The TAB’s Julie Cohen reports here.
Newton City Council votes to strike Crescent Street housing project
by Village 14 | May 29, 2018 | Affordable housing | 11 comments
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
The TAB’s Julie Cohen reports here.
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
I know it’s close to the highway, but it seems to me an opportunity to have a neighborhood green space. It’s not too costly to scrape up what’s there, put in some soil, grass and plant some trees? We are the Garden City, right?
In what started as a proposal for a much needed Park / playground, ( for this overdeveloped neighborhood ), we are now about to open up this property to another give away project like Austin Street.
In stead of 8 units of affordable housing we’ll be saddled with dozens of high end housing units and less than the 8 affordable units we could have built.
Let’s go back to a city park only !
I support an open space for the neighborhood on Crescent Street. It would be much less expensive for the city and very beneficial to a neighborhood already fully packed with housing. Many neighbors were anxious for this to happen and they were ignored. In an area with less expensive housing and rental opportunities open space is just as important as it is in other more affuent areas. There is very little open space in the Cresent Street area. There is also a historic church and a small tot lot. A wonderful place for children to play and families to gather.
The supporters of the Crescent St project, approved by the City Council by a unanimous vote, were shocked at the back handed manuever to strike the project from the CIP during the budget hearing. The project is not dead as assumed by this article only more challenged.
New members of the City Council, lacking the background of 7+ years of negotiations at all levels that resulted a project that was acceptable to everyone, voted on something they were ill prepared to vote on. There vote shows disregard for the process, the Mayor, City Council Board Order, the Crescent St Working Group, and the residents of West Newton and Auburndale.
There were really only 2 ways new councilors should have voted and that was to Abstain, or vote Yes, since they would be reafirming the vote of their predecessor.
There are hours of audio and video that could have been reviewed that wasn’t, making me wonder what they used as voting criteria? The key dockers of this CIP item were cited numerous times in many past meetings for false information on everything from EPA info, to the focus of the JPAG, which once exposed, resulted in a favorable community project.
This posting is harsher than most, but note this is an important topic for the whole city.
The Councilors pushing to develop the Washington St Corridor just whiffed on supporting my constiuents at a key phase in the planning process.
On June 21st the CPC will vote on funding, and since senior Councilors are providing misinformation, they will be called out in the meeting.
@James Cote — the context has changed since this project was first envisioned. That context is called Robert Korff. Newton now faces a MASSIVE Washington Street building project.
There is now a second chance for Crescent Street to become a pocket of open space for this overbuilt part of the city. Why YET MORE urban densification here? Why is Robinhood Park not a good idea for the ward?
@dulles. I’m the creator of the whole Robin hood Park concept. My vision also included adding in the electric company property once Eversource surpluses their ownership. The goal of the Councilors last week is not open space, their goal is more housing.
The standing Council order ensured open space and we compromised on the housing, but only 8 units, and all affordable. No hand selected Developer would be involved.
Let me be clear, this under handed move compromises open space.
Thanks Councilor Cote. It has been a long time. I remember sitting in on at least one or two of those meetings with the presence of Reverend Howard Haywood. Still it’s been long enough that my wife had to remind me you were one of the early voices there for Robinhood Park.
I would be very disappointed in our councilors if they up-ended the existing plan instead to hand the property to a developer. With so much major development happening nearby already, that seems like the worst possible idea.
Councilor Cote – I’m a little confused – it was my understanding that all 8 units would be affordable, which you seem to confirm above. But in the article in the Tab, the councilors who are opposed to the current project keep referring to it as “mixed income”, which I always thought meant affordable plus market rate units. Which is it?
@Tricia: I believe it was 75% affordable – 25% market rate.
@Tricia the apartment affordable housing income designations have been fluid. The minimum that we mandated in the Council order was 4 affordable units, but since then its been moved up, and the current configuration is as Amy stated, except I believe the “market” rate are “workforce rate” now.
Comparatively, when the project was originally destined for a private developer, building many more units, we would have received only “2” Affordable units.
The approved plan doubled that with a 1/3 of the units, making this a win/win for the community and housing advocates! More park and more affordable with less overall density!
What has happened to this project?!?