A NYT’s article in the Interpreter today attempts to explain Steve Bannon’s nationalist and populist worldview using the terms in his CPAC speech. The explanation of one tenet reminded me of Newton’s residents who want to freeze Newton in time – he calls it “the center core of what we believe.”
Applying a nationalist, populist worldview to some Newton residents- I’ll call it a cityist view – could expose their belief that the city has a “fixed character,” “identity” or “culture” that leads them to oppose any increased density or change. As the article says, “Of course, every [city’s] identity and demographics change over time. But opposing those changes has proved powerful at mobilizing a community.”
Thoughts?
It baffles and disturbs me that the city does not charge for metered parking in Newton Centre after 6pm. We’re giving away hundreds of thousands of dollars a year that could be put toward more traffic calming and pedestrian friendly crossings. Why?
My apologies. The above post was intended for Sean’s thread on Newton Centre traffic.
You are right. If you oppose six story buildings in Newtonville then you are akin to Steve Bannon. Thank the lord you cleared that up for me.
If everyone was honest, the “freezing” of Newton is driven by “property values”. There are a segment of the Newton population (majority?) who will vote against anything and everything which may negatively impact property values.
This includes
– choking supply, be it condos or townhomes
– limiting “low income” or less desirable population from gaining easy entry into Newton
Although I would strongly agree that the schools are getting crowded. Any large increases of housing have to take into account school capacity.
My parents live in Chevy Chase, immediately adjacent to Bethesda MD. When I was growing up, Bethesda was a lot like the villages of Newton. Small pockets of stores here and there and office buildings. Mostly pretty dumpy looking. Then came the Metro. Then some high rises and the restaurants and stores and … Now homes in my parents neighborhood are VERY popular and even when housing prices were low in 2008+ and not selling, houses in my parents neighborhood sold quickly and at good prices. The closer you are to the businesses, the more valuable your houses are. So people who are opposing development in the village centers because they worry about it impacting their house values, should think again!
Marti. You are so over the top with this post. I don’t often get angry, but this has me boiling. Anyone comparing anyone on either side of these developments issues with a blatant racist and dangerous fascist like Steve Bannon is engaging in the most reprehensible form of political discourse.
Does this apply to folks like us in Newton Highlands that are attempting to establish a local historic district to preserve the best from our village’s past.?? Please tell that to our Chairperson Rodney Barker, a distinguished lawyer who has been representing immigrants in the Boston area for several decades and has a long record of civic and civil rights activism.
And I’ll put in a word in a for myself and by inference the 30 or so people who have helped present this option to the people of Newton Highlands.. I was born in Newton Highlands 80 years ago and have lived here for most of my life. I became involved in the campaign for a local historic district because I grew up on these streets and love this village and its people. Keeping anyone out of the part of Newton Highlands within the proposed District was the furthest thing from my mind when I volunteered to help move this effort forward. . It’s never been discussed because it’s never entered our heads that this is any part of what we are trying to accomplish.
The streets that are being recommended for consideration retain the same flavor and spirit that were there when I was a kid. Is there anything wrong with trying to save something that is so precious and remarkably unique to the Boston area.??
I got angry because this was the second feedback I received about the Local Historic District here being an exclusionary initiative. I know you didn’t make the charge directly, but anything that associates me or my friends in the Highlands with the wretched gang now ensconced in Washington is going to get a stiff rejoinder. The fact is Marti, I agree with much, but not all that the higher density and affordable folks like you are advocating. I’m not fearful of more housing opportunities for lower and moderate income folks in Newton Highlands or Newton. We had a lot of them in Newton Highlands when I was a kid. But let’s get the discussion back to the facts on the ground here. I have friends on both sides of this development debate in Newton, and its a bit more nuanced than comes across in this blog.
Bob, before you blow a gasket – if indeed you haven’t already – please understand that there is a difference between “comparing anyone to” Bannon, which I didn’t do, and comparing views on change. The NYT explanation of Bannon’s worldview was just one jumping off point for me to try to understand why groups of Newton residents oppose change in our city – having perhaps similar reasons for wanting Newton to stay the way it is forever – an impossible and uncomfortable dream.
I’m a pragmatist who studies why different people perceive the same things differently and I look at society with the aim of seeing larger, overarching patterns in how humans tend to relate to the world, and how their understanding of reality changes throughout time. These worldviews are the lenses through which people see and filter reality, shaping our world in many seen and unseen ways. They tend to underlie our disagreements and add emotional spice to our societal debates.
As much as I disagree with Bannon and Trump on everything, I still believe lessons are learned from most types of discourse. Their worldview is front and center right now and is shared by many – dismissing its meanings is akin to suffering from ostrich syndrome just as “boiling over” at the shear mention of different views triggered your fight or flight defense. Neither helps process information. I think we better take a long, deep look at what is happening with our worldviews.
I have no idea and will not try to judge if this applies to those who are attempting to create NHLHD or if they have underlying exclusionary reasons. Your question “Does this apply to folks like us in Newton Highlands that are attempting to establish a local historic district to preserve the best from our village’s past.??” can only be answered by you and your cohorts.
Sorry Marti. You opened this wretched can of worms. This is like Trump saying he didn’t know whether President Obama was born in Kenya or was a Muslim while he was demanding his birth certificate. So you don’t know if the study group for the Highlands Historic District has secret racists I’ve told you the facts of who we are and what we stand for and all you can do is give me a Trumpism in return. No, I haven’t blown a gasket, but I know when something I feel deeply about is being put into the cross hairs.
I read Marti’s post in a different way. She appeared to ask if the concept of change and/or resistance to change was applicable at the city level. It’s a legitimate question and one that Newton’s has been grappling with for years.
I say change is inevitable, should be monitored but not obstructed, and at its best makes a community a better place. Also, change has to do with more than structures; it has more to do with acceptance of new people into the community and inclusion. If people want to live in a community that wasn’t going to change, why did they choose to live on the edge of a major metropolitan city. The closer you are to a major city, the more likely change in demographics, architecture, culture, etc.is going to be a part of the nearby communities.
I left an outlier community because I wanted the live in a more dynamic, evolving community.
Sigh, Its so unfortunate that people who have opposing view are now labeled racists or xenophobes.
For example, if you dare to question “why” building low income housing might overcrowd an already crowded school system, or ask for solutions to reduce the crowding –> you are “exclusionary” and “discriminatory”
If you are against a homeless shelter next to a school, you are “racist” etc etc
Open, civil debate has gone out of the window, both parties are to blame….
Pretty outrageous Marti.
I’m with Bob.
You broke your back trying a cheap yoga trick bending comparisons with Steve Bannon and his nationalist/populist views with Newtonites concerned with development. Not at all fair.
A lack of respect in the national arena is no reason to spread that virus here.
Ms. Bowen’s analogy is not totally apt, if at all. In one respect at least Mr. Bannon is seeking to reduce the impact of what he sees as an over-reaching federal government on the lives and freedoms of the American citizen by disassembling the administrative state. The movement in Newton is in some ways quite the opposite.
Here we have a groups of people who seek to use the tools of local government to limit in unacceptable ways how people are allowed to live their lives. I am not talking (err, writing) here about seeking to exclude classes of individuals from access to a neighborhood. While this may be the unintended consequence of e.g., historic districts or antiquated zoning restrictions, the progressive worldview of conservative liberals in Newton is not consciously exclusionary.
Rather, they are driven by a selfish desire to keep Newton just how it was in some bygone era by restricting property owners and developers from building in ways which satisfy the way people want to live in 2017. I am not sure that it is so much about property values (as is hypothesized above), but rather the inherent human desire for stability. Whatever the root cause, their actions are a burden on our city.
Perhaps it was the desire to craft an attention getting headline, but I see the entire question, “Why Freeze Newton in Time” as a false premise. Newton, is not an inanimate object that can be placed into a time capsule. It, like the parts it is made up of – namely the citizenry, is an organic being in constant flux. The desire to preserve the past for our posterity is not inherently in conflict with change; the challenge is to find a way that honors both with balance. In contrast, Steve Bannon and his cohorts openly seek to destroy our government and our institutions from within. They aren’t looking to hold onto what is good and replace it with something better; they actively seek to roll back the clock and undo progress. Comparing this so-called “cityist view” (even if one accepts that term) to the dismantling of the federal government from within is a false equivalence. Associating “some Newton residents” with whom you personally disagree about local issues to an ultra nationalist hate monger is sophistry.
You asked for thoughts. I assume you did so because you are listening and not simply trying to bait argument. Best regards.
Lisap
Bob says, “Sorry Marti. You opened this wretched can of worms. This is like Trump saying he didn’t know whether President Obama was born in Kenya or was a Muslim while he was demanding his birth certificate.” and “So you don’t know if the study group for the Highlands Historic District has secret racists I’ve told you the facts of who we are and what we stand for and all you can do is give me a Trumpism in return. No, I haven’t blown a gasket, but I know when something I feel deeply about is being put into the cross hairs.”
Really, now you’re saying my finding an interesting talking point perhaps pertaining to those who want no change in Newton in a NYT article means I’m lying like Trump. I guess I unintentionally touched a nerve but your reluctance to address my overall comparison and instead becoming extremely defensive, claiming I’m lying and overreacting to my post because it might put your work supporting the NHLHD in a bad light – even though I said nothing about the NHLHD or racism or lied – says a lot about what you think.
What “Trumpism” did I give you? No I don’t know what the supporters of the NHLHD think – I don’t know them at all so I’m not venturing a guess one way or another. How exactly did I put “something [you] feel deeply about” in the cross hairs without ever mentioning or alluding to it? You chose to infer that on your own.
Lisap, yes “because I’m listening.” The entire post was a question about why some residents want to keep Newton from changing? I posited a reason and asked for thoughts because I would like to know what residents think about it.
I did not refer to any of Bannon’s irrational ideas, only to this one view of change. I’m not associating anyone with Bannon or insinuating anyone is deconstructing the city only that some residents resist any and all changes to Newton. Why?
I did not say what I think purpously because I wanted a discussion of what those reasons might be and not about my view. It only worked with a few posters, thanks Jane – others took it personally.
I believe that change is the only constant in life and resisting change instead of helping it evolve leads to a worse outcome.
@Marti Bowen – I think you may be overthinking this. I think the palpable tensions between the anti-development/pro-development sentiments among Newton citizenry is not that hard to understand.
On the anti-development side you have a large chunk of people who love Newton today and worry that if we’re not careful we’ll unwittingly undermine much of what we most like about the city by allowing new development too much of a free hand. Within that anti-development crowd there’s a spectrum of opinion. On one end you have lots of folks who are thoughtful, cautious and hesitant about any sudden and significant change from the status quo and at the other end you have a few folks who think any development of any kind will be the end of the world as we know it.
On the pro-development side you have a big chunk of people who are worried that larger forces are already undermining what we love about the city. Economic forces have been relentlessly transforming our city it into a home for a narrower and narrower slice of the economic demographic. They worry that if we ignore all this, we’ll unwittingly end up with Newton as a “gated community” for only the wealthiest citizens and we will lose much of the vitality of Newton.. On one of that spectrum end you have lots of folks who are thoughtful and cautious and try to gauge the pros/cons of each new project and at the other end you have a few folks who treat any new development, of any kind, as an unalloyed good thing.
Unfortunately on both sides we’ve got outspoken people who are quick to accuse their opponents of A. Being in the pocket of a developer and ready to sell out their neighbors for a buck OR B. Being solely motivated by a desire to keep certain kinds of people (poorer, black, immigrants … fill in the blank) out of their neighborhoods.
Yes , there are people with a vested financial interest in each development project. Yes, there are people who don’t want any more (fill in the blank) people living near them. Fortunately though there aren’t too many of each.
My personal take on all this is that the best way to deal with all these development issues is to stay focused as much as possible on the merits and drawbacks of each proposed project. Whenever either side tries to analyze the psychological, sociological or political makeup of their opponents as a group – no good ever comes of it.
Note To Self: Refrain from ever mentioning Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, Steve Miller, et. al. in any discussion on Village14 of local Newton issues.
With 40B now becoming a real possibility at the ORR site (especially with a deep pocketed developer vs much smaller-time developers pushing 40B), its not a time for each side to “dig-in”
MA has forced 40B upon everyone and I feel the developer had been doing the “right thing” by Newton by engaging Newton residents and working with them.
He could have simply just gone straight for the 40B and not wasted 1-2 years of working with Newton. He is working with the laws of the land and it allows him to build a 40B now WITHOUT Newton input.
the losers = The people of Newton
Did the councilors and Newton Village Alliance not know they did not have a winning hand? They should have take the concessions the developer already made to them
I hope people get back on the negotiating table..
Again, there seems to be real confusion about 40B. If Korf had been able to do a 40B – by far the most profitable option for a developer – he would have started there. The planning department has spent countless hours doing the math and they say we have the 1.5. Until a developer challenges this in an actual court of law and disproves those numbers – Newton is under no obligation to let developers blow off all of our zoning laws and build whatever they want. Here is an explanation of 40B by two of the foremost experts in Massachusetts: https://youtu.be/XhlWeVSwlqY
Christopher,
I believe Newton claims it has met 1.5 by including golf courses. Which is just “laughable” unless you live in “liberal limousine” bubble
In this case, we now very a developer with very very very deep pockets who can challenge this. Most small time developers would waste far too much money and time fighting, but this guy has a significant investment to protect.. he can go all the way
If the courts agree with Korf, it pretty much opens the flood gates for 40B on Newton making this whole debacle so ironic: “The opposition will force deep pocketed lawyers to fight this succesfully, hence allowing a huge flood of 40Bs”… this is the worst possible outcome
Well, Chris, this “expert” has a very different opinion. The Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee has rejected Newton’s assertion that it has reach the 1.5% safe harbor not once but twice, and no court has overruled the HAC regarding the Newton calculation.Since those HAC decisions were rendered, Newton is arguably even farther behind as there has been a substantial lapse of time since 40+ affordable units at Riverside Station were approved, but have not yet been built. And, on appeal from the HAC, a higher court would likely defer to the HAC’s determination. Indeed, the standard of review which the courts must apply is exceedingly deferential, and the ZBA bears a “heavy burden” of proof to overcome a HAC decision.
Your assertion that a 40B is the most profitable option is unsupported by any facts. Chapter 40B requires a higher percentage of units affordable to low to moderate income households, so I don’t think your argument holds water.
My money is on the developer.
If anyone is counting, I too put my money on the developer.
“Here we have groups of people who seek to use the tools of local government to limit in unacceptable ways how people are allowed to live their lives. … they are driven by a selfish desire to keep Newton just how it was in some bygone era by restricting property owners and developers from building in ways which satisfy the way people want to live in 2017. … the progressive worldview of conservative liberals in Newton is not consciously exclusionary.” Elmo
Interesting point – almost like certain people might feel that Newton has a fixed character.
Terry, not meaning to be unfair, just wondering about why some groups in Newton fight change.
Jerry, you may be right but there were enough residents fighting what I think was a developer who had molded his project to mitigate grievances – Washington Place – to lead him to drop his proposal and go the 40B route. That’s a large enough group, to me, to warrant wondering about their reasons.
Size is less important than how vocal they are. Groups that represent a small proportion of the city/district/state can have outsize influence if they are vocal and politicians have reason to believe they’ll turn out in elections.
Maybe we should love Newton and love Massachusetts at the same time. Just as we say we are 13 villages but one city, we can say we are 35 1 cities and towns but one commonwealth. The population is increasing- a fact. Baby boomers are living and working longer and they need a place to live or move to as they become empty nesters. Younger people – whom we need to maintain our economy need a place to live. Failing to increase the supply of housing makes the housing costs rise – economy 101. People just starting out or in lower/middle income jobs are priced out of living in Newton – the diversity that Newton used to cherish is disappearing. Every suburb can say – nope they can’t live here. But where does that leave us all? We need to rethink how we figure this out. I’ve talked to many businesses in Newton that are desperate for more customers. The last one was when i filled up with gas in West Newton – now that the Sunoco station is gone. While the owner was glad he might get more business he expressed concern that Newton is stagnating. While other suburbs are growing we are not.
I grew up in Newton and I welcome. change When i was growing up we lost all the Newton farms -to housing. I kind of wish we had started to practice smart growth back then rather than more urban sprawl. Why is it so hard to imagine the wonderful things that could happen to Newton if we allow more people to live here? Why can’t we make our village centers more fun by inviting others to live there – giving local businesses a chance to thrive and grow? Why can’t we imagine ourselves part of the greater community and invite other s to be here with us?
Great comment Councilor Albright. Maybe you should run for governor!
@Susan: Younger people – whom we need to maintain our economy need a place to live. Failing to increase the supply of housing makes the housing costs rise – economy 101. People just starting out or in lower/middle income jobs are priced out of living in Newton – the diversity that Newton used to cherish is disappearing
part of the problem is that the so-called: naturally affordable housing stock is being lost and torn down to make room for mcmansions. As I’ve said time and time again- there needs to be a comprehensive housing strategy in order to preserve naturally affordable housing as well as build more density and smaller units to accommodate demand in our village centers. Continuing to allow for the McMansions and tear downs of smaller homes – doesn’t do any good for the housing advocates – just good for those who want to sell and the developers who buy them. The more “unaffordable” we make Newton, the more pressure we have to build more housing and become more dense.
Density is not bad. It’s the planning that needs to be done in order to accommodate the need and still preserve all that we love about Newton.
Jerry, really?
“On one of that spectrum end you have lots of folks who are thoughtful and cautious and try to gauge the pros/cons of each new project and at the other end you have a few folks who treat any new development, of any kind, as an unalloyed good thing.”
I suspect that there are a few reflexively anti-development folks on your “thoughtful and cautious” side of the spectrum, no?
Amy,
With you up until preserving “traditional housing stock.” The rocket-like rise in the price of the underlying land means that “traditional housing stock” — standalone one-family homes — is never again going to be affordable housing in Newton, not without significant direct and indirect subsidy. If we want economic diversity in Newton, we are going to have to have significantly more housing diversity, a point on which I believe we basically agree.
Amy:
So let’s get to the meat of your argument. How do you actually preserve this “naturally affordable housing” stock? The three ranch homes in my neighborhood are apparently worth more than my home due to their large lots. Do you restrict what can be built on those lots somehow? (the lots are large). How do you handle additions? Most of the homes on my block have been added to in the past decade or so, as folks make the judgement that moving is not worth it, better to add to your existing house. That also increases home prices considerably. A home near me went from affordable to over a million according to Zillow.
And this doesn’t even get into those folks who want to sell, and what those proceeds can mean to them. For some of my neighbors, their home is paying for their elder care in their later years.
I’m a huge believer in affordable housing, but I also believe that restrictions designed to keep our housing stock artificially affordable are doomed to fail. We exist in a broader housing market. Newton is close to Boston, with good schools and transportation. We aren’t controlling the market, we are part of a broader market that has risen considerably. The types of restrictions you’d need to keep the natural housing stock affordable would have a hard time being both narrowly tailored and meaningful to your goal. Do you do it by FAR? By feel? You’ll know it when you see it? I’m not being snarky. The devil is in the details. How do you prevent homes from going into disrepair since teardowns are unlikely to happen if a newer, bigger home can’t be built? Will the market adjust sale prices down that far? Some homes aren’t good candidates for rehab.
The plus of newly built affordable housing is that you can deed restrict it for long periods of time. As long as possible in my mind. That way, the buyer knows his investment is lower up front, and his return will be lower later. The renter and the landlord know their bargained position as well.
I do wish the smaller homes in my neighborhood would stay small. I don’t like all of the additions and teardowns from a purely aesthetic basis (some are terrific before my neighbors refuse to talk to me). I’m having a hard time walking over to my neighbors to tell them that their 900k lot is now worth 450k at most due to the new zoning rules you’d need to propose.
I’d be in favor of modest zoning restrictions on FAR so we don’t give up spacing and light. That is just going to make slightly smaller McMansions in truth.Has any community in MA succeeded in what you are proposing?
@Sean – Hmm, I think that’s what I saID
Jerry,
That’s a very nifty bit of faux evenhandedness.
Let me be more direct: I’m pretty sure that there are more don’t-build-anythings than there are build-everythings. Or, at least as many.
You are too kind to the antis to suggest that they are all just reasonably weighing the pros and cons. Or, you should attribute the same reasonableness to the pros.
Sean, not my business but please read Jerry’s comment again. He presents a spectrum on both sides of the development issue.
You’re quoting his comments about the pro-development side. His comments about the anti-development side are first. Thanks.
No, Marti, I read Jerry’s words carefully. I may be missing some sarcasm, but he wrote that the anti end of the spectrum has folks carefully weighing pros and cons. Reasonable people, in other words. The pro end of the spectrum has folks who want to build at any cost. Unreasonable people in other words.
The more I think about this, I’m hoping I just missed some sarcasm.
Sean – no sarcasm here.
This is why I believe Zoning Reform Phase II was so critical back in what ? 2014 or even earlier – when I proposed the temporary moratorium? There are tons of items on the Zoning and Planning docket that can address a lot of the problems with McMansions. NO – I’m not suggesting freezing zoning – at least not permanently – but clearly our FAR needs to be looked at. Most of the McMansions are not being built by special permit – but as of right. Will that keep these smaller ranch homes from being torn down – probably not. But it may keep them from going from $800K ranch homes to $3 million dollar homes and still meet the demands of todays market. Remember, the original homeowner is not the one that reaps the profit when their house is torn down and a McMansion is built. They profit by having the smaller home on a large lot that is prime for developers to pick up – because zoning allows them to build the McMansions.
I was at a meeting – maybe it was a CPA meeting but I recall a developer being present who agreed with me, that the reason 40B is critical to getting more affordable housing is because Newton is becoming so unaffordable – and part of that reason is because of the loss of the smaller homes.
I’ve advocated for use of CPA funds to try and buy up the smaller homes and deed restrict them. Will that solve our affordable housing crisis ? No. But it is just one tool in the toolkit to help. Should we still increase density in our village centers? Yes – but we can do so with moderate housing proposals. Should we also look at other avenues to increase housing? Yes. But let’s do so comprehensively – with an eye towards a more controlled evolution – rather than the mish mash we have now.
I do not believe in freezing the entire community from all development. I believe all communities evolve. We can help shape that evolution – by preserving those elements that make Newton so special AND by adding more variety and dimension to our city – both on the housing front and on the commercial front – to make Newton sustainable.
@Sean and @Jerry – I actually agree with Jerry. There are people on both ends of the spectrum that have an all or nothing viewpoint and that doesn’t help the conversation or get us to where we really need to be.
Sean, you’ve mashed up Jerry’s spectrums – there are two:
The anti-development spectrum, according to Jerry: On one end you have lots of folks who are thoughtful, cautious and hesitant about any sudden and significant change from the status quo and at the other end you have a few folks who think any development of any kind will be the end of the world as we know it.
The pro-development spectrum: On one of that spectrum end you have lots of folks who are thoughtful and cautious and try to gauge the pros/cons of each new project, and at the other end you have a few folks who treat any new development, of any kind, as an unalloyed good thing.
Amy:
I really feel that is a bad use of CPA funds. First of all, it is incredibly inefficient. Second, many of these smaller homes need hundreds of thousands to make them livable with a family. Lead paint, delayed maintenance, etc.
Regarding who gains from the current zoning, certainly the developer makes a huge profit from each McMansion. But the original homeowner does too. The lot near my house that would go for $900…as a typical house would sell for $450 due to its need for massive work and small square footage. Don’t ignore what that means to people.
Also, let’s define what you mean by affordable housing. Anything new built in Newton isn’t going to be affordable. A 2000 square foot new house sells for over a million. That’s not a McMansion, that’s my house if new. Your solutions do little for affordable housing, but they certainly address folks’ dislike of McMansions. That’s a different goal. You’ve kept Newton looking the same, but the only folks who can afford to spend north of a $1 million on a house are going to be well-off. Less well off than the McMansion, but still very well off. What have you really preserved?
I’m all for an inclusive approach to this, but unless you deed restrict the housing and harness the private market, your fixes are temporary, and even the CPA fix is like bailing out a sinking ship with a thimble.
Not picking on you, and I’d be glad to hear out more of your ideas on zoning. But I still don’t find it persuasive that you can use zoning to preserve affordable housing.
“Regarding who gains from the current zoning, certainly the developer makes a huge profit from each McMansion. But the original homeowner does too. The lot near my house that would go for $900…as a typical house would sell for $450 due to its need for massive work and small square footage. Don’t ignore what that means to people.”
I believe there are families out there dying to get into Newton because of its location, it’s great community and most importantly – it’s great school system that are shut out because developers – who can promise – no inspection can snatch up the properties before the young couple or family even has an opportunity to make an offer. I’m not as certain as you are about whether that lot would sell for $450 due to its need for massive work. Frankly, I don’t see any lot in Newton going for that little no matter what the condition but if you know of any, I hope you will refer them to an organization like CAN-DO or Newton Housing Authority. Perhaps an incentive program should also be developed as well to encourage folks who are selling to
I believe the folks who are selling their homes have invested a lot of their resources to this community and deserve to be rewarded when they sell their homes. But we also owe those who stay a certain amount of protection to protect their investment too.
Zoning alone will not preserve affordable housing – but lack of zoning reform will only make affordable housing that much harder to maintain or achieve.
Newton is working on creating a form and context based zoning code, a draft of which should be ready by this Fall. When I am feeling optimistic, I believe it could take the City Council two to three years to review and approve it, probably after copious amendments that may well dull its impact. At other times, I am not sure whether it will ever pass, given how difficult it has been to make seemingly simple, discreet amendments that would, for instance, get rid of snout houses.
Contrary to what I am hearing from many different quarters, zoning reform is not going to promote historic preservation, preserve affordable housing or curb tear downs. What it can and will do is shape future development in Newton. There are other ways we may be able to provide incentives to preserve affordable housing in Newton, but the accelerating income inequality between those who can afford to buy homes and those who already live here suggests that, at best, we can only curb housing costs.
What I know most people do not want to hear is that Chapter 40B has been and will continue to be the most effective way to create affordable housing opportunities in Newton. Passing the proposed expansion of the accessory apartment ordinance to allow homeowners across the city to remain in their homes and offer housing opportunities to millennials and others who are shut out of the housing market can also help. I believe we can also have a positive impact on middle income housing through amendments to our inclusionary zoning ordinance, which the Mayor, the Planning Department and I have been working on. These last two measures are an integral part of the Mayor’s housing strategy, and I hope to get them passed by the end of this term, before the City Council takes up zoning reform.
Wake up city council your housing policies are not helping young families and never will be of much use. Since 2008, married couples with small children have been moving back home to their empty nester parents. This trend will only accelerate as the economy expands here at an unprecedented rate. Many newcomers to Boston are leaving New York and California where costs are high and cities over crowded. This expansive growth in New England is too rapid. We need laws that slow growth and allow us to adapt positively to such rapid changes.
Sorry Jerry, I know you don’t need anyone speaking for you but I can’t seem to stop butting in, so here I am wearing my explainer hat.
Sean says: ”
” Well, you were hoping for sarcasm but I’m hoping you’re being obtuse on purpose.
Jerry said:
One side: anti development.
Their opinion spectrum has on one end: “folks who are thoughtful, cautious and hesitant about any sudden and significant change from the status quo”
And on the other end:”folks who think any development of any kind will be the end of the world as we know it.”
Other side: pro development
Their opinion spectrum has on one end: “folks who are thoughtful and cautious and try to gauge the pros/cons of each new project.”
And on the other end: “folks who treat any new development, of any kind, as an unalloyed good thing.”
First you used his pro development spectrum to describe both the anti and pro side. Now you’ve created a mashup.
Basically both sides have reasonable people and both sides have unreasonable people.
You’ve taken the reasonable people on the anti side and the unreasonable people on the pro development side as two ends of the same spectrum. They are not.
I agree with Jerry’s comment as to the definitions of all sides. I’m among the reasonable people who are pro development. Yay me.
I misread Jerry.