“Whether you support or oppose further large-scale development in Newton, the governor’s Housing Choice Initiative is worth your attention,” Newton City Councilor Jake Auchincloss begins in this column on Medium.
If the Act to promote housing choices passes, only 13 out of 24 city councilors would need to approve the most significant portions of the city’s redesign of its zoning code; 13 would also be sufficient to approve large projects, like Austin Street, Washington Place, and Turtle Lane Playhouse. Given that Washington Street and Needham Street — the city’s two principal corridors of development — may both be re-zoned this term, the character of the built environment in Newton could soon be reshaped with the approval of 13 city councilors and the mayor.
It would be interesting to know if Councilor Auchincloss supports Baker’s Housing plan and the reasons why or why not.
All the benefits of charter reform without the need to you know, reform the charter. Seems like a win for Newton.
Special Permits would not be so Special if this were to go through. In fact some people would argue they are hardly special now!
Requiring 2/3s to vote favorably usually requires compromise on all sides.
1/2 not nearly so much.
A problem I have observed with our Land Use Committee is that as the committee members do their work, they generally tend to own part of the project, and thus generally supportive to get the permit voted out of the committee. So when it progresses to the final vote committee of a whole, you already have around 8 members from Land Use already onboard, and you would only need 4 more if this legislation should be adopted.
As some people may well recall, Amy Sangiolo held out on Austin Street until she got an additional 6 affordable units. We all tend to support affordable units, and this kind of leverage would be lost, much to the delight of the developers.
I strongly support the housing initiative and have advocated it to Newton’s State House delegation. It will reduce traffic and housing costs for Newton, Greater Boston, and Massachusetts.
Thank you, Councilor Auchincloss, for stating your position on the proposal.
Mr. Auchincloss: Why do you favor reducing housing costs in Newton? This seems contrary to the current tight housing market that indicates Newton is highly desirable as is. Most cities would be thrilled to have the tax base that Newton has. What problem are you trying to correct?
I echo the Councilor’s strong support. This proposal will help solve the housing crisis, making more units available to more people across the region, and holding down costs.
Gov. Baker’s bill is a good start and an important piece of the zoning reform bill that the Great Neighborhoods Campaign advocates for.
It is interesting because the particular change to the special permitting power is less controversial statewide than it might be in Newton. Newton is one of very few municipalities where the city council completely retains special permitting authority.
This Baker initiative will never become law in this state. Jake supports dense housing anywhere especially in historic villages.
However, the idea that more dense rental housing will solve a housing shortage is false. Prices will not be lowered. As the economy grows and spurs population growth more and more people will come to eastern Ma. for jobs. There will always be a housing shortage, I hope we don’t face the problems of Detroit.
The answer is to use tracks of land to build high rise apartment buildings, expand the highways and develop efficient transit systems. The city of Boston and its surrounding towns are limited to sprawling growth. People like Jake are wrong to destroy historic villages. This is a poor solution.
Golly gee. Isn’t Newton lucky to have Colleen Minaker and her expertise in housing; economic development; when the laws of supply and demand don’t apply; the apparent availability of funds (and land) to build new highways lined with high rises; and whether or not any particular piece of legislation will or won’t pass on Beacon Hill!
I think Baker’s plan to lower the percentage of votes required for approval of new housing will have the opposite of its intended effect in Newton…
If Baker’s proposal passes, we’re going to see some epic battles over development that make the debates over Austin Street and Washington Place look like picnics in the park. It provides a certain degree of political cover for a City Councilor to vote along with two-thirds of their colleagues who favor a large development project. Take away that cover, and I think most Councilors will be more inclined to vote “no” on large projects, regardless of any “carrot” Baker offers the city.
Christine – that’s a misunderstanding of how the tax base works. More housing and commercial development would increase the city’s property tax base.
The problem I’m trying to solve is that housing in this city is too expensive for young families to put down roots and too limited for seniors looking for options to downsize.
Mr. Auchincloss: If housing is “too expensive,” for young families, why are you trying to make arrangements for them to “put down roots” here? Possibly, you need to consider whether this is actually in anybody’s best interest–it shouldn’t be about tax base (given Newton’s already enviable tax base). And there are many great towns near Boston providing a wide range of housing choices. Newton already has a large program to bring in students from towns outside of the district, so it isn’t about educational opportunity.
I sincerely don’t understand how this benefits either these families or Newton. One could make the argument that there is also has a shortage of expensive housing in Newton–is there a city plan to address that?
Why do we have to have our village centers ruined by big ugly multilevel housing developments?
With the current population of Newton aging and the high percentage of middle income residents, the city needs an influx of young people, single, couples or families, to keep the city interesting and vital. We need them to put down roots here just as previous generations have done.
One could make the argument that there is a shortage of expensive housing but they would be wrong.
I’ll say this for Christine: unlike many of her allies, she is honest in her motivations to keep Newton unaffordable. My hope for Newton is that we find ways to provide reasonably affordable housing for young families, seniors, and others without inherited wealth. Thank you, Jake, for your leadership on this defining issue.
A major cause of the housing crisis in Newton and like communities is the unacknowledged problem of the wealthy using large swaths of land to build single family homes. I will provide 2 examples: the developer Robert Korf lives in a single family home on a 41, 948 sf lot. Scott Oran, another Newton developer, lives in a single family home on 31, 241sf. How many homes could be built on these lots if they were made to be the size of the lots in my neighborhood, that is 6,000sf or so? And these small lots accommodate multi-family dwellings. Density is for some neighborhoods in Newton but not for others. And please don’t inform me that I am engaging in ‘class warfare’. I know that I am. But it is my neighborhood that is under attack. Not the developers’ living space.
I’m truly surprised to find that Jake Auchincloss does not approve of the demographic characteristics of residents in the City of Newton (whom he represents), and is taking action to alter them. This is a scenario I would expect to find in a science-fiction novel.
As Bryan Barash and yesterday’s Globe editorial (link below) point out, the governor’s proposal is a good start, but it doesn’t do anywhere near enough, and there shouldn’t be any rush for our state legislators to get behind it because it can be made far better. Once that happens I would certainly expect our legislators to support it the way they’ve supported progressive housing measures in the past, but until improvements are made, what’s the hurry?
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2018/02/25/aim-higher-housing-for-middle-class-mass/GvjSXNdPC2aGYFPN9OScdJ/story.html
@Christine – I think the reason Jake Auchincloss and many others support this housing plan is precisely because they do care about the demographic characteristics of the residents. As we speak the demographics of Newton are already making a dramatic shift. This city has historically had a wide range of income and housing prices. In recent years the bottom of the housing market has been pushed up and up and up. It’s Newton’s housing market that doesn’t care about changing the city’s demographics whether we like it or not.
Christine, as Jerry points out, the demographics of Newton are already changing, growing older, higher earners. We are losing a large component of the way Newton has been – young people with families and middle earners. They now live in rental units, small older homes or in houses passed down through generations.
Bob, yes it’s a shame that so much of Newton’s expensive land is taken up by large single family homes but unless Newton rezones the lots to make them non-conforming now, they won’t be divided up later. I just don’t see that happening.
I wish it could have happened to the land Mt Ida sold to a developer who will build large single family homes when it could have been sub divided into smaller lots with multi family housing, small homes or even a large Victorian with condos inside. We don’t get the chance to develop land sensibly if it’s still zoned the way it is.
@Marti @Jake
Its been mentioned by many that we are losing young families because of housing affordability. Is there any data to support that?
Newton Public Schools annual enrollment report shows that enrollment has increased every year for the past 13 years, with a total growth of 13% between 2004-2017.
That would suggest an increase in young families, if there is data to the contrary, please share.
Paul: Start here.
Or look here.
Or this.
or just Google “Massachusetts housing shortage.”
@Greg
Didn’t see anything about “young families in Newton” in anything you posted.
NPS data makes pretty clear that young families aren’t leaving Newton.
@Jake,
You also need to acknowledge that our zoned Business Districts are being turned into Residential Developments. Therefore we are loosing our commercial tax base. In 2 weeks time you will be looking at 189 Adams St. Its a great looking project for housing advocates – 18 units, 3 affordable… But to politely put it, rather distasteful to the abutters.
As our seniors get older we need to find revenue streams. Yet residential projects continue to eat into our commercial districts
@Simon: Increasingly, businesses are looking for mixed use when making location decisions. This is a national trend, not just something that’s unique to Newton.
@Greg
The LOT area is 19,239 sq Ft.
The proposed new Floor Area is 25,375 Sq Ft.
The Business use area a just 1280 sqFt.
I’ve not actually managed to find where the proposed Business use area is on the plans, maybe the little cafe area in the front. I suspect the Business area is there just because it has to have something.
Sorry for the confusion Simon, I was responding to your general comment about the business trends not this specific proposal. I agree that we need to maintain and grow commercial tax revenue but without also addressing housing at the same time, many businesses will choose not to locate here.
In today’s Tab, Mayor Fuller is quoted as saying “We can no longer say that no matter your income or age, you have a chance to move here or stay here’.
Can anyone tell me when this idyllic time was here in Newton? We have lived on Court Street for almost 38 years. That is, we moved here in 1980. Certainly when we moved in we were lucky to find a two-family fixer upper (1930’s kitchen and bathroom, lead paint, faded ripped wallpaper etc.) otherwise we would never have been able to afford Newton. My wife remembers a friend of her’s who grew up in Newton (1950s) telling her in 1975 that Newton was not affordable for folks in our income bracket. So please when was this time that ‘no matter your income or age, you have a chance to move here or stay here’?
@Greg
Do you support moving all single-family zoning to multi-family in Newton as a way of improving housing supply?
@Paul: Nope. I support transit oriented smart growth, primarily in our village centers and along commercial corridors.
@Bob Kavanagh – You’re absolutely right saying “that there was a time that you could move here no matter your income” is at worse silly or at best an exaggeration.
That said, you’d have to have blinders on to not recognize her larger point. By any measure you can come up with Newton’s housing market has become markedly less affordable in recent years.
That’s a clear position– why not broad multi-family? Or multi-family for a lot above a certain size? Why not do more to help with the housing crisis?
Very convenient philosophy I must say Greg