Under almost any other circumstances, a No vote on the charter would be the progressive option. Any scheme that assures a majority — even a slim majority — all the seats on a legislative body is prima facie anti-progressive.
But, these aren’t ordinary circumstances. Because of Newton’s exclusionary zoning and its small African-American and Latino/Hispanic populations, which are arguably a product of exclusionary zoning, progressives should darken the Yes bubble.
Exclusionary zoning is any zoning scheme that, as the name implies, operates to excludes protected groups. Regardless of initial intent, Newton’s zoning is a) driving its real estate prices through the roof and b) keeping our minority population small. What our zoning does, in practice, is to limit multi-family housing. Our housing stock does not grow and what remains becomes more and more expensive. A teardown opportunity near me (Newton Centre) had an asking price of $830,000. (It sold, but not clear for what.) That land price for one house means a single-family home of at least a million dollars. A two-family on the lot would spread the land price. Each additional unit on the lot reduces the land price part of the overall price. The single-family zoning on the lot prevents an owner from adding to the housing stock with units that would be, by definition, more affordable. Newton’s great schools* and proximity to Boston drive the land prices higher and higher.
Rigid single-family zoning (and, near village centers, limits on multi-family) works to limit the opportunity for newcomers, especially those outside the highest income groups. And, that shapes our demography in a decidedly non-progressive fashion.
The demographic information is damning. The percentage of African-Americans in Newton is 3.50%, exactly half of the percentage in Massachusetts (7.00%), which is itself just over half the percentage in the US (12.60%). Roughly the same story with Hispanics/Latinos: Newton – 4.90%, Massachusetts – 10.20%, US – 16.90%. (The Asian population is overrepresented in Newton: 13.00%/5.70%/5.00%.).
The “special character” of Newton is largely a product of exclusionary zoning. The No folks want to protect ward representation to preserve neighborhood character, to give the neighborhood a stronger voice on what can be done with someone else’s property. A No vote on the charter is a vote to continue excluding. It’s just that simple.
The majoritarian design of the charter and the majoritarian impulse of the Yes voter would be troubling if the minorities they were disenfranchising were protected classes. Sadly, there are not enough people of color that any scheme would make a difference to concentrate or dilute their strength in any meaningful way. On the other hand, ward representation gives a bunch of white people more leverage to limit others, including people of color, from joining our community. I find the Yes folks disengenuous at best about ward representation. But, Yes folks are on much firmer moral ground.
Do not misunderstand me. I am not questioning the intent of the No voters. Take them at their word. They are interested in maintaining less dense neighborhoods, not maintaining whiter neighborhoods. But, the effect is the same. Listen to someone like Dick Blazar talk about the right neighbors should have to dictate what a property owner can do on her own property. It’s breathtakingly anti-free market. It also has a pernicious effect on the demographics of our city.
Let us hope the city gets to the point where the proposed charter, in its majoritarian splendor, operates to reduce the political representation of significant pockets of people of color. We will have achieved the progressive aim of greater diversity. We can then re-open the ward representation discussion.
Let us hope the city gets to the point where there are so many people or color that the proposed charter, in its majoritarian splendor, might operate to reduce the political representation of those people of color. We will have achieved the progressive aim of greater diversity. We can then re-open the ward representation discussion.
Also, a No vote is definitively hostile to fixing the problems of climate change.
* A particularly pernicious affect of zoning and property tax-funding for public schools is to create an incentive for residents to resist newcomers. Adding affordable housing stock lowers the property tax revenue per unit. If the units also add children, it lowers the property tax revenue per child. Exclusionary zoning leads to more money per pupil.
To take a line I just heard, “Less representation is not better representation.”
Taking the voice AND ACCESS from those with less power and the economically disadvantaged is not progressive. They simply cannot compete with the deep pockets of others.
I cannot imagine a single angle, thought, idea, or suggestion where a YES vote equals progressive.
None.
My mother and father, with a combined total of 68 years in Newton, formerly members of the LWV and active in the Democratic party for many years respectively are appalled.
Please move off this spot. It sullies the name and term.
Sometimes I wonder how many of Sean’s posts make statements simply to stir drama on this site. Between this, rehashing the gender argument, some of the bike related posts…sometimes it seems like you word things in an antagonistic fashion just to rile people up.
MMQC,
If by “simply to stir drama on this site” you mean comment on important issues from what I hope is a different perspective, at least 50%.
Glad to have you as a reader!
I totally understand why someone would want a councilor who is 100 percent accountable to his or her ward.
But I don’t under why anyone would want seven councilors who are 100 percent unaccountable to his or her ward.
So I’m voting yes next week.
Not a good example. Yes, that new single-family home would be at least a million dollars – probably more like a million and a half. But a new “two-family” on that same lot would be two townhouse condos, each at least a million dollars as well. Sure, the lot would be more dense, so more people would get to live in Newton. But it doesn’t make Newton more affordable at all – just for someone who can spend 1.2 million, but not 1.5 million.
These black and white litmus tests of progressiveness are getting ridiculous. Over the course of this election season, I’ve heard people contend that any candidate that did not favor X or Y new development was therefore against affordable housing/the environment/newcomers and therefore not a progressive. Or that anyone who does not automatically favor 5 story development in village centers (with no definition of exactly how a “village center” is delineated from abutting residential neighborhoods) cannot be a progressive. Now it’s Yes on the Charter or you’re not progressive.
Can we give it a rest and accept that progressiveness, like life, is not black & white?
You favor the new charter, but you also write “Let us hope… the proposed charter… operates to reduce the political representation of significant pockets of people of color.” So, you’re arguing for a LESS diverse city council?
Did anyone proof-read this piece before publishing it?
Sean, I’m a NO and I am FOR density and FOR development. Go figure. With each inaccurate, self-serving, manipulative, rediclulous article you write I loose more respect. If this is where this blog is going then count me out. I’ve got to tollerence for rhetoric so detached from reality it reminds me of Trump.
@Sean Roche
“A No vote on the charter is a vote to continue excluding. It’s just that simple.”
I don’t think it is necessarily that simple. Allison Sharma (Ward 4) and Brenda Noel (Ward 6) are both running for ward councilor positions. Both of them favor MU-4 and both have a decent chance of winning next week. Ward Councilors John Rice and Cheryl Lappin have also been consistently pro-growth. Same for Alison Leary as a ward councilor. Even Lisle Baker voted for the Austin Street project.
It’s almost as if you are operating under the assumption that a ward councilor by definition has to favor exclusionary zoning.
I appreciate the debate begin raised and the opinions put forth (since that seems to be an issue based on some comments), but I fail to see the logic of equating wiping out ward representation with being more inclusive. I can’t see any way in which that works.
If you are worried about Ward Councilors being more concerned with their Ward issues than the city at large, then that’s fine- I would disagree that that is a bad thing, and would also find it unlikely that a Ward Councilor losing balance and making harmful votes in that spirit would be long for the office.
As for development issues, I feel somewhat like Mike does- not sure I would say I’m “pro-development/density” in a way that excludes case-by-case nuance, but I do recognize that “No” seems to be associated with the anti-development/NIMBY) crowd. I get that, but I have nothing wrong with, say, a Ward Councilor representing the concerns of the neighborhood in question (Ward 2/Austin St, etc) – that voice should be heard, even if it is outvoted by the other 23.
So, no- I don’t see NO as an anti-progressive vote.
I will be voting NO because a NO vote is the most democratic option and looks to preserve democracy at the most basic level. People would be outraged if representation were taken away in any other place, by any other means. I cannot fathom why this absconding with this type of accountability is acceptable and any convoluted rationale for voting yes is just that: convoluted rationale.
Sorry for the giggle, but it’s very entertaining to see how you progressives are beating each other up over who is the most progressive.
Andrew,
Logic is good. Articulation is bad. I’ll fix it later.
Right on, Sean! Anyone who favors updating our village centers and increasing our housing stock should vote Yes. It’s time we got rid of small minded Ward councilors (hi Emily) who embrace the NIMBY attitudes of a loud minority of their constituents to the detriment of residents citywide in order to get re-elected. Vote Yes to shrink the council, impose term limits, and get rid of these anachronistic Ward councilors ASAP!
I’m voting YES. I believe a smaller Council is better and I also believe in term limits.
Mr. Chervinsky,
I believe strongly in updating a Village Center through the proven methodogy of the Main Street Program which has revitalized hundreds of historic business centers across the country.
City Councilor Brian Yates
Have you ever read Jane Jacobs book about American Cities which states clearly based on her observations that cities need old buildings for small businesses and affordable housing?
@greg I feel that my friends for who development and forward movement is a part of their job description, be it affordable housing or business development have sold out on this one. And I understand. A career of slow progress can be excruciating. I think if it passes however, it comes at the expense of basic fairness. I agree that 7? ward councilors is not ideal, but its better than the possibility of none. None isn’t fair, and I know better to buy into ‘it will never happen’ The CC gave us two bad options.
Councilor Yates,
With all due respect to you for the contributions you’ve made to Newton over the years, it seems to me that at this point you’ve become one of the biggest impediments to revitalizing our village centers. Your vote against renovating that decrepit corner @ Walnut & Washington is perhaps the most recent example, and certainly the most egregious, as the vast majority of Newton residents is in favor of upgrading that dilapidated block. You’ve had a good run but it’s time for a change. I’ll be voting Crossley/Downes on Tuesday and I urge all progressive Newton residents who favor projects like that one in Newtomville to vote likewise.
This Charter is “Progressive” only in the eyes of those looking for short term change. Structurally, it is Anti-progressive, and, if passed, will ultimately come back to bite us in the butt.
This is what I struggle with from the YES campaign: “you’ve become one of the biggest impediments to revitalizing our village centers.” How can 1 out of 24 aldermen/councilors be that big of an impediment?
Andrew,
As promised, I have updated to make the logic more clear. New stuff is italicized.
Terry,
Exactly. But, it will only bite us in the butt if we ever achieve reasonable representation of people of color in our community. Let’s achieve that, first. Kind of like worrying about the impact of a tourniquet on the long-term health of a leg. Job 1, stop the bleeding.
I encourage all of you to ask yourself a question: Under which structure do you imagine more development in and around our village centers?
A. The Council as constituted
B. The Council as proposed under the new charter.
If your answer is B. as proposed, a No vote means that something other than increasing the diversity of our city and reducing our impact on climate change is a higher priority.
Yes, there are some individual ward councilors who are more density/development friendly. And, yes, there are some individual at-large councilors who are less density/development friendly. But, the consensus seems to be that the current board structure is more of a hurdle to development than the proposed. And, my basic argument is that anti-development is contrary to progressive values of racial diversity (as well as economic and age diversity) and environmental stewardship.
The rebuttal to my arguments:
* A council as proposed would actually be more anti-development
* Between no development and more development, no development is the better way to reduce increase racial and economic diversity
* Between no development and more development around our village centers, no development is the better way to reduce climate change
* Racial and economic diversity and environmental stewardship are not progressive values
Any other argument strikes me as a distraction from the core issues.
Brian,
Which village center strikes you as similar to Jane Jacobs’ West Village?
Gerry,
I appreciate your support, but please refrain from epithets like “small-minded.” I yield to no one in my criticism of Emily’s positions, but I believe they are sincerely held.
Sean, why do you want a huge development in each of our village centers? I fail to see why that is a good thing. I assume that people moved here because they like the city as it is. Perhaps some moved here so that they could change it to be more like Boston or Everett or Cambridge? I really don’t know about everyone’s motives. My main question of you, is why do you want Newton to stop being a “Garden City” and become more of an “Urban City?”
@Gerry welcome back! And under your own name no less!
@Emily Norton – Thank you! … oh wait that’s with a G
@Sean with all due respect I’ve had it with you and various other straight white men on this blog telling the rest of us how to do diversity. Have you reviewed the list of No-On-Charter endorsers? If you don’t recognize the names, trust me – it’s as economically, racially, ethnically, & geographically diverse a list of your Newton neighbors as you’re going to find. Don’t tell them you know better than they do what’s in their best interest.
Enough with the patronizing, just make the case for your position.
Ms. Norton may be wise to hold her powder. It is pretty likely that the number of people who will end up voting in favor of the Charter is a decreasing function (exponentially so I would guess) of the number of words Mr. Roche writes. There is no better mechanism out there to secure the rejection of the new charter than letting Mr. Roche prattle on.
@elmo Oh wise one. Seems that the owner of this blog is away and left the kids alone with the keys to the liquor chest… TP’d the house an puked all over the lawn.
Change is coming!!! Be prepared!!!
Good Luck to all.
@Susan Huffman – not Sean, but wanted to chime in. If we don’t develop, home prices will go up even further, which will drive out people and will not allow middle class families to buy a house and move here. So you loose diversity. Change is part of life and we can try to find a middle ground by developing those centers where it makes sense, while leaving most of Newton as it is. I think the best thing we can do is to look at Newton as a whole, envision how the centers where development is feasible should look like, and then pick and choose among developers to implement that vision.
Emily,
This is about the umpteenth time you’ve come at me without even a hand-wave at the merits of my argument.
Fact: The percentage of African-American and Latino/Hispanics in Newton is shamefully low compared to state and national percentages.
Fact: Median house-prices in Newton continue to soar.
Fact: People of color are woefully under-represented in the upper tiers of wealth and income.
Evidence-based assertion: No voters and those opposed to more relaxed zoning generally and more development by special permit are highly aligned and Yes voters and those in favor of more relaxed zoning and more development by special permit are also aligned, out of a shared understanding that a smaller, at-large elected council is going to result in more relaxed zoning and more development by special permit.
Conclusion: To achieve meaningful improvement in our racial diversity is going to require a ton more housing.
Conclusion: The best chance for more housing — right now — is a downsized, at-large council.
Conclusion: If diversity is a priority, until we’ve achieved better representation of all people, an at-large council is the better choice.
What’s wrong with the analysis?
And, yes, Terry is absolutely right, an at-large council could come back to bite us in the tuchus. But only after there is a meaningful population of people of color that risk disenfranchisement. First, let’s deal with the exclusionary zoning that ensures that there aren’t enough people of color to risk disenfranchisement.
No voters want to maintain exclusionary zoning. Your intent is immaterial.
Susan,
I’m in favor of more development in and around our village centers because more housing around transit is a tool to reduce climate change; because more varied housing stock can increase diversity, and because more people living in and near village centers will revitalize these commercial centers.
More development doesn’t necessarily mean huge development. As V14 friend Ted H-M is fond of saying, politics is the art of the possible. Even if I wanted 10-story apartment blocks in all 13 villages, there isn’t the political will or desire. Three- to five-story buildings with commercial on the first floor and residential above is the likely model.
There is no reason that increased development in the village centers would make us no longer the Garden City. I (and lots of other density proponents) do not suggest building in open space, rather replacing existing buildings and parking lots with taller buildings. Urban, yes. But concentrated where a more urban mode is appropriate. All the while preserving open space.
@Sean: I’m sorry did you say something? I was just distracted wondering why a real estate developer who lives in Wellesley would drop $10K on a campaign in Newton to make all our city councilors elected citywide.
Emily,
Umpteenth + 1. Beginning to think you don’t have a good answer.
Emily,
Are you in favor of zoning reform??
@Tom I’ll tell you what I’m NOT in favor of… moneyed interests controlling our democracy, indeed trying to shape the very FORM of our democracy in order to maximize their profit-making ability.
Thank you, Sean Roche. I think you hit the nail on the head. I’m a housing activist. For me, housing is THE civil-rights issue of the day. I see everything through this prism. I believe if the new charter fails, Newton will have dealt itself a crushing blow and turned its back on any hope of timely progressive change.
Zoning rules, land prices, a crazy permitting process, perennial neighborhood opposition, and political fearfulness—which in large part, in practical terms, all boils down to the ungainly size of our city council and the hyper-local focus of some of its members, which is a function of its size—are making it almost impossible for us to respond coherently, in good time, to the warnings and advice of MAPC, the Dukakis Center, RKG, Sasaki, the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, the Housing Strategy, and our own understaffed Planning Department.
We just can’t seem to build the housing we need. We can’t do it. We have some projects in the works, but how many more years of delay will there be before they’re built and people can actually live there? We’re stuck. We want to be welcoming, but we just can’t. People of every stripe are struggling to stay here. Hardly anyone can afford to move here. We lose commercial revenue opportunities because of this. We’re becoming a de facto gated community, where most of the people who work here live somewhere else.
I want to live in a city where common sense prevails on a regular basis at City Hall, where our public policy around residential and commercial development actually expresses the values we claim to cherish. I don’t think this will ever be possible in Newton, if the new charter is not approved. We’ll stumble on but there will never be any thoughtful, consensus-driven plan, only continuing division and political inertia.
Kathleen Hobson the monied interests that have donated to the Yes effort don’t give a flip about affordable housing. So we need a smaller CC. Yup! But not this way.
I’m one of the large donors to the Yes campaign. I put my money where my mouth is. Affordable housing is all I care about these days.
@Kathleen: People capable of only seeing complex issues through a singular prism are incapable of producing meaningful change. I’m voting no on the charter because I understand that diversity of opinion is a strength, not a weakness.
Yes equals disaster for affordable housing
Yes give developers who don’t give a damn about affordable housing the ability to buy seats on the city council .
Yes will remove representation from lower income residents and homeowners.
I’ve been an advocate for affordable housing for many years in Newton and I do not support this.
Tom, obviously I have other prisms—being female, white, 52 years old, married to a son of Indian immigrants, having children, etc. My window on government, the way I know city government, is mainly through advocating for affordable housing proposals, observing and participating in City Hall meetings whose focus was housing. From what I’ve learned talking to people who have other kinds of business at City Hall, it’s not just housing-related decision-making that’s dysfunctional. Again: It all boils down to a city council that is way too big and prone to getting mired in petty details and differences. I am convinced that the new charter will benefit prospects not just for affordable housing, but also for every other community priority. This is about better government, period. A well-functioning, more responsive, and accountable government is a prerequisite for thoughtful action and change.
Mike, that just sounds crazy. The Yes campaign is filled with supporters from all walks of life and none of them can be bought. We’re not doing the bidding of any special interest, real estate or otherwise. I’m trying to imagine how that would work, this selling of the council. With fewer members, all of whom are accountable to every voter across the entire city, it will finally be possible to keep track of everybody and their positions, which could conceivably make the council LESS prone to corruption. Not that I think it’s corrupt now—the deficiencies are in the structure, not the individuals. But under the new charter, Newton citizens will be more engaged and paying better attention. No “moneyed interest” will be able to steal our democracy.
I don’t know how to respond to “Yes will remove representation from lower income residents and homeowners.” It’s just a crazy accusation based on nothing. Every ward will still be represented, and everyone will have a voice in every council race.
I’m happy to explain. I feel like we’ve had this conversation 10 times here already.
The current proposal by CC has a loophole allowing the vote of the city to override the vote of an individual ward. If a ward votes overwhemingly for candidate A to represent them, it is possible for candidate b to actually win the seat.
The new proposal also makes all council positions city wide races, which are much more daunting and expensive to run.
Combine the two and you have a very real opportunity for a block of voters including developers to fund a candidate and silence a ward.
And where do you think this will happen?
Mike,
Your math and logic are impeccable. I predict that within two or three cycles, what you predict will come to pass: we will have a so-called ward council race in which the winner receives fewer votes than an opponent within the ward. Or, we’ll have two or three at-large councilors from the same ward.
That is a significant flaw. The proposed charter doesn’t really have ward representation in a meaningful way.
It’s still better than the status quo, at least for now. Yes, it may reduce the representation of the less wealthy, but there is reason to believe it will result in more opportunity for people to move to Newton, which should address our terrible lack of diversity. In response to Tom, it is indeed a complex issue. But ultimately it reduces to a simple yes or no. For that, it’s all about priorities.
Thank you Sean, I finally feel heard. Respect restored. So, yes the actual choice is if that is ok or not.
Sean, you lost me there. The new charter will have exactly the same ward representation as two-thirds of today’s council and the entire school committee. That’s pretty meaningful. My ward rep, John Rice, is no better a representative of my ward than Deb Crossley or Brian Yates, and the same could probably be said of most councilor sets.
There is no “loophole” in the new charter, Mike. The ward seats will function exactly like 2/3 of them function under today’s charter, and we know (because the Commission studied Newton elections history in depth) that it is extremely rare for a candidate to win the city and not the ward. I can’t remember who they were but only a handful of councilors have ever lost the ward and won the city. In the new system, with only one rep per ward, it will be even rarer. This is a non-issue.
So is the notion that most or all of the “truly” at-large seats could come from one ward. To me the fact that our 9-member, “truly” at-large Charter Commission comes from 6 out of 8 wards is extremely reassuring. If ever it came to pass that one ward dominated the at-large pool of seats, and it wasn’t working for people, those councilors would be ousted in the next election. Elections come around every two years. There wouldn’t be long to wait. The benefits of the 4-seat pool—more contested elections, more capacity to elect and retain the best people (all 4 seats up for grabs every 2 years, assuming there’s always at least one challenger; prospective candidates don’t have to challenge effective sitting councilors)—far outweigh the potential downsides.
Regarding the cost of at-large vs. ward-only races, I’ll just quote from the Yes mailer I received today: “We currently elect 16 councilors citywide, and they have diverse backgrounds and income levels. Campaign finance data shows that contested ward-only races often cost more than contested citywide races. For example, in their respective contested races from the last two election cycles, ward councilor Emily Norton raised about $10,000, and at-large councilors Deb Crossley and Ted Hess-Mahan each raised between $7,800 and $8,000. Moreover, citywide seats are challenged more than twice as often as ward seats, so ward seats are not easier to obtain.”
Regarding the question of minority representation, again from today’s Yes mailer: “Newton is not a city with racial or ethnic enclaves. The 10 candidates of color who have been elected to office in Newton all have been elected citywide. A candidate of color has never won a seat elected ‘ward-only.'”
I can understand some anxiety over the proposed council changes, but I’m choosing to focus on how much better the prospects for progressive, beneficial change, and getting ANYTHING done in a timely manner, will be under the new charter than they are under the current system—for everyone, no matter how much money you make or where in the city you live. Signing off.
I deleted a comment because it included a personal attack. The commenter is welcome to repost the substance of the comment without the personal attack.
I reserve the privilege of being V14’s exclusive target of character assassination.
Newton is not a city with racial or ethnic enclaves?
Yeesh, it’s one big racial enclave. White. That the Yes team put that out is incredibly insensitive.
The fact that we have no non-white racial enclaves is an embarrassment. And, it’s the only reason city-wide voting isn’t racial gerrymandering.
It’s only because I think city-wide voting is the better cure for the city’s extreme case of paleness that I will hold my nose and darken the Yes circle. That and climate change.
Everybody else has race except the white folks, it seems. SMH.
@Sean – Ethnic and racial enclaves have historically been a symptom of and response to discrimination, the driver behind their formation being to provide a level of protection by banding together in a small geographic area. I would be much more concerned if we -did- have enclaves in Newton, as that’s a clear sign that there’s discrimination. As you’ve pointed out Newton’s demographics in general are skewed, although I’d argue that’s more because the median home price is around $1.5m rather than a conscious effort to keep out minorities. Go back a few generations and Newton did have ethnic enclaves, notably Nonantum.
As a more general comment I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say the new charter is “more progressive”. The city does have a huge problem with housing but I’m not seeing how a reduced council specifically is going to solve that issue. I think the ship has already sailed on affordable housing regardless of having a 24 or 12 member council, and if there’s anything that would help alleviate that issue I’d argue it’s going to be the zoning redesign project rather than the new charter.
@Kathleen: In your own words, all you care about is “affordable housing.” As someone who comes from circumstances in Newton that you could not fathom, I’m disheartened by your inability to care about the struggles that other residents face. But this isn’t about me or you, it’s about what is in the best interest of all residents, not just those with money.
In my opinion, the root cause of Newton’s “problem” is not ward representatives, but rather a culture of “I’m always right, so I’m not even going to listen to what you’re saying.” Case in Point: Your team has blocked comments on social media. Long ago, my experiences taught me not to trust someone who is willing to silence others so as to promote their own interests. In contrast, my team encourages anyone and everyone to participate on social media. Heck, even Bryan P. Barash routinely posts his $30,000 arguments on our Facebook page. But because we put our money where our mouth is, we don’t hide from Bryan P. Barash.
Patrick, you said exactly what I was thinking when I read Sean’s comment about ethnic enclaves. I’m surprised to see someone so haughty about his supposed progressiveness singing the praises of ethnic enclaves. They are the direct result of prejudice and segregation.
Tom, I can confirm that the comments were taken down because they violated site rules and were getting far too personal. Your posts, too, tend toward personal attacks. If you think personal attacks are an essential part of the discussion, I encourage you to start your own blog.
Just for historical reference – if you go back even a single generation you find a strong racial enclave in the neighborhood surrounding the Myrtle Baptist Church. There’s a photo that hangs in the Burr School lobby of students gathered in front of the original Burr School in Auburndale around 1900, and almost half the kids are African American, and I’ve seen photos of huge racially mixed crowds celebrating the end of World War II in West Newton Square. But then the turnpike came along…
@Adam: I’ve never had a V14 post removed because 100% of my comments are in line with established policy. To suggest that someone who follows the rules stop posting here because you disagree with what he or she says significantly strengthens the premise of my most recent argument.
@Adam @Tom @Greg @Sean
I think V14 knows that 99.9% of us here value this resource and intend to follow the rules. They should also understand that we may swing out-of-bounds, And when we do we may not even realize that we have done so,
I also had comments flagged and removed for being a personal attack. But I’m not exactly sure what constitutes a personal attack. I would have thought that referring to a specific person, describing an experience you had with that person, including your thoughts on how that experience affected you should have been OK. Maybe the language and hyperbole were too strong. I’ll go look for the rules of engageent as im sure they are here somewhere.
My request of V14 is that they have internal policies – checks and balances – that ensure that they are being consistent and fair. i.e. An author also embedded in the discussion probably shouldn’t have sole authority to police the discussion.
@Adam your post RE: Tom posts seems to be a personal attack on its own. I had my hand ‘graciously’ slapped by both Greg and Sean, And I’m OK with that.
I’m in total agreement with Sean on this subject, Kathleen too and I’m sure there are others. He describes the proposed charter without inuendo or ambiguous statements. Yes, the ward-elected councilors will be eliminated and replaced with ward resident at-large councilors. Personally, Jake Auchincloss and Susan Albright represent my interests more than my ward councilor. I will be disappointed to lose either of them. My ward councilor, Emily Norton, does a good job of representing some individuals in ward 2 but totally ignores the rest of us rather than listen and accept there are differences of opinion in her ward. She is never opposed – which is confounding. I blank her name on voting day not because she is running unopposed but because I cannot vote for someone who disregards the rest of the ward and can be rude in the process. For that matter, the list of area councilors in the NAC are all for keeping the status quo. I can’t speak to motive but their resistance to every development keeps newcomers out.
Accusing councilors of being bought and paid for by developers is an accusation without any basis. The reason developers have contributed to the yes campaign is because our city council is dysfunctional at its current size. If everyone gets to vote for every councilor, including those who want no change in Newton, then there’s every chance that a possible slate of candidates who want to freeze Newton in place will win, particularly if as Emily says, they are spread out all over Newton and are a diverse group.
As for the economic inequality argument, the low income earners are also spread out over Newton on the north and south sides. Giving them a chance to vote for every councilor strengthens there vote. Until we have destroyed the gates keeping anyone but the wealthy out of Newton, allowing a more income diverse citizenship, all residents need to be allowed to vote for all councilors.
Did anyone else read the article this morning in the Globe titled “No change to be seen in Everett”? If not, you should, because it’s a case study for what could happen when there are insufficient checks and balances in local government. Long story short, the Globe highlights how Everett Mayor Carlo Demaria has been “utterly untouched by multiple claims that he sexually harassed women that he is not only running for reelection Tuesday, but running unopposed.”
According to the Globe, multiple women have accused him of harassment, including demands for sex and groping. One woman specifically accused him of squeezing her breasts, kissing and hugging her, and twice showing up uninvited at her home.
My interpretation of the Globe’s article is that Carlo Demaria is untouchable because of the amount of power he’s been able to accumulate, largely bolstered by real estate developments that he has helped bring to Everett.
Relevant to this point, earlier this summer, the Globe also reported on a City Council race in Everett, where progressive candidate Stephanie Martins – who has been endorsed by AG Maura Healey, Mass Alliance (the leading Progressive organization in MA), and the MA Women’s Political Caucus, and more – had this to say about Everett’s City Council:
“It’s like City Hall’s a secret society,” said Martins. She tells voters she hopes to turn it into “an exciting place where you actually know who is representing you. You have access to that person, someone engaging you, listening to you.”
The proposed charter put forward by Brian P. Barash, et. al., is based heavily if not exclusively on Everett. “Yes” proponents state, with zero evidence, that creating a structure like Everett’s will strengthen representation and increase accountability. Literally all the evidence, however, suggests otherwise. Vote no on Tuesday so that Newton City Hall never becomes a “secret society” with a power imbalance like that seen in Everett.
Link #1: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/11/04/change-seen-everett/Qy8Uo8Sqo0rwkEdupeBeKP/story.html#comments
Link #2: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/06/20/everett-immigrant-with-plans-shake-city-politics/SX4rriauXrLeGMn2oYxTKI/story.html
Marti writes: “Accusing councilors of being bought and paid for by developers is an accusation without any basis.”
Please read up on what is known as regulatory capture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Why do folks insist that money doesn’t buy influence in Newton politics but bemoan the SCOTUS ‘Citizens’ United’ ruling? I was wondering if Marti and others who insist large donors don’t influence Newton politics also believe that $$ doesn’t influence Beacon Hill or Washington. Or does $$ only influence other localities representatives? What make Newton’s representatives immune?