As I have been writing and will continue to write that, as a matter of social justice, it’s inconceivable that Newton, in 2019, is planning to re-up single-family zoning for another generation or two or three. As a tool, the history of single-family zoning is inextricably linked to really awful housing segregation that has had profound and lasting negative impact on our country, particularly manifest as morally indefensible wealth discrepancy between African-American and white populations. We should want nothing to do with it. It should be toxic.
The story of legally designed and executed housing segregation is laid out beautifully in Richard Rothstein’s Color of Law. I don’t see how anybody who reads it can possibly advocate for or vote for zoning regulations that include single-family zoning.
With that in mind, I recently issued the following challenge on Twitter:
$100 campaign contributions to the first five #newtonma City Council candidates who read "The Color of Law" and write a 500-word essay on how it applies to our city.@Environista @BeckyWGrossman @JimCoteWard3 @JakeAuch @Deb_Crossley @AndreaeDowns @BillHumphreyMA @bryanbarash
— Sean Upzone Newton Roche (@seanroche) February 1, 2019
(I’m not going to post my replies to the tweet, in which I listed all the other potential 2019 candidates that I know are on Twitter.)
Who’s going to be the first candidate to get a check? Needless to say, we’ll publish the 500-word essays on V14.
Anybody else read the book? What did you think?
Could you describe a scenario in 2019 where 2 families with the same income and credit score.. one African american and other caucasian.
Please elaborate how Newton in 2019 will prevent the African American family from purchasing purely on the basis of race.
The only scenario i can imagine is the seller refusing to sell because they are racist…
I can certainly imagine many small time landlords discriminating.. so the solution is to increase the number of rental units by large corporations as they are less likely to skirt the laws?
@bugek I think you’re looking at this in a very linear fashion. There are macro issues at play that insert race in a much more subtle way. We’re not talking about the overt redlining that pushed the Jewish community to settle in Newton in the 1950s, but institutionalized racism that blocks economic opportunities for people of color.
The supposition lies in the first part of your statement “2 families with the same income and credit score,” that’s where the problem often lies. This is why Boston is an incredibly segregated city. Getting to that point, where people of different races have the same income and credit score, IS the problem. Jobs and income come from having connections and access, bringing more people of different races, backgrounds and socio-economic levels into our community will give them access to more opportunity.
The other night I had the opportunity to hear Bryan Stevenson speak and he focused on the idea of “being proximate” to different communities. This helps everyone understand the issues at play and how to help.
Having zoning that requires lots and lots of money to buy a single family house doesn’t create this kind of opportunity for everyone.
The problem I see with that argument is that it isn’t “I need a lot of money to buy a single family house in Newton” as much as “I need a lot of money to buy -anything- in Newton”. I see ~2ksqft condos going for $800k in what are already dense areas of Auburndale, bump that up a bit for a comparable single family. I agree that the current zoning is far too restrictive but on the other hand just up zoning everything isn’t going to suddenly make things affordable.
Short of an economic collapse of the Boston area I don’t see a scenario where Newton becomes affordable in the way people are thinking. Even if the school system completely tanks the proximity to Boston along with CR/GL access is going to make the city attractive. Realistically the proposed zoning design would help add diversity to the housing stock by making smaller homes/condos feasible but they’re going to be relatively just as expensive – think 700-800k for ~2k sqft compared to ~1.4m for ~4k sqft.
Patrick B.
There are a variety of good reasons to upzone. One of them is to create more affordable housing. But, upzoning would only be one prong of a multi-prong affordability strategy. It’s complicated. And, as you correctly point out, it’s going to be really difficult to do in Newton in a big way.
I’m making a different argument here. (Believe me, I’ll be posting plenty on the affordability question.) Here, I’m arguing that it’s morally offensive to codify a public policy tool — specifically single-family zoning — that has such a disreputable history. Even if eliminating single-family zoning would not have any measurable effect on the racial composition of our city, we should do it. My argument: it’s morally offensive not to.
I’ve struggled to find a good metaphor. A colleague suggested the following: it’s not enough to say you’re using a gun that was used to kill someone to butter your bread. You shouldn’t have anything to do with a gun that was used to kill someone.
I love this. Whether you believe it’s possible for zoning in 2019 Newton, MA to be racist or not I want to support candidates who will wrestle with difficult issues like this.
I’ll add $50 each. Money where my values are.
@Sean Roche – I could use a hammer to bludgeon someone to death, does that mean we ban all hammers as deadly weapons? I feel that’s the argument being made here in regards to single-family zoning. Not disagreeing with the point about it’s historical use, but I would argue that’s the way the tool (zoning) was applied rather than the tool itself. It’s not like a gun which was designed for the sole purpose of killing. If we flipped the supply/demand curve around – Newton is overflowing with housing stock with little demand is single-family zoning still an issue? Used properly it can be a useful tool just as R3 in ensuring we have a good diversity of housing stock.
Patrick,
Deft dismantling of my analogy. (Analogies are hard.) Also, important points you’re raising.
The proportion of African-Americans in Newton is about half the region’s, which is about half the nation’s. Whatever our collective
current intent, single-family zoning seems to be having the same impact as originally intended.
There is no intended use for single-family zoning that is more salient than exclusion. So, the comparison to a hammer is not so on point. (Analogies are hard.) A hammer’s principal use is clearly benign.
I suspect that if you lift single-family zoning, Newton would retain plenty of single-family housing. Preserving housing stock shouldn’t be a problem.
Sean,
How do you explain the percentage of asians in Newton is almost triple Massachusetts average? This is a heavy immigrant population who often come into the country poor, but prioritize education.
Somehow Newtons zoning was designed to welcome all races except for African Americans? How did it manage successfully to exclude just a single race?
I am glad this subject is getting some interest because it is an important discussion to have. I have begun the process of digging into the roots of our zoning ordinance, which hasn’t been significantly overhauled since 1941 or 1953.
I am hoping there are some historic records of what was said in those meetings, because I think it would be very interesting to know the arguments for why the zoning is the way it is now. I am planning to propose that we make this a project of the Newton Human Rights Commission, it is on our meeting agenda for Tuesday.
What we do know, broadly speaking, is that slavery, segregation, and racism are a shameful history that belongs to us all collectively.
Blockbusting, red lining, mortgage discrimination, and housing discrimination lasted to varying degrees into the 21st century. The recession and mortgage crisis in 2007 caused black wealth to decline 33% while white wealth declined 12%, substantially due to discriminatory targeting for subprime lending.
According to the Economic Policy Institute’s State of Working America report, black households had a median net wealth of just $4,900 in 2010, compared with $97,000 for white households. A third of black households had zero or negative wealth.
This is real. This is now. Just important for people to understand how real this is TODAY. And nobody should need a campaign donation to care about it.
Bryan,
The wealth disparity is a national and state issue. There is nothing in Newton’s zoning which can correct this unless we build units which are only available to African Americans… which itself is clearly racist.
Newton clearly discriminates against a single color, that color is $green$.
Would you consider tech giants such as google and apple as clearly racist? Their African American representative is extremely low. Surely they must be blatantly discriminatory against them?
Or is the issue that American education as a whole and especially in inner cities is a complete mess despite having the highest $ per student in the entire world?
I think efforts are best spent on fixing education than zoning in Newton
Sean, since you seem to be advocating for more affordable new housing throughout Newton (for “social justice”), the LEAST expensive apartment at Avalon Apts (on Needham St.), just 912 sq ft, currently rents for $3,265 per mo; the LEAST expensive 2 bedroom apartment at Avalon Apts, 1,249 sq ft, currently rents for $3,735 per mo. I believe these are way over what would be entailed for non-subsidized “affordable housing” for the purposes of true “economic diversity”.
So, what kind of newly constructed Newton apartments are we talking about if those apts must be of way lower rental rates than Avalon? Is that realistic to think this is even possible in Newton?
Jim,
Thanks for your question. And, affordable housing is important. And, we don’t have a stay-on-topic rule for commenting on V14, so you are free to comment as you please.
I’ll have plenty on affordability in future posts. I’m going to focus my responses here on the social justice implications of continuing single-family zoning for another few generations.
@Bugek – Except it isn’t a national issue. The wealth disparity is important context. This isn’t only Newton’s history to struggle with, but it IS in part Newton’s history. We had a historically African American community that the Pike construction partially displaced. The late Rev. Haywood spoke powerfully about what that meant for his neighborhood and how difficult it was to remain in Newton. Realtors who wouldn’t show houses to a black family. Neighbors in an uproar.
I had coffee with an older white woman recently who told me that she remembers getting a call from a teenager she knew asking if she could come babysit because her mom had found out she was babysitting for a black couple and was ordered to come home immediately.
So this is real and its effects are real. Do we have a responsibility to at least recognize that if we pursue exclusionary policies that keep property values high, that disproportionately effects people of color? Yeah, I think as a policymaker and someone hoping to represent my ward on the City Council, I do have a responsibility to understand that context.
Bryan Barash, since you elect to say red-lining has existed into the 21st century, the exact opposite has been the case in the 21st century. 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.
Sean, are you saying or implying that affordable housing is off topic on this thread based on your intro comments? That seems to be your whole point, to rezone to allow less expensive housing that would otherwise be required by restricting to single family houses. If not you point, please briefly clarify.
Sean, typo correction where CAPS:
Sean, are you saying or implying that affordable housing is off topic on this thread based on your intro comments? That seems to be your whole point, to rezone to allow less expensive housing THAN would otherwise be required by restricting to single family houses. If not you point, please briefly clarify.
Folks, we actually have someone who hopes to represent his ward on the City Council — Bryan Barash — whose platform has the aim to lower existing property values of current homeowners on the basis that “people of color” are less wealthy:
He states, “Do we have a responsibility to at least recognize that if we pursue exclusionary policies THAT KEEP PROPERTY VALUES HIGH, that disproportionately effects people of color? Yeah, I think as a policymaker and someone hoping to represent my ward on the City Council, I do have a responsibility to understand that context.” [emphasis added]
Bryan, if I’m quoting out of context, please clarify.
Speaking as an Asian, we bought a house in Newton after searching for about three years (we could not afford Brookline, no multi families there – they’re all converted into expensive condos).
We make decent money, but we could not have afforded it without the assistance from my parents, who had had to eventually sell their house so that they could live with us.
Wealth accumulation among Africa Americans is much much lower than other groups (which can be traced back to slavery and racist policies).
Nelson,
My experience is similar to yours. I sacrificed so much for the first 15 years of working. No vacations, no eating out, living in the chespest rentals I could find and most importantly I tried to continuously learn so I could move up in career opportunities.. at no time did i feel Newton was racist because i couldn’t afford it until i made enough $. It clearly discriminates the color Green.
Education in the inner cities need to improve so that opportunities are available to anyone. .. and this is where the discussion should be leading to.
Bugek, education in the inner cities is part of keeping certain racial minorities on the Democrat plantation of educational, social and economic inferiority — having been pulled out of private home ownership and pulled out of intact families, thanks as well to Dem policies, beginning in the 1960’s.
Nelson, modern African American disparity in wealth is more due to Democrat ‘anti-poverty’ and “public housing” policies and programs commenced in the 1960’s, reversing the steady post World War II gains of African Americans in family wealth/incentive and private home ownership until then — so, as LBJ proclaimed, to keep them voting as Dems for generations.
@ Bugek and @Jim – out of curiosity, have you read the book? Would you be willing to?
I love the idea of Sean’s challenge, but I suspect it’ll be taken up only by folks already well-versed in the history.
Allison,
I’m certain racism was rampant in the 1920’s – 1960s. Its still present today, I would not be surprised if many zoning decisions in the past were ‘wink wink, nod, nod’ used to exclude certain people because in the past, most minorities were poor. In 2019, many minorities can and do live in Newton.
Has any zoning decision in the past 20 years been solely based on the color of ones skin? Does Newton in 2019 discriminate buyers outside of the color green? Looking to change zoning to solve racism is not the correct approach in my opinion.
We should focus on quality education in the inner cities and over time, the disparity in wealth should narrow. If you can afford Newton, Newton is not stopping you from buying no matter what race you are.
Pray for a recession if you want Newton home prices to fall as its prices are always going to be relative to Brookline/Boston given its proximity and quality schools & low crime…
Imagine if Newton zoning was modified and prices fell 70%, and less affluent could now afford. What if the new buyers were 98% Asian and 2% African American? Will the new zoning still be considered racist because the African American % remains unchanged?
@Jim – you quoted me right but emphasized wrong. Nobody is trying to lower property values, but I do think it is important to understand the context in which those values are created.
@jim Your use of the term “democrat plantations” is offensive. I’m surprised you use it. Leave Dinesh D’Souza and his nutty theories to maybe a Fox News comment section.
Bryan,
OK, going forward, do you have ANY specifics WHATSOEVER to provide for sufficiently low cost unsubsidized housing — as I pointed out above, needing to be well below the current rent, say of Avalon Apts. on Needham St. — to afford availability to those otherwise unable to afford housing in Newton, via zoning or otherwise, be they African American or anyone??? (ESPECIALLY since you also say this is not an exercise to or there is no need or intention to lower property values).
Please be specific. If you don’t have any specifics, I’d ask what is the specific value of understanding context or history for economic disparity as it would appear to be beyond the scope of zoning or municipal administration within the purview of City Council responsibility.
Peter Bloy, the term “democrat plantations” is a shorthand way of saying keeping that or those groups voting Democrat — despite that party not helping them to progress economically beyond a certain point, and in fact, doing the opposite.
Before applying what you term “offensive” to my point — which is directed at the Democrat party (not any group victimized by that party’s policies), I’d suggest you address the specifics as to what I say rather than inject non-productive gratuitous insults such as “nutty” or citing sources. Your tact, regularly used by the left, conveniently serves to shut down serious discussion — I suspect due to the inability to mount a reasoned counter-argument, which I’d certainly invite you to do if you disagree.
I don’t see that this creates an argument for lifting single family zoning. Banks can deny mortgages for condos and “affordable housing” too. Banks can deny car loans. As somebody who came from New York City where apt buildings were routinely high (mine was “low” at only 6-stories) and everything was crowded in, the point wasn’t to leave a diverse population behind. It was to have a home with land and space and quiet. And as it turned out both neighbors – in our single family zoned road – on both sides had immigrated to the US, each from a different continent. It was perfect. And I think that this is Newton’s reputation.
Allison Sharma, Sean Roche, Bryan Barash and the Richard Rothstein Book proponents:
OK going forward from the book in question, here are/would be its suggestions:
1. FULLY DESEGREGATE NEWTON SCHOOLS BY COMBINING WITH THE CITY OF BOSTON;
2. GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCT LARGE PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECTS IN NEWTON WITH PRIORITY OCCUPANCY FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS; and
3. REZONE NEWTON WITH THE AIM OF MORE THAN SUBSTANTIALLY LOWERING EXISTING HOUSES/HOMES PROPERTY VALUES.
Any takers? If not, forget the book or read it for pleasure or academic purposes only.
@Jim yes, we do need to regionalize. We need to regionalize our housing policy, transportation policy, and our education systems. We need to start thinking about our neighbors as not just those people who crossed the border into Newton, but those that live in Waltham, Boston, Cambridge, Needham, etc.
This isn’t going to solve all those problems either. In Cambridge, there are kids who live between MIT and Harvard who never get the opportunity to go to either of those schools. So while it’s a start, it isn’t a full solution.
We’ve barely started.
@Sean – From the pattern book, the basis for Newton’s current zoning is the 1953 version which introduced the most restrictive density standards. The timing would have placed that roughly in the “white flight” period where people (mostly white) were fleeing from cities to the suburbs. From the 1950 census the non-white population in Newton was 0.7% (compared to 1.7 state wide and 1.8 urban) while the overall population increased 17.2% from 1940 (compared to 8.7 state wide and 6.8 urban). While I doubt that the impact to minorities would have been a consideration back then I would guess that the driving force was the 17.2% population increase and surge of development during the 1940s, which the pattern book also calls out.
Now that’s not to say historically Newton was a saint in terms of equality. What happened to West Newton with the building of the Pike is a textbook example of how highway development was used to dislodge minority populations. I’m also sure there were other methods people have pointed out such as loan denials that were used in the city. There was certainly a level of racism historically, both direct and indirect. I’m just not sure that the 1953 zoning ordinance and SR districts in general were used for that purpose specifically in Newton. At the time there was almost no minority presence and the population increase/development was largely driven by white flight from Boston. I feel it’s a different situation than areas where zoning was specifically used for segregation, although there’s certainly a correlation.
@Chuck – Interesting that you use MIT and Harvard specifically, as those are among the most exclusive schools in general. I would say everyone should have the opportunity to attend higher education but that doesn’t necessarily mean MIT or Harvard – Boston has a range of colleges and universities from UMass to NEU to MIT and all sorts of in between.
I see that where the “rubber meets the road” on the Rothstein book, Sean Roche and Bryan Barash seem reluctant to follow through with (or perhaps comment on) what would be Rothstein’s recommendations as applied to Newton:
1. FULLY DESEGREGATE NEWTON SCHOOLS BY COMBINING WITH THE CITY OF BOSTON;
2. GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCT LARGE PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECTS IN NEWTON WITH PRIORITY OCCUPANCY FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS; and
3. REZONE NEWTON WITH THE AIM OF MORE THAN SUBSTANTIALLY LOWERING EXISTING HOUSES/HOMES PROPERTY VALUES.
Sean and Bryan,
The reason the above seems so important is that lofty goals are often thrown around by re-zoning activists. You’re (Sean) specifically exhorting others including Newton candidates for office to read the Rothstein book, but when “push comes to shove” on weighing Rothstein’s recommendations as applied to Newton, nothing but SILENCE.
So, while introducing the Rothstein book and exhorting candidates and others to read, when applied to Newton, SILENCE. This is particularly important and informative in that there seems to be a movement for Newton zoning to entail “social engineering”, “social change” and “social justice” — which I’ve maintained should be beyond its purview.
I don’t understand. I honestly am trying, so, please, do not yell at me nor make snide remarks.
I live on a Single Residence lot: I love the quiet street, the trees, the animals (most of them anyway) and the space between houses on other Single Residence lots. Does that make me racist?
I am lucky, I have a husband who worked very hard, for very long hours and we got help from the GI bill. We bought our first house in Watertown and eventually in Newton. Does that make me a racist?
Don’t I have the right to enjoy green space around me?
Isabelle, according to many liberals, yes it does make you a racist (against Blacks).
There’s an analogy to this in today’s Boston Globe, where writer S.I. Rosenbaum claims that Jews who support Trump are racists against Jews or alternatively collaborators to being Anti-Semetic. Isabelle, whereas your case requires one hoax, the Globe case requires two hoaxes, first Trump is a racist based on the hoax that at Charlottesville when he said both sides had good people he was referring to the Nazi Tiki Torch Marchers, rather than supporters of leaving the Confederate Statues in place (despite Trump’s own daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren being Jewish, and Trump being the strongest POTUS supporter of Israel in history) and then based on that hoax, the second hoax that Jews supporting Trump are thereby racists against Jews as well.
Isabelle, I’m not making this stuff up.
Isabelle,
I think the line of thinking is that you have been enjoying the results of zoning steeped in racism. As such, you should be guilted into supporting zoning changes that would give lower income minorities an opportunity to live here. You should also be guilty of enjoying and working hard for your extra space when poorer folks in Boston are cramped together in smaller and substandard housing.
So i guess, not being called racist but enjoying the results of said racism. Much like being a shareholder of a company which profited from slavery in the past… how dare you support this company.
This is the narrative being shoved down our throats, by elected council members!
Bugek, it would be great if Newton’s Ward 6 City Councilor Brenda Noel would comment precisely on what you say since she, by far, seems to be the most ardent advocate for this.
But I doubt you’ll hear anything but crickets after this push back to her extreme liberal mantra.
@Patrick, it’s hard to see how the 1953 Newton low-density zoning was motivated by “white flight” and racism if the population of Boston at the time was only 1.8% non-white. That’s some serious racism going on if Newtonians were fleeing that!
Can anyone provide context into the white flight in boston?
Was there unbearable crime (eg NYC in 1970s to 80s)
Were school quality degrading due to increased class sizes,
Leaving if one had a young family due to the above 2 reason are certainly not racist (unless you try to find racism in everything)
If burglary became rampant and schools became unbearably crowded in Newton… should i be labelled a racist for leaving for Lexington?
This is a fascinating conversation. @Sean Roche, I’m trying to come at this from a practical standpoint. I live on a 25,000 square foot lot in a single family home that is proposed to be zoned R1. Under a Sean Roche proposed zoning code, should I be able to knock down my house and build a multi-family house on my lot? How about an apartment building with 5 units? Better yet, my house is only 100 yards from houses that are proposed to be zoned R3. Should I be able to subdivide my lot and build two multi-family homes/apartments? Financially, this would be a boon for me, but I’m not sure my neighbors would appreciate it and, moreover, the multi-family homes/apartments would most certainly change the character of my neighborhood. That, I am not in favor of.
@Sean –
“Here, I’m arguing that it’s morally offensive to codify a public policy tool — specifically single-family zoning — that has such a disreputable history. ”
You didn’t seem to have any problem with elimination of local representation on the Newton city council on the basis of this tactic’s general history in the country:
https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/At-Large-Voting-Frequently-Asked-Questions-1.pdf
I know Newton’s history been argued to be different on the racial front, but this is the NAACP’s position.
This has been a disappointing thread. It doesn’t seem that anyone has actually read the book or even any of the substantial coverage of Rothstein’s research. Had they done so, many of the questions that have been asked might have been answered.
I decided to support @sean’s candidate challenge not because I necessarily agree with his positions on zoning but because it’s important that all of us challenge ourselves to confront difficult topics using careful, factual research. Regardless of how each of us feels about Newton’s zoning today, it is important that we learn our history.
@jim – it is exhausting to read through your numerous duplicate posts angry posts. In the day and a half since I posted I took my kids to dinner (their first time trying Indian food – big success at House of Tandoor!), cleaned the house, did a few loads of laundry, went for a walk with my wife, took one kid to buy new shoes, and cooked and enjoyed a nice family dinner. I wasn’t ignoring you because I can’t defend my beliefs, I was ignoring you because I don’t spend my weekends on the computer or my life on V14. And now I’m going to not respond because I don’t like being shouted at, or giving more attention to those in public who are shouting. If you are interested in reading the book having a discussion about it’s normative statements perhaps we could do that in the future.
Joshua Herzig-Marx, like some others (actually a common tact by liberals) you are using a pretext to not address my substantive points, by attacking me or my style personally and gratuitously. If anything, your comment of not substantively responding, confirms my effort to focus like a laser beam.
BTW, albeit I repeated it several times — which you elect to point out — my precise Rothstein book recommendations as applied to Newton were taken from the book which you claim that I did not read.
So, you, like the rest REMAIN SILENT ON MY POINTS (drawn from the Rothstein book).
Patrick Butera,
I’ve been thinking about your point about preserving housing stock and I confess I’m not clear on what you meant. Which housing stock in particular are you concerned we preserve and why?
@Sean – I’m thinking areas that aren’t in walkable range of rail/transit corridors or village centers and are already SR. Basically the flip side of how we talk about increased density around the transit lines and village centers. Ideally have all the T stops and I90/128 access points R3/V1 and then transition to R2/R1 as you go further out. SR zoning would be useful here to make sure we’re not overdeveloping in areas that don’t have the transit infrastructure to support it.