This one has been bugging me for a week but I’m just getting to it now. In last week’s TAB, of anti-housing group Newton Villages Alliance makes this rather bold — and I’d argue entirely unsubstantiated — statement.
It is indisputable that Newton residents reject high-density residential projects because every one that has been proposed has encountered intense local opposition.
Kouril Grieser offers no evidence to support her declaration other than the fact that Kouril Grieser and other folks from her circle show up at each and every meeting to intensely oppose each and every project.
Yes, it is indisputable that some residents want Newton to be frozen in time to the day they moved here. (Never mind that some one before them likely intensely opposed the place they now call home). But really, we have no way to know for certain where the majority of the Newton residents stand on creating new housing stock for our kids; our seniors; our municipal and school employees; immigrants and everyone else who would like to live here because there’s been no scientific polling to determine that.
We also have no idea how big or tiny the NVA is, although we do know that two years ago, every single NVA-endorsed city council candidate lost in their bid to unseat an incumbent known for a generally supporting projects the NVA opposed.
But short of a professionally executed poll, or perhaps a municipal election where this becomes the main issue before voters, I’d argue that it is indisputable that is engaging in fake math.
And alternative facts.
Saying that there is no evidence is silly.
More people decide to attend meetings on development and oppose it than support. Consistently. That is a legitimate data point, as it suggests those most passionate and willing to dedicate significant time by way of meeting attendance are predominantly in opposition.
It’s far from complete evidence, but a valid data point. As much as a data point on NVA-endorsed candidates losing. (I probably follow this stuff more than the average voter and had little idea about who was endorsed by the NVA, and have never heard of them outside of V14.)
PS I’m fully supportive of this being put on the ballot in a binding or non-binding fashion. This topic has been highly divisive in our community and not having a democratic way of demonstrating support/opposition contributes to that.
This is absolute nonsense Greg.
Members of the the Newton Villages
Alliance including John Koots were very much in favor of Avalon Bay
Needham St. NVA supporters in leadership positions at the Newton Highlands Area Council have also supported Avalon Bay and other high density projects like Arborpoint in Waban.
NVA slate candidates from the last election cycle regularly supported Newton politicians that favored high density projects. KKG is dead wrong and she knows it. NVA members would rather that you not know of their hypocritical history and they will perform the most amazing verbal gymnastics in order to obfuscate and deny their history if you ask them about it.
@Greg: If people go to City Hall to speak out in opposition to a project in their own community, they are called NIMBY’s. If they share a construct that densification is an imperfect growth principle and they go to City Hall to protest, they are called obstructionist troglodytes. Not everyone sees growth through the same “build it and they will come” lens that others do. It’s not “fake math” or “alternative facts” (@Marti Bowen). It is whether you see the glass as half empty or half full.
If this is truly a forum for discussion and not an echo chamber, we could raise the level of civil discourse by keeping kind humor as a weapon of our cleverness and never lose sight of the points of the discussion: to hear, speak, re-hear, digest and demonstrate intellectual growth in our understanding of thorny issues. I believe that Kathleen is a citizen who cares deeply about her City. I also believe that you are a citizen who cares deeply about yours. Let’s just engage in safe talk!!
To state something as “indisputable” when it isn’t known one way or another, isn’t seeing something as half empty- or half-full it’s disingenuous.
Kouril Grieser and the NVA habitually make representations as facts that just aren’t factual or in this instance are unproven. This is only one example.
I have many friends, neighbors and associates who are overwhelminly supportive of high density housing. But I would never have the chutzpah to conclude that this means Newton is indisputably supportive.
KKG and the NVA can’t conclude the opposite either and if we’ve learned anything from the last national election it’s that false claims deserve being called out as fake.
Kathleen Kouril Greiser definitely makes a big leap when she says “It is indisputable that Newton residents reject high-density residential projects because every one that has been proposed has encountered intense local opposition.”.
In the nine years I’ve been in Newton I have not seen a single undertaking of any kind that did not have public opposition, even the most seemingly uncontroversial, not one. Even the most publicly loved projects I’ve ever been involved with (The Upper Falls Greenway, the Feast of the Falls) had public opposition. One of my frustrations is that in a city of 85,000 people, even projects with wide spread public support can grind to a halt if a few people make a lot of noise.
Now I don’t mean to imply that there is not a substantial number of people with concerns about these bigger projects. There definitely are.
But KKG’s statement is just as true as this one: “It is indisputable that Newton residents support high-density residential projects because every one that has been proposed has had strong vocal support.”.
Neither side on this issue should be claiming to be the one true voice of the people of Newton.
p.s. 40B is a state administered program and the state does not agree that Newton has met it’s 40B threshold. Constantly saying that we have met our 40B requirements won’t make it any more true.
p.p.s As for “Newton is a leader in small-scale conversions of existing houses into affordable-in-perpetuity subsidized units, – I have no idea of what that means or what its based on. I believe over the last 10 years there have been a minuscule number of units (maybe a handful) that fit that description. If any one has some supporting or contradicting facts, please weigh in.
@Greg
“To state something as “indisputable” when it isn’t known one way or another, isn’t seeing something as half empty- or half-full it’s disingenuous.”
Fully agree.
Saying someone’s statement is “entirely unsubstantiated” when they’ve provided evidence, albeit incomplete, is disingenuous too.
I agree with Sallee– we need less shouting and more civil dialogue. Reibman and KKG would do well to tone down the language. Jerry’s post is a great example.
Like the mayor, she has a wonderful smile and a sense of humor. I see she is able to lighten up and able to not always be 100% on in intensity. This is a major election year…
It is indisputable that people whose primary goal is to make money probably won’t have the best interests of the people of the city at heart. It is indisputable that we have to watch the developers like hawks and take what their shills say with a large grain of salt. It is indisputable that a major fight over each development is a good way of getting all the facts out in the open (as well as a lot of alternative facts). It is indisputable that disputing is healthy.
It is perhaps disputable that Newton is one of the nicest towns anywhere and that monkeying around with a very good thing, while inevitable as time marches on, is something to do only with much caution. But I think it is the right attitude.
That fact that some group opposes all development does not mean that they won’t bring to the table valid criticisms of the project du jour. Dismissing what they say out of hand just because they always say it is logically invalid.
Once again Sallee is tone policing a thread rather than addressing it’s substance – a common tactic used to distract.
“Indisputable” is not nuanced; it means that the statements are correct, without dispute, undeniable – not probably or might be true. No glasses involved. No optimism or pessimism. Just plain accurate – true or false.
Greg’s “entirely unsubstantiated” is proceeded by “I’d argue” meaning an opinion is being expressed so it is not disingenuous. Plus KKG presented nothing to prove that her premise was indisputable.
KKG made claims in the Tab that are not true – thus “false” or “alternative” facts in today’s lingo. It is not and cannot be true that there is no dispute over whether Newton residents reject high density residential projects. She uses faulty reasoning – presumedly intentionally.
KKG states as fact:
Every proposed high-density residential project has encountered intense local opposition.
Draws as a conclusion:
Therefore it is indisputable that Newton residents reject high-density residential projects.
More accurately presented but not proving her narrative:
In Newton, proposed high-density residential projects generally encounter opposition. It is indisputable that some Newton residents reject the above.
I think there are activists on both sides, but my best guess is the large majority of residents fall somewhere in between. These folks have concerns about traffic and school enrollment, but are not in principle opposed to “smart growth.”
What a thought: Public opinion polling on real estate development and other issues related to business stakeholders in Newton and Needham. Imagine, objective surveys that would generate objective data.
Sounds like something the Newton-Needham Chamber of Commerce should sponsor.
I’ve said this in other threads, but if I was the NVA, I’d pick a different spokesperson. Kathleen Kouril Grieser preaches to her own particular NVA choir, but I do not believe she does much of anything to increase the size of the congregation. In other words, there is a vocal minority that takes NVA like position. They are vocal, but clearly a minority, as judged by the last election. She’s written multiple editorials, some of them more controversial than others. Perhaps a new voice from the NVA might convince some folks to support the NVA vs. increase the noise in the NVA echo chamber.
I also believe that most folks don’t vote on development as their major issue. On this blog, maybe. In the city as a whole? No way.
As for the tone of the blog, my motto remains the same, it isn’t mean or nasty or bullying to call someone out on their B.S. And if you write a public editorial, having your words debated in public is pretty much why you do it. If you are a public official, you get to have your actions debated and argued about. I disagree with safe talk. Honest talk? Heck yes. Blunt talk? Sure thing. Should we refrain from personal attacks? Of course. Is it a personal attack to call someone out on an exageration or a lie? Nope, as long as you’ve got some facts on your side and a reasonable, calm take on those facts.
I think Andy’s probably right, most folks fall somewhere in between or perhaps haven’t even given it a ton of thought. I do believe that when faced with smart growth and NVA messaging, most people in Newton, probably thanks to the fact that we’re a very progressive city, take a smart growth oriented position.
This is a common misnomer in politics: loud doesn’t mean numerous. I always explain to people who ask how they can make an impact, show up, be loud, send emails, write letters. The NVA is the perfect example of how you can amplify your voice and make it seem as though you have a large following even when you probably don’t. Give them credit for engaging in very effective activism.