Update (10/18/17)
The TAB story covering the debate has been updated to read: “Auchincloss, said that pot shops aren’t in his vision for the city but the city would first have to take steps to ban it. That would include a ballot initiative, which he would support.”
It no longer includes: “Houston said he would be in favor of a petition that would ban the sale of marijuana in Newton.”
—
What a difference a couple of years makes.
Remember two years ago when the Ward 2 At Large Contest between Susan Albright, Marcia Johnson, Jake Auchincloss, Lynne LeBlanc and (in the preliminary) Jess Barton captured the city’s focus and was viewed largely as a referendum on Austin Street, in specific, and development in general?
Two years later, there’s another competitive contest in Ward 2 At Large. Albright and Auchincloss are defending their seats against challenger Braden Houston. This year Houston has assumed the role as the anti-development candidate. (Except, at a debate yesterday, Houston suggested giving tax breaks to developers proposing senior housing, according to the TAB’s Laura Lovett., something at least Auchincloss was quoted as opposing.) And Houston opposes the proposed charter.
More surprising to me was Houston’s call yesterday to ban the recreational marijuana shops from opening in Newton.
“I’m not an advocate of recreational use of marijuana. It’s illegal at the federal level,” said Houston. “I think for a lot of parents it’s one more thing a parent has to deal with.”
Houston said he would be in favor of a petition that would ban the sale of marijuana in Newton.
Albright pointed out that since Newton voted in favor of the marijuana ballot question last year it would need to pass a referendum to ban sales in the city.
Auchincloss, said that pot shops aren’t in his vision for the city but the city would first have to take steps to ban it.
This guy Houston is too stupid to be running for public office. He has no respect for the voters of Newton, and zero understanding of the laws governing cannabis. I don’t give two hoots that he’s not an “advocate” for marijuana. Voters decided the issue at the ballot box. The role of city government is to implement that vote, not try to undermine it.
“I think for a lot of parents it’s one more thing a parent has to deal with.”
With all due respect, if you are a current parent in Newton who hasn’t “dealt” with the presence of marijuana in your children’s lives, you are out of touch.
Well, he’s made that choice easy for me: I’m voting for the two incumbents.
I agree with both of the above comments. I don’t guess pot shops were ever in my vision of a city until I realized it was classified the same as heroin and other hard drugs and the criminal justice system had gone nuts prosecuting anyone caught with an ounce of marijuana. I am surprised that Jake still thinks this way but can’t imagine he would stand in the way of carrying out the voter’s wishes.
If Braden thinks keeping pot shops out of Newton will influence teenagers chances of obtaining marijuana or that parents won’t have to have the same discussion with their teens, he’s talking the talk of those who think not teaching teens about sex or birth control will keep them from having sex or getting pregnant. Plainly makes no sense.
I thought Deb Crossley was on the mark with her answer when I also posed the question to Ward 5 candidates: In a nutshell, she said recreational marijuana was approved locally by a wide margin and that it should be regulated the same as alcohol.
@Andy: Did any other candidates say they wanted to ban this?
I don’t understand why he is even stirring up this hornet’s nest so early in the day – wait til after dark when things calm, readdress with larger perspective beyond the parochial sting.
Sounds like this fellow should set his sights higher. Isn’t there an opening for an HHS Secretary with his perspective?
I don’t think others said exactly that, but none were favorable to the idea of a marijuana shop in the Garden City. I only posed the question to wards 2 and 5. To be fair to Braden, Jake Auchincloss was strongly opposed to the idea as well, but I wasn’t taking notes.
To reiterate a point I made at the forum. Newton was a city that had a large majority in favor of marijuana. By state law, a city that voted this way must vote to opt out by ballot if it decides to not allow marijuana. Below is a summary of the local control option in the new law as summarized by the Mass Municipal Association.
Local control
The law signed by the governor establishes an unusual two-tiered system for banning businesses that either sell, grow, manufacture or test recreational marijuana products based on how a community voted on the ballot question in November.
Communities where voters rejected Question 4 have until Dec. 31, 2019, to ban recreational marijuana businesses through their standard ordinance or bylaw process. This provision will apply to the 91 communities where Question 4 did not pass – about one-quarter of the municipalities in the Commonwealth.
In communities where Question 4 passed, the municipal government must prepare an ordinance or bylaw, which must then be reviewed and summarized by municipal counsel. Following this review, the question – by a vote of the board of selectmen or by the city or town council with the approval of the mayor – must be placed on the ballot at a regular or special municipal election.
After Dec. 31, 2019, this ballot requirement will apply to every city and town.
The new law also provides language for the local ballot question, as had been requested by the MMA.
There is a Staff Committee led by Barney Heath that is examining our options. I would guess that this is something that the new Mayor and Council will be taking up in the spring.
That’s it. Braden and Jake just lost my vote. And I don’t even smoke (or vape) pot.
The people of Newton overwhelmingly supported this.
So Councilor Hess-Mahan: are you saying you prefer to digest your pot?
Much more relevant than pot-shop policy, which has largely been settled by Newton voters, is housing for seniors. My challenger was quite clear in the debate: he would vote against Sunrise Senior Living, which would provide more than 100 units for Newton’s fastest growing demographic. https://tinyurl.com/ybkp4nuu
Thanks to Susan Albright for providing accurate information about the cannabis law as it relates to Newton. Susan also mentioned that the Mayor has appointed a committee to examine the law and presumably guide its implementation…
This committee has been meeting in private, with no members of the press or public in attendance. There are no cannabis proponents on the committee. They do not record their meetings. I personally requested their notes, and was informed they had none…
It is my strong belief that this committee will suggest a moratorium on implementing the law that was passed 11 months ago by a large majority of Newton voters. Nothing could be more disrespectful of those voters than a moratorium. Voters have made it clear. Cannabis is legal. The job of our elected officials is to implement the new law as the voters expect them to do…
The ins and outs of the new cannabis law are being discussed in nearly every municipality in the state. Newton has the opportunity to not only get it right–but lead by example as well. Common sense dictates cannabis sales be treated like alcohol sales. The City Council needs to get to work and draft a zoning ordinance reflective of that reality.
There’s an easy way to make your position known, not sacrifice your values, and support the will of the people. Here’s something off the cuff:
“I support the will of the people, but I personally feel that legalizing marijuana creates another challenging element for kids/parents and a potential strain on our police resources. I therefore would not support banning the recreational sale of marijuana in Newton, but I will be working with our Health and Human Services and School Departments to make sure we are educating our students and parents on the impacts of marijuana and how we can help support the community to ensure children do not obtain access to marijuana. I will work with the Police Department to make sure they have the resources needed to implement new policies and procedures to minimize any potential public safety threats that could be created by the legalization of recreational marijuana.”
@Ted Hess-Mahan
Jake wasn’t against it as a city counsilor. He said he wasn’t a fan but that the law was clear that the city needed to allow them because the voters had decided. His first comment was his private opinion and the second shows that he understand the city council’s obligations.
Would proponents of banning marijuana shops also support banning alcohol sales in Newton? If not, I would love to hear that explanation.
Prohibition doesn’t work, unless your goal is to lock up a bunch of people and create an underground, black market economy.
@Jakey
Houston is within his rights stating and explaining why he would vote no on the Sunrise Development. He obviously has respect for the residents of the Jackson Homestead Neighborhood Association who are direct abutters to the property. If you were listening, Jake, you would have heard these neighbors say they were in favor of the Sunrise Senior development if they brought the project down to 3 stories. Yes there is a growing need for senior housing, but does it have to be a huge luxurious assisted living property?
I am continuously disappointed in councilors who allow the profitability pleading by the land use attorneys and/or the business guys out of Virginia tugging on your decision-making heartstrings. Is Braden Houston the only City Councilor-to-be who puts the stated desires of residents who have their largest lifetime investment/asset (their primary residence) abutting this proposed monstrosity, first? I have attended to several of the public hearings as well as dog-and-pony shows at the YMCA with this petitioner.
Is it necessary to destroy historic residential neighborhoods in our community to obtain commercial tax revenue? I hope not.
On Sunrise, I’m very surprised anyone besides the immediate abutters are against that project. It looked great to me. It is senior housing, a very low impact use, and it replaces a car dealership. Absent a large park (and it includes some smaller parks within it), it seems a terrific use of the property that should meet most of the criteria the NVA types say they want.
If height is the major issue, I think folks need to get their head around that Washington street is a major street.
Do other city councilors not support this project? Amy? Emily? Jim?
As for Houston, I had to chuckle. Because as I’m reading my first thought was “Mike S’s head is going to explode.”
Jake and Susan have my vote. I have my disagreements with both (especially Cabot Park and the storage facility). But both have been dedicated and thoughtful, and have always been reachable.
Jake especially has been a pleasant surprise. Very available, lots of means of contact, and he has taken reasonable, thoughful positions for the most part. He earned my vote.
It feels like Ward 2 keeps drawing anti-development candidates. My take is that Houston doesn’t even win the ward, never mind the entire city. That should tell us something…
A number of people within this string seem to be trying to put words into my mouth, so I would like to set the record straight. In regards to marijuana, I personally voted no on Question 4. As a father of two little girls, a five and a ten year old, I see the increased use of recreational marijuana as a risk to them and that is why I voted as I did. However, in regards to the vote I was in the minority in Newton as “Yes” won 55% percent of the vote and “No” won 45% of the vote. (25,516 in favor to 20,796 not in favor). With that being said, it is clear that the majority of Newton is in favor of Question 4 and I do not support a petition to ban its sale – the people have spoken. (Randy, thank you for your comment.) If I misunderstood the question at the Candidate’s forum due to my lack of understanding of Massachusetts’s marijuana laws, that is on me and I take ownership for my mistake.
As City Councilor I understand that marijuana will be regulated and controlled like alcohol, however I would advocate for more education for parents and students on the effects of marijuana. I would also hope to make sure that marijuana shops are not near schools and playgrounds. Finally, I would consider “buffer zones” that establish minimum distances between dispensaries and shops like Councilors in Boston and Cambridge have enacted.
In regards to the comment by Jake, that I am against the Sunrise Senior Living facility proposed for Newton Corner, that is literally the exact opposite of what I said at the forum and what I have been advocating since I began my campaign. (I will try to post the forum audio shortly.) As I mentioned, I love this project, and it fits in perfectly with what I have been promoting for senior housing. The reason that I support it so much and hold it up as an ideal project is not just because it will help to address a serious Senior housing shortage, but also because the abutters support the project. As I do, they understand what it means for their fellow citizens and have been willing to compromise their interests for the greater good of Newton’s Seniors. They are willing to put up with increased traffic and two years of construction to have a facility built that will increase senior housing. For those unfamiliar, the issue revolves around the idea of the project being either 3 or 4 stories. The developer wants the project to be 4 stories, while the neighbors are asking for a 3 story project. The developer claims they will not make enough money at 3 stories (which I am skeptical of) – my opponent stands with the developer. The neighbors claim the 4th story will tower over their houses and impact their quality of life – I stand with the neighbors. Again, we need compromise – the neighbors are willing to deal with the two years of construction, the developer needs to build a 3 story building. It is a great project, let’s build it!
@Braden: It doesn’t sound like it’s the “people within this string” who are putting words in your mouth. It’s the TAB.
Are you saying The TAB got it wrong?
Greg, In respect to the Tab, I think there were errors or at least significant mis-characterizations. We have a serious senior housing shortage, and the market does not seem to want to provide units for those seniors who can not afford luxury housing. As you know our largest single city expense is the schools, but seniors very rarely have children in the system. As I have said from the beginning of my campaign, I am in favor of means tested property tax relief for seniors, with the goal of helping seniors stay in their homes if they so choose. If a senior who is financially challenged wishes to remain in Newton but also downsize, we need to figure out a way to make that happen. In a scenario where a senior is looking to purchase a new unit in a village center, that is much easier as we can provide property tax relief directly to the senior buying the unit. The unit may be at market rate, but the reduction in property tax based on a means tested formula lowers the total cost of living for the senior, hopefully making it affordable. It is a win-win situation. The senior is able to stay in Newton, the city provides some tax relief, but the because the senior is not utilizing our single largest expense (the schools), the city comes out ahead as well. The problem arises when we seek to provide rental units for financially challenged seniors. The renters do not pay property taxes directly, the owners do. As everyone knows, I am not an advocate for the developers, and throughout my campaign I have been stressing the need to get more local input on projects. However, the market does not want to supply low priced senior housing and prefers to build high end luxury units, as they are of course more profitable. We need to figure out a way to level the playing field so that the Total Cost of Living is reduced for the seniors who wish to rent a new unit in a village center. So to say that I want to simply subsidize developers is a gross mis-characterization, and if the rest of what I said was quoted, it would be clear to everyone. I am searching for a way to increase senior housing in significant numbers and find some method to get savings through to seniors who rent. It is a very difficult situation that I am trying very hard to find a solution to without increasing the net tax burden for the rest of the city. No one has been able to come up with a solution yet, and that is why we are in the situation we have now – but I am trying to see what can be done.
In regards to the marijuana question, I explained that above, but the most serious case of “putting words into my mouth” comes from Jake, not the Tab. He is literally claiming that I said the opposite of what I said. I support the Sunrise Senior project because it adds significantly to our senior housing stock, and most importantly it has the support of the neighbors. For some reason he feels that it needs to be 4 stories because that is what the developer is demanding, but this is directly against the wishes of the neighbors who are willing to support the project if it simply remains at 3 stories. There needs to be a compromise, and I struggle to see why the reasonable wishes of the neighbors are being ignored. He claims I am against the project because I do not support the developer’s vision of 4 stories. That is simply not true, and that is what I mean by putting words into my mouth. Our disagreement here does not revolve around support for the project, as we both support it. The difference arises is who we support in regards to a potential compromise, the neighbors or the developer.
Thank you
@Braden: Thanks for the response. I have not been following this one closely, so correct me if I’m wrong, but if “the project” before the council is four stories and you want three then you indeed are against “the project.”
Braden, so the Tab misrepresented your position on marijuana stores and Jake is misrepresenting your position on the senior housing. Ok?
Did you or did you not say you would sign a petition to ban marijuana stores in Newton? Simple enough?
As for the senior housing development sought by the petitioner replacing a car dealership, you phrase your support as not advocating for the developer but for the neighbors who want three stories. When did 3 stories become a magic number that would be acceptable for every development.
The proposal is for 4 stories on a major thoroughfare so dictating the number of stories and distrusting the property owner is not support it’s the opposite as is saying “there needs to be a compromise.” You readily admit “No one has come up with a solution yet” at least one that fits your limited parameters. So no you don’t support the Sunrise Senior development.
I was the first one in my Forum to say that I favored the regulation of recreational marijuana on a similar basis to the reulation of liquor.
@Councilor Yates: Way to bogart the issue in Ward 5!
I don’t think Mr. Houston’s problem has anything to do with other people putting words in his mouth. It has a lot more to do with him putting his own foot in his mouth. He clearly has very little understanding of any of the issues he’s recently raised.
No, Greg, I don’t even ingest the Gummy Bear edibles.
Let me be blunt. It’s high time we get out of the weeds, and nip this issue in the bud. Now, be a good doobie.
Braden:
Your two comments on Sunrise are a bit disjointed. I’m finding it difficult to make sense of the word salad. Basically you seem to be saying you support projects like this, but only if the neighbors agree with them, as they are putting up with 2 years of construction.
Personally, I would oppose a 4 story building if it was being built on a side street like the Court Street project was. But 4 stories on Washington Street makes perfect sense. The road is wide. The access is easy. The need is there for senior housing.
At some point, EVERY project of any size is opposed by direct abutters. Simply wiping away a story does have a huge effect on the ability of a project to get financing, and to have additional affordable units.
As for the pot, I’m not a fan of the substance myself, but I considering the ease with which anyone can get it, I don’t think prohibition is working. Growing up, getting beer was hard. Getting pot was really easy.
I hope everyone saw the comment that the tab got it wrong – Houston did not say he wanted to BAN anything. All three candidates said they opposed selling pot in Newton – I saw the video on Houston’s Facebook page and saw /heard with my own eyes/ ears that the Tab got it wrong – everyone on this string should check out the video to get the real story. Houston was the only one that didn’t stoop to insulting the other candidates, although Albright rode the center of the line quite well. He has my vote for sure…it’s just sad that the error of the Tab will probably go unnoticed by most of the people who read the original story!
Concerned Newton Citizen, regardless of the mistake by the Tab, Braden said all of the other things above against retail sales of marijuana in Newton. I believe that he had your vote from the getgo because he is anti-density.
Thumbs up for Jake Auchincloss’ reply to the comment in the post and thumbs down to the original article. Let’s talk about the really important issues for Newton, not this stuff.