Back on Dec. 14, moments after the new city council members had just voted in caucus to elect Marc Laredo to become the new council president, Ward 3 Councilor Jim Cote stood up to express his alarm that the city’s power base was about to fall into the hands of politicians who all lived on Newton’s south side.
Both Laredo and then mayor-elect Ruthanne Fuller were from Ward 7. And the two declared contestants for vice president (Ward 8 Councilor Rick Lipof and Ward 6 Councilor Vicki Danberg) were also southsiders. So after delivering some lengthy remarks about how southsiders don’t understand the parking, density and other concerns of residents on Newton’s north side, Cote nominated his fellow Ward 3 colleague Barbara Brousal-Glaser to be VP.
To keep a long story short (but you can read about it here), Brousal-Glaser declined the nomination, Lipof and Danberg were deadlocked and ultimately, Ward 8 Councilor David Kalis was elected by his colleagues as VP (with Ward 7 Councilor Lise Baker elected president emeritus).
The end result is exactly what Cote was concerned about. Newton’s top three political leaders (Fuller, Laredo and Kalis) who took office on Monday, all live on Newton’s south side. In contrast over the past eight years two north siders (Mayor Setti Warren, a Ward 2 resident, and Council President Scott Lennon from Ward 1) and one southsider (VP Cheryl Lappin from Ward 8.) were at the helm.
Add in School Committee Chair Ruth Goldman (Ward 6) and Vice Chair Steve Siegal (Ward 5) and all of our current city leaders live on the city’ south side.
Are Cote’s concerns legitimate? We just went through a year of debating whether or not ward representation mattered. How about north side/south side representation?
Does where our political leaders own homes matter?
There is a long-standing history of certain parts of the city being treated differently than others, and there is certainly a north-south element to that.
To not be concerned is ignoring the history of our city.
If by “south” you mean south of Commonwealth Ave., I’m pretty sure Council President Laredo lives on the north side.
“If by “south” you mean south of Commonwealth Ave., I’m pretty sure Council President Laredo lives on the north side.”
Is there a common definition of North vs South side?
I always imagined the line to be the Pike or Washington Street. Living in West Newton there’s a massive difference once you cross over to West Newton Hill.
And yes, I think it does matter. Look at the divisiveness during our mayoral election and how much of it was due to class.
I believe the Mass Pike, or the area around the Pike, is the divider between North and South Newton.
Hmmm. I think setting the line at the Pike is a bit aggressive. I teach at North, and the elementary school district map (http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/38731) clearly shows that many North students come from South of the Pike, while few come from South of Comm Ave.
Suffice to say, there is a gradual transition from neighborhoods that are clearly dense and more middle class (Horace Mann & Lincoln-Eliott) and those that are more bucolic and wealthy (Bowen). And given the sturm-und-drang over the charter, I think it’s a bit ironic that “no” won the vote in large part on the fear of South Side Domination…and now we’re having this conversation. Regardless of where we draw the imaginary line between North and South, I am confident that our leadership will keep their eyes and ears open, and will work for the benefit of the entire city.
Seems to me that deciding on the exact north/south line isn’t really the relevant issue (although perhaps Councilor Cote would care to define it as he sees it, since he brought it up).
The question is, does geography matter when it comes to representing the people of Newton in city government?
Not to drag this out, but if the line is the Pike, Setti Warren would not have qualified as a north-sider either (even if he went to North). Setti lives at roughly the same latitude as Marc Laredo.
Aside from Scott Lennon, when was the last time we had a Mayor or Council Prez from a neighborhood north of the Pike? Is this really news?
And if the current ward-based system isn’t good enough for Councilor Cote, what is?
Things are never as clear or apparent as they sometimes seem to be. The results on the Charter did show a rather sharp division between the two sides of the City with the South wards leaning YES and the Northwards leaning NO; but Marc Laredo and David Kalis were both in the NO camp and they represent wards that just about everyone would agree are indeed south in terms of location and political orientation. Marc was probably the single most articulate spokesperson for the NO side.
The emotional and statistical criteria we commonly use to divide the city into north and south regions has evolved significantly since I bicycled from Newton Highlands to the old 3 building Newton High in Newtonville during the 50’s. At that time, the Highlands was the odd man out, neither south or north, but an undefined border between the two areas, much like Kentucky before the Civil War which I used to liken it to after being exposed to Dr. Charles Peltier’s fantastic American history course that the High School offered at the time.
In truth, north and south weren’t as clearly defined as they are now. This was probably due to the fact that we didn’t have two high schools, the Mass Pike or the economic and income disparities we have now.
It’s been interesting to live on both sides of the city at different points over the last 30 years. There’s a greater sense of calm, that things will go our way on the southside and a sense that everything is a battle on the northside. Some of it’s true and some overplayed on both sides.
Geography matters in part because perception can easily be viewed broadly as reality, and in part because the city’s history is real and long-standing. Not to mention, the situation did improve when the leadership represented a greater swath of the city. The more important challenge now is for the city leadership to keep their eyes and ears open and to make some tough decisions. If that happens, we’ll be fine; if it doesn’t, I see a rocky road ahead.
A good start would be to rebuild L-E and Franklin Schools – both by far the worst facilities in the city at this point and both are north of the Pike. While the primary role of a school is to educate students of all ages (the community ed programs are primarily in the schools), they can also become either a source or pride or a concrete example of neglect. Both schools look like the latter and are frequently noted as examples of neglect of the northside.
@Greg: Thank you for adding the topic of city wide representation to the discussion. My concerns were to have Council members from Wards 1 through 4 in leadership rolls by calling attention to the differences in demographics. There are issues that affect those from a more traditional working class backgrounds, and those within the lower income demographics, that are better understood by those that have lived it.
One main point of clarification is that there is no bigger Marc Laredo fan than I, and I feel that his background makes him a great leader for the city as a whole.
There are concerns such as new and more effective parks that are important in the very dense W3 and W4 neighborhoods. The park debate over the Crescent St parcel opened my eyes to the reality that there was a disconnect on needs based on place of residence. Add in off street parking, the 2nd meter program, landscapers, and you can see that as Councilors we truly must strive to represent everyone fairly.
My comments were to call attention to these concerns, and I am happy to see that you started a discussion on this topic.
@Councilor Cote: So are you saying that northside residents should be alarmed that both the mayor and council president are from Ward 7 and the VP from Ward 8….or (especially given that you did not vote for your Ward 1 colleague for VP when you had a chance) is it more about the individuals who hold those seats?
I find this thread very interesting. We just finished a charter campaign which was all about ward councilors and the need for local representation. So why are we concerned…as each ward has its councilor to represent its interests. As for those elected-at-large, they have a responsibility to represent ALL Newton residents and business interests and I think they do well at this.
We are one city and with our diversity spread across the city and not located in a few locations. So may we please move forward as one city as Mayor Fuller has asked us to do and leave this potentially divisive conversation back in 2017.
As the Little Engine that Could stated…” I think we can”
The Alderman system was more fair and balanced.
Marcia Im sorry but I find your comment offensive.
I believe that the economic disparity in Newton is something that needs to be acknowledged. Newton is very much a tale of two cities that is roughly defined geograpicaly north and south and as one would expect each has a different perspective, vision and priorities.
Mayor Fullers message to come together and play nice was off point. The appropriate message would be to acknowledge the difference and pledge to govern in a way that respects and responds the needs of the both.
I’m tired of being shushed on this. There are two distinct Newtons. I know it because I live it. And it’s ok as long as we stop acting like the disparity doesn’t exist.
I’ve lived in this City for over 50 years and historically, the north/south line has been defined by Commonwealth Ave.
@Jim, you raised the issue of North-South representation when you nominated Barbara (ward 3) for Vice President as a representative from the North side . I thought it was a fair point. I was nominated as well as a candidate for Vice President, yet you voted for the candidate from Ward 8 instead of the candidate from Ward 1. So maybe it’s more complex than just a geographic North side, South side issue?
Here are the charter results by precinct on a map. http://newtonwatch.org/2017/11/12/charter-vote-results/
In “northern” wards 1-4 No won by ~1600 votes. In “southern” wards 5-8 it was ~tie. The pike stands out. Precinct 2-3 (Setti) and Precinct 1-3 (Hunnewell Hill) south of the pike, north of comm ave went Yes. The south side of precinct 3-2 (just north of comm ave, home of Newton’s two leading developers) was one of the strongest Yes area by all measures (signs, endorsers, financial supporters, election results etc).
@Jack: Lots of people supported the charter for many reasons. Why single out that two developers live there? What’s your point?
This isn’t as a personal issue at all and I see no reason whatsoever to make it one. A councilor may cast a vote for or against a particular candidate for any number of reasons.
Neither is it a cause for alarm. But Councilor Cote pointed out an issue that does exist at this point and one that the city leadership should be aware of and sensitive to. Please reread Mike Ciolino’s comment -“I’m tired of being shushed on this”. If residents in certain parts of the city feel this way, then people shouldn’t shush them, either openly or by implication that the concern isn’t real.
As I continue to unfold the layers, dynamics, interests, & issues that makeup Newton’s political landscape. It’s pretty clear that we’ve got an economic divide that overlays neatly n/s of pike.
I need some help however on how some of this lines up. It seems that there is a coalition who want to see greater development in the wards north of the pike … i.e. West Newton Center overhaul, Washington St. Corredor, and private projects such as Austin Street etc.
Obviously, developers want an easier path for getting projects approved – They are in business to make money.
What I don’t I fully understand is why the political divide seems to line up progressives, pro-development advocates, and residents in wards south of pike against wards north of pike?
Why do people who live/represent those who live south of the pike care about what happens in Newtonville or Newton Corner? Who initiated the proposed West Newton and Washington Corredor development projects? Was it the residents who live/work in those villages?
Is the city counting on development north of pike to increase tax revenue? Are progressives, pro-development advocates, south political leaders, and developers largely the same people?
Lots of questions …
@Mike: You are sharing a common north/south perception but I don’t believe it’s an accurate one.
There are great opportunities for new mixed-use developments along the south side that I’m excited about and that I’m confident many of (to use your term) “progressives, pro-development advocates, and residents in wards south of pike” support as well. This includes the Northland project on Needham Street, which is very exciting, but also hopefully projects in Newton Center, the Highlands, Wells Ave and along other parts of Needham Street and Route 9.
We have a housing crisis in eastern Massachusetts and in Newton, which has created a hiring crisis for employers. I know many of the city councilors from south side wards (as well as our mayor) are committed to addressing this and I’m confident they will be supportive of the right projects.
Yes, there will always be NIMBY’s but the YIMBY movement (Yes In My Back Yard) is growing and its supporters include a growing contingent of south siders.
There’s definitely an economic disparity between the north and south sides, but all councilors should be involved and interested in ałl issues…since they vote on all issues. If I find out a ward councilor refuses to help someone out of his/her ward, he/she would need to answer for that.
The key people behind the Yes vote are mostly former school committee people. Anne Larner, Susan Albright, Jonathan Yeo,
Claire Sokoloff, Matt Hills and many others are determined to promote the building of new schools. They want to increase Newton’s tax revenues via new development any where in the city.
They helped elect the new council members and they wield all of the city’s power now. They push for more overrides and there is little to stop them ever increasing the school side of the city budget.
Colleen,
The new tax law has effectively capped growth of property taxes (for school budget). Political suicide for increasing property taxes because of the double hit homeowners will take.
@Colleen one correction, Matt Hills was OPPOSED to the charter change. I have pasted below from an email he sent out before the election:
Much has been written about the Charter question. I ask that you join me in voting “No”. There have been many arguments made on both sides of this issue, and I won’t repeat them in this email. We have only one choice with this vote: vote for or vote against all of the recommendations. While I support some of the recommendations, I can not agree with the proposed restructuring in the City Council and that issue outweighs any other positive aspects of the recommendation. Specifically, all ward-specific representation (where only voters of a ward select a portion of the Council) is eliminated, and 33% of the new council could be from any ward or even from just one ward. I believe that the current structure of our City Council, while not perfect, is far superior to that proposed in the Charter recommendation. I am comfortable scaling back ward-specific Councilors in many different ways that may not be “ideal” for me–but I could still be comfortable with it. This proposal—the elimination of any and all ward-specific representation and 33% of Councilors being “super-delegates” with no residency requirement—would potentially create a concentration that I believe is wrong for our City Council and harmful to its credibility as a representative body of our residents. Our City Council has a key role in weighing the interests of different parts of our city and ensuring that all residents have their voices heard. This Charter proposal waters down and could nearly eliminate that objective, and I ask that you join me in voting “No” on the Charter proposal.
@Greg and @Alison: I am sure that Councilor Leary knows that I could not support her for a leadership role, as needing equal representation requires having the right person to carry it out.
Hey folks, it would be great if we could avoid having this thread devolve into litigating who did or didn’t support the now-defeated charter. After all, this current configuration — mayor and council president from one ward, VP from the ward next door — happened under the old charter with our ward councilors in tact.
Also, ouch! I’m guessing readers might be missing the thumbs down function to respond to Councilor Cote’s comment.
@Greg
RE: Also, ouch! I’m guessing readers might be missing the thumbs down function to respond to Councilor Cote’s comment.
My interpretation is that everyone is in absolute agreement with Councilor Cote
Please? Can we get that thumbs down back?
@Greg I was correcting the record. I am sure as a former journalist you support that principle, and would not want misinformation spread on your blog.
Having no thumbs down to click on, which is fine by me, I’ll comment instead. Councilor Cote, your reason for voting for a “southern ward” councilor for VP and not one from north of the pike is quite offensive and doesn’t follow from your prior comments.
Mike C, I live south of the pike in Newtonville and I definitely care about what happens here as do many others who are excited about Austin Street and the redevelopment of Walnut Street in the center.
Greg-your comment about Jim Cote’s statement and Mike Ciolino’s response are a classic example of the issue raised on this thread.
I suspect you’re both right!