In an article publish in this week’s TAB, Newton City Councilor Jake Auchincloss called Newton Mayor Setti Warren’s housing strategy “a vision without a mandate.”
“This is in the most intense political debate in Newton. This is a very potent set of recommendations. This is a strongly pro-development synthesis of ideas. We need to put this before the voters in 2017. This needs to be debated, as part of the mayoral and City Council elections, and there needs to be a mandate to execute on this.”
Do you agree that Mayor Warren has no mandate to put forward a housing plan? Is a mandate even relevant?
I think a 72% electoral re-election is a mandate showing that nearly three quarters of the city approved of his leadership for the city. Elections matter. You want different policy, win the election.
I agree with Dan. I also think the fact that last fall three the three candidates most aligned with the Newton Villages Alliance’s no growth platform — Chis Pitts, Julia Malikie and Lynn Leblanc — all lost to three incumbents closely linked with their advocacy for affordable housing and smart growth — Ted Hess-Mahan, Deb Crossley and Susan Albright — confirms that the public wants leadership on these issues.
I believe that Jake’s right on this. Suffice it to say that it’s going to be an exciting election season!
Most people in Newton would be shocked to see the extent of the proposals for dense housing development in Newton’s villages. I bet 90 per cent of them have no idea how these plans will affect them personally. When they grasp the consequences of the building process alone there will be significant response and some very upset homeowners. Already I have seen in Newtonville many people whose lives have been altered in very negative ways.
Dan, I was the affordable housing candidate in the last mayoral race, so that might not be the best indicator. But I will say that Mayor Warren took a bold step to get behind a housing strategy that I would have supported then and strongly support now. But I can say that Mayor Warren has certainly earned the political capital he is now using to great effect, and I will be there by his side to make sure he sticks with it! In particular, we are going to hit the ground running on removing the obstacles to converting single family homes to accessory apartments under the current ordinance, and expanding the inclusionary zoning ordinance to require more middle income housing from developers seeking special permits for multi-unit housing.
We have mandates, they’re called elections. If people don’t like the decisions this mayor makes, they will have another opportunity to elect a mayor in 2017. If people don’t like the recommendations of the elected Charter Commission, they will also have an opportunity to reject that in 2017.
I wonder if Jake thinks that his election was sufficient to justify him putting forward the policies he campaigned on? If so, I wonder why he thinks the same doesn’t apply to our mayor?
Bryan and Greg, back to reality. Incumbents who run for office win ward elections 92.8% of the time and at-large elections 94.7% of the time. Don’t point to an incumbent who wins on a pro-density platform as evidence that citizens want density. Jake is right. Put it on the ballot. If we all love density, you won’t lose any sleep.
Jake’s and Jeffrey’s arguments are all too reminiscent of the Republican’s argument against not confirming Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.
Only instead of there having been “only” nine months left in Obama’s term there’s almost a year and half left in Setti Warren’s term.
Do we have any evidence people voted for Mayor Warren in 2009 or 2013 because of a housing strategy he adopted in June 2016?
As Ted noted, arguably HE was the “affordable housing via large density candidate” in 2013.
Every significant housing proposal should rise or fall on its own merits. No project is good or bad until all the details are made clear. And the city needs a savvy representative negotiating those deals on our behalf.
Austin Street is one good example. At first the Mayor did a poor job of negotiating with the developer. That proposal was within hours of sinking, until the developer caved and ponied up six more affordable units. In my opinion those extra affordable units turned a bad deal into a good one, and showed just how important it is for the city to play hardball until we get what we want from each and every significant housing proposal.
Despite the fact that the Mayor has taken the initiative to put together a grand-scale plan, I’d encourage people to evaluate each proposal on its own merits.
Do we have evidence that Jake’s claim is accurate? Obviously the answer is no. The links don’t connect to Jake’s column, so it’s hard to respond with specifics without that context, but to say that the 2017 election is about housing isn’t valid . People vote for a candidate for a wide variety of reasons. In fact, election history indicates that single issue candidates most often lose.
I’m a teacher and frankly I don’t see housing as the top priority. My votes goes to those who support public education in general and the Newton Public Schools specifically. Other voters consider environmental issues to be the top priority, and yet others support the candidate who supports the arts and culture. To say that the 2017 election is going to be about housing simply isn’t a valid statement.
It is incredible that people would suggest that an issue a candidate did not run on, is somehow part of a “mandate”, if the candidate wins. It is absurd.
It cuts both ways, then you should have no issue with a Congress that is controlled by Republicans that don’t want to take up gun control, or whatever other issue which you might be concerned with. Because, Congress has a mandate, the Republicans won the majority.
As Ted points out, he was the candidate of higher density projects. Through the most recent election, the Mayor never gave an indication that he was supportive of such a robust project.
Two additional things: It doesn’t mean I don’t support the proposals, and it also doesn’t mean the Mayor does’t have the right to put this forward. What is wrong, is to somehow suggest he has the automatic approval of the electorate for anything he might want to do(which he did not campaign on), because he won the election.
Completely agree with Jake.
I don’t remember Warren campaigning on this platform. IIRC, his stated housing goals of 800 units by 20xx didn’t come out until after the election.
No mandate if you didn’t talk about it.
My recollection is that the election in 2015 and the election in 2013, if not some of the prior elections, both centered very heavily on housing policy. To suggest that there’s no mandate until the NEXT election is a bit like saying that we can’t fill the US Supreme Court seat until after a presidential election, as if there had not been a presidential election four years ago. Yes, elections are how we express our policy preferences, but there is always a next election around the corner, so you can’t hold every decision until the next election (or put every decision on the ballot). If people disagree with this proposal, which is entirely within their rights, they can and should organize for the 2017 election and make it a big issue.
@Paul I think the goal is 800 affordable units, which would mean 3200 units (in a 25% affordable scenario) or ~5300 units (in a 15% affordable scenario).
Let me preface this by saying Councilor Auchinchloss is a good guy and I have nothing personal against him. He’s a committed, decent civil servant whose impressed me with his ability to listen to all sides. With that, this seems like a good as time as any to ask the Councilor who he joined three Republicans as part of a Mass Fiscal Alliance lobbying effort to place the MBTA in receivership and weaken employee unions.
https://twitter.com/MassFiscal/status/743420062741200897
Emily said: “As Ted noted, arguably HE was the “affordable housing via large density candidate” in 2013.”
And I kicked ass in the 2015 election.
There’s your mandate.
Sorry, but there are no mandates for a particular position on any issue based on elections. The very concept is dangerous to the rights of the minority.
Not to mention after an individual is elected, s/he has to deal with a wide variety of issues – financial oversight of the city, health and safety, infrastructure, land use, the public school system, etc. People who aren’t interested in dealing with all of that should join a group that focuses on their particular interest.
I’m reminded of the day I was canvassing for JPK II for Congress and came upon a woman who said she’d never vote for him because a tree limb had not been removed from in front of her house. She took me out to see it (it was a city tree limb hanging over her yard. She didn’t like that, thought it was dangerous. Who was I to judge?). After a 20 minute conversation that had nothing to do with the responsibilities of a Congressman, she finally said she’d vote for Joe.
People vote for and against candidates for all kinds of reasons. Democracy is like that – you get to vote for whomever you want for whatever reason suits you.
Yes and no, Jane. Mayors, City Councilors and School Committee members are elected to do a job, and the Mayor’s housing strategy, zoning and land use are all part of our jobs as local elected officials. Initiatives and Referenda are not, IMHO, an effective or wise way of governing with respect to specific issues. Look no farther than the Brexit vote for proof of that principle. Similarly, the POTUS is elected to do his/her job, part of which is to nominate Supreme Court judges. It is up to the Senate to do their job and give their advice and consent. The GOP majority has apparently forgotten that.
Ted-I think we’re saying the same thing – you are elected to do a job that’s complex and requires attention to a number of civic concerns. We hope voters think about who will do the best job attending to the many responsibilities the job entails, but there are no guarantees on that one. An election most definitely isn’t a referendum on an issue.
Comparing a density mandate to the Supreme Court vacancy is nearly as much of a non-sequitur as Shawn’s out-of-left-field assertion that I’m not a good Democrat because I don’t think the MBTA should carry $150M+ of operational debt.
We live in a republic, not a democracy, and elected officials should craft policy without nervous attention to opinion polls. But good policy-makers also know when to go back to the electorate to renew political capital for fundamental, controversial change.
Jake-It’s no different that saying that the 2017 mayoral and councilor elections will be a referendum on the housing issue.
Jake, my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek when I said “mandate” because, honestly, there is no such thing. In Great Britain, a little over a third of the registered voters just made a disastrous decision for their nations in a fit of pique over not trusting their government. Ask James Cameron how that’s working for him. That is what happens when leaders are afraid to lead.
Subjecting leadership to a plebiscite because an issue is difficult or controversial is not fulfilling the job of a representative–that is what a delegate does. Edmund Burke best described the role of an elected representative:
By the way, calling America a “republic” and “not a democracy” is a false dichotomy. We are both–and neither. A “republic” is commonly defined as “a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.” We are that. Democracy is commonly defined as “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.” We are also that. A second common definition of democracy is “government by the people; especially : rule of the majority.” We are also that, sometimes, as when we vote on a constitutional amendment, a charter amendment or a Proposition 2-1/2 override. I hear a lot of people mouth that “republic” vs. “democracy” bromide, and, with the exception of Publius (Federalist No. 10, most likely authored by James Madison, a Virginia slave owner), most of the founders referred to America as a “representative democracy.”
A little refresher on Mayor Warren’s stance on housing before the election. Here’s Warren in 2013.
Speaks for itself.
*David* Cameron.
The Mayor had a perfect right to put his Housing Strategy proposals on the table and Jake has a perfect right to put his concerns on the table, as well. This is the way things are supposed to be addressed in the political arena. Let the contest begin.
Bob, it is well settled law that the power of local governments to regulate zoning and land use may not be delegated to private citizens. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down a Cambridge zoning ordinance that required the approval of 75% of landowners within a five hundred foot radius to grant a special permit. The US Supreme Court similarly struck down a law giving neighboring landowners authority to prohibit a particular use of land as “repugnant to the due process clause of the 14th amendment” that applies the the right of equal protection of the laws to state and local government. Our state zoning law expressly provides that only the city council may approve rezoning and zoning amendments. The Housing Strategy of the city necessarily involves zoning and land use decisions that the city council will have to make. That is what we are elected to do. Deciding on a housing strategy (i.e., zoning and land use policy) with a binding ballot question would, in my considered legal opinion, be invalid. A nonbinding vote is worse than useless, as it is potentially misleading.
That is why the underlying practical issues are quite troubling. Australia has mandatory voting, so voter turnout is always very high, usually in the 90s (some people are excused, but the rest can be fined). Voter turnout in Newton, on the other hand, is usually low for local elections, even overrides. Why would we want a relatively small minority of voters deciding important policy? The city council is elected to represent the city and decide zoning and land use issues. That is why I plan to work with the administration in my capacity as chair of Zoning and Planning on hammering out a housing strategy that the city council will approve.
As Bill Belichick says: “Do your job.”
I still can’t get into the full Tab column but I now surmise from Ted’s comments that Jake is suggesting a referendum on a complex policy issue. If that’s the case, it’s really offbase for so many reasons. We didn’t elect Councilors to put their finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.
Jane, I am baffled. I don’t know exactly what Jake is saying, but let me speak in general about referendums and what you are saying. Are you saying that you don’t think it is valuable to have referendums on the ballot? Often there is a disconnect between what politicians do and what the citizens want. A referendum allows citizens’ voices to be heard in a more forceful way than by sending a couple emails to your ward councilor. What is wrong with that? I don’t want to put words in your mouth but it almost sounds like you are saying, “We are talking about complicated things–too complicated for citizens to understand. The genius class does not need direction.”
Jeffrey – I know more about referendums than you can possibly imagine and find value in them. At the local level, a referendum is a means to provide feedback to the City Council on a specific piece of legislation.
I have no doubt about the intelligence of the Newton electorate, but I do doubt that even 1% of the voters has read the report on the housing strategy. That’s about 550 voters. I doubt that many people read the Tab article on it. Intelligent, sure. Informed about a complex policy – I really doubt it. If Jake is opposed to some, all, parts of the proposed housing strategy then he needs to roll up his sleeves and get to work to improve it as he sees fit.
Ted, like any good lawyer – and I’m sure you’re quite good – you have managed to take a simple statement and make it unintelligible.
I am referring to the regularly scheduled mayoral and council elections of 2017; not a a referendum.
Much of what the mayor proposes will enhance village walkability (http://www.npr.org/2012/11/17/165239291/what-makes-a-city-walkable-and-why-it-matters), which I strongly support, and I will campaign accordingly. However, between canvassing, office hours, and my service on Land Use, I have honed a keen sense of the median Newton resident’s position on density, and the support just isn’t there yet.
Good leaders get out in front of issues, no doubt, but smart leaders also recognize that durable change requires consensus. Campaigns forge consensus, not consultants.
I’m late to this conversation but I’m pretty baffled by Councilor Auchincloss’ comments both here and in the Tab.
I don’t know how else to read “This is in the most intense political debate in Newton. This is a very potent set of recommendations. This
is a strongly pro-development synthesis of ideas. We need to put this [emphasis all mine] before the voters in 2017″ other than as a call for a ballot question.
Suggesting that there needs to be a mandate to execute on “this” is absurd. How does one determine there’s a “mandate” if not with a ballot question? If the mayoral candidate who supports a plan mostly closely aligned with the Housing Needs Analysis wins, is that a mandate? Is there a certain percentage s/he’d have to win by? What about the city councilors? Do they need to endorse all the recommendations in order to prove they are 100% pro-affordable housing? Do they need to win by large margins and how many of them would need to win?
Unless there’s a specific ballot question about the overall strategy (which, in my opinion, would be ridiculous for a number of reasons), a “mandate” is impossible to define.
I, too, was puzzled by Ted’s assertion that Jake was calling for some kind of referendum on the Mayor’s housing proposal. Like some others here, I have been unable to find Jake’s full article at the beginning of this post, the Tab On-Line or Jake’s City Hall site. So, last evening I called Jake to clarify things and he seemed a bit puzzled that people were interpreting his position this way. Jake told me, in essence, he simply wants a healthy debate about all this in next year’s municipal election and he’s quick to point out issues like “walkability” where he thinks the Mayor’s proposal is spot on. I kind of tilt to folks that see both sides of an issue and don’t condemn those that are in disagreement; so hats off to Jake on this one.
Auchincloss did not publish a column. His comments are part of the TAB article linked above.
I have been reading this thread since it was posted wondering why such a humongous deal is being made over a few quotes from Jake in the Tab article about the mayor’s housing proposal. The article had already been posted. It is an excellent article looking at several takes on the mayor’s major housing vision with quotes from other than the usual suspects including residents, developers and Councilors.
The mayor’s vision is definitely sweeping change in zoning allowing certain development by right in almost all areas in Newton, it lists city owned property in the priority 7, it is very developer oriented including incentives to build large, dense inclusionary projects and several other changes that will be quite controversial. I am glad that the Tab and Jonathan Dame are taking it on. I am also glad that Jake Auchincloss is calling attention to the plan because it’s not just walkability and livable streets. It definitely needs considerable discussion.
I wonder how many posters jumping on Jake have read the Mayor’s vision. I know some have, specifically Ted who has been working on changes for years and can more easily move forward now that the mayor shares his vision. Accessory apartments and increasing the percentage, including different income levels, in affordable units are great, imo, but this plan is so much more.
Jake says: “We need to put this before the voters in 2017.”
I’m not sure how else to interpret that other than putting it on the ballot, but please do feel free to educate me on that, Bob. Or Jake.
I think it’s in the next sentence: “This needs to be debated, as part of the mayoral and City Council elections, and there needs to be a mandate to execute on this.”
My interpretation of Jake’s statement is that people running for office in the next election need to make their position on the plan clear, so that in effect, voters will be voting on the plan when they choose a candidate.
@Tricia – that is how I interpreted Jake’s comments as well. Seemed like a pretty straightforward point.
It would not be the first time Jake has walked back something he said. The first time we met, he was “110 percent” in favor of the Austin Street project. Then he wasn’t. Then he was again.
Mic drop.
@ Ted: No different then when you cut off debate of my moratorium proposal on tear downs and said you would support my Large House Review proposal and then backed off on that. We all have “reasons” for amending our positions and folks can agree or disagree with our reasoning.
Village walk ability, I’m not sure what this means any more in regards to housing development. Can someone explain it?
You’ve gone from unintelligible to untruthful, Ted; seems like you’re agitated. Why are you so nervous to have this issue front and center during the city council and mayoral elections?
I was disappointed with Councilor Auchincloss’ quotes in the TAB article for several reasons, here’s two:
1. The housing/development issue is arguably the biggest, most contentious and divisive issue before Newton since the building of Newton North High School. A true leader shouldn’t need an issue specific “mandate” to propose a solution to any substantive problem/challenge before his or her constituents. Advocates on all sides of this issue have been clamoring for a debate over the big issue, as opposed to a seemingly endless array of single project, village vs. village, skirmishes. Now we have one. Let the debate begin now, not after inauguration day in January of 2018.
2. More importantly, Auchincloss’ call to “put this before the voters in 2017” shows a profound misunderstanding of our permitting process, laws and bylaws. Yes this is one big plan, but (baring an unforeseen, major change in our charter, 40B laws and other state/federal regulations and some things I’m probably forgetting) each of the mayor’s ten priority projects and 70 possible sites require separate votes/hearing by the Council and various committees. This is not a “plan” that gets one up or down vote, it’s a road map. Individual projects need to be decided based on when they come before Land Use, the ZBA or whomever. They cannot and should not be held until after a future election. Nor should we have to wait until January 2018 before the City Council votes on something like accessory apartments or zoning reforms.
Setti Warren’s mandate is to govern. My only regret is that it took him this long to get here. And like 40B or hate it, Newton will have better control over development projects when we legitimately meet the threshold. We legally can’t –nor should we — not address these matters now.
Vote yea or nay if you choose councilor, but votes are coming before you that cannot and must not wait until voters tell you how to respond in 2017.
@Greg
“Let the debate begin now.”
Conceptually that’s great. But our citizenry tends to be most engaged in an election, I’m not sure a “debate” will involve more than a few hundred of the most dedicated people.
Which is perhaps what Setti Warren wants. The difference between what he’s laid out as a vision and what he said about affordable housing before his last election is striking. Is this a newfound policy interest for him, or was he hiding his true intentions? It’s hard to see how he goes from shutting down housing in Waban right before the election, not saying much on future policy, to then laying out an aggressive agenda for new housing.
Jake is laying out the reality from the perspective of the average voter. They didn’t vote four Warren because of his housing views. We didn’t know what they were before the election. If he mayor wants the debate to begin now, it’s incumbent on him to figure out how he gets a level of engagement at the level of an election. A few meeting with Lego bricks won’t stop many from feeling like their government isn’t representing them, but focused on their own agenda.
I am very concerned about the issue of affordable housing. Why are we building 3200 units of over priced housing to achieve 800 units of affordable housing? Who bears the burden of these political policies? Rent control was abolished several decades ago. Is this new trend an alternative to that failed law.
It’s simple math, Colleen. You want to build 800 units that are all affordable? Are you willing to agree to a substantial increase in your property taxes to fund it? Are you willing to devote your time to raising piles of money or empty your bank account to fund a non-profit that could build 800 units of affordable housing?
This is not magic. All it takes is money.
If conditions were met, could accessory apartments count towards affordable housing requirements? If so, I would think we would reach 800 units pretty quickly.
Really Neal? Do you have statistics or an estimate of the number of residents, who either have now or will create accessory apartments, who will agree to have them deed restricted as affordable housing? You would first need to estimate how many homeowners will add an accessory apartment and how many of those will rent them out rather than use them for family.
I don’t think that will be close to 800.
Greg, yes we have to have the debate now. We are still dealing reactively with developers as they propose new developments. We need a proactive plan for how everything would fit together. We have been asking for a vision of Newton that applies to much more than building developments, mixed use and affordable housing. A vision that includes balance. Green space, pocket parks, streetscapes, storefront updates, etc. that will enhance the village centers and offset the mass of the new buildings. Livable streets are a great start. We still need an envisioned layout of a balanced village center to aim for. This vision is not that. In fact because it is mostly about developments and where to put them, I think it doesn’t have much for us to use to convince naysayers that it will be beneficial to the community they live in now. We can say we need to build affordable housing and list the logical reasons why but facts and logic don’t pursuade anyone who believes otherwise. We need to show how well it will fit into the scheme of things.
As for the mayor’s housing vision, it seems to have evolved right after HUD threatened to withdraw funding over his handling of affordable housing. The interactive map of the 70 possible sites from one of the Tab articles by Jonathan Dame shows how many of those sites are privately owned by non-profits or others and owned by the city. The private sites would require money, time and negotiation. The publicly owned sites require some of the same but with the included incentives to developers will be much easier to deal with. My point is that there are 70 sites on the map, but it represents a small proportion of “available”sites” which could have been presented better.
Thank you, Greg, for clarifying that Jake did not write a column and was merely quoted in a Tab article. It fairness to Jake, you really overstated his contribution to the article. In fairness to Ted, Jake walks back (or has difficulty stating clearly) his position on controversial issues. He cannot rely on voters to bail him out in an election that’s a year and a half away. He needs to be part of the conversation now.
As for his statement that campaigns forge consensus, I’m not sure what part of local, state, and national events in the last year could possibly lead him to say such a thing. Elections are divisive by nature and the only mandate from them is for those elected to do their jobs, which means dealing with multiple issues. I get that this is the #1 issue for Ted, Greg, Emily, etc., but Newton voters have a wide range of issues they expect to be, and deserve to have, addressed.
@Colleen: I am not sure why people are saying that the Mayor is planning on building 3200 units of housing or where that number is coming from. The Mayor has stated that he wants to build 800 additional units of housing. He has not stated that 800 have to be all affordable units of housing. And when you look at what is already in the pipeline or what has already been approved – it’s not that inconceivable or un-achievable (is that a word?)
@Jane: “I get that this is the #1 issue for Ted, Greg, Emily, etc., but Newton voters have a wide range of issues they expect to be, and deserve to have, addressed.”
I whole-heartedly agree.
Marti: I could throw it right back at you, what stats do you have? I can only say, I know of a bunch of illegal accessory apartments around by me( I’m sure you do as well), I assume, you can multiply that by all of Newton, and it would seem to come to a fairly substantial number. Will they convert to legal, with rent, once a change occurs, I don’t know. But then again, I don’t think anyone does. If it counts towards the calculation of meeting regulations for percent of housing, then shouldn’t we also start figuring that into the equation; if that is one of the goal?
This is probably a corpse that’s ready to go into the grave after a 3 day wake, but just a final note about the term “referendum ” that Jake apparently used in his comment to the Tab. In its original use, the term refers to a yes or no vote ballot question on a specific item that all registered voters can weigh in on.
But I think Jake was using the term “referendum” in the broader sense it gets used in most elections I’ve been involved in.
Nixon’s election was a referendum on the Vietnam War and parts of LBJ’s Great Society program.
Eisenhower’s election was a referendum on corruption in government and the stalemated war in Korea.
Clinton’s first election was a referendum on George H.W. Bush’s handling of the economy.
On the other hand, Jane makes a valid point that a wide range of issues may get into the mix during the next municipal election. A sleeper among seniors is the dramatic rise in property taxes over the past decade that is weighing heavily on many with modest fixed incomes. I’m hearing more on this now than at any time in the past 4 decades. It far exceeds Social Security Cost of living increases and very low returns on interest rate accounts. I’m okay so far, but I know others that are feeling overwhelmed.
Bob – You bring up an important point and I hope a few other issues are thrown into the mix as well. We still have at least 3 schools to be rebuilt or in need of a substantial renovation (Franklin,Ward, L-E) and I suspect that what’s going on underground in our water pipes will finally get its due notice.
@Bob: I agree with you regarding the broad use of the term referendum. I think his (Jake) next sentence makes it clear that was his intended use of the word. To say he walked back his initial comments, is just cheap politics.
As for property taxes too high for seniors, it has been an issue for many years, and it has been raised by many candidates over the years, usually with no traction as an important issue to the voters.
@Jane said: “I get that this is the #1 issue for Ted, Greg, Emily, etc., but Newton voters have a wide range of issues they expect to be, and deserve to have, addressed.”
I am not sure what you mean by that comment. What are you saying is the #1 issue for me, and how do you define that?
I’m thinking you’re defining me in a way I don’t agree with.
Marti makes a great point.
There are those on V14 that advocate for high density housing as a tool for reinvigorating our village centers. Warren’s policy doesn’t address that at all, and instead has a myopic view focusing only on housing. As Marti said, it would be better if that was one part of a larger vision on the future of Newton and its village centers. Coupled with the complete lack of activity on the reinvigoration of Newtonville– promised during the ASP discussions– it gives the strong impression that improving our village centers is a talking point for housing advocates, rather than a real objective.
PS Jane: I agree on other issues being important. Schools and safe water seem like the basics. Our leaders appear too focused figuring out how we can help others not currently in Newton, when they aren’t doing enough on take care of its own citizens on the most fundamental issues– education and safety.
@Shawn Fitzgibbons-
How is sliming Jake A and his supposed involvement with Mass Fiscal Alliance relevant to this discussion about housing in Newton? I find it very sleazy. Just saying….
Does the Newton City Democratic committee support and promote this type of public engagement?
What is your take on the mayor’s housing initiative?
The mayor is well within his wheelhouse to be presenting a housing initiative. A vote for the mayor was not a mandate on all issues, only support for his past and future performance. There are a number of different housing locations identified that are being considered and anyone near said locations will have issues – good or bad.
As someone who lives next to Needham St and was directly affected by Avalon Bay, i would caution anyone who is an abutter or school parent to pay very close attention to the details and potential down sides to these developments. Do your research and learn the past history of current developments or you will get a good screwing. Guaranteed.
Absolutely do not count on your city councillors, school committee or mayor to do the right thing because they won’t and you can take that to the bank.
@Shawn Fitzgibbons-
Great article in the Boston Herald today about the MBTA:
MBTA PRACTICES NOT ON THE MONEY-
SEVERE LAPSES PLAGUE CASH ROOM
As the spokesperson for the Newton City Democratic Committee, could you share your thoughts about the article with all
Village 14 readers? Thank you
Bob and Neal, Jake’s quote is at the top of the thread. It says “mandate” not “referendum.” In the comments he said “I am referring to the regularly scheduled mayoral and council elections of 2017, not a a referendum.” Regardless of how the word “referendum” has been used other times and places, it is the word used in Newton for a ballot question. If he had actually used “referendum” instead of “mandate,” his comment would be indefensible as an election, imo.
These two words and what one councilor said have become a distraction from the debate over the mayor’s vision, again imo.
Neal, that was my point, we have no facts to support either side so we cannot include them in the mix. I will change my question. Why do you think that homeowners would deed restrict the rent of their accessory apartments and slow the appreciation of their homes? Everyone that I know either uses them for family or rents them out to help afford to stay in Newton. Again I think it would not be close to 800.
Amy, I agree that using 3200 is way too high but I do think that the Mayor plans are to find a way to build 800 units of affordable housing.
Paul, I like your succinct comment on the need for a larger vision. According to the city, Newtonville will be “reinvigorated” in the summer of 2018 because the part of Walnut Street at the intersection might be undone when the city does the Austin Street infrastructure improvements before the construction of 28 Austin Street. It’s a shame to wait that long but that’s what they say.
Marti: My only point was, that accessory apartments might change the dynamic associated with affordable housing, regarding percent within the city. I do not know that you need a deed restriction to participate.
I do know that it is unknown at this point how many homeowners might participate. Maybe the condition for being allowed an accessory apartment permit is participation in affordable housing? there are lots of things to consider, and I don’t think it helpful to the conversation to be so certain as to know how many will or won’t participate.
As for what is a distraction, a blog often changes direction, sometimes some following it, are disappointed, as they prefer the discussion to stay on a different track. It is the nature of a blog.
Paul – That’s not accurate. The city has completed one school project, one is on the works, and a third is in the planning stage, and a significant purchase (Aquinas) is a game changer for the overcrowded schools on the northside of the city. As for the water issues, two councilors have worked tirelessly for the last five years with the administration on water related issues and have made progress on a very long range project. Other projects and issues of serious consequence are the replacement of fire station #3 and the renovation of the fire headquarters. This blog is over involved with housing at the expense of other issues so it’s important to point out every once in a while that the city and City Council are doing their job, so to speak.
On a final note, calling someone who has expressed an opinion under his real name “sleazy” while using a fake name is inappropriate at best.
@jane: “Paul Green” is Paul Green’s real name, not to be confused with “Paul” whose real name may not even be Paul. And, to Paul Green’s point, I thought Shawn Fitzgibbons’ comment told us more about Fitzgibbons than Auchincloss.
Also my comment earlier was not intended to be an attempt to brand anything as “Newton’s No. 1 MOST IMPORTANT” issue but merely to suggest that given the enormity of interest in this issue, Mayor Warren should not need a specific “mandate” to propose a solution.
And as I also noted earlier, the City Council should not and must not wait until the next election to start acting and I’m disappointed in Councilor Auchincloss for even suggesting it.
Neal, for an accessory apartment, or any unit of housing, to be on the state’s SHI it must meet several requirements. #1 under Use Restriction is “Runs with the land and recorded at the appropriate registry of deeds or filed with the appropriate land court registry district for a term that shall be not less than 15 years for rehabilitated housing units and not less than 30 years for newly created units.”
http://www.mass.gov/hed/docs/dhcd/legal/comprehensivepermitguidelines.pdf
I was not trying to pin down a certain number; I was stating my opinion that most, if not all, accessory apartments will most likely not meet the qualifications of affordable housing. Depending on the apartment, they could possibly be cheaper than the new market rate apartments, but in this high market I doubt that will matter much. I definitely think accessory apartments should be allowed by right but don’t agree they will “change the dynamic” on the issue of the need for affordable housing.
You are correct, this thread is about the comments made by a city councilor and I am the one changing the subject. My apologies.
@Marti:
From a relatively quick reading of the link you provided, it seems that accessory apartments need not have all the restrictions you suggest.
Under section VI, D- local action units, accessory apartments; It need not be as burdensome to the current owner as you suggest, depending on how the municipality frames the program.
7c- Use restrictions- allow for a program that could allow for early termination, including the transfer of the property, or, even voluntary termination at the end of a current lease under the program, with a minimum number of years to be determined by the municipality.
I readily admit, I am just reading this for the first time, and could be misinterpreting it, but if correct, I think this is an important option to be explored by the Mayor, to create an opportunity in the community.
Sorry Jane. Its really me, please no E on the end of Green, and i stand behind my comment. If you like i’ll amend it to “Oily” but i still find the NDC spokesman’s tactic odious and unnecessary but not unexpected.
The last time i posted, Mr. Fitzgibbons was forced to admit that ObamaCare is indeed the child of Mitt Romney more so than Obama- so there goes the case against Democrat hate speeching the GOP and even Independent, unenrolled voters. Unfortunately, i also stand behind my comment about city councillors taking a
“powder” when it comes to advocating for local constituents and the council’s usual pathetic abdication of their mitigation responsibilities when it comes to local developments. I still have all my files and research going back to the pre-blog
days, and although i would rather not “relitigate” the housing/local impact issue, rest assured citizens both new and old to Newton would be concerned at best if they bothered to dig into the details and history of development in Newton.
I could write a book about 40B, the CPA etc, but i’m having more fun watching other wards and villages deal with the same issues we dealt with locally many years ago before they migrated to wealthier, better represented parts of the city.
@Jane: what would cause you to accuse someone of using a fake name? Paul has been around a long time, is a great guy, and the real deal.
Hey, Paul, how are you? It’s been a while since you’ve been around these parts. Are you also “Paul” without the Green? I confused your post with the one just before it from a poster “Paul” that posted just before you. My apologies.
No apology needed Jane. Thank you Neal. Thanks to both of you for continuing to stay engaged
in civic affairs. The city needs more people like you both with a long history of engagement and observation to help keep the process on the level and make sure city government knows we are
watching.
I last saw you at the Upper Falls Village Day last fall as I recall. Very nice to have you back on the blog! We may have Sean back on occasion as well.
@Jane
I’m Paul. Not Green.
Re: Schools. I see activity, but its simply not enough. We have pretty poor facilities amongst our elementary schools– a plan that had us getting better by 2030 is simply not that good. We can and should be doing better.
Re: Water. Glad to hear that two Councilor are doing some work. Overall, the Administration has failed.
Re: blog. I completely agree that this blog spends too much time on the issue of housing and development. Schools are half the city’s budget, a big reason our property values are what they are, but it gets relatively little play here, for example.
@Gail
Mayor Warren didn’t run on affordable housing. His last major act on housing before the election was to illegally stop a housing project in Waban.
So while the precise answers to your questions are not clear, this housing policy is something Warren pursued AFTER his election with no real clarity BEFORE the election.
I hope we’d all agree that this is a reasonably significant proposed policy for Newton. I’d also hope we’d all agree that our Mayoral candidates should be making their views on major policies transparent during the electoral process, not afterwards.
I may not agree with Ted policy-wise, but I give him credit for being transparent about his views.
@Paul: I don’t remember everything Mayor Warren said during the 2013 election.
At the risk of going down the wrong rabbit hole, I recall moderating a mayoral debate between incumbent Mayor Setti Warren and challenger Ted Hess-Mahan at NewTV where the mayor essentially said he shared the then alderman’s views and concerns on housing. Yes, Hess-Mahan took the lead on the issue but in the process he brought Warren along, just as recently we saw Bernie Sanders bring Hillary Clinton along on say, the minimum wage, an issue she now owns.
I share this memory reluctantly because really I don’t believe it matters. We have a housing crisis in our state. We have a housing crisis in our city. Even those who don’t believe we have a ethical responsibility to help those less fortunate than us; or who don’t value living in an economically diverse community; or who don’t worry that our seniors or our kids can’t afford to live here; can at least appreciate that if we legitimately reached our 40B threshold we would no longer be, as the expression goes, “held hostage to developers” who, as the other expression goes “shove projects down our throats.”
It should not matter if this is something someone might call “a mandate” or not. Putting forward a housing plan was and is the right thing for to do. That’s what leaders should do. I wish Mayor Warren did this years earlier but I’m glad he’s doing it now.
Leadership is not saying that we need another election before we can decide if there’s “a mandate” to address an existing problem. I’d call that obstructionist at best, cowardly at worst.
I invite Councilor Auchincloss to explain to why he disagrees.
Perhaps I’m a bit late for this party, but even if I’m not the biggest cheerleader of the mayor, I really don’t like the idea of not letting our leaders actually lead.
Look, elections have consequences. And it is not as if we didn’t have an election for the mayor, and an election for the city counselor. Pretty sure there were folks running on an anti-development platform. Pretty sure the NVA made some endorsements. Pretty sure those folks didn’t win.
Folks want to change things? Vote. That’s what I did. Until then it is in the hands of the city council and the mayor. The mandate is the election they won.
LOL Greg.
Wrong day to use the “Setti is just like Hillary” analogy.
Paul-For teachers, the progress on these buildings have been game changers. Sorry you can’t appreciate that. Building more new schools will require more DE overrides. As you may know, Newton has had just 2 successful overrides in 35 years. Compare that to Wellesley’s 25 or so overrides, or to any other comparable community for that matter. Real glad to hear that you’ll be out in front working on the next ones.
The two Councilors have worked closely with the administration on the water issues. That’s how things get done – with real live people working together, not by hurling bricks. You might want to try it some time.
What Fig said. If Jake really believes that elections are mandates, then it just happened in November so he needs to get to work on the “mandate”. I happen to believe it was a mandate for electeds to do the work of the city in all capacities. Waiting 18 months on any issue when the last election was just 8 months ago makes no sense.
Jane. Before we get all excited about another override, let me throw some fun facts out.
1) Property tax rates are higher in Newton than in Wellesley.
2) Although Wellesley has had more overrides than Newton, their overrides are smaller.
3) Newton has steadily increased property taxes by 2.5% over and above our overrides.
4) Inflation is and has been much lower than 2.5%.
Newton property tax rate: 11.38/$1,000 (actually went down in 2016 from 11.61, I suspect due to the expiration of a temporary debt exclusion?)
Wellesley property tax rate: 11.83/$1,000
Doug. I was looking at the 2015 rate but I think my first fact holds. Commercial property tax in Wellesley is also 11.83/$1,000. In Newton, it is 21.94/$1,000. It does not take a whole lot of commercial property to put us back in the lead in 2016 for having high tax rates.
The Wellesley Chamber of Commerce must be doing a good job.
Actually, Jeffrey, I was throwing a bucket of water on the idea of an override.
Jane, I figured that, but I did not want to lose the opportunity to answer the question, “Are taxes in Newton too low?”
Greg, I would certainly like to think that I moved Mayor Warren toward my position, although I will let others be the judge of that. That said, I never move to the middle, I always try to get the middle to move toward me. But, more importantly, I am pleased that the Mayor used his “mandate” in the last election to initiate his housing strategy and move us in the direction that both he and I would like to go.
There was a terrific article in Sunday’s NY Times on how opposition to smart growth is promoting segregation as well as income inequality. It is well worth a read. This is why we need to implement the Mayor’s housing strategy.
I read this article, a great one agreed, Sunday. One of my oldest friends lives in Boulder with her family who have all become advocates for flattening zoning and building affordable housing, among other things. They have a talent for satire and have produced various forms of media from video to postcards supporting the cause. I talked to her after I read it. She said one of the quotes in the article they see all over is “We don’t need to grow anymore. Go somewhere else where they need you.” I told her that I know it well. It seems to be the rallying cry in affluent areas all over including Newton. The thing is that we may think we don’t need to grow anymore but we do need “you.”
Boulder’s median home price is ~$650,000 whereas in Newton it has reached $1,000,000.
On the north side of the city there are 1 bedrooms renting for $1K a month and 3 bedrooms for $1700-2100 a month. If we’re trying to imply that people living in that rental range are snobs for opposing new housing with rents in the $3K-4K range, have at it.
Especially when we consider that 40% of our existing SHI units will expire – ie revert to market rent. How is it progressive to support a fraction of affordable units in an overwhelmingly exorbitant housing development, and then see the few affordable units expire? I mean, unless you’re the developer, then it makes perfect sense.
The people that already live in Newton in naturally affordable housing realize that the new developments the mayor wants to build mean higher school costs which means overrides which means their rent gets raised. And for those who are living on a fixed income and bought their homes decades ago for a lot less than they’re worth now, property tax overrides mean it’s that much harder for them to stay in Newton.
According to the 2014 Bluestone report, nearly one out of eight Newton households gets by on < $25K a year.
I get that it's easier and more convenient to label everyone who is against density as selfish NIMBY jerks, but those struggling to stay here probably have a different viewpoint.
Clearly Councilor Norton does not need a referendum to inform her thinking on the housing strategy!
Actually Greg I like to think I stay in pretty good contact with my constituents, so every day is a referendum ;-)
Exactly my point.
I just want to add that I and many others who live in Newtonville (therefore are Emily Norton’s constituents) are not represented by her stance on Affordable Housing. I don’t know if her housing strategy is based solely on what she thinks is the best for Newton or is a reflection of the opinions of some of her constituents, but her saying that she stays “in pretty good contact with my constituents” obviously means she only listens to those who want the same thing she does.
The thing about the apartments that have the lower rent is that more and more owners are choosing to update or renovate these apartments so they can raise them to rents closer to market rate. I know several people who are receiving eviction notices when contracts end in order to renovate the entire apartment at once and others whose are being updated piecemeal with them either receiving contracts with raises in rent as each contract expires or no contract at all making them Tenants at Will, meaning they can be evicted without cause as soon as the owner is done.
These are not in response to new developments but because the market rate rent in Newton continues to skyrocket just like the homes are and owners are finding it more profitable to pay for the construction and charge much higher rent.
A couple points here in response to comments from Gail, Greg and others.
(1) Greg – putting forward the housing plan is absolutely the right thing to do. It frames the debate about city-wide zoning and planning modernization, which many of us support as a means to balance walkable villages with bucolic neighborhoods. But your contention that it will be a piecemeal implementation falsely equates zoning reform with the special permit process. Zoning reform will need to be city-wide and centrally planned in order to be effective, and this reform process won’t begin till this fall and then – if Phase 1 of zoning reform is any indication – will take years to legislate.
In other words, the 2017 elections will happen just as the formative features of zoning reform are being debated within City Hall. Why would we not want to include the Newton electorate in that debate? There will be three parallel tracks of campaigning: the mayoral and city council elections, which obviously weigh on development, and the Charter Commission up or down vote, which is perhaps even more influential regarding development because its recommendation to downsize and at-large the council will streamline projects.
These parallel tracks of campaigning offer the opportunity to bring the issues of housing and transportation before the median Newton voter – who isn’t reading V14 or coming to my office hours – in a cohesive and resounding manner.
Do I need to canvass voters before I make decisions in the city council? Of course not. As I said, good leaders get out in front of issues. But smart leaders recognize that progressive campaigns can build durable consensus for what will be a long-term project. Campaigns educate. Campaigns are cathartic. And anyone who wants to run for mayor in 2017 should relish the prospect of getting out on the stump to build a mandate.
(2) Gail, re: “mandate”– Ted’s fabrication of the “referendum” concept continues to muddy the waters, which I assume is what he wanted. As is clear from my quotation in the TAB (read: “as part of the mayoral and city council elections) and my comments earlier in this thread, I am referring to the regularly scheduled 2017 elections. “Mandate” is a political colloquialism that refers to when a politician runs on a clearly delineated platform, and by winning the election gets the momentum to execute the platform. The classic example is FDR’s first 100 days of the New Deal.
(3) Emily, your equation of development = greater school costs = overrides = higher rents is not accurate. From a strictly fiscal perspective, mixed-used development nets positive. If the development enhances the desirability of a neighborhood by making it more walkable, then local rents may rise due to gentrification, but at the scale of the city and certainly of Greater Boston, the laws of supply and demand do indeed hold, and more housing does put downward pressure on prices.
Emily, I think what you are advocating isn’t a policy, it is holding ones head in the sand and hoping the tide doesn’t come too close. I’m not a wealthy newtonite in relative terms, but looking at my little neighborhood alone, the smaller homes have been expanded, the ranches have been torn down, and the rental homes or townhouses have been rehabbed. That is going to happen. Market rents have become such that the return on investment for any landlord makes that an easy decision. Folks can’t afford to move from smaller homes and stay in Newton, so they add sensible additions in my neighborhood. That increases the value of the home as well so it will be well out of reach of affordable upon sale. Either way, the waves beat on.
Absent rent restrictions or affordable housing restrictions on a particular rental unit, a very large percentage of what used to be affordable in Newton is not going to be that way in a generation.
I don’t view accessory apartments as a way to hold back the tide. Nor do I think a moratorium on larger homes will as well. A 2500 square foot home in my neighborhood just went for 1.3 million. Not a Mcmansion by any means. Townhomes in JP and Rosie are going for $750k.
I understand you don’t like density. But you also state that you are watching out for your constituents who need affordable units already in place. But you don’t have a plan or policy to maintain those units, funding sources to rehab affordable units and lengthen restrictions. I feel you want to keep Newton the same, but the tide is sweeping the sand out beneath you. Newton used to a mixed income city. In 20 years, absent a concerted effort to create and preserve affordable units, we are a bigger Wellesley with worse facilities and a better commute.
40B isn’t perfect, but those small number of affordable units are kept affordable. It doesn’t hold back the tide, but it does build a bit of a wall against the waves.
Jake, mandate or no mandate, do we need to wait over a year before we do anything? We had the last election during the crush of information on Austin Street. You went door to door. You really think folks don’t have an opinion on housing? I wish my neighbors would shut up about it! (they have a lot of opinions).
The mayor put forth a proposal. The city council can respond. Folks get to vote in 2017. If the mayor’s challenger wins, he or she gets to put forth a new proposal. And so on.
@Fig
There is no reasonable amount of building that is going to make Newton an economically diverse city in the future. You refenence 20 years from now, our median home price will likely be around 2 million at that point.
It’s an extremely unrealistic objective for a housing policy. If you value token economic diversity, sort of like what exists at private schools, we can have that. But real economic diversity is simply not possible, as long as Newton has good public schools and the Boston economy remains strong. That’s been the formula driving our home prices and no amount of housing is going to change that. It says so right in the housing policy report itself.
@Jake
Well written post.
On the downward price pressures- the housing policy report directly contradicts your assertion. No reasonable amount of housing being planned will have an appreciable impact on housing prices.
Paul:
We can maintain close to 10% affordability. It is possible. It probably requires multiple strategies. I agree that the days of Newton as a place for starter neighborhoods is now gone. But I think there is value in that 10%, even if that means some 40Bs, accessory apartments, reasonable redevelopment, etc. Not all in one place, not so large that any one project overwhelms an area. I’m not disagreeing on the market forces, but where does Emily’s post (which I was responding to) have a solution for those folks who are being buffeting by the increasing taxes/rents. She mentions them as a reason to stop building density, but doesn’t close the loop and say how those folks are helped long term.
@fig: I agree that there needs to be a multi-pronged approach to the housing situation here in Newton. The one major thing I believe you failed to mention is preservation – preservation of our more affordable starter homes. You take it for a given that those are all lost – they are only lost if we, as a community, fail to protect them.
@Paul is right. The housing plan explicitly states “The City will not ‘build its way to affordability.’ The imbalance of demand and supply is so great that the City could not physically accommodate the development needed to affect pricing in a substantial manner.”
@Jake I was talking about residential development, which the City loses money on. However the City will also lose money on the mixed use development at Austin Street, according to the developers’ predicted number of students. So I’m not sure on what evidence you are asserting that mixed use developments are a fiscal positive for Newton.
@Fig I do not claim to be offering the perfect solution, as indeed there is no perfect solution when we live in a City with high and rising property taxes. Note not everyone is a loser under that scenario – people who bought their homes decades ago and now can sell at a significant profit and move to a cheaper part of the state or country are benefiting from the high property values. But as the housing policy itself notes, increasing density is not going to make Newton affordable. (If density alone were the answer to affordability Manhattan should be a bargain.) So I’m not offering the perfect solution, the mayor is not offering the perfect solution, you’re not offering the perfect solution… because there is no perfect solution. I’m just pointing out some limitations with the mayor’s plan. And I am going to be very interested to see the fiscal impact of increasing our housing stock by 10-15+%… we are already expanding schools for the existing housing stock, how are we supposed to accommodate the increased students from this massive growth?
@Marti Bowen just because I listen to constituents doesn’t mean I always agree with them or vote as they would want. That would literally be impossible. I do however listen. I always read your posts on the Newtonville listserve for example, I find them to be informed and thoughtful. I hope there has been at least one stance I have taken over the last 3 years that you have approved of, but if not my regrets, it was certainly not intentional.
@Fig
That’s probably true– we can probably stay around 10%, undertaking all of the efforts you mention.
We’ll be a city that’s 90% insanely rich, and 10% affordable, with little in between. It’ll look just like a classroom at those private schools I was mentioning.
I just think we need to be extremely clear-eyed about what we’re pursuing. Having a city that is among the most expensive in the country, peppered with an extreme minority that have affordable housing isn’t real economic diversity in my mind. The proposed housing policy an emotional response to wanting more diversity, but not a policy that actually achieves it.
Ding, ding, ding – V14 bonus summertime award to fignewtonville for excellent beach related metaphors – rising tides, shifting sands. Now,can someone please up the beach ante. What a.bout the deadly riptide of development and those shark developers.
I really wish the bloggers here would separate the two distinct and different meanings referred to on Village 14 interchangeably as affordable housing.
There is SUBSIDIZED housing, offered to people making less than a certain percentage of the average median household income in a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area AS DEFINED BY HUD. The units developed for these folks get added to our subsidized housing inventory.
Then, there is affordable housing, i.e., housing that is affordable to people who are now living in Newton or who wish to live in Newton or whose kids wish to live in Newton but cannot afford to buy here, but are not economically disadvantaged enough to qualify for subsidized housing.
The distinction is important. 40B allows luxury units and subsidized units to be developed, exacerbating the divide between wealthy and poor. Housing for the middle class (preservation of starter homes; accessory apartments; special permitting that mandates very few luxury units, but offers lots of subsidized and middle income units) will help to close that divide and return Newton to a more diverse universe. Are the 800 units proposed by Mayor Warren for affordable housing the former or the latter or a mixture of both?
We should stop kidding ourselves. The rules are quickly changing. I’m all for preserving our neighborhoods, our architecture, and diversity of our housing, but the strategy of preserving single family “starter homes” seems doomed to failure. Teardowns and McMansions aside, with the natural market forces at work in a built-out, desirable suburb close to Boston, even our starter homes are quickly becoming unaffordable. And as Figgy noted, those who are lucky enough to find their way into a starter home while the real estate market permits are going to want to do what homeowners do — modernize or build modest improvements, perhaps to accommodate a family — which will only expedite the process. I’m guilty of this. It seems the only thing that could change these trends is if Newton were suddenly a less desirable place to live. I don’t think anyone would advocate for neglecting our public services, for example, to prevent property values from rising.
As for naturally affordable housing, I don’t recall my wife and I finding one bedrooms for rent in the $1K range 20 years ago. Perhaps we weren’t looking hard enough, or perhaps the low end represents rentals in poor condition rather than typical market rate? The housing strategy has several mechanisms for providing affordable housing without sacrificing the quality of our housing stock or freezing development.
@fig, well said.
@Amy, the idea that preserving “more affordable starter homes” in Newton will do anything to promote economic diversity, let alone preserve it, is a total canard. Bottom priced “starter homes” in Newton are at $500,000, which means that only households with six-figure incomes can afford them. And if they have that kind of income they either go elsewhere so they can have larger yards and modern interiors or they renovate or replace their Newton “starter homes.”
@Emily, the fact that there are a handful of privately owned apartments in the city that are “affordable” to low to moderate income does nothing to guarantee they are preserved. You need deed restrictions to make that happen, the kind that keep them affordable in perpetuity. The kind of deed restrictions, in other words, that you get with 40Bs and inclusionary zoning units. Without those deed restrictions, there is nothing to prevent owners from jacking up rents or selling to someone else who will, or will convert units to condominiums. It happens every day of the week.
Accessory apartments that are not deed restricted satisfy the dual need for housing and private revenue that allows people who already own to stay in Newton. There are a lot of folks who need that income to stay in their homes, but, again, without deed restrictions, accessory apartments do not necessarily promote income diversity. But they do allow seniors to age in place and allow people on modest income to stay in Newton as well. And it adds to the diversity of the housing stock, by providing apartments to individuals and families who cannot afford to buy in Newton the opportunity to live here.
@Ted: For the amount of money we spend per unit to subsidize new “affordable” units, we could be buying these two family homes that developers are purchasing and selling those units with affordability restrictions or giving those units to the housing authority for rentals. That’s just one way of preserving some modicum of affordability.
I’d also build on Amy’s point to ask: How confident are we that those living in either public or subsidized housing are the ones for whom such opportunities were developed? As someone who spent about 18 years in a combination of both, I can assure anyone reading this that there were significantly more individuals living in the units than reported. In fact, many of the families that I grew up with were later prosecuted for fraud.
You can read more about a recent case here (http://www.mass.gov/ig/publications/reports-and-recommendations/2014/igo-investigation-leads-to-charges-against-boston-firefighter-and-business-owner-for-defrauding-the-newton-housing-authority-october-2014.html), where a Boston firefighter and business owner were living in Newton public housing for $66 per month.
@Amy, again, you are entitled to your opinions, but not your own set of facts. How much are two-families going for? How much will it cost to renovate them so that people can live in them and will not have to replace roofs, HVAC, driveways, etc.? We saw with Crescent Street that the city cannot build any cheaper than nonprofit or forprofit developers. It costs what it costs.
But the bigger question is “affordable to whom”? You still won’t answer to my original point which is that a $500,000 house is not affordable unless you are making a six-figure annual income. That closes an awful lot of people out of the market in Newton.
Emily, you wrote: “Note not everyone is a loser under that scenario – people who bought their homes decades ago and now can sell at a significant profit and move to a cheaper part of the state or country are benefiting from the high property values.”
I’m not sure where you got that thought, that we who bought decades ago can sell and move to a cheaper part of the state or country. We bought 30 years ago, but hopefully can stay for another 30 or 40 years. We love Newton, and perhaps could find a piece of property in a cheaper part of the state, but have no desire to move.
For us, Newton is not just about the excellent school system – it’s the proximity to great museums, the arts, the Boston harbor and coastline, the universities, music, theatre, and public transportation, etc.
@Ted
Your six figure salary is based on what exactly? I would hazard a guess that it is based on somebody putting 20% down on a mortgage. What if they are coming in with 40-60% down? What if they are downsizing? We hear a lot about aging in place – downsizing to a small cape or ranch seems like a good option to me.
Simon, you can use any online calculator, they will all get you pretty much the same place. Google “how much house can I afford,” which will get you zillow.com or one of the other mortgage calculators. Then enter in information about income, mortgage rates, taxes, insurance, household expenses, etc. Using current mortgage rates, utility prices, tax rate and insurance rates I keep coming up with a little over $110,000 a year with a 20% down payment. Of course, a lot of people put down a lot less than 20%. As for downsizing seniors, it depends on whether they have provided for retirement or are counting on the net proceeds from the sale of their homes to live on. And there is an old adage that you can’t eat your house, so for a lot of seniors, downsizing and staying in Newton simply is not practical.
@Ted: To Sally’s point – when talking about “affordable” there are two levels that are getting interchanged in the discussion. There’s “affordable” – that counts towards the SHI and there’s “affordable” for entry level/starter homes. I would argue that two-family that goes for $600-700K would be “affordable” as an entry level starter home because there is the extra income stream from the second unit. But let’s say the City purchases one of these homes. Even if it needs about $100K of work that’s still only $800K for two units. The City could then either condo those two units out with an affordability restriction or rent those out. Instead of letting a developer get them and convert them into $1 million+ condos each. So you’d have two – moderately affordable units vs. two – million dollar units. How is that bad?
I am suggesting that there needs to be a holistic view to keep housing affordable.
Just how many $600-700K multi-families are out there? You can go all the way to the mid 800’s, it still doesn’t look so good for the entry-level buyer (and the income figures may start to look more like Ted’s single family scenario)
http://www.trulia.com/for_sale/Newton,MA/0-850000_price/MULTI-FAMILY_type/
http://www.trulia.com/sold/Newton,MA/0-850000_price/MULTI-FAMILY_type/
same for the mythical $500K Newton single family home. Increase the search to $600K, still pretty limited.
http://www.trulia.com/for_sale/Newton,MA/0-600000_price/SINGLE-FAMILY_HOME_type/
http://www.trulia.com/sold/Newton,MA/0-600000_price/SINGLE-FAMILY_HOME_type/
@Amy, where does the city get the money to do this? CPA funds can only be used for housing for households earning up to 100% of the area median income, which is a little over $90K for a family of 4. And $100,000 just isn’t realistic in terms of the cost to fix up a two-family that is going to be virtually maintenance free for another 20 years. But let’s say it is. At 350-400K per unit, that is barely affordable for a family of 4 earning 100% of the AMI, and leaves no room for 401K, savings, college, etc. And forget about people who are just starting out. The 100% AMI for a couple is a little over $70K a year; the 100% AMI for a single person is a little over $60K. So, what is the city going to get for its money?
@Ted: I am not talking about a family of 4 earning 100% of the AMI – I am talking about starter homes for young families who are in the middle who do not meet the income standard and cannot afford the million dollar homes. I am not pitting one need for another – I am suggesting that all housing needs must be met for all incomes. Clearly – the cards are stacked in favor for the very wealthy but we need to have housing for everyone.
@Adam:
279 Webster Street:
http://www.hammondre.com/real-estate/SearchDetail.cfm?PageNum_Search=1&SearchType=City&State=MA&SearchID=&City=Newton&btn_City=1&pricelow=0&pricehigh=800000&Bedrooms=0&Baths=0&PropertyType=Multi&btn_submit_a=&SQFT=0&Stories=&SortBy=Price&GarageDescription=&btn_c=
30-32 Oakland Street;
http://www.hammondre.com/real-estate/SearchDetail.cfm?PageNum_Search=2&SearchType=City&State=MA&SearchID=&City=Newton&btn_City=1&pricelow=0&pricehigh=800000&Bedrooms=0&Baths=0&PropertyType=Multi&btn_submit_a=&SQFT=0&Stories=&SortBy=Price&GarageDescription=&btn_c=
These are a little higher – between 800-900:
104 Westland Avenue: http://www.hammondre.com/real-estate/SearchDetail.cfm?PageNum_Search=1&SearchType=City&State=MA&SearchID=&City=Newton&btn_City=1&pricelow=0&pricehigh=900000&Bedrooms=0&Baths=0&PropertyType=Multi&btn_submit_a=&SQFT=0&Stories=&SortBy=Price&GarageDescription=&btn_c=
75 High Street: http://www.hammondre.com/real-estate/SearchDetail.cfm?PageNum_Search=2&SearchType=City&State=MA&SearchID=&City=Newton&btn_City=1&pricelow=0&pricehigh=900000&Bedrooms=0&Baths=0&PropertyType=Multi&btn_submit_a=&SQFT=0&Stories=&SortBy=Price&GarageDescription=&btn_c=
29-31 Oak Street: http://www.hammondre.com/real-estate/SearchDetail.cfm?PageNum_Search=3&SearchType=City&State=MA&SearchID=&City=Newton&btn_City=1&pricelow=0&pricehigh=900000&Bedrooms=0&Baths=0&PropertyType=Multi&btn_submit_a=&SQFT=0&Stories=&SortBy=Price&GarageDescription=&btn_c=
439-441 Lowell Ave: http://www.hammondre.com/real-estate/SearchDetail.cfm?PageNum_Search=4&SearchType=City&State=MA&SearchID=&City=Newton&btn_City=1&pricelow=0&pricehigh=900000&Bedrooms=0&Baths=0&PropertyType=Multi&btn_submit_a=&SQFT=0&Stories=&SortBy=Price&GarageDescription=&btn_c=
And these are the ones that are listed. I suspect – many go unlisted as brokers have developers waiting in the wings to purchase.
@Adam: Single family homes:
33 Frederick Street: http://www.hammondre.com/real-estate/SearchDetail.cfm?PageNum_Search=1&SearchType=City&State=MA&SearchID=&City=Newton&btn_City=1&pricelow=0&pricehigh=600000&Bedrooms=0&Baths=0&PropertyType=House&btn_submit_a=&SQFT=0&Stories=&SortBy=Price&GarageDescription=&btn_c=
16 Williams Street: http://www.hammondre.com/real-estate/searchdetail.cfm?PageNum_Search=2&SearchType=City&State=MA&SearchID=&City=Newton&btn_City=1&pricelow=0&pricehigh=600000&Bedrooms=0&Baths=0&PropertyType=House&btn_submit_a=&SQFT=0&Stories=&SortBy=Price&GarageDescription=&btn_c=
40 Albemarle Road: http://www.hammondre.com/real-estate/searchdetail.cfm?PageNum_Search=3&SearchType=City&State=MA&SearchID=&City=Newton&btn_City=1&pricelow=0&pricehigh=600000&Bedrooms=0&Baths=0&PropertyType=House&btn_submit_a=&SQFT=0&Stories=&SortBy=Price&GarageDescription=&btn_c=
2007 Comm Ave: http://www.hammondre.com/real-estate/searchdetail.cfm?PageNum_Search=4&SearchType=City&State=MA&SearchID=&City=Newton&btn_City=1&pricelow=0&pricehigh=600000&Bedrooms=0&Baths=0&PropertyType=House&btn_submit_a=&SQFT=0&Stories=&SortBy=Price&GarageDescription=&btn_c=
112 Waltham Street: http://www.hammondre.com/real-estate/searchdetail.cfm?PageNum_Search=5&SearchType=City&State=MA&SearchID=&City=Newton&btn_City=1&pricelow=0&pricehigh=600000&Bedrooms=0&Baths=0&PropertyType=House&btn_submit_a=&SQFT=0&Stories=&SortBy=Price&GarageDescription=&btn_c=
27 Adams Ave: http://www.hammondre.com/real-estate/searchdetail.cfm?PageNum_Search=6&SearchType=City&State=MA&SearchID=&City=Newton&btn_City=1&pricelow=0&pricehigh=600000&Bedrooms=0&Baths=0&PropertyType=House&btn_submit_a=&SQFT=0&Stories=&SortBy=Price&GarageDescription=&btn_c=
43 Crafts Street: http://www.hammondre.com/real-estate/searchdetail.cfm?PageNum_Search=7&SearchType=City&State=MA&SearchID=&City=Newton&btn_City=1&pricelow=0&pricehigh=600000&Bedrooms=0&Baths=0&PropertyType=House&btn_submit_a=&SQFT=0&Stories=&SortBy=Price&GarageDescription=&btn_c=
I know the house at 43 Crafts Street. It is a “fixer upper” to say the least. Check out the Property Record Card on the Assessors database. That kind of proves my point.
@amysangiolo: I guess Trulia isn’t that complete, but you also appear to have pushed the $ limit up a bit further than I did :)
@Jo-Louise – I’m not saying we should be forcing anyone to leave, I’m just saying if you bought your house for $50K in 1977 and it’s worth $800K now, you’re in good shape if you want to sell it. You’re not in such good shape if you have a modest income and want to stay here and we raise property taxes to pay for the increase in residential development.
@Adam: Yes – I did push the limit up. When I first proposed the concept of the City actually using funds to purchase multi-family properties and smaller homes, the prices were much less. So that would be about 2, 3, or 4 years ago…..
And while there may not be many, don’t you think we should buy these and keep these moderately “affordable”.
@Ted: What point? That there’s one house on the list that needs help? So what? I’m not suggesting that any house in the price range doesn’t need fixing up. But as you know all too well, the developer buying it will not likely do minor repairs to the house – but will likely – tear these down and build – what? – oh – two very large units and sell them for over $1 million each. How’s that helping the affordable housing crisis? Oh – only exacerbating it.!
WE NEED MULTI-PRONGED AND HOLISTIC APPROACH TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOW!!!
And you know what’s even more aggravating? Hearing folks turn the other way on tear – downs of the smaller homes – particularly in the Oak Hill Park area – and say – well – those houses and the size of the houses are not what the market wants – and in the same breath – these folks are advocating to create zones to allow for smaller houses? HUH? So you want to build more smaller houses but forego the ones that already exist?
“Emily, the fact that there are a handful of privately owned apartments in the city that are “affordable” to low to moderate income does nothing to guarantee they are preserved.”
Well they’re being preserved better than 40% of the units currently on our SHI which will expire and revert to market rate.
Interesting no one passionate about affordable housing seems to share my outrage about that.
Those units are not being “preserved,” unless we’re talking about “profitability being preserved for the developer.”
Emily, according to CEDAC’s online database of expiring deed restrictions, 40% would appear to be a pretty gross exaggeration. So let’s look at the facts (be sure to look at the explanatory notes, that go with the database). As of January 2016, only 20 units total in Newton are identified as being at risk of loss through 2019. There are 2438 units listed on Newton’s subsidized housing inventory (SHI) as of December 2014. So less than 1% of the affordable housing stock is at imminent risk.
It is true that much of the state’s affordable housing stock was built in the 1960s-1980s with public funding, which at the time required affordability restrictions of 20-40 years. But many of those will continue to exist because the owners have refinanced and entered into new agreements that will extend the affordability restrictions. In 2009, Chapter 40T was signed into law, which is intended to further protect and preserve affordable housing with expiring use restrictions.
By contrast, there is no way to protect tenants and preserve privately owned “naturally affordable” housing in Newton, other than to buy it and place deed restrictions on it.
BTW, those evil developers and their filthy lucre that you are so worried about include nonprofits like JCHE, NCDF and NHA, that are not likely to convert Golda Meir house, for example, to market rate housing.
Amy, here is an article in today’s Boston Globe concerning the scarcity of starter homes which shows it is a regional problem.
I agree we need a multi-pronged approach to creating more housing opportunities, (and I don’t even need to use ALL CAPS to make my point). What you seem to want to ignore is that we are not going to get there by spending a lot of money on preserving so-called “naturally affordable” housing in Newton. We could do it by making smaller buildable lots, like much of West Newton (north of the Pike) and Nonantum and Newton Corner already have. We could do it with larger residential developments that include mixed-income housing. We can do it by amending our inclusionary zoning ordinance to require middle income housing as well.
Oak Hill houses are on larger lots that demand higher prices than smaller lots. In the 1950s, there was nothing there. The reality on the ground today is that even the least expensive homes there (like the one my cousins grew up in) are going for over $500,000.
But take a careful look at the property cards for each of the houses you listed. Some of them are in fair or poor condition and are already beyond the reach of young families looking for “starter homes.” Rational buyers are not going to buy a house they are going to have to spend a lot to renovate just to make them livable. And let’s not forget that many of them probably contain lead paint. I represent both tenants and landlords in lead paint law cases and a small home or apartment is going to cost $25,000-30,000 to delead, right up front.
You can yell at the tide all you want, but that is not going to turn it back. If we want to create more housing opportunities and starter homes, we are going to have to reform our zoning and build them.
@Ted
She didn’t say imminent risk. She said that 40% would eventually revert to market rate.
Let’s be honest when we’re debating.
Here is the article.
The privately owned apartments with lower than market rate rent are not only without a guarantee of being preserved, they are increasingly torn out and being renovated to raise the rent forcing out the current tenants who canno pay the much higher rent! Those are not being preserved at all. After an updated, renovation many apartments in two or three family’s are sought after more than apartments in other structures. They are much larger, have private entrances and can be on the first floor which is so appealing to seniors downsizing.
I love the two and three family homes. They have a unique appeal spread over Newton. If the only way for an owner to hold onto them as prices and taxes rise is to renovate their apartments to raise rents, then I am behind them as much as it troubles me to make that hard choice.
The city does not have the money to buy them. Their purchase would have to be completed in the near future or most will become profitable enough for owners to keep them or sold. I suppose you could do the work to explore what is out there to apply for grants, approach non-profits all over who buy and preserver places like these or find a private company or foundation who would be willing to become the city’s partner. You could call some of our multi-millionaires or billionaire and ask them to set up a foundation. Those are the only ways I can think of to guarantee their preservation.
Will affordable units at Austin St revert at some point?
It’s all about the money. To create new housing is always expensive and these days in the Boston area it’s extremely expensive.
A generation or two ago, the federal government spent a huge amount of money creating new housing around the country. That has changed dramatically and these days the federal budget for creating new housing is minuscule. Ironically, the vast majority of federal tax expenditures on housing these days now go to the mortgage interest deduction – which overwhelmingly benefits the middle to upper classes and drives all real estate prices significantly higher, making the housing problems even worse.
Since we don’t seem to want the federal government to spend our tax dollars on creating subsidized housing any more, here in MA we have turned to private developers via the 40B program.
The deal we make with developers is “you build subsidized housing on your dime and we’ll waive a bunch of zoning rules that are worth money to you”. Now many will say that’s a bad deal for us because we lose our zoning autonomy in the bargain. That’s true -i.e. developers will not build subsidized housing for us with out something valuable in return, and maybe waiving those zoning rules cost us too much.
Anyone who says they care about affordable housing but don’t like 40B and they don’t like the federal government being in the housing creation business, needs to answer the question where will the massive amount of money needed to create new subsidized housing come from?
If your answer is “I don’t believe in public or subsidized housing, every man/woman for him/herself when it comes to housing”, then fair enough. That’s at least an honest answer.”
If your answer is I support affordable housing but not 40B and not large federal housing programs then you need to answer the question where will the new, very large, pot of money come from to build additional subsidized housing.
This is a list of Newton’s SHI units.
988 out of 2420 expire.
Did anyone read the Globe today? This is a huge regional problem, as anyone who has a 20-something family member searching for a place to live inside Rte. 95 can tell you. Micro solutions aren’t going to cut it when the problem is this widespread. At the local level, Newton needs a comprehensive housing strategy and it needs to be working at the state level for solutions as well.
Right on, Jane. Last Fall, Mayor Warren and I had a good long talk about housing in Newton. For many reasons, we buried the hatchet and agreed to work together to address the critical shortage of affordable housing in our city and in the region. There are a lot of people who pay lip service to this issue but aren’t really interested in solving the problem. The Mayor’s housing strategy is a positive step in the right direction. We have a long way to go, but by God we are going to get there as long as I have breath in my body.
I read the N2 Corridor report yesterday. When the mayor’s housing plan is coupled with the success of attracting new Innovators bringing jobs and the need for housing and the amenities that need to go along with it, it paints a clearer picture of what Newton would look like in the future.
I like that picture, at least the one I am envisioning.
@Jerry. I’m one who regrets deeply the Federal Government’s pullback in creating the safe and affordable housing programs you describe as well as its retreat from so many other areas where the Feds did many things, most of them good. I was involved in EPA’s Construction Grants program for waste treatment plants where we simply took all the inadequate and polluting facilities across the nation and replaced every one of them in a 10-15 year period. That’s the way we should be doing things like this, but despite all the glitzy technology, we think much smaller now than we used to. Like most other Americans, I took all this for granted until it was gone and we now have generations of younger Americans who don’t know any of this ever took place. 40 B is simply a very poor substitute for the way we should be addressing this State’s housing needs, but so many of the public programs we now have are poor substitutes for what once was and what still could be.