Just weeks before our national election, one might have expected to see a lot of Hillary Clinton, or perhaps even Donald Trump, campaign buttons or signs at Newtonville Village Day on Sunday. And if not that, perhaps citizens campaigning for or against any of our upcoming ballot questions.
Instead the button du jour was the one pictured here, reading “I (heart) our current zoning.”
Dozens of Village Day attendees were proudly “hearting our current zoning” Sunday, including the folks staffing the Newton Village Alliance booth.
I’d like to invite anyone who was wearing these — or shares this view — to please explain just why and what they [heart] about Newton’s current zoning?
Nathan beat me to it on twitter, but I had the same thought when I saw this. Isn’t this the same zoning that’s encouraging teardowns?
With the teardowns in mind, I’d like to ask one follow-up question to the folks with the buttons.
Of the buildings that have been built recently or are currently under construction, which ones that meet current zoning are your favorite?
The zoner movement!
Apparently they heart the current zoning except when they don’t. I guess that wouldn’t fit on a button.
I really do hope someone who was wearing one of these buttons yesterday will comment here. There seemed to be quite a few people wearing them…and presumably the reason you wear something like this is to sway public opinion.
I don’t know if they will comment or not. I do know that this sentiment is pervasive in Newtonville creating a devisive atmosphere. It has taken over the listserv, the NNAC and is supported by our ward councilor. It is about keeping the Orr block the zones it is currently so the building can only be 3-4 stories tall. But it goes deeper than that.
Geeze, if this is about winning over the hearts and minds of the public — or even City Councilors — to block the Washington Place project then what a misguided approach!
Why not instead print buttons that read “We heart the Orr Block”? At least then the public would have some idea what the objective of the campaign is without needing Marti to explain it.
We love our current zoning because it protects us against the over reach of developers who would gladly build so densely and so high that the character of our village would be forever changed. Canyons of high rise that are not set back from the street – that is the urban vision of the Orr block developer. We want to protect the scale of our current village, in which we live.
Also, the rezoning would add density that affects our already troubled traffic patterns and parking dilemmas. So the current zoning protects us from even more density than will already be generated by the simultaneous development of Court St, Austin St, and now the Orr block.
So in loving our current zoning, we are saying that we love our village, where many of us have expected to age in place – not be driven out by the higher land prices and accompanying property tax increases that over development will bring.
Thanks for asking!
Pamela
@Pamela: Thanks for the explanation.
However, it seems that what you are saying is that you love our current zoning as it applies to density and height, am I correct? Because our zoning code regulates so much more than that (for example, as others have pointed out, teardowns, which hardly anyone hearts).
Also, people who favor more density or taller buildings are capable of loving their village too. So is what you really mean to say is “we love our village the way it is”?
The reason one wears an “I Love Our Current Zoning” button is to express their support for their Village and their opposition to those who, in hope of gaining profit, want to rezone or change some or all of a particular Village. Opposition to such plans is a practice that has a long history in Newton, ranging from Wabanites who opposed parking meters in their Village Center, to Newton Corner residents who opposed two 10 story buildings to welcome people into the garden City, to Newton Center citizens who opposed a six story building over their parking lot. There are other examples, but I assume you follow the trend.
In Newtonville we have a developer that, disregarding prudent investment practices, spent $23+ million to purchase land to build a six story mall/housing/transit oriented development complex adjacent to an historic residential neighborhood and located at one of our city’s busiest intersections.
His first step was to ask for a zone change. His immediate problems are that in the requested zone, you can not build a six story buildings and you can not build a transit oriented development (in the correct zone 9 acres are required). The commuter rail station is unsafe. The traffic consultants can not decide whether or not to back up Walnut Street traffic to Watertown Street to make the project safe for pedestrians and bicyclists or to unsnarl the traffic problem and provide for safe entry and exit from the project.
The land in question is zoned for 3 and 4 story buildings and a responsible developer could build a reasonable project on the site.
The requested zone does not follow the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan nor the outline of objectives for the new phase 2 Zoning review by the City Council.
What should Newtonvilleites do, if not bring attention to these very serious problems?
@Peter: I’m going to make the same point to you that I did to Pamela, only more directly.
People who oppose change do not have a monopoly on village love. Change is not the antithesis of love.
So I’m still confused. Do the people who are promoting the “our current zoning” motto for the Orr block also cherish the same zoning laws that creates economic incentives to teardown smaller, slightly more affordable homes in favor of McMansions? Is it an argument for zoning status quo everywhere, or just a selective one for the Orr block? Zoning laws are complex, but they apply to everyone, which is what makes them so difficult to get right!
I’m also baffled (as usual) by Peter Harrington’s commentary that seems to lay blame on those seeking to make it safer to travel by bicycle or on foot. To have a serious discussion, it would be helpful to see these proposals, as well as something to back up his assertions that bicycle lanes result in gridlock (if I understand correctly) or why “safety” for entry/exit to a project should ever be prioritized over the interest of everyone else… or that they’re even at odds in the first place.
The zoning laws should be revised to provide those who own a piece of property with maximal flexibility to determine how that land is used in a manner that reflects the changing demands and styles of owners, potential buyers, and potential renters. The influence that neighbors have over the disposition of property in this town is utterly inappropriate. If one does not own and/or reside on a piece of land, one should only have the right/opportunity to protest the most egregious misuses of said lot. Our zoning laws should reflect this approach to land use and development. Few, if any, of the issues raised in the discussion of e.g. Austin St or the Orr block are egregious or even substantive. They are, more times than not, questions of style and aesthetics and as such have no place in the zoning policy of our city.