The developer of the Washington Place project (aka the Orr Block) in Newtonville has just announced that they are withdrawing their proposal from the City Council and will instead re-design the project as a state administered 40B affordable housing project.
Dear Supporter of Washington Place:
I want to start by saying: Thank you. In the past 10 months, your voice in support of the Washington Place project has had an enormous positive impact on the review of our proposal by the Land Use Committee and other city agencies. More than 100 of you have spoken at public hearings, written letters and otherwise stood up in favor of a progressive approach to new housing, village centers and transportation improvements in our city.
Unfortunately, I write today to report that Mark Development has formally requested that the Washington Place proposal be withdrawn from review by the City Council. We made this decision based on clear insights that it was not possible to achieve the required 18 yes votes from the City Council. You can read our letter to the City Council in the PDF attached.
The good news is that we are still moving forward with this project. We expect to submit a redesigned version of Washington Place for review and approval as a 40B Affordable Housing Project. Because this process is overseen by the Commonwealth, we believe the project has a greater chance of review on its merits and successful approval.
We will continue to need your support as we move forward. I thank you for the time and energy you have invested in this important project to date and know that together we can build something great for the city of Newton.
Robert Korff
Mark Development, LLC
The history of development in Newton is a history of unintended consequences…
Aldermen in the 1970s didn’t want Sun Life Financial’s corporate offices at Riverside, so Sun Life went to Wellesley and Newton got an MBTA parking lot. Today, enough City Councilors don’t want a mixed-use development at Washington Place, so the Newton gets a 40B project.
This is terrible news for Newton and Newtonville. Robert Korff had proposed a thoughtful project that would have addressed a desperate need for workforce housing, generated foot traffic for our village businesses and provided wonderful community give backs. But no thanks to an obstructionist political group and a few city councilors, Newtonville might end up with no say on a building that is even taller than the proposed five stories and without a public art space, shops, bike and sidewalk improvements, or any of the other amenities that had been offered.
I’m not sure what the people who opposed this project expected to happen. This appeared to be the inevitable outcome in the last few months.
To put a point it it, the city tried to assert minute control, so it lost all of it.
Actually this is exactly what they wanted – A Welcoming City! And now they will have a HUGE Housing Project that can house all those Undocumented Immigrants that they want to Welcome into Newton.
And Koroff will make a TON of money on Section 8 housing.
It is a Win Win for our Councilors and Koroff.
F-ing great. Thank you to the folks that opposed this, good job you made it worse. Thank you as well to our cowardly councilors who sided with neighbors that oppose any and all development in Newton under various guises of “not enough affordable units” or “too tall” or “not enough parking”. Just f-ing thank you for not standing up for a good project that would have provided more commercial opportunities and more housing options to help all the commercial properties in Newtonville. Now you will get more larger units providing more of an impact on our schools, more parking (meaning much more traffic) and few benefits. Really, thank you for your self serving bullsh** opposition.
Anyone who expected anything different has not lived in Newton long enough.
Someone explain like i’m five. What’s the difference between what was proposed and what they can build under 40b?
I second John_on_Central’s comment.
I’ve been saying to anyone who would listen that this would happen if this project was shut down without due consideration. After all he paid for the property, he was definitely going to build something on it. It was potentially a great project before – now who knows. What a shame.
Wait, where are the folks who said that 40B was satisfied in Newton? That the golf courses pushed us over the 1.5%? Surely they knew what they were talking about…. Or could it be that they were full of it?
As for it being 40B, I would guess that the discussions regarding some of the amenities aren’t over. At least if the city has any sort of planning they aren’t. But we shall see.
I still maintain that the project could have been improved, but to do so the councilors needed to make a further counteroffer similar to what happened in Austin Street. If the 18 votes weren’t there for any project, then they weren’t there. I certainly hope that the recalcitrent councilors didn’t rely on the bad advice that we’ve satisfied the 40B safe harbor. If they did, they are about to get a rather rude awakening.
@ Yuppie Scum – The approval goes through a state process instead of the City, and as long as he meets the higher affordability threshold of 40B, he gets to build something that ignores the City’s zoning. Due to the higher number of affordable units required by 40B (or, technically, the same % as the current plan but targeted at a lower median income tenant), he has to build more market rate units as well to subsidize. In this spot, that means a six floor building vs the 4-on-the-street, 5-at-setbacks that was in the proposed plan, with more total units as well. The other project amenities that had been negotiated are potentially also at risk, though in the letter there’s at least an initial indication that some might be kept. He’s at no obligation to do that, though.
John, Marti, fig, and others have already covered my thoughts. This is equal amounts embarrassing and unsurprising. Hopefully we still get something out of it that’s a net benefit to the village center, but who the heck knows at this point.
The higher the better, supported the proposal believing Korf’s development would reinvigorate the ville. Only request I had was pike noise remediation since I live due north. Build the 40B as a sound barrier for the neighborhood, the higher the better.
Perhaps a wall?
Yuppie Scum – Good question. I believe that the current zoning allowed three floors and they were hoping to rezone it and get a Special Permit to build up five floors (I think). If they go the 40B route and most of the city zoning rules don’t apply I don’t know how tall/big they could theoretically make it.
Jerry Reilly – mine and John Stilwells’ comments crossed. John did a better job of answering your question
Fig-Why any councilor or resident didn’t realize that a no vote meant this was going to be a 40b project is beyond me. I didn’t hear one councilor claim s/he opposed the project because s/he thought the city was over the 1.5% affordable housing mark.
Now it’s out of our hands. Robert Korff has been working with the city of Newton and its residents for two years, and you think he’s going to continue to do so when he doesn’t have to? If he does continue to work with the residents, he’s either a saint or a masochist.
It appears that 7 councilors took a gamble and lost.
Jane, there has been multiple folks posting here who claim that we’ve met the 1.5% affordable mark. I’ve maintained I disagree. And I actually read the case involved. I don’t think most of those involved did.
Look, I posted a long post on this already. But really anyone with any knowledge of real estate in MA should have known the result. You can push a developer to improve his or her project. They have 40B leverage. The city has time/energy/delay as leverage. It is better for all if the parties can make a deal and avoid 40B. If not, either the developer will get to build with far reduced local input, or the city will stall out the project.
I too hope our seven councilors who killed this know what they are doing. If we wind up with a large 40B on our doorstep, I hope folks remember when it comes time to vote.
Also, are those same 7 councilors going to vote to oppose the storage unit project on Newtonville Ave? If not, why not?
Fig – Can you name the councilors who claim we’ve met the 1.5% and opposed this project? I’ll admit to being a less regular reader of V14 in the last year. My comment related to conversations and email exchanges and I’ve heard none of the councilors say their objection related to that issue.
I don’t know if it is the councilors as much as the typical posters who oppose 40Bs. If you look up some of the other 40B discussions, there was quite a bit of chatter about the golf courses. And I believe the city did challenge the 1.5%…
Who are the 7 Councilors?
But it’s the councilors who vote yea or nay on a project, not V14 posters. Frankly, at this point, I’m not interested in why they opposed it but I do want to know if they considered the consequences of a no vote.
Good thing they haven’t started the rebuild of Cabot School – because I am sure that with a huge 40 B there will be lots of new kids for the NPS. They will still have time to increase the size of the Cabot Project.
And it is also great that they are building that Storage Building on Newtonville Ave. Because I am sure all those 40 B apartments will need some Storage Space!
Where is the “7 councilors” number coming from?
I have a lot of sympathy for Mr. Korff. But this was not a wise move. He should have upped the ante and forced a vote in City Council. His chances of actually building Washington Place as a 40B project… zero!
@Mike Striar: I know you’ve been pushing this “add affordable units” mantra as the remedy to passage. And you proved to be 100 percent right about that for Austin Street.
But I don’t think that was the answer this project, where a 18 yes votes were needed, not 16.
The sad reality is some councilors were unlikely to support this project no matter what percent was affordable. That includes our Ward 2 councilor who abandons her otherwise iron-clad progressive values anytime it comes to standing up to Newton’s no-growth anytime/anywhere crowd.
As the Ward 2 (Newtonville) councilor on Land Use, I have not offered public opinion on this project for a year out of respect for the Land Use Committee’s quasi-judicial standing for special permits. But I have been active in helping shape this project and trying to corral the votes, and I can think of few instances in my life when I’ve been as frustrated by an outcome. We need to fix the Land Use process on the city council, because right now it is creating lose-lose-lose situations for the city, for neighbors, and for developers.
This development would improve the walkability and affordability of the village. We also negotiated substantive corollary benefits for Newtonville, including new bus stops, the proscription of banks on site, traffic flow improvement, a new arts center, and village beautification.
Now the city council’s leverage is lost. I have secured a commitment from Mr. Korff to continue to honour his promises – but there is no force of law behind that commitment. The neighbors will get a bigger project than the one they opposed. And the developer will be stuck in court instead of creating more housing and a more walkable village.
A lose-lose-lose. Might it be better under the proposed charter?
Councilor Auchincloss: Thank you for your past and future efforts to make this project the best it can possibly be.
Thanks for pointing that out Tricia. The number may be higher. In order for the special permit to pass, 18 of the 24 councilors had to approve it. If they knew it wasn’t going to pass, then at least 7 councilors said they were going to vote no, but it may have been more.
Mike, I think you are wrong on that. But we’ll see. 40Bs happen all the time. We’ve yet to see Newton’s resolve truly be tested.
Jake, I appreciate your posting. I think I agree with you that this ended up being lose-lose-lose. Can’t find the benefit as of yet. It would be one think if the property was going to stay as it was, but almost all the tenants are gone or have plans to go.
I do wish we knew the names of the folks who were going to vote no. I would assume it was the same group as Austin Street, plus a new name or so. But it seems clear you were in favor of the project. I’m glad you are looking at things with an open mind. (I still think you are wrong about the storage unit project though).
jake – I agree with your comments and perpective. Thank you for your efforts. A number of residents were very disappointed to find that the charter was not able to deal with the special permitting process as state law states that the legislative branch governs land use decisions.
I also think Fig is most likely on the mark. The Orr block is an ideal location for a 40b project with its access to public transportation and walking distance to the necessities of daily life.
@Greg– I agree with you. More affordable units were not necessarily the answer for Washington Place approval. But Korff should have stayed in the game until he pushed the right button. Because there is a “right button.” Now, he’s pushed the wrong button [40B], and I don’t see that working out well for anyone. The Mayor should try and turn this around right now, before it’s too late. Get everybody back to the table and hammer it out. Mr Korff would be well served to give it one more shot.
@Fig: Didn’t you write this post – not too long ago? “Look, I’m not trying to be unreasonable. I recognize the economics. I’m saddened by the loss of history and scale, but sometimes that happens. I applaud the additional affordable housing. I applaud the transit oriented development. This has some of the same features I liked about Austin Street. But it is not enough. The developer is asking for a major concession. The return to the city AND the village should be major as well. He can of course build to zoning specifications and do none of this. But he’ll leave millions on the table.
He wants to change the density of my village? Fine. Let’s push him to make the project AND the village beautiful.”
I liked the project as proposed, but I think that more units and less commercial may actually be better for the village. With 13 villages and other commercial districts (Chestnut Hill and Needham Street), we have more retail space than the city can support, with the impact hitting the existing village center commercial. The Orr Block ground-floor retail does compete and would have competed with commercial space on the other side of the ‘pike. If there is no commercial space in the 40B version, Newtonville village center is consolidated and there are more people within walking distance.
I’m not against commercial in the 40B incarnation, but I don’t think losing it is necessarily all bad.
There’s a pretty good chance that the sun will come up tomorrow. Newton DOES need more affordable housing. If the “affordability” rules are anything like in Cambridge/Somerville, it’s still not THAT affordable. its not going to turn into Lawrence or anything.
The commercial hub of Newtonville is firmly south of the pike now anyway.
@Sean I don’t agree with you on this one. I think losing the street-level retail will create a huge hole in the streetscape. I also think that lack of life will adversely affect the rest of the retail front nearby.
Does the city NEED more retail? Not if you look just at the available retail and the for-rent signs. But some of that has to do with other factors, like how long it takes to get a restaurant up and running, or the high cost of that retail frontage.
I don’t think this development answers any of those other questions, but we do have a lot of larger economic development issues still in play.
Make no mistake, the lack of commercial on that corner from the post office to the driving school will really hurt things on the north side of Newtonville. Yes more residential is great, but ground floor residential in this type of area is not what improves the pedestrian experience or encourages folks to walk for more trips…
This is from a Globe story published this afternoon..
What’s the old expression?.. Be careful what you wish for?
Sometimes its best not to win…
Its been a banner week for welcoming new folks to Newton. Sanctuary City and now
mucho 40B.
I think the developers did what they ultimately were forced to do, given
the opposition of the Newton Villages Alliance and a few other affordable housing deniers.
Congratulations to the developers, and remember, Go(very) Big Or Go Home!!
Was the Opposition the Newton Village Alliance or Newton City Councilors?
Don’t give up on this project. I think it will be a reasonable 40B – though perhaps larger than many would have wanted. We should all be fed up with folks who have decided to freeze frame Newton as it is today with no change, no way, no how. The last housing developments in Newton were in the 1950s (with very few exceptions) and it seems that this is where we are stuck.
Perhaps you missed the editorial in the Globe from Jan 29 that suggested that the suburbs have to step up to the plate and create affordable housing. Newtonville is the perfect place for housing. Seniors who are stuck in their large homes because they want to stay in Newton and have no place in Newton to move to – would have loved to live in our village. Can you imagine – being able to walk to grocery shopping, walk to the train or bus to go into town, walk to a coffee shop, walk to the post office, walk to go out for dinner on Saturday night? We could provide a unique opportunity for all age groups and income levels.
Unfortunately, because the project will be 40B we will loose the middle income housing. Pity because it would have been a great place for teachers and fire fighters and policeman who can live and work right her in Newton.
Unfortunately, the neighbors were led on by a local attorney and the bar for passage of this project in the Council was set extraordinarily high. We never seem to learn the lessons of the past. As I mentioned just the other night in Land Use. One of the speakers at the endless public hearing said she hated the Cahners building in Newton Corner, using that as an example of why we shouldn’t vote for Washington Place. Well – did she have a wrong number. The then Board of Aldermen turned down a very good mixed use project because of neighbor objections. The developer did the only thing he could do – he put up the 100% commercial building that we see there today.
I’m sorry that this project will no longer be before the Council – but I, like Jake, have every hope that Mr. Korf will put up a good project and still provide the amenities that he would have if it had been a special permit project.
Councilor Albright: Great comment. Thank you.
@Joanne
It appears the deniers were a mix of both. The councilors have political cover if they simply parrot
what aldermen have said in the past- “our/my hands were tied,it was a 40B, we couldn’t do anything about it.” The NVA will have more opportunities to resist, obstruct and deny-
Needham St/Oak St/Upper Falls etc, but they will not enjoy any political cover if they run as a
slate again in the next election. The Orr Block obstruction/collapse was their baby and they should get full above-the-fold credit for their achievement.
@Jane Franz-
The Orr block is also ideal for a 40B as there are local elementary and high schools nearby.
Councilor/Alderman Susan Albright(see above) and her pal/former colleague Alderman Christine Samuelson spoke those very words to me when i spoke to them about Avalon Bay(“our hands were tied”, etc)- how cool is this?
I have better timing than an overrated SNL comedian!
The NVA can’t Vote only the City Councilors can. I would like to know which City Councilors were in Favor of this project and which were against it. Were the same councilors that voted to Make Newton a Welcoming City the same that were not going to welcome this building project? Obviously the developer did not want to waste anymore time or money dealing with our City Council if he knew he obviously was going to lose.
It is hypocritical if they voted for a welcoming City , were going to vote against this project which would have put some affordable housing in Newton and are now going to fight the 40B rule to try stop this project all together.
If you think 40B is a foregone conclusion, let me remind you of a little residential project at 125 Wells Ave. While a flawed project on a number of levels, I encouraged councilors to not fight it as the inevitable 40B loss wasn’t worth the cost (and it wasn’t the right thing to do).
Boy was I wrong. The city stood firm on its we’ve-met-the-threshold argument and the developer walked. Whatever the no-on-Orr councilors’ motivation, don’t discount their optimism on the 40B front.
What’s Plan C?
@Susan Albright-
Won’t some of the opportunities you mentioned still be possible when the Austin street project is built? Thats not a 40B as of yet is it?
@Paul Green – I wasn’t on the Board when Avalon came through – so that wasn’t me with whom you spoke. Had the aforementioned endless public hearing ever closed on Washington Place I would have been able to fight for its passage as I did for Austin st. I believe I’ve been no shrinking violet when it comes to support for housing in Newton. Frankly, 40B may be the only way to get affordable housing in our fair city.
I had a long talk with the Planning Director in Beverly after I found out that they created an ordinance in Beverly to create by right housing at 5 stories in the village center. They recently approved 4 projects. We talked about our inability to get affordable housing in Newton and the conversation led to our special permit process. When he found out that the special permitting was in the hands of the City Council he said – well there’s your problem. We are one of a very small number of cities that have a City Council as the special permitting process.
As long as a small but vocal group can have its way with the Council – we will get nowhere.
Amy:
Excellent memory! You are 100% correct. That is still my view of his proposal. I wanted more. I’d still want more. But this is a vast difference between pushing a for-profit developer for the most concessions possible and walking away from the table. I think we could have gotten additional village improvements in return for granting the approval. There was a huge advantage for the developer in getting immediate approval. Interest rates are rising. Construction costs are going up as well. I’ve seen multi-million dollar increases on larger projects over the past few months. You had real leverage. The city had real leverage.
I’ve said it before, but I think the council would be much better served if it had more real estate development experience. Or if these decisions were made by a different body. There were three possible outcomes here. Deal with the developer (and push for the best deal possible), the property gets developed under current zoning, or the property gets developed under 40B. The idea that the property would stay as is went out the window when it was sold for such a large sum.
So which of the three outcomes do YOU want Amy. You seem to be following the conversation, and I’m assume you are aware of the issue in great detail. Instead of trolling back through old posts, how about posting what YOU wanted for the site.
Option 1? Would you have voted for the former proposal, as Jake would have? Tried to improve it? Was there something that could have convinced you to vote for it?
Option 2? Not in your control, but would you have preferred a smaller project, taking the risk it would turn out like Newton Corner? Was that the goal?
Option 3? 40B. What do you think about the larger project potential? Do you think the city has met its obligation?
So what say you? C’mon, if you are going to waste the time to track down an old post in an attempt to catch me in an inconsistency, surely you can speak your mind on the project.
And for the record, I’m still going to miss the Orr buildings. Old buildings have charm. But I’m a hopeless romantic posting under a blog handle based on a cookie made of Figs.
@Paul Green – Lets just hope that Austin St. gets built. To get 15th and 16th vote from the Council the developer was pushed to add more affordable units in the 11th hour. Everyone thinks that was a great coup. We’ll see if that actually ends up rendering that project not financially feasible after they finally get themselves out from under all the suits. I have my fingers crossed. And, yes – Austin St. will be a great project. Lets hope we can get there.
Sean:
The developer at Wells hadn’t invested 20 million or so in acquisition costs (someone correct me if I’m off on acquisition, going on memory). The net income of the current buildings if fully leased, the current state of disrepair of said buildings, and the developer’s experience doesn’t lead me to think this is going to be the same situation as Wells. Plus, not every developer is willing to go down the 40B route.
Plan C? No idea. Ask Amy, she has some time on her hands apparently… ;-)
Susan:
If Austin Street doesn’t happen, blame the suits, not the affordable housing. A multi-year delay is worth way more than the affordable units. Any word on how long until those suits are dealt with, one way or the other?
Sean – The “little project on Wells Avenue” had a lot of issues that the Orr project doesn’t have. The Wells Avenue area hasn’t been developed as it was intended – as an office park – and has no daily living amenities nearby. The traffic patterns are a total mess right now. It was never intended to be a residential community.
On the other hand, as Susan Albright points out, the Orr block is the perfect spot for affordable housing – public transportation, necessary and daily living amenities within walking distance. While I would have preferred middle income housing and the enhanced streetscape, the new project will be fine. I’ve met Robert Korff on two occasions and was impressed with his commitment to Newton. I have no doubt that this 40b project will be the best he can make it be.
Joanne – I’m glad to see you’re asking the hard questions of the councilors in your more recent posts. It’s easy to vote for an ordinance that states that you stand with the disenfranchised in the community with a packed house behind you. It’s much harder to take a stand for a proposal that would have increased the housing options for the same population when you’re faced with vocal opposition.
And on a final note: to Amy – a blog is a blog is a blog – and nothing more. I post here on occasion, but I don’t expect councilors to take my comments into account when they make decisions. My only response to your comment is a text abbreviation: OMG.
@fignewtonville – One suit was dismissed in late fall. The second one is due to begin in March – I believe with a motion to dismiss.
Wow: Where do I start? First,@ Jane: The reason I re-posted Fig’s comment was to remind Fig that he had issues with the project. I don’t take blog comments to be the way I base my decisions. You of all people should know that.
@Fig: I have time on my hands? Yes. My father died on February 1st. Since October, I’ve been shuffling back and forth to Hawaii because first, my mother had a stroke, then my father was diagnosed with liver cancer and ultimately he died due to acute liver failure. So now, after having his service on Valentine’s Day – because it takes that long to get that done here in Hawaii, I have an estate to settle and a 91 year old mother with dementia to move back to Newton with me. So – yes – I have some time on my hands.
You asked what it would take for me to vote for the project Would it have been more affordable units? Yes. Would it have been more affordable units with the 160 unit model or the 140 unit model. Yes. Either would have worked for me with the caveat that the height of the building be scaled back. I had suggested that they keep the existing housing that was proposed to be torn down and rehab them and make those permanently affordable housing. Well – that didn’t quite fly – though they did consider it. I think it may have interfered with their long-term goal of taking over that whole block but you can ask them to confirm that. I struggled with the size and scale of the buildings – was 4 – 5 too high for the neighborhood and the abutting historic district? I was pleased when they got to 140 total units but of course they could not keep the same number of affordable units. So what was left? Not much.
So to your options:
Option 1: Too big.
Option 2: Smaller project with the same amount of affordable units and 3 – 4 stories- YES.
Option 3: 40B? That has always been their right and they believe they will get to build what they originally wanted to build in the first place – a 6 story building facing Washington Street with 4-5 stories behind it and retail on the bottom. Yes – they believe they can do the 1st level retail because the underlying zoning is Business 1 and 2.
Oh – and Fig – I remembered your blog post because it really struck me that you were just as sentimental as I am about historic structures. Didn’t realize we had that in common and didn’t realize that you too, had concerns about the project – that the developer was asking for a lot from your community but you also expected a lot in return.
@Susan: The few of us who fought for more affordable units for the Austin Street project did so because we believed that a special permit for that site deserved to be SPECIAL – more than a 40B project. If the developer believed he couldn’t get the financing for the project with the extra affordable units, then he shouldn’t have made the offer. I will NEVER regret pushing for more affordable housing units for ANY special permits that come before the Council to earn my vote or pushing developers for more of any type of mitigation for this community.
Its a real shame that we’ll lose control over the project, I was really excited about the prospect of an outdoor area with potential restaurants and a community space down the block from my house. I hope those are still included in whatever is proposed under 40B. I asked some fellow housing advocates today and they couldn’t recall a 40B project that included mixed use commercial space so I’m wondering if its clear that this can include such space. Would love to hear more about that if you got details @Jake because I agree that it’s really important.
@Amy, would I be correct that you were one of the hold outs who were planning to vote against the project?
Do we know who else was planning to oppose the project? It was asked above and never answered. Is anyone else willing to stand up and be counted?
Amy:
I am truly sorry for your loss and the difficult personal circumstances. I had no idea you were going through all that. My sincere condolences.
I have some thoughts on your post, but I’ll give them another day. Good night to all and may the morning bring new light.
I’m still amazed when people say that there was public transportation there. Those that say so obviously haven’t tried to use it. The stairs leading down to the commuter rail are a local joke. I’m an able bodied adult and I have only taken that train once carrying a suitcase when my kids were little and I said never again.
And it’s a commuter rail; work downtown, ok. Anyplace else, forget it.
You want transportation- build a 6 story building in Newton Center, or Newton highlands, near the green line. Speaking of the green line, I rember when the green line used to go to Newton Corner. But backwards looking planners decided to tear out the tracks.
Work on getting true public transportation closer to Newtonville, and you’ll have a valid point. But currently, public transportation in Newtonville is not good enough for anyone.
@Susan Albright-
My mistake and my apology. You were first appointed in 2004, so it was Samuelson and not
yourself that made those comments to me, but she wasn’t the only alderman, i think i confused you with Susan Basham, as you were both supporters and colleagues of Samuelson. Fortunately we are all on the same page now. Liberal-Progressive Newton residents spoke loud and clear several times this week. They want a far more densely populated, diverse, inclusive and welcoming Newton. The best way to get there is by building the city out to its capacity. Lets help them reach that goal.
@Amy S-
Very sorry to hear of your struggles and turmoil. Thanks for your continued service to the city.
@Rick F – while I absolutely agree that Newton should be building around the Green Line as well… there’s the commuter rail to downtown Boston, there are bus rides with one-transfer connections to employment centers in Newton, Waltham, Needham, Watertown, and probably others, and there’s a supermarket, schools, and local businesses in walking distance. It can and should definitely get better, especially the accessibility and frequency/reliability of the commuter rail! (Bike lanes! Bus lanes if needed!) But I think you may be setting an unreasonably high standard for “true” public transportation if “ability to cover 90%+ of a family’s trips” doesn’t meet it.
@ All of the councilors who have spoken up – appreciate both your service and your continued willingness to engage with us on this blog!
I don’t think the public transportation in Newtonville covers 50 percent of a family’s trips. But more to the point, it covers 0 percent of a downsizing retirees’ trips. Want to go downtown to see a show? Even if they can make it down the stairs of death the commuter rail is not going to cut it. Buses with multiple stops and switching? Nope. “Tech savvy” retirees will Uber or drive. The buses will provide public transportation for the working people in the affordable housing, if it’s truly affordable for those making little more than minimum wage. But other than that, Newtonville public transportation, without the green line, is a joke.
Wrt the commuter rail Both the stairs and the waiting area are not inviting to anyone. I won’t take it.
If you can walk to the village center or Whole Foods within 5 minutes, that goes a long way. We’re also talking about transportation through a 20th century lens. We already have UBER and LYFT and they’re not going away. We’re making huge progress with self-driving cars, which are going to further revolutionize such services and make them cost effective. And that’s not 50 years away, that’s probably 5 years away.
Which, by the way, by the time this housing actually opens for tenants, will probably already be here.
Wrt to walking to Whole Foods, not too many people do that now, and I’ve tried. In the winter, there’s a stretch of vacant and trash filled land ( really – check it out, it’s disgusting) right before Marty’s liquors that’s often unplowed. It’s not a pedestrian friendly walk.
Wrt to self driving cars, don’t believe the hype. I’m a software engineer, and work with pattern recognition in my work developing software for medical devices. It’s not my primary focus, but I know enough about it. It’s unclear to me, and many at MIT and CMU , if I would ever get into a self driving car myself – I know too much.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602492/what-to-know-before-you-get-in-a-self-driving-car/
And while I don’t want to get too far off topic, the crazy yellow blinking pedestrian crosswalk down near Whole Foods is sure to trip up a self driving car. Why such a non-standard thing? Put in a red light with a cross walk lights, for petes sake. And put some street lights in there so we can actuall see if there’s anyone in the crosswalk or waiting to cross. It’s such a goofy thing. Just make it a real stop light. Geesh.
Star Market is right across the street from the Orr block. CVS is across the street and the Senior Center is across the street. Those are the necessities/amenities for senior citizens. DD’s is a few steps away for an affordable cup of coffee. These same amenities, along with the 59 bus, will serve the residents of the new project well.
Walking is great- but I wouldn’t then call the development public transportation or transit oriented.
Older seniors who are less physically active will consider Walking to the senior center and CVS a plus. Downsizing retirees will want to go to the gym, theatre, maybe Red Sox games, etc. and that means green line access. As someone who may downsize myself in the next 5-10 years, access to downtown would be a high priority for us. We wouldn’t chose a place without more convenient access to downtown Boston at that point, we may be in our 60s and 70s by that point, but we’re very active, like many retired people today.
So, my 2 points – the development is hardly transit oriented and downsizing retirees ( as opposed to less mobile people in their 80s or 90s ) are going to want to get downtown more easily and I don’t think would be that attracted to living there.
Rick:
The 553/556/558 lines go along Washington Street and then head to downtown on the hour. There is stop in Chinatown near South Station and on Federal Street. The 57 bus goes to Kenmore from Newton Corner, and the 502 goes to Copley.
I used to think as you do, but I’ve since dumped a car, use Lyfy and Uber, and rely on the buses far more than the train. And I live 0.5 miles from the Commuter rail. With transportation apps giving real time updates, it is now much easier and convenient. Try the Transit app. Really. If you were to tell me I could dump a car (my spouse still drives) 2 years ago I would have laughed.
What I want and hope for is a diesel line along the commuter rail tracks. With Boston Station and future Alston stations on the horizon, it would make a lot of sense.
Bryan:
I believe you can do 40B with commercial. If memory serves there was a case about a decade ago that decided it. The underlying zoning permitting commercial is very helpful, which is the case here. That way you aren’t arguing that commercial should be permitted as a baseline matter. That doesn’t mean the developer HAS to include commercial space.
If I was the developer, I would keep the project as is as a 40B, but add on another floor to account for the increased affordability requirements. Basically retain the negotiated agreement to the extent possible.
Amy:
I do love historic buildings. I wish the project would be to renovate the full set of what already exists on the site currently. But I’m also a real estate realist. If it doesn’t pencil out based on the initial acquisition price, it is unrealistic to expect a developer to keep the buildings, unless there are outside forces mandating that he must. Those don’t exist. He can tear down the buildings and build 3 stories under current zoning. Again, just being a realist. I’ll note that if someone was trying to tear down the masonic building on Walnut I’d be chaining myself to the building in protest…;-) The Orr buildings…not so much.
I, too, am deeply disappointed, though not the least bit surprised, by the failure of the City Council to support this project. But I am very optimistic that an even better, albeit larger, project will be built at Washington Place under Chapter 40B. Unlike some other projects, the developer has both the opportunity and the incentive to see this project all the way through however many appeals may be involved.
Let me explain. In the last 7 years, there has been so little affordable housing created in Newton that it has barely moved the needle toward the 10% safe harbor threshold under Chapter 40B. The city has also lost both appeals on its claim that Newton has reached the 1.5% land area safe harbor, and because the Riverside Station project has not been built, the city is actually further behind on the land area calculation now. So, even if the ZBA turns Washington Place down, I am quite confident it will lose in court. So, the opponents will end up with an even bigger version of the project they already thought was too big, and zero leverage to get any mitigation, although the developer has kept the conditions he already agreed to on the table. Fortunately, because the underlying zoning allows commercial uses by right, the Massachusetts Housing Partnership, which determines eligibility of 40B projects, is quite likely to endorse a mixed use project on this site, so it will still include both residential and first floor retail uses. I see this as a win-win, and one of many reasons I believe Chapter 40B will help Newton save itself from its local elected and appointed officials.
FWIW, the Wells Avenue 40B project is also on appeal at the Supreme Judicial Court. My money is on the developer to win that appeal. So, ironically, despite the spectacular failure of Newton’s Mayor, ZBA and City Council to create much affordable housing over the last 7 years, Newton may reach both the 10% and 1.5% thresholds within the next five years.
@Sean – ground floor retail is important to the health of a neighborhood and safety walking at night. Newton doesn’t have too much ground floor retail. What it has is too much *expensive* ground floor retail. Which is why we have tons of salons and bank and boutique clothing stores but have lost way too many affordable neighborhood stores. The change in retail in Newton Highlands and Newton Centre, for example, over the past two decades has been very depressing.
We need affordable housing. We also need affordable retail space. I’d love to see the City Council negotiate with developers for a certain percentage of the retail space to be set aside to be affordable.
@Susan – when you talk about public transit availability for retirees in Newtonville, there’s no way you can include the Commuter Rail. The station is so inaccessible, with it’s long rickety stairway, that anyone with arthritis or other mobility issues is barred from using it.
@Amy – you and your family have my deepest condolences.
mgwa:
There are leasing structures which allow for affordable commercial without setting limits. Lots of landlords do them in tougher markets. Base rent plus supplemental rent based on income. Landlord shares in the gain with the tenant. Works out great for restaurants.
Tough to make a landlord accept that when a bank is willing to pay the full amount as guaranteed rent. Plus financing allows requires a set debt service coverage ratio, meaning that the property brings in more than its debt payments each month. Older landlords without encumbered properties won’t care. Newer landlords care very much, because their financing cares.
That said, even in downtown boston and hot markets like fort point channel, incentive rent structures are used. So there are options. But setting aside for “affordable” commercial is tough to quantify. What does that look like? I would love a bookstore again. Also an Indian restaurant. But those are business that focus on profit too, just like the landlord.
I’ll note that there are 4 large units now available in Newtonville. Former pet store, former bank, former shoe store, and former real estate shop. It will be very interesting to see what takes their place. The units are too large for a salon.
I should have mentioned that, because of the City Council’s failure to support a special permit for this project, one big thing we do lose is middle income housing. I am working with the Mayor and the Planning Department on revamping our inclusionary zoning to include a middle income housing requirement, but that would not affect 40Bs and would still require a special permit. The developer of Washington Place was going to give us middle income units even though they are not currently required, but cannot do so with a 40B because it just isn’t econimically feasible. So, another real lost opportunity there.
Ted,
125 Wells Ave. is still on life support? I thought C-F walked away.
MGWA,
I continue to hold a minority point of view that we need to look past (most) retail to provide life in our villages. With on-line shopping, the development of Chestnut Hill and Needham Street, I don’t see a great future for most retail in our village centers. We need to 1) increase density to provide more potential customers, b) encourage more small/mid-size groceries as anchors, and iii) strategically contract the commercial zones. A nicely executed residential-feeling ground floor would not be terrible at the Orr Block. Nor, frankly, would a small grocery.
My #1 hope for the new project is that the outdoor plaza with a restaurant that has outdoor seating are part of the project. I would hang out there all the time. (Make sure you pick a good restaurant!)
@fig and others – I was suggesting that as one possibility to ask of developers looking for zoning variances. Wiser people than I could figure out how it might work. But we are all hurt when neighborhood favorite restaurants or shops close because of huge rent increases. If we can ask for a certain amount of affordable housing in return for a zoning variance, why wouldn’t it be reasonable to ask for some sort of agreement that a certain proportion of the ground floor retail will have some affordability boundaries?
Amy S,
Sorry for your loss
It’s troubling to me reading comments from sitting City Councilors now conceding a 40B at Orr Block. It’s my understanding that the Warren Administration is standing by its assertion that Newton has met the 40B threshold. It’s in everyone’s interest that the City ultimately prevails, and favorable comments from Councilors about 40B undermine the official position of this city. Did you folks learn nothing about the downside of 40B from Avalon on Needham Street? Do you not see that negotiated developments like Austin Street benefit our city far more than 40B? Right now we need leadership, not quitters who throw in the towel when the going gets tough. Someone needs to step up, kiss Mr. Korff’s behind, and get that man back to the bargaining table.
@Sean– As a real estate developer I’ve “walked away” from many deals, only to come back later and strike a new deal. With the very little bit of inside information I have, I would almost guarantee you that CC&F will be back with a much better offer on Wells Ave. A good deal could have been struck a year ago. Unfortunately no one in city government seems to know how to negotiate a real estate deal.
And that’s exactly why we need to get Mr. Korff back to the negotiating table for Washington Place. I can assure you that he knows 40B is going to be a very rough, long and expensive ride with [in my opinion] a low probability of success. Get him back to the table. Make some concessions. Get some concessions. And let’s build a project at Orr Block that is a win-win for everyone.
Can someone post who the names of the councilors that were against this project? Other than Norton – there obviously were others? If not he would not have pulled the project unless he was so fed up with dealing with the CC he figured he could make a 6 story building and make more money by going 40B.
@Rick Frank – I agree with you about that blinking light. The city will soon be replacing that with a fully actuated traffic light with bump outs to help pedestrians cross the street. It has been vetted with neighbors, businesses (who helped figure out where the buses and parking spaces should go) and through the Council. The construction will happen this spring/summer.
@mwga – Yes the train station is horrible today. But – The Ward 2 Councilors are working with Rep Khan to hold the T accountable for the 3 stations in Newton. I’ve learned that the problem is more complicated than i knew. The way the turnpike was constructed left only a sliver for stations in Newton. So we have less service in Newton because only one track has a station – not both. i.e they can’t use both tracks in Newton. I’ve learned that the T has the $$$ in the CIP for a feasibility to make all the stations in Newton accessible. Auburndale – thanks to Rep Khan who has been plugging away at the Auburndale station, a 100% design was presented to the neighborhood last week. There is also an innovative idea under consideration that might even jump start reconstructing the two other T stations in Newton before the T does its feasibility study. So the moral of the story is – keep planning and keep plugging away at the problems and maybe the future will meet in the middle – with the housing and the transportation we need. Lets try to work together on these issues and not be too cynical (at least not all the time!)
My GUESS is the Councilors that were not voting for this project include some combination of: the three from Ward 4 (Gentile, Harney, Sangiolo) Ward 2’s Norton, Ward 3’s Brousal-Glaser, Ward 5’s Yates, Ward 6’s Blazar, Ward 7’s Baker.
At least three councilors from that list have either publicly stated they planned to vote no or told me in a (less than friendly) email that he planned to vote no. Time for the others to let the community know why they didn’t support the project, and answer in a concise way – did you not realize that if it was voted down, it was going to be a 40b project?
Let me be clear – I don’t object to the all affordable units. While a multi-use project is preferable for many reasons, we’ll be fine with what Robert Korff designs. My concern is that the city may very well lose out on some amenities to the N’ville as a result of this change of direction, as well as lose out on middle-income units with the new plan.
Speaking just for myself ( obviously) my entire objection to the project was one thing- too tall.
That’s it. Couldn’t compromise to 4 stories maximum? Who is really the stonewaller here? Limit to 4 stories, and I’d have no complaints. Can’t make money with 4? Should have figured that out before writing a check for 20 million or whatever.
Why? Because of precedent. 5 stories one place and the pretty soon 5 stories up and down the rest of Washington street, blocking sunlight and making a canyon on one side and the pike in another. Why having zoning laws at all if you’re just going to grant exceptions every time a builder says they’ll plant flowers on your bridge or something. What’s the point of zoning then? Might as well just redone everything to five stories and save all the angst.
@Rick Frank– “Too tall”? Seriously? Let me introduce you to Chestnut Hill Towers. Or the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Newton Corner. Take a look on the City Assessors website, and see how much money those buildings spin off in property taxes for Newton.
@Mike Striar
Is that all this is about? Property taxes?
Funny, I hadn’t heard that emphasized by the council members.
I might be more flexible with something that covers the pike, since it creates so much noise that we have to close our windows in summer just to listen to the radio. Not to mention the soot from car exhaust that we have to wipe, er, scrape, off our window sills. Not sure if the city would get all the tax revenue since the airspace would belong to the tpke I assume.
Yes, too tall, sorry to disappoint you.
And I thought everyone had to close their windows in the summer because of the leaf blowers – who knew that it was noisy if you live near the pike.
If you want to see what can happen to a neighborhood when you build huge Apartment buildings – go to Howard and Bacon Street in Watertown – long time owners had to sell their homes as they would never see the sun again. And then just drive on Pleasant and Arsenal Street if you want to see an overabundance of Apartments that rent for 3000+ per month. Talk about a traffic jam any day around 5 pm!
Actually I am glad that this developer is going to build a 40 B – hopefully he will have designated at least 10 apartments for those undocumented people as we are a Welcoming Community and this is exactly what Councilor Norton and Albright wanted.
The developer tried compromise which would have largely removed the 5th story except on the corner. He could not get any objectors on board.
The “too tall” argument is a fascinating one. We have a number of places in this city where 2, 3 or 4 story buildings once stood that are now single story. We also have rather tall radio towers over in Upper Falls.
The building across Walnut Street from Orr (where Dunkin Donuts is now) used to be much taller. Three stories plus a mansard roof bringing it to 4… AND some peaks that went higher than that (picture here: https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:ng451z57t).
If you’re going to put height anywhere, putting it on a wide boulevard along the Pike makes the most sense. I still think the biggest loss here, should it come to pass, will be the retail frontage, that has a long history at this corner (https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:1g05fm140).
@Chuck Yanowitz
Not sure why you find it fascinating- it was one of the primary objections.
There are a two things that I notice in the photograph – real public transportation ( trolley ) and no mass pike.
Because of that, the look is entirely different, more spacious, but still seems too tall, in my opinion.
Lastly, again, why have zoning laws, if at every turn they need to be petitioned? Perhaps just rezone the whole street – why pretend to have laws, and then have everyone wangle around them all the time? Doesn’t make sense.
Well…..it only makes sense if there’s some in$$entive for the law makers and those running for governor etc. to be the wangle-ors for the wangle-ees. But that’s just a guess.
That public transit hasn’t entirely gone away. Most of the trolly lines that used to run through Newton were replaced by MBTA bus lines. The line that once ran from Newton to Waltham is now the 556 bus.
Not ideal, to be sure. But in Newtonville we still have the commuter rail, which we all acknowledge needs improvement.
In that image Washington Street is roughly the same width and it borders the railroad, just as it does now. Yes, there is the Pike, but split between the two sides of Newtonville goes back a long way.
Chuck is correct. There was no “Newtonville” when the Boston & Albany railroad first opened in the 1830s (the original “Hulls Crossing” was a flag stop near Harvard Street that opened in 1842). In the latter half of the 19th century, when most of those taller buildings were constructed, the railroad tracks had been lowered to eliminate grade crossings. At that time, the railroad was 4 tracks wide, extending out over where the westbound lane of the Mass Pike is today. In Newtonville village center, the buildings on both sides of the railroad were all 3 to 4 stories tall and up to 60 feet tall, such as the Masonic building which still stands on the corner of Walnut Street and Newtonville Avenue.
@Chuck. You are absolutely right that several of our village centers once sported far taller buildings at the turn of the last century than are there now, but I think this has to be somewhat qualified in terms of this discussion .
We recently completed a formal “preliminary study” document that was required by both the City and State before we could proceed with presenting the option of a Local Historic District (LHD) to homeowners, residents and businesses in Newton Highlands. in the course of doing the research, we looked at countless pictures from the Highlands and all the other Newton villages. We got hooked on finding out as much as we could about how things looked here in the past. There are pictures of tall, stately structures that I wish were still there like the Second Empire style Eliot Hall in Newton Corner and the Odd Fellows Hall and the old City Hall in West Newton with a tall tower that blended in nicely with the steeple of the nearby Second Church in Newton.
I mention this in part because the Newton Highlands Village Square, which is already included in the Federal National Register of Historic Places, looks almost exactly the same as it did in 1905. It’s one of only two village centers that is essentially in tact from that period.
This has been a long about route to say what I’m driving at. Look at the old pictures of West Newton, Auburndale, Newtonville, Newton Corner, etc. They suggest an intimacy between people and buildings that just isn’t present in a lot of new construction that takes place in village centers and central business districts. They also suggest that architects and contractors, whether by design or not, tended to respect what was already there when they built these relatively tall structures.
I think most people will agree that the village square in Newton Highlands and surrounding residential streets retain a strong and welcoming sense of intimacy that is really quite unique. I don’t say that all of this is because the village has been preserved. The fact that it is a relatively tiny village square that isn’t intersected by a major state roadway or cut in two by the Mass Pike factors into the feeling a lot of people experience when they visit this village. Come visit us this coming Newton Highlands Village Day in June to catch this feeling for yourself. I’ve been living here for 80 ears and I never stop experiencing it.
Rick Frank, I believe your statement, “Who is really the stonewaller here? Limit to 4 stories, and I’d have no complaints,” is disingenuous. Every time Mr Korf satisfied complaints by reducing the height, adding more mitigation, improvements and changes requested by opposers and some councilors, the bar was moved with no end in sight – which is why he ended the process. Now we’re looking at 6 stories with additional density and possibly no retail. There’s no doubt that he will build on his property and 40b allows him to disregard the zoning. Mr Korf has truly worked with the community and hopefully he will still build Washington Place as his legacy in Newton and not something out of spite. He also has the time and money to fight – and the rents will only go up.
Your saying that the mitigation was to “plant flowers on the bridge,” either acknowledges your complete denial of Washington Place or your ignorance of the final proposal. Among other concessions Mr Korf added a community center, $300,000 for Newton to study alternative modes of transportation, widening the sidewalk, a safer intersection design and $700,000 for additional offsite improvements.
if it went down to four stories it needed to be closer to foster street, as I understand it. Others had problems with that. Anyways, a drawing showing people sitting on a park bench on the walnut street bridge made me realize the developer/architect really didn’t understand the intersection. No one would sit on that bridge- you can’t talk to the person next to you as you walk over it, the noise is so loud. It made me laugh out loud.
I think one problem is that the people so pro the project don’t live near there – otherwise they would understand the craziness of the train station and the traffic etc.
Ultimately, I’m just a citizen and I don’t get to vote or negotiate on the project. My objection was the height, but others had other concerns.
And I wouldn’t trust anything any developer would say, I’m sorry. The older I get the more cynical I become about these things.
Anyone who has tried to build anything in Newton knows how frustrating and EXPENSIVE it is.
I live within two miles of the property, and I think it the proposal is objectively oversized for the site (bulk and height). Even if historically there were 3 and 4 story buildings in the area, they looked nothing like this proposal. They were more ornate and had varied rooflines. This proposal looks like a giant box, with very little architectural detail. A historic tall ornately detailed building is much more compatible with its surroundings than a massive box like structure of similar height.
The developer would have probably gotten more support earlier in the process if they reduced the overall size of the building to be more similar to the current zone months ago. This special permit has been considered for close to a year.
The stepped back upper floors on some sides of the building that the developer tried to offer as a way of reducing the size are actually a requirement of the mixed use zone he was or is trying to rezone to. He was still requesting to waive this requirement on portions of the building.
I was surprised in the Globe story that the developer indicated they knew about how many votes they had for the special permit. Do developers normally survey councilors during the permitting process prior to a vote?
Anyone know how much developers pay to submit a special permit application for a project of this magnitude? There’s no way it covers the city’s expenses to review it for almost a year, which seems grossly unfair to the city.
Rick, Just for clarification, I live within walking distance of both the Austin Street development and Washington Place. Being cynical is fine in the beginning but as time went by Mr Korf proved he was willing to listen to concerns and make adjustments. The final proposal, if accepted, would have been built the way he had committed so cynicism after the fact means nothing.
@ Susan Albright – Who were the Objectors??
While I don’t live on an adjacent property, I tend to bike and walk over that bridge quite a lot, as it’s a key part of my daily activity. Yes, I totally understand what’s nearby.
And @Bob, yes, I understand the different characters of different villages and how they interact with the street. That’s why the height discussion is odd. Height isn’t the guiding factor here, people are really complaining about architectural style and how a building may or may not interact with the street.
Needham went through a process of studying new houses; people had been complaining about houses being too big for their lots. When the town sat down and really studied the issue they found that the complaints were really about houses that lacked anything interesting. That is, they were just boxes without much by way of porches, overhangs, etc.
The issue people seem to have is with the drawings of these buildings and the way their designed, not with the height or scope.
What’s being lost in this discussion is that it doesn’t matter whether anyone thinks this project was too tall, too short, too whatever. It’s been taken out of our hands by the 40b process and is in the hands of the state. We lost the right to have input when the developer could see the writing on the wall, withdrew the project, and decided to go the 40b route, which was always his right. That possibility was always on the table and every councilor and activist resident knew that.
Of course the developer counted votes, as they all do with every project. They did so, along with every councilor and about 100 activists on both sides of the issue.
Robert Korff was ready to go well over a year ago. He most certainly shouldn’t be blamed for any excess expenses to the city.
Much as i disagree with them, I admire Amy and Emily for being forthright in letting the community how they planned to vote. The city will receive a project that isn’t as good as the proposal and speculation about which councilors planned to vote no has begun. A certain cohort of councilors were clearly yes votes, but there’s a group in the middle who hadn’t been as public about their position and no one knows how they planned to vote. Why the silence?
So, the summary of all this is:
Newton welcomes refugees and illegal immigrants… just don’t live in Newton, we’re never going to build housing for you because you’ll drag down our property values
We’ve heard from the two Ward 2 councilors who supported this project and from Councilor Sangiolo. But the typically not timid Councilor Norton has been uncharacteristicly silent on this. It would be interesting to hear how she feels about Korff’s 40b decision here.
The special permit review process is a quasi-judicial function, and therefore ethically councilors may not declare whether they support a project or not until after the public hearing is closed. Regrettably, the public hearing has been held open for many months, so there has been no opportunity to publicly take a position on this project. That being said, councilors can take a position on rezoning because it is a legislative function. This is, however, complicated by the fact that the rezoning does not take effect unless and until the special permit has been approved and exercised. So no one should cast aspersions on councilors who have not said in public whether they support the project.
Although there were some elements of the project that I was dissatisfied with, such as an inadequate supply of 3 bedrooms units that could accommodate low to moderate income families with kids, I would have voted in favor of both rezoning and a special permit. Because Korff can still do a mixed use project under 40B with both residential and commercial components, I will support that too. As I said before, I regret that we will lose the middle income units, but under 40B, at least 10 percent of those units must be 3 bedrooms, so I see that as a positive.
So is the fact that Councilor Norton openly opposed this project an Ethics Violation?
And yes isn’t it great that there will be 3 bedroom apartments – Can some let the Cabot School Project know so that they need to add in more classrooms to accommodate this influx into our School System before they start building?
@Ted– How do you reconcile your last comment with the fact that the City of Newton has claimed to have met the 40B threshold? Do you disagree with the official position which is still being litigated? Does it seem like a good idea to send such a signal to the developer that you’ll vote in favor of a 40B project under those circumstances?
Ted,
With 40B, 10% must be 3BR so that 20 units. Assuming each unit will have 2 kids, which is reasonable as “low income” status increases with number of kids.
so about 40 new children into the school district into all ready crowded schools. What are your thoughts? Seems like the original project would have been much better balance in terms of school population.
Ted – Can you clarify one point. The developer has withdrawn the proposal from the city council so it no longer involved in the process. Doesn’t that allow councilors to speak publicly? If it’s not possible at this point now that it’s not under consideration, then when will it be possible for councilors to speak publicly?
Jane, I would gather the withdrawal is why Ted is speaking out now.
Mike, since I am no longer a member of the Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee, I can speak freely about 40Bs and the ZBA’s assertion that Newton has reached the 1.5% land area safe harbor. The HAC twice ruled it had not, and Newton is now even further away from that threshold, so it is, IMHO, a matter of time before the courts affirm that determination.
I am not a member of the ZBA so I have no vote as to whether a 40B should be approved, but I am free to support them. I believe that Newton’s need for affordable housing outweighs local interests in thwarting development. That is all.
Bugek, the fair housing laws prohibit discrimination based on familial status, and that means you cannot building subsidized housing that does not accommodate families with children. DHCD requires 10% of housing units to be 3 bedroom units, in order to fulfill the duty to affirmatively further fair housing. Are we supposed to shut the gates of the city to families with children? That seems un-American to me. But this is Trump’s America, now, so I guess some people find exclusion acceptable.
Jane, now that the developer has withdrawn, councilors are free to share their positions on the project, although not compelled to do so. But it would have been unethical to do so prior to its withdrawal since the public hearing had not yet closed.
Ted,
I’m not sure why you brought up “Trump”, this is a local issue.
The school overcrowding is a “real” issue and needs to be discussed “honestly”. More kids into the system requires more resources, the people of Newton will have to accept either more taxes or large class sizes or we beg for state funds.
Instead of “name calling” and accusing people of being “exclusionary”, an “honest” discussion is needed. How to handle adding children to an already overcrowded school system?
I understand why 40B is confusing to most people, less so to Councilors who should know better, but here is a video which can help citizens understand what has taken me a few years to grasp: https://youtu.be/XhlWeVSwlqY
So since Emily Norton openly opposed Orr and the Austin Street Development is that an Ethics Violation?
I totally understand that councilors can’t comment when the project is on the table and the public hearing is open. But now it’s perfectly fine for councilors to explain their thinking, yet only two have chosen to do so.We’re talking about councilors who were willing to trade a better project for a lesser one because they thought what…? I just want to know who and why.
I also understand that not every councilor follows V14, but other avenues exist for explaining one’s thinking. The one good thing that’s come out of the Trump era is that voters are asking for explanations for the decisions lawmakers make, even those whom we support.