Ward 6 City Councilor Brenda Noel shared this with her constituents and with Village 14.
Dear Constituents,
As you may have heard, the current City Council has been charged with the exciting and challenging task of working with the Fuller administration to update our existing zoning code. We have a unique opportunity to make a change that will impact our city for years to come and reflect our values as a caring and thoughtful community.
To provide some context, here is a quick snapshot of Newton’s zoning history
- Newton adopted our first zoning code in 1922, revised in 1953, and slightly tweaked it in 1987. No major reform between 1953 and 2019 (66 years)
- Efforts to update the current zoning code began in 2007 with the comprehensive plan a fully engaged initiative began in 2015.
- The current “built environment” in Newton is 85%-95% non-conforming. What this means is big (major development) and small (new mudroom) changes require a special permit.
- Input from the residents has been sought throughout the zoning redesign process, in large initiatives like Hello Washington and smaller settings such as Ward specific zoning reform meetings held throughout the city.
From the City’s Zoning Redesign Webpage:
The goal {of zoning redesign} is to create an easily understood ordinance that preserves what is best about Newton and is, at the same time, forward thinking.
And herein lies the rub- what is “best about Newton” and what is “forward thinking?”
History of Zoning and Social Engineering
In the late 1800s Before zoning codes existed, people would regulate what they did or did not like in their neighborhood by filing a “nuisance law” If someone didn’t like how their neighbor was using their property, they could bring them to trial and let a judge decide what to do about it.
The introduction of zoning in the early 1900s launched a revolution in American land use regulation and planning. Beginning with height regulations in Washington, D.C., in 1899, efforts to control the type and intensity of land use spread to many cities. In 1908, Los Angeles adopted the nation’s first citywide “use” zoning ordinance to protect its expanding residential areas from industrial nuisances. (New York’s zoning ordinance happened around this time as well)
As quickly as zoning ordinances were established, they began to be used as a way to institutionalize racism and classism in the United States. Baltimore enacted the first racial zoning ordinance in 1910; within several years the practice was widespread in the region. The racial zoning movement received a sharp reversal in 1917, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared a Louisville, Kentucky racial zoning ordinance unconstitutional.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court struck down race-based zoning in 1917, nine years later, found it constitutional for a Cleveland suburb to ban apartment buildings. In concert with racism in real estate, police departments, and housing finance, single-family zoning proved as effective at segregating northern neighborhoods (and their schools) as Jim Crow laws had in the South.
The tendency of planning historians to focus on land use regulations principally as a way to shape the built environment and to stabilize land values can obscure equally important (and less publicized) social objectives in America’s early planning movement.
“What began as a means of improving the blighted physical environment in which people lived and worked,” writes Yale Rabin, became “a mechanism for protecting property values and excluding the undesirables.” (http://walkingbostonian.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-subversion-of-fair-housing-law-by.html)
Recently, Minneapolis would become the first major U.S. city to end single-family only zoning, a policy that has done as much as any to entrench segregation, high housing costs, and sprawl as the American urban paradigm over the past century. The process Minneapolis has engaged in is noteworthy, and the city’s understanding of the intersection between racism and zoning is to be commended. Read more about it here. https://slate.com/business/2018/12/minneapolis-single-family-zoning-housing-racism.html
The Future of Newton
The current zoning redesign in Newton begins with a pattern book intended to create areas that more or less conform to the existing structures and zoning variances created over time by not having a zoning policy that contains the flexibility to adapt to the current needs of our City. On the one hand this approach makes sense: creating density in areas that are already dense and creating moderate density in areas that are currently largely single-family homes.
On the other hand, the pattern book informs the current draft zoning proposal, which gives the City’s North side neighborhoods (those which are historically lower-income, and interestingly enough, have limited public transportation options) increased density and South side neighborhoods (those historically wealthier with access to the Greenline) less density. This calcifies into code and design what has already been established through a well-intended yet subjective special permit process, as the result of an outdated zoning code.
As mentioned, the history of racial segregation and economic stratification in this country is one that concentrates and embeds wealth and access in “neutral-on-its-face” policies like zoning preferences for detached single family houses and setback regulations. It often presents as harmless euphemisms like “character of the neighborhood” “just doesn’t feel right” and results in stifling the very tools we need as a city to truly make good on our commitment to inclusivity and diversity.
Please make no mistake about it- I have every intention of promoting and supporting a zoning policy that encourages diversity in our community. This means opening our doors to the less wealthy, the elderly, the disabled, younger families starting out, and folks of all different cultures and ethnicities. This is the very definition of What is Best about Newton and Forward thinking.
If we are seeking economic diversity in our city, housing needs to include smaller units that people want and can afford: rental properties because not everyone can afford to buy; multi-unit houses because not everyone wants the responsibility of a single family or they want to live in a “village” with other people close by. Our inclusionary zoning and accessory apartment ordinance address some of this- but it is not enough. It alone cannot remedy the complexity of this challenge. We need to embrace a zoning redesign plan that acknowledges that zoning is social engineering and plays the most significant role in the future of our city.
We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to get Zoning Redesign right, and truly exhibit what is best about Newton.
Please note I haven’t touched on the relationship between zoning and the environment. You have indulged me long enough- but make no mistake, we are in the middle of a climate crisis that zoning redesign can play a critical role in addressing. Look here to learn more: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2011/12/missing-link-climate-change-single-family-suburban-homes/650/
Thank you for reading- Please join me at my office hours this Sunday February 17th from 9:30-11am at Central in Newton Centre to discuss Zoning Redesign and any and all things Newton.
Brenda Noel
Ward 6 City Councilor
For more information about the Zoning Redesign process- please see the City’s website
http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/planning/lrplan/zoning_redesign.asp
I wonder if Ms. Noel’s degree in Social Engineering is from an ABET accredited university?
Please name an “affordable” town/city which has all 3
Low crime + good schools + reasonable commute to boston
Does it not exist because of racism or because of supply and demand?
Last time i checked, the role of a councilor is to
– keep crime low
– keep schools good
– stable property taxes
– attract businesses for increased tax revenue
I dont recall treating the city as their “social engineering playground” being high on the list
The piece speaks to the fact that these practices have, on their own, served as a way to social engineer so I’m not sure I understand the other comments?
I am thrilled to have a city councilor who is unafraid to speak the truth and actually live by the core values we claim to espouse as a community. Thank you, Councilor Noel!
What Claudia said.
Yes, absolutely, we need to attract more very low and low income residents to Newton, even transients — preferably below the poverty level, and preferably on the South Side (south of the Mass Pike) and in more upscale residential areas. A timely way to reach this goal would be to allocate Weeks Park in Newton Centre, Richardson Field in Waban, and Cold Spring Park in Newton Highlands for trailer parks. In the case of Weeks Park and Richardson Field, dense tall shrubbery can be planted on the perimeters to lessen visual impact and in the case of Cold Spring Park a good site would be the existing dog park since it is surrounded by woods (or perhaps the dog park and trailer park can be combined).
This would certainly be more than consistent with “the core values we claim to espouse as a community.” Thanks to Councilor Noel!
In summary:
We want to design a zoning which only affects a small subset of newton (where coincidently Brenda does not live)
We want to drive down the existing and future home prices and rents so low such that people all any income range can choose to live in that small subset of Newton.
Reverse NIMBY. Pretending not to be NIMBY while her agenda does not affect her…
To get my support, lets multi family every home in Newton INCLUDING historic districts.. would support Brenda if she is brave enough to propose this
Where is the evidence that the majority of Newton citizens are in favor of a radical rewrite of Newton zoning codes?
Shouldn’t the question be put on a ballot, so Newton citizens can have vote this issue?
No surprise, I find Brenda’s analysis spot on and righteous. Zoning has been, is, and will be social engineering. Unfortunately, it’s been used for the most egregious — racist — objectives. It should cause people of good conscience grave misgivings to perpetuate single-family zoning as law in our fair city.
Bugek,
I don’t see how you conclude that Brenda seeks to exclude her neighborhood from the critique of exclusionary, single-family zoning.
Also, you are absolutely right. We need to eliminate single-family zoning from the entire map. Which means no R1 or R2 as proposed in the draft zoning. Let a thousand duplexes bloom!
Lately this essay comes to mind when I read most comments to well thought out posts that bring up either the intened and unintended consequences, good and bad, of our past actions or ways that might avoid the unintended ones in the future. It’s dangerous territory that needs to be discussed but instead of learning from each other, many bypass the reason and direction of the post and jump right to taking aim at the author herself, her credentials, the role the electeds should play and finally the nastiest type of sarcasm that doesn’t even try to hide the distain directed at those who have suffered the consequences of prior social engineering. Not to leave out – every city decision should be on a ballot.
Brenda, the links you posted are broken. I think these may be the right ones.
http://walkingbostonian.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-subversion-of-fair-housing-law-by_28.html
https://slate.com/business/2018/12/minneapolis-single-family-zoning-housing-racism.html
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2011/12/missing-link-climate-change-single-family-suburban-homes/650/
Councilor Noel is absolutely right that exclusionary zoning has been used for classist and racist reasons in the past. I highly recommend reading “The Color of Law” by Richard Rothstein if you’re interested in learning more about the way land use decisions were used to discriminate against people of color.
We all should think long and hard about the fact that zoning is social AND economic engineering. Zoning effects who can live in a place, population size, political power, wealth, economic diversity, racial diversity, and a host of other social factors.
PS. Making comments about “trailer parks” and “transients” isn’t helpful, especially in a community where our own police officers and teachers are often forced to live somewhere else. We can do better.
I’m one of Brenda Noel’s Newton Centre constituents, and I live on a block that has it all: shops, municipal parking lots, single-family homes, multi-unit housing both private and public. So as someone who needs all the help I can get understanding the zoning conversation with all its jargon and arithmetic, I’m hoping it’s a discussion that can be had without personal sniping and stereotyping of entire wards. Not helpful.
Zoning reform is a monumental task. There are two things I’d like to see first…
1.] A reduction in the size of the City Council, so that individual members can be held accountable for the zoning changes they recommend.
2.] The City Council should stop playing games and create zoning to “regulate marijuana like alcohol,” as they have twice been instructed by voters. Why would voters trust the Council with a complete revamp of zoning regs, while they continue to obstruct implementation of two voter backed referendums?
Where to begin? The existing multi-family housing has been and continues to be bought up by developers who convert that “affordable housing stock” into million dollar condos – all with Council approval. Always killed me to watch “housing advocates” do NOTHING about that except to laud that fact that more housing – albeit – luxury units – were being created.
“We” talk about having “economic diversity” but all “we” continue to do – particularly with these large 40B and multi-use developments is create far more luxury units and a small handful of “affordable units” because we don’t DEMAND more. “We” talk about creating more housing opportunities for our seniors and those of modest means but most of our seniors do not qualify for the truly affordable units and the rents at the “newer” developments are more than some are currently paying on their mortgage. For example, the least expensive available one-bedroom unit at Arborpoint is $3,024 and the least expensive available two-bedroom unit is $3,562. How is that helping anyone to remain in Newton but the “wealthiest”amongst us.
Yes – zoning reform is needed. But we’re going to have to apply a “multi-pronged” approach to housing which includes preserving what little affordable housing we have left, DEMANDING MORE TRULY AFFORDABLE units to be created in ridiculously large scaled developments and start using PUBLIC Funds to create real affordable housing.
As shown above, even Newton’s least expensive apartments are too high for lower income people.
We all need to work together as a community to drive down property values and prices. As I relayed above, trailer parks (could be surrounded by dense foliage) is the most efficient. Not only does it provide low cost housing but it drives down neighboring housing values and prices — creating even further more affordable housing.
Jim,
Maybe newton can finally remove the winter parking ban so RVs can be parked on the streets year round.
Lets destroy the wealth of seniors who have lived here gor decades so folks from outside of Newton from all incomed can live here. We’ll just pretend these old people dont exist
But seriously, lets just have the residents vote on this. A handful of radical councilors should not be deciding this huge endeavor ..
@What Amy said.
There’s one color that matters in Newton. Green.
Brenda, your piece has me puzzled. What you refer to as “the north side” I think refers to the MassPike, but that artificial and revised barrier didn’t exist until recently, long after Newton’s zoning laws were written. The “north” side to me refers to south of Route 9 and clearly Newton is chock full of wealthy streets, roads and even villages north of Route 9 and even north of Commonwealth Ave. Wauwinnet Road was, for years, home of the area’s largest and state of the art dairy farm. As for public transportation being “limited” on the “north side,” it seems to me that this “north” side benefits from many bus routes that run along Washington St., coming from Watertown and from Waltham, and that run into Boston proper, and it also has the commuter rail, both busses and the commuter rail being so difficult for those of us further south to access. The more southern village of Oak Hill Park has been considered lower income, but is just one of the last to be developed, post WWII, and home prices there are significantly more affordable and hence this “affordability” is why it became home to many Russian immigrants of the 1990s who settled in small but comfortable private and detached homes in Oak Hill Park.
There are many reasons for zoning laws and I would have preferred you to outline specifics about Newton’s particular history and what was economically or sociologically behind the zoning laws enacted at each stage – Newton being neither Baltimore nor Kentucky nor Minneapolis. Tell us.
The claims of racism also needs clarifying
Newton is almost 30% Jewish, double digit Asian, sizeable Russian population, almost every country and religion in the world is represented and has a very high legal immigrant population…. The “racist” zoning laws did a pretty poor job
Immigrants often come into this country with little money, but they work hard and manage to save. Many have worked hard enough to afford Newton. I myself came to this country with only $3000 dollars in my bank account and I’m not white. I never felt Newton had a virtual “Whites only” sign but did have a “$$” sign just like any “low-crime, good schools, good commute to the city” town/city in the USA(or non communist country)
Affordable housing is a complex issue that has become a pawn.
Developers, knowing that affordable housing is something everyone supports (in theory), throw in a few units they call affordable to their projects, and maybe they are…..if you make six figures. Then they often throw up their hands and say, as individual entities (not entirely unreasonably), they can’t really do more and it is a regional problem requiring a regional solution.
Meanwhile, opponents of new development, dismayed by the prospect of change, also cite the lack of affordability as reason to oppose *any* new development. Apparently the belief is that merely attacking “greedy” developers and trying to prevent new construction will magically make housing less expensive and will help preserve the Newton they like, or as it existed in 1959. To the extent there is an affordability issue, it is best to wish it occurs somewhere else.
No one wants to deal with the reality that, as long as Boston continues to attract new jobs and investment as a winner of the new economy, the housing crunch, traffic, etc. will get worse. Our location next to Boston, with great transit and highway access, good schools, etc. only makes Neeton that much more desirable to newcomers in a way that was inconceivable even a few years ago.
Many say they want a solution, but expect someone else to take the lead, some other community to shoulder the load, and have exempted themselves from the messy realities that will be needed to get to a solution. I agree with Amy that more needs to be done besides zoning reform, and a regional solution is needed. But it isn’t going to happen by passing it off to someone else or somewhere else.
@bugek why did you leave African American out of the representative residents of Newton. Ask Newton Fair Housing or any other organization that monitors sales and rentals of housing in Newton and they will confirm that racism exist. If you deny that black families have a more difficult time renting or buying in Newton you are either not informed or naive. My great grandson is the eight generation of my family living in Newton and throughout all of these generations racism has existed. But because of the wonderful attributes Newton does have still makes it good place to live because racism exist every where in this country but that does not give Newton an excuse not to try to prevent it in their Zoning Laws and other efforts that are being adopted. When you have been denied renting an apartment or granted a mortgage simply because of the color of your skin you will have walked in my shoes.
Howard,
If an african American is denied housing because of their race then this is a violation of fair housing laws and NOT zoning.
The solution would be better monitoring and stiffer penalties of the fair housing laws. If discrimination is occuring now, it will continue no matter the zoning.
Rev. Haywood,
@Bugek was responding to a comment that I made so I would like to jump in. I have no doubt that there have been forces locally that have been designed to keep blacks out of Newton going way back. And I too naturally thought about banking and red-lining as one unfortunately prevalent method (that I have no doubt about its use as such a heinous method) but that she didn’t mention banking and home mortgages at all. My comment was just that Ms. Noel didn’t provide any historical connection between how ZONING in 1922 and then again in 1953 specifically was used to this purpose, and zoning was the sole mechanism which her piece pointed its finger at. If zoning was used for this purpose, were there other groups (ethnic, racial, socio-economic) intended to be kept out by those same zoning laws? I would have WANTED more background on this topic, more specifics. I think she had an opportunity to educate about Newton’s background with this and didn’t. Writing about Baltimore and Minneapolis didn’t do it.
I looked a little online last night and couldn’t find anything; I’m sure that you could provide background, and also possibly there are documents even in Newton’s public library that would expose how zoning was used for this purpose and I would welcome this. I think others would welcome being so informed as well. It’s very hard to get real info about Newton government in 1922, how they thought, how they functioned, this type of thing.
Since banking and red-lining is brought up, absolutely there should be NO bank/mortgage discrimination on account of race. Having said that, however, there should be NO bank/mortgage preference on account of race. Beginning in the Carter Administration, regulations were enacted specifying that federally insured banks show extra effort being made to make home loans to racial minorities. Beginning in the Clinton Administration, the Dept. of Justice was ramped up to enforce that provision with certain quotas to be met as a prerequisite to license federally insured banks.
So, banks began to lower credit standards in those regulated loan applications to reach those requirements. So long as housing prices were rising, those increasing numbers of “subprime” loans were not deleterious. But when housing prices began to stabilize and go lower, with an increasing number of delinquencies, the larger banking institutions which received those loans from the smaller banks packaged and transferred them to Fannie May and Freddie Mac and European banks.
So, as those last institutions holding the uncollectible mortgages and packages of mortgages were becoming insolvent, the Federal Government intervened and bailed them out at federal taxpayer expense and by federal govt. borrowing from the Federal Reserve — greatly increasing the national debt — and resulting in the greatest U.S. financial crisis/recession since the Great Depression.
I think what we’re trying to do here – or at least what I’m trying to do – is to understand how Newton’s zoning laws came to be what they are, what the effect of those laws has been, and how to recreate zoning based on a more expanded vision of how we want Newton to grow and develop in the future.
RE: banking and the subprime mortgage debacle, it was likely those least able to weather the financial storm who unfortunately suffered the most. And that the banking industry and the ability or inability to secure a loan both for a home and to start a business has been one of the greatest sources of exclusion and deterrents to inclusion.
Jane H., your comment leaves me wondering whether you actually read and/or understood my comment re banking and subprime mortgages.
The banks essentially were forced by the federal govt. to make those subprime mortgage loans.
You want it both ways: bash the banks for not making the loans (unapproved borrowers suffer) and then bash the banks for making the loans (otherwise uncreditworthy borrowers suffer).
Reverend Haywood is absolutely correct about redlining and it takes many forms and variations. And I’m a white male with an indisputably Irish lineage who was an indirect victim of redlining as it pertained to the issuance of credit cards by banks and other lending institutions during the 1990s. I’ve maintained a home in Newton, but during the early 9os I went back to Washington and moved in with a Navy buddy and his family who were in the process of moving into a part of Northwest DC that was 95% African American. We were the first white family on the block in a neighborhood that consisted almost entirely of retired folks who had worked in various agencies throughout the City. They welcomed us warmly to their block, not because we were white or black, but because we brought what they sensed as some relative youth and vigor to the neighborhood.
Shortly after moving in, I applied for a second credit card from one of the big companies and just assumed I would get it because my credit ratings have always been excellent; but a short time later, I received a letter informing me that my application had been rejected. I don’t recall if they gave a rationale, but it didn’t take long to surmise that my DC zip code may have been the reason. I then decided to apply for the very same credit card using my Newton Highlands address and I received the new card in short order. Jesse Jackson was in our neighborhood some time after that and I went to his event and showed him the copied of the conflicted letters to my DC and Newton Highlands addresses. He asked if he could take them and I was happy to do so. I don’t know what if anything came of all this, but I’m almost certain that most of my elderly neighbors in DC would have been far better credit risks than a lot of people in greener suburbs outside either DC or Boston.
@Bob: Thanks so much for sharing that story.
BTW, you still bring vigor to the neighborhood.
Bob B., what you describe is a clear violation of The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) — a practice illegal for decades.
What I described was the reverse situation and concerned home mortgages (leading to the housing crisis and 2008 financial debacle).
@Jane H my point is that racism whether related to zoning or any other regulation prevents people from purchasing or renting a home is WRONG.
I know people don’t like me to bring up things from the past but I do because they help document the truth making it difficult for blacks to reside in Newton. In the mid to late 60’s after taking two thirds of the homes of blacks who lived in West Newton, including my mothers and brothers house. The Turnpike Authority offered to relocate some of the homes behind Myrtle Baptist Church adjacent to Crescent St. The Newton Board of Aldermen approved of this relocation but with protest from neighboring white neighbors opposed the move the Newton ZBA rejected the relocation. So in some cases Zoning can be directly involved in restrictive actions.
Rev. Haywood,
Your most recent comment indicates you are “bring[ing] up things from the past” and I would more than agree that “racism whether related to zoning or any other regulation prevents people from purchasing or renting a home is WRONG.”
However, your earliest comment (on this thread) reads: “Ask Newton Fair Housing or any other organization that monitors sales and rentals of housing in Newton and they will confirm that racism exist.” Your statement or implication is that racism in preventing the purchase or renting a home in Newton CURRENTLY exists. I don’t believe that that there is any CURRENT zoning or regulation in Newton which prevents people from purchasing or renting a home on the basis of race or shown to be on the basis of race — and if that were the case it is already clearly illegal.
Jim
On Jims point, if there existing issues of racism in rental/mortgage these needs to be addressed and can be addressed without an entire rewrite of zoning laws. Tweaks certainly…
For example, the case of relocation back in the 60s, the zoning law should have an exception for relocation within Newton. This should be added to existing zoning so it cannot happen again
Rev. Haywood,
There’s no question; and I think we are talking not just about racism as an attitude but how powerful institutions (e.g. municipalities and banking) can enact policies to either provide people of their equal and Constitutional and civil rights, or to deny them. And even right here in Newton, to not take anything for granted. I think it’s important to bring it up. I think it’s important for people who don’t know to know your story, and the story of an entire community of blacks in West Newton. I knew some of the story but you are filling in important details here on Village14 for some of us – like me – for the first time… It cannot be easy to repeat that story but it’s important for us to know that this is forever part of Newton’s history. So even when we talk about zoning and rezoning, there’s a subtext.
I see one issue being how – adding insult to injury – municipal leaders actually ceded their power to do right and at least try to rectify the loss of your homes and community to some extent; they failed to represent a significant portion of their constituency who had suffered by the TA’s acquisition of land for the highway. Surely back then you might never have believed such a thing could occur and that the Board of Alderman, who you look to to protect you, were so lacking fundamental ethics and strength of character that they actually cow-towed to that despicable group. You might wonder if history can repeat itself here in Newton.
BOB BURKE, we read it right here, on Village14. Wow. Clearly you have the ultimate proof. Financial institutions have had tremendous leverage in allowing some communities to prosper and others to languish, and it’s the black communities who have been most targeted by this diabolical practice. Really, everybody loses.
I think that both of these stories are important as Newton as a city moves forth on its ideals and looks to how as a municipality it can ensure fair housing practices for all.
Rev. Hayward,
Please correct if I am in error, but in view of your last message, it appears (I think) that you are seeking that Newton’s rezoning or other action should at least be a “try to rectify the loss of [Newton’s African American] homes and community to some extent.” I’m assuming, based on the subject of this thread that this would be accomplished with what Newton Ward 6 City Counselor Brenda Noel calls “social engineering…Zoning Redesign.”
Again, if I’m off on this, please correct. I would especially request that Counselor Noel correct if I’m in error here as to what she is intending.
Counselor Noel,
While I believe that redesign zoning CAN address as you state “class” (I guess you mean allowing in poorer or lower “class” than most of those already living here by injecting less expensive housing around the city and lowering property values and prices of the existing housing stock) as well as “the future of our city,” I don’t believe that redesign zoning can lawfully address “race” as you also seem to suggest.
This is a very important thread. Thank you @Brenda for writing it (and meaning it) Thank you @Howard for reminding us of the real injustices that have occurred and continue to occur to people in the black community. Home ownership was one of the biggest opportunities for wealth creation in the last century. In the same time that white families were offered low interest loans through special government programs, black families were severely limited on where they could buy, they were denied access to the same lending programs (including ones aimed at WWII veterans), they were assessed additional fees on loans, forced to borrow from shady lenders, denied home owner’s insurance, assessed deposits for utilities, and on resale home appraisal values were artificially suppressed. Add to this that their neighborhoods became the routes for many highway projects, the location for toxic manufacturing and even heavy truck routes. There is no doubt that it is time these wrongs were corrected. Let’s talk about how that happens. It certainly starts by agreeing this is another great reason to support more housing in Newton.
Alicia Bowman, since the specific wrongs which you cite no longer exist, what are you suggesting? — reparations for past sins? As commented by others above, even the least expensive recently added housing and apartments in Newton, many situated more densely, still remain economically out of reach. The situation can be met by: (1) subsidization of housing by governmental or other organizations, (2) construction of truly much cheaper housing (I suggested trailer parks tongue-in-cheek, but maybe yes, how do you suggest constructing SUFFICIENTLY cheap housing), (3) lowering the values and prices of the already existing housing stock — which may actually result from down-zoning and permission for injecting much cheaper and denser housing throughout Newton.
Or, specifically, Alicia, how would you do it?
What Jim said.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/devaluation-of-assets-in-black-neighborhoods/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alyyale/2018/05/07/mortgage-loan-denials-more-common-with-minorities-new-report-shows/#ae15ee1509a3
Should I continue?
Alicia Bowman, I would suggest that you carefully read your own submitted sites, which confirm that the lack housing opportunities (mortgage loan denials etc.) are due to disparity in income and credit, not racism (unless you want to address race as a factor in income and credit disparity which, albeit having, at least in part, validity, is beyond the scope of this thread).
Or, are you suggesting that income and credit standards be lowered for those minorities (which, too, is beyond the scope of this thread, albeit I did discuss, above, that the lowering of those financial standards significantly contributed to the 2008 housing crisis and ensuing nationwide financial debacle)?
Jim and Pat, I don’t know either of you but how can make these statements without experiencing housing discrimination yourselves. If you deny it is happening Newton now not just in the past. Your uninformed comments are an insult to me and others who have and are subject to being denied opportunities for housing simply because of the color of our skins.
I hope you would research the long history of housing discrimination in Newton. You seem like reasonable people who will not deny the truth.
Please excuse the errors in my previous post.
Let’s start with a fact – in the last election Brenda got 1579 votes and there are 8016 registered voters in Ward 6. If she believes she has a mandate from all of Ward 6 to socially engineer Newton based on her vision I don’t agree. I sincerely doubt that those who voted for City Council members in the last election knew their vote was about a social engineering platform.
I do totally agree that the rezoning – or at least agreement on what we’re trying as a town to solve for – should be a ballot question. A developer recently purchased a home near us in what is proposed to be an R3 zone – he has approval to knock it down after the 1 year wait. He paid $1.5M for this 14000 square foot lot. I think we can all be reasonably confident that no affordable housing will be going up on that lot no matter what the code is. And, I don’t think anyone ever thought that an apartment building, house, or civic facility with no off street parking requirements might go up there.
I think the city needs to press the ‘pause’ button on this and let the November election be a clear referendum on whatever the proposed new zoning code is. If individual council candidates want to strongly advocate for a position, the run up to the election would be the time to do it. This entire effort has been way under-communicated. Most residents have no idea that the City hopes to pass a new code by the summer/fall.
We all owe Brenda a ‘thanks’ for communicating and putting her point of view out there – now the question is does her point of view reflect the vision of the people who live here or is she (and others) driving an personal agenda – to her credit, in her post she is clear about her personal agenda. I have not heard other Councilors do the same.
All Council members – especially those on the Planning Committee – should make their beliefs known as Brenda has. Then let the voters decide.
@Rob: In the 2017 Ward 6 election, the difference between the two council candidates was very distinct. Ward 6 voters (and in our system, it’s only the folks who vote who get a say) rejected an old, tired “vision” and chose new leadership. This was hardly an outlier either, the Ward 6 results align with virtually every other contested council contest of the past several cycles (including Downs unseating Yates, a long-time defender of our current zoning code).
In fact, each and every candidate endorsed by the no-change group, the Newton Villages Alliance, has lost. Consistently, Newton voters have aligned with candidates who have articulated a need to be more inclusive, more forward thinking, committed to, as Noel writes “opening our doors to the less wealthy, the elderly, the disabled, younger families starting out, and folks of all different cultures and ethnicities.”
No one should be surprised by Councilor Noel’s “vision;” although I will say that I’m certainly pleased that she’s proven to be as excellent a councilor as she was a candidate.
Rev. Haywood,
I’ve acknowledged that there was housing discrimination in the past and I’m not saying there is no housing discrimination now. What I am saying is that (1) it is already currently illegal and (2) it is not lawfully appropriate to address such discrimination via zoning or zoning redesign.
I feel that your statements that my comments are “uninformed” and “insulting” is very unfortunate as this is an important topic, especially now that a Newton City Councilor is actually suggesting zoning redesign on the basis of race and, moreover, is combining that with “class” as if blacks were somehow a different class than the rest of us. If anything, THAT is “insulting”.
Howard,
Could you clarify why
rehauling zoning
vs.
more stringent enforcement of fair housing laws
Is going to solve the specific issue of housing discrimination soley based on race (not income, religion or political affliction… JUST race). I really dont see rehauling zoning as a solution to the race issue alone.
Mr. Heywood: how will upzoning result in less housing discrimination? On the contrary, from where I sit, it can only make it worse. I am sorry if it seems I have offended. I think we are on the same side in this fight.
It would seem time for Councilor Noel to weigh in here (as she elected to introduce this on Village 14) , not only on her proposal for zoning redesign on the unlawful basis of race or race reparations for past city sins but her condemnation of single family houses — as they predominate in Newton — as now being critical to address under zoning redesign to address climate “crisis”.
These are dramatic moves, or should they be dismissed as merely unrealistic unobtainable dream speculation (as some say is the case with the “Green New Deal”).
Councilor Noel?
To my knowledge, Councilor Noel has not attended a single Zoning and Planning meeting on this subject. Some of our more experienced councilors will happily admit it takes years and years to understand zoning. And some will admit they still don’t fully get it. I shall be intrigued to see what Councilor Noel has to say on this subject too.
Greg, forward thinking is fine, but it would seem that when that “vision” entails zoning redesign on the unlawful basis of race or race reparations and rectification of the current single family houses (as they do predominate in Newton), it is over the line, if not seriously naive.
Again, I’d invite Councilor Noel’s comment here.
At the least Newton citizens should be fully apprised and engaged in what is going on with our elected leaders vis a vis proposed zoning redesign, albeit you apparently claim this is proof of excellence on the part of Councilor Noel.
I think the Council vote on whatever the proposed new code is should be held up until after the November election. Let’s broadly and proactively communicate the issues, get people’s attention, and let each person who has a stake decide whether they want to vote, and if so which candidate supports their view. Let this be a referendum. I don’t know why the Council would object to this. We’ve done similar with other major issues such as tax overrides and recreational pot sales.
Look, I understand that the Planning Comm is getting a lot of negative feedback on elements of R3 and N in particular. Maybe what comes out in the final version will iron these things out. In any case, I strongly suspect that when people understand what’s on the table there will be a much higher turnout and we’ll see who has a mandate.
In the meantime, anyone who wants to have a say in this social engineering needs to let people know what’s on the table. The Ward meetings are poorly communicated and attended, the City has sent out no notices which could easily be included in tax and water bills (and btw is considered a best practice in rezoning), the Mayor has been quiet, and the TAB doesn’t intend to cover this until the Planning Comm has released a final proposed new code.
Greg, BTW, I don’t put much stock in what the local neighborhood associations did or might do. They are largely referred to – even by Council members – as ‘clubs.’ They hardly represent the aggregate opinion of the neighborhoods. Let’s be real.
Greg,
No where on Brenda’s website does she run on a platform of lowering home prices and rents such that people of all income can live here. No where does she mention changing the zoning to accommodate these needs
https://www.brendafornewton.com
So no, theres no direct link of her votes being a proxy on zoning rehaul for social justice. The transfer of wealth from an eldery senior to people who cant afford to live here.
@Bugek, did you try clicking on the issues tab here?
And after that dig up the debate at the Women’s Club between Blazar and Noel. Or read some of the stuff the no-growth people we’re saying she was going to do if elected. Or, ask anyone who asked her about it when she knocked on their door. Etc. Etc.
Really, anyone who is shocked, shocked by this (or with the contrast between Councilors Downs and Yates for that matter) just wasn’t paying attention.
I don’t think it’s helpful to imply that wanting to continue to have single-family homes and neighborhoods is racist. It makes it impossible to have a real conversation about what Newtonians want.
I also agree with suggestions above that this zoning redesign is a big enough issue that it should be put off until after the election. That will allow for a really robust debate with real specifics as opposed to the general debate that we had in the last election.
Sarah, who on this thread is implying “that wanting to continue to have single-family homes and neighborhoods is racist” — other than perhaps, Councilor Noel herself, who appears to come closest to that?
And Greg, I am “shocked, shocked by this” as you state, and admit that I “just wasn’t paying attention” that Newton’s zoning redesign was entailing, per Councilor Noel, a policy to lower property values throughout Newton and promote the availability of many more cheaper and densely packed housing units throughout the Garden City targeting upper income neighborhoods, as Councilor Noel puts it, for other “classes” of people as part of a city-wide “social engineering” project.
Again, Councilor Noel, if I’m off on this, please correct and/or clarify.
Yes Jim, you must not have been paying attention.
How else to does one make Newton “livable, affordable and age-friendly hosing inclusive of people with varying needs and capacities” in a built out-community of largely high priced, single family homes without changing the density (and therefore the zoning)?
What else could that statement from any city council candidate possibly mean?
@Greg. I wouldn’t read too much into the politics of a ward election. They are basically a neighborhood popularity contest. The Noel/Blazar election happened when the neighborhood was in the throes of the Local Historic District District debacle. Brenda sided with the younger anti-LHD residents and many identified Blazar with the older pro-LHD block. I don’t think that is necessarily fair to Dick, but that is what happened. I don’t mean this to take away from Brenda, but I don’t think many of my constituents that voted for her were really doing it for the issues.
As a constituent, I messaged Brenda immediately after this was posted for clarification as to her intention for ward 6. She responded quickly and her ideas are very reasonable and nowhere near as radical as some here have posted. Nothing about eliminating single residence zoning. I think we all know that is not going to happen.
Patrick: I agree, Councilor Noel’s approach is more moderate than some are portraying. On the other hand, what was the Local Historic District debate all about if not zoning?
It was about a non-elected board having say-so on anything you wanted to do to your house. Didn’t sit well with many folks. Really doesn’t have much to do with zoning at all.
Although a Local Historic District would be a powerful force for a neighborhood to use to protect itself against upzoning.
Greg, I’m not just talking about density, but Councilor Noel seems to be injecting that cheaper/dense housing spread throughout all neighborhoods of Newton, which as you state is a “built-out community”; so I’m concluding you mean replacement and/or conversion of much of that housing stock to sufficiently cheap property so as to attract all comers including those otherwise to poor to live here.
There’s a one word label for what Councilor Brenda Noel wants to do to Newton: Degentrification
This entire discussion about race is a smoke screen for a very different city agenda.
The over all political goal is an economic one. The State and local governments want to grow the economy rapidly. Business sees
MA. as a big opportunity for expansion. Trouble is new housing growth is stymied by old fashioned local control zoning laws.
How can cities like Newton create new housing for out of towners to live here during an expansion era and with tax revenues at stake?
Local zoning laws protect our community and control housing development that could completely reshape our current way of life.
In major big North American cities local government power has been replaced by centrally controlled big borough governments.
Not MA communities however, we still have a say in how our community will grow. If we allow this new zoning to pass, we lose the power to control our residential housing growth.
@Patrick Moriarty: Along with the late Rodney Barker, I co-chaired the study group that did the research and documentation required to launch the formal process whereby residents in our proposed area could begin to determine whether or not they wanted their homes included in a local historic district.
You write that the subsequent debate “was about a non elected board (actually a Commission) having a say on ANYTHING you wanted to do with your house”. This just isn’t true, but it wasn’t the only detraction that circulated throughout the Highlands. Some were honest and legitimate concerns that we actually shared, but others were pure distortions of the requirements or the intentions of members of the Study Group.
The most egregious was the not too subtle rumor that the prime motivator for promoting an LHD in the Highlands was a concerted effort to keep minorities and lower income people from finding a home or rental in the village. I won’t speak on my behalf, but anybody at all familiar with the late and much missed Rodney Barker would be puzzled at how this could be applied to a revered community leader who spent much of his professional career as a lawyer representing immigrants and civil rights litigants. And I worked with every other member of the Study Group so I can attest that all any of them wanted to do was give some protection to a portion of our village we consider a treasured architectural jewel. Keeping anyone out or in was the furthest thing from our mind.
Hi Bob. An exaggeration I admit. I’m not going to re-litigate the LHD issue here. However, you must admit that the motivation behind the LHD and the motivation behind upzoning a SR2 neighborhood are mutually exclusive.
Colleen-People from other communities move to Newton everyday. In fact, my family did it many years ago. Once you move here, you’re a resident, not an out of towner. Calling new residents “out of towners” leads to the discussion of who is welcome here.
By my view anyone can move into this town – it’s hard for me to imagine that anyone feels otherwise. They do need to be able to afford their rent or mortgage. I don’t understand proactive social engineering to alter the free market and to potentially negatively impact the asset value of people who’ve invested in Newton for decades. The negative impact could be through increased density, dubious designs, and increased on and off street parking requirements as the draft codes allows the City to waive on-site parking requirements by special permit.
I continue to believe that the City should either make the new zoning code a referendum in Nov, or hold on a Council vote until after the election so people can truly vote for candidates that represent their views. I think this could be an extremely valuable conversation for residents to have over the next 9 months. Why would anyone be reluctant to do this?
Robert davis,
An example of social engineering is NYC rejecting Amazons 25,000 high paying jobs (150k per year) because it would raise rents and prices in the neighborhood. The tax breaks given were dependent on Amazon creating new revenue for NYC.
I guess newton can go down the hole of rejecting large high paying employees also in fear of increasing rents and home prices…
In anycase, the council’s responsibility and duties, priorities are to existing Newton residents… to put the priority of non residents above residents is insane
Robert Davis states: “I don’t understand proactive social engineering to alter the free market and to potentially negatively impact the asset value of people who’ve invested in Newton for decades.”
So that everyone understands what we’re dealing with here, the answer to Robert’s question is simply that there is an elected City Councilor who, as documented, professes that SOCIAL JUSTICE and SOCIAL CHANGE should trump the FREE MARKET and NEGATIVE ASSET VALUE and that particular City Councilor aims to achieve implementation of that on the ground through complete redesign of Newton Zoning.
It’s interesting (not!) that zoning and “social engineering” is directed at Upper/Lower Falls, West Newton, Auburndale, etc, and any resistance of these developer friendly zoning reforms are met with cries of NIMBY or simply drowned by the PR machines they employ (influencing the press and factions of city government).
But how about this….
Newton has a large parcel of land on Tyler Terrace – a hilly green space primarily used as a cut thru between Mason Rice, the Newton Center playground and Newton Center itself. YES, NEWTON CENTER.
Putting a 300-400 apartments make a whole lot of sense at that location. It’s right next door to Mason Rice, so families with young kids can simply roll them out of bed into the school. A huge playground is already there so the Developer would have one less thing to build. MBTA busses traverse Center Street and the T stop is a short walk away. And for all who have lamented about all the banks going into Newton Center, what better way to support a more traditional retail base with 300-400 apartments right in Newton Center?
And lest not forget affordable housing. Clearly the Developers can only be profitable building luxury apartments, so why not the city, State or Feds build this project instead so “affordable” doesn’t end up being $2,500/mo for a 1 bdrm unit.
Can everyone get on board with this? Or does NIMBY (as folks in the some of the more “dense” villages in Newton are often accused) exist in Newton Center as well? Or do we just wave the hypocrisy flag and call it a day?
Happy Sunday. 😉
@Matt Lai – The stated intent of the zoning redesign is to come up with a standard that reflects the current built environment in Newton, specifically conditions pre-2000 before the tear-down craze started. Put simply the goal is to legalize what’s been built -already- and have the zoning match.
Auburndale, Lower Falls, Nonantum et al. are zoned for R3 because that’s what has already been built out. Under the current zoning none of these villages could have been built the way they are, and that’s large reason why we have all the tear downs replacing what should be starter homes with huge condos. It’s literally easier to tear down and build a McMansion style condo than a small house that fits in. That’s a problem.
The concerns around density in the northern villages + LF vs. Waban/NC/CH are valid but that’s -not- what the zoning redesign is intended to address. If you look through the memos and summaries to the council it’s explicitly called out that the mandate is to come up with a zoning code that legalizes the current built-out environment and nothing more. The current zoning ordinance is useless as 85% of the houses in Newton couldn’t be built today, that’s why developers can do tear downs with nothing more than a special permit.
I’m also not so sure the new zoning is necessarily developer friendly. Many of the tear downs I’m seeing in Auburndale would not be allowed at the same scale in R3. Outside of small apartment houses which have special requirements the maximum house footprint is around 1600sqft and I’m pretty sure almost all of the tear downs are significantly larger. The FAR loophole is also closed as house size is completely independent of lot size so no more combining smaller lots to build a giant set of condos. It does make it easier to build out on small lots but for the most part that’s what is already there.
The way I would look at it – would you rather have the current trend of tear downs and replacements with oversized condos or have houses/condos that fit in? No development is not an option – realistically Newton does not have 40B safe harbor protection and there’s no way to ban development completely. The current zoning ordinance was an attempt at that and all it’s accomplished is the current Frankenstein’s monster of small capes/condos next to gigantic McMansion condos.
Patrick,
We have a seated council member who has publicly stated that she views the zoning as a social justice . You understand the confusion.
Should she recuse herself because she is not voting on the original intent?
Also, brenda has not responded or clarified any questions asked on this post that she created.. adding to the alot of speculation
I wonder if she is just watching to see where the wind blows before staking her flag (smart move if she is up for reelection)
I hope not, @bugek. 🙂
@Bugek – Agreed on the confusion and conflicting messaging. I feel the planning dept has been pretty clear and consistent around the scope/intent and overall goal but that’s getting muddied with the various visioning efforts and broader density/social discussions. It’s frustrating as it derails the discussion and analysis from what’s actually being proposed in the zoning – eg. fears around the removal of single-family districts and such.
Patrick I’m encouraged by your comments on the ‘intent’ as you understand it, but take a close look at the description in the current draft of R3, and imagine streets that have been 1 or 2 family zoned and are being proposed to become R3. This – with very sketchy guidance (e.g., the 500 foot rule, which is totally arbitrary) allows apartment buildings, apartment houses, and civic buildings – all by special permit and all with the right to also ask for a special permit to waive parking requirements.
As I’ve said, I believe that this zoning redo is as significant an issue for the City as tax overrides, the new high school, and location of pot shops. Maybe more significant. There should be no Council vote on this until after the Nov election so people can get informed and vote for the Councilors who are aligned with their sentiments, be it a social engineers or others.
Let’s recall that only about 3000 people voted in 2017 for a ward 6 councilor at all – out of perhaps 8000 ward registered voters?So that’s about 1/3 even voted. Brenda beat Dick by 170 votes. By any calculus a councilor believing they have a mandate is making a huge stretch. All of this said, I congratulate Brenda as the only City official I know of actually going on record with her point of view.
@Robert – Agreed on the 500ft rule, as written it’s too vague in terms of requirements. What’s interesting is they do mention that in the residential district memo and explicitly say “locations where there are are already such homes present” which implies it’s only allowed by right if there are existing apartment buildings. I have a feeling what they’re trying to do is account for existing apartments but that needs to be clear along with specific requirements – eg. 500ft on the same street or 500ft centered from an existing apartment. Either way it needs to be reworded for clarity.
It’s not going to be an exact match in terms of before->after, I believe the guiding principle was to try and zone the entire side of a street the same. So to your point there are going to be cases where single family homes go to R3 but there should be at least some existing multi-family already there. It does also go the other way in same cases – Woodbine St in Auburndale for example has one lot on the end that is going from MR1 to R2. Every other lot on that side of the street is currently SR3 so instead of making those all R3 they bumped the single MR1 to R2. On the other side of Woodbine we have the opposite scenario – 5/8 lots are MR1 and three SR3 which are proposed to all R3. If they were just going for maximum density they could have zoned both sides R3 with the excuse that everything around it also R3.
Also keep in mind this is draft one, there’s going to be at least one more draft after the initial set of ward meetings and if I had to guess there’s going to be another set of ward meetings after that.
Thanks Patrick. In speaking with one of the Councilors on the Planning Comm we discussed the 500′ requirement and all agree it needs more definition. Beyond the examples you mention, does 500′ extend across a significantly sized existing break in the line, such as the T, a small park, a major roadway (e.g., Rt 9)? Or, if you run into one of these en route to your destination, does that pathway to 500′ get excluded?
To their credit, I think the Planning Comm is taking notice of the preliminary feedback they’re getting on these areas of the draft that – if left as is – would lead to future angst.
@BobBurke Were you and Rodney Baker trying to keep minorities and lower income people from the highlands?
Do we think you consciously tried to discriminate against minorities and hurt low income families? No, but you are missing the piece around the unintended consequences. There are always unintended consequences to these Historic initiatives and in all cases they end up hurting lower income families.
Studies show that zoning and in your particular case, Historic Districts hurt the minority and lower income population disproportionally. Historic districts, zoning, and even what you experienced as part of red-lining are all more of the same. Some even go so far as calling them dog whistles.
The new phrase being thrown around Newton is “Up-Zoning” People are scared of “Up-zoning” and want to limit density around the city centers. Are people in Newton trying to intentionally hurt minorities? Perhaps not but some of the comments on this site have caused me to pause a few times. But what is indisputable is the fact that the unintended consequences of these actions will certainly hurt the minority population. Looks like Councilor Noel highlighted a few articles and examples in her newsletter.
So Bob, now that you know there are unintended consequences to Historic Districts and zoning…what are you going to do?
What are you going to say to your colleagues on the different Area Councils who are fighting against the new “up-Zoning” changes to “protect the integrity” of the neighborhoods?
This is so Newton. For Brenda to headline her letter on this site as ‘addressing race and class’ instantly makes this into a scenario where if you don’t favor aspects of the proposed zoning code you’re a racist and a classist and you’ll be vilified as such in town meetings, hearings, and blogs. We’ve seen this tact over and over in Newton and it’s time to stop with offensive attacks on residents. It becomes a situation where those sitting in R1 on large lots not near villages speak up at meetings and accuse anyone against elements of the code of NIMBY and more implicitly of racism and classism and worse. It’s a tired and childish approach for stifling conversation and debate. Let’s try to be adults and have a serious town-wide conversation and legitimate vote about the future of our City, and the legitimate concerns of residents, if any.