In my role as president of the Newton-Needham Regional Chamber, I’m often asked, both on Village 14 and elsewhere, if the opinions I express on this (independent) blog and elsewhere, represent my personal values or the interests of the businesses and nonprofits who pay my salary.
For example, just last week someone asked I opposed the proposed ten-cent paper bag fee because big corporations don’t like them, or if I personally thought it was a bad idea.
Or when Garden Remedies was looking for a special permit to open a medical marijuana clinic on Washington Street, it was suggested that I only supported allowing it to open so close to a place where children hang out (Cabot’s Ice Cream) because Garden Remedies is a chamber member.
And, of course, during the Austin Street and Washington Place debates, Village 14 participants have asked if I really thought these projects were good for Newton, or if was I merely in the “developers’ pocket”?
I’ve answered these questions many times here so I won’t go into them now (unless someone requests clarification in comments). But I will say that my experience puts me in a unique position to wonder about Ward Two City Councilor Emily Norton’s professional positions, a question we’ve discussed here before that came up again over the weekend,
As we all know, Norton is one of our city’s and state’s most visible and articulate environmental leaders. But as we also know, Norton was also one of the most visible and articulate opponents to two smart growth projects in her ward — Austin Street and Washington Place — and to transit oriented mixed use projects overall.
Given that leading environmental researchers and advocates see smart growth projects as critical to combat climate change — and that Norton is the Massachusetts Director of one of the nation’s leading environmental groups, the Sierra Club — I never understand this contradiction .
In response over the years, I’ve accused Councilor Norton of hypocrisy; suggesting she was sacrificing her green principals to cater to her NIMBY political base.
But after reading this article in Friday’s New York Times, perhaps I need to apologize to Norton for suggesting she’s a hypocrite, which isn’t to say that I don’t still have questions.
(As an aside, Councilor Norton has told colleagues she believes I am trying to get her fired from her Sierra Club job. Nothing could be further from the truth. By all accounts, Norton is doing a great job at the Sierra Club. What I want is for her to join virtually every other local environmental advocate — and council colleagues who also prioritize the environment when voting — and reverse her opposition to transit-oriented housing in Newton.)
The Times article is about a political fight over transit oriented housing and the “surprising” fact that the Sierra Club opposes the plan because, according to Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club’s national organization, the proposal overrides neighborhood concerns, the very same argument Norton has used in Newton.
SAN FRANCISCO — It’s an audacious proposal to get Californians out of their cars: a bill in the State Legislature that would allow eight-story buildings near major transit stops, even if local communities object.
The idea is to foster taller, more compact residential neighborhoods that wean people from long, gas-guzzling commutes, reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.
So it was surprising to see the Sierra Club among the bill’s opponents, since its policy proposals call for communities to be “revitalized or retrofitted” to achieve precisely those environmental goals. The California chapter described the bill as “heavy-handed,” saying it could cause a backlash against public transit and lead to the displacement of low-income residents from existing housing.
Based on this article it appears that, by opposing Austin Street, Washington Place and other smart growth projects, perhaps Norton is simply aligning with the people who pay her salary.
Of course, we don’t really know if:
- Norton opposes transit oriented housing in Newton at the Sierra Club’s direction, or
- If she was hired by Sierra Club because she shares their philosophy, or
- She came to her position independently and it just happens to align with the Sierra Club’s position (and both just happen to be out of the mainstream of environmental thinking).
Personally and professionally, I disagree with Norton’s — and apparently to the Sierra Club’s — failure to prioritize transit oriented development as a critical tool to help contain climate change..
But as I said at the top, it’s a conundrum I can relate to and in this case only Emily Norton can help us understand.
Gee, I don’t know maybe because projects like Austin Street promote driving by tenants and patrons of the neighborhood by providing 120 public spots as well private spots? 🙂
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/86525
All residences will have elevator access, underground parking, and access to on-site amenities.
What I have seen is that different chapters of the Sierra Club have different stances on density. Here are a couple of examples (from the DC and New Jersey chapters) that are clearly promoting density as a way to minimize the environmental impact of sprawl:
https://www.insidernj.com/press-release/sierra-club-court-decision-shows-state-needs-act-affordable-housing/
https://www.sierraclub.org/dc/smart-growth
Google Sierra Club and Smart Growth and you’ll find a wealth of other examples. I’m not sure what to think of the CA chapter’s response to the California bill. 8 stories is pretty aggressive. I wonder if they would’ve had a same response to 4 or 5 stories?
Emily wears 2 hats. She must balance her issue stance as she fulfills both her roles. For an old historic New England such as
Newtonville the idea of destroying its pattern of growth for the sake of economic pressure is unforgiveable.
Emily favors housing growth in a modest way and within the
rules of present zoning laws. Emily must protect the
residential neighborhood as well as promote new housing. So far
she has done an admireable job representing both.
In Newton’s case specifically, I think the primary reason density is needed would be to sustain the economic vitality of the village centers. A close second would be the affordable housing component, which adds economic diversity to a community that is fast becoming restricted to only the super-wealthy.
The environmental benefits of transit-oriented development are also indeed important – less traffic and pollution – but the impact locally is relatively minimal: Most people who live here own single-family homes and are going to be reliant on cars.
As for Councilor Norton, we strongly disagree on the development issue. But there were other matters we found common cause on (back when I had an opinion that really mattered, lol). And there is no doubt she is an extraordinarily hard-working councilor who loves Newton and is doing what she thinks is best for the city.
As for Greg, his advocacy of smart growth precedes his tenure at the Chamber. It’s a principled belief, as is Emily’s.
Wouldn’t this place be boring if we all agreed all the time?
What is with this obsession with Emily Norton? Give it a rest!
ditto, it seems that whenever I check out this site, the blog author goes to great lengths to underhandedly trash this particular Councilor because he disagrees with her views. IMHO, his self-righteous, condescending and sarcastic comments show that HE is the one with a “hidden” personal agenda. Your revulsion for her is palpable, distasteful and unprofessional. Give. it. up.
@Mr. office – I agree that Greg has at times given Emily Norton more than her fair share of criticism. As far as I can see, not because of any personal animus but because he and Emily have found themselves on opposite sides of issues they both care a lot about.
But I’d cut him a bit of a break with this post. After reading the New York Times article he admits that he previously misunderstood the Sierra Club’s position and recognizes that he may have unfairly criticized Emily on that issue.
Discovering new information, modifying your position, and apologizing (OK, he did throw in a ‘perhaps’) – those are things we should be applauding. I definitely prefer that to an endless food fight.
For that matter, I’d love to hear an apology for the AA remark too.
You now, kumbaya, cant we all be reasonable, and lets go to PorchFest 😉
A comment was removed from this thread for violating the site guidelines. The author has been notified and is welcome to repost.
“Smart Growth” and the “Clear Skies Initiative” are propaganda words.
Newtonville is not “transit oriented”. The commuter rail runs infrequently and the stairs of death are enough to keep an able bodied person like myself from taking it even when I could.
Newton Center is transit oriented- on the green line. Knock down all the one story shops i.e. where Johnnys Deli is and put up six stories there.
The affordable housing problem is also largely a wage problem. People’s wages have been stagnant for nearly 20 years, while rents and housing have continued to rise. You won’t find affordable housing until that gap is closed.
I have often wondered why Newton Centre hasn’t been a huge target for transit oriented development – tons of 1-2 story retail that should be ripe for the 3-5 stories of housing over retail that everyone talks about, and all right across from (or a block away from) a Green Line stop.
Tricia,
Why hasn’t Newton Centre been more intensely developed? Lack of consensus. Absent a consensus, lack of leadership.
Historically, there have been three camps: no change, modest change but little new development, fairly intense development (3-5 stories by right). Not surprisingly, most of the nearest neighbors are the most opposed to development. There hasn’t been much change that I’m aware of in the balance or composition of the three camps.
(Full disclosure, according to Google Maps, I’m .5 miles from Rosenfeld Bagels and am in favor of 3-5 story development over all/nearly all existing commercial structures with possibly additional development of parking lots).
I think both Newtonville and West Newton have the potential to be more transit oriented. The commuter rail could run more frequently and there are also the express buses, which are actually pretty great and they run with regularity during the week. The villages on the green line do have the benefit of the trains running more regularly, but the green line is quite slow. For instance, if I want to take the green line from Newton Centre to Fenway to see a ball game, it would take about 20 minutes on the train, but if I want to take the commuter rail from Newtonville to Yawkey to see a ball game it would be less than ten minutes spent on the train.
Mary Mary has it right I think.
Let’s be honest, public transport isn’t perfect. It will never be as convenient as a car, ALL of the time. Now in the mornings/evenings during rush hour you can’t pay me to drive into Boston. But the vast majority of the time, the car is faster for most people.
That isn’t to say newtonville isnt’ a hub. It is. It is just a more minor hub, with the potential to be a major hub if improvements are made outside of our direct control. Same with Newton Centre. Green line is ok, especially the D line. But not perfect. And no great bus routes. But still, for many having access to downtown means they can be a one car family.
20 years from now, I predict 5 plus stories in most village centers, with a corridor along Washington Street of the same.
As for Smart Growth, I don’t think folks like the Sierra Club (which is a great organization btw) are against Smart Growth. But they are smart to at least acknowledge NIMBY concerns. I just disagree that local concerns can trump all other considerations, and I’m in support of increased density for lots of reasons, including better retail in the village centers.
We make these questions into yes/no, but the shades of grey are important.
For Newtonville, lets see how Austin Street pans out. If it turns out well, combined with the Walnut improvements, I think folks are going to like the new Newtonville. I’ll be honest if I don’t.
Sean,
Good luck getting 3-5 stories. Developers will start by asking for 6 (like Korff did) and then bargaining down to 5. All the while the zoning stays at 3, with everyone getting an exception, or a trophy, or both. There won’t be any takers for only 3 stories. So, then you end up with the 5 story canyon surrounding a parking lot. Lovely.
Not to mention, is the Washington street development going to use wood structure? Like all the cheesy stuff that I see go up in flames in Waltham, and other places? I hope they use steel. Otherwise, the buildings will fail to have the longevity that the area deserves.
As for public transportation – nobody – well I don’t – wants to take a bus if they can take a decent train. I’d much rather take the slow green line downtown, with the possibility of getting a seat, than (most likely) standup on a crowded bus. Public transportation stinks, because the zeitgeist of the moment is cut taxes and don’t spend on anything considered a public good. In Newtonville, as I mentioned, those stairs at the commuter rail are a menace. The best thing would be to build an office building over the Pike there, and install elevators for the commuter rail. Then you’ve really got something. I’d like to see the Pike covered along Newtonville – that’s the best use of space.
Also helps mitigate the Pike Noise, which is atrocious for those of us who have to close our windows in the summer to listen to the radio. The only time it’s quiet is 2 – 4 AM on Sundays. Also, the soot we have to wipe off our windowsills from the car/truck exhaust from the Pike. You wouldn’t believe how much soot there is every year that builds up (and of course also ends up in our lungs). One swipe and the rag is black.
Glad to see a thread was posted on the substance of development, not the personalities involved. Also glad to see the numerous links to the New York Times and California links on the topic,
I would respectfully suggest similar treatment for a related story on the New York Times Op Ed page A 23 for Monday March 19, 2008 “A Case of the Nashville Demolition Blue”. The final paragraph describes the situation in terms that are achingly familar to what some of us fear in Newton. (and the inclusionary zoning that I have supported from the beginning can only slightly abate).
“Something important is lost when a neighborhood becomes a place where the well off live –where a single parent will never again buy a house , where a schoolteacher will never again buy a house, where there’s no little rental house for a lonely widow to move into , right across the street from her daughter”
Margaret Rennl.
This is the situation that some of us in Newton already feels exist and gets worse with over-development And the wishful thinking that it will be relieved by six-story buildings while the environment will be enhanced, not degraded is not enhanced by the personal attacks that have been leveled against Councilor Norton and others who disagree with the current affection for development. To always see hypocrisy or crass self-interest in those who disagree with you has led us to the current deplorable situation in national politics. Although I wouldn’t agree with anything else he said, I agree with Oliver Cromwell, the English Regicide and Lord Protector of the Realm when he urged his opponents to consider the possiblity that they” might be mistaken.” To say that people are doing “the Lord’s work”
when they agree with you but the opposite when they disagree with you is the slippery slope that leads to fatwahs and pograms.
Interesting article about the progression of the California bill including ideas presented by both the pro and anti development sides.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/california-sb-827-yimby-housing-transit-gentrification
I must remind Brother Yates that Cromwell drove my ancestors from a rich and productive farm in Ulster to the bleak, icy and windswept shores of County Mayo; but I’ll overlook this minor transgression because all of us should acknowledge that we may not always be right. I could write a book about some of my own bubbles that have been burst over the years.
@Bob Burke, @Brian Yates – In regards to people not always being right, I direct you to this Friday’s Nomad Story Slam. The theme of the night is “oops”.
Thus ends today’s shameless plug
dear bob,
I said I disagreed with everything else Cromell did.
The basic height allowed in business districts is two stories, despite the fact that most business districts in village centers have numerous buildings that are three stories and have been so since before zoning was instituted. Why not change the basic height in business districts to 3 stories to legalize these long existing uses and perhaps encourage owners of the one and two story buildings to match them.
Brian:
I’d be fine with that. I’m also fine up to 5 stories along major corridors and village centers. I’m far more against 3 stories a block in than 5 stories along a transit corridor near public transport.
Rick:
As someone who takes the bus regularly to downtown, you don’t have to fight for a seat in our neck of the woods. In Newton Corner, yes. There are also new apps which tell me exactly when my bus will arrive, and the bus is cheaper than the train. If I’m traveling during rush hour, I take the train, if outside rush hour, the bus, if late at night, Uber or Lyft.
I agree completely on fixing the commuter rail. Each station should have a station house, with handicapped accessibility on both sides of the tracks. It will just cost north of 30 million I’m told…
@Fig,
Would you mind sharing the name of the apps that tell you when a bus is arriving? The hubby mostly bikes to work, but on occasion weather forbids and we’re always weighing Bus vs train options. Many thanks for the info!!
Sean Roche “am in favor of 3-5 story development over all/nearly all existing commercial structures.”
fignewtonville: “I’m also fine up to 5 stories along major corridors and village centers.”
Would you approve if such a structure towered over YOUR home and took away your privacy? And blocked your sunlight? And caused major traffic delays?
Does anyone care that these tall buildings block light and cast long dark, dreary shadows on abutters’ property, picnic areas, gardens, playgrounds?
Am I the only one who has a big problem with the astronomical influx of traffic that density brings?
My commute time around the city has literally tripled — be it getting to & from work, picking up kids from school or practice across town, grabbing a quick take-out dinner, shopping, etc. Thanks in good part to the poorly thought out consequences that new development brings. It’s a fairy tale to think that the majority will take the T. Most folks HAVE TO DRIVE.
I surely can’t be the only one who has to get to work on time? I assume others also have responsibilities, deadlines, busy families? I’m tired of the GRIDLOCK. Why make it worse?
Lisap:
Try Transit. The MBTA has it featured on their website. Its icon looks like a bunch of green pipes. I find it to be very accurate with my bus routes. Not perfect. But very good. You need to have your GPS on for it to work well.
Mr. Office.:
There is certainly more traffic in Newton over the past 20 years. I see Washington Street as a good place for development overall since it has direct Pike access and rarely has stop and go traffic.
As for the heights of the buildings, I don’t take immediate abutter concerns lightly. If possible, set backs are certainly appropriate. And many of these projects trade height for some degree of green space or other public benefit. And I’ve been clear that projects within neighborhoods need to fit in. But projects that border major roads like Washington Street, I think 4 to 5 stories can work. And much of the development along Washington Street is hit or miss as it is. Some 4 stories, some 3, some gas stations, some one story retail, some single family homes remade as retail, multiple care dealerships. We can do better, and retail with residential on top can add to our affordable housing stock, add useful retail, some senior housing (like the project at the former Nissan dealership).
I won’t pretend that this makes immediate abutters whole, or that they won’t object to changes along Washington Street. But I do think it would be positive change in the long run for the majority of the city. Just my 2 cents.
Mr Office, I’m assuming that the 3-5 stories being talked about would be limited to commercial areas, ie Village centers….not residential neighborhoods. just sayin’
@Tom – and then there’s Upper Falls.
Our limit on height of construction is 100-120 floors. You can see our radio towers for miles around. I wouldn’t recommend that height for village centers though. As Mr. Office pointed out, the shadows would be oppressive.
Brian Yates said, “The basic height allowed in business districts is two stories, despite the fact that most business districts in village centers have numerous buildings that are three stories and have been so since before zoning was instituted. ” What about the building in West Newton on Border and Elm? That’s three stories and only a few years old. (Also, why are those storefronts STILL vacant???)
To answer Mary Mary Quite Contrary, I believe the building she cites was given a Special Permit to exceed the two-story limit in the zoning ordinance. As to why the storefronts are vacant, ask the holder of the Special Permit.
As to Fignewtonville’s assertion that Washington Street is a good site for major development, I would respectfully suggest that the entrances at West Newton and Newton Corner are not terrific access points. I don’t think the reference to the Newton access roads by many residents of the area and the rest of the city as the “Circle of Death.” is statement of fans.
3-5 seems too much. 2-3 is much more compatible with the existing or possible infra-structure in the area. At least half of the Washington Place site was already 3 stories.