Newton Mayor Ruthanne Fuller has proposed spending a $500,000 to hire consultants to work with stakeholder on creating a vision for the Washington Street corridor.
“It’s important that we take charge of Newton’s future, that we decide what the Washington Street corridor should look like going forward,” [Fuller told the Globe’s John Hilliard’ “…All of us in the city of Newton want a thriving, vibrant Washington [Street] corridor that is of the right scale for the residential neighbors who immediately abut it, and works whether you’re trying to go down the corridor on foot, on a bicycle, or in a car.”
But City Councilor Emily Norton tells Hilliard she’s opposed to a study and “pointing to work already done by city and volunteer groups to determine what kind of development residents want to see along Washington Street.”
RELATED: Watch the video exploring exploring city planner Jeff Speck‘s vision (commissioned by developer Robert Korf) for a complete Washington Street:
The danger for Newton is not a prodeveloper bias in the process the Mayor is proposing, but rather the prevalence of narrow minded obstructionism in the name of citizen input. Mayor Fuller is more than capable of assembling a panel of people capable of balancing the interests of reasonable citizens, developers (who after all need to make a profit) and property owners (who have a right to dispose of their land in a manner which they see fit).
For Alderman Norton to call for no study, as opposed to one which is equitable and balanced, is a disappointing but not surprising of just how little vision she possesses.
Bob Korff may have his own vision for the Washington Corridor.
He was given the green light by Setti Warren, RuthAnne Fuller and the city council to ignore the existing zoning laws and build a structure to his own requirements. Our city gov’t is there to enforce the laws and look out for the better good of the neighboring community. The housing at Washington Pl. is a low standard for the village. The rents will be high but the living conditions are of poor quality.
The nearby residents oppose the height and size of the building. The village is meant to offer commercial and retail space to the community.
I doubt if Ruthanne’s costly action plan is worth the money and time. Most people through recent lengthy public hearings have expressed their dismay at huge overhauls of the existing roadways and village design.
Yes, beautification of the village is important but let us approve changes that a broad section of the community can accept.
To narrow the corridor, impede traffic flow and drive out the very services people rely on and build unwanted dense housing does not serve the local community well.
Yes, Emily is correct in her stance on this action plan. Is she the only one to fulfill her elected role on the city council?
What is the “work already done by city and volunteer groups” that Emily mentioned? I’d like to see that work and how it compares to the study that the Mayor wants to do.
This is an excellent proposal from Mayor Fuller. It will pay big dividends for the city. I completely support the study. It’s long overdue.
Emily is questioning the legitimacy of our city government and its ability to act in the best interests of the city. That’s some serious stuff.
I fully support having an independent study conducted to flesh out plans for Washington Street. It’s definitely a step in the right direction. We’ve been asking for a VISION for all Village centers – not just deciding on each property separately – this study is a start.
Colleen, as usual, is degrading the conversation by making unsubstantiated derogatory staments about just everything.
It would be nice if this discussion could proceed without any personal attacks.
Washington Street runs through three Wards. While the Newtonville Area Council’s input is important, the street goes well beyond the area that would interest just that group. Also, if the voice of the voter is to be heard, then it would suggest that the Ward councilor voice is important here. In that case, Councilor Norton is a third of that voice.
Then there is the fact that Washington Street has the potential to be an asset for the whole city and yes, it is a development opportunity. That doesn’t mean we give developers a blank check to do whatever they want, but we should at least acknowledge that we need to make it an interesting opportunity for them to take.
Bottom line: the study needs to take into account both the needs of the city and the wants of the local residents. I’m confident that the Mayor can do that.
Half a MILLION dollars to come up with a VISION for a 2.5 mile street of Newton? Where will this money come from and how will the return on this investment be measured?
Amen Meredith!!
I presume that Washington Street is lined with residences and businesses that have existing owners. So what exactly does developing Washington Street mean? Does a developer own consecutive Parcells that they want to develop into multi-level housing? Does the city want to change the zoning to encourage developers to buy out existing landowners so they can build multi-level developments?
“Korff is a large stakeholder in development in that part of Newton, and should play a role in designing the future of Washington Street, Reibman said.”
@Greg
Can you clarify this for Village14? You believe Korff should have a special role in setting public policy for Newton? Moreso than any of the other 80,000 residents of the City?
I can see an objection because of the cost. But absent that, this is basically what a good local government does. I love the Newtonville Area Council but I don’t always agree with them, and I don’t really view them as experts on development, zoning, traffic, long term planning, bike lanes, Mass Pike easement issues, discussions with the MBTA regarding handicap accessibility, negotiations regarding air rights with the Mass Pike, discussions with both local business and national chains, parking accessibility and use studies, etc. I know that the NAC has done a survey of resident wants/needs, but there is a lot of difference between a volunteer council, sporadic city involvement, and a true focus on an area.
I think 500K is expensive. But it also depends on the contract and services.
I’ll also note that Washington Street zoning and development thus far has been an example of really bad city planning over many decades. Newton Corner is a concrete brutalist no man’s land, there is little commercial development that encourages walkability, you’ve got major parking lots at Marty’s and Whole Foods, car dealerships, small home commercial, small lot commerical past Newtonville, the Orr Block redevelopment, decades of ignoring the MBTA stations along the Pike, small pocket parks along the Pike that are rarely used (except as memorial areas). My point is that maybe a bit of professional help and long term thinking could be a good thing.
C’mon folks. New Mayor. New viewpoints. Have a little flexibility and open-mindedness. What’s the worst that could happen? Let’s try this, and then we can all argue about the best ideas.
@Greg your headline is inaccurate and misleading. I don’t oppose the idea of Mayor Fuller creating a vision for Washington Street, in fact I think it’s imperative that she do so rather than let a private developer do so. What I oppose is signing a $500K no bid contract, regardless of what the work is about.
@Emily that wasn’t what came through in the source article. Hilliard wrote “Emily Norton, a Ward 2 city councilor, criticized the proposed corridor study, pointing to work already done by city and volunteer groups to determine what kind of development residents want to see along Washington Street.”
That sounds exactly like opposition to the study, so if there is an issue it’s with the reporter. The headline, to me, seems to simply reflect what’s in the Globe.
@ Chuck Tanowitz, Emily wrote ” I don’t oppose the idea of Mayor Fuller creating a vision for Washington Street, in fact I think it’s imperative that she do so rather than let a private developer do so. What I oppose is signing a $500K no bid contract, regardless of what the work is about.”
What I read is that she supports the need for a vision, but questions why that vision needs to be informed by spending a half million dollars spent with a consultant who isn’t going to need to bid on that contract. That last part is very disturbing. Why can’t the vision be informed by the smart leaders and citizens of Newton. At the very least if a consultant needs to be involved, then it should go out to competitive bid.
@claire I’m not disputing what she said in her comment, and that’s a discussion worth having. But it’s not fair to say that the headline is misleading. Based on the article that acted as the source material, it’s not.
While the cost was mentioned in the article, there was no mention that the cost and the lack of a competitive bid were at all at issue.
Emily, I’m curious why you suddenly raise the notion of a no bid contract as part of what appears to be your ever-changing rationale for once again opposing any effort to modernize the Washington St corridor. Nowhere in Hilliard’s article is a no bid contract mentioned. Anyone who knows how Mayor Fuller operates knows that any decisions she makes regarding spending city money will be well considered. Given that you opposed the Austin St project, the Washington Place project, and initially the medical marijuana facility until you realized you were on your own little island of opposition on that one, isn’t this really just another attempt by you to try to keep this corridor stuck in the 1950’s?
The administration’s presentation about this request to the council can be viewed here.
I would hope that even in this political environment we can have a fact-based discussion here at the municipal level. It’s a no-bid contract. Listen to the meeting audio or contact the Planning Department or the Mayor’s office for confirmation if you like. In fact it’s the second no-bid contract under consideration, we discussed a $380K no-bid contract related to Newtonville development at the most recent Public Facilities Committee meeting.
@Gerry the idea that I ever opposed the marijuana facility is preposterous.
Please provide any evidence for that claim.
I’ll wait.
By my recollection, Councilor Norton is correct about one thing: I don’t recall her opposing marijuana clinic on Washington Street. But the rest of Gerry Chervinsky’s comment is spot on. Norton’s concern about the bid absolutely is a red herring, the latest chapter in her “ever-changing rationale for once again opposing any effort to modernize the Washington St corridor.”
@Emily, what is the cities policy regarding requiring contract to go out for bid? I would think there would be a $$ threshold.
When Gerry writes ” Anyone who knows how Mayor Fuller operates knows that any decisions she makes regarding spending city money will be well considered.” suggests to me that we should just trust that Mayor Fuller will spend our money wisely and that a bid is optional. But maybe that wasn’t the intent of that comment because that is just crazy.
I would hope in this political environment we would also be able to avoid the personal attacks, but apparently that is too high a hurdle, even from the Newton Needham Chamber of Commerce toward a sitting City Councilor. I have been a passionate proponent of fiscal responsibility since well before my time on the City Council. I am quite confident that most Newton residents would agree with me that we should be bidding out contracts worth $500,000.
How is pointing out a city councilor’s consistent record opposing any development on the Washington Street Corridor a “personal attack”?
I find the idea of this study interesting. By fall we are supposed to have Zoning Reform done. As part of that process an analysis of the city has been done for context based zoning etc. Does this not conflict with another study for Washington Street?
I also do not understand why people are not talking about the fact that the City did not put this job out for bid. Its my understanding that the company selected was also used for Union Sq in Somerville. If so it seems the business affected by the proposal are not so happy
https://www.somervillemedia.org/concerns-protests-over-union-square-process
@Simon since this report is from 2015, it would be good to revisit and see how things progressed. In any situation you will have people opposing some kind of development.
As far as I understand Union Square as it stands right now, it has attracted a number of new companies and new residents. It’s an area that had a manufacturing base that left in 2010 as well as a few empty buildings and some auto body shops, and is now a bustling center of commerce and an economic driver for the city. There has been an extensive traffic redesign that incorporates cars, buses, pedestrian and bike traffic, and is ready to receive the Green Line when it finally comes through.
I’m sure it’s not all positive, this kind of change comes with downsides, but if we’re going to look back to 2015 we should also view where the process ended up.
Im not suggesting blindly following Mayor Fuller. But her expertise in financial management on the budget and other expenditures does lead me to trust her to select the study participants wisely. I don’t think this specific study is one where there should be bids – I think we would be better rewarded by consultants who aren’t just chosen by the amount charged but seem the best fit for Newton’s Washington Street vision.
As has been said already, Councilor Norton did say she opposed the study in the Globe and she is not the only councilor affected by Washington Street. It cuts through the same wards as the pike.
As for personal attacks, discussing a ward councilor some see as obstructionist is not an attack, it’s holding her accountable for her positions.
As for Colleen, her baseless and unwarranted attacks shouldn’t be ignored. She posts such comments on a regular basis. Such as “The housing at Washington Pl. is a low standard for the village.”
“The village is meant to offer commercial and retail space to the community.” “Yes, Emily is correct in her stance on this action plan. Is she the only one to fulfill her elected role on the city council?”
Emily, a simple Google search reveals that in 2014 you organized a meeting on behalf of constituents opposed to the medical marijuana facility so they could air their grievances. At the time you said that if it were up to you the facility shouldn’t be located on Washington St but instead on Rte 9. My interpretation from the Globe article was that you were thus an opponent yourself. Do you now want to walk that all back? Sorry but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2014/04/19/newton-residents-express-qualms-about-medical-marijuana-dispensary/NU4ygs5mXGl5Hgc549gf4N/amp.html
Do you see in that article that I ever opposed it? No. I suggested a different location would have less local opposition, but I strongly supported it, over the objections of many of my constituents.
@ Mary Mary Quite Contrary in 2011 the MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning analyzed the Washington Street corridor from West Newton Square to Brookside Ave in Newtonville, and produced a 160 page report
found here: http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/planning/current/devrev/hip/wnewton.asp
Although now 7 years old, the MIT report remains relevant, contains some good ideas, designs and illustrations, and provides a solid jumping-off point for any new consulting firm Newton hires to undertake the larger study of the entire Washington Street corridor from West Newton to Newton Corner.
Those interested in the envisioning process for the Washington Street corridor would do well to give the 2011 MIT report at least a good skim, if not an in-depth read. Did the City of Newton pay for the 2011 MIT report? if I had to guess, I’d say MIT provided this study pro bono. This may be what Councilor Norton is referring to by “city and volunteer groups” that have previously reported on the Washington St corridor. I’m also guessing that the reason the City of Newton is not asking MIT to undertake the study of the entire Washington St corridor is due to the time factor. MIT probably cannot produce the report in the condensed time frame being requested by Mayor Fuller.
O come on Emily, in 2014 right here on this blog, when it was noted that you no longer opposed the dispensary, you talked about how your previous concerns had been addressed and tried to couch your flip flop by saying you were never “technically” opposed. I’m not sure about the difference between technical opposition and flat out opposition but it sure seems to me that you’re trying to have it all ways.
https://village14.com/2014/10/13/medical-marijuana-dispensary-approval-one-step-closer/
@Colleen. There is so much to reply to but I’ll stick to the issue of the contract. Newton is far behind in master planning for our villages and corridors. Washington St is a long corridor and stretches through 3 villages/nodes, passes through 3 wards, involves a lot of citizens along the way. The firm the Mayor and Planning Department want to hire has a plan for citizen involvement all along the corridor. This is a huge task and will take a lot of staff/time to pull this off. The Zoning and Planning Committee will be devoting a significant amount of time to a review of this potential contract at our next meeting on Feb 12. We will learn the goals, deliverables and hours planned. Once we know the details we can all provide informed comment. The need is clear – we just need to get into the details.
@Susan,
Would you mind explaining the relationship between this study and Zoning Reform? If zoning reform is going to come up with new designations how will you do if they require a study such as this one for Washington Street?
@simon – Masterplanning and zoning redesign go hand in hand. From what I understand of the deliverables on this contract – we will have draft zoning proposals for the corridor. The proposed zoning will be built around the desired outcomes for the corridor. (again – I’ll know more after Feb 12) I’ve been speaking with planning departments all over the country which have recently revised their zoning codes. We are not alone in the need to rezone the city while rezoning and study of particular corridors and villages are ongoing simultaneously. We will not only have the Washington St. Corridor but the work on Needham st. that is also happening right now. Coordinating all these simultaneous projects will be essential.
I don’t understand what you are asking in your second question – could you explain?
@Sami, I know all about the MIT study. But, that only covers a small slice of the Washington Street corridor and doesn’t at all address the remark about the “kind of development residents want to see along Washington Street.”
@Susan
With zoning reform is it in the intent to have areas split up and given a different designation based on the context of the area? If so then I am wondering how feasible that will be.
Modern zoning does tend to define areas and zone for those, for example, the Washington St. Corridor is very different from the Needham St corridor and different zoning might make more sense for these very different areas. I refer you to the Pattern Book – which gives definition to what is going on in various areas all over the city. This was the first step in Newton’s redesign. I don’t want to get too far ahead of myself. The ZAP and Planning Department are working hard right now to design the way forward. As I mentioned working on pressing areas first while we work on the bigger picture is perfectly appropriate and happens a lot.
I had a long chat with Emily right at the time that locating the City’s first medical marijuana clinic on Washington Street first surfaced. She never opposed this proposal. What I saw her do was work to calm the fears of some nearby homeowners who freaked out that the clinic would draw drug addicts, robbers, maulers, rapists and all other sorts of sick and dangerous characters. I’ve never used marijuana and don’t intend to unless I need it for pain or other medical purposes where it is infinitely safer than most of the heavy duty prescription pain killers. I recognize there are downsides. But like Mike Striar I know that a lot of people have needlessly suffered while others have been indiscriminately locked up because they used marijuana. It’s all because of the horrible lies and half truths about the health effects of the drug that poured out over the airwaves and in films over several decades. That’s what Emily was trying to address and she did it well.
@Greg
Can you help us understand your position on Korff having a role on Newton government policy on the Washington St corridor?
Perhaps you missed the earlier post.
Paul: I don’t understand your question: Are you suggesting that businesses and commercial property owners should not provide input into zoning and other policies that impact their businesses?
We want businesses in Newton and we should want them to be successful because they pay a disproportionate share of taxes, which pays to keep us safe, to educate our kids, to plow and light our streets, etc. etc.
Robert Korf is a key stakeholder, investor AND taxpayer in this area. Of course he should have a seat at the table.
@Gerry: did you read the thread you linked to? My post: “Technically I was never “opposed” to the dispensary. I am a firm supporter of medical marijuana in general, and in lowering barriers to its accessibility for those who are suffering. Rather, I had concerns about it being a cash-only business in which patients could be carrying up to $3600 in cash in order to make their purchase. I was worried that would be putting the safety of patients as well as the community at risk. An armed robbery took place just a few blocks down the street from the proposed dispensary less than two months ago and the assailants have not been apprehended.”
@Greg when you write “Norton’s concern about the bid absolutely is a red herring” you’re implying that I’m lying about my real reason for opposing this contract. And that is a personal attack.
Regardless of your views on housing, a thorough study of the Washington Street corridor is a winning proposition. It’s the responsibility of the city, our elected leaders, and the citizenry to engage in a process to determine the zoning and planning we want, so our decisions are not driven by the whims of individual property owners.
If done right, it will lead to thoughtful, more broadly acceptable land use decisions.
Goodness gracious. A bidding process doesn’t mean that the city is obligated to take the lowest bid, does it? That standard certainly doesn’t apply in business, where bidders who are in the middle ground are often favored or high-bidders are picked because of their stellar reputation. It’s not a good start for a new mayor to find an end-around a process that’s meant to spur competition, keep everyone honest and deliver the highest value to Newton taxpayers. Emily is doing her job as a councillor to call for competitive process in selecting vendors for ANY city project. $500K is a lot of money. How many pot holes does that fill or teachers or police officers does it hire? $500k is not something to be dismissed when lesser amounts of money have threatened to end specific academic programming in our schools or force parents to pay for music education and basic bus transportation (both were absolutely free in the far less affluent blue collar Illinois community that I grew up in.) Oh, and we still don’t have full day kindergarten. Big lag behind other systems in our state. Just saying. Just screaming? My youngest is graduating this year and still no FDK. My oldest, that I wanted full day k for, will be graduating from college and there is still no full day K. On the other hand, I applaud planning and vision vs. project by project reaction. Mayor Fuller’s intent is right-on. Ruthanne is a super smart,strategic thinker that looks at the long game and I have long-admired her for that. Problem is, this study should have been done five years ago, before Korff owned so much of Washington St. If this study had been conducted back then, its recommendations would have had teeth and impact. This horse is really, really out of the barn and developers can land grab until their heart’s content over the 13 months of the proposed $500k study claiming an absence of “rules” or guidelines on the part of the City of Newton. Their million dollar legal teams will exploit this to citizen disadvantage. So, without a moratorium on big commercial sales and with Korff owning so much of Washington St., what kind of “teeth” will the City have to enforce it’s $500k consultant’s recommendations? If their recommendations will be too little too late with zero teeth, then why not expedite a city position based on Emily’s sources and cut this off at the pass? Create enforceable code that will apply to real estate transactions happening this month? Oh and Newtonville’s resources belong to every Newton citizen. Gotta say this.Every day, on my route between my home in Newton Highlands and my work in Newton Corner, I drive by commuter rail parking on Washington St. Three years ago, I relied on that parking to get to my job in Boston, because it was so much faster than taking the T (something that I paid more for, including daily parking to the City of Newton.) The spots are now full. I don’t see the parking that I would need if I were to work in Boston again and take a train past 9:00.I’m assuming because of Austin St.? The existing public transportation doesn’t exist for the pleasure of the new residents of the new Korff developments that walk from their luxury apartments. People from all over Newton rely on the commuter rail. And can someone clarify exactly how public transportation from Washington St./Newtonville has gotten better?What exact improvements to public transportation have actually been implemented?
Emily, you didn’t mention the objection to the study was based on the price tag in the news article, which is why I think a lot of us didn’t connect the two items. But I agree that’s a good reason to be concerned, so let’s talk more about.
Let’s just make sure we are clear here, since we all benefit from clarity (not just questions for you, anyone can answer, but I’d appreciate your answers if possible):
1) What do you think a study should cost the city, as you’ve mentioned you support this type of study?
2) The local and volunteer studies are for a much smaller area that the entire stretch of Washington Street proposed. What can we do about that?
3) I’m assuming there is some time sensitivity here, and that the city has some background as to the cost a study like this typically costs. So how much could the city save by bidding it out?
4) From my experience, bidding out a study like this is not always done. Good ideas aren’t always the skill set of the lowest bidder. Does that matter? This is different than road repair or bridge repair or landscaping, where there are clear standards, construction reviewers, and creativity is less the important.
5) what is your vision for the Washington Corridor? Thus far I know you didn’t like Austin Street, you don’t support Orr Block’s redevelopment, you thought the dispensary might be better suited somewhere else. Do you like the elderly housing project as proposed for the former car dealership in Newton Corner? Do you like the changes to the roadway that have been discussed?
6) Did you have an issue with the person chosen to do the study? Too developer friendly? Or just too expensive?
Let me start out:
1) I’d be happy with up to 4 stories along the corridor, mixed use on the first floor, parking in the back whenever possible.
2) I thought the roadway changes were overall positive, bike lanes seem like a natural fit with some sort of bike share system like Hubway.
3) I’d move the pocket parks away from the Pike and push them towards the housing
4) Any large development (like Orr Block or whole foods/car dealerships) would be encouraged to have their own pocket parks like Austin Street, and would be designed to improve walkability and street life.
5) There are pockets of life along the street. Newtonville, Cabot’s, Buffs, Cooks, Rice Valley. But it is a long street and not very active. Are there ways to activate it?
6) How can we upgrade the Commuter rail stations.
Finally, I’m not sure how you push out any of the property owners. I understand Paul’s objection to Korf, but that ship has sailed. Every business owner is going to want a seat at the table, alongside local residents, the city council, the mayor, etc. Cutting out large property owners tends to backfire in the long run.
This is really a long term conversation about what is good for the north side of our city folks. South side has Route 9. We’ve got the Pike, and Washington Street. It is not going to remain static, and a development plan will help shape it as best we can, subject to what the private real estate market sees as viable. Good cities plan for this stuff, identify development zones, and try and encourage smart growth.
Cheers to all:
Figgy
@Figgy “Emily, you didn’t mention the objection to the study was based on the price tag in the news article, which is why I think a lot of us didn’t connect the two items. But I agree that’s a good reason to be concerned, so let’s talk more about.”
My take is that Emily’s objection is related to the lack of a competitive bid vs the reported price tag. It seems a slippery slope to avoid bidding work out in the interest of expediency. I read the short deck and didn’t grasp why speed should require us to abandon the best practice of requiring competitive bids. Does anyone here know what the cities requirement/policies is regarding requiring competitive bids for contracts of this magnitude?
KarenN:
I don’t think the city can do much of anything about sales of private property. Lots of time folks blame the city for changes, but once Orr block was sold for such a large dollar amount, it was obvious something was going to happen on that site, either a 40B, a 3 story basic building, or something with city input.
And Washington Street is already zoned for 3 stories, so large projects can be built. And 40B does exist. So I do think for me it is important to deal with the reality on the ground, realizing that developers have options built into our system. It isn’t evil lawyers allowing them options, the Commonwealth voted on 40B a few years back, and the city has zoning rules for a reason.
As for the parking, I use it too. Try parking closer to Lowell, it is free and often available. Or park past Harvard on Washington.
Reminder: We have no way of knowing all that Emily said to the reporter. The reporter not quoting it doesn’t mean it wasn’t said. This is true for any time we cite an article – we can only know the parts of interviews that reporters decide to include. This is not meant to imply bias on the part of reporters. Articles are usually not transcripts of multiple conversations.
So, as always, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
A Fig: If private developers can do whatever they want, what’s the point? What about impact fees? Is Korff paying to redesign the actual road on Washington St. with the bike lanes and reduced parking or is the city doing that with money that will be taken away for other things? How much is the city putting into Austin St. vs. what it received? You can’t go back after a property is sold and tack on impact fees.But we could now, so that all of the infrastructure that goes with these projects and the costs (like kids in schools) are offset.
And for all these people piling on Emily, no-bid contracts of any size aren’t good. It doesn’t matter if she is objecting to something about Washington St. or buying new computers for City Hall. I expect that our representatives will be looking out for fiscal transparency and competitive bidding.
@ Karen, I agree with you 100%.
@KarenN – i just had a quick minute to review this thread – just time to say – impact fees are illegal in Massachusetts. There is legislation right now that could change that- but for now – the Council cannot levy impact fees.
I had looked into impact fees a few years ago and found, just as Susan says, that it’s not permissible here, however we routinely ask developers to contribute to neighborhood improvements.
A few points:
1) No one likes a government that isn’t accountable and doesn’t get the best bang for the buck. But to say no-bid contracts aren’t sometime useful ignores real life. Not saying that is the case here, but if you bid out every contract, government slows WAY down. Personally I support blind bidding and some level of oversight, and there are quick ways to do a bid that cut down on some time, but if a mayor wants to push through change I can see why the extra time might not be worth the cost savings, especially if they can see comparables from similar projects. It is a balancing act. We elect our government to make decisions like this. Emily is right to question it, and Ruthanne is in her rights to put forth the proposal. Activitist government and activist oversight of same is fine with me. It comes down to a judgment call: Is the cost worth the time savings.
2) KarenN: I didn’t say a developer can do anything they want. Quite the opposite. They can do what they want WITHIN our rules. That means zoning, permitting, 40B, the whole shebang. The Commonwealth and our City lays down markers. To simply say: Moratorium on sales, or no more big projects, or Impact fees, doesn’t work. Some of it is just plain illegal, other aspects would be considered a “taking” that would be challenged in the courts and the city would lose. Government shouldn’t be able to take your property without compensation from my recollection…
3) All that said, it is a rare project that fits within those markers 100%. And that is where discussions of neighborhood improvements starts. Sometimes even if the project does fit zoning, in the permitting process the city can request/negotiate certain accomodations based on bettering the overall neighborhood. Think sidewalks, burying utility lines, discussions regarding traffic help to better service the development with shared payments. But it is nuanced and often the city doesn’t negotiate these things as well as I might like. But they do try, and it is entirely possible I don’t have the full picture.
4) In my experience, cities that work in a cautious, collaboratory manner with developers tend to do better. Sometimes you can win as a city by making life difficult for a developer/project if you want to maintain the status quo. But you can also lose, big time. Projects that could create terrific change for the better get shrunk or changed to something that no one likes. Neighborhood improvements that could have been negotiated get lost, as the extra time reduced the developer’s willingness to give back profit for community improvements (time value of money, the longer it takes to build a project, the return on investment tends to get reduced as well, especially if there is carrying costs to the asset like in Orr Block).
Here is where planning helps us all. Lots of this stuff is complicated, and we are operating with blinders on. Living and working in our city makes us interested parties, but it doesn’t always mean our viewpoints and ideas are the best ideas either. We get closed off, limited by the past. Doesn’t mean the past use isn’t the best use. But having an outside party come in with some new ideas and best practices can help everyone.
This is also hard, because there is always someone out there who hates any change, or who hates the status quo. Think of it as a large scale example of online comments on Amazon. Even the best product has a bunch of 1 star reviews, often with very specific complaints. And there is always some doubt if all those 5 star reviews are real, or did someone (in this case the city) prime the pump with fake reviewers or a predetermined outcome.
Which is why I like reading the source documents, listening to conversations like these, and making up my own mind.
Btw, I give this post 5 stars.
I may have missed it, but does this study include reviewing air rights over the pike??
Well, you know what they say. In Newton, $500k buys you a teardown.
The thing that bugs me the most is that a developer has bought up a huge portion of the street, and NOW there needs to be a plan? Good luck with that. I think the city could save money by eliminating the “planning” department. They’re outgunned by a well financed developer anyways….
@Tom– Excellent question regarding Mass Pike air-rights. To fully analyze the air-rights would cost as much or more than the Washington Street study. But I think it would be bordering on malpractice to not identify potential air-rights locations as part of the Washington Street study. If that proves to be the case, I think a follow up study would bring us a giant step closer to cultivating those air-rights for the benefit of Newton.
Mike and Tom,
Are you aware of any Newton mayoral administration being hostile to development over the Pike? There is good reason to believe that it would be prohibitively expensive. (I know we went over this in detail a few years ago on the TAB blog.) If it were financially feasible, you’d think that some developer would at least be suggesting it (as opposed to, for example, proposing housing in the far reaches of the Wells Ave. office park). Newton is, as you may have heard, a very desirable place to live and shop.
It’s not that it’s a bad idea. But, it requires something more than a private funding source. I think we should jack up the tolls (at least during peak hours) and use most of the revenue to expand and improve transit. But, a good chunk of the extra could go to Newton as a sort of reparations for the damage the Pike has done to the city. Use that for building the platform and let developers develop on it (with some for open space).
I agree with Fignewtonville.
In addition, every time a developer brings a new project to Newton, the community most affected asks the city for an overall plan for the area instead of just doing it piecemeal development by development. This request comes from me as well when it affects Newtonville. Well here is the way to get that plan for Washington Street which runs through 3 Wards.
So now the loud opposition to an independent study makes me wonder if my suspicions have been true and many residents are just using the request for an overall plan to be obstructionist. Another red herring to defeat all measures that update Newton by the status quo maintainers.
Rick Frank, it kinda bugs me too but we have to put in whatever place we put all the things that bug us but we can do nothing about. Private property owners can sell to whomever they want. But we need this plan for all of us to have as much control as possible over what happens to Washington Street. Being proactive rather than always being reactive over every new proposal.
As for Robert Korf having a seat at the table, I agree that he is a stakeholder because he owns a lot of property in the area and lives in Newton. I don’t think he should have any more say than anyone else who fits that same description. Just because he bought up as much property as he could on Washington doesn’t mean his voice should have anymore power than any other stakeholder. – unless he’s planning on paying for it.
Other plans have neglected to review previous plans for areas in the city.
The Pattern Book has serious errors in the groupings of the neighborhood boundaries that neither the Planning Department nor the consultants seem to have known about until citizen objections were received. The Needham Street plans seemed to be oblivious to previous plan components like the rear crossings across property lines proposed in 1987 !!! by the Lozano White study.
The new plan will be worthless unless it begins with a review of previous existing plans for the corridor.
@Sean. It’s expensive to build on air-rights. But not prohibitively expensive. Washington Place has set a new standard for land value that I believe makes air-rights in Newton more attractive than ever. Also worth pointing out, there are already two structures built on air-rights in Newton. The biggest obstacle to development of more buildings is not cost. It’s the lack of a defined process by which air-rights can be exploited in Newton.
To my knowledge none of us have seen the actual prosal to study the Washington St. Corridor – yet the “no” emails have already started. Why don’t we all just take a breath and wait until there is more information? After we all have the details we are free to praise or complain at will. As someone mentioned above – every time a project comes to the Council our citizens ask for a master plan to guide the development. I think this is what we all want. We will soon have the details.
Sean, while I don’t oppose private developers coming in and building, I would also look into the city using some space to bring in a 16th elementary school (if possible). What’s exciting is anything can go there. We’re just limited by our imagination (and zoning).
@Tom why do we need a 16th elementary school when the elementary school population is falling and predicted to continue to do so? I love kids. But time to allocate some resources to seniors!
As my grandmother used to say, “You’re shutting the barn door after the horse is out”
And: “Give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile”. (3+?)
Don’t say I told you so (but…..
@Susan” To my knowledge none of us have seen the actual prosal to study the Washington St. Corridor – yet the “no” emails have already started. Why don’t we all just take a breath and wait until there is more informat”
The “n0” for me is to the “no bid” NOT the idea of a study. Where exactly do you stand on the principle of awarding a half million dollar contract without requiring a competitive bid? And I ask that question of ALL of city council.
I would like to know if anyone in management of the consultancy that would be awarded the No Bid Half Million dollar Washington Street Corridor contract contributed to or has any personal or professional relationship any elected official in Newton.
Claire,
I guess I wasn’t Claire (lol) on my last post. What I should have said is that we could do anything on that extra space….it doesn’t have to be land for private developers that we are limited by our imagination.
I remember several years ago there was a push for a 16th elementary school and there was an issue with class size, so this could be a solution to that. If demographics changed, then we can use it for something else. Just sayin’
The study should also take into account demand for retail space. Amazon completely changed the retail space, we’re not going to see small mom/pop stores selling niche items.
In general, what is the overall health of retail stores in Newton? I don’t think its really that great outside nail salons, good priced restaurants, super markets.
Building all this and having vacant storefronts would be absolute disaster, proper planning and current market research will help here….
I wonder if the real demand is for small office spaces close to well educated work force accessible to Boston via T. Perfect for small startups where employees want to walk to work. Look at the crazy growth of the company “wework” which provides exactly this
@Bugek, I agree. Take a stroll down Union Street in Newton Centre and the number of vacant store fronts in concerning and yet the second and third floors seem to have lots of offices, seemingly primarily professional service providers.
I have a theory that some of these retail type businesses just don’t solid business cases. Take the exercise studio. That had to be VERY expensive space. But I only saw it is used in the early morning and it specialized in a fairly small niche of a fitness genre. I can’t imagine that the store dedicated to macaroons will survive. How many macaroons do you need to sell each day to cover that rent? I’d like to see that area become more of a dining destination, the way Moody Street in Waltham is.
What are the projected outcomes from the $500,000? How many “visions” will be proposed? From how many people’s brains? Just one? How many FTEs and calendar months will this $500,000 support work for? How will the visions be presented? Will there be due diligence on each vision for issues and potential buy-in from the neighborhood? What if the City doesn’t like the “visions”? Are we going to spend another $500,000?
Claire and SoccerMommy – I’m waiting to see the proposal before I decide yes/no on the sole source issue or anything else on the proposed contract. Soon we will have a clear presentation on the goals and expected outcomes for this work. Be patient people – there will be plenty of time to complain later.
I’ve finished cleaning the house to prepare for company -dinner is in the oven. Now I’m focusing on the game – Go Pats!
Interesting that folks are concerned about the $500,000 for the proposed important study but seem willing to support the ill conceived Crescent St. project that far to costly, under-utilizes precious city owned land and in reality provides very little affordable options.
The City should not be in the business of developing housing.
@howard
It is my opinion the city is doing responsible development on crescent.
This city needs green space, the preservation of such is in the master plan!
The process for visioning Washington St is important, but we don’t have to wait to identify the elements of a shared vision, whether they come from a developer (for whom self-interest means not building for cars, a money loser) or from the Newton Forum: http://newtonforum.org/biking-in-newton/
We need a Washington Street that is safe and convenient for walking, biking and transit access, for people of all ages and abilities. These include wide sidewalks with benches and trees, and protected and/or separated bike lanes.
@simon
I have no problem with open space but I do with supposedly affordable housing costing $600,000 per unit. With two of the units renting at market value and two at 120% AMI.
@howard
I here you, and agree.
The removal of a half a million dollar elevator would help.
My understanding is that the playground and related items are getting caught up in that number too?
I hope the City will keep the elevator in the Crescent Street project. Having more access rather than less- should be a PRIORITY for Newton. I am appalled that another CPC funded project’s accessible unit, had to be “redone” because it did not meet regulatory accessibility standards and ended up leaving someone – who was lucky to qualify for that unit – without housing for a substantial amount of time. Wasn’t the Veteran’s Housing project – also an issue regarding accessibility or lack of accessibility? Clearly, there needs to be proper oversight for all city funded projects.
The study isn’t the problem; the most obvious problem here is that it is a no-bid contract. A half a million dollar$ no-bid contract!! I agree with Emily that it is not appropriate for the City to sign a contract for such a large amount without competitive bidding. If we want to get the best value for our dollar, City Council would and should insist on competitive bidding.
Councilor Norton in her latest newsletter about the legality of the no-bid contract says:
“ … I am surprised it is legal to do so, but I contacted the State Inspector General’s office and was told that, in fact, this type of consulting contract is not subject to the normal bidding requirements.”
I live in Ward 2, read the listserv and find Councilor Norton’s loyal constituents, who want no zoning changes or reform if it affects housing and development, will use any propaganda or conspiracy she or others can find to try to stop them. This no-bid contract malarkey is just the latest.
There is the big bad developer conspiracy where they’re forcing unwanted change – Robert Korf at the moment – when
Washington Street property owners are freely choosing to sell.
There’s the gentrification conspiracy where they compare what’s happening in other cities – actual gentrification – to development on Washington Street.
Marti – in the way, way old days in NE, the wealthier people built big houses close to the centers of small towns and cities, and the less affluent on the outskirts. Over time, as transportation options increased, those with more resources moved farther away from town centers, leaving a lot of the big houses to become multi families with apartments. Until recently, living close to main roads and train tracks was way less desirable, which translates to less expensive (all things being relative, of course.) So now, pretty much all of Newton is desirable, and these areas are especially desirable to people wanting more urban and less car-centric lifestyles, and developers wanting to capitalize on this shift. Yes, many owners are selling willingly, and I can’t blame them when they get offers that no sane person could refuse. But you’re glossing over the fact that many people who have been living in these formerly less-desirable areas in older houses and apartments will be replaced by, for the most part, much wealthier people in new, upscale apartments in luxury buildings. I wonder if the reason so many people in Newton don’t seem to “get” this is because these places and people are just invisible to them.
Tricia, as I said above, I live within easy walking distance to Newtonville Center. Obviously my neighbors are not invisible to me.
The large homes with apartments were terribly affected by the Court Street development that I did not support. On Washington Street however, after the purchase of the Washington Place property, almost all of the remaining property is commercial as are the additional properties purchased by Robert Korf.
@Marti,
Your comment intrigues me. You disagreed with Court St, yet it is only 1 short block from Washington Street. How wide a birth would you give the Washington St corridor?
Court Street is in the middle of a residential neighborhood. It doesn’t belong there.
I’m not sure what your question about Washington Street means.
@Marti,
Its related to the vision for Washington St Corridor.
Court St might be in the middle of a residential Neighborhood, but it runs parallel to Washington St, and it is only a very short block away. So I guess I’m asking how far from Washington st would you envision this Washington St Corridor expanding into the already built out residential areas
Simon, my vision for Washington Street isn’t fully formulated but at this moment I would like to see any new development to go back no further than the commercial property presently occupying it.