change. That would be you.
…that’s my opinion…but it sure does look like a fact.
“I agree that it’s time for Mayor Warren to release his housing plan for Newton, followed by the traffic plan. And then we should have a robust and thoughtful debate about both and how they fit with the larger vision for our community.”
This.
City Council should not be approving any changes to existing zoning to enable high density housing without a plan first and robust engagement with the community. The current approach is piecemeal and appears to be targeted at certain parts of the city. I want to see Mayor Warren put out a plan and see that it has as many high density units for Waban and Newton Centre as it does for Newtonville.
Let’s have a real debate based on an actual plan for the city.
After reading more comments, I read Peter’s post. Now that I have seen the photo he posted and read the entire post rather than just the quote posted by Sallee, I understand why reading that quote out of context was a mistake that kept me from seeing the smokescreen.
The photo is as insulting and fear mongering as the ones with council members’ faces marked as targets. From the beginning its intention is clearly to feed the fears of who might be coming to live in Newton. This phrases “Newton would welcome the aliens, if for no other reason than to confirm their commitment to diversity” and “Gateway Housing is described as the initial residential component of Operation Infiltration” leave no doubt.
I have always loved good science fiction and find many things funny, but his post is neither good science fiction or humourous. It is a call to a group in Newton who fight tooth and nail trying to stop “non-upscale” people, particularly those with children, from living in Newton. It is delusional to believe that this is a discussion about who is more liberal or progressive.
Harrington is harried and divisive, dividing those with a sense of humor from those without..
To Marti Bowen,
Can you let me know what photo you are talking about. I did not include a photo
P F Harrington
Peter: There’s a photo on your blog post. Not yours?
Did you also not post the image of city councilors with targets in their faces?
And if you didn’t, who did?
As this thread meanders on, I want to call attention again to Peter Harrington’s comment from yesterday which suggests he did not add the alien photo to his blog post. Does that mean he also didn’t add this photo to his charter commission thread.
If he didn’t, who did?
@Gail said. Charlie-Your cut and paste logic just doesn’t hold up.
So, I hear a lot that smart growth and affordable housing advocates want to change Newton. The change is already happening, but it is not because of smart growth. Rather, it is spiraling real estate values that have put most of Newton beyond the reach of the middle class and millenials, let alone low to moderate income households and individuals. Even 20 years ago when I first moved here, the change was already underway. The median single family house price was already far greater than the median household income, which means that people living here could not afford their own homes.
Far more important than buildings, we have been losing the rich diversity of people living in them for decades now, and the reason is not a mystery. The surge in housing prices in Massachusetts corresponds to the decline in the construction of new housing. The only realistic way to turn the tide in the state and in Newton in particular is to create more housing opportunities. That will make it possible for people to live here and for businesses to find employees, which will in turn create economic opportunities and stability going forward.
The Garden City we all know and love (and my cup, like Charlie’s is mostly full) is disappearing. Not because of the cyclical renewal of the houses themselves, but because the people who made the city such a great place to live are being displaced and their children cannot even hope to find even a modest starter home in their price range. The “change” so many seem to fear is already happening, and we need to rein it in and make Newton a more not less economically diverse place to live.
Nanu Nanu.
@Ted
“The surge in housing prices in Massachusetts corresponds to the decline in the construction of new housing. The only realistic way to turn the tide in the state and in Newton in particular is to create more housing opportunities.”
I’m not aware of any evidence that shows that increasing construction at the levels feasible has an impact on housing prices.
If you have evidence that supports your policy positions, please share. Otherwise, I’d say that its not realistic to stem the tide of prices increases in one of the most expensive cities in the United States. Not realistic at all.
I agree with the sentiment of your post, but the policy position seems based on emotion rather than effectiveness.
“we have been losing the rich diversity of people living in them for decades now”
PS Is this statement actually correct?
Likely socioeconomically (although actual data would be nice), but other forms? Didn’t Greg post the other week that we have something like 30-40% of Newtonites that are first generation? What is our racial diversity breakdown compared to the past? I’d guess we’re more diverse in several ways that we used to be.
@Paul, there is ample evidence. Will one 80 unit building in Newton fix the whole problem? No, of course not.
But transit oriented development reasonable to the size and scale of the neighborhood in our community and many others like it will make a significant dent.
See here: http://www.wbur.org/news/2015/03/18/tight-housing-market-boston
And here: https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/12/09/renting-grows-and-rents-are-surging-takeaways-from-harvard-housing-report/5CoErYq9XyTZof6GylKKpM/story.html
And here: https://malegislature.gov/CC/WhatsNext/Attachment/2
@Gail & Jane –
There are major structural changes being proposed. In several ways. (Development approach, Government formation, voting rights, etc)
Assuming the motives are altruistic, clearly those folks must feel that an entirely different approach would be better. Which would mean that they feel the current approach is inferior to their new superior approach.
Which part required more clarity? I don’t know how that statement could be any more nempe scientifica.
Personally, I think the best approach to development is to involve the Ward Councilors, village councils, and constituents in the process from the beginning and bridge the business community and residents’ desires. But that’s not as easy or profitable as a top down dictatorial approach.
@Charlie: Your continued insinuations that the Charter Commission’s vision for revamping our city council is akin to a military coup is tiresome and disingenuous. By all means, disagree with their vision if you wish, but let’s save hyperbole for actual dictators.
Just wondering why the Development on Elm Street in West Newton is still VACANT? Maybe our Councilors know why?
@Greg (aka, the king of hyperbole) –
When you’re finished searching for hidden messages and insulting others, I look forward to reading your thoughtful personal opinions, positions, or rebuttals to the actual points contained within my posts and the posts of others.
@Paul: Re: demographics, we are significantly less African-American and Hispanic than Massachusetts as a whole, which is in turn significantly less African-American and Hispanic than the US as a whole. AA population increased from ~1.5% in 1980 to ~3.5% in 2010, so I suppose that’s not nothing. Hispanic (any race) population similarly increased from ~1.4% in 1980 to ~4-5% in 2010, and you would have to assume there’s some overlap between those two numbers. The big increase in diversity, of course, is Asian-Americans/Pacific Islanders, who were 2% of the population in 1980 and 12-13% in 2010.
Median HH income in 1980 was $26,663, below the MA median of $30,018. Inflation-adjusted, the Newton number would be $70,559 in 2010. Actual 2010 median HH income was more like $105K, compared to a MA median of $64K. I’d bet that spread has widened further in the past six years (perhaps dramatically), particularly given the real estate run-up.
Numbers pulled from:
City website: http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/planning/demog/default.asp
US Census Data @ Censusviewer: http://censusviewer.com/city/MA/Newton
June 2002 Newton Planning & Development Department report: http://tinyurl.com/hjn9cxj
@Jonathan Stilwell – Those numbers are startling and certainly tell a compelling story. Going from 10% below the median state income to 80% above in 30 years definitely shows that Newton has become a startling different place .. at least economically. As you say there’s no reason to think that curve has bent down any over the last six years.
@Bryan
Thanks for the links. I read through, and generally saw a lot of good data that illustrates we clearly have a housing supply issue, but no data on this:
“But transit oriented development reasonable to the size and scale of the neighborhood in our community and many others like it will make a significant dent.”
Your words– and I think they fully encapsulate the policy objective. But the questions on 1) what is reasonable development relative to size and scale of development (i.e. for Newton, is that an increase of housing stock by 10%? 20%? 50%? What is reasonable?) 2) Proof from other cities that adding that “reasonable” percentage will impact prices.
I read through the articles and reports behind your three links and didn’t see data on 1 or 2. Number 2 in particular– evidence that the housing policy works (in context of #1) was what I was highlighting as lacking actual data.
Why this matters? Because a general supply/demand common sense logic doesn’t apply. My general take is that a “reasonable” increase in housing stock– and we can use your/Ted/others’ definitions on reasonable– isn’t nearly sufficient to make any dent in housing prices. Happy to be proven wrong, but as I said before, I don’t believe there is data that exists.
@ Jonathan
Thanks for sharing the data. The income data is striking. Also worth noting that we’ve gone from being 95% white to 80% white over the same period, 1980-2010. Also hoping Greg can clarify the immigrant/first generation point, but we’ve clearly become more diverse in some ways and less in others.
Paul/Bryan/Jonathan:
This is a very interesting discussion. It is also what I would have expected. We are less diverse in some categories, more diverse in others, definitely less economically diverse. Each of us could come to different conclusions regarding what we are trying to solve for:
1) Are we trying for economically diversity? Do we preserve smaller homes to do so? That seems to be one potential solution. But even the smaller homes in my neighborhood (like mine) are at a price point that is very high. A $700k small house ain’t affordable. It might be small, but it ain’t affordable. The small townhouses in my neighborhood which are new construction aren’t affordable either. Even the old run down ranches aren’t affordable (if zoning is restricted they aren’t affordable when you take into account the large rehab expenses). We preserve the housing stock, but not the housing residents.
2) Economic diversity cont: Do we want economic diversity? I certainly think it is a good thing. But I’m under no illusion that everyone does. Some of my long term neighbors long for Newton of 50 years ago, with young families of modest means in modest homes, but have no desire to restrict property values via zoning. Others I’ve talked to think that economic diversity is unfair by govt regulation or pressure, that they worked hard to get to Newton and that the path should be the same for everyone, namely pay the market rate. You can vary your housing choice by cost if available but let the market decide. Also are we looking at this as Newton first, Commonwealth second? Or are we taking into account that affordability and housing issues are a regional issue, not just Newton. Should our teachers, govt employees, firefolk and policefolk be priced out of our community? Does it matter?
3) Demographic diversity: Are we trying to solve for this? Does 42B or increased affordability under zoning solve for demographic diversity? I’ll note that the schools are actually more diverse than Newton as a whole, since private school tends to be a lot more homogeneous, and a large percentage of newton parents send their kids to private schools. Not a majority but a significant percentage.
Also:
Charlie, as you say…(Sigh)…
You throw a few rhetorical jabs yourself that folks call you out on, and then you ask folks to focus on the “substance” of your posts. Kind of hard to separate the wheat from the chaff…
(“stripping voters of self determination”…really? So folks got to vote in the charter commission, the charter commission is going to put the entire proposal out as a vote, and yet voters are being stripped of self determination? Just because the charter commission’s proposal doesn’t meet the Charlie S. seal of approval doesn’t mean the voters have been stripped of anything. You get to vote against it Charlie. I get to vote against it too. If enough of us agree, it won’t pass. So what was stripped away again? )
And for the record, I’m a glass half full type of Newton person. But I still would like some sensible improvements to a lot of things. Including a more sensible development plan, a more sensible city counsel, a local ward city councilor group in Ward 2 that paid attention to the concerns of Cabot parents, a better school committee, an improved Newtonville village center, more flowers and trees, etc. Just because I want to improve my community doesn’t mean I’m not a “uniter”, doesn’t mean that I’m a glass half full kind of guy, doesn’t mean that I’m responsible for drifting or other rhetorical statements you’ve been using lately. It does mean I think a lot about the issues in my community, that I like to talk about them, and that I want my city government to be looking at sensible ways to get better.
Now we may differ on the results and the endgame. But we share a lot of commonality. Do you think development in this town is functional? Couldn’t we do it better? Let’s ignore Austin Street for a moment, since that is the rare case of a public space up for development. What would meet your approval for the Orr block? Nothing. Fine by me. How do you do that and not restrict the current owner’s zoning rights? Limited development by current right…ok, but all you’ve got is a crappy project. Large scale development? I don’t want that, but perhaps the city can negotiate a better deal. You know the push and the pull here. The community has rights, the city has rights, the developer has rights. Whose rights get respected in your glass is 7/8 full world?
As for the ward alderman and village councils being involved, I agree 100%. But I’d also like my city as a whole to have a voice as well. I understand the ward alderman structure is important to you, but there is more than one way for local voices to be heard. I like 4 ward alderman instead of 8. But no ward alderman or 4 isn’t some crazy idea. It isn’t radical change. It’s just potential change that you don’t like.
(Sorry if this is a little all over the place, I got on a roll. I need an editor at least as much as that ‘alert’ does.)
These discussions are always really interesting to me, and I’m torn. I’m relatively new to Newton (three years), particularly compared to many who post here regularly. In another year or two, we’re going to be in a position to decide if Newton is the place we want to raise our family. I grew up middle class in a town about an hour west of here that probably had a similar economic spread to Newton in 1980, but had the misfortune of being on the outer edge of Worcester’s orbit, rather than so close to Boston. Many or even most of the people (both the specific people and the types of people) that I count as my friends and family would be unable to live in the Newton of 2016.
In my case, they’re still my friends, and my potential children would interact with a cross section of society through them. If I had moved here from far afield, or if I was from here originally, it’s quite possible that my entire social structure would be based in Newton, with the kind of people who are demographically very much like me (both culturally and economically). That has the potential to become something very insular that I’m not sure I’d be comfortable with. Raising children who are completely divorced from large swaths of society is part of the big-picture problem.
At the same time, Newton alone is unlikely to be able to move the needle on housing-inside-128 in any meaningful way. Affordable housing is usually keyed to Area Median Income; even though the sample is wider than just Newton, the AMI in this region is so high that even “affordable” housing is only affordable to a point. The amount of housing required to impact the supply curve would require coordination of basically every town inside 495, at a time when the individual incentives are for each town to resist development. Even then, any house that lets you send your children to Newton’s schools is going to have a price premium relative to our neighbors.
… but just because it’s unlikely to move the big picture, should we do nothing? Don’t we have an obligation to try to lead, particularly given that we are one of the cities that is most well served by transit options? Our resources, even when constrained, dramatically outstrip many other local towns and cities. Even then, though, there are the questions of inequity between development along the commuter rail corridor and the Green Line corridor, which were obvious as soon as I started looking in to Newton politics. It’s complicated!
Change isn’t just coming, it’s has already happened. The young couples who were moving here 20 or 30 years ago, whether that was you or your parents? Most of them wouldn’t be able to afford to move here now. That’s not a moral judgment or a political statement, it’s just establishing the playing field that we’re working on.
(Full circle to the topic of the thread: I didn’t find the blog entry either (at all) funny nor particularly egregious. Not really sure why it exists, either, but the internet isn’t running out of space any time soon, so to each their own.)
Top of the day to all,
I have seen the photo. Those guys have been around for years and appeared in a number of movies. I didn’t know they were a coded message. Wow, the things one can learn.
By the way, what does “that the right wing dog whistles messages that they can’t say in polite company” mean. Are those right wing dogs like “Blue Dog Democrats” or more like Prairie Dogs? Or are they dogs missing a limb?
Is this right wing dog language a code worded attempt at an humorous comment indicating that all this blather (is that an OK non code word to be used in “Polite” company?) consists of “Polite” company expressions? Wow, the things one can learn.
Maybe I should call dig safe, or the editorial equivalent, before I write another comment.
PFH
Peter – The first two definitions of word “alien” are as adjectives:
1. belonging to a foreign country or nation.
2. unfamiliar and disturbing or distasteful
As a noun, the first definition is as follows:
1. foreigner, esp. one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they are living
Is this how we want to describe new residents too the city?
Jonathan Stilwell – Welcome to Newton! I hope you continue to post on V14.
@Jane: Peter knows exactly what he was doing with his original NewtonForum post — that’s why Miles Fidelman, Chris Pitts, John Koot and Lynne LeBlanc all thought it was so darn hilarious.
Ya know…I think I have found the disconnect in whether readers here have been infuriated at Peter’s blog or amused by it.
I think Jane captured it by posting the dictionary meaning of “alien”. I looked further after reading her quote and couldn’t force a finding that I had assumed was the most frequently used meaning of the word, i.e., “extraterrestrial”. I then looked up “extraterrestrial” and found no mention of “alien”.
If you have spent a lifetime watching science fiction movies about invaders from above (or below) who exhibit inhumane behaviors and customs, who are motivated to eat people, suck all their blood for their own survival (or for fun), or disguise themselves as humans to trick us into submission or slavery or giving up some organ or other, and who are very unlikely to phone home after eating Reese’s Pieces, THEN you naturally saw the humor in Peter’s article.
But, if science fiction is not your genre or you are too young to have watched “The Attack of the Killer Tomatoes”, or “The Day the Earth Stood Still” or “Alien”, then you very well might have missed the humor.
I wish we had realized this dichotomy of our readers on Village 14. A lot of this discussion was not about a “War of the Worlds” but rather a War of the Words!
Actually there’s a third scenario Sallee that you are either naively or intentionally overlooking, which is that over the decades science fiction is often an allegory about the human condition. Here’s some examples and here’s more and here’s more.
I could keep doing Google searches, but is it really necessary?
Peter Harrington knew what he was saying, just as the NVA types who commented on Newton Forum saying they thought it was “hilarious.”
So perhaps you should stop trying to make excuses for them.
In skimming through the comments here, I’d like to quickly shed my perspective on three things.
First, it was commented that Newton is a welcoming city and therefore one should not communicate his or her perspective on an issue. As someone who grew up very poor and disadvantaged in Newton, let me be clear when I say that I did not feel comfortable nor particularly welcomed in Newton when I was growing up. In fact, nearly all of my friends were METCO students or the other kids who lived with me in public housing, and I felt much more welcomed and comfortable in Mattapan or Dorchester than I did Newton. Moreover, as someone who spent an entire decade spending most of my time with METCO students or other kids living in poverty, even back in the day my friends would routinely talk about how unwelcomed and uncomfortable they felt in Newton. Consequently, I ask: From whose perspective do we measure how welcoming Newton is? It’s easy to throw the blanket word “welcoming” into a conversation, but it’s much more difficult to understand what it’s like to walk in someone else’s shoes before doing so. Furthermore, rather than focusing on buzz words, how can we as a community work together to take substantive steps to 1) identify how Newton may not be welcoming to some and 2) create and successfully implement ways in which to make it more welcoming?
Second, Bryan Barash commented, “I would hope that we could tone down the rhetoric around these issues in this city and have polite, reasoned debate. Fear-based messaging is deeply troubling.”
Because I completely agree with this, I’ve been disappointed by the inconsistent application of this principle by some. For example, during the previous election cycle, I both saw and heard some suggest that Jake Auchincloss, Jess Barton, and Lynne Leblanc were, in their own capitalized words, CRAZIES. Rather than do the right thing and put such misguided rhetoric in check, I was deeply disappointed that some of those who call for “polite, reasoned debate” did just the opposite.
Finally, Jonathan Stilwell commented, “In my case, they’re still my friends, and my potential children would interact with a cross section of society through them. If I had moved here from far afield, or if I was from here originally, it’s quite possible that my entire social structure would be based in Newton, with the kind of people who are demographically very much like me (both culturally and economically). That has the potential to become something very insular that I’m not sure I’d be comfortable with. Raising children who are completely divorced from large swaths of society is part of the big-picture problem.”
As someone who grew up in public housing and was raised on welfare in Newton, I’m going to continue to respectfully push back on the fiction that Newton is exclusively some type of enclave for the rich. To anyone who wants to better understand the parts of Newton that are entirely ignored by those of whom push the aforementioned fiction, please do reach out to me in person as I’ll gladly point you in the right direction.
Rather than allow ourselves to be divided over misunderstood perspectives or political distractions, I believe we’d be much better off not losing sight of the big picture.
@Tom: Yep, it’s true some people acted poorly and/or immaturely. But you are incorrect to portray that as the only response.
@Sallee: Um, no.
I have seen all of those sci-fi movies and more. Occam’s razor is a problem solving principle which holds that the simplest explanation involving the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one. The simplest explanation with the fewest assumptions attached is that people who agree with Peter Harrington’s point of view think his post is funny and those who don’t, don’t think it is funny.
By the way, “xenopohobia” can mean either an intense or irrational fear or dislike of foreigners or extraterrestrials. The origin of the word is from the Greek word “xenos” which means aliens and the word “phobos” which means “aversion,” “fear” or “morbid fear.” Think on that a moment.
@Fig-
Fair comments, and well stated. However, I believe it is, in fact, a major foundational change to eliminate the elected officials closest to the voters. During the signature gathering stage it was never even mentioned as a possibility… only the quantity of Board members was discussed.
I am very comfortable using strong words to condemn this proposal to eliminate Ward Councillors which would reduce residents’ control over their own village.
Most voters, unfortunately, might not be aware of the details when it hits the ballot. Now is the time to do everything possible to educate them.
So Charlie why don’t you commit to educating people, rather than scare tactics by dropping your incendiary comments like “stripping voters of self determination,” “top down dictatorial approach,” “assault on voters’ rights” etc
@ Greg
Can you provide an example where you’ve called out someone for bad behavior who you agreed with on the substance?
There’s a disturbing pattern when you discredit opponents by focusing on their behavior, caricaturing them as “NVA” or “anti-development” rather than dealing with the substance of the issue. While I don’t excuse their behavior, your contribution tends to be further divisive, rather than elevate the discussion.
We’d all do better focusing on the substance. This stuff is a distracting sideshow.
@Greg: When I think of allegories, 1984 and Animal Farm come to mind! Not Star Wars, Star Trek, Alien, or any of the millions of examples of far-fetched “science” fantasy, complete with the hallucinatory and paranoid imagery that Hollywood produces.
@Sallee: “Uncle!”
You and I (and fans of Star Wars, Star Trek and Alien who’ve fund deeper meaning in those works) will just have to agree to disagree.
Have a great day.
@Greg-
“stripping voters of self determination,” “top down dictatorial approach,” “assault on voters’ rights” are accurate phrases to describe what is happening.
If you have alternate wording you’d like to suggest, please do so. Maybe something soft, warm, and fuzzy… like…… “a suggestion by some to facilitate a reduction in the ability of voters to express their deeply held desires” ?
Charlie: Please take out your virtual No. 2 pencil and answer this:
Newton’s Charter Commission was:
A. Self-appointed in the dark of night and some of them are probably “aliens.”
B. Appointed in the dark of night by the democracy-hating/alien-loving League of Women Voters.
C. Had to collect signatures to appear on a ballot and then were democratically elected in a contested election by Newton voters as specified under state law.
Thanks.
D. None of the above. The majority of the signatures were collected by telling people that the goal was to reduce the number of Aldermen. No one at any time ever brought up the possibility of losing the Ward Aldermen.
And yet somehow, by a vote of 9-0, the proposal is to eliminate Ward Councilors.
Some might be OK with that as it will have the result of circumventing village opinions and making more development easier. I see it as undemocratic or at the very least… less democratic.
@Charlie. During your introduction during the “debate,” you highlighted your position that Ward Councilors were important. At the time, I was less certain, but I voted for you, because it was refreshing to hear a clear opinion about something specific. Since then, I am convinced that your position was correct.
I am curious, did you talk to a lot of voters before the election about your position? What was there reaction? Did you talk to other Charter Commission candidates? If so, what was their reaction at the time.
@Jeffrey-Thank you.
During the campaign, the retention of Ward councilors was my primary talking point. I brought it up at every possible opportunity. Not one single person ever thought eliminating them was a good idea.
I spoke to every voter I came in contact with and expressed the position. I was frequently asked “of course we should keep them…but why are you worried if nobody’s proposed eliminating them?”
Now we know why.
Jeffrey – First of all, I only entered the signature collection during the last 4-6 weeks, but I did speak to many people as I collected signatures. When talking to people I highlighted the following points:
1. The length of time since the last charter review (45 years)
2. The language in the charter was not clear in several areas (residency language for candidates)
3. The language was too constraining in other areas
4. At least one Article was irrelevant and therefore confusing because M.G.L had overridden the charter and it hadn’t been updated (A4-School Committee)
5. Voters had asked for a reduction of the then BOA on two occasions in overwhelming numbers and the Board hadn’t taken action.
During the signature collection and campaign, three or four people told me they wanted the ward councilor position retained (that’s over a 6 month period). The most often mentioned issues mentioned to me were the following:
1. How special permits should be handled (many people commented on this)
2. Clarification of residency requirements for candidates (a significant number of people asked that a Commission deal with this issue)
3. The size of the board
4. Dissatisfaction with the process of getting items passed through the various City Council committees
I get it. This is Charlie’s issue. But there are a number of issues to be dealt with in the charter and he can’t expect his issue to be everyone else’s.
I have a set of questions I’m raising because I simply don’t know what the answer to any of them is. What I’ve found on line didn’t address my questions or concerns.
There were two previous citywide votes about reducing the size of the Board of Aldermen and in both instances a clear majority of those voting were in favor of reducing it. Proponents of reducing the size of the City Council point to these past votes as powerful indicators of what voters now believe should be done. They may be right, but then again, these past votes may have little relevance to what will happen this time around, particularly if there was nothing in the ballot questions about what types of Aldermen would get chopped.
I was working away from Newton when both these votes took place. I always got absentee ballots when I was out of the area, but can’t remember voting either for or against either of these measures. Here are my questions.
1. When did these votes take place?
2. How were the questions framed? Were they framed differently in the second attempt? Did either or both questions include a recommended size for a smaller board?
3. Did either include a recommendation to eliminate ward aldermen
4. What groups and individuals favored reducing the size of the Board?
5. Were there any significant sources of opposition outside of Board members?
/
4. I know the LWV spearheaded both ballot initiatives. What were the other sources of support for the initiative? Political, media, influential people and groups.
5. Were there significant sources of opposition? Who and what.
Hmmm…so what I’m hearing that Charlie clearly spoke that ward alderfolk were important BEFORE the vote on the charter commission, it was his clear issue, and yet he didn’t win. Perhaps that is because folks weren’t worried about the issue, or it could be because a lot of folks also didn’t care, either about the issue or candidly about the charter commission as a whole.
Look, even if we accept as fact that somehow folks were completely fooled in approving the charter commission because “no way they’d come for our precious ward alderfolk” or “it was just about the size of the council” (and I don’t accept this as fact since those debates between the charter folks were rather detailed and folks like charlie were very clear it was a possibility, even if it was to warn us), we still have the big deal democracy vote of the actual charter commission proposal, right?
Look, I’m not sure I’ll be voting for the charter commission proposal. Really. I’m not sold. But we have a pattern here where folks don’t like the result end up trying to poison the process because they are afraid they won’t get their way via a majority vote. I’m open to completely to saying that the charter commission might end up being problematic, or weak, or too overreaching, to a power grab of the majority. But it isn’t anti-democratic. Not with the final vote.
As for Peter’s joke post, I’m a huge fan of science fiction, I’m a complete science fiction nerd. I’ve watched every episode of Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Gallatica, Space: Above and Beyond, Stargate (all series), Game of Thrones, etc, etc., etc.
And with all that knowledge, I recognized what Peter was trying to do. Didn’t really find it funny though. More slapstick silly. Like the puns my father-in-law insists on making all the time where we all roll our eyes and ignore him… He thinks he’s funny though, and my mother in law laughs, even when he is rather inappropriate…
@fig, you just made me laugh out loud. I love the Three Stooges movies, but only the ones they made with Curly. Peter Harrington’s “humorous” posts are kind of like the movies they made with Shemp.
So I just read this contentious article. Shame on Peter for having a little fun!
With a little dissection, we end up discussing charter commission issues. Coming back to the real world Jonothan Dame had a fascinating article in today’s tab regarding the uproar of the non re-appointment of Barbara Huggins to the ZBA.
Of course, I was not surprised a new thread has not been created here to discuss it. However, it did leave me wondering what we shall end up with, should the current charter commissions recommendations get voted in. Seems to me this is the perfect example of why we should not further empower our strong Mayor system to select unelected members to powerful boards and commissions that the public can not hold their members decisions accountable.
@Simon: What exactly is that supposed to mean? This blog has never been afraid to raise any topic, certainly not issues related to housing or the inner workings of our city. But we are a volunteer group and we don’t get to everything, so let’s leave the conspiracy theories to Charlie Shapiro, shall we? ;)
As I’ve written many times before, we created Village 14 as a place where people can discuss and debate all things Newton. There’s no benefit in having a site where everyone agrees with each other.
I’m proud of this site and the team of bloggers who participate here. Next time, a polite request to start a thread on a topic would be preferred. Thanks.
Simon, at the risk of hijacking this thread, it should come as no surprise that appointments are political in nature. The Mayor’s power to appoint department heads and members of various committees, boards and commission, subject to City Council approval under our City Charter is not unlike the President’s power to nominate cabinet secretaries, federal judges, United States Attorneys, and ambassadors, subject to the “advice and consent” of the Senate under the Constitution. Republicans in the Senate are currently blocking a US Supreme Court nomination because it is an election year, based on a specious argument that the people should decide who the next president should be and that person should fill the current vacancy. Of course, the American people did decide when they elected President Obama in 2012, and the last time I checked he is and will be POTUS until January 2017.
The Mayor has the prerogative to appoint whomever s/he wants. Appointments are a privilege, not a right. After I lost the last mayoral election, the Mayor did not reappoint a supporter of mine who was an associate member of the ZBA with 25 years of legal experience involving real estate law and was a former member of the Planning Board. As disappointed as of us both were, I recognized and accepted that the people had popularly elected the Mayor and that he had every right to appoint whomever he wanted. So I pulled on my big boy pants and moved on. Them’s the breaks.
I think the discussions Paul/Bryan/Jonathan/Fignewtonville/ Ted and a few others were having about types of diversity, lack of housing supply and the solutions were interesting and informative. I would like to have that discussion continue in another post.
In addition, I would like a thread on Jonathan Dame’s article concerning the removal of Barbara Huggins from the ZBA, the city council vote and the current and future makeup of the ZBA.
IMO, this thread has veered in so many directions, it has become hard to follow any one of them. If people still want to discuss the Charter Commission, Ward Councilors and the various conspiracy theories associated with their decisions, maybe another thread?
I don’t know enough / have the time this week to put something together on the Barbara Huggins issue, but if someone does, I would be happy to post it for you.
As for the suggestion that this blog doesn’t tackle certain topics, I would point you to the “About Village14” page listing all of the authors who can post to this blog.
I would just note that they come from a variety of different backgrounds, and there are strong voices on every side of basically every issue. If the insinuation is that Greg doesn’t post about development concerns (he does sometimes), I would also note that other frequent commenters who have expressed serious reservations with development and have the ability to author posts include Julia Malakie and Sallee Lipshutz.