Got some, uh, feedback on the Twitter when I declared:
I'm not. This charter proposal is not ideal. But, for tackling the challenges the city confronts, status quo is worse than the proposal.
— Sean Roche (@seanroche) October 14, 2017
This lead to a long discussion in which I made the following argument;
- Global climate change is the most urgent issue facing, well, the globe
- The biggest change we can make at the municipal level to reduce global climate change is to increase density — which substantially reduces private automobile use
- Ward councilors have been the biggest obstacle to increased density in Newton
- The charter proposal, despite having some worrisome issues, eliminates ward councilors as a block to more density
- Therefore, if you are serious about global climate change, you must vote yes on the charter proposal
What do you think? Is global climate change the most urgent issue we face? Is there a bigger lever the city has to reduce global climate change than density? Can you be serious about global climate change and not advocate for additional density? Are ward councilors an obstacle to density? Will a yes vote on the charter lead to more density? If you are serious about global climate change, do you have to vote yes on the charter?
Some of the issues that participants raised in the twitter-sation:
- Dense projects enrich developers (true, but it doesn’t have to be so true)
- Ward councilors have effectively advocated for more affordable housing (true, but bigger projects provide more opportunity for affordable housing)
- Dense projects lead to big parking structures (doesn’t have to be true, we should set parking maximums)
- Ward councilors have ended up supporting recent projects (yes, but generally as a trade-off for smaller projects)
- Ward councilors have done lots on the environmental front besides advocate for density (yes, but we need to be all in on global climate change)
And, the last is probably the most contentious issue. If you truly believe that global climate change threatens the planet, then you have to pull all the policy levers you can. Anything less is not enough.
Whew!
I’m looking forward to the case that a No vote is a vote against racism.
That a Yes vote is a vote in support of peace in the MidEast
Personally, I don’t believe that the Charter is related to the development debate, except that we’re going to have one.
Let me explain what I mean. Currently, we have people who advocate for moderate development and people who believe the modest apartment buildings we’ve permitted like Austin St and Washington Place are the wrong direction for the city. Both sides claim majority support. Incumbent councilors are rarely challenged on policy grounds. And on and on.
With a smaller council, term limits and more competitive elections, we’re actually going to have a lot of contested races and some actual policy debates will likely break out. We’ll have candidates running to be the better choice for development, for less density, for the environment, for being a welcoming city, for being a more Trump friendly city, for leafblowers, for less leafblowers. We’re going to talk about it all, and we’re going to have a better chance at understanding who our council candidates are, where they stand, and we’re going to make INFORMED choices about who we’re voting for.
Democracy is best when people are making informed choices, and that’s a big reason I supported this proposal and am voting YES in November.
@sean
Attempting to attach the charter vote to a separate issue that people have genuine concern and passion about is a stretch that feels a bit desperate and disengenuous. If you care about your position, focus on the merits of your argument.
Also, don’t forget that many of us voting NO are also PRO development, and PRO density. We however believe that the yes proposal lays down a flawed political foundation that disempoweres voters by removing their gaurantee of being represented by someone of their choosing.
My objection has to do with integrity and fairness. – To the point where I even question if the CC propsal is consititionally legal.
May I ask a question?
Since the beginning of this argument, the need for a smaller council is a point that is always accepted as fundamentally true. By why is this true?
A governing body focused on efficiency and customer service should be able to manage efficiency with structure and rules.
Example; in another, smaller MA town, my sister just received a variance for a pool by the planning board, not the full council.
I think that a management consultant would say that the problem is not size, but rather structure, process and leadership. Thoughts?
Believing that most voters will find something objectionable in the Commissions’ precept charter, so much so that that one or more points will bring the thumbs down in entirety by the majority. I network thruout the city, listening to confessions of highly intelligent engaged professionals, looking out over their shoulder for fear of PC observation, while admitting leaning to just say ‘NO’.
Occasionally spattered with a ‘Yesser’, my respect for who they are and their viewpoint, I let it go and rather than engage in debate, can live with the charter in NO or YES.
If thatin be the case from observation, ‘Yes’ although stacking the Commission, employing tactics, have proposed a flawed charter. And sympathies from long timers feel that flawed as it is, not trusting that the Council will follow thru on their 8/8 kicker option, would rather have something of change than no change at all.
People have generally become suspicious of the government, its inability to deliver on proposals to the liking of most in an efficient process, wonder what motivates folks to become so called leaders.
Yes, change can be good, but the motivation of the institution of municipal government needs baby steps of change. Could it be that over zealous so called leaders have become their own worst enemy?
Nov. 7th is a question of identity, diversity without focus, in step or out of step with mass municipal opinion.
@BryanBarash: What evidence did you use to form the basis of your point that reducing the size of the City Council would cause an increase in voters making informed choices? As you likely know, the majority of Americans can’t name their Congresswoman or Congressman, of which there is only one. Furthermore, only 1/3 of Americans can name a single branch of the federal government. Moreover, virtually zero of my Newton friends who are not part of the very small group of political insiders know who their State Senator or State Representative is. Generally speaking, informed choice isn’t a numbers game.
Rather than give tremendous advantage to candidates who can raise lots of money because of family or similar networks, I believe that our entire community is better served by a system that allows anyone interested in running for office the ability to walk door-to-door and make their case while looking residents in the eye. At the local level, unlike at the federal or state levels, this is possible. At the end of the day, that’s why I’m voting no on the Charter proposal.
Mike,
I, too, struggle with the charter proposal. It’s a highly flawed document. We probably share common (or at least overlapping) concerns. Ultimately, what tipped things to Yes for me are two things which appear to me to be undeniable:
* Ward councilors have been disproportionally anti-density and have used their influence to limit the size of recent projects — approved and unapproved
* The charter proposal will make it less likely that anti-development folks will gain city council seats
I’m not so much “attaching” one issue to the other. I’m seeing an inevitable consequence. Which leads to the ultimate conclusion: if being pro-density is your most urgent issue, then a Yes vote seems obvious. Certainly, you can be pro-development and have concerns with the charter that outweigh possible pro-development benefits. Pro-density doesn’t equal pro-charter. But, if density is not more important than any other municipal issues, you don’t share my urgency about policy responses to global climate change.
There are (at least) three critiques of my position:
* Density is just as likely or more likely with status quo on the charter
* Density is not the biggest lever municipalities have to combat global climate change
* Global climate change is not the most urgent issue to consider in municipal elections
The first seems to fly in the face of the evidence. The second would run counter to well-established conclusions. The third is just a value judgment I don’t share.
By selling this charter as an enhancement of environmental activism, one must jump to one of my chief concerns of the proposal. By taking away WARD elected councilors, it becomes a foregone conclusion that the power in the city will lie in the hands of cross-ward, coordinated ideologues, and ideological agendas. Please vote NO and protect your vote, your wards voice.
“Ward councilors have been the biggest obstacle to increased density in Newton”
When you make a statement like that, you should provide data that supports it. Specifically, I’m interested to know the how ward councilors voted on projects outside their own ward. I don’t see how being a ward councilor should inherently bias you against development.
The charter needs to outlive the issue of the day and that was a challenge that the charter commission discussed often. Right now, development and teardowns are in the news today, but will it be an issue 20 years from now? Probably not.
I hope it sets up a city government that will be effective no matter what the issue of the day may be in 2035 or 2045, because most likely, whatever charter we have on November 8th is the one we’ll live with for the next 45 – 50 years.
I still can not understand how such a narrow thinking group of commissioners were voted in to design the Charter reform. What happened? Why did the voters fail to choose a more representative group of past politicians, ones with a broader mix of views? Do we have a small powerful clique of people who want to transform the city into their vision of what is best for the future? Why have the ward councilors become the target for elimination? Why no compromise on this issue? I say something stinks about the YES vote. It lacks fairness and balance and will not serve the best interests of all Newton residents.
Colleen,
The charter commission make-up is a bit of a preview of the issues with the council composition in the charter. While I don’t think they were rigorously homogeneous, it appears the charter commissioners mostly reflected the majority view in Newton. Because every voter could vote for as many commissioners as there were seats, it is . not a surprise that the composition reflects the majority view in Newton.
Likewise with the council as specified. If 51% of voters in Newton have homogeneous policy preferences and there are 12 candidates who reflect those policy preferences, we’re going to have 100% of the council that reflect those policy preferences.
It’s not rigged, but the specific voting mechanism in each case is not going to yield a broad mix of views, at least not on issues where there is a strong majority of voters.
Put more simply, there are appear to be a lot more people in Newton who want city-wide voting for councilors than want just small fraction of the city voting for each of 8 councilors on a smaller board.
Jane,
Density is far from the issue of the day. It’s been an issue for decades and will be an issue for decades. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having an eye to the major issues to decide when writing a charter. Many of us feel like the currently governing charter makes change much more difficult than it needs to be. Whatever its issues, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the proposed charter is just designed to deal with a particular issue.
Newtoner,
The theory is that, within a ward, there can be a bias in favor of a ward councilor who will “protect the character” of the ward. The type of candidate that gets elected ward councilor tends to be disposed against intense development generally and sincerely. While there may be horse-trading — vote against development in my ward and I’ll vote against it in yours — I think that it is more about personality and what different people value.
Voters being able to make informed choices is a hallmark of our Democracy. Not all of them will, but the system should incentive informed decision making and should NOT make it nearly impossible to track all the officials you’re expected to vote on. I don’t buy the argument that nobody knows who they are anyway so lets not try to make it easier for them to follow. That’s a cynical argument based in false assumptions about our voters in Newton.
The Charter proposal unquestionably makes it easier to track the policy positions of candidates appearing on the ballot. When I’m talking to voters, I’m hearing that they want to make informed decisions but find the current system overwhelming. I’ve never heard a voter in Cambridge or Boston say that they can’t follow all of their councilors, but I hear it every single day in Newton.
The proposal also unquestionably will increase competition. We see competitive races with far less frequency in Newton than other similarly sized cities do. One great aspect of the system is a set of at-large candidates who all run in one race, which in other communities is contested in every election with few exceptions. With only 1 ward restricted seat instead of 3, competition is expected to be much more common and more competitive than the 3 ward restricted seats we have now.
@Sean: Unless there is data I am not aware of, I think your claim is grossly unsubstantiated. The fact that a group of 3-4 ward councilors voted against two development project means absolutely nothing statistically about different behavior of ward vs. at-large councilors. The mayoral candidate favored by the NVA was an at-large councilor, and some vocal anti-development candidates are running at-large. I’m not following your logic here.
The charter was originally sold to me as a opportunity to update our city government to better serve residents. It caught me off guard when I saw the proposal was to move to a single residency required counselor for each ward. In my 9 years living in Newton it is only these counselors who have shown any interest in my neighborhood.
It wasn’t until I was chastised by a league of women’s voter representative for being a “no” that I realized there was more to the charter than I had been led to believe. She informed me that ward councillors were the problem with Newton because in her ward, despite her best efforts, the incumbent ward councilor kept getting reelected. Apparently, when democracy doesn’t work you , change the rules.
The pro density crowd has an ally with my league friend. They have been frustrated that people not happy with some of the development projects are able to slow or stop the process. By reducing the number of counselors who answer to any specific ward, development can be pushed through with greater ease.
In my mind the two worst sins of gerrymandering are the disenfranchisement of voters and the tendency of elected officials to be rewarded for having increasingly extreme positions. Interestingly, this is exactly what the goals of the charter. The proposal reduces the influence individual ward have while rewarding homogenous candidates.
While I imagine the new charter would result in having a larger percentage of counselors sharing my views, I will vote NO because is proposal is designed to disenfranchise.
@Tim: I take serious issue with that. The Charter was designed to make a better government for our city for decades to come. Whatever your “friend” might have said, your friend wasn’t on the Commission.
To state that the Charter was designed to disenfranchise is a gross mischaracterization of both our intent and the actual effect of the proposed Charter.
@Tim – Completely agree. It will disenfranchise any particular ward.
Firing an elected official in an election, is the only tool most of us have to have any say in the government. The proposed charter takes it away from all wards.
Bryan,
I’m going to assume positive intent, but regarding effect, how can you deny the simple math of the charter? If the city is or becomes aligned along any dimension or set of dimensions — new development, density in village centers, taxes, spending priorities, leaf blowers, sanctuary city status — it will become very difficult for a candidate with a minority view to get on the council. If that minority view is the majority view in any one of the wards, that ward’s preference won’t prevail, because it will no longer have the ability to elect a representative based on its unique preference.
And, the reduction in seats amplifies the strength of the majority view. With a smaller council, the majority view needs to recruit fewer candidates to fill the board. It becomes less likely that a rogue candidate will be able to run unopposed to gain a seat or simply fly under the radar.
The city is not aligned along party lines. National party membership is not, as they say in political science, salient. Members of the local Democratic party are not aligned on issues of local significance, like development or leaf-blowing. But, there does appear to be some rough alignment that we can think of as striped v. spotted. If the city is or becomes aligned along striped and spotted — formally or informally — such that 51% of voters vote are spotted, it could be very likely that spotted could win 100% of the seats. There is virtually no mechanism for the striped to get a seat. Ward councilors at least provide a mechanism for wards that are majority striped to get a seat. Some sort of preference voting for the four at-large candidates would have been another mechanism. Instead, there is no mechanism designed to guarantee a seat for the striped view.
The fact that Newton has non-partisan elections and that there is no formal mechanism for voters and candidates to formally declare their municipal-issue alignment masks the fact that the charter proposal is going to drive homogeneity on the council. My guess is that the continued increase in the value of land and the market and environmental pressure for more housing in Newton (density!) is going to drive alignment to the extent that it doesn’t exist already.
The offsetting argument is that, yes, the charter proposal might create more homogeneity than other alternatives, but a smaller board was going to result in a clearer majority anyway. Anybody who thinks that ward-only races would result in a lot of striped wins is smoking something. The spots can’t be the majority city-wide and not win most of ward-only races (unless spots are highly concentrated in just a few wards). And, when you rewrite the rules, you rewrite how the race is contested. Spots would have approached ward-only races much differently, with a much greater emphasis for starters.
As I wrote above, my concerns about homogeneity are secondary to the urgency of global climate change and, therefore, the urgency of greater density. I may be wrong, as Newtoner suggests, and that ward councilors are no more or less hostile to density in general and in village centers. For sure, there are current at-large councilors who are hostile to density, particularly in village centers. But, in my experience, ward councilors tend to be more sensitive to the concerns of near neighbors of new development, whether that development is in their ward or not.
The funny thing about charter reform is that like-minded people who believe they can control the municipal masses create rules for others’ to live by without recognizing the aspect of human nature to be different, non-conforming, and by their very nature preach groupspeak in an attempt to be accepted by that packing of animals.
This we call non-partisanship.
@Sean: It’s easier to get elected with a significant minority viewpoint in the new system. In the current system, a particular ward might have a minority viewpoint and elect a councilor who gets a 1/24 vote. However, I find that it’s less likely to be a minority viewpoint and more likely that a small group of active citizens can exert enormous pressure on a local councilor to act in a way that might not be in the best interest of that ward or the entire city.
But even if we take your minority viewpoint example on its face, and presume that 1 or 2 of the 24 hold a viewpoint with strong support that amounts to less than 50% throughout the city, those people frequently find a home in the at large seats. For example, in Worcester, a Democratic city, a conservative Republican has for years retained one of the at large seats in large part because his voters bullet vote for him. In our proposal, that person would hold 1/12 of the voting power, rather than 1/24.
It is quite likely that people will point to a particular expertise or viewpoint that the city finds appealing. Someone might run based on their expertise with bike lanes, a particular interest in environmental issues, or or as an advocate or opponent of leafblowers, for example. Some voters will find that expertise or passion appealing.
@BryanBarash writes: “The proposal also unquestionably will increase competition.”
The fatal flaw in Bryan’s argument, judgment, and reasoning is that even if competition is increased, only those who come from a position of advantage – whether because of family or similar networks – will be able to compete in a meaningful way. Much like how I would never challenge Bryan to any form of athletic competition because of how unfair the playing field would be, we should not create a system whereby every single low income or otherwise disadvantaged candidate must compete against candidates who can either raise tens of thousands of dollars on a whim because of family or similar connections or tap into an established political network because of those same connections.
@BryanBarash raises another equally concerning point when he writes “One great aspect of the system is a set of at-large candidates who all run in one race, which in other communities is contested in every election with few exceptions.”
In other words, if the Charter proposal passes, not only will select candidates be given tremendous advantage because of family or similar networks, but in addition, an environment will also be created which will all but guarantee that these “special” candidates band together so as to create an unbeatable slate of like-minded politicians.
Please take the time to think deeply about the implications of this inevitable reality if the Charter proposal passes. I’m voting no because I’ll never allow myself to be part of a system that so blatantly creates an unequal playing field.
Bryan wrote:
“For example, in Worcester, a Democratic city, a conservative Republican has for years retained one of the at large seats in large part because his voters bullet vote for him.”
Let me translate:
By giving up the right to express their preference on three other candidates, those with the minority view point in Worcester are able to elect their preferred candidate.
Bullet voting is a symptom of a system that isn’t working.
Rules are made for the masses to feel good about being told what to do, when, perhaps, the reality is they themselves are deficient in recognizing and defining their comfort level in personal values disguised amongst the camouflage of common sense.
@Sean Nice straw to grab at. The attempt to endorse urban environments only is a false choice and the corporate endorsement of urbanization should worry many. A few good sources to broaden one’s perspective: “New Geography” articles by Joel Kotkin and “Against the Smart City” by Adam Greenfield.
Lynne,
I’m familiar with both, but not with either of them arguing that density is not environmentally more sound.
I know that Kotkin has argued against luxury high-rises, but on market terms, not environmental grounds. My understanding of Greenfield is that he’s concerned about information networks within a city.
If you could share a specific article that would apply to the question of whether some five-story apartment buildings in Newton Centre is or is not a good response to the urgency of global climate change, I would be grateful.
@BryanBarash I wasn’t suggesting the intent was to specifically disenfranchise. However, the contortions required explain how it is better for minority viewpoints point toward it being, at best, an unintended consequence. Although it feels to me that the intent was to create a better system then people got greedy.
@Sean – It seems to me that voting for something this flawed on the hopes that it will at least be biased toward something you care about is dangerous.
Tim,
Maybe.
It seems to me many of the concerns expressed by those opposed to the Charter might be addressed by rules governing elections. Limits on financing, requirements for candidate forums, use by the City of social media to share equally the positions of all candidates, would all go a long way to improve and inform citizens who generally are not engaged in the political process. I am also concerned about minority viewpoints and the encouragement of true debate on issues, but part of the fault here also lies with the public which finds it convenient to vote in a very local context on what impacts them in their house and on their street rather than on issues that face the entire city, whether climate change, education, transportation, diversity and affordability, smart development, etc. I have also encountered disturbing examples of racial prejudice when people are allowed to determine who can build on their street, and much of the resistance, for instance to accessory apts, is NIMBY veiled racism, I think. We have to empower decision-making that is responsible but also innovative. I have spoken to many councilors and citizen commission members who have spent years trying to move things forward that really matter to this city and encountered a cult of resistance that is truly frustrating to the most dedicated planners. Urban planning takes into account local, but also city-wide concerns, and we need a Council that is more forward thinking on the planning and funding of serious change. After all, the debate has been about the height of 4-6 story buildings, not where to locate Superfund cleanup sites! I don’t hear conversation about limiting “McMansion” sprawl or requiring net zero or passive new construction, but people are fixated on whether a village center can handle a few more housing units at a time of regional housing crisis. People complain about cars and traffic, but are not willing to change their personal lifestyle to prioritize other forms of transportation. I would have preferred to see a different # and mix in the make up of the Council, but what worries me more is that people find it acceptable to renege on their responsibility to participate at all. Change is not comfortable for many, and reactive decision-making makes people feel they have had their way, and then they can walk away. But we live in a world changing rapidly whether or not we want it to, and in some very bad ways, and we need the courage to be proactive rather than reactive. Most importantly, we need to be less parochial and selfish in our evaluation of what matters most.
@Cory Alperstein “much of the resistance, for instance to accessory apts, is NIMBY veiled racism”……
We’ve all been waiting for someone to address “a no vote is racist”. Well you went ahead and did it. We can not protect ourselves from this type of misstatement/decision making based on this kind of thought, with all-city elected councilors. Please if you want to avoid this arrogance of thought, coordinated behind the scenes with like thinking “slates”, PLEASE vote NO!!
@Sean It’s not just a 5-story building in Newton Center. The same is being proposed all over Newton. We have some on the Board arguing for urbanization on various moral grounds – even against the wishes of residents. Developers parrot these ideas to sell to their product; environmentalism is but one prod and whether true or not (Newtonville is “transit oriented”?! Yeah, right!).
I know few who are against development; it’s always about size and context. Developers need to maximize their profit. OK – I get it but this should not be the the only consideration and certainly resident desires should be taken into account first and foremost.
Re: Kotkin’s take, here’s a good summary of (for instance) ‘expert’ opinion. I see this as relevant to the Charter and to the considerations of development in Newton: http://joelkotkin.com/001240-why-world-rebelling-against-%E2%80%98experts%E2%80%99/.
@Jon – Hmm. I thought a “No vote is a vote against racism.” Does that mean a Yes vote is actually against “peace in the MidEast”?
@Jerry Reilly Ha! well yes, of course; and bread and circuses for all.
Jon and Jerry,
The percentages of both Black and Hispanic Newton residents is about half Massachusetts’ percentages, which are substantially lower than national percentages. Zoning and other housing laws have historically been used to discriminate against people of color.
Maybe we could take Cory’s concerns seriously?
Vote Yes on the charter if you’re against global warming
Vote Yes on the charter to fight racism
Two serious issues indeed, but basing a decision on the Newton charter on either of them?
No, I don’t think so. I think it’s time for me to bow out on this one
@Sean Roche I certainly take Cory’s comments seriously. However, when we start using such a dramatic Charter change ( supposedly meant for best governance) as a vehicle to solve the entire spectrum of Newton’s specific issues, we are going too far. If there are predetermined results of the new Charter beyond good governance/voter representation, the reform has gone too far. IMHO