The value of land, in most cases, has little to do with the intrinsic value of the soil. Land in Newton is more valuable than land in Wakefield because land in Newton is closer to Boston and living on land in Newton entitles one to send their children to Newton schools. A lot on Needham St. is more valuable than a lot in Oak Hill because Newton zoning regulations allow commercial development on Needham St. The site of the Chestnut Hill Square development was worth much less than before the zoning was changed to allow the more intensive uses that were eventually built.
The latter two truths are highly relevant as we engage in both large-scale developments — Washington Place and Northland — and zoning reform. When property is rezoned, wealth is created or destroyed.
Upzone a property and you create wealth for the property owner. Virtually out of thin air. I own a property that allows for a three-story commercial building on Friday. If the City Council rezones my property, through whatever mechanism, to allow a five-story commercial building, the value of my property increases. The right to build a larger building increases the asking price for the lot, without my doing anything.
On the flip side, if I own a residential property on which I can build a 3,500 sq. ft. home and zoning changes limit me to a 2,500 sq. ft. home, the value of my property is diminished, through no fault of my own. (Yes, there are circumstances, like an existing 3,500 sq. ft. home on the lot, that might minimize the loss, but let’s deal with the general case.)
Opponents of upzoning to enable projects like Northland or additional development along Washington St. object to the city making developers rich. And, they have a point. At the moment the Council approves additional development, they have increased the wealth of the property owners. Those among us who favor development on social justice and environmental grounds (raises hand) need to wrestle with the fact of the city granting such a windfall. (Depending on how rights to land are accumulated, current property owners may share in the windfall.)
I think the answer is to aggressively recapture much, but not all, of the newly created wealth.I say not all, because we need developers to develop. There needs to be an incentive to build the housing we need to satisfy social justice and environmental needs. But, even the most ardent development advocates need to understand that the wealth creation is the basis for city demands of a developer. And, the demands should be commensurate with the size of the wealth creation. The Council should negotiate aggressively.
It’s not just large-scale developments that generate wealth. The heart of the proposed zoning reform is neighborhood consistency. (See my long, attention-challenging post on zoning reform.) Under the draft zoning ordinance, some folks with existing, non-conforming lots will be able to expand or rebuild bigger where they couldn’t under the current zoning. That’s wealth creation. Some folks with large lots in a zoning district will find that the can’t build as big as under the current rules. That’s wealth destruction. (Look forward to a spate of building permit applications after the proposed zoning rules are enacted but before they become effective.)
Lot-by-lot wealth recapture or compensation seems both logistically impossible and ill-advised. But, there is an alternative solution: upzone everywhere. The right to build a multi-family building makes land more valuable than the restriction that allows only single-family housing. Upzoning single-family to multi-family is fair to everyone.
Didn’t the accessory unit ordinance effectively allow every medium sized house in Newton to become multi family(with rental rights but not ownership?)
I agree with almost everything Sean wrote at the top o this thread. Here’s the rub…
“And the demands should be commensurate with the size of the wealth creation. The Council should negotiate aggressively.”
Real estate negotiations require skill. No one on the City Council has that skill. Bring back Ted Hess-Mahan [who actually knew what he was talking about], and the City would have a fighting chance in negotiations with developers.
Meanwhile, if this Mayor and City Council don’t come away from the Northland project with a new school for the children of Newton, they haven’t done their job.
I’d much rather see a robust shuttle system that serves every employee and resident along its path as the community giveback from Northland than a school building. On the list of problems we need to solve, transportation is bigger, harder and more urgent
I have to agree with mike striar. Every time I look at Northland, I think, “give them more density on the north side of the lot, and have them build a k-8 or elementary school where TJ Maxx used to be.” The Council seems to think it has no choice, but all of this is voluntary.
If the council bring up the issue of schools then the question of school overcrowding will be brought up for EVERY high density project in Newton.
Its best for the council to pretend its not issue and ignore it, maybe they dumb enough to think people wont notice. Or perhaps when the 5h1t hits the fan, they’ll be long gone.. its so easy to kick the can down the road
.. but yeah, developers have excellent negotiation skills and the highest paid lawyers. Its better to ‘demand’ from them rather than negotiate
Greg,
The issue of school should be first as it involves ongoing costs which are paid by property taxes. A school building is just one part of the costs, Newton will we need tax override(s) to cover the ongoing costs (salary, supplies, security etc)
.. of course the council could suggest an high density tax to cover the ongoing costs also
@Bugek: If you only focus on the expense side of a ledger, you’ll always be playing catch up. A better solution is to grow new tax revenue. Upzone. Make Newton more desirable for businesses to locate and thrive here by giving them the transportation and density they require and you will reduce the tax burden on those of us who live here now.
I’m not saying the system should build a new school, but in my neck of the professional woods, the educational issues are a far more serious concern than transportation. We still have about five or six elementary schools that need to be rebuilt or have a comprehensive renovation, even if we don’t have an increase in enrollment. Perhaps those new buildings can be larger than the existing facilities to accommodate enrollment increases from new development but one way or another, the schools remain a top priority.
As I’ve said on several threads, the “community gathering place” proposed for the Northland development should be assigned as a site for a new elementary school for Upper Falls and the adjacent section of Newton Highlands to reduce the perpetual busing costs that the current pattern of school placements demands. Sending the children of Upper Falls even those of adjacent homes on the same street increases traffic more than makes any sense.
It’s a false diocotomy to oppose shuttle transportation to commercial towers and sound placement of schools.
If the village center schools built by the first half of the last century had been preserved, we would have much smaller traffic problems now. Kids would still be walking to their elementary schools with costly city paid buses forever supplemented by parents diverted from their adult destinations. The city should indeed force the developers to bear the true cost of development including a new elementary school to offset the transportation impact of too big a development
Supplement M BTA bus route 59 from Newton Highlands along Needham Street
to Pettee Square and see what happens.
I don’t understand why developers should be held responsible for what could be described as the most short sighted decision thi city has made in the last century. Who sells lots of public land that can never be reclaimed, then expects other people to pick up the tab for it? It was the city’s mistake and the city needs to deal with it.
zi like the idea of a shuttle but we should learn lessons from past attempts.
Developers are the convenient scapegoats for every challenge facing Newton, and for those who would rather not have to deal with the realities of modern Newton.
I’m as upset about the Hyde as anyone, but please tell this to the vast majority of families, who do still live within walking distance to a school. They’re not walking.
These new developments will house families who will pay a
very low rate of tax in monthly rental rates. This type of housing
will be insufficient to cover the costs of new schools and staff.
Northland and Riverside will not produce adequate tax revenue.
“Wealth creation” as you describe is a bit of a misnomer. Developers buy property, then are granted zoning and other restriction waivers, to essentially sell more access to our City through housing–far beyond what was originally allocated. Then we, the taxpaying residents, must pay for these new City services: schools, public transit, road improvements, parking (claim some), etc. and it is always a DEFICIT to the City budget. So wealth is not “created” but rather transferred from the City to savvy corporations. And remember, many of the new housing is commercial apartment buildings, so these corporations will continue to charge access at increasing prices in perpetuity.
Moreover, if you have a one or two family home and suddenly have 300 new neighbors put on your street, then that’s only going to devalue your home.
And lastly, it’s a farce to claim development is required for “environmental” reasons. Tearing down existing housing to build new is extremely wasteful. New housing can have efficiency advantages (although I’m not aware of any of these new development claiming to be LEED certified!) yet the demo and construction alone has a huge carbon footprint that no one even claims to be offsetting. So if you want to make that claim then show your math, otherwise, I call shenanigans.
David,
believe the “environmental” aspect is the reduced usage of cars… but given that in 20 years, the majority of cars will be electric (and hopefully powered by solar) I’m not sure if this argument holds long term.
If the goal really was environmental, Newton would
– enforce every new building to use solar and geo-thermal or provide more incentives to current residents to do so.
– provide several uber like shuttles to circle Newton to reduce quick trip usage
– give property tax breaks to families who have NO cars
I’m starting to think the council is driven more by “idealogy” than practicality. School overcrowding and overcrowding is a small price to pay to for social engineering. I would like to see how the city of Boston is addressing their lack of housing before they shunt the problem to others.
They could easily raze the ‘affluent/tony’ parts of Boson which currently only have townhomes and builds tens of high rises. But “luckily” they are in the “historic” district which allows them to claim non-hypocrisy.
Has there been any discussion on car/garage less development? Developers in Miami are moving in that direction. https://therealdeal.com/miami/2017/12/07/condo-developers-encourage-buyers-to-kick-their-cars-to-the-curb-2/
Same for Austin, a city which has a lot less public transportation than Newton. While this development will be a hotel, future ones will include housing.
https://www.statesman.com/news/20190118/proposed-carless-tower-downtown-to-morph-into-hotel-project
In both cases, the initiatives seem to be developer – economics rather than city government – environmental led.
Also, this may have been noted earlier, but congratulations to Boston for reaching their milestone of every resident within a 10minute walk to greenspace. https://www.boston.gov/news/boston-reaches-major-milestone-ensuring-park-access-all-residents
Shuttles, schools, wealth creation, taxes…
All are distractions to draw attention away from the fact that Needham Street is already too crowded. That adding 822 units to Upper Falls < 1,400 is way too much. Our slice of suburban oasis 8 miles outside Boston…will be another Fenway or Seaport with huge buildings of glass and steel.
Whomever created the opposition group https://rightsizenewton.org/ hit the nail on the head with the name – right size.
And to those who think shuttles are the answer…start it now. Ridership will fund most of it if it’s going to be as wonderful as proposed.
Interesting read on wealth creation/destruction, but it’s yet another distraction.
#smokeandmirrors