Globe business reporter Jon Chesto writes about the likelihood that even though the Washington Place project is favored by a majority of City Councilors it “doesn’t appear [developer Robert Korff] has the votes.“
Despite [Mayor Setti] Warren’s advocacy, city records show that fewer than 20 affordable units have opened so far in Newton since 2010. (Another 33 are under construction.) Only 7.5 percent of the city’s housing is considered affordable by state officials. The tug-of-war between progress and protection is a tough one, a balancing act that Newton still hasn’t seemed to master.
Note the state’s count does not include reasonable-rent apartments that are not deed restricted, many of which exist in the north Newtonville area. Why did the 40B law not consider these naturally affordable units to count toward a city or town’s affordable housing inventory? I suppose the same reason it didn’t include mobile homes, no one’s idea of fancy housing – because doing so would not favor developers looking to create new expensive housing.
@Councilor Norton: It is disheartening that someone who otherwise has impeccable progressive credentials — including championing environmental issues (both professionally and as an elected leader) and your recent leadership role in our welcoming city ordinance — would be arguing that the 40B formula is at fault instead of using your energy to champion bringing more affordable housing to Newton (especially transit-focused projects) regardless of having met the threshold.
You’ve never adequately explained this dichotomy. Perhaps you can now.
Great job home owners, you continue to succeed in stalling any and all development in newton, thereby continuing to increase demand for rental property and ownership properties thereby continuing to increase the income you get when you sell. Demand sure as heck is not going down. Really, thanks.
The idea that this project is “too big” for that location is just ridiculous. But if the tea leaves say Washington Place doesn’t have enough votes in the City Council for approval, than the developer needs to sweeten to pot a bit. Personally, I was somewhat disappointed that the Warren Administration didn’t get a better deal from Mr. Korff. The city is really lacking an industry savvy advocate to negotiate with professional real estate developers. It almost cost us the extra affordable units that the Austin Street developer offered at the last minute. And a better deal for Washington Place would have gone a long way to increasing the likelihood of passage.
Korff can sweeten the pot but adding in 10 – 3 bedroom furnished units for Undocumented Immigrants to board in and then they will get the votes they need. And he should include banning Leaf Blowers from ever being used in the building of this project or cleaning up once the building is built. That is how he will get the votes. I am sure that if he boards 30 + Undocumented Immigrants that the city will also give him a Great Tax Break too.
If Washington Place does not yet build as currently planned, it pretty signals that “NOTHING” will ever get built in Newton. Shame shame shame.
BTW, people who opposed the Sanctuary City ordinance should have simply required Newton to build 1,000 units to house low-income illegal immigrants and refugees.. sit back and watch the hypocrisy
As Newton is facing the expiration of some time limited, deed restricted housing, residents decry their loss because only deed restricted lower income affordable housing is guaranteed to stay that way. The talk of “naturally affordable housing” (ridiculous as that is in Newton) that is not deed restricted being included in the 10% required by the 40b law is laughable because their cost could end today. Landlords or homeowners can raise their prices by upgrading these apartments at a moment’s notice or can do away with them by selling the property out from under its residents (apartments or mobile homes).
Emily, your post is disappointing. First, as far as I know Newton has no mobile homes, so bringing in the complaint that many of our neighboring cities in more rural areas complain about is a red herring. But hey, let’s focus on the meat of your comment, and I’ll try and point out why I disagree and why I’m disappointed.
Really what 40B was trying to count towards the limit was not some elitist version of housing, but true affordable AND livable housing that would remain affordable AND livable over time. It is certainly true that some mobile housing units, as well as some non deed restricted reasonable rent housing, are livable. But as someone who grew up near such housing, I will point out that mobile homes, especially permanent sited mobile homes, do not age well. Many of us are used to housing that has a useful life of 100 years or more. The housing stock of Newton is largely solidly built, and event the homes built under reduced standards in the 1950s to 1970s are solid enough to re-roof and repair. Mobile homes do not have such long live spans, they were not designed for such long life spans. Perhaps if constant replacement money was available to repair failed systems and siding they could last beyond their useful life. But typically such housing is in poor shape. As it is rarely built in MA now, it exists as an aging type of housing that will need major money spent on it to maintain livability.
The same goes for “reasonable” rental housing. It certainly exists in Newton. For an example, one of my friends moved to town, found a rental condo along a busier street, and the rent was 2000 a month for a 3 bedroom. Not exactly affordable, but affordable enough. And far less than market rate for the size of apartment. But the apartment was run down, with the kitchens/bathrooms needing repair. The apartment probably did not have a lead remediation permit, yet young children lived in it. They moved out when their landlord sold the house. It was rehabed, and each unit sold for over $800k. $800K! Once affordable housing, within one year, now supremely not affordable to buy or rent.
And that is why you don’t get to count “reasonable” rent apartments as part of Newton’s 10%. Because that type of affordability is leaving us. House by house is being redone and sold. Unless you have a deed restriction requiring permanent affordability, what you have is a mirage. And 40B is trying to get each community to a basic level of participation in the Commonwealth’s affordable housing needs.
You argue that this calculation is because 40B is elitist, but what it really is being is realistic as to long term affordable housing, especially in a place like Newton. You have to pick Emily. Do you want Newton to remain affordable for some group of people, or do you want to maintain what Newton has become, mainly a place of super expensive housing. Eventually the reasonable rental will be sold off and lose its affordability.
So the initial part of your comment is all about meeting the test, and effectively stating that if only the rules were different Newton would be fine. This is similar to the golf course argument that so many made, (including the city) regarding how Newton has already met its requirement under 40B.
I think you are about to get a real life example that wishing something were so doesn’t actually make it so.
You can certainly choose to let your village play chicken with a 40B developer, but the entire purpose of 40B is to allow the developer to step outside your control. So while you are barreling us forward and fighting the good fight, remember that the 40B wall in front of you is quite real. And that it is tough to play chicken with a wall.
Finally you end with a remark on 40B being all about developers being able to build expensive housing. Are developers making money off of 40B? Of course they are. They are developers. Why would they do a deal if they didn’t make money? And I even agree that 40B is an imperfect vehicle for the creation of affordable housing, but cities like Newton simply have shown they have limited to no success in the creation of affordable housing otherwise. But let’s all be clear what 40B is: If developers promise a high enough percentage of affordable housing in their projects, they get to step outside the control of opponents like you. And then they get to make a “reasonable” profit and build a mixture of affordable and yes, expensive housing. Certainly imperfect. It is a blunt instrument. But it also works, even if it is not aesthetically pretty (both in its form and what it creates).
But the rules have been in place for a long time. Arguing about the unfairness of them or complaining about the profit motive of the developers is like complaining about balls and strikes in a baseball game. Good luck with that, and you should know better.
Mike and others on here know the game well. You had a great deal of leverage over the developer to change his project for the better. Would any project have met your approval? I thought the project should be better, but there was certainly a point where I’d concede this is the best we are going to get. But you and your other “no” votes have locked the village into a battle which I’m not sure you can win. And what is eventually built there if it is a 40B is going to look a lot worse than what we could have gotten with a more reasonable approach last week. I hope you know what you are doing. Because the 40B wall is quickly approaching. And the rules aren’t changing.
Mad props to fignewtonville for laying this out so clearly. I agree with the above post 100%.