One year ago, a significantly different Newton City Council was getting ready to be sworn in.
In addition to a new president (Marc Laredo), vice president (David Kalis) the council featured seven new members —Maria Scibelli Greenberg, Andrea W. Kelley, Christopher J. Markiewicz, Joshua Krintzman, Andreae Downs, Brenda Noel and Rebecca Walker Grossman— replacing several long time veteran councilors (most notably Scott Lennon, Ted-Hess Mahan, Amy Sangilo, Brian Yates and, of course, Ruthanne Fuller).
It’s was also the first council that was evenly divided between 12 women and 12 men.
Just over a year ago, we asked you to share their hopes for this new council? Your answers are here.
And now, with this council holding its final full meeting of 2018 tonight, how you think they did? Which councilors stood out, surprised, annoyed or disappointed you? How effective were they representing you or addressing issues that mattered to you most? What do you hope to see from this group of 24 in 2019?
Overall I think the council is doing well. In spite of what some (quite vocal) local organizations may say, I think the current cohort is faithfully representing the majority view on the key issues.
Specifically, I would like to commend the six councilors who docketed the styrofoam ban. I don’t know who is the driving force behind it, but I fully support it and hope it passes.
In 2019, I’d like to see a little independent thought from the new city councilors. Except for Andrea Kelley, they all seem to be following the lead of Susan Albright and Deb Crossley.
It takes a special kind of person to serve in local government. It’s a civic duty without many rewards, especially here in Newton where a lot of people pay attention to local government and have high expectations.
I was sad to see Ted and Amy go, and wasn’t happy when Brian Yates lost to Andreae Downs. From the new crop I’ve only been underwhelmed by Andrea Kelley. Mainly because Councilor Kelley has an exceptional resume (open space, LWV, PTO, housing, all strong issues), so I had exceptional expectations. So far I have not been impressed. Maybe I missed the City Council meetings where Councillor Kelley made brilliant observations.
I think we have a wonderful crop of new councilors coming into their own and a number of incumbents thriving in new roles.
I’ve appreciated seeing David Kalis taking on new responsibility as Vice Chair, Councilor Albright leading on Zoning & Planning as we take on zoning reform, and some exciting new councilors bringing new voices and perspectives in Josh Krintzman, Brendan Noel, Andreae Downs, Andrea Kelley, Becky Walker Grossman and Chris Markiewicz.
I left one off intentionally, because I have found Maria Scibelli Greenberg to have a particularly impactful perspective on the council. Take a moment to talk to her if you haven’t yet!
I’m disappointed that not one Council member has docketed an item dealing with reducing the size of the Council. Newton voters have made it clear many times that they want a smaller Council. Any Member want to step forward?
I’ve been disappointed in some things, like the way many of the councilors dealt with the marijuana question. I’m grateful for the councilors fighting to figure out a solution to the parking ban, but I’m also disappointed that some of the councilors remain oblivious to the issue and unwilling to change it. Overall, I feel that it’s all been a bit of a mixed bag this year, but I’m curious to see how next year goes. I’m curious about some of the zoning and development stuff.
I’ve been surprised in many ways both good and bad by the new city council, school committee and the mayor this year.
Definitely didn’t like the handling of recreational marijuana by the council and the mayor, but thanks go to Susan and Josh for their hard work and for wrangling a zoning ordinance.
I have been disappointed in the way Hello Washington Street! is still not paying much attention to the residents of Newton – even though that is what they say they are doing. Isn’t it time to nail down some realities and discard some “pie-in-the-sky” observations.
Also disappointed in almost selling the police station building and still no plan on what needs to be included in a new police headquarters.
Very glad to hear that the SC will not be voting on shortening the school day this year without adding later high school start times.
I’m proud to have Susan Albright and Emily Norton but not so much Jake Auchincloss as councilors in my Ward. I had hoped this year that Jake would let his constituents know how he was leaning on city decisions before the decisions are made and spend more time on city issues.
There are 24 City Councilors in Newton. Not one of them respected the vote of their constituents and stood firm to protect the ballot initiative that legalized marijuana. I’ll cut Albright and Krintzman some slack, because while their strategy was flawed their intentions were good. The rest of the Council members crossed a line with their lack of respect for voters and the democratic process. I have no intention of forgiving and forgetting.
@Mike – I feel the same way about the Council’s failure to come up with a suitable plan to cut the size of the Council. They are openly defying the will of the voters that voted on several proposals to do so.
Peter – I’d rather have 24 councilors than an 8-8 configuration. That’s a nightmare situation, with half the council fighting for their turf. Not to mention, the vote was 18 years ago and doesn’t represent the will of the current population.
The new council is doing a fine job. It hasn’t been easy to have so many new faces and they’ve proven themselves and thorough in completing their work.
I agree with Peter Karg. Institutionally speaking, the Board of Alderman’s disrespect for voters started when they ignored a ballot box vote instructing them to downsize the Board. It continued when they blocked implementation of the ballot initiative that legalized medical marijuana in 2012, putting hundreds of sick patients in the untenable situation of having to leave Newton to fill their prescriptions. This more recent attempt by the City Council to undermine the expressed will of the voters is reflective of an alarming, long-term pattern of disrespect for voters. Throw the bums out!
Jane, Totally disagree. If you took a new vote, voters would again want to see a reduced City Council. It is one of the largest municipal bodies in the country. Less is best!
Peter, people change their minds and new residents replace old ones so votes taken 11 years ago don’t necessarily reflect the will of the voters today. Without studying how the council’s responsibilities would be distributed among boards, commissions, city personnel and the smaller council, it would be foolish to docket a new council configuration. I don’t think 8 Ward elected and 8 elected at large have the right ratio nor do I think an all at-large council is fair to all. I’m fine with 24 right now while the city decides how best to reduce the size of the council.
Peter – I’d love to see a smaller city council and see A 12-member council to be more effective, but the 8-8 configuration is the worst possible scenarios and I’d prefer 24 to that.
I’m with you about Hello Washington Street, Marti. I feel like a lot of the campaign is trying to give residents the illusion of having control over the project. Something about it feels condescending and dishonest. That survey where we were picking out pictures of things we like felt silly – yes, I like the cobblestone roads and sidewalk cafes in those European pictures, but that’s not really relevant to Washington Street. Even the more recent presentations seem unrealistic. I’d like some transparency and realistic plans. I’d love Washington Street to become more aesthetically pleasing and more practical, so it’s kind of frustrating right now.
I’d like to give a shout out to the following Councilors – Emily Norton, Brenda Noel, Jake Auchincloss, Lenny Gentile, Chris Markiewicz, Becky Grossman, Rick Lipof, Susan Albright and City Clerk, David Olson for participating in the gift drive for local shelter in Waltham. Their generosity speaks volumes!
I would like to know who exactly gave the green light to the sketchy massage parlor a block away from me, especially considering that associates of the current proprietors were taken in for sex trafficking at the same location. TY :)
Peter and Mike, You are not correct: Check the docket. I docketed the reduction of the size of the Board On 02/05/2018 #114-18. To reduce the Board to 16. To be fair to my friend Jane, I am open to anything that is a reduction in size and am willing to discuss 9, 12 or 16, but something much be done with by the Council. I docketed 8/8 as that is what many seem to be reasonable. I understand pros and cons and would be happy to debate that in the future. In deference to the ongoing Charter reform committee of the Council, I have allowed a delay of my item to enable them to bring a recommendation forward, but I and others are becoming impatient. I will press the council to move the item forward if the Committee takes too long.
@ Rick Lipof – Thanks for the clarification and your efforts to move the discussion forward.
@Rick Lipof– Thanks for clarification regarding your proposal to reduce the size of the City Council. While I’ve always supported a smaller Council, the gist of my comments pertain to a pattern of lack of respect the City Council has demonstrated for their constituents by ignoring and overturning ballot box votes.
Most recently, not a single City Councilor defended the 2016 vote to legalize cannabis that Newton voters had approved by a large margin. A handful of your colleagues actively worked behind the scenes to try and derail the voter approved law. The City Council ultimately forced voters back to the ballot box for a ridiculous revote. My comments were principally about that lack of respect for the voters.
The City Council will vote in favor of any development any where
in the city, anything anywhere is their motto.
So far much damage has been done in Newtonville, and Adams St. at Quirk Ct. The Sunrise development in Ward One and several more on both JFK Circle and California St. Nonantum is target number One and the residents feel exploited.
In November, the city council will be held accountable if they pass
the Zoning Reform initiative. Two thirds of the council would vote for it now. The majority of Newton voters would not
favor the new proposals as is because rezoning will increase dramatically the density of every neighborhood, even those in Chestnut Hill and West Newton Hill. Key north side villages would lose their historic feel and characteristics. Main travel arteries would be much worse.
NO, our city council is not voting responsibly on many key issues.
Many new councilors ought to be voted out in November.
@Mike S — At some point I think thou doth protest too much. The approved 2016 law explicitly provided for an option of the override vote, which was exercised. The majority of the city council opted to not put that forth without a full citizens petition, and then when a full petition emerged, a majority endorsed a confusing parallel vote that left the city with no limitations and 8+ dispensaries. In general ward councilors supported Cannibis a bit more than the at-large in the initial opt-out vote.
More than 4 in 10 Newton residents supported the ban. Less than 6 in 10 didn’t. There was diversity of opinion on the issue the the city, and that diversity of opinion was represented in council votes and actions. That is a good thing.
Some people are ardently against local representation on the council, as they believe it encourages defense of “turf” as one person phrased it. As illustrated in comments above, some still see elimination of local representation as a much high priority than any size reduction.
Others see local representation as supporting diversity of opinion on the council, as well as providing members a route to initial office without the support of the dominant political structures in the city.
The council has had tough work in the past 12 months and it is only getting started. Thank you all for your service.
@Jack Prior– In the debate over the City Charter you suggested a 24 member City Council would be better representative of the electorate than a smaller body. Your opinion on that matter was demonstrably proven wrong by the fact that not a single member of the Council supported the expressed will of the electorate regarding marijuana legalization. You promised better representation, but 0% of the City Council was willing to defend the vote of 55% of their constituents. How do you explain that, Jack?
@Mike — The expressed will of the electorate approved a law that had as its key feature, cited by the lead proponent of the law in arguing for it, a provision for cities to opt out if they chose to via referendum. That is what the electorate voted for. https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/IFV_2016.pdf
The council could have put opt out on the ballot by themselves (without a petition, and without a 2-4 option) but they didn’t. The council has a majority pro Cannibis position. That’s the reality.
I was not a fan of the “this are two independent questions” approach taken, and you can attack the pace of zoning definition, but I think residents are getting represented.
@Jack– You said… “The Council has a majority pro cannabis position. That’s the reality.”
As a medical and adult-use cannabis rights advocate I don’t see that as “reality” at all. The Newton City Council voted without dissent to ban marijuana after the voters went to the polls and legalized it. Not one of those 24 elected officials truly respected the vote. That is the unfortunate reality.
Jack – Your timing is wrong. The council voted to put the limits question on the ballot in July. As was their right, a group collected signatures in August to place a second question on the ballot to ban stores. Just because they chose to take that action doesn’t mean the council should have reversed its previous action taken just seven weeks before. To be clear, the choice to have two questions on the ballot was Opt Out’s, not the city council’s.
IMO, a city council with a significant number of new members would’ve looked weak and impulsive if they’d voted to rescind an action taken just seven weeks before.
All of which is water under the bridge because on November 6th, the voters rejected both questions. Like it or not, elections matter.