Newton TAB editor Andy Levin urges the City Council to vote yes.
The Newton Villages Alliance’s Kathleen Kouril Grieser wants the City Council to vote no.
UPDATED: We’ve added this video from a Newton North student
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
This error message is only visible to WordPress admins
Error 403: Requests from referer https://village14.com are blocked..
Domain code: global
Reason code: forbidden
Just an FYI, I don’t think there will be a vote on the rezoning Monday, though there will be some discussion. I am hearing June 19 as the more likely date for a vote.
Andy I can confirm that.
Headline updated. Thanks gents
After reading Ms Grieser article, what are the ‘real facts and numbers’ behind the expected resource drain (causing tax hikes)
I could understand if all residents were elderly or below poverty, then extra city resources would be needed. But the expectation is the demographic will be mostly 28-45 year old with 6 figure incomes to afford to rent in luxury units, most likley working in downtown Boston.
New tax revenue from commercial property tax should offset the increase? or not? Since these are new construction, I assume the property tax rates should be quite high..
However, I do get the point that ‘Washington Place’ may make the Washington/Walnut area more attractive and therefore raise property prices (and taxes) due to increased desirability (walking distance to a nice vibrant downtown)
If 20% have 1 child, then that is 32 kids spread across elementary, middle and high school. so lets say 4-5 extra teachers. And thats only newtonville area, so that cost is spread across all 80,000 residents.
I’m surprised neither side has shown any ‘predicted city revenue/drain numbers’, as it really is a valid point…
The developer’s presentation to the City stated that in their estimation, the city will gain approximately $604,000 in new taxes. They also stated that “only” 24 new students will arrive with this development. They estimated at a educational cost of $16,575 per student, the final cost to taxpayers would be $397,837. The developer stated that in the end, thus the city will net gain a whole $206,163.
EXCEPT
If just 12 more students enter the school system because of this development, (and the odds are great that’s exactly what will happen), it’d wipe out ANY gain in tax revenue. The developer will be long gone, the bill to taxpayers will remain.
A big Yea from my perspective. All predictions aside, I suspect a different demographic would find Washington Place to be an attractive option – Newton seniors who no longer want to deal with home ownership but want to remain in the city. I can imagine moving there in a heartbeat – grocery store, pharmacy, senior center, and good restaurants all right outside the door. And in my “real” neighborhood to boot!
Mark,
Thanks for those numbers, they sound reasonable and do offset Ms Grieser’s fearmongering somewhat…
I would bet good money that the number of ‘fake’ students (ie parents who use a friend’s or relative’s address to gain access into Newton) could be in the low hundreds. If this is concern (and it should be), Newton should focus on weeding these out to reduce costs.
I guess its hard to extrapolate rentals, turn over is usually 3 years. Most parents with kids always have their eye on purchasing a house eventually.
We may be surprised to see the majority of renters to be seniors who sell their large Newton homes and downsize to a rental to remain in the neighborhood. The Horace Mann elementary school being turned into a community center in 2019 is a huge draw too for seniors…
What Mark said.
A yes vote is a vote for socializing costs while privatizing profits to Mr Korff.
If folks are serious about wanting more development with broader scale support from its citizens, make the numbers work for the city. And not burdening our children with more overcrowding, but actually planning capacity for new development. That hasn’t taken place.
Paul, Mark
If using the extra costs needed ‘per child’ argument (which is very valid, BTW)… you can pretty say “Newton simply cannot build ANY new housing without inccuring a tax loss”
Even if a family with 2 kids move into a single family home, their property tax is likely around 10k a year, but school will cost 32k.. instant LOSS! So the argument becomes, newton cannot even accept ANY-repeat ANY family with more than 1 child buying a house under 2.5 – 3 Million (will probably have a tax of 20-30k a year)
I can certainly say for certain, from the number houses sold each year, there are much MORE than 12 families buying homes from seniors with no children in Newton.
This argument becomes less to do with Washington place, but more to do with why Newton is relying so little on commercial property taxes. We should encourage ant growth which grows the commercial tax base (ala Washington place)
The discussion should not be about the added number of children compared to the current number in Newton, but compared to the number that would be added if the developer sticks to current zoning laws and does not request a variance. Mark, which one does the “24 students” figure refer to?
the noise from the pike and Washington street will be quite loud for residents ( I know, I live 1 block in off Washington and I have to close the windows in the summer to listen to the radio- no joke. ) The soot from the mass pike is also quite bad, and any flat windows sills will become caked with it over relatively short time- again from my personal experience. Transportation hub? The stairs of death will get you on the commuter rail but for seniors that’s irrelevant. As a rapidly approaching senior it wouldn’t be on my shortlist as a place I’d want to live. Besides that, I understand the developer has bought up the rest of the street, or quite a bit of it. Relax the zoning once you might as well just change the zoning completely, because he’s just going to ask for variances for every project. So, instead of all this wasted time having all these hearings, if you want to turn Washington street into a 5-6 story zoned street, just do it and save us all the drama.
The “24 students” the developer put forward is based upon his receiving the variance.
Unless missed by myself, there hasn’t been a discussion of what the numbers are of the costs and /or what the number of students would be having to work within the variance.
They typically paint a rosy picture that depicts a low cost impact to the city. My experience and observations over the years is that seniors and single folks do NOT make up the majority of the renters, the apartments on Grove Street in Auburndale being just one example.
This is where the old game of tug of war comes in. A need for a higher commercial tax base vs the fact that building apartments and condos is more profitable for the developer. My bestest friend in the world is a developer. When they bought an abandoned factory in a city near Boston, the first and ONLY consideration was to build condos. NOT making it compatible for retail space was never an option. And unlike this fellow who overpaid for Orr block, they didn’t have that additional pressure to overcome.
I keep bringing this up and it remains ignored by the proponents of the variance: For the shape of things to come, please take a look at Elm Street in West Newton and the mini Orr Block that was built across street from bank: Retail space on first floor, apartments on second and third. Over a year later and it remains empty on all accounts, not the least because there is NO parking for businesses now. A few spots in the back for tenants isn’t going to cut it. I’m bracing myself for the eventual renting out to pawn shops, E-Z loan center, and palm readers. I’d be happy to be proven wrong but 18 months and counting now….
The sad truth is that the vote was rescheduled by Lennon and Laredo to maximize the yes vote as several councilors will be absent on June 5th.
Newtonville zoning laws are meant to establish a commercial center. This new housing development transforms the village into a residential area completely incompatible with its surroundings. This dense apartment complex fails to enhance the quality of life of the village. The crowded, expensive housing provides a sub standard structure which will be a future blight to the neighborhood. The value of the abutters historical homes will be diminished forever.
Colleen,
I guess it comes down to the “eye of the beholder”
Demographics in the 30-45 age range crave for these types of developments. Commercial stores within a 10-15 walk from home, good volume of people living above the stores.
I can certainly see why other demographics would see this as eye sore and destroying the character of the village from there point of view.
Unfortunately the future if Newton is in the younger demographic as these are the ones coming into Newton as seniors “cash out” or tire of maintaining a single family home
What IS going on with those vacant storefronts on Elm in West Newton? There is no sign of anything going in there.
Good Question Mary
I would like to provide some anecdotal info on commercial stores near high density housing:
I used to live in an area(not MA) which was gentrified, An enormous office tower used as a secondary HQ for one of the most prestigious companies in the world with a 600 unit apartment unit next door. Before that, only several brownstones and small 4-8 unit apartment complexes. I watched this neighborhood grow over the last 6 years
– the rentals were mainly to financial professionals, i would say 20-30% having kids
– not much in terms of commercial growth, mainly because chain-stores are banned
– the only stores which have strong and continued growth are
– pharmacy + small grocery items
– day care for kids
– 2 small restaurants, pizza store
– medium/small grocery store
no parking or barely any parking. There really is no reason for anyone to drive this part of town other than to work in the office tower.
Once washington place goes forward, I expect the mix of stores to be very similar to the above. We certainly wont see any clothing stores, pet stores, toy stores. I even doubt restaurants (outside pizza) would survive well since most families just cook at home
I live on the same block as this development, on Lowell Ave, and I strongly support the proposal. We need to provide more transit oriented housing in Newton, more places for people to downsize, and this side of the pike could use more restaurants, community space, and retail.
Well, how about instead of a new development on the Orr Block, we simply preserve it in Amber and hope that outdated residential units and retail configurations somehow draw tenants and shoppers. And let’s just hope that the sidewalks and crosswalks magically improve themselves to be more friendly for pedestrians. And let’s ignore the option for roadway improvements at this awful intersection that are paid for someone other than the city.
I am literally exhausted by those who for some reason are not seeing that the world around them is changing and that there is room for our community to change and evolve in a way that is consistent with our values. We say time and time again that we don’t want to be like Waltham, yet when a project that strengthens our Village Center model is before us, we throw out any number of arguments to stop it.
I can’t say any more strongly that this project is what Newton needs: new housing choices, with a range of affordability; incentives for residents to use public transit; new retail that helps strengthen and sustain a customer base for our existing store owners. Add in community space, roadway improvements and a project that exceeds the very best standards for environmental sustainability and you cannot deny that this development team has gone above and beyond to do something good.
For literally a YEAR there have been nearly 2 dozen public meetings, countless opportunities for comment and numerous changes by the developer to respond to community input. This is one of the most discussed projects we have seen since Austin Street and yet the city council is being faulted for wanting all members present for the discussion and vote. Really?
As a side note, I certainly understand being skeptical of a developer’s analysis, but I am equally skeptical of the dubious math that is being used to estimate the number of school children in this project. To inject some common sense into that part of the discussion: If the developer went forward under the current BU zone, he could build more than 300,000 square feet, but is required a minimum of 1200 square feet of land per unit. That equates to 103, likely 3-bedroom units and would encourage families to rent. Having said that, I am very disturbed when citizens reject a project because it will mean more children in our school system and yes would need to pay more taxes. As a Newton resident, former alderman and educator, I believe that we must welcome all families with children to Newton so they can receive the best education possible. This is the American Way!
In closing, let’s enjoy theVillage Centers we all love and envision what could be and not be satisfied with what is!
@ Marcia
For the record and just to be clear, the dollar figures and the number of children projected to contained within this development that I quoted above and in an editorial cartoon for the Newton Tab are from the developers’ own records, presentations and papers for this project. If you find this dubious, please take it up with them.
Secondly, I’m sorry you are “exhausted” with the discussions by your well-meaning fellow citizens about this project but I don’t see anything being discussed within this thread to date that warrants that reaction. I’ve only seen well-reasoned discussions sticking with facts.
Based upon my real-world experiences, and projecting forward the typical trajectory for this type of project, please forgive me if my conclusion does not come to the same rosy conclusion that you are projecting.
Additionally, wrapping your defense of this as being the American Way is an insulting implication to those of us who have honestly come to a different conclusion and are fearful of what our fellow citizens and those that will live in this project will face in the future as it will, as Elm Street attests, remain unworkable in its present proposed form.
The reallocation and alterations of the developer’s lots with a pseudo buffer lot zoning is an attempt to avoid the neighboring abutters’ rights as noted in previously recognized petition. This buffer is so narrow is does not afford a reasonable distance between these very tall structures and the small historic residential homes north on Foster Street and west on Lowell Ave. Also, this development’s proposed driveway access on Walnut street is such a gross attack on this mostly Walnut residential neighborhood, which been this way for the past 100 years. All the business access was from Washington Street.
Now there will be an extreme amount of traffic from a single lane with extensive cross-over to the opposite lane which is very close to a traffic light. This is gross. We have a very good example of that in Newton Four corners with the Whole Foods and a police officer directing traffic at rush hours. You’ll have to explain to all in great detail how a smart traffic light can cure this bad situation, which I consider un-safe. If these smart lights are so wonderful, we need to get a smart traffic light at Newton Four corners, ASAP.
As I interpret this section 7.8.4.F.2, of the Newton Zoning Ordnance, the councilors (board of aldermen) must deny this zoning change since it is clearly a derogation of the size and scale of other lots, buildings and structures in the existing neighborhood of the Newtonville village and the abutting historic buildings. The councilors need to recognize that the spirit of this ordnance section [7.8] is to protect our neighborhoods (In essence their safety, historic provenance, abutters’ rights, etc,) .
I would also like to recommend that the Zoning Ordnance be rewritten with more clarity and re-structured for easy of understanding. There appears to be inconsistencies and deficiencies that could be resolved with this re-write.
Other related issues are the double edged sword of Urbanization and Affordable. As you you may have seen on PBS Newshour within the past week with Judy Woodruff. Economics correspondent Paul Solman has the story. It’s part of his weekly series, Making Sense. Paul has dialog with Richard Florida, Author, “The New Urban Crisis” .
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/urban-revival-caused-crisis-success/
@Mark Marderosian – Your hunch that 24 students seems too good to be true, is very likely correct. For too long School Committee has propagated incorrect formula.
All developers use the formula from 2013 SC Analysis – https://goo.gl/PtI30P page 105. This formula smells fishy or too good to be true. 290 Unit Riverside projected only 50 students using the formal. However, 294 unit Avalon Newton Highlands had 101 students that year (pg 4).
This is the same incorrect formula that was used for Austin St calculation, and now for Orr block. You can easily verify the formula by plugging in actual breakdown of studio-1BR etc. from Avalon Newton Highlands or Arborpoint. I do not have access to this data, else I would have.
Horace-Mann is already a crowded school w every classroom more than 20 students. Wrong estimation of students will break back of this already crowded school.
@Andy – can you force the SC to certify the formula and estimation?
My two major issues:
The developer overpaid for this land. Why? What outcome did he feel confident enough to bet on and what does he know that most of us don’t? His website touts his company’s experience at working these projects through. Was there an expectation that our zoning laws are really just zoning suggestions? How sad is it that Village 14 remains about the only place to discuss this because the developer and his PR minions get to speak for HOURS in front of the ruling elite at those so-called meetings while the average citizen with the most to gain or lose gets five minutes with a stop watch held in front of them.
It concerns me that we’re becoming an enclave for the very wealthy. I want more diversity and affordable housing. The present course for Newton is not heading towards this and neither is this project. That’s what upsets me the most. There WAS naturally occurring affordable housing at this location that is now gone, with now barely a chance for a greater number of affordable units than what had been there.
So, in the future as I come to deal with higher taxes to subsidize this developer’s profits, as I deal with the extra traffic and become the 25th person waiting at a red light instead of the 7th, I will curse the moment because none of that horror will be worth it or balance the fact that this project does nothing to promote true affordability nor diversity or even be a place for downsizing seniors unless they are extremely wealthy. It will be maximum trouble for minimal gains. All to satisfy an ego and private profits. Big deal.
What Marcia said.
We have a housing crisis in Eastern Massachusetts and Newton needs to be part of the solution.
Mark – I’m disturbed by the term “naturally affordable” housing. It’s a euphemism that allows people to put their heads in the sand about the fact that we have landlords in this city who don’t maintain their properties. In a larger city such as Boston, they’re called slumlords, but such a term wouldn’t be acceptable in Newton.
As for the school enrollment, the annual report indicates that the increase comes mostly from families who move to the city with 3 and 4-year olds, a population the school system has no way of tracking until they sign up for Kindergarten registration.
@Jane: are you implying that every property in the City with reasonable rents is not maintained and that the landlords are “slumlords”? That is quite the accusation. Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?
Mark:
Certainly traffic will increase. That will be a negative. There is a difference between locked down affordable housing due to deed restriction and affordable housing due to older homes. I won’t go as far as Jane regarding calling them slums, but the general path for such housing in Newton is that there is eventually a turnover in owner, and a rehab/teardown takes place, and then the rental is either taken off the market or turns market rate rental. The affordable housing here will remain affordable, that’s a positive, and if you take a long view, very positive.
I’ll also note that I’m hopeful that the new folks living here and in Austin Street should provide a nice boost to existing retail, and I’m hopeful we’ll get a new restaurant or two.
I’m not naive, the developer’s numbers are likely to be rosy. These units don’t seem to be the type that would attract significantly more children than predicted, but it is certainly possible. I’m very glad that it seemed like the developer’s feet were being held to the proverbial fire on the promises made, that is very important.
I’m not a huge fan of the project as a whole. But I’ve come to realize that some of my hesistation was not wanting to lose the particular retail in place. But that ship was sailed. I think the Orr building could have been rehabbed and made beautiful, but the developer won’t be doing that even if this particular development doesn’t get approved.
So if the choice is either (a) a 40B, (b) sometime like Newton Corner, or (c) this particular project, I guess I chose (c). I hope our city council pushes as many concessions and improvements out of this project as possible. And the village improvements had better start showing up soon.
Emily:
Perhaps Jane is speaking just about these particular units, which from an outside inspection seem to be falling apart. Are you willing to say the inverse of your question to Jane, that all naturally affordable units in Newton are in great condition or at the very least would pass a HUD inspection?
Pretty sure (definitely sure) there is a range of care taken with natually affordable units, but you’d be pretty naive to think that a large portion of them aren’t in need of some repair, and that many would not pass a lead inspection or have modern fire/safety systems. There are certainly a good percentage of affordable units that are kept in good repair and affordable due to tenant relationships with landlord, because the landlord lives on site and wants a neighbor they trust or personally like, etc. But generally in my experience the market rent increases with location, quality of unit, size of unit. Newton’s location is top notch…so cheaper units on the whole have other issues. Typically. Not universally. I know of half a dozen families who live in what I’d term affordable rentals, many of which help keep it that way by assisting an elderly landlord with basic tasks, or who have struck long term rentals with landlords. But I think they are the exception not the rule.
In your position of city councilor, you certainly could request data from the city regarding inspections of such units, but unlike Boston I don’t think Newton looks that closely at its rental population on the private market, and I’ve yet to hear about a Newton landlord getting inspected like Boston landlords do.
I’m sure you had a point to make in your comment, but except for catching Jane in a generalization, I’m not quite sure what it was.
Emily – You have a tendency to take a statement and inflame it to an illogical conclusion. The statement was made that the housing in the Orr block was “naturally affordable”. It is not. The owner does not maintain it as s/he should. Those apartments are not “naturally affordable” – they are apartments with low rent because they are in such poor condition.
Fig – The area is not a slum. The individual apartments are in poor conditions and the residents of limited income live at the mercy of property owners who have not maintained them. There are other apartments in Newton in similar condition that are in areas that are otherwise residential and well maintained.
@Jane
“The owner does not maintain it as s/he should. Those apartments are not “naturally affordable” – they are apartments with low rent because they are in such poor condition.”
Do you have any evidence supporting this statement?
Anyone else notice the post office trucks parked today a block closer to west newton? See, the problem is that most of the folks who are so pro this development DONT LIVE NEAR IT.
where are all the restaurant goers going to park with all the post office trucks taking up all the spaces?
It’s fair to say, though, why doesn’t the post office sell their building?
Rick,
The whole point of high density housing above commercial is walkability.
160 units should average 250 people, plus maybe 100 people within a 2 block radius. 350 people should be enough to sustain commercial activity without a car
Have not even counted Austin st project who can walk across the bridge and teenagers walking from Newton north
The average cost per student in Newton Public Schools is not the same as the marginal cost of an additional student in the school system. The average cost is the total expenses divided by the number of students, but adding one additional child to the system costs $0 (no additional teachers, heating cost, administration, custodial expenses, etc.) and lowers the average cost. It’s difficult to project the cost of adding 32 or more kids. It all depends on how the kids are spread out across grades and where the tipping point is for adding a new teacher.
Rhanna,
Forgive me, but your comment has me scratching my head. So adding the four additional children to my 4th grade class at the Newton Elementary school on Murray Road had no impact whatsoever on the cost, both financial to the school and to the mental capacity and physical ability of the teacher when the class became 25? When my third child was born twenty years ago, he added no additional expense to my budget since it had already been spread out among the first two?
I live quite near the project.
The site for Washington Place is on a main thoroughfare in Newtonville which until recently housed a mix of uses, business, commercial and residential. It is not in an historic residential neighborhood, will not have much of an impact on those close by and is a great place to rezone to MU4. (Phase 2 of zoning reform will address zoning ambiguities.)
Along with the city and Austin Street promised improvements to Walnut Street south of the pike, the Washington St city promised improvements and the improvements over the bridge and north of the pike in this proposal will create the essence of a combined and more vital Newtonville Village Center. It will increase foot traffic to our merchants adding to their stability and add approximately 9000 sf of public gathering space as well as 2000 sf of needed community space. All of these will truly create a more Beautiful Newtonville.
At this point, the draft board order would approve two proposals for this site, one with 140 units and one with 160 units, giving Mr Korf the leeway to choose which will be built. Except for possibly moving the entry point from Walnut Street, the 160 unit plan is better for the city and for Newtonville. It would include 120 market price units and 40 deed restricted units, including 12 for incomes up to 50% of AMI, 12 for incomes up to 80% AMI and 16 units for incomes between 80% and 120% AMI. This diversity of housing options is needed in Newton. The public transportation fund to reimburse residents based on number of car spaces rented is a great incentive to move toward fewer cars.
If permitted by DHCD, 70% of the deed restricted will be local preference units. Not sure how I feel about this one.
Of the authorized uses for the commercial space, I question including health clubs at or above ground level and street level office space as good uses of this space. These do not add to foot traffic but take up parking spaces.
The school enrollment figures, the initial funding of and the body that controls the public transportation subsidies, and several other things need to be worked out. Hopefully they will be because Newtonville needs Washington Place.
@Rick: That’s incorrect. I live on Lowell Ave not even a block away from this development. I support it. Some of my neighbors support it. I actually really don’t mind being inconvenienced for the greater good of the city and the people who are hoping to live here who currently can’t.
The school population issue is a red
herring – a non issue. It took me a while to learn that, but I’m glad I did. My change of opinion
may coincide with my children’s finishing with the school
system this year, but perhaps not.
The new normal is to build new expensive schools, and they
should be populated accordingly.
Countryside had close to or just slightly more than 500 students for years, as an older facility, so there is your watermark or bottom line. I’m not sure that Angier or Zervas are at that point, but they should be, as should all of the elementaries.
Another red herring is the class
size issue. They fluctuate from year to year and will continue to. We owe it to ourselves and our community to challenge the boundaries and size of our school classes.
A “welcoming”, “inclusive” city
must continue to grow, evolve and
expand. A definite YEA here.
Suck it up. We continually underestimate
our capacity for change, and shared sacrifice.
Regarding Horace Mann over-crowding, I believe Horace Man is being moved to a newly refurbished Carr elementary school in 2019. I’m assuming its much bigger? Elementary is likely the bulk of any new incoming kids…
The old Horace mann is being turned into a community center (and technically could be turned back into a school if we experience crazy over crowding)
I was more concerned about school capacity until Zervais, Cabot and Angier were all supersized. I am assuming Horace Mann will be larger in Carr as well, but I could be wrong.
Mark, Rhanna’s point is correct, at least in how she looks at it. It doesn’t make sense to just divide the number of students by overall cost and say that 20 kids = XX Extra dollars. Some costs are sunk costs, like the superintendent, each school. Some costs are not sunk costs and increase by a certain number of kids, namely 20 extra kids means an average of an extra teacher, some support staff.
That said it is not as simple as Rhanna’s point I think, since at some point you have the tipping expense, and then you build more schools or add more classrooms, and those collective new kids cost more. It does depend on overall capacity, how much enrollment slack you have in each school, how much flexibility there is to move school zones, etc. There also tends to be bubbles with school enrollment, and my theory is that as costs for single family homes rise here in Newton, so too does the use of private school and folks with older kids.
Rick Frank, I’m not sure what the postal trucks parking area means in the context of this discussion. I’ve been advocating for a while to push that parking area AWAY from Newtonville, since I think more folks would park between Lowell and Walnut and beyond and walk to the village if that was possible. Wouldn’t the postal trucks being parked closer to West Newton be a good thing?
And I for one do not want to lose the post office. I like having a local post office.
I say NO.
I’m okay with a variance for the mixed use but the 5th floor add-on is too much beyond what the original zoning allows. It sends the message to all would be developers to come to Newton, demand a rezone or threaten 40B and then you’ll get your mega-complex built however you want.
As an agent I’ve rented many apartments in Newton and can tell you the people that will buy/rent these will come for the high school, Newton North, then leave when the kids graduate after 4 years, fleeing for towns with bad schools but lower taxes. It’s not a sustainable model and leaves the long-term residents paying the tab.
It’s not a cycle we can totally prevent–and we can’t, and shouldn’t, be basing our decision on the amount of students that will occupy these residences. However, I can’t help but look at this dense design and think it looks more like a dormitory for Newton North than affordable housing.
@David M – you’re obviously seeing a different group of renters than I do. I’ve had many young married childless co-workers who rent in Newton for a few years before buying either here or somewhere else with good schools. Rental is often the gateway into settling here for those at the young married end of the spectrum.
Honestly, the need to increase
school staff and resources appears to be a non-issue as well. Schools
like Countryside survived and flourished for years adding students
to a heavily populated school without adding any extra teachers or support
staff, so I am not convinced that there is a need for any. Newton has a wonderful highly talented group of teachers who, aware of the new normal, would not only welcome but would rise to the challenge of serving a
larger group of students into the system. There appears to be room for more students in the middle and high
schools as well, so let’s not count those out as well.
Hi all. Not really adding my opinion one way or another here, but I’m a student at Newton North, and for a project for my TV Production class I made a short segment on the Washington Place project. It was a fun way to get involved with the community and learn more about this project. It only really covers the simple aspects of what’s going on, but I think it does a good job of informing people about the proposal on the most basic level. It also takes a quick look about how some local businesses feel about the development. I’ll put the link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7E8jcRxhKQ&t=4s
@Jojo
Just came back from watching the video. Very well produced and informative. Thanks for posting it and directing people to it.
@Rihanna – of course marginal cost of each additional student is $0, except for that student who costs us $30-40M to build a new school. Love this innovative use of the marginal cost definition, and with your kind permission will use in a class I teach. :)
@Paul Green – Countryside…flourished…Really! Have you talked to any Countryside parent, or even tried googling “Countryside overcrowding”? Alternate facts are here to stay, I guess.:)
Excellent video JoJo, so easy to follow. It provides a snap shot of this very controversial issue. The Roberts are not good examples of the pro vote as they worked out a relocation financial settlement with Korff and thus have a biased view of the project. Many people who rented commercial space above the ground floor have also been pushed out. Many can not find comparable space.
@Rhanna – “adding one additional child to the system costs $0” — What Neil said on new schools.
If we had empty schools and classrooms it would be one thing, but additional students will trigger additional costs There are segments of the community on fixed/limited incomes (for many years to come) who will be driven from their homes by “marginal” tax increases that will occur if cost growth is not offset by incremental tax revenue. We need to continue to have councilors sensitive to – and personally representing – these concerns in negotiations or existing residents will be hurt more than new arrivals are helped.
@Bryan — To be fair, the council needs to consider that the interests of renters in the immediate area are very different than those that have a significant portion of their life savings tied up in their homes. If the development goes south or depresses their home value, they can’t easily pick up and rent in another part of the city.
What I find puzzling with “modern” MU-4 zoning is the number variances still needed to be added on top of it. In the case of Orr, am I correct that the Orr block property lines run at the edge of the buildings rather than at the sidewalks as drawings and the assessors database seem to indicate? MU-4 requires a 1 foot additional setback for each addition foot of height above 40′. This requirement is being waived (essentially entirely) for the 60′ height option despite a narrowing sidewalk on the western side of the Washington when, at the same time, we’re struggling to widen the Walnut St. sidewalks and add bike lanes. Sidewalks on both sides of Washington need to be wider and better lit and plowed sidewalks to encourage those parking on the Rt 90 side of Washington to cross at the intersection.
There will be those that loved the first Orr proposal, and those that will hate the final one, but we need a process (and a council) that gets the best possible deal for the city and works to build consensus in the community.
Jack Priar – Renters are full fledged citizens with an equal vote and their interests should not be trumped (no pun intended) by property owners. We did away with that system long ago.
off topic, why is there now a “rate this” thumbs up, thumbs down by every comment? It’s annoying.
Yeah, what’s with the thumbs up or down?
It’s remarkable how openly those who don’t want any change reconfigure their arguments to fit the circumstances of the moment. When Mr. Korf first submitted his proposal, the mantra of the day was how terrible he was to push the businesses and renters out. Now that he has followed through on his promise to help the residents and businesses relocate, the support of those he helped is called into question. Ridiculous.
I’m sorry, @Jack, but I vote just like you do. I find that comment offensive.
Laura Lovett has an update here.
@Bryan — Sorry — I didn’t mean to diminish your perspective or your vote whatsoever. I should have said “council ALSO needs to consider…”. The point is there are a lot of stakeholders in these issues with different perspectives and interests.
Jack, still offensive. Renters living in Washington Place are different from homeowners but more than likely have a similar perspective on keeping their home. They will through their rent contribute vastly to the owners real estate taxes going to Newton. It’s the renters who have the poorest return on investment. Even if they wanted to, they might not be able to afford to buy a home in Newton so they are willing to pay a huge rent to live here and are contributing to the community in many ways.
@Marti — my apologies I think we are on same page — there many perspectives and interests at stake. My point was just that two people can live next door to (or in) the Orr block and face vastly different risks and benefits depending on their circumstances.
@Jack — You’ve always been respectful even when we disagree, looking back I think I understand how you meant it. Apology understood and accepted.
At the core of the renter vs owner argument is ZONING! You buy a house with expectations that the zoning will prohibit the area from drastically changing, so you invest. So when another landowner wants to change the zoning and then get a variance on top of that it risks devaluing the neighbors at great profit to the variance seeker.
I’m okay with changing to mixed use zoning but not a variance to go up to 5 floors, just because it will bring more housing.
Cities rezone areas for various reasons. Since this was a multi-use space before the change to MU-4, it is resonable. The 60 ft height borders commercial streets. I can’t imagine real estate property in Newton is approacing devaluation.
David M,
You have to adapt to the changes. Did the farm owners in early Newton expect the zoning to never change, I don’t think the zoning has ‘never’ been altered. It changes as time goes by.
The city of Newton does not any obligation to protect people’s ‘investments’. Housing prices could fall for any number of reasons.
In fact, having a vibrant commercial area theoretically should ‘increase’ house values nearby if the stores are well trafficked (which requires high density housing above them)
@Bryan — Thank you; likewise
@Bugek — The farm owners probably made out pretty well, the farmers maybe not…
bugek,
when newton was farming land there wasn’t any zoning! each landowner was free to develop without restriction and that was equitable because each landowner had the same level of restriction–none.
if the city wants to increase development then we should be changing the zoning requirements wholesale–not approving zoning changes & variances for the special few that can afford to hire attorneys and consultants to make misleading powerpoint presentations.
@Jane @Fig My point was that not every naturally affordable apartment is poorly maintained or owned by a “slumlord”, which is what Jane seemed to be implying. Jane did you tour the apartments in the Orr block? Just wondering how you know what their condition is. The developer showed photos of the outside of their entryways which showed some peeling paint but otherwise we have no idea what they are like inside. Or is peeling paint a reason to rebuild a building? Seems extreme, not to mention environmentally wasteful. Maybe the naturally affordable apartments in Newtonville and elsewhere are such because they’re not brand new construction. Maybe some of them could use a paint job but so what? When I was growing up in Newton every house on my street could use some TLC… now only mine has that rugged look but humans have inhabited it for decades and lived to tell the tale. How about more love and tolerance for the naturally affordable units, hmm?
Emily – I lived in a 140-year-old house for 25 years. My current residence is 90 years old. Old has nothing to do with it. I have no love or tolerance for landlords who don’t maintain their properties.
David,
” … we should be changing the zoning requirements wholesale …”
I agree and that is what the city is doing in this second stage of Zoning Reform.
Emily, perhaps Jane used a word that offended your sensibilities but the residents who have relocated from those buildings, helped by Mr Korf, are pleased with their new arrangements. Have you toured their old units yourself? If not, it’s a moot point. Even if they fit what you term naturally affordable, they had no deed restriction so the tenants were aware of the chance of beening priced out. They’re lucky it was by Mr Korf because very few landlords would have been so kind as to help them relocate.
BTW, Jack I just saw your comment to me. I agree with Bryan – apology accepted.
@jojo sorry to be so late in responding to your video, I was both sick and away. You should go work for the TAB. They need your reporting skills. Really good job.
Emily, I would humbly suggest that perhaps you and your city council counterparts should actually look at those naturally affordable units. I think you’ll find a wide range of conditions, some good, some quite bad. Many can’t be rented to families legally because of the lead laws, but 3 bedroom affordable units are hard to find, so…families do live in them. Many of them have mold or other problems, substandard heating, poor insulation, non-updated electrical, etc. How do I know this? Because every large community in MA (and nationwide) has units like this. Talk to CAN-DO, talk to folks involved with affordable housing challenges around the Commonwealth, talk to the cities inspectional services. They are bound to know of such units. There are standards put forth by HUD regarding housing. My personal view is that those standards, especially on lead issues, are too lenient, but there are definitely standards. I’d be happy to show some love for naturally affordable units. Well maintained ones that are truly affordable are the exception, not the rule, in my view (and from my experience).
And you can tell a lot more from the outside than just peeling paint. Are the windows rotting? Is there a sag in the roofing materials? Are the gutters tight and clean? Is the landscaping overgrown? And signs of rot in the siding or the foundation? Any cracks in the siding or foundation? Does the system exhaust have a clear exit? Is the dryer exhaust area clean and free of obstruction? Does the house have old siding, and does that paint have lead? Are there paint chips in the soil? Is any decking or porches or steps in good repair? Does the electrical service line seem updated? Has the water main to the house been replaced (if not the house likely has lead water upon first flush each day, and you can usually tell by looking at the street in front of the house to see the patch repair, since Newton so rarely repairs its roads). Having lived and worked in and around such units, these things aren’t hard to spot, and even a lay person can get a sense of a house within a five minute walk-around. Internal inspections are more important of course, but in my experience where the outside points, the inside confirms.
Also, I think you are looking at naturally affordable housing like a homeowner would. It is tempting to say that this is why my house is different than my neighbors, or to say I too live in an older house, and hey, it ain’t so bad. But long term rental homes at affordable rates tend to get beaten down. Updates don’t happen, either because of landlord neglect or landlord lack of funds, and because tenants tends to care less when it is now homeowned (in general, not always). Again, that doesn’t mean the affordable units don’t exist in good condition. Perhaps you are taking your limited personal experience with some portion of those good units, as well as your homeownership experience, and drawing a conclusion from that. But I think that is too limited a set of facts, for Newton’s affordable housing stock and definitely for the Commonwealth’s affordable housing stock. Talk to anyone in the affordable housing industry, there are many who have advised the city council and the mayor in the past. I think other posters here have posted on the living conditions on some of the city units as well.
So happy to show some love for naturally affordable, but let’s also be realistic for what it is: some good units, alot of run-down units, some very bad units, and all of them without long term affordability protections. And the market in Newton tends to bend towards market rate in the long term. That in my view is the realistic view, based on a multiple date points.
Again, I’m sure there are folks in the city who could show you around and help you gather additional data. There are thousands of these units around the city…
@Neil P?-
Why lurk in the shadows?
We dont bite…
Welcome to the conversation,
and apparently to Newton.
I don’t have the time or energy to
“Bring you up to speed”, or give you the good solid schooling that you need, but rest assured all blog posters,that in
all my years advocating for Countryside, I never once received an e-mail, text or phone call from a
“Neil P” offering to help address the school population or resources issues at Countryside. Unfortunately “Neil”,
there simply weren’t enough people willing to get involved,
rattle some cages, and apply the sustained, unrelenting pressure that you need to apply to address inequities
that you feel may exist at your local
school. I can look in the mirror Neil and know that I’ve done my part and the facts bear that out.
I’m done with the Newton school
system tomorrow night.
GOOD LUCK!! You will need it.
@Fig
The point getting lost is that Korff and Orr block advocates are too easily dismissing the fact the he’d be getting rid of some affordable housing units, and so the impact of affordable housing from his development is overstated without looking at the net gain, which is minimal.
Sure there are probably a mix of units in terms of condition, so you could discount some of those, but overall Washington Place has very little to do with adding affordable housing.
This is 95% about providing market rate housing for those who want to live in a village center. And giving Korff millions in profit with Newton getting little in return.
We’ve got our own little Trump/Kushner fleecing the citizens who are distracted by side issues as Korff profits from a large real estate deal. You’d think Newton would be smarter. How depressing.
“The point getting lost is that Korff and Orr block advocates are too easily dismissing the fact the he’d be getting rid of some affordable housing units”
Those are not true affordable units, they just happen to have cheap rent which could be jacked up to market rate at any time:
– if the owner decided to sell to someone else
– if the owner give the building to their family, the family decides to renovate to get market rates
– the owner needs more money, so they renovate to get to market rates
Korff is proposing affordable units with locked in rates ‘forever’.
Pretty much every house, every building was built by a developer for profits. A government building paid for by taxes with profits going to a private developer. America is a capitalistic society, there is nothing unique about Korff’s profit from any other profit made on any other building.
There isn’t even any guarantee on profits, he is assuming risk. We could have a deep recession next year (or a war could start) and he would be in the hole
@Paul Green – My choice of not identifying myself clearly complies with this blog’s policy, and is a personal privacy choice. If you have problems – pl take up w the blog lords.
I find you attack rather interesting. I remember Countryside was classified as “SEVERELY overcrowded”. A quick google confirmed my memory info.massschoolbuildings.org/SOI_List/GetReport.aspx?mid=201002070040.
Maybe instead of attacking me, and displaying disregard for facts.. maybe you substantiate your baseless statement of calling school population issue, a red herring.
Are you aware that problem is not just at elementary school level – middle schools have trailers or modulars. High school classes are crowded as well. We had a $2M school deficit because of higher enrollment. I have not seen any plan to build the 5th middle school or 3rd high school.
If Newton wants to have crowded class sizes, be open about it. I moved to Newton for the reputation of its schools. Lets keep in mind Newton is not the only game in town. There are other districts better ranked than Newton.
Red Herring… how tone deaf can one be to facts!
@bugek
What is his estimated profit? Do you know? Do you care?
Blindly just OK with him getting whatever he wants and Newton gets a few dollars sent its way?
Real estate developers prey on weak governance.
Trump does it.
Kushner does it.
Korff is doing it now.
Remember when people on this blog were whining a month about how the process was over and he was going 40B? We’re not talking about regular citizens. Jane Frantz. Bryan Barash. People who are leading the charter re-writing, for goodness sake! They had no clue that the game was continuing. Korff is playing us for fools.
And your lemming-like “capitalism is good” without any awareness of the actual facts, i.e. whether his actual profit level is worth it for Newton, the expected net costs to the city, is precisely how the Trump and Kushners of the world have billions in their pocket.
Why would you be OK with blindly supporting this without knowing what his profit is? Shouldn’t the city be appropriately compensated for changing the zoning? Why should Korff fully enjoy the profits?
Neil,
If I had to guess, I would bet that ‘fake’ students are a much bigger problem than ‘enrollment increases due to high density housing’.
Newton has 11,000 students, it would not surprise me to see 1% (100 students) of that population using friends and relative addresses to fake entry into Newton. There is also the issue of not being reimbursed fully for medco students.
If schools are bursting at the seams, these 2 issues should be addressed first…
@bugek
I m personally not against METCO, I think they round out the experience for children.
What boils my blood is the false math that is propagated by SC and underestimating the impact on Franklin/Horace Mann. And then using hoaky marginal cost argument to sweep it under the rug.
What do you guys think of a ‘high density tax’??
I think it might be reasonable to consider. For any property which includes more than 16 units, you pay a surcharge on your property tax to cover extra resources the city must incur. Newton could restrict this to only ‘luxury’ units so that units purposely built for affordability wont be affected.
Seems ‘fair’ if Newton doesn’t abuse it and treat like a cash cow (i.e all special interested will be wanting a cut of it… historic society will want a cut, tree huggers will want cut, XYZ group will want a cut and schools left with nothing and not solve the original problem!)
@Bugek: Most large property developers would likely be thrilled to pay a density tax if that meant an end to the months of negotiations over the kinds of give backs they now provide, such as more “affordable” units, traffic mitigation, sewer mitigation, street lights, crossing lights, bike lanes, community space, co-working space, and on and on and on and on.
In other words, we are already “taxing” these projects.
Greg,
The focus on concern is on the extra costs for schools which is not accounted for. Its unknown if there will be a negative impact, if there is then Newton will not have an answer for it if/when overcrowding becomes unbearable.
The “Tax” could be setup as a rainy day fund, schools will use the money for ‘expansion due to enrollment above current levels’, left over will be used for traffic mitigation, community spaces etc
There is definitely no back-stop or ecrow being setup in the current negotiations
We are talking about taxing luxury units which are well above average prices…. Its not being forced down anyone’s throat (ie if you don’t want to pay the tax, don’t move here or look for non-luxury accommodation)
@ “Neil P”-
whatever realtor sold you your home in the Countryside district also sold you a bad sale of goods. Trusting a realtor is a little like trusting a used car salesman- it is a bad approach. The school overpopulation issue is VERY old news and little old
Countryside was the original overpopulated favorite. You obviously did not do your homework. That’s unfortunate.
The time to get involved was years ago,
and obviously you weren’t here and/or
didn’t bother to get involved. The horse has left the barn. Fortunately, it is no longer my problem.
Yes, there are districts other than
Newton, and it sounds like you would be more comfortable somewhere else.
you have to consider that the shabby but cheap apartments that are there served a different customer that the proposed government regulated “affordable housing” and one is NOT necessarily better than the other. when you graduate with $200k+ in debt, you can only afford shabby and don’t qualify for sect 8.
Sect 8 voucher people tend to stay longer, like forever or until the family size changes, which the proposal is for studio, 1 br and 2 br apartments, which means SMALL families: 4 people max and only if the two children are the same gender, since boys and girls can only share a room up to a certain age, like 6 maybe.
David M.:
The units that are affordable in these new buildings aren’t section 8 voucher units. There are multiple types of section 8 vouchers but these units would just look to the income level of the incoming tenants. No vouchers needed. That’s one of the reasons why the affordable units have substantial value to the city, because no other programs are being used to subsidize the units.
Also, shabby and cheap is certainly possible. So is cheap and unsafe. Trust me, both exist in Newton. Again, as above, there is a range of units. But units in mixed income buildings tend to stay at a high level, including affordable units, for a long period of time.
@fignewtonville,
the program is irrelevant, the point is if you have income but massive student debt you don’t qualify for these “affordable” programs but yet you also can’t pay retail for these new apartments.
your notion that people are unsafe and thus should just rent more expensive apartments kind of misses the point of WHY people rent cheap places to begin with: because that’s all they can afford!
Councilor Sangiolo, thank you again for engaging here. It’s truly helpful. I think the depth of you positions expressed is appropriate for this venue at this time in the mayoral race. Hopefully we’ll dig in deeper as the election gets closer and we’ll hear from the other candidates.
Some thoughts:
Identify and improve outreach to at-risk kids.
“We need staff at all levels in our school system to be trained on how to identify and assist …. ” I would prefer this sentence to be ended with “students who are exhibiting more at risk behaviors – signs of neglect, lack of support among friends or family, disinterest, mental anguish, among others.” Children/teens living in dire circumstances, being bullied, thinking about suicide, etc. will not self identify for many reasons. It’s up to adults to spot the signals.
Programs without transportation.
Not addressed. Programs aimed at helping more at-risk kids and closing the learning gap require transportation to be provided.
Local Historic Districts
“There is a lot of misinformation about what the Commissions can and cannot regulate – like house paint color – which is not within the local historic districts purview.”
I would like some clarification here. Aren’t LHD’s all different with respect to the amount of interference with homeowners’ plans for their houses?
“The City cannot stop teardowns – unless they adopt a [temporary] moratorium.”
Moratoriums, even temporary ones, are unfair to homeowners.
“We should do all we can to preserve our rich cultural and architectural history in this city.”
I agree with the underlying principle of this statement, but don’t agree that the city should be stuck in time. Growth and preservation are not mutually exclusive.
“I’ll just go for moderate – not high density development.”
What do you consider moderate development that you would support? In terms of Washington Place, how dense is moderate? How many floors would fit moderate? How many units?
” … these dense residential developments add to the income divide in this City … ”
How did you come to that conclusion? How is your opinion based in facts? Newton’s property is priced higher than most communities – more because of location than anything else – although a large percentage of residents are not wealthy themselves. Adding more market rate rental choices adds to the diversity of housing opportunities as well as the affordable units.
@bugek and Marti: – great questions and feedback. Promise to get back to you with much greater detail. But have been in the ER with my mother since 7:00 this morning. Will get back later tonight or tomorrow.