For those who don’t know my background: I’m an almost lifelong resident of West Newton. I graduated from the “old” old Newton High School in 1973, went on to graduate from MIT with a bachelor’s in Economics, and earned an MBA at the University of Chicago. I spent most of the 1980s living in Detroit, working for General Motors, before figuring out that what I really wanted to be was a newspaper photographer. Since 1989, I’ve been a photojournalist at the Lowell Sun.
I became active in public affairs in Newton almost by accident, by attending a Programs & Services Committee meeting to speak on another issue, hearing a discussion of the soon-to-be-passed Tree Preservation Ordinance, and learning about the dire situation of Newton’s public trees (which I’d previously taken for granted). Trees seemed like a discrete, manageable area where I could be of service, so I joined the Urban Tree Commission, and later became a founding director of the Newton Tree Conservancy, and president for the last two years. Since 2010, working with groups of neighbors, we’ve planted almost 800 trees. Trees in turn led to my early interest in the issue of gas leaks, and getting them fixed.
I also became increasingly concerned about the issue of teardowns, and the resulting tree removals, wastefulness, and loss of many of Newton’s most affordable houses. I value the economic diversity that Newton has had since my parents moved us here from Scituate in the late 1950s, and watch with dismay as one by one, Capes like our first house in Newton, or bungalows like the one I live in now, are demolished, replaced by houses two or three times as big and expensive.
I’ve written about these issues as a Village 14 blogger, and joined with other residents with similar concerns to form the Newton Villages Alliance, to provide information and advocate for policies and decisions that will help preserve a middle class in Newton.
I’m running for City Council for the same reasons I did not wait for an open seat to run for Alderman-At-Large two years ago. I want voters to have a choice, and I believe residents need more advocates on the City Council.
As one example, I was appalled that 2/3 of our City Council voted for the Orr Block rezoning with a “devil strip.” State law gives residents the right to petition for a 3/4 threshold to approve an unwanted zoning change. The developer’s devil strip (the non-rezoned strip) made him his own abutter, circumventing the clear intent of state law, and 2/3 of the City Council let him get away with it, putting the financial burden on the real abutters to finance a lawsuit to enforce their rights.
On more routine Land Use items, residents get short notice on projects that the City’s Planning Department and applicants have been working on for months. Too many residents are having to hire their own attorneys, architects, surveyors and arborists to do what zoning should do — protect themselves, their property, and their trees, from the adverse impacts of adjacent development.
Rising taxes, increased traffic, crowded schools, and vanishing trees and backyards have many people asking whether Newton is still the Garden City, and wondering whether they want to stay or can afford to stay.
I’m not giving up. And I urge others not to give up, either, because all the good things about Newton are worth fighting to preserve.
Instead, vote. If you’re a Village 14 regular, you probably already do, so convince your friends and neighbors to vote. Local elections are where our individual participation has the most impact. I ask for your vote on November 7, and your support as I work for a financially and environmentally sustainable Garden City. Please visit my website, juliamalakie.org for more information.
I also urge you to vote No on the proposed new charter, to preserve the “representative” part of representative democracy, the ward-elected councilors. The proposed charter would concentrate power in fewer hands, eliminate dissenting viewpoints on the Council, and make it more expensive for everyone to run for City Council, because every race would be citywide. It’s no benefit to be able to ‘vote in every race’ as proponents argue, if your preferred candidates are swamped in every race by voters from the rest of the city.
Julia, I voted for you the last time you ran and plan to do so again. Your work with the tree conservancy is transforming every corner of our city. I probably disagree with you on big developments like the Orr Block, but I want you to be there if and when an acquisition of Webster Woods comes to a vote and other councillors start getting cold feet, and for the city to start getting serious about tree removals, particularly that of old, mature trees by developers.
Julia, I love your tireless tree advocacy but I am troubled by your disregard for safe sidewalks that I have seen in other posts.
Although I disagree with Julia’s stance on preservation and direction of Newton, she is one of the few candidates who portrays herself honestly.
She is honest in her position and you know what you going to get by voting for her. I would very much rather vote for her than a ‘please everyone/ambiguous’ politician who stands for nothing.
Julia’s service on behalf of preservation is a real gift to this City.
Wow, thank you Newtoner and Bugek. I am moved by your comments, which are particularly welcome to wake up to, since I spent all night dealing with a rare bout of gastroenteritis (top google hit) or food poisoning or something very unpleasant. I’m working on keeping water down.
And thank you Bob for your continued support — hope you will do phone banking again!
@Mary, you’ve misunderstood me if you think I don’t care about safe sidewalks. Quite the opposite. I know people in wheelchairs and otherwise mobility-impaired, and since I do some bicycling over our bumpy streets, I can only imagine what it’s like to be riding over bumps like that all the time. What I object to is unnecessary tree cutting when there are other options to create ADA compliant sidewalks.
You may have missed my update on the Beacon Street trees. (I was already basically officially a candidate, so I couldn’t start a new post.) Go to the last comment here:
http://village14.com/2017/06/27/no-we-really-dont-replace-trees/#axzz4oT0H79BW
DPW is now going to ‘ramp over’ all the problematic roots with asphalt. That is all but three of the Beacon Street trees they wanted to cut down. The three that they still want to remove are ones with roadway clearance or curb issues that impede “curb to curb” plowing.
So that will buy time for those ramped over trees while the new trees that will be planted in currently empty spots have a chance to grow and provide some shade for pedestrians (in and out of wheelchairs) and cyclists. Beacon Street was not a question of trees vs safe sidewalks, and I’m not sure it was even a question of cost, since DPW said doing asphalt is cheaper initially, and I never got an answer to a question on life cycle cost of asphalt vs concrete. It was really about DPW’s preferred method of doing things.
There’s actually a great way to make more sidewalks ADA-compliant. I would like to see DPW take Urban Forestry’s list of where trees have been removed and stumps ground, and fix any sidewalks that need evening out, while there are no trees there. I see many examples as I tweet a tree a day from the removal list.
Also on the topic of safe and accessible sidewalks, this may not be so popular, but you will find me more of a hard liner on enforcing the sidewalk shoveling ordinance. I think the Board/Council to date has been a bit wussy on the question of fines. I don’t believe all the unshoveled sidewalks we see are cases of financial hardship.
Great news Julia, the city council needs more people like you.
I may as well ask this “loaded” question:
Do you support any ordinance which restricts what a homeowner can do to tress which are entirely on their property (i.e. not shared with neighbor)
Should an existing homeowner be allowed without question to chop down a perfectly healthy 100 year old tree ? It belongs to them, its on their property, it may be so tall that it provides shade to the neighbors house
Just curious what property rights may be diminished in the possible future..
Strike that last thumbs up (bugek). Should’ve been a thumbs down 🙁
Hi Bugek, I just saw your question. I personally would like some type of “significant tree” ordinance protecting trees on private property, as Springfield, Mass. and may cities on the West Coast have. Atlanta is also notable for restrictions on private tree removal because they consider maintaining tree canopy a public benefit. But I’m probably in a small minority there, and I don’t think it would ever pass in Newton without a wholesale turnover in the City Council and driven by a lot of public support.
As an example of the type of tree that could be protected, there was a lot of neighborhood concern about preserving a huge and very visible beech tree in a yard where Waban Ave comes into the “dog bone” island at Beacon Street. The lot is being divided and a second house built, and the neighbors were very worried that the tree would be cut down or damaged by the construction. The builder apparently intends to preserve the tree, fortunately, but there is no requirement that it be preserved.
Similarly, people were asking us tree people, and Marc Welch, about the recent removal of another huge private beech tree at Beacon and Lake Ave, asking why the city allowed it. In this case there was a lot of trunk rot — I happened to see it myself while looking at those DPW trees, and the owners removed it reluctantly. But again, even if it had been healthy, the city could not have prevented it being cut — only required replacement caliper inches if the house changed ownership within 18 months. So there are plenty of people who take an interest in seeing other people’s trees preserved; the question is whether they would be willing to be similarly restricted if they wished to cut down their own large tree.
What I would like to see, and think is perhaps achievable, is strengthening our tree ordinances to protect both city trees and private trees including boundary trees, from the adverse impact of construction activity on adjacent property. For example, suppose you have a large tree, maybe on your property line, maybe ten feet in, whatever. The canopy extends over the adjacent yard, and roots extend even further than a tree’s canopy. There is nothing in city ordinances that protects your tree from activity on the other side of the property line. If a developer excavates up to the property line in the course of digging, maybe for a stormwater retention system, or new construction up to a typical side setback of 7.5 ft or rear setback of 15 ft, and the root cutting leads to early tree death, or they store heavy construction materials or soil under the drip line of your tree that crushes or smothers the roots, your only recourse is legal action. Street trees are similarly unprotected from activity on private property.
Julia,
Thanks for the honest answer, this really helps. Defining “significant” would be the only arguable point here. Again, appreciate the honesty
Pat Irwin – Have we got to the point where “asking a question” is discouraged?
@Bugek – in Springfield, it’s defined as more than 75 years old, or larger than 36″ DBH. https://www.springfield-ma.gov/park/index.php?id=significant
As you can see, it’s not an ironclad prohibition.