Newton full City Council will be discussing the proposed Washington Place project for the first time tonight, starting at about 8:15 p.m. or so, at City Hall. Land Use Committee Chair Laredo provides details in a memo here but says he won’t be asking for a vote.
As you are aware, the Land Use Committee has been actively considering this project since June, 2016. Recently, the petitioner filed a motion to withdraw both the re-zoning and special permit petitions and announced its intention to proceed via a 40B project, based on the petitioner’s belief that it did not have the necessary 18 votes to re-zone the site to MU4. Given how much time and effort the Land Use Committee, the petitioner, and members of the public have put into this project, I thought it best to have a public session so that all Councilors could join the Land Use Committee to discuss the project in a public setting before we acted on the request to withdraw. The petitioner agreed with this suggestion and President Lennon has agreed to allow the Land Use Committee to meet between first and second call so that all Councilors can participate.
Really don’t expect any change with this meeting. The people voting “No” are doing it out of “principle” and are taking a “stand”… outcome be damned.
Only a technical solution such as down-zoning and reducing the vote count will save this mess….
This meeting is unprecedented. In the past if a developer withdrew his petition the Land Use Committee voted it out. Never before has a petitioner been able to gage the vote before a vote was taken by the total city council. Many developers out there must be concerned by this Laredo back door tactic to access the council vote. Law suits may follow in the wake of such a obvious move by some people to influence the future vote on the petition.
Actually Colleen, developers would be happy to have more insight into where councilors stand on projects and the end result could very well be better, less costly, projects. Proposing a project in Newton is a months’ long crap shoot that demands significant up-front investments in time and money, followed by people like you who lick their chops in anticipation of tying up the process afterwords with frivolous law suits.
And then the same people who are doing everything to make this harder complain about how expensive our housing is.
Washington Place is a terrific project by every measurable standard that’s already endured eight months of public meetings. I appreciate the effort by Chairman Laredo to bring some clarity to this project. I’m not sure we achieved that last night but not for his lack of trying.
What did happen last night?
Chairman Laredo valiantly tried — but failed — to get his colleagues to articulate their specific concerns and conditions that would enable them to support this project through special permit. (Remember, the alternative here is not no project it’s a 40B where the council has no say in the size, scope, amenities or community give backs.)
Those councilors who don’t support it but declined to articulate what it would take change their position, may one day have to explain to voters how a denser-than-proposed, taller-than-proposed project (that no longer offers the proposed workforce housing or other amenities) ended up being built on their watch.
Greg,
“Those councilors who don’t support it but declined to articulate what it would take change their position”
Is this what really happened at the meeting? You are describing a “child” with their arms crossed being asked “whats wrong, why don’t you like it” and getting ONLY the reponse “no, no, I dont like it, i don’t like it”)
I’m sure it hasn’t really come to this, has it?
@Budek: Yep, that’s pretty much the way I interpreted it. Now legally Chairman Laredo couldn’t directly ask councilors to go on the record in terms of what it would take to get them agree to vote yes (and avoid the 40B). But he repeatedly asked his colleagues to articulate any specific objections and/or propose specific remedies/solutions.
Based on what we saw last night, it would seem Mark Development’s best option is to withdraw, resubmit a plan that only rezones to mixed use the front at Washington Street, and leaves the back as is, for business. That would likely eliminate the need for 18 votes. With a sweetener of more units affordable to moderate incomes, I think the project could get the needed 16 votes.
A couple of issues: By upping to 20 percent or 25 percent traditionally affordable, it seems the middle-income units would be scrapped. And that is a selling point to many on the Council. I though Councilor Ciccone made a strong, passionate case for the “workforce” housing last night.
Also, I was a little surprised to hear Councilor Hess-Mahan say the idea to rezone only the front (first floated by Marcia Johnson on Wicked Local Newton and then here) made him, er…. sick to his stomach.
Actually Andy, I believe Councilor Hess-Mahan said “I threw up in my mouth” when he heard about the rezone idea.
And truth be told I felt a little nauseous wondering if the one city councilor best known for advocating for affordable housing over his long career was saying he would be the one to sink a special permit if it was to be resubmitted using this procedure.
Thanks for the update. Unfortunately it seems that this Developer will go the 40 B route and shame on the City for not working with him from the beginning. Maybe he should build a 5 story hotel or a big commercial building – maybe that will make the councilors happy.
What is the ‘worst’ possible outcome from all of this. Lets say even 40B is denied:
He would still want to make some money, so I guess he will put up the ugliest cheapest construction possible within current zoning and “leave town forever”?
He would probably make more money razing the entire block into a parking lot and wait for land appreciation….
@bugek
I think Robert Korff needs the residential component of the project to make it really profitable. He payed a hefty ransom for those three rundown old buildings.
Oops, “paid”
@ Greg Reibman
I find it almost unimaginable he would, but last night’s comment by Ted shook me.
I’d like to know where Emily Norton’s friends are finding 1 bedroom apartments in Newtonville for $800.00! The City’s definition of “affordable housing” is totally out of whack. Real estate prices are off the charts, apartments are just as expensive. As a member of the City “workforce”, I am hard pressed to find a place to live within reasonable distance to Newton.
I will freely admit I have little understanding of the various ins and outs of this project. But what I do see is the potential for some fabulous retail space, a bright vibrant parcel of buildings and open spaces in a nice village area. But the reality is this Council will kill it before it gets off the ground.
I read the Tab this morning. One picture caught my eye. It was a photo of Rick Lipof and Steve Buchbinder socializing at an event in Newton Upperfalls. Since Rick is a Real Estate businessman and a Newton city councilor I find this photo made me uncomfortable.
If Rick is friendly with Steve and has a special interest in Real Estate development, shouldn’t he recuse himself from an potential vote on the Orr Project for which Steve is seeking City Council approval?
@Colleen Minaker – ???? That’s one of the more bizarre comments I’ve ever seen on Village14. As a City Councillor, Rick Lipoff was an invited guest at the first annual Newton Poltical Breakfast. Steve Buchbinder was a member of the public that came to the event, as many others did.
You seem to be saying that if Mr. Buchbinder ever appears in a public place with an elected official that the official must then recuse themselves for all projects that Mr. Buchbinder has any involvement. If that were the case you’d make Mr. Buchbinders job very easy indeed. For any project he worked on he would just need to identify which elected officials were in opposition and then go say hello to them at Village Day, or NewtonServes, or any other public event in the city.
I also was friendly to both Rick Lipoff and Steve Buchbinder that day so I presume I have now lost the right to voice an opinion on the Orr block or any other development project on Village14
@ Colleen Minaker
So, because Rick Lipof and Steve Buchbinder sat together at a St. Paddy’s breakfast the former can’t vote on special permits (because the latter is involved with so many of them)? That’s a good one!
What I did find pretty funny about the photo, taken by my classmate Joanne Kazarian, was Lipof striking the “heavyweight champ” fist pose. Loved it.
Colleen
” I find this photo made me uncomfortable”…
It seems like the resistance to development in Newton has come down to this level. It seems the only way to get any large buildings (which do not involve housing for elderly) will require a 40B shoved down the throat of Newton because the resistance from a small group of vocal residents simply will never allow anything of size to be built
Both sides should leave it to the courts to battle out so we can all continue to get along on other issues…..
Colleen – The conversations at Dunn-Gaharins were light hearted and very superficial. It was a “Hi, how are ya?” event – in a packed room – and it lasted one hour.
Sometimes there just isn’t any there there.
.
Colleen: We used to have a society in which people could disagree about very difficult issues and still be friends or at least civil to each other. I hope the St. Paddy Day celebration which was a moment of good humor in a frenetic, wild, uncontrolled world reminds all of us of the humanity which must underlie our passions!
Greg and Andy:
My entire political career has had as a central focus promoting the creation of affordable housing in Newton, and that has not and will not change. I am, however, also an attorney, an officer of the court, and someone for whom ethics and the rule of law are important if not paramount. Anyone is free to disagree with any or all of the things I have done over the past 14 years (and many, many, many people do). But at the end of the day, my integrity and the integrity of the City Council means more to me than achieving any particular result, no matter how much I might desire such a result.
Here is my dilemma: Newton’s law department has interpreted the state Zoning Act in a novel way–which differs from how it was previously interpreted by the the city–that has a profound impact on both the process and the outcome of the petition to rezone the Washington Place site. Clause 5 of Section 5 of Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws provides as follows:
Since Monday night, I have spoken at length with counsel for the developer as well as the law department regarding their competing interpretations of this provision. The law department has taken the position, which can be supported by the language of the provision, that the term “the area of the land immediately adjacent extending three hundred feet therefrom” should be construed to mean that only neighbors whose land abuts the property to be rezoned and is within 300 feet should be counted in the calculation of the requisite 20% land area needed to require a 3/4 majority vote of the city council to rezone. The law department’s interpretation also excludes neighbors whose land is separated from the property to be rezoned by a public or private way.
This has a profound impact on the Washington Place project. On the one hand, it means that neighbors across the street from the project have no standing to pursue the remedy of requiring a 3/4 vote of the city council if they object to rezoning the property under this statute. On the other hand, this interpretation has also allowed a handful of abutters to gather the requisite 20% land area immediately adjacent to the property. If the law department had interpreted this provision to include landowners across public and private ways, for example, the outcome would have been entirely different, and only an affirmative vote of 2/3 of the city council, i.e. 16 councilors, would be required.
There is no dispute that this interpretation has another important, consequence, which is that a property owner whose property is entirely surrounded by private or public ways (i.e., streets) or who opts to rezone only that part of the property which does not immediately abut neighboring properties, is immune from such a challenge. Further, there is also no dispute that under this interpretation a property owner could obtain a safe harbor if the owner chooses to rezone all but a six inch strip of property abutting neighboring properties. This may or may not be an unintended, albeit inevitable, result of this legislation. While exhaustive research has not turned up any Massachusetts cases on point, these “buffer zones,” which have been variously called “spite buffers,” and “Devil strips,” have been adjudicated to be lawful in other states with similar, albeit not identical, laws. Indeed, Washington Place, if it passes, may well be the case of first impression which allows the Massachusetts courts to decide this issue. But even if it would be lawful to do so, as a policy and political matter, that would not necessarily make it right. And that is the problem I am having difficulty wrapping my mind–and my stomach–around. My admittedly colorful way of describing the discomfort this perhaps unintended result gives me was nevertheless entirely accurate.
Right up front, I must concede that, based on my 25+ years experience as an attorney and as a former law clerk for the Supreme Judicial Court, there is more than one reasonable way to interpret this provision, and that it would not be underhanded or malicious to construe it in a way that would either advantage or disadvantage the immediate the neighbors of any particular project, including this one. Over the past 36 hours, I have been scolded, derided, and maligned by some for not just holding my nose and supporting this solution to rezone part of the site in order to circumvent the neighbors’ objection. That doesn’t bother me. At the end of the day, I will have to live with my decision, mindful, of course, of the fact that both the neighbors, the developer, prospective residents and commercial tenants of Washington Place, and the people of Newton, will also have to live with it. Because, unfortunately, I am informed that I am the 16th and decisive vote on the City Council.
So, I am going to have to struggle with this. I do not take this lightly, and I am doing my best to act in good faith and exercise due diligence. It is unfortunate that more of my colleagues do not support either rezoning the property or this project. But it is what it is. I happen to think it is a very good project (which is not to say there are not things I would like to see done differently) and that, as I stated on Monday night, rezoning this property as MU4 is both appropriate and desirable at this location. Since Monday night, I have also met with the developer, Robert Korff, and I am persuaded that there is nothing underhanded or malicious about his approach. Indeed, despite all he has had to go through since at least last June to seek a special permit for this project, I believe him when he says that he does not want to pursue a Chapter 40B Comprehensive Permit for this project and prefers seeking a special permit, and would only pursue a 40B as a last resort if he cannot get the votes from the City Council. If I were his lawyer, I would probably have advised him to seek a 40B and avoid an onerous and uncertain special permit approval process. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the ZBA would lose in court if it asserts the 1.5% safe harbor, but that issue will probably be decided in another pending case. But there is also no doubt in my mind that the control that the City Council (and the City Council alone) would have over the project through the special permit process would be preferable from virtually everyone’s perspective to a protracted 40B permitting process that would not guarantee any of the benefits or mitigation that would come with a special permit.
After reviewing the revised plans for rezoning the front of the property but not the area abutting the residential neighbors, I am also persuaded that Mr. Korff is not proposing a “Devil strip” in order to get around the neighbors’ challenge. A substantial portion of the property would either remain as zoned or would be downzoned, the MU4 zone would be set back a significant distance from the neighbors, and that none of the proposed building would be outside the MU4 zone. That is good. But I am still troubled by what the next developer will do under the current interpretation of the statute by the law department. That is and will continue to be a cause for concern.
I must also say that Mr. Korff has gone above and beyond what many developers in his situation would do, by assisting neighbors who would be displaced by the project to relocate and providing rental assistance. I also think that many of the other benefits and mitigation he has offered will provide a benefit to the entire community.
Anyone is free to get all up in my grille about this. That is what “public service” sometime entails. At the same time, I hope that if you do get up in my grille, you will recognize the ethical and legal issues involved, as well as the integrity of the process, and that I am going to push back–hard–until I am satisfied that I have reached the right decision. Because, as a public servant, I think that is what I am obligated to do. And, while I have always tried to do so, it never gets any easier, even after 14 years.
So, feel free to rip me a new one.
@Councilor Hess-Mahan: Thank-you for your response and explanation. I hope you know that I’m not suggesting you or your colleagues do anything illegal. However, if the developer opts to pursue the “spite buffer” option, I am assuming that, if it were to come before the council for a vote, our legal department would have determined that it was an allowable work around.
So then, if the re-zoning option is determined to be legal, would you:
Support it to achieve what we both believe is the greater good (i.e. moving this excellent project forward as proposed under the special permit)?
Or vote no because this tactical maneuver may invoke the feelings of — what’s the term you use? oh yes, “vomiting in my mouth” — presumably because it feels undemocratic or sneaky?
If your answer is “I would vote no” please explain how this tactical maneuver is different from the tactical maneuver you employed to charter the budget many years ago?
Legislators at all levels of government often must make the difficult decision to employ tactical maneuvers to achieve desired outcomes in their elected bodies even if it might make one want to throw up. I respect that for many, this poses a dilemma while others feel the end justifies the means.
@ Ted Hess-Mahan
I would never do such a thing.
It seems you have an ethical dilemma that could be solved in part by deciding what would be the greater good served by your vote. That’s a difficult decision for you, I know, because of your dedication to both the law and potential precedent setting as well as the need for diverse housing and economic growth here. All this tempered by the fact that — by most calculations and unless another councilor flips to “yes” — you would be the deciding vote of 16.
@THM
Very thoughtful post. While I disagree on rezoning and/or think Korff should be offering a lot more to the city, your careful deliberation is appreciated. A few thoughts:
1. Intent matters. If Korff and others who are proposing this mixed zoning are doing so to get around abutting neighbors’ objections, versus addressing their objections, that makes a big difference. My understanding was that the genesis of this proposal began with opponents, and thought the lower sightlines at the part of the property that faces abutters was being addressed.
2. The city’s interpretation of the relevant statute, excluding neighbors directly across the street from the property in question, seems contrary to basic common sense. I wonder if there is any legal precedent for such an interpretation, and if not, why the city has gone done such a path.
3. You clearly think about these issues deeply. So I wonder: why is extracting more concessions from developers not a core part of your policy agenda? While appropriate ROI is necessary, developers typically get very rich from these deals, and Korff clearly would not have fronted $30 million on speculation without the possibility of a significant return. Why are you OK with Korff making millions from this deal, while we are stuck figuring out what to do with the additional children entering our already overcrowded schools? It feels very much like privatizing profit, and socializing costs.
I think a fair concession from the developer would be ‘something’ to aid school overcrowding. Perhaps an after-school space in the new development or perhaps some token percentage of rent to go towards hiring 1 or 2 teachers/assistants to accommodate the extra children which will ‘inevitably’ enroll.
But in the end, I think “no” votes have dug in, they will never vote for development no matter what…
I am just asking as I don’t know the answer – If the Developer wanted to put a hotel in that location would the zoning issues or voting be different or would it not be allowed at all?
The reason I ask is that new Hotels are sprouting up in Waltham and the Tax revenue generated is much higher that for residential. And just thinking that this developer who spent a lot of money and is given such a hard time to build something on his property.
Ted – No one is ripping at you. Just trying to understand what you’re thinking.
At the end of the day, the question remains which project – in this place and at this time – is better for Newton? Does anyone really believe the 40b project is better than the current Washington Place plan? Because the outcome of the city council vote will decide which project of those two projects will be built on this site. If one’s concern is additional students added to the school system, then the answer is simple: the current plan will add fewer students than a 40b with more apartments.
Is it accurate to say that the zoning of the back of the building – the section facing the abutters – will remain the same? I guess I don’t understand the connection between this change in the plan and an unethical use of the law. How is it that a concession to abutters can be turned into an unethical use of the law?
Colleen M, Jerry R & Andy L-
Let me just get this out of the way first- no Greg, i don’t think there is some conspiracy theory here, i do believe people need to take a closer look at what is sometimes painfully obvious.
Actually Colleen made a very astute observation. There are complicated relationships all over this city, and at times, some of these relationships should be looked at more closely for potential conflicts of interest. That’s what journalists do, or used to do.
Various professions throughout this city are by nature political, entwined and inseparable. Real estate and law are two of them. Even a cursory look indicates that there are firms, individuals and offices regularly in the mix in regard to the city and its politicians. Over the years, i have received after hours phone calls promoting or polling for various candidates and issues from the Buchbinder law firm that is mentioned here. It showed up on my caller ID.
Its it legal? Probably, but the fact that it wasn’t even hidden where the calls were made from was, i thought, ballsy. I have also received after hours phone calls over the years from the
Rosenberg law firm over on Walnut st, again it appeared in my caller ID.
If you are curious Colleen, a trip to city hall and the elections office may help to clarify some of these connections. Every candidate for office must file a form indicating who has given to their campaign and how much. The state office of political finance is also a good resource for this
information. It is available online. Does giving to a candidate mean you are in bed with them?
Not necessarily, but as projects, financing and issues arise these relationships can be illuminating. Also ask to see the city officers and committee members book that is at the elections office. The booklet gives you the names, titles and positions of the zoning board, appeals board, area council heads etc, etc. If you follow local politics at all, especially over a period of time you will recognize that the power distributed throughout these boards and councils rarely changes hands, and when it does, the people who are appointed or reappointed are not done by accident. Very instructive.
Paul – You must be an A-Lister! I’ve never received a phone call from either place. In fact, in my 36 years living in Newton, my household has received exactly one local polling phone call.
@Paul Green – I don’t disagree with your comments and keeping a watchful eye for potential conflicts of interest is always a good idea. Perhaps I nColleen but I was taking exception to her apparent point that if two people are pleasant to each other at a social gathering in the city, that should somehow be taken as evidence of a conflict of interest
@Jane-
I’m worse than an A-lister. I’m an undeclared voter, so I get all the calls,
e-mails, push polls, mailers etc etc.
Undeclared voters seem to be outcasts
in Newton and in Mass because they are unpredictable. I vote candidates and issues, not parties. Both parties are useless and out of touch as far as I’m concerned. I find undeclared to work best for me, even more so in the current toxic political climate.
@Jerry-
Newton is a very small city politically.
Friendly is nice and courteous works also, but I like Colleen’s instincts.
I think that Joanne asks a very good question. We looked at a hotel to put on Austin Street, above the parking lot, as part of the JAPG. We found that the inclusionary zoning law that equated hotel rooms with permanent housing would require the developer to build or cash mitigate 15% of the rooms to affordable housing. That zoning law has since been rescinded. Hotels employ people, they do not affect schools, and traffic can be measured.
@TheWholeTruth shoot me an email at [email protected] and I am happy to give you a walking tour of the affordable rental units in my neighborhood. If we go on a weekend I could probably even arrange for you to speak with the people living in them.
@Councilor Norton: I don’t think there’s any doubt that you could provide a tour of affordable units where people are living. The question can you provide a walking tour of affordable units that are NOT rented?
I would like to take a moment to defend the abutters who filed the petition. I am one of them, and my back door is 15 feet from this proposed development. We are NOT opposed to developing this property, and my neighborhood supports affordable housing.
What we are opposed to is the height, and density of the proposal. I understand the perspective that it belong in a village center, and all the rest.
If you take the time and read all our letters, and our petition on the City Council website it’s all there. It is just too big.
I wish on Monday at least one member had asked Korff how flexible he was on the size. I also wish there was a greater public awareness of how much real estate Korff is gobbling up all along Washington Street. His plan is not just this one location, it’s along the entire Washington Street corridor.
We have tried repeatedly to ask Korff to bring down the size, and we could endorse his project. He has not been willing to offer ANY compromise on the size. It’s either up, or back – not smaller.
Meg,
I’m assuming the size issue simply ‘economics’. The profit he would make with a reduced size would not offset the risk he bears for carrying the project forward. Some people may see it as greed, but in reality its risk mitigation (economy downturn during construction, union strikes, construction delays/issues, competing building goes up in X years etc etc)
In the end, it might even be more profitable to raze the entire block and make it a big ugly parking lot.. I’m sure they ran this scenario before buying up the land
@bugek
Not sure why you’re willing to blindly assume that he’s getting a fair risk-adjusted ROI.
One of the ironies of the constant fight against development is that it delays projects and increases legal fees, which increases the risk and upfront cost to developers.
What this means in the wash is that all of the anti-development maneuvering really just makes projects need to be larger to justify the upfront costs. It is sort of ironic when you think about it.
@Bryan
You’ve got that precisely backwards.
Developers will make projects as large as the market will bear and regulators will allow. They’re looking to maximize profit.
Increasing the regulatory cost (time and risk) comes out of the resulting profit.
His economic risk, is his problem. The city and the residents should not be impacted by his gamble.
The council, by law, is not supposed to factor into their decision his financial risk.
@Emily and @Greg,
I’m also quite sure you can find and show me some “affordable” rental units. By any chance did you see the article in the Tab yesterday indicating the AVERAGE rental cost for a one bedroom apartment in Newton is $1700.00. That’s not affordable for most single folks looking for a place to live. I am a single person in my late 50’s. I lived in a 2 bedroom apartment in West Newton for over 25 years…right up until I was priced out of it. There was no loyalty from the owner who cared more about the mighty dollar than a good, honest, rent paying tenant who kept an eye on his house while he wintered in Florida. It was not my apartment, it was my “home”. But money talks, and I was not able to maintain the cost he wanted.
By sheer luck , I was able to be connected to a landlord who can afford to rent his exceptional apartments at far below market rate. I now have a beautiful, modern, updated place with 2-3 bedrooms, 2 car parking, lovely patio, landscaping and plowing/shoveling taken care of, all on a quiet street in Newton. This apartment could easily go for 2-3 times the rate I pay. I grabbed the golden ring and every day I know how lucky I am. But this scenario is rare…very rare.
I am a City employee who was born and raised in Newton. And I can not ever afford to buy a place here. And only due to the grace of a good man am I able to still afford an apartment here.
Meg,
Of course the council should not consider his “profits”, but they also have a responsibility of looking at changes which benefit the majority of Newton residents (current and future).
The overall consensus from what I gathered is that most Newton residents welcome the large project which will bring in decent commercial foot traffic, some diversity in renters. There is a small minority, very vocal and very organized which are opposed to any possible developments period.
Its really a shame this could not go onto some kind of ballot vote by the residents. This would settle it once and for all..
TheWholeTruth,
I’m guessing you have an arrangement with an elderly landlord who needs help, companionship. Sounds like a great arrangement.
BTW, if the ‘accessory unit’ change would pass, many similar opportunities would open up to benefit renters and elderly. The owners keep their dignity and privacy…
Unfortunately, I see no possibility of this ever getting passed due to the anti-development atmosphere…
@bugek,
Actually, he is not at all elderly. He does not live in this house, he has his own in another part of Newton. He is just a nice guy who takes care of his properties and rents to people who are no real hassle to him. He is very responsive if there is a problem. Like I said, just a nice guy.
There are a lot of interesting pieces to this thread of conversation, but I would like to tackle a few of them:
The issue of the legal department’s ruling on this project is finally getting some of the conversation it should have had months ago. It’s not easy to get something built in this town at a 2/3 vote of a large city council. Once one gets to ¾ it becomes almost impossible. In talking to a number of people, it is clear to me that this one was a jump ball from a legal perspective – could have gone either way. Ted is right that the interpretation is “novel” and I understand his reluctance to strip that right, once granted, away from the neighboring residents. But in reality, I’m not sure it was the right call by our legal department. And if it was, taking an alternative approach to try to move forward with a project that fits the location and has great benefits seems a fair approach.
And while I know it hurts Ted’s stomach to consider this, don’t elected officials have a responsibility to consider the many, not just the few? I’ve sat in multiple hearings on this project and in every one it was clear to me that support for Washington Place was diverse and widespread; the opposition, on the other hand, had a narrow set of self-interests that were driving them. Yes, Councilors should be mindful of neighbor concerns and impacts. But to make it a priority above all others seems to be abandoning responsibility to the larger city.
Finally, though I don’t really deserve credit for coming up with the idea of rezoning only a portion of the site as MU4, I do continue to think that this is the best path forward and a better option than a 40B. But not because it limits the Foster street residents influence on the decision. Instead, it really considers where on the site that approach is necessary and beneficial and where the existing approach works. Fact of the matter is, the neighbors living at the edge of commercial area have always lived with a risk that there could increased development on this site. If at the end of the day the portion of the site closest to them is consistent with current zoning or earns special permit support from the Council with some modifications to current zoning, that strikes me as fair.
@TheWholeTruth you said “I’d like to know where Emily Norton’s friends are finding 1 bedroom apartments in Newtonville for $800.00” — so I was offering to show you. You’re not interested that’s fine, I was just responding to your comment.
@Emily,
And I am responding to yours. Did you read the article in the Tab? It’s not about whether I want you to show me, its about the fact that $800.00 apartments are NOT the norm. That finding good quality, clean and safe AFFORDABLE housing is Newton is hard. That $800.00 apartments, although surely available, are few and far between. I have spent my whole life as a renter, I know how it works. Prior to finding my jackpot, I spent years searching for some place in Newton that I could afford on a City of Newton salary. Sure, I could have moved into a studio apartment or some one bedroom basement somewhere. But a place like that is too small and confining and often (not always) not very nice. So my point is simply that there is a HUGE lack of affordable housing in Newton. And the Tab article simply backs me up.
@WholeTruth @Emily
I suspect you both agree on much about the state of affordable housing in Newton, and the limits of blog discourse make it seem otherwise.
More generally, I won’t speak for Emily, but I think here was the pretext to her post: her neighborhood is one of the more affordable ones in Newton, and that’s where affordable housing is being continually targeted right now. Sort of ironic, huh?
The reality is that Washington Place is NOT about affordable housing. Factoring in the affordable units being lost from this project, it does very little in adding new affordable housing.
This project is about providing different housing for empty nesters looking to downsize, or bringing young professionals to Newton. Not affordable housing.
So while folks have been talking about affordable housing on V14 for years at this point, their true colors are coming out, pushing people to accept this project or risk a 40B– as if that’s a bad thing.
You’re in favor of affordable housing in Newton? Then you should hope that these last-minute negotiations fail. A 40B project will add more units to Newton. People that support this project are not focused on affordable housing.
Putting up a huge luxury complex in one of the most affordable parts of Newton is NOT forward-thinking progressive policy. So stop patting yourselves on the back in look in the mirror on what you’re really accomplishing with this.
@MarciaJohnson said “It’s not easy to get something built in this town at a 2/3 vote of a large city council. Once one gets to ¾ it becomes almost impossible.”
Thank you for going on record to describe the motivation behind a smaller council with no local accountability. We can expect a easy yes with the proposed small council structure. I had suspected it to be the case, but now confirmed by a credible insider.
@Neil P: I don’t understand how a smaller city council would bring less accountability. To the contrary, it’s going to be easier for voters to investigate the voting records and positions of 12 councilors as opposed to 24 and make truly informed decisions on every candidate.
BTW, that’s exactly why I favor electing all city councilors city-wide. It means every voter can have a say on every councilor. If we went to 8 wards and 4 at-large, then less than half of the council would be accountable to every voter.
I have spent many hours this week talking to other lawyers, and reading cases, legal treatises, legislative history and policy briefs, trying to analyze this issue in a dispassionate and objective way. Marcia Johnson is absolutely correct that it gives me agita to deprive any citizens of their rights. But I am also troubled by the fact that so much hinges on how this law should be interpreted on a project which provides affordable housing and other community benefits that I am very much in favor of.
While I am still studying this issue, here is what I can say.
1. The Law Department got it right on its interpretation of the protest provision of the state Zoning Act. The “Standard Zoning Act” that the federal government proposed for every state back in the 1920s included a series of options for protest provisions, which included distance from the site to be rezoned, a more restricted requirement that protestors must own property that is in or “immediately adjacent” to the area to be rezoned, and provisions that expressly included neighbors across the street. Massachusetts adopted a version of the SZA that only includes owners of properties in the area to be rezoned or “immediately adjacent” properties and land area within 300 feet. While the Law Department had previously interpreted this law differently, I give it credit now for having done extensive and further legal research and analysis that resulted in what is, in my opinion, the correct interpretation.
2. This new interpretation, however, acts as a double edged sword. From the beginning, the Law Department acknowledged that a “buffer zone” between the area to be rezoned and the direct abutters could be used to defeat the option to protest. But that does not answer whether and under what circumstances such buffer zones are valid attempts to avoid protest provisions or invalid attempts to evade them.
3. There is no Massachusetts law directly on point. The state’s Zoning Act is not a model of clarity, and there are no Massachusetts cases deciding one way or the other that such “buffer zones” are valid. Regardless which party prevails in the special permit process, I expect there will be an appeal on this issue and perhaps we will get an answer. But at this point, there is no controlling authority as to whether and under what circumstances such buffer zones are valid.
4. There are decisions from other states with similar although not identical statutes and distinguishable fact patterns. Even if these cases were directly on point, they would be merely persuasive or instructive, but not controlling authority.
5. Intent of the developer is legally irrelevant. The legislative intent, on the other hand, is entirely relevant. What is the protest provision intended to achieve? Here, again, there is little or no legislative history or guidance to rely on. When the statute was studied back in the 1970s, DHCD recommended repealing the 3/4 provision entirely, based on its judgment that a 2/3 majority was a sufficiently high threshold and that allowing a handful of neighbors to have an outsized influence on development tipped the scales to far in their favor. The legislature, however, rejected that recommendation.
6. The question of legislative intent does not end there. Specifically, what interest is it that the protest provision is intended to protect? Presumably, it is the impact that rezoning will have on an abutter. But how far does that protection extend? Indirect abutters, who are within 300 feet are affected nearly as much as direct abutters, yet they receive no protection. The 300 foot limit, then, seems to have more to do with calculating the land area involved rather than the impact of proximity. The protest provision also protects property owners within the area to be rezoned. That makes perfect sense, since rezoning would directly affect property value, land use opportunities, etc. So if the area to be rezoned does not directly touch the property of another, does that protection no longer apply? If so, then any size “spite buffer” would be valid. If not, how close or far away from the area to be rezoned does one have to be to get protection from the protest provision?
These questions have no easy answers, but IMHO, they must be asked. The issues may seem arcane to many, on both sides of the issue of whether the property should be rezoned and a special permit approved. But they are at the very crux of fairness and due process in our legislative and quasi-judicial processes. And the only thing of which I am certain, at this point, is that ultimately it will be up to the courts to decide.
I have to pipe in again …. I have been to every meeting and find that as a whole the community is VERY mislead on the term “affordable housing”. Most of the people who got up to speak in support of the development because of the affordable housing WON’T qualify based on their income.
They are misled in the difference between “affordable” and “low-income”
“Affordable” in Newton is still not affordable to those who need it most.
@Meg: As it applies to the Massachusetts Chapter 40B law, “affordable” housing is a legal term based a formula defined by HUD.
Ted, thanks for doing all this homework and for your informative posts. Really appreciate the effort.
Now to admittedly cherry-pick an angle that leaps out to my own theories and beliefs: “…repealing the 3/4 provision entirely, based on its judgment that a 2/3 majority was a sufficiently high threshold and that allowing a handful of neighbors to have an out-sized influence on development tipped the scales too far in their favor.”
Hence the zeal to change the charter and eliminate ward representation. I don’t know Ted’s position on this, just saying that this information continues to confirm for me the details of the enthusiasm with which some have embraced that portion of the charter proposal. Marcia Johnson’s comments also further confirm this for me.
@Meg: HUD has chosen its labels wisely to promote its programs. To make housing available to those who cannot afford it without financial help, they created programs to subsidize housing for that population. Thus, they make housing “affordable” to low income populations and call it “affordable housing.” In that way, they remove any stigma that might be attached to the more clear and less confusing label: “subsidized housing.”
FYI: Doublespeak (definition Merriam-Webster.com): “language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth”
In my eyes, doublespeak is as transparent as mud!
@Mark Marderosian and Neil P.
Wow, it is very interesting that a conversation about the redevelopment of Washington Place has led to a discussion about reducing the size of the City Council. As a 16 year veteran of the Board of Alderman, I would like to address this far-reaching statement. It is not about easy or difficult it is about a decision-making body that should be making a data-driven, pragmatic and effective decision, which does not appear to be happening today. Newton’s Special Permit Granting Authority (SPGA) process is a political process, which is not the most effective way to make decisions.
As I recall Washington Place has been discussed for 2 years. So whether it is two-thirds or three-quarters of the council, the important fact is that our process and decision-making body hinders change and growth….should it take two years?
Frankly a 12-member body and elimination of the ward councilor position does not equate to a quicker decision, what it does mean is that there will be a more transparent and accountable decision making process. This is what I believe we all need and want…just as we do at the state and federal level
@TheWholeTruth — If you reread your own post, you said, “I’d like to know where Emily Norton’s friends are finding 1 bedroom apartments in Newtonville for $800.00.” If that is not actually what you meant, that’s another story, but I was responding to what you actually wrote. Re the Tab article, I’m not surprised the median rents for Newton would be higher because that includes the high end units at places like Woodland and Avalon, which are what Austin St and Washington Place are slated to be. The vast majority of their units will be well beyond what you (or I) could afford, and will increase that median even more. That does not negate the fact that near me there are relatively affordable places to rent, and I would guess many are not even listed on Zillow, they’re probably on Craigslist or word of mouth.
Emily, no one should doubt that there are the occasional affordable units available in Newton outside of rent restricted property. There are. It would be terrific if those places could remain affordable AND be maintained. But over time, when surrounded by much more expensive real estate, every one of those affordable units are going to be eventually sold, and almost every one will see significant rent increases (or be sold to a homeowner/unit owner and taken off the market.).
Will some currently market rate apartments eventually be rented for affordable rates? Sure, a few. But it is a downward spiral of affordability. That’s why the Back Bay and especially the South End currently have almost no affordable units without some sort of restriction. There are certainly low income housing tax credit projects in the South End, and former public housing. But in each case, it is the ongoing rental restriction that is keeping them affordable.
So while it is certainly great that you know of some affordable units and that you are willing to take some folks on tours of same, I’ve never been able to understand the long term plan here.
Let me make a comparison that you might appreciate. Lots of folks every winter when the weather gets cold or we get lots of snow post snarky remarks on websites about “how about that global warming now?” and “climate change my rear end, look at that SNOW”. (I’ve edited said comments a bit obviously). But read any climate denying website for example. Drives me nuts, I’m guessing you feel the same way. Because anyone taking the issue seriously recognizes that there is a difference between short term weather and long term climate change. Every system undergoing major change is going to have minor exceptions to the rule, the random snowstorm or cool summer. Scientists understand this of course, which is why they watch and study the long trend. A friend calls it understanding the slow data in a world of hot takes. Scientists watching the slow data are concerned about climate change.
This isn’t to get us off on a tangent about client change (we can discuss that in another post and likely agree), but I think your posts about current affordability at the Orr Block, and your posts in this thread about being able to find affordable units for the Whole Truth are you pointing out the weather. A tempting hot take for your supporters, but you ignore or don’t mention the slow data.
Now weather is fascinating. It is an immediate concern. For the person who needs that one affordable unit that meets the qualifications you discuss above, finding that unit, as Whole Truth has, is life changing. Now multiple that by hundreds. Now take into account my parents who’d like to move to Newton once they retire to be near grandkids but can’t afford it, now multiple it by folks who want to downsize, etc. Now take away those units which are affordable by way of being poorly maintained or not up to code (lack of maintenance). Finally, now remove each affordable unit which gets rehabbed or sold, and put back onto the market as market rate, because housing in Newton is rising at 10% a year in price. That’s climate change, affordable housing style. You take thousands of data points about individual stories of affordability or lack thereof, and suddenly those few affordable and well-maintained units you seem to know seem like that sudden snow storm in March. A surprise, an outlying data point. Some might say a red herring. Your data point is real, of that I’m sure. But you are pointing out the weather while the world waits to burn.
@Fig – are you aware that a significant proportion (40% last I checked) of the units on the SHI list for Newton will expire — and become market rate? For all we know the cheap rents near me will be affordable for longer than the SHI units.
@Fig
Using your analogy, the weather IS the affordable housing units. Newton is increasingly less affordable by the year. Adding affordable units by the dozens or more does nothing to impact housing prices nor address the issue of most being financially locked out of Newton except for the lucky few that get chosen for these units.
Its a wrong headed policy, and you perfectly explain why. You want to address climate change? You don’t add a few AC units. You want to address affordable housing? You don’t add a couple hundred housing units.
Emily:
Certainly I’m aware of that. But that’s not the situation we’d have with either Austin Street or the Orr Block. Those units would NOT expire as affordable units (or if they do, not expire during my lifetime). Your point doesn’t weaken my argument at all, in fact, it just strengthens it. The affordable units built by these types of projects have long term affordability in well-maintained buildings. Pointing out that some of the affordable units on the SHI list won’t stay affordable (due to expiring restrictions) just highlights the importance of restricted units to ensure affordability. Whether or not those SHI units would stay affordable longer than your secret list of affordable units ignores the bigger picture–both are short term. As for why some of the SHI units are short term affordable, restrictions 20 years ago were generally in the realm of 30 years. (with the argument being long term restrictions would possible hurt units being kept up and maintained, not an argument I agree with for lots of reasons). We need long term thinking, and long term restrictions. At least we do if you are seriously trying to address the problem. This particular issue has never seemed high on your list of priorities, and you seem more focused on keeping out the larger developments, at least from what I can tell.
Paul: I partially disagree, and my metaphor holds. Let me explain my thinking. You are pointing out that the few hundred long term affordable units we’d create in Newton wouldn’t be enough to meaningfully effect affordable housing because most would still be locked out of Newton, and prices keep rising. I actually agree with you that our community alone can’t solve the affordable housing crisis in the Commonwealth. This needs to be a state-wide, even region wide solution. It touches on better transportation, creating job hubs outside of Boston, pushing a work from home model based on recent advances in technology, etc. The more we hew to a hub and spoke model of housing, the harder it will be to create enough affordable housing from Worcester east to Boston. But my metaphor holds. One state, one nation isn’t going to be sufficiently “green” to make a significant dent in climate change. It takes multi-national treaties and major changes of behavior to create such change. In a similar way, if every city/town in the Commonwealth meets the 40B 10% limit, that is thousands of new affordable units. It won’t be enough without additional reforms. But it would be a great start. And Newton is just a small part of a much bigger region. But if everyone says our small part can’t make a difference, then the larger whole never gets fixed.
And speaking at the micro vs macro level, Newton traditionally has had a significant portion of its overall housing units be affordable. That percentage of affordable units (either listed affordable via the SHI or naturally affordable units like Emily knows about) has been steadily declining. The only solution that even partially solves that problem is long term affordability with recording restrictions to enforce same. Great non-profits like CAN-DO and others can drive some small portion of such units, we can use our CPA funds to create some others. But large scale developments with a large percentage of affordable certainly jumps start that number, with obvious trade-offs in size and change of Newton fabric that come with larger developments. I’m also happy to look at ancillary apartments, zoning changes, etc. But we’ve been talking about those changes for a decade….
And macro, I’ll also note that most of our surrounding communities have recognized this problem (with notable exceptions being the wealthy neighbors to our west) and have housing development plans in the works. Largely based around mini-transit hubs like Newtonville. Maybe together we can affect some change.
@fig
Partially agree with you too. I’d post out that there is only so much time and energy to be dedicated to affordable housing on the policy docket, and a multi-prong approach isn’t realistic. Leading with 40B and/or nominal units in very high cost areas is a mistake, as it’s taken political energy from solutions that have much more promise at making a larger dent- technology, self-driving cars, telework, etc.
We’re having a policy debate about yesterday’s solution to today’s problem. It’s easy to say do both. Realistically, you need to prioritize your policy fixes. What we’re doing now isn’t the priority, it primarily is a “feel-good” effect.