Newton City Councilor Jake Auchincloss has an article in Commonwealth Magazine’s The Upload today called “The dissonace of zoning and immigration.” It lays out the position that to be a truly Welcoming City, residents must support developments that include affordable housing and accessory apartments. Otherwise who are we really welcoming?
I agree and have said so in another thread where this subject is being explored but I also understand that creating a safe environment for the immigrants who live and work here now is imperative – albeit incomplete. Please continue this pertinent discussion here.
wait… The Sanctuary Ordinance was actually a “serious” ordinance??
It wasn’t a “limousine liberal” feel good move to show “progressive” credentials after the election? The Newton Police were soooo aggressive at arresting and reporting illegal immigrants that “Newton” had to stop their abuse of power, Dammit!
BTW, That commonwealth magazine has an awesome vision. *Could* Newton vote to allow autonomous vehicles to freely roam the City of Newton?
Imagine, living 3 miles from the T no longer becomes a problem. Your self driving car will drive you to the station and then drive itself back to your home. Or robotic Uber will pick you up and take you their (the fare should be very cheap as no labor costs are involved)
I would love to see Newton vote on this!
Alert: “Logic Error”
People can certainly move into Newton housing being vacated by those moving out of Newton. To Florida, for example.
It doesn’t automatically mean lots of new housing construction is required. It just means a slow growth of density. That’s OK with a lot of people.
If this post is strictly about housing for illegal immigrants:
Middle class rentals will be too much, low income are subsidized by the state or local government. I’m unclear if an illegal immigrant have access to such subsidies. Is there political will to give subsidies to an illegal immigrant over an American citizen such as Vets, disabled and elderly?
Accessory units would really be the best solution. They would be much cheaper than an apartment complex and landlords can decide to overlook credit issues if they want
Jake has provided a very thoughtful essay that could be an important starting point for finding common ground between what has been loosely termed the “pro development” and “anti development” forces in Newton. I am more than ready for this dialogue.
I erupted on the pages of this blog last week when it was insinuated that those opposing large scale development in Newton had thinking patterns in common with the worst characters that currently comprise the Trump Administration; but I have also openly rejected the idea that civic minded people on the pro development side are in the hip pockets of developers. We will never come together on much of anything if these stereotypes continue to drive the conversation here. We may get development, or we may not get development, but If we’re not careful, we may end up destroying the best of our past without adding the best and most inclusive elements to what is new.
It’s clear that Jake and several other people who blog here regularly see possibilities for Newton’s future that are wholly feasible but not quite as apparent to most people my age; but I also think that I am as uniquely sensitive to the precious and almost timeless beauty of this City’s past, particularly in the Highlands, as anyone else in this village.
My favorite book on the importance of preserving history and historical places is Howard Mansfield’s “In the Memory House”. You have to read this wonderful work to fully understand what motivates me and many others in this City and beyond and one of his best chapters is on the old West End and the displacement of a vibrant working class population for the affluent and well heeled.
Again, I stress we are not trying to keep anyone out of the Highlands or turn the protected area into a museum piece where nothing is allowed to change. This is counter to our own inclinations and to how historic districts are supposed to function.
A few weeks back Jake called me to commend our Highlands study group on the work it had done to prepare the preliminary study on the local historic district here. His major concern was that we not try and preclude all high density development or new construction near the village square. This was a totally reasonable and feasible proposal on Jake’s part. Again, this is not our intention nor could we pull it off even if we wanted to. And some years from now, I may be ready for that driverless electric vehicle to pick me up, perhaps from an accessory apartment or affordable senior unit in the Highlands or in some other part of this City. The range of options for development and preservation may be boundless.
As a Newtonville resident I am very concerned about the dense housing project and its impact on the village. Jake makes derogatory statements about people who love their village and want to see positive growth and development. So many people have a vested interest in moderate, positive growth.
Rather than condemning residents for their stance on the issue, Jake ought to be listening carefully to both sides and working for a compromise. So far, he appears to be pushing for those with a vested interest only. This is a poor example of both leadership and political representation.
Bob says “Again, I stress we are not trying to keep anyone out of the Highlands or turn the protected area into a museum piece where nothing is allowed to change. ”
Anybody wanting a proof of that, could walk on Allen Terrace (off Walnut St) and look at the house built in 2008: it’s well scaled and respects the contours of the terrain and the trees. It is included in the proposed Highlands Local Historic District although it is so modern.
Oops, meant to compliment Bob on his emphasis on dialogue between people of various opinions. How do share your love of trees if there is no dialogue? Just an example.
Wonderful, thought provoking article, but I think it still sets the discussion as us versus them. For example “immigrants are not taking jobs. Automation is taking jobs.” Both can be happening at the same time. The more workers you have willing to work for a lower wage, the lower the wages go.
Likewise, “Barriers to entry favor incumbents over outsiders.” When I first started working, you could become a librarian without a college degree. Now to work in a public school library you need 2 degrees – teaching (masters) and librarian (info sci as it’s called now). This creates a huge barrier for low-income students, burdening them with excesses college costs. And as a former librarian with a degree, I think it is a career that can be learned in apprenticeship.
As someone who favors high density development and legal immigration, I think Newton should focus on increasing housing and urge our Federal government to fix the immigration process.
Lucia,
Too
Much
Common
Sense!
Unfortunately, politics are in the way
A critically important mistake in Auchincloss’ piece:
Zoning reform will not have an impact on housing prices in Newton. As the Mayor’s deep analysis on housing concluded, even with all of the identified sites being developed, it would not change the rise in housing prices.
Zoning reform could add diversity to housing stock, and allow for affordable housing by designation, but housing prices are not going to be impacted by any zoning reform and consequent development that is being envisioned.
I really enjoyed reading this, and found that Jake and I have a shared interest in the changes we can expect due to automation and in particular, as he calls it, “robotic Uber”.
It is nice that isabelle approves of a reno that is “well scaled and respects the contours of the terrain and the trees.” Really though, it is the height of conservative conceit to think that she or Mr. Burke and his historic group or anyone else should have the right to significantly restrict or otherwise impact how a property owner chooses to develop their piece of the American dream.
A neighbor of mine is currently putting up what I think is a horrendous addition. It is out of scale and impacts a sight line I have very much enjoyed for over 15 years. If that addition however is what the family living in that house wants in order to live well, who am I to say it should not go up?
@Elmo-
I have the small house in a nice neighborhood dilemma. Neighbors on either side of me have built both of their additions thisclose. Did i lose views and space? Yes i did. A companion piece of a small development of Mcmansions behind us completes the lovely view from our second floor window. More power to all of them. A group of neighborhood Progressive Democrat Affordable housing deniers, some who ironically supported Avalon Bay down the street, howled loud, long and bitterly that an alternative affordable housing development would- insert here- destroy their property values, overpopulate the local elementary(Countryside- i had made the same argument years before- to no avail, now it was a different story.),- blah, blah blah. A neighborhood real estate agent who has made a killing selling many houses near us was particularly bitter and angry. However, i would still fight for my neighbors right to alter their homes and property as they have and may continue to see fit. I recommended to one of our abutters that they enjoy the view while they have it, as either i, or the next owner of this home will go high wide and deep- in other words go big or go home- if i have anything to say about it, and i’ll have plenty to say when this house gets its update. Bob Burke & the NHLHD supporters have no business telling anyone who has purchased the homes in their area how to alter or not alter their homes unless they are planning on paying the mortgages being held on those properties.
@Jake-
I enjoyed the article. Your views are far too “Progressive” for Newton Dems.
@Lucia-
As to your “barriers to low income students” and the cost and requirement of multiple degrees,
i would recommend a book called LISTEN LIBERAL . It was written by Thomas Frank, who also
wrote WHATS THE MATTER WITH KANSAS. In the book, Frank addresses, among other things, how the Democrat party made a concerted effort to move away from wooing blue collar, working class voters to courting well educated professional class voters and in the process made sure to drive up the cost, requirement for multiple professional accreditations and access to these professions to insure that when they did, they would run the table. Very cynical and not at all “Progressive”. Sounds like something Trump would do.
Some other notes while i’m here;
1)Spying and intelligence has been in the alt left alt right media. Two great books that will get the gears going, and are devastating and not all that flattering to some of our folk heroes;
Stonewalled – by sharyl attkison
The Intimidation Game – Kimberley Strassel
2)Congratulations to our state senator Cindy Creem for her recent $65,000
pay raise. You can take me off the the declining revenues email when it goes out
3) Middlebury College- Its now okay for offspring of”progressives” to assault their professors?, and a female to boot? Yuck!
Supporting a Welcoming City ordinance but not developments with affordable housing or accessory apartments does appear to be cognitive dissonance. For many that is true. For others it is more nuanced than that.
It’s possible to want immigrants who live and work here now to know they can approach police as victims of or witnesses to crimes without fear of being reported to or detained for ICE, Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but not want to go any further.
It’s possible to support a Welcoming City Ordinance, a local historic district in your village and developments that include affordable housing near village centers and accessory apartments. I’m just not sure how but I’m willing to learn. Also not sure why a house built in 2008 is included in a LHD.
The cognitive dissonance comes into play when supporting a Welcoming City ordinance but actively campaigning against developments that include affordable housing or accessory apartments. That position surely causes headaches.
If a development in a village center over a parking lot or along a major throughway is not in a viable location, then there are no places that will be supported. The opposition to 40b being able to put projects in settled neighborhoods makes much more sense than opposition in village centers. The commercial is already there – it’s only adding residential.
Depending on residents to move in when others move to Florida isn’t a position at all – it’s just a plan to close the gate on the way in and leave it closed until on the way out.
Personally I support the Welcoming City ordinance, developments with affordable housing in village centers and accessory apartments. It’s the only way I see to keep some economic diversity in Newton and hopefully add more cultural diversity too.
@Marti-
The best way we can honor our former
President and heal the bitter divide is to continue with his mission to “fundamentally transform our country”. All politics is local, so the most direct and efficient way to do that is to “fundamentally transform ” our city. Development in Village centers, neighborhoods, settled and evolving,
would bring rich new relationships and diverse cultures we so badly need and want. There can only be cognitive
dissonance if we allow there to be.
We are better people than that.
Love Marti’s comment!
Paul, great post. Thanks Jane.
I would love to see Newton residents who voted for the welcoming ordinance to NEXT push and encourage Newton residents to welcome illegal immigrants to live in their homes
Residents in NYC (one of the most space restricted places in US) are offering space in their home to illegal immigrants, so Newton cannot use the excuse of not having enough room:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trump-won-nyc-residents-allay-immigrants-fears-45983933