Frequently on Village 14, various list serves and wherever and whenever new development is discussed, someone inevitably raises understandable concerns about how new growth will lead to overcrowding of our already “too-crowded” public schools.
So just how crowded are Newton’s schools? And what might the impact of the proposed Northland, Riverside or other projects have on school enrollment? I have no expertise on this matter and I’ve never known how to respond. So I emailed the Newton School Committee Vice Chair Steve Siegel and asked.
Here’s Steve’s response:
“Our school population overall has dropped slightly, by 50-60 students this year after leveling off last year. Our total enrollment is at about 12,700 now, down from an early 60’s peak of 18,000 and up from an early 80’s trough of 9,000. This has been consistent with our enrollment projections over the last few years and we are happy to see it. But this is the big picture, as enrollment is uneven and we are going to see a crunch at Oak Hill and Brown in coming years and Oak Hill may need to expand slightly with additional classroom construction, likely modulars. Then, following a few high-enrollment classes passing through the school population there will drop. The high schools are near-full but we are managing them effectively.
“The key to dealing with enrollment changes is to study and update the data continuously, and make adjustments where necessary. Buffer zones are the best example of this — we keep class sizes even across grades and schools with the judicious use of buffer zones to send newly enrolled students to the schools that have the physical capacity to receive them.
What about the impact of new developments on our school population?
“You’ve heard this from me before — we have two big factors that interact with each other — broad regional demographic trends (the waning of the baby boom echo) that is causing school enrollments to drop all over eastern MA, and new developments that bring in new families with kids to the most desirable communities, like Newton, Brookline, and Lexington.
“The steeper curve dictates what happens to Newton enrollments going forward. As of right now and with current projections, these curves cancel and we expect to be able to handle future enrollment within our current school buildings, with the possible exception of the short term bump in our middle schools.
“Will this be so next year too? Every year we look at the trends, and make plans based upon what we see. At some point this might mean we decide to locate and build another elementary school, or add a 5th middle school.
“But at present these big moves aren’t called for.”
How many new units of housing are expected in Newton in the next 7 to 10 years? Current stats show approx 30% of large apartments complex have school aged childen…
Its important to use numbers in the correct context, the 822 units at northland would not be spread amongst the 12700 enrollment but be concentrated on the nearby elementary, middle schools. Similar to the long term plans for Washington street.
I guess we first have to define “overcrowding”…
Since each new student costs the City of Newton substantially more than the additional tax derived from that new student’s family moving to Newton, there’s a net loss, any way you slice it. Those costs are borne by the other taxpayers — to build new classrooms, facilities and related services as needed. So the real question is how much money is needed from the Newton taxpayers to cover those additional school expenses.
@Jim and Bugek: Is it possible to agree to not just make up your own set of facts? Did you actually read Steve’s answer?
First, yes I read Steve’s answer and found it incomplete. Jane and Bugek brought up major points. Steve noted that the 12,500 students are not evenly spaced throughout the city but basically said that problem can be solved by buffer zones. The newest developments being built and proposed are larger and will drive enrollment up in the north and south sides of the city – in other words – not spread out across the city but concentrated in two areas.
Steve,
Is there a November 2018 Enrollment Analysis Report?
The most recent one I can find is from November 2017 with projected student enrollment for only 3 new rental complexes: Kessler Woods 88 units, Court Street 36 units and Austin Street 68 units.
“Preliminary enrollment estimates, based on experience ratios from three large complexes in Newton, have been made for these three complexes – students have been added to the projections for Memorial-Spaulding, Cabot, Day, and Oak Hill as well as to the high schools. These additions to enrollment are phased, assuming that each development reaches full occupancy within three years of completion.”
Avalon at Newton Highlands, 294 units, has 108 students enrolled in NPS.
Avalon at Chestnut Hill, 204 units, has 80 students enrolled in NPS.
Arborpoint at Woodland Station, 180 units, has 51 students enrolled in NPS.
About half of the students at the three complexes are elementary students and half attend middle or high school.
Washington Place 161 units, Riverside 290 units and the Needham Street project 950 units are mentioned but not included in projections because they hadn’t received building permits at that time.
Washington Place has a building permit so it can go into the projections now. Using the same method of comparing Riverside and Northland projects to the three used in 2017, these projects would add many more students than the others.
One major factor was left out of Steve’s comprehensive, yet concise assessment of overcrowding: the sale of a significant number of school facilities in the 70’s and 80’s. So it’s not just a question of how many students are enrolled, but the amount of facility space is available.
When NPS hit the 18,000 in the 60’s, we had two more middle schools, an I forget the exact number, but many more elementary schools (Claflin, Hyde, Emerson, Davis come to mind). So facility capacity through the early 80’s was much higher. Comparing enrollment before and after the sale of the schools is like comparing apples to oranges.
In addition, the Special Education Act in 1973 meant that new kinds of spaces were needed in all the schools – smaller spaces for small group/individual instruction. The 20th century school buildings that consisted of many rectangular classrooms in one large building became dated. The system chose to take some classroom spaces and reconfigure them into smaller spaces to accommodate children with special needs, thus increasing the overcrowding problem.
Meanwhile the modulars had to be added (Cabot School) just 8 years after the sale of the last elementary school property. That’s a clear indication that someone should have known that the enrollment was due to rise soon as a result of the boomerang effect of the baby boomers, which caused a significant increase in enrollment in a short period of time. Because the schools had been sold, the system’s capacity at that point was not able to accommodate the influx. Thankfully, someone had the good sense to retain Bigelow so that they could be used to alleviate some of the overcrowding at the middle school level. It should be noted that it reopened in the early 90’s – once again, an indication that someone knew that the sale of the school facility properties was going to cause future problems.
Adding modulars only solves part of the overcrowding problem in a school. They do not address the lack of adequate common space – cafeteria, hallways, libraries, gymnasiums, etc. As a result, a school with enough classroom space may still be overcrowded.
Look at avalon stats. 30% have school aged children
This is a FACT reported on Newtons own website
Page 4: avalon highlands 294 units have 108 students. Avalon chestnut 204 units have 80 students.
Google Search for: avalon newton enrollment
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.newton.k12.ma.us/cms/lib/MA01907692/Centricity/Domain/78/November%25202017%2520Enrollment%2520Analysis%2520Report_online%2520version.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjy-K3Zr4TgAhV5JzQIHYLUDnQQFjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0xMmN1yU3jQd4Wz4Wf1BUo
Sorry its not page 4 as the pdf doesnt have proper page numbers. Search for word avalon in that pdf for avalon enrollment stats
Greg, facts: cost per Newton pupil — $19,081.81; number of proposed Northland Project housing units — 822; percent large apt complexes w/school age children — 30%. $19,081.81 x 822 x .3 = $4,705.574.35 annual Newton school expense for Northland. However, this is based on one pupil each family, so let’s increase the expense, say, by 50% to cover two or more pupils each w/school age children. $4,705,574.35 x 1.5 = $7,058,361.53. Then, $7,058,361.53 divided by 822 = $8,586.82 average extra school cost to City of Newton for each Northland housing unit. Based upon reported trends and projections, education expense accounts for, say, 60% of City of Newton budget. So, $8,586.82 divided by .6 =$14,311.37 total City of Newton average expense for each Northland housing unit. To the extent $14,311.37 exceeds the average annual real estate tax attributed to each Northland housing unit is the annual net loss to the City of Newton for each such unit. Or, counting 822 units, 822 x $14, 311.37 = $11,763,946.14, and the extent to which that amount exceeds the annual real estate tax attributed to the total 822 Northland housing units is the annual net loss to the City of Newton.
So, Greg, I’d ask what is the estimated real estate tax revenue to be derived solely from Northland’s housing project. To the extent it is less than $11,763,946.14, that is how much money the City of Newton is losing as a net cost each year.
@Jim: You’re neglecting a few things, including enrollment data and birth trends as well as an understanding of real estate trends and how municipalities can grow real estate tax revenue these days.
Mixed use developments require a mix. Restaurants, retailers, dry cleaners, bike shops and other employers (who all pay a higher tax rate than us homeowners) want to be near customers and employees. That’s what brings, keeps and ultimately helps determine many businesses’ success.
So you need to factor in the total real estate tax revenue, business property tax revenue, meals tax revenue, etc. not just for the residential revenue. You need to consider whole net costs/benefits. I’d even argue that you need to look at how a project like Northland would help nearly every other business or future business on Needham street, Upper Falls and Newton Highlands; how it would make Wells Ave more attractive to employers; and all the other benefits that come by adding customers and workforce to our local economy.
Meanwhile, please don’t make the mistake of assuming that new families in any given project means we need a new school when overall birth rate and enrollment trends are telling a different story.
@Marti Bowen, funny you should ask if there is a more current Enrollment Analysis Report. At the next School Committee meeting on Monday, January 28th, on the agenda is: Enrollment Planning and Class Size Report. Any documents for SC meetings are posted online by Noon of the day of the meeting. You can preview the report on January 28th at Noon, and watch in person in Room 210 of The Education Center, 100 Walnut Street or from the comfort of your home on NewTV.
Fyi, SC meetings begin at 7:00 pm with approximately thirty minutes of public comment. Here is the entire agenda for January 28th, so you can pick and choose when to tune in:
January 28, 2019 Regular School Committee Meeting Monday 7:00 PM
Public Comment
Superintendent’s Report
Enrollment Planning and Class Size Report
Elementary Principals Update
Mid-Year Superintendent Assessment
Mid-Year School Committee Calendar Review
EDCO Update
Preview: Technology Update
Communications
Adjourn
Thanks Jo-Louise.
Enrollment in NPS at Newton’s Largest Rental Housing (2017-18)
Note that 25+ is a large classroom.
Avalon at Newton Highlands (294 Units)
Angier 5
Countryside 27
Zervas 25
Avalon at Chestnut Hill (204 Units)
Bowen 7
Countryside 1
Memorial-Spaulding 25
Arborpoint at Woodland Station (180 Units)
Cabot 1
Pierce 17
Williams 12
Sure, if all 27 kids at Avalon are by some coincidence, say, in third grade. Chances are that’s not the case. And here too, you can’t just jump to any conclusion without factoring in overall enrollment trends, birth rates, etc. across the district or even in a school zone.
My only point here folks is that this isn’t black and white.
Good points Greg.
Thanks Jim
I’d be interested to know if Steve Siegel is anticipating the 11,000 new households that the Mayor has committed to adding by 2030 (a little less than 1000/year) as part of the commitment by 15 mayors to add a total 185,000 new housing units (Newton’s share of that is 11,000). This represents an increase of35% over our current 31,139 households in a little over a decade. I’d be interested to know if a 35% increase in population has been worked into the school committee’s projections.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2018/10/02/citing-housing-emergency-local-mayors-pledge-dramatically-boost-construction/plYlzBr3OoM6W6la3L1zTL/story.html
As many of you know, Brookline has allowed a sizable Chapter 40B development to proceed at the corner of Hammond Street and Route 9. Their solution to school overcrowding? Exclude the kids; call it “senior housing”; prohibit residents under 55. Providing housing to needy seniors is laudable, but no able-bodied person deserves elderly benefits merely for reaching 55 years of age. What others call “senior housing” I see as a dirty, exclusionary trick.
Imagine the furor that would erupt if a developer built 40B housing off limits to anybody 55 or older! And the furor would be justified. The 40B statute was meant to provide affordable housing across the state, not to pick demographic winners and losers.
For a post entitled “How ‘crowded’ are Newton schools?” I am struck that most of the comments are explicitly or implicitly about taxes, not about the effects of children rubbing shoulders or teachers trying to keep order. I feel much of the hostility to large developments is not about crowding or transportation–as people so often claim–but about fear of tax overrides. Everybody here is a generous liberal until it’s time to open the checkbooks.
Population growth will be reality here for some time. Our city has a lower population density than almost every other MA city of similar size. Newton can handle the growth. And to those of you who already put your kids through the Newton schools and have nothing to gain by welcoming lower-income kids today: remember, those kids will soon be paying your Medicare and Social Security.
Help! Someone’s numbers aren’t adding up.
Bugek quotes statistics from Avalon enrollment that show that the students in NPS are 30% of the number of units.
Jim Epstein then bumps that 30% up by 50% to account for the fact that Avalon families may have more than one kid in the schools ….. though Bugek’s numbers seem to already account for that.
Marti Bowen is showing NPS enrollment numbers from Avalon and Arborside that indicate the NPS enrollement is 16% of the number of units vs Bugek’s 30%
Could the 16% vs 30% discrepancy be the difference between kids vs NPS enrolled students?
Until we can get some rough agreement on the basic (should -be-easy-to-verify) numbers, it’s hard to have any kind of conversation on the topic.
Michael Singer, not everyone in Newton is in a position to disregard the impact of taxes and tax increases.
Jerry, Bugek stated 30% of the apartments had school aged children, not counting what portion of those had two or more school aged children. In that context, we’re talking about each pupil’s cost impact on the City and schools, not each apartment’s impact.
@Jim Epstein: Yes, everybody cares about taxes and wants to pay less. I am well aware that some here can barely afford their taxes. Life is even harder for people who can’t afford to live here.
Don’t get me wrong; I think our government could be more efficient and wish our taxes were lower.
But what I say still stands. Some older residents, many of whom were perfectly happy to put their own kids through Newton Schools at public expense, are prepared to discriminate against families with children today.
Disclosure: I have no kids in the Newton public schools and will not in the future. So no vested interest here.
@Michael Singer, the majority of the units in these developments will be luxury rental apartments with profits going to corporations indefinitely. So let’s be realistic about where the money is going when we have to write the bigger checks.
@David M, Yes–everybody knows that only a fraction of Chapter 40B units are affordable. If you know a better way to create affordable housing in Newton, I would love to hear it.
Micheal singer,
If the issue is to give low income kids opportunities to go to NPS then the solution is an increase in METCO but only if the corresponding city pays the full cost.
For some bizarre reason the city of Boston (full of millionaires and billionaires) cannot afford to pay full metco costs to Newton
Michael Singer, … to exacerbate the difficulty for some of those struggling taxpayers without kids in the Newton Public Schools, a significant portion don’t like paying for the NPS prevailing fault-America fault-Western civ. teachings.
And insofar as more affordable housing, those impeded by the high cost can simply choose to live, e.g., in Waltham or other less expensive nearby towns. Why must each and every city, bounded by arbitrary lines, provide the complete array of housing (other than simply to comply with a state statute — 40B — making the requirement apply to each and every separate town where there already is a metro-wide array of housing in terms of cost).
It’s not about the current numbers. It’s about capacity – and we no longer have the school building capacity that we once had when the student enrollment was at the level that Steve describes. That unfortunately, is black and white.
I’m curious why this question wasn’t posed to those who work in the buildings. I’m sure teachers/staff would be more than willing to share some of the areas of concern in various buildings and sections of the city.
I don’t know exactly where Jim got the $19K cost per student. That being said, almost everyone makes the mistake of dividing the budget expense by the number of students. This drastically understates the cost. Government accounting standards do not consider the opportunity cost of land and buildings. This is a real cost and it needs to be added to the per student cost. In this case, you need to bump up his estimate to something like $21K.
Jerry, the numbers I used came from the 2017 enrollment analysis for elementary school children in NPS from the three rental developments mentioned.
In addition, there were a total of 67 students who went to private schools.
The numbers I used didn’t include middle and high schoolers or younger kids in the developments either.
Usually the enrollment analysis is done in November so I am disappointed that hasn’t been completed yet so I could use this past years numbers.
Greg, you are correct – all 25 students wouldn’t be in the same grade or classroom. What I meant by including that was to point out that even though 25 doesn’t sound like a lot of students added to one school, it actually is when considering the students either already in the school or planning to attend.
Michael Singer, a lot of us posters are talking about students rubbing shoulders and not about taxes. Check them out.
And lots of us have no students in NPS.
@Marti. Yes, I hear you, and I was not referring to you.
What Jane said.
Its about building capacity. The new Cabot was designed with a stated desired capacity of 85-90%. After Austin St and Washington Place is added with the proposed redistricting, it will be over 100%.
Think about that. The building isn’t even completed and it doesn’t have capacity for what will be the likely enrollment. These new developments are being added to Cabot because Horace Mann is already over 100% capacity.
Its odd that Steve Siegel is neglecting to discuss capacity in a response to a question about how crowded our schools are. As Jane said, its not about total enrollment, but enrollment relative to the number of buildings and classrooms.
Cabot will be overcrowded. Horace Mann is already overcrowded. And the same can be said for many of the other schools in the district.
PS I could find a post of mine from several years ago, pointing out how poor our planning is– that Cabot was being designed at the same time as these developments were being considered, and the two processes, which should be linked, were completely separate. The overcapacity of Cabot was fully foreseeable.
>@David M, Yes–everybody knows that only a fraction of Chapter 40B units are affordable. If you know a better way to create affordable housing in Newton, I would love to hear it.
@Michael Singer, most of the affordable housing in Newton was created by the City.
The City actually only needs to buy 2 acres more of affordable housing and then the zoning will apply to these new developments. So why can’t we just by 2 more acres of affordable housing? It would be far cheaper, more people will benefit, and the City would be in a position to negotiate with developers to both include affordable units AND meet existing zoning requirements.
http://newton.wickedlocal.com/news/20180202/city-of-newton-reverses-claim-it-has-safe-harbor-from-affordable-housing-law
Consider also how the new context based zoning will increase the size of the already dense areas – this will put the burden of more school aged children in the schools in areas such as Newtonville, where the new zoning allows for only an upward increase in density, versus West Newton Hill, which will stay at the same density. So, certain areas that are R3 in the new zoning plan will become more populous, and disproportionately burden those schools and infrastructure ( water, sewer , roads, etc ) in those neighborhoods. Such is the increasing inequality reaviling itself in property demographics.
In addition, the elephant in the room on affordable housing is the lack of wage increases. Wages have been so flat over the last ten years, or perhaps I should say poorly distributed, that of course there is no affordable housing. I don’t think you can build enough units in Newton for the market rate to come down enough to be ‘affordable”. The market failure is that wages have not nearly kept up with the cost of housing. Unless you’re a CEO. This is the issue that people don’t want to talk about.
Franklin and Burr have historically had overcrowding issues, and some of the proposed Washington Street area development would be districted to those schools. It seems like Burr has improved but Franklin is still overcrowded. I don’t believe either of those schools are slated to be rebuilt. In terms of middle schools, Day will bear the brunt of the Washington Street development. I am looking forward to new development but I find it disconcerting that there’s no plan in place and the concerns are being ignored.
@MMCQ The problem is the residents of near-Washington Street ( e.g. moi ) are not being listened to. Oh we had those charades, I mean charettes, were we got to feel like we participated by putting up sticky notes, but in the end, it’s kabuki planning theatre. Ultimately Madame Mayor will be comfy up in Chestnut Hill while we all get the shaft. Class resentment? Well probably. 500000 wasted ? Yep.
Our experience was that 2 -3 extra kids per grade is all it took for the grade schools to be considered overcrowded (and that was 10 years ago). The school had to do all kinds of gymnastics to accommodate these kids. The result was that the quality of the lauded NPS education went down for all the students.
One suggestion is to build new schools with all the cash that these projects will generate for the city. Shouldn’t that planning be happening concurrently?
“all the cash that these projects will generate for the city.”
I think that is what is being debated here: it cost 190 million ( is that correct ?) to build NNHS. That was funded by mayor Cohen with some sort of bonds or something. I forget. Anyways, building schools is really costly and, I fought the new developments Aline can provide that kind of money, assuming they succeed ( has anyone considered that the retail / restaurant parts of the business mail fail? Restaurants are notoriously difficult to keep in business. Very few new restaurants survive. Retail is getting hammered by online sales. Medical office space seems a much better bet IMHO.
doubt the new developments alone – sorry my AI auto correct is having a bad day…
>One suggestion is to build new schools with all the cash that these projects will generate for the city.
These projects do NOT generate money for the City.
>it cost 190 million ( is that correct ?) to build NNHS. That was funded by mayor Cohen with some sort of bonds or something.
yes, he signed the City up for a 30 year loan even though the old school was only 27 years old when it was torn down. Municipal buildings should never be financed past 20 years and are expected to need renovations within 10 years because of the constant use.
According to some of the above posts, much of the new school enrollment will be north of the Pike in Newtonville. Do I understand correctly that the private school acquired by the city is proposed for a new Community Center rather than school space.
Many of the new students are cited at locations near Upper Falls and the proposed Northland development. The obvious solution is to assign the “community meeting space” cited by Northland as a school site and to make Northland pay the development costs of the school if their special permit is to over load the existing schools and continue to have Upper Falls kids bused to three different school at permanent public expense.
@Brian Yates: I’d much rather see the 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.
1. The cost to build NNHS was more like $250,000,000, the costliest in state history (and at the time nation’s history).
2. Initially there were plans to add a $50,000,000 wing to then 25 year old NNHS building, and when asbestos meant part of the student body would temporarily be relocated during construction, Mayor Cohen parlayed that into complete demolition and the new building.
3. A survey of students revealed that they preferred the old building with its “main street” feature, so as an accommodation with massive increase in cost, the new building entailed the cockamame inefficient bland factory-look design to lay out and recreate a sort of “main street” feature.
The Aquinas property is slated to be used as a school facility and will provide much needed relief to the overcrowding on the northside of the city if it’s an additional school facility.
All of the information about current and future facilities plans is posted on the NPS website – https://www.newton.k12.ma.us/Page/2314
You will find here current activities as well as the long-range plans.
@Marti, here is the link to the enrollment report – https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/155IyXNorI3j8imiojBDd0SwHoY6IBGHs
And here is the enrollment analysis report with projections through 2024 – https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1andB9jAZRPoBmdsi-j6caO83NA85Veps
Appendix F in this report uses a student generation ratio to estimate potential enrollments from proposed new developments.
While building new schools is something we hear a lot about, the difficulty is finding the appropriate sites for these schools. As Jane mentioned, former school sites were sold off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Article 97, a state law, puts strict conditions on the use of parks and recreational land for municipal building so as to preserve open space. Aside from municipal buildings, schools and parks, the city really doesn’t own other property. We’ve certainly all watched as our neighbors in Brookline have struggled with this same problem.
Buffer Zones mentioned by Steve just shifted the problem around that was created by Avalon on Needham St. Initially Countryside was overcrowded and exceeded 500 kids then they shifted kids to Bowen which made Bowen overcrowded. Buffer Zones were then added moving kids from Bowen to Mason-Rice which was the largest school for several years and exceeded building capacity. This is only beginning to start to be alleviated by the addition of new space at Zervas. These kids are now starting to roll through the middle schools as the first large class is in 6th grade.
Jane I believe the intent is to move Lincoln Eliot to Aquinas and then use LE for future swing space. It is not clear if that means any extra building capacity.
Some things I found interesting on the reports:
*Per the reports in the past they have only included permitted projects in their projections it looks like they are trying to update their methodology moving forward but aren’t there yet. They indicate with the addition of 332 Units (Kessler Woods, Court St, Austin St and Washington Place) will add 76 kids to the school system. My guess is that this will be significantly off.
* They are concerned about enrollment at Angier as it is currently at 100%, Peak enrollment for Brown will be in 2021 and for Oak Hill in 2023. Both HS peak in 2023-24.
Greg, money is fungible, so if Northland developers are required to defray school building expense instead of the City, then said City money is available for a “robust shuttle system”.
The preschool program now has a designated space so that frees up some space in the new L-E at Aquinas. As Margaret mentioned, we don’t have any available space to build a new school, but the city has no plans to sell the H-M property and if, in the distant future, a need for another school arises, it can be repurposed.
I agree with Greg that our school capacity problem is not Northland’s responsibility to solve, I’d see the school capacity problem to be a more pressing problem than local transportation.
While I agree that our school capacity problems are not the developer’s responsibility, I am disappointed, to say the least, that the mayor in her visioning process to add more housing has not included NPS’ educational needs. School capacity needs to be part of the discussion when adding new units of housing. I’m not saying that school overcrowding is a problem that cannot be solved, but it will not unless it’s part of the process.
Where will the students from Northland go to elementary school? I think having buffer zones that send kids who live in the same place to different elementary schools is a lousy solution to overcrowding.
From everything I have read, Northland’s shuttles are basically to get their employees to and from work. They aren’t attempting to solve the transportation problems in Newton.
While I’m at it, I am going to bring up another problem that no one wants to talk about. Northland is planning to build 880 units of housing and only provide one parking place for each unit. I understand only providing one for some but not for all. At this point, there is no convenient way to get around Newton without a car.
“school capacity problem is not Northland’s responsibility to solve”… this statement is somewhat true. If the City of Newton is stupid enough to allow developers to create thousands of units and to dump the consequences onto residents then yes, we the residents voted for these folks and we deserve it…
So let me get this straight….Developer comes in, stuffs a property and neighborhood to the gills with luxury apartments. They sit back to rake in the rental revenue, while the average citizen pays for the added infrastructure required to support all the added humans.
Sounds like a cr*p deal for the citizens of Newton.
Can’t stuff a full grown adult into a baby stroller, no matter how much you try to dress it up.
I follow your page as a Wellesley resident since we are in the process of closing a school with new 40B and other developments on the horizon. I want to learn from surrounding towns about the impact. Wellelsey is not close to our 10% to meet 40B safe haven, as some call it, in regards to zoning.
What I have found is developers seem to grossly underestimated, when presenting a plan to a town, the amount of children these units can generate. In addition, agencies who push 40B on towns do the same. We are told over and over this will not impact the schools.
From your utilization numbers it does seem your schools are overcrowded. Enrollment predictions are good for about five years, if that. I would not count on dropping enrollment to even out the overcrowding.
If anyone has suggestions on how to make decision makers aware of what we may see in Wellesley I’m all ears!
It’s funny how so few want to talk about why this debate is really happening. Better to bash greedy developers than to reckon with why so many people want to live in Newton and Greater Boston. Better to wish people would just go somewhere else while ignoring the reality that conditions will only intensify in the future because we have won the new economy. Unless we want our innovation economy to tank or relocate to cheaper, warmer states or countries (as the rest of New England is finding out), things aren’t going to change.
The irony is that so much of the opposition consists of those who call themselves “progressive”, who strive to create a “welcoming” community (for some, anyway), where “hate has no home here” (ditto), and they end up doing the opposite. They help demonstrate why progressives and liberals (and the issues they care most about) end up losing.
The preschool program now has a designated space so that frees up some space in the new L-E at Aquinas. As Margaret mentioned, we don’t have any available space to build a new school, but the city has no plans to sell the H-M property and if, in the distant future, a need for another school arises, it can be repurposed. A boomerang of the baby boomer boomerang generation is now upon us. The boomers’ “children” are in their 20’s and 30’s and a whole new generation is coming along and will be entering the public schools. Let’s not be caught short handed again.
I agree with Greg that our school capacity problem is not Northland’s responsibility to solve, but I’m concerned that it’s being underplayed as an issue on this thread as a means to divert monies that Northland may provide for city services to a specific program.
@ted…respectfully I could not disagree more. It’s not matter of keeping people out, but one of physics.
Would you welcome two additional families into your current home…without knocking down some walls and adding some rooms? Oh and you have to personally pay for it.
If scoped for the right size – like 300 units like Avalon – this project could benefit all.
Greg – There is a important difference between the transit shuttle Northland proposed https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/globelocal/2019/01/23/developer-pitches-shuttle-service-connect-newton-project-transit-stops/tLmtxwOajnSYEZparVX4aJ/story.html?event=event12 and school space. The shuttle is a continuing expense with modest up-front costs. School space is infrastructure that if competently managed should last decades. We certainly need transit, which is a huge problem with the whole Washington Street plan as well as with the Northland development. But shuttle buses can fade away easily if ridership fails to meet goals. School space would be a more permanent contribution.
@Jane, the 150 Jackson Rd. building committee voted earlier this month to have our project architects
1) Do a feasibility and fit for the Lincoln-Eliot School at 150 Jackson Rd. and
2) Do a feasibility and fit for the Newton Early Childhood Program (preschool) at 687 Watertown Street (the building currently occupied by the Horace Mann school)
The City Council voted this week to appropriate the funds for that work.
@ted from my point of view it’s class “warfare” within Newton. The new zoning laws will make R3 spiral upwards in density, while the wealthiest neighborhoods ( like where the mayor lives) in R1 will stay the same. Is that spreading the winning of the “new economy “ or just sticking it to the less wealthy neighborhoods? Talk about NIMBY. The mayor should welcome an apartment building next to her house in chestnut hill. But not in her back yard ( NIHBY)
Margaret – I knew about the L-E study, but not the H-M one. That’s great news!
Rick Frank, the rezoning of Newton means that in an Residence3
zone large apartment buildings can now be built on a single home lot and without the approval of the city council.
Instead the approval process would be under the authority of a non elected but appointed Planning Board.
However people in Residence1 and 2 zones will be affected too.
The new regulations allow for more density on lots in these zones.
Where one house stands today two could be built in the future.
The set backs are reduced as well. The zoning reform will allow for much more density throughout the city.
Newtonville and West Newton are prime targets for apartment buildings because they are close to the commuter rail.
Newton does not have good transit service and never will. Our city council will vote for these zoning reforms. The votes are there.
The only way to stop them is to vote them out.
The only ones opposing rezoning are Cote, Brousal Glaser, Norton, Gentile, Markeweitz
@Colleen
Hardly. R1 properties can have something called a courtyard I believe. But I doubt that will happen very often.
But I can’t even buy a 2 family home and turn it into a single family in R3 and no new single family homes can be built. This is not equitable. We already have the mass pike as both an eyesore and an ear sore ( it is LOUD ) over here. Not to mention the chemical groundwater contamination in Nonantum. I can tell you, this resident of the north side is going to get a lot more politically active because I’m tired of our neighborhoods over here getting taken for granted.
And yes, I support Emily Norton and I will vote against those who support this zoning. I believe the burden on infrastructure, schools, roads, etc, should be shared by all, not just by the already dense areas because the context based zoning “preserves” the neighborhood. In fact, it doesn’t do anything of the sort. It exacerbates the difference between the neighborhoods by making the already crowded more crowded and leaving the rest alone.
I agree Rick, the north side is a target for exploitation. Both
Jake A. and Susan Albright, Leary and Greenberg are strong advocates for total zone reform. I hope you consider running for city council in 2019.
Other than forums and spirited conversation like this and NextDoor, I have not had anyone ever ask, “do you (residents of Newton) want this?” Does anyone know if information exists?
Looks like there is a new survey that does just that. Check it out.
https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=DQSIkWdsW0yxEjajBLZtrQAAAAAAAAAAAAYAAIGWKWxUMDk2TUpDTEo3TTgzV1VKVDdHRVZQNUJFOC4u
Greg et al., one word comment about any proposed Northland shuttle bus: “NEXUS” (lol)
I don’t have the temperament to run for city council. But I am willing to put my money behind someone who listens to my neighborhood’s residents.
@Marti, if you look at the school committee’s long range building plans you will note that the next three projects have been reordered. Countryside renovation is next in the queue after 150 Jackson Rd./687 Watertown St. are underway.
Learning from the past is essential. Revisionist history serves no one. There are two points I’d like to correct…
1.] The idea that “selling off” old school buildings in the 80’s and 90’s was a mistake, is an oft repeated one on this blog. The fact is, it costs nearly as much to maintain a mothballed school building as one that’s open and active. For a 25 year period the city deferred maintenance on its active school buildings. There was simply no money to maintain and repair extra buildings held in reserve for a time of increased enrollments. So anytime anyone suggests the city should not have sold surplus school buildings in the 80’s and 90’s, I like to know exactly how we were supposed to pay to keep them?
2.] The enduring myth that Newton was irresponsible or paid too much to build NNHS is just that… a myth. The Cohen Administration mishandled the process, but thankfully ended up in the right place. The original $50M renovation plan was not feasible. That particular plan required all of North’s students to attend high school in other cities and towns for 1-2 years. A ridiculous proposition. The Jellinek Commission, a panel of 31 Newton residents was appointed by the Mayor and ultimately recommended a $111 renovation and addition known as the “Hybrid Plan.” A subsequent analysis revealed the true cost of the hybrid would exceed $135M. Mayor Cohen initially endorsed the hybrid, then reversed himself a few weeks later when his challenger in the 2005 election called for the construction of an entirely new NNHS. In my opinion, it remains the best $200M we ever spent.
Mike, not established that the original $50 million NNHS required all students to vacate. Contractor simply wanted City to assume liability for occupants during construction, and precautions could have been made. In lieu, that was used as pretext for complete demolition of a 25 year young building and a 5-fold increase in expense for a brand new building.
Great conversation. Lots of data in those comments. You can find more data info about this subject at https://mhpcenterforhousingdata.shinyapps.io/DataTown/#.
DataTown is a new web site. You can look and download easy-to-understand graphics, or download the underlying data bases and crunch the numbers yourself. Has data for all 351 MA communities.
Designed to put community-level data in once place and inform conversations.
BTW, can anyone confirm the zoning proposal which allows a single family (R2) can become a multi-family if at least 3 multi-family are within 500 feet. Is this true?
If so, over several years, R2 homes will slowly creep to become multi-family as newer homes are built closer and closer to R2?
@bugek – The draft R3 district allows for small apartment buildings (4,200sqft footprint, 3 story) without a special permit if there are three or more within 500ft along the street, that’s what you may be thinking of. The wording makes it sound like they all have to be on the same street and not just within 500ft. There’s a similar rule in R2 but that is for single story ranches, not multi-families.
@bugek
Yep you got. It’s what I’ve been saying above. It’s like a photo shop paint bucket fill…. if the paint bucket tool finds 3 things close enough, it puts another one. Then the one more can trigger another 3 hit and pretty soon the whole R2 becomes more dense and in the case of R3 there’s no going back. Once it’s multi family it cannot be reversed to single family ever again. If you’re in R1 your for all intents and purposes safe…,,
@ bugek
This is my point of the NIMBY of the folks who live in the upscale neighborhoods. Limousine Liberals as they say. The density is not equally distributed. The burden in the schools, roads , etc are going to be on the north side. But that’s no different than redlining and all the other stuff that’s gone on for years….they say it’s because we have the commuter rail but that’s not the only reason. Newton Center has the best green line access so I hope more of those areas will start to get built up to help distribute the joy more equally.
I met with James Freas. They do not have to be on the same street. They are still deciding whether to use a circular metric or a more complicated metric that used street polygons ( think mahalanobis distance Etc. )
Rick,
I watched the video link of a Zonining Planning meeting which was posted by Julia M
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2026134057455145&id=100001757125701
It was very interesting. Very cynical but it really did ‘seem’ like the whole draft was designed by developers with the city telling them ‘which areas’ of Newton to plunder
… as the meeting starts to unfold, the planners did not expect the audience to be smart enough to notice the glaring unfairness of it all
Yes, a lot of resentment is building. We already have Goodbye Washington Street, and we get to increase ( and never decrease ) our residential density. Lucky us. Hey, anyone out there want to make sure the mayor loses her job over this? Contact me and I’ll help out financially ( and otherwise )
@Greg. If the transportation problem in the city is so overwhelming, your faith that a shuttle system associated with the Northland development will offset the additional transportation problems generated by an 800 unit developed let alone deal with the already existing problems seems naïve and disingenuous.
The either/or comment that the Northland developer should only be required to do one thing to eliminate the problems it will create is foolish. Any new development should be required to do everything possible to eliminate all problems it creates. An expansion (at least doubling) of the bus service on MBTA Bus Route 59A should be accompanied by provision of the “community meeting space” on Oak Street for any substantial new development on the Northland site. 800 units should be accompanied by the developer’s payment of the FULL cost of the new school that the development will clearly create a need for, If the developer can’t afford it, no special permit should be given.
Any Special Permit Granting Authority be it elected and accountable or appointed and unaccountable to the taxpayers who will be impacted by the consequences of decisions it makes should recognize such easily predictable results.
Here’s a link to the NPS’s Enrollment Planning and Class Size Report, thanks to Jo-Louise Allen
@Jerry and Jo-Louise, I beat you to it. It’s in my first post on this thread.
@Margaret Albright – Ooops 😉
Hello Village 14,
I’m very late to the party after my email to Greg Reibman led to the origination of this thread, but following last night’s School Committee meeting I have something very interesting to add – the Powerpoint that served as an introduction to the discussion of the Enrollment Planning and Class Size Report:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/155IyXNorI3j8imiojBDd0SwHoY6IBGHs
It speaks directly to the enrollment impact of regional demographic trends vs. big Newton developments. The money slide is #8, which makes the following points:
• NPS has been working with a consultant on a 10-year enrollment forecast. This forecast indicates an enrollment increase of 165 students, or 0.7%.
• Projections include the impact of a potential 1,785 new apartments from 4 developments that include Riverside, Northland and two others.
• Without the students from these new apartments the 10-year forecast shows a small enrollment decline.
• The consultant and NPS are planning a comprehensive presentation to the School Committee and the City Council shortly.
This supports the point I made to Greg, that the impact on student enrollment from the many large residential complexes are essentially offset by the regional demographic trend of fewer students. This is why we do not anticipate building additional schools, but instead are focusing on the repair, enlargement, and replacement of some of our existing buildings.
Regards, Steve
Repair, enlargement, and replacement of some of our existing buildings is a sensible solution.
On a similar but different thread on school enrollment, I ask School Committee member Steve Siegel if the consultant who is estimating that a mere 165 students could potentially be generated from 1,765 potential new apartments from 4 potential new developments (I’m guessing Riverside, Northland – but not sure about the other 2) – has any backup on arriving to that conclusion. It seems odd that so many housing units would generate so few kids considering the data contained in the November 2017 Enrollment Report which contains the following info: Avalon Newton Highlands – 294 units and 108 students; Avalon Chestnut Hill – 204 units and 80 students; Arbor Point Woodland – 180 units and 51 students. 425units generated 239 students. The November 2017 Report also has a nice chart which shows the number of kids generated from each of the three apartment complexes on page 4. Avalon Newton Highlands had 57 Elementary students and 51 Secondary students; Avalon Chestnut Hill had 33 Elementary students and 47 Secondary students and Arborpoint – Woodland had 30 Elementary students and 21 Secondary students. The chart also shows that 64 students ended up going to private school.
The report continues with this: “While a similar number of school children live in single family homes in 2017 as in 2002 (268 more students), the percentage of school children living in single family homes has declined from 73% to 65% because of enrollment growth during this time period.
Conversely, there has been an increase from 5% to 12% in the percentage of school children
living in condominiums. This represents a real increase of almost 1,000 students living in
condominiums today compared to 2002. This data illustrates that families of Newton school
children today are more likely to live in condominiums and apartments than in 2002. ” So what does that table show? A 188%change in resident students from 2002 – 2017 who live in condos and a 134% change in resident students from 2002-2017 who live in apartments. So pardon those of us who question what the impact of all of this new housing development will have on our schools.
There is no question that this City will live up to its responsibility to educate all children who come into this City. The question is rather, are we adequately prepared, how much will this cost (I happen to object to the constant line-moving/redistricting) and how are we going to pay for it (renovation, additions, and oh my – maybe new schools).
The link to the November 2017 study can be found here: https://www.newton.k12.ma.us/cms/lib/MA01907692/Centricity/Domain/78/November%202017%20Enrollment%20Analysis%20Report_online%20version.pdf
@Amy
I’m generally on your side here, but you need to read more carefully. Steve said that the 4 developments will lead to a net increase of 165 students across the system, and without the developments, there would be a net decrease. So the impact of the 4 developments is the difference between +165 and the projected net decrease (which is what Steve?)
@Paul: I understand that there is the potential for a net decrease without the developments- but we haven’t been given the specifics and that’s what I am trying to get at.
@Amy, this was a brief preview of a consultants report on 10-year trends. A presentation of the full report is currently planned for the near future. Stay tuned.
@Margaret, Thank so much. I’m guessing we can learn much more from the full report!