Here’s a letter Rev. Howard Haywood recently wrote to the mayor and city council that a reader shared with Village 14.
To: Mayor Fuller and The City Council
From: Rev. Howard Haywood
RE: The Important Need to Revise Newton Zoning Now
Exactly four years ago I wrote in the TAB about neighborhood opposition to the Austin St development, and how “the character of the neighborhood” and other such expressions fell on me as a Black man who has lived in Newton all my life.
That op-ed can be found here [Wicked Local 1/22/19] and unfortunately, I feel compelled to write again today. The current opposition to the much-needed changes in our zoning have sounded to me like change is to always be avoided, especially if it brings density and new families to Newton.
I remind you of a very interesting look back at what former Mayor Child’s said in his inaugural address. More than 95 years ago, on Jan. 1, 1923, in his Inaugural Address to Newton’s Board of Aldermen and residents, Mayor Edwin O. Childs said ”…I signed the Zoning Ordinance, an ordinance which means much to the city and property owners…. The [prior] first and second ordinances…I vetoed and I have no apologies to make for the actions taken. Both were founded on selfishness….”
Childs went on to say that in this ordinance ”…residential sections are now set off from business and manufacturing, and that is about what most people had in mind when the Zoning Act was accepted by the voters. After all it isn’t so much the sort of house as the people in it [that] makes or breaks a city. All of the good people are not found in single dwellings. After all, it is the character of the citizens that counts and [the] Zoning Ordinance as adopted…will be a great benefit to Newton of the present and the future because it will make it possible for character to have an equal chance with money as our city grows. The important matter is the proper development of the city by the building of homes and what we need in Newton more than anything else is more homes for young married people. I believe that they ought to have the privilege of living in the same city with their parents, if they so desire.
I write to urge you to please approve substantial zoning changes as proposed that will create housing for all in Newton including our teachers, firefighters, social workers and police. A substantial amount of new housing, along with real affordable housing, will make Newton a far better city. You have that ability as leaders to do so. I can only urge you to do so, which I do now.
The zoning improvements will take us a long way towards a city we can love. The opposition is loud and some comments land as hurtfulI to many of us. I wish I could also assure you that they do not represent the majority view. The people I talk with in Newton want a courageous approach by you to the knee jerk – and frankly too often exclusionary – opposition to density and significant zoning changes.. And so do I.
Thank you,
Rev Howard Haywood
What are Mr Haywood’s opnion on the perceived unfairness if the process? The zoning changes affect mainly the poorer (relatively speaking!) Of Newton.
Waban, newton centre, chestnut hill all come out unscathed with the balance of new units skewed to the north side.
This is a very courageous and correct position.
Thank you, Reverend Haywood!
Thank you Rev. Haywood. This is an important conversation we need to be having.
As Sean and others have pointed out in the past here and elsewhere, we need to acknowledge our city’s racial and economic history as we look to and plan for the future.
This is a powerful letter. I agree with Rev. Haywood’s points, and he is the person to make them. We may disagree on where to put the denser housing, but it is in my view a moral imperative to allow more young families and retirees a chance to live in Newton if they choose.
I’m not convinced that the new zoning plan discriminates against north-siders. One could argue that the plan reflects the current state of housing density. I do agree, emphatically, that the village centers along the D line are great places for denser mixed-use development. I know from personal experience that it is easy to live near Newton Highlands village without a car for every adult. I believe the same would be true for Chestnut Hill, Newton Centre, and Waban, as well as West Newton and Newtonville. A better life awaits those who choose to run their errands via transit, by bike, and on foot.
I agree with Rev Haywood. We need more housing that young families and young singles can afford in Newton.
My question is how the proposed developments and zoning changes in the north side will provide this needed housing for the new residents I, along with Rev Haywood, would like to attract?
Reverend Haywood is a staunch advocate of affordable housing.
I understand his commitment.
I have read the 237 page zoning reform draft. I can not support a number of very drastic reform measures. Almost all streets between Washington St. and Watertown St. from West Newton to
Newton Cornerwould be adversely affected because these neighborhoods will be designated as Residence 3. The definition of R3 would change the housing composition dramatically.
Up to 18 units of multi use housing could be built on a single house site and be approved by an appointed Planning Board.
No this reform package is a nightmare for homeowners north of the Pike and an insult to our hard earned way of life.
Knee-jerk is the right term, many people seem to be looking at “small apartment house” and assume that means Northland anywhere in R3. I’m in Auburndale north of the pike which is tentatively zoned R3, and here’s the thing.. For the most part we’re -already- at R3 density. Most of the lots around where I live fall within the 40-70 frontage range and we have plenty of small two families (~900ft condos) along with apartment buildings (much bigger than the small apartment house allowed in R3). Effectively all R3 would do in my area is limit the ~4500sqft condos everyone seems to dislike and allow for the smaller lots/houses that are already there. I kind of wish we had this sooner as it may have limited a number of the tear downs turning Auburndale into a Frankenstein’s monster of small capes/condos next to giant McMansion style condos.
Waban’s density is a bit of a different discussion. One of the primary goals of the zoning redesign was to reflect what’s actually been built out – allow small lots/houses where they already exist and vice-versa with larger lots/houses. There’s one street nearby which is zoned R2 completely surrounded by R3, I’m assuming because that one specifically was all larger lots. This is why R3 is focused on the northern sections compared to R1/R2, it’s supposed to reflect what’s already there. I would agree all transit stops should be zoned R3 if not V1/2, including all the GL stops through Waban/Newton Centre/Chestnut Hill.
The inherent racism and classism in sayings like “character of the neighborhood” is alive and well in Needham, where we’re having a debate about what should go in at the Muzi Ford site, and at another site that’s surrounded by railroad tracks in Needham Junction.
Some Needhmites have said, if you can imagine this, that they consider 128 to be a “wall” and that they don’t want to see any major development on the Needham side of it, e.g. at the Muzi site.
And how about this absolute gem of a statement from the minutes of a Needham Board of Selectman meeting: “[One resident] commented Needham is not an urbanized town, rather a beautiful ‘Norman Rockwell’ town.”
PS I’ve tried searching for Rev. Haywood’s 2015 op-ed piece again but can’t find it…could someone please add the link to the story?
Does anyone know where I can find definitions of current zoning codes? My home is going from an MR-1 to an R-3. I can read what an R-3 means but would like to compare it to how my home is currently zoned.
I commend those who push for affordable housing who actually put their money where their mouth is
– create an accessory unit in their home and rent it below market
– rent rooms in their homes below market
– contribute several hundred dollars a month to subsidize a rental for a family
Hats off to you… i listen to any affordable housing advocate who actual expects people to “do as they do, rather than what they say”
@Newton Highlands Mom – Here’s the current ordinance:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/69436
Along with the zoning redesign landing page which has the draft along with a trove of supporting memos/presentations/material:
http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/planning/lrplan/zoning_redesign.asp
In particular I found the city council memos to be a good starting point, they’re more high level and provide a general overview along with intent of the entire ordinance along with the intent and major callouts:
http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/planning/lrplan/zoning_redesign_@_zap.asp
Bugek, you assume that those who talk about affordable housing are well-off. I’m a proponent of affordable housing, but I live in a 1100 square foot 2 bedroom home and we live paycheck to paycheck. And there are lots of other families like us.
Mmqc,
Thats the point, there are many who cannot afford the extra property taxes which would be required to support more affordable housing. These are the folks expected to pay more to support it…
Bugek,
You miss MMQC’s point. We all don’t decide what policies to support based upon it’s potential financial impact on us personally.
Claire,
We get a say because we vote for the representatives of Newton, we get to vote on tax overrides and supposedly we are involved in shaping the zoning process too.
We get to voice our opinions if we feel the developers should bear the burden of increased population from their profits…
We definitely have a say in this process.
And by the way, most of the units will be luxury market rate, only a token number of affordable units. This is simply the nature of high land costs in a desirable location… unless the city want to buy the land, build the units and operate at a perpetual loss(opportunity cost)
We all, ultimately, vote with our dollars and I’m moving mine out of Newton. This city seems hell bent on crowding as many people as possible within its boundaries. And we’re tearing down some very nice homes in the process.
Building upon “what’s already there” is code for NIMBY. Let’s make the dense areas more and more dense is what will happen.
@bugek
“We definitely have a say in this process”.
As far as I have seen, we have no say. It’s theatre. The only say we have is at the ballot box. Good thing the charter initiative lost; individual neighborhoods would have had even less say.
What kid do you know they said, “when I grow up, I want to RENT”?
It’s not a coincidence that Northland, Riverside, Washington St and Needham St are only intended to be apartments. A small powerful group that owns a lot.
Do we want be “Pottersville” or “Bailey Park”? If “Pottersville”, Developers will be the only ones with “a wonderful life” 10, 15, 20 years from now.
Like the legalization of marijuana, this topic warrants a vote by the people of Newton. Would be great to see this on the ballot.
@Matt A large part of the affordable housing problem is the fact that wages have been flat for decades. Even in the Software Business, which I am in, with a few exceptions in San Francisco startups where bidding wars go on for new Stanford grads etc. programming wages have increased slightly if at all. I’m making only slightly more per hour than I did in 2000.
The so called “Stem” jobs have been outsourced to low wage places thanks to the internet. You can now hire a graphic artist for instance (I don’t know how “good”, but you can) bidding for your work at $3 – 10 dollars an hour on places like https://www.upwork.com/. You can find mobile software engineers bidding on projects for the same price.
I tell people , forget STEM and be a plumber. One’s coming to my house this AM as a matter of fact to fix my toilet. Probably 100.00 just to come and do that. The local trades can’t be outsourced. And in theory you need a license.
Anyways, just building more housing is not a solution to affordability. Just reducing auto use is not a solution to CO2 emmissions. The problems are never that simple. Wages are a large component, as are student loans, etc.
@Matt, you are so right. It blows my mind that developers keep building luxury rental apartments high rises, which are corporate owned, and yet people pretend it benefits the poor and needy in our community and have the audacity to claim we’re not good people of faith or of the right political ilk if we object.
It’s beyond absurd.
Fact is, the City itself has created the most affordable housing in this City and they only need to build 2 more acres to stop these 40B corporate holding monstrosities–what are we waiting for??
@Matt One of the not talked about problems with affordable housing is the fact that wages have been flat for decades.
Even in the software engineering field, of which I have been in for over 30 years, my hourly rate has increased only slightly since 2000. This is largely because of outsourcing of software engineering to low wage countries.
You can hire a mobile software developer on http://www.upwork.com for 3-10 dollars an hour (I’m not saying they’re good, just that there are people bidding from around the world on small projects).
This is why I now specialize in FDA approved medical devices and scientific development. It tends to be more sensitive to outsourcing for intellectual property and regulatory reasons. But, there’s not much money in “Apps” unless you happen to get a hit game or something, and even that’s short lived.
I tell people unless you love STEM fields, be a plumber or an electrician. A plumber is coming to my house this AM to fix something. It’s 100.00 just to show up.
Kids have college loans for almost every field now – it used to be more for Med School, where the pay later would help offset the debt. Now, no matter what they study, they’ll likely have debt.
Just building more housing units is not going to solve the problem by itself.
To be clear… I am NOT supportive of the current (alarming?) trend of corporation owned apartments as a solution for affordable house. Residents will neither own, nor will it be cheap based on what’s been presented as “affordable housing” rates.
And yes, flat wages is also impacting this equation, but that we can only control what we can at the local level. At present, based on the City meetings I have attended on this topic, IN GENERAL, our City Council has tried very hard not to take a particular side in this debate.
This is why, like the legalization of marijuana, these zoning decisions – or at least directionally – should be put to vote by the citizens of Newton.
Do we want Pottersville or Bailey Park?
@Matt: Who exactly do you propose own apartments? Somebody has to build them, finance them and, yes, own them. They don’t just appear magically.
The responses to my earlier post have in my opinion agree although the proposed Zoning changes are not perfect but changes are needed.
With the privilege and advantage of living here my entire life I am keenly aware of phrase that have developed over the years that unfairly define our City. We are the one City and not a divided one unless one decides that we are based on some geographic deliniation.
Before the turnpike came through there was a north/south under tone with Commonwealth Avenue. For those who had lived here long before and into a time this divisive term started to be applied knew the real meal meaning of those on the south side those and those on the north. The haves and the have not, the wealthy and the blue collar and most harmful the Jews and the Christians. These unfounded perceptions have and continue to prevent us from being a united, one city that still has the enormous potential to being a beloved community that I believe we all desire it to be.
Every time the term “notthside/south side “ is used request of the user a definition of that term. If it is said that “they” get better services or better schools ask them for eveidence and challenge those who continue to promote erroneous untruths.
We are “NEWTON” one City, not perfect but striving to be the best. Committed to serving all of our citizens equally as we move into an era of change that will require us to listen respectfully to the views of others and after due consideration make the changes that will take us into the future.
I believe in Newton
@Greg: Why do they have to be apartments? Why not condos so people can OWN at a lower entry price than a single family home? Also renters will not pay property taxes, but the Developers do. So the next time an issue is being debated by our City Council and Mayor, who’s input will they take more seriously – my interests or the large tax based provided the small number of Developers?
May was well call them Dukes and Lords (to use a Game of Thrones analogy).
@Matt: By any chance are you related to Marie Antoinette?
Not everyone can afford the down payment or has the proper credit rating to own a condo. In addition, not everyone wants to own. Work is more transient these days. People move around or aren’t ready to settle down, etc. etc.
My current definition of North Side and South Side is the divide caused by the pike, and Washington Street. To say that doesn’t divide the city in some or many ways is to ignore the obvious.
It may not be a perfect marker as it is not too far from Watertown but the character of the city changes once you get to Washington Street. And yes, by using contextual zoning rather than form based zoning you can intend to preserve the character of the neighborhood. But intentionally or not you will end up amplifying the density in one area ( R3 ) while dampening the trend in the others (R1, R2).
The changes along Washington Street will be rapid- the developer has invested a lot of money buying the properties and he’s not going to wait too long to get started. This will create a rapid change along Washington Street.
Regarding the north south divide that is historical. I would say its diminished alot if you look at housing values.
There is probably only a 15% difference in price for the same house on north and south.
The new development could actually close that gap if more condos rather than rentals are built. Wealthy Millennials prefer to walk to amenities and schools (for their kids) and be close to work.. as long as the schools remain uncrowded
Too many rentals will cause a more transitive neighborhood.. the developers are smart to focus on rentals
– lower grade finishes require less money upfront
– they can write off losses for units not rented in the first few years
– hedges them against a recession. They can temporarily lower rents to ride out a downturn
I feel the city should take care of the ratio of rentals to condos being built. Rentals benefit the developer more than the community
@Bugek: What exactly are you saying and what exactly are you afraid of?
As I was saying
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/01/689660957/heavy-student-loan-debt-forces-many-millennials-to-delay-buying-homes
@Greg: Nope. No relations to Marie Antoinette. I’m Chinese. :-)
I get it. Buying a home is expensive. But that does not mean apartments are the answer either. So why not let the citizens of Newton weigh in? Let’s put this on the ballot. And if majority wants apartments, I will gladly eat my words. If not, will you do the same?
@Matt: The overwhelming majority of us came here from someplace else and I want to live in a city that can accommodate other people who don’t live here right now.
That includes folks from other nations and folks from across the state and country. And that’s what Newton business want too. Businesses are facing a talent shortage — from hourly employees to well paid tech, life sciences, healthcare and other skilled positions.
There’s a direct parallel to workforce and housing availability. We have housing crisis across eastern Massachusetts.
And as I said earlier, not everyone can afford or wants a condo or a single family home. Apartments fill an important need.
PS @Greg… by going the Apartment route, the Developers become Marie Antoinette. :-)
Power to the PEOPLE!
Matt lai,
A ballot vote which affects mostly only Washington street will have no problems passing. Since its literally not in my backyard for the majority of voters
greg,
I’m simply stating a fact. A neighborhood of rentals has a different feel and atmosphere/community than a neighborhood of owners. I didn’t say better or worse, but they are different
No need to read anything into the statement, its simply a fact.
Sorry Bugek, but I do read more into it. And it’s exactly the point Rev. Haywood and Mayor Childs raised.
IMO, apartments are a great option for seniors who are done with housing maintenance/snow shoveling/etc., don’t want the hassle of a condo association, and really want to remain in their home community. Right now, there aren’t enough apartments in Newton, way fewer than when I moved here 36 years ago and it was a very stable community.
Greg,
Since you read into it, you should state how you think a neighborhood primarily of rentals vs owners would differ. Please be brutally honest
Greg, since you’re reading into his comments it seems fair you explain exactly what you read.
As a resident and business owner in Newton for 20 years I can tell my business needs are rarely aligned with my resident needs. Business and profit drivers have no way to consider or care about concepts like “neighborhood” and “liveable.”
I don’t feel obligated to keep lowering the cost of living in Newton. Some can afford to live here and some can’t. I grew up in the projects of Malden and aspired to live in a place like Newton; I worked toward that lifestyle until the day came that I could afford it. That I can’t afford to live in Weston is MY issue and not one that Weston needs to address as a matter of policy.
Newton should want to continue to welcome people from all walks of life – Including immigrants, young people, seniors, people of color, and a diverse range of incomes. But for too many people it feels like they’re being pushed out, whether they’re seniors downsizing or experiencing mobility challenges, students returning home, or longtime residents struggling with expanding property values (and the taxes that go along with them).
I believe our government absolutely has a responsibility to struggle with these challenges and do right by the people of Newton – especially those who are struggling most to stay.
A few simple realities:
* Zoning has historically been used as a tool to explicitly promote racial segregation. If you are in favor of zoning that has a racially disparate effect — as it does in Newton — it’s on you to defend it’s use, not on advocates of more housing to defend their desire to loosen zoning and create housing opportunities.
* Single-family zoning in Newton means that folks who want to work in Boston have to move farther away than they would like, leading to longer commutes, which has financial, health, and mental well-being consequences.
* The zoning-caused commutes are also a key, reducible source of carbon emissions. Those commutes are a contributing factor to global climate change.
* Loosening zoning in Newton is not going to single-handedly solve all the social justice, economic justice, and environmental justice issues, but it’s one incredibly important piece of the puzzle.
@sean
Are you speaking of the current zoning, or proposed zoning, or both as having racially disparate effects?
Do you have evidence for the second statement? And is it a large number of people? I’ve never heard anyone state that. People that I talk to move to Newton for the schools. And, those who have moved out of Newton ( 2 friends of mine ) did so because they wanted a single family house with a larger yard. “You get more for your money in Natick” one of them said to me. And he commutes to Boston Chinatown. Another couple downsized and move to the Seaport District. They had no interest in staying in Newton.
I am currently on a project that takes me on a reverse commute to Southborough for 6+ months. So, ideally we’d all have short commutes but once people have kids, or like myself with kids grown but no desire to move, the changing of jobs and commute becomes less important than keeping their kids in a stable environment.
Greg wasn’t referring to stable environment just for family with kids. I think, but may be wrong, he was referring to a stable community environment that’s accessible to all generations and demographics.
Many of my friends moved from Newton when their kids graduated from NPS. Some wanted to live in a community with more going on for empty nesters – Cambridge, Brookline, Boston, but others who would have stayed, left because there was nowhere in the city to downsize to. This is another demographic Newton should aim to keep in the city for a variety of reasons. We have the time to volunteer, share our learned skills for free, and don’t take up space in the schools.
Jane,
Absolutely right. Seniors will benefit from more housing in Newton, particularly apartment buildings near our village centers. Our zoning restrictions are preventing seniors from staying in our community. That’s bad.
The science on this is getting very clear. Proximity to others is incredibly important for seniors’ health. We need to build places that allow seniors to be close to others.
.. but the majority of new units will be luxury market rate with a few token affordable units.
Lets not pretend this zoning is going to solve any “social justice” issues unless we’re building blocks of ‘soviet style’ public housing
It will definitely get a fewer cars on the road but not as much as we hope as the commuter rail schedule is pretty horrible and its not exactly cheap either (or reliable). I would have liked to see some contractual guarantees from MBTA for better service if certain population growth is met around the commuter rail.
Rick,
The current zoning has a disparate racial impact. As drafted, the proposed zoning won’t do much, if anything to correct that.
There’s lots of reporting on the second point. It’s a problem common to all urban job centers. There’s not enough housing in urban areas and the inner-ring, so housing is very expensive in both. To get affordable housing, folks have to go to the outer-ring, which requires longer commutes. Those longer commutes are expensive and unhealthy and they generate carbon emissions.
Yes, there are some folks who want to live in exurbia with a big yard. Paradoxically, we make that lifestyle choice too cheap, so that choice generates lots of carbon.
The Newtonville Area council did a poll – fwiw – that said the majority of Newtonville residents with grown kids want to stay in their homes. That would include us. I certainly don’t want to buy in downtown Boston bc it’s going to be underwater. I’m not retired, and I’m physically able, so at least in the near term we don’t feel an urgency to move, and my wife feels even stronger about staying in the neighborhood, which to her is a 2 block radius. Also, there are quite a few homes in Newtonville that are relatively small, and when people leave they become tear down targets. And perhas these homes are more manageable by empty nesters. I know the new zoning is supposed to prevent the McMansion thing, but it’s easy to see those homes being replaced by multi unit apartments in R3. So, not a McMansion but a difffferent large footprint building.
Anyways to stick to my original points, I believe the new zoning creates too much density in NVille, which already is going to be overwhelmed by all the new housing on Washington Street. More areas south of the pike should share some of the increased density.
@Rick: If you believe that — and it’s not alarmist to do so — how can you ethically oppose any carefully executed effort to create new housing opportunities here in anticipation of this pending calamity?
bugek,
As Keolis (the company that runs commuter rail) said yesterday, they have additional capacity. But, your larger point is absolutely right. We have to build housing and create new transit capacity at the same time.
A key bottleneck to better service in Newton is the fact that we have single platforms at our three commuter-rail stations. We should invest in dual platforms and not wait until the MBTA gets around to it.
The mix of housing is a complicated question. Even if we add only luxury units, adding units helps relieve the regional demand for housing, so it does make housing more affordable regionally.
The problem we have in Newton is the freakishly high land value our zoning creates. As we add housing, land value will decrease, making it more feasible to build affordable housing. It’s not the only answer. We also need to subsidize housing. Again, we need to be working on multiple fronts.
Sean,
“As we add housing, land value will decrease, making it more feasible to build affordable housing”….
This would be a rare case of a city(Newton), pushing against the needs of its residents. I’m pretty confident there isn’t a sizable majority of residents who WANT their home to decrease in value for the greater good… or perhaps the intention is to only lower home prices north of the pike?
Bugek,
There’s the rub. Should it be acceptable to continue to artificially constrain the market to create wealth for one group if the constraint exacerbates a regional housing crisis, contributes to climate change, and maintains existing patterns of segregation?
Some of us say no. We recognize that some of the wealth in our homes is not legitimately ours and that we need to make some sacrifices.
And, yes, the sacrifice needs to be heavily weighted to the south side.
@sean
Well unless you want to lead the charge strongly, it’s kinda late. The zoning rev is going into second draft, and I don’t see much change wrt south side weighting. The north side is going to bear the brunt of it.
Rick,
It can’t be too late. There’s too much at stake.
I’m going to do what I can and I hope that I can convince a bunch of folks here that it’s important to do it right so that they can put pressure on councilors.
Sean,
You may be getting this backwards: “As we add housing, land value will decrease, making it more feasible to build affordable housing.”
Upzoning to allow denser building usually INCREASES the value of the existing land. The more units that can be built on a given piece of land the more valuable that piece of land is to a developer, since they can realize a much larger profit from building at a higher density than by building a single-family home. Then the developers need to recoup the cost of the land (and maximize their profits, since they have investors to answer to), so they build luxury condos that individually sell for more than the original land/house cost the developer to buy.
I am not saying that there is no need for more density in the region and none of us (I hope) would try to argue that we don’t need more affordable housing, but hoping that increasing density will make it more feasible to build affordable housing will undoubtedly lead to disappointment.
Leon,
It’s certainly complicated. And, there are lots of factors. And, there are tricky sub-zone issues. But, in the end, land value is related to housing demand. If we start to satisfy the demand, the value of the land will decrease.
Certainly, there will be an initial increase in land value created by upzoning. And, you could argue that Newton is such a desirable sub-market that there is no amount of density that will reduce the demand to live in Newton, so the upzoning windfall will be perpetual. Maybe. But, the recent data from places like Seattle suggests otherwise.
The impact of our exclusionary zoning is felt regionally. Even if we don’t drive prices down in Newton, upzoning Newton will certainly have a positive impact on the region, which will address some of the environmental and economic justice issues. We may have to subsidize housing to deal with the social justice issues our exclusionary zoning creates.
@Greg I don’t- but why should only the existing dense areas become more dense? Why not make everything R3 if it’s that urgent? Hmmm..,
The problems unfortunately are bigger than I can solve. I can eliminate my carbon footprint by jumping off a bridge. But gee that’s not appealing. Should my retirement include never flying to Europe because it’s too much carbon?
Greg, take a look at your own carbon footprint and see what you can do yourself before trying to guilt others.
Like I said let’s spread some other joy around and make all areas R3.
Rick,
You are exactly right. Make everything R3. Single-family zoning is indefensible.
What’s particularly galling about the density on the north side and the lack of density on the south side is that the south side is so transit rich. Chestnut Hill, Newton Centre, Newton Highlands, Waban are exactly where we should be putting lots of new housing.
I’m in agreement that all of Newton’s residential neighborhoods should be zoned R3. The draft zoning changes are basically keeping the exclusionary zoning from years ago. I don’t see any reason any area of the city should be only maintaining neighborhoods that only the wealthiest can afford if someone wishes to put more homes on a parcel of land, why should that be reasonable on in certain neighborhoods? These dense neighborhoods are spread throughout the city – not just in the north side.
This nonsense about renters vs owners is just that. Rick is right about the lack of wage growth, students graduating with large debt and I will throw in the decline of the middle class. Young people who have grown up during or after the housing bust have seen the downside of owning a home. Before then a house was just about the best investment you could make but after 2008, they became a liability across the country. So yes, Matt,some kids grew up wanting to rent. That may change as time goes by but now rental units seem the best of all worlds and not just for the transient.
As Jane pointed out, rentals are great for many seniors – especially those on one floor and close to transportation and village centers. I sold my family home and have no intention of ever owning another home. Not only do I not want the responsibility of caring for a home but I want to be able to travel frequently without any worries about what’s happening at home – except for the politics of course. I have become quite involved in Newton and on V14 even though I have leased a first floor apartment for 10 years in Newtonville. I love the multi-family homes in Newton, mixed in with their history, and prefer those to complexes.
Sean
As a north side resident, i would choose R3 everywhere in Newton as the lesser of 2 evils.
I’m sure residents on the south feel much differently
Sean,
The problem with the issue of the affordability of housing, as with everything in the real world, is that it is complicated. Accomplishing what you appear to wish to accomplish (creating enough housing in Newton to cause a large-enough shift in the supply/demand equation to cause prices to substantially decrease all while maintaining the qualities of Newton that draw people to want to live here and not causing a real-estate crash fueled by homeowners whose houses are worth much less than their mortgages) is simply not possible through zoning, and I think you realize that.
We can choose to continue to grandstand here in this fabulous echo chamber that we’ve created in the name of perceived affordability and equality and continue to bicker over whether the north side or the south side is going to be impacted more by increased density, but that does not seem like a very good use of our time.
I would rather we start thinking about the types of projects the city council approves and whether “density for the sake of density” is actually moving us in the direction we want to be moving or whether it’s lining developers’ pockets while creating more unaffordable (though denser) housing that’s the opposite of what we want and need.