Few topics spur more controversy in Newton than increasing the housing stock. Most residents, it seems, support development of commercial properties, especially in abandoned industrial sites like the empty lots behind Needham Street. The prospect of raising tax revenues without increasing the city’s population makes sense. But if the project involves housing, then the battle lines are drawn.
On one side are the high-density advocates. At the heart of this approach is the belief that the post-war movement from cities to suburbs was a demographic and environmental mistake. It seems indisputable that if more people lived in apartment complexes near cities, and fewer in commuter suburbs with single-family dwellings, the stress on the environment and on infrastructure would be lessened. It is too late now, though, to undo suburbanization. We might, however, bring the process to a halt, and none can deny the existence of a housing shortage in Greater Boston.
Some residents will support any new housing simply because they believe that our population is aging and we need a younger demographic. Those who support mixed-income housing argue that Newton, like other suburban communities, has a moral obligation to create homes for lower and middle class families. Other residents, no doubt, oppose the very idea of creating high density housing here. They say that they love Newton for its less crowded, greener spaces, and they’d hate to see it become a traffic-choked extension of Brookline and Boston.
The rest of us lie somewhere in the middle of this dynamic debate. We’d like to see more lower and middle-income housing in Newton but are suspicious of the current approach to creating it: large housing developments with 15-20% of the units supposedly set aside for those of limited means. The problem is many-fold. First, the developers of these projects often demand that the city waive certain environmental and civic regulations or else, they argue, the projects will not be viable. Secondly, the vast majority of the units will be at market price, so expensive that only the affluent can afford to move to Newton…just like the McMansions replacing modest Capes and ranch houses around town. According to the 40b calculus, the rent for the set-asides comes to approximately $27,500 a year, or $2,300 a month. How many families of modest means can afford to pay that much?
Finally, if the city were to expand its population by ten thousand people, or up to 100,000 residents, then we would witness an influx of automobiles. In theory, better mass transit, including improvements to the T and the commuter rail, might encourage residents to rely less on their cars. Better public transit within the city would also help, as would safer bicycle routes. But these improvements, all of which I support, seem not to be in the cards in the short run if at all. In the meantime, as councilor Baker has pointed out, Newton’s residents will continue to rely on their automobiles, and as the population increases, the roads will grow more congested.
To create housing for lower income families, shouldn’t the public sector be involved? It once was, of course, but government now steers clear. As the late Marc Slotnick, a tireless Newton advocate for affordable housing, explained to me a few years ago, few municipalities want to be involved in constructing affordable housing anymore. We have to rely, he argued, on the private sector, for better or worse. Unfortunately, private developers, like all businesses, focus first and foremost on generating profit. Hence, even the supposedly affordable units, few in number, are beyond the reach of the very population for whom they are intended. In the end, the more housing we construct, be it McMansions or developments, the higher the median income in Newton will become, further increasing the rents for those set-aside units. So it goes.
As you have surmised, there are no good guys and bad guys in this debate, only a difficult set of challenges to overcome if the city truly wants to maintain, let alone increase, its (less and less) diverse housing stock. I wish I knew a solution that would satisfy both the preservationists and the high-density folks, both those seeking greater tax revenues and those desiring a more economically diverse community. Any ideas out there?
Bob J., I think you are conflating two issues. First, there is the high density/low density question. Second, there is the question of the type of high density housing. As I assume you know, the very least non-subsidized cost (rent) of new housing in Newton would still be substantially beyond affordability in terms of diversity in economic class; therefore that high density housing would essentially have to be public housing projects (and if not public housing what?).
Thank you for what I believe to be a very thoughtful and accurate description of the different opinions surrounding this topic. A fantastic proposal, launched by Lenny Gentile, that came very close to fruition is the Crescent St. project. It utilized public land in a neglected area for an 8-unit 100% affordable building and the expansion of a playground and green space, while also honoring the history of the neighborhood. It was to be self-funded by the rental income, utilizing Community Preservation funding and other city funds for the initial building investment. The wonderful combination initially had support from green space advocates, housing advocates, and the support of the neighborhood as well as Myrtle Baptist Church. It had nearly unanimous support from the city council who voted it through by a vote of 21-2 and the two opposed were in favor of a full park on property. A working group was created (I was a member), many many public meetings and input sessions were held. Significant investments were made into architects, landscape designers, and ground prep. Sounds like an ideal project, right? Well, everyone was on board until a few city councilors decided that they no longer supported it and staged a derailment in the form of blocking it on the CIP (capital improvement plan).
Newton had the chance to be a leader in developing its own truly affordable housing and building a win win win project that could have been a model for elsewhere in Newton and surrounding communities. What a shame!
Mr. Jampol seems to forget or not realize that there exist a third perspective on this issue; namely that a debate of this magnitude is a priori inappropriate. The vast majority of these properties are privately held, with Austin St. perhaps the most notable exception. As such, how these sites are used should be at the discretion of the owner. The city then should be concerned with two and only two issues: avoiding truly egregious misuse of the property and enacting policy (including but not limited to taxation) that ameliorates any externalities associated with property owners using their property as they see fit. Clearly, neither of these tasks is easy and both are far from black and white in practice. Still, framing the discussion in such terms (a) appropriately respects the rights of those so fortunate to own parcels of land which may be of value and (b) minimizes the influence of kibbitzers who lack the standing and/or the technical expertise to warrant their having any substantive input into these discussions.
A locality, be it a municipality or even a county, has every right to guide development through incentives or restrictions regarding private property. American capitalism is a mixed affair, with both government and the public sector playing a role. If Newton is a true community, and not merely a collection of atomized and independent entities, then its municipal government will work with its citizens and with the private sector to foster the common good. We all have a stake in issues like development and every right to express our opinion. Neither private enterprise nor the state holds tyrannical power over a free people.
Part of the problem is that our inclusionary zoning policy requires a developer of large projects to set aside 15% of the units in the new luxury developments as affordable units. If the city allowed developers to devote an equivalent amount of the subsidies as vouchers, and let the recipients live anywhere in Newton and not just in new luxury developments, we could allow probably 50% more low income families to live in Newton for the same amount of subsidy.
The reason many cities require the units to be in the new development is so that low income families won’t be concentrated in slums with bad schools and infrastructure. But that doesn’t really apply in Newton since all areas are nice and all have good schools.
@Elaine, correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the reason the Crescent St project got scuttled in the end was that the new batch of City Councilors that came in thought that the cost per unit was too high, and that much money could provide more affordable units if spent in a different way. I don’t know if the money ended up getting spent in a better way, but that was the reasoning if I recall. New construction is usually more expensive.
Sarah, …but remember, as Bob Jampol states, “even the supposedly affordable units, few in number, are beyond the reach of the very population for whom they are intended.” Hence, even what you suggest will not address the issue.
I will echo Elaine in saying that Bob’s write-up here does an excellent job of presenting the issue and describing the various opinions without being condescending and without any vitriol; bravo!
While it is completely unrealistic to think that more density will lead to affordability (for all the reasons stated above), it is likewise unrealistic to think that 100% affordable developments are (a) possible and (b) desirable. Mixing affordable units together with market-rate units has been shown to work much better than segregating them. Mixing commercial space together with residential space can also work to bolster both. Development can work; we just have to be smart about how big we build them and where we locate them.
Remember, developers are not non-profits! They answer to their investors and to their shareholders, so is it any surprise that they submit projects that are aimed at bolstering their bottom line? If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be in business for very long.
Newton (through our city council and zoning and planning departments) absolutely has not only a right, but an obligation to make sure that projects that are not “built by right” (meaning projects that require some sort of modification to the zoning or a special permit) are not just profit drivers for the developers with minimal concessions given in order to gain approval, but are projects that benefit the city and its residents. Developers need to be forced to adjust their approach from maximizing their profits through seeking zoning changes and special permits to maximizing the benefit to the city in order to win approval for zoning changes and special permits that allow them to remain profitable. That is fair and equitable.
Otherwise, we will end up with the enormous profit-drivers on Needham street, at Riverside, along Washington street and elsewhere which will create a ton of traffic, overburden the schools, raise (not lower) housing prices and taxes and we will be no closer to achieving the goals that we all seem to agree on. In other words, we will get none of the benefits we seek and all of the downsides we are afraid of.
Leon, …but still, whether 100% affordable, of mixed affordable, per Bob Jampol, “even the supposedly affordable units, few in number, are beyond the reach of the very population for whom they are intended.”
Hence, even “smart” development for affordable (as to how big and where located) would not seem to work as you seem to suggest.
Bob makes some good points about needing to find ways to come together and bridge the divide on this issue.
As Leon points out, mixed use developments with affordable and market rate units have a lot of advantages. We need to make sure they’re the right size in the right place and in context. That’s where the Mayor’s Washington St Vision Process comes in. I really hope people will buy in and keep participating in that process and future vision plans. You may not get everything you want but if we buy in we can try to find common ground.
I do think it’s important for us to recognize that affordable units are actually affordable in perpetuity and there is a lot of misinformation out there about what that means. We should be trying to push the limits: Austin St is 1/3 affordable and Washington Place is 25%. Can larger projects like that go up to 25% minimum and still make the numbers work? Worth asking.
Bryan B., … again, but still, whether mixed use development with affordable, or non-mixed use (100%) affordable, per Bob Jampol, “even the supposedly affordable units, few in number, are beyond the reach of the very population for whom they are intended.”
So it would seem what you suggest would make no difference on the issue of affordability being unrealistic in Newton.
Jim,
Newton only needs a token number of true affordable units so that liberal politicians can claim to be “social warriors” while living in one of the most affluent suburbs in the North east…
@Jim – Affordable housing IS affordable for many of those who need it.
In 2018, 80% AMI for 2018 was $56,600. 50% was $37,750.
Are there people who need deeper affordability? Absolutely, and we should keep working on that.
Bryan B., in the event you’re not aware, 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 – When we say affordable housing, we are talking about housing that is required by ordinance or special permit to be affordable to people at the income levels I just mentioned, in perpetuity. Yes, 33% of Austin St and 25% of Washington Pl apartments WILL be affordable to people at those income levels.
Bryan B., again citing Avalon’s LEAST expensive apartments ( 912 sq ft 1 BR for $3,265 per mo; 1,249 sq ft 2 BR for $3,735 per mo, not even counting deposits and sizeable fees, i.e. for pets) , I can’t see an income of $37,750 or even $56,000 making it.
And if you’re talking about something else as to “required” affordable, the number of units are mere token as bugek points out above. Also as bugek points out, Newton “is one of the most affluent suburbs in the Northeast” — so is this exercise merely trying to squeeze a square peg (affordability) into a round hole (Newton).
Honestly, the most effective way for affordable housing avocates to help people to afford to live closer to work is this:
Folks who feel strongly about this can donate $100 or $200 into a large pool. Distribute the money to needy families to subsidize their housing. Just 5 people could make a difference for one family.
Even better, they can rent out their spare rooms or accessory units below market…
In essence, this is what you are asking others to do via subsidizing. Higher rents for those who pay market in mixed affordable complexes subsidize the affordable units.
Increased property taxes from all residents to subsidize for the extra services for the increase in people.
If you are not willing to subsidize, why do you expect the rest of us to?
… i hear crickets…
So Bugek: Your solution for honest, hard working folks who can’t afford the American dream of providing for their families is to let them crash on someone’s couch?
Don’t our police, our teachers, our waitresses, our gardeners, our hotel workers, etc deserve a more dignified solution than that? Don’t they deserve a place they can call their own?
Don’t they deserve the chance to live in Newton too?
@Jim – the units you referenced prices for aren’t the affordable units. And I leave it to you to decide whether 25-33% affordable is a token. To me, it is very significant.
Jim, you’re talking about the least expensive market rate units. Bryan is talking about capital-a-Affordable units – the ones with income restrictions that are rented through a different process, with a different rate structure. If 33% of Austin St will be capital-a-Affordable units – in perpetuity – that’s not a token number.
Greg,
Of course they deserve, but last time I checked “living in a affluent suburb” is not a human right. I would place”affordable healthcare” well above “living in an affluent suburb” on the priority list.
Living in a safe area certainly should be and there’s plenty of safe and affordable towns in Massachusetts .
Why don’t you guys put money where your mouth is before expecting others to follow your lead.
Setup a GoFundMe page so we can track your contributions, again, just 5 of our friends can hep subsidize a single family to live in Newton
If you won’t subsidize, why do you expect the rest of us to? seriously
Thanks Marie Antoinette, I mean, Bugek.
You realize we have a regional housing shortage, right?
It’s not just that good, decent people (and that includes our kids and our seniors) can’t find a place in Newton, they can’t find a place anywhere near Newton
And yet, you want them to be there when your house is on fire, you want them to teach your kids, you want them to make your latte, you want them to dry clean your clothes.
You just don’t want them to live here.
What Mr. Jampol wrote…
What we are all debating…
…can be simply be summarized thusly:
“you can’t be KIND OF pregnant. “ Either you are, or not.
Independently you all make good, strong, well meaning points. Collectively, these points are like oil and water.
Adding people in great numbers does equal less congestion on our roads and schools. Cold winters and poor public transportation does not incent people to walk or bike as primary modes of transport. “Sort of affordable” housing is not affordable. True affordable housing will require a subsidy, either via taxpayer or a developer (but why would they?!? #profit #shareholders).
The most alarming aspect of this whole thing is that many of our elected officials, are more concerned about winning the affordable housing race, the “green” race, the headline race; instead of what they were elected to do…represent the needs and wants of their constituents.
Or instead, let the citizens do Newton decide for themselves and put these issues on a ballot!
Name calling, Greg? Don’t be “that guy”.
(You’ve done it to me before too.)
Greg,
I would love to live in Brookline, but I can’t afford to.. so I settled for Newton. I would love to live in back bay too..
Do I expect Brookline to intentionally lower its home prices or create blocks of government housing? No, I moved to the next town I can afford.
If I lost my job, similarly I would probably no longer afford Newton and would move to Needham or Natick…. and so on, until I could find a place I could afford. I was not born into Newton, I saved, studied, worked until I could afford to live within my budget..
Unless you don’t believe in ‘the market’, a house/condo which is 8 miles from Boston (plentiful jobs), safe, good schools and commute options WILL ALWAYS be priced RELATIVE to boston/brookline.
What you really want is a recession or for Boston home prices to collapse. There is no other way to make Newton affordable except for a few token units unless you want soviet style blocks of government housing..
As a representative of the chamber of commerce, you of all people should understand market forces..
Bryan B. and Tricia, so the affordable housing you are talking about are the projects, such as 8A essentially exempt from municipal zoning, and as I understood, the whole purpose of this exercise was to enact re-zoning, which then would be the very re-zoning from which these affordable housing projects will be exempt. Moreover, these additional projects will encompass excess than otherwise required for Newton to meet city-wide 8A requirements — which requirement limitations were established to protect already existing city residents and, up until now, had been the goal of the city to meet, for the benefit and protection of the property value, interests and living quality of the already existing residents. But now, apparently, the heck with the existing residents and constituents.
Jim, I honestly have no idea what you are talking about – “the projects”? We’re talking about mixed-income development here. My understanding is that within the Austin Street development, 33% of the units will be reserved in perpetuity as Affordable (with a different rent structure and with income restrictions) that are rented through a separate process from the (yes, very expensive) market rate units. No separate “projects”.
The issue is one of macroeconomics: supply and demand. On the demand side, a robust local economy, desirable quality of life, and other factors have led more people to want to move to the Boston area. The supply of housing has not kept up with the increased demand, leading to dramatic increases in cost. This is unsustainable long-term and will affect even the well-off. When workers have to move farther and farther away from jobs to find housing they can afford, one result is increased traffic from longer commutes.
To make housing here more affordable, we could of course decrease demand by making the area less desirable to live in. That’s probably not a good idea.
The real solution is to increase supply. Some of the constraints, such as limited land resources, are difficult to address. But many of the issues constraining supply are caused by government distortions of the market such as restrictive zoning and capitulation to NIMBYism. We need to address those root causes. Further government intervention and distortion in pushing “affordable housing” only address the symptoms we’re seeing (high housing costs) without really addressing the root cause (insufficient supply of housing). We need to let the market build more housing.
Increasing the supply of housing will help slow the pace of cost increases. Even developing the often-maligned “luxury” housing will help by making existing housing stock comparatively less desirable and therefore more affordable. Those who worry about increased development burdening the city should also love luxury housing as the higher value of these properties results in larger property tax contributions to the city.
A suggestion above is to subsidize housing for the needy. While this may sound like a good idea, it would only exacerbate the affordability problem by increasing demand without increasing supply.
Some additional reading:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogervaldez/2018/07/16/we-dont-need-more-affordable-housing-we-need-more-housing-so-it-will-be-affordable/
Tricia,
Austin Street contains “different rate structure Affordable housing” and by doing so need not comply with local zoning, and that counts toward meeting Newton’s city-wide “Affordable target”. Newton traditionally has wanted to meet that state-imposed target because once meeting it, the city need not subject itself anymore to having to deal with zoning-exempt projects.
Now, Bryan B. and some others are saying even when Newton meets that target, we’ll plan for many more such projects containing the “different rate structure Affordable housing” further allowing more projects to be exempt from local zoning, more than otherwise required.
Is that what existing Newton residents want? Is that what elected officials are aiming to give their existing constituents? More such projects exempt from local zoning than required by state mandate.
In response to Sarah – since you asked, I will correct you. The Crescent St. derailment was initiated by a few senior councilors who had previously voted in favor of it. Many of us suspect the derailment was politically motivated, not financially. The cost per unit of Crescent St. at the time of derailment was LOWER than the proforma at the time of the initial vote, so cost per unit was not a legitimate argument. As a matter of fact, the cost per unit was comparable or lower than some current projects including the Golda Mier House expansion. The newer councilors were not up to speed on the history or full details of the project. As a matter of fact, none of them attended any of the Crescent St. working group meetings to learn more or express concerns. Again, a tragic shame that a creative and viable effort for the city to address affordable housing was nixed due to political motivations.
I’m actually worried that we are building too much housing in this area and that places are going to sit empty. The other day I was on rt 1 and saw the new Oak Row apartments with big Now Leasing signs and signs promoting availability all over the building. Same with Currents on the Charles, The Merc and Waltham Landing in Waltham – big now leasing signs hanging on the buildings. Watertown has a lot of these new apartments, too, with availability.
I’ve also heard that Watertown hasn’t been able to fill all of those new units.
Another one of my concerns is empty storefronts. How are all of these storefronts going to get filled? 2 out of the 3 storefronts on Border and Elm have been sitting vacant for YEARS. Vacant storefronts give neighborhoods a depressing and blighted feel. We surely can make improvements on Washington Street because there are some ugly stretches right now, but I’m skeptical that all of these buildings will find business tenants. Retail is struggling and there are only so many successful restaurants. We have way too many salons. West Newton is lucky so far to have a few unique independent businesses that are successful, but how many more can we realistically have on Washington Street?
Some people will disagree with me and I ordinarily would prefer independently owned shops, but it would be practical to see one of those mini Targets on Washington Street. I went to the one in Porter Square recently and thought it would be so convenient to have one closer. I think it would be nice to have a place where people who live off Washington Street can walk to buy quick items like some inexpensive clothes, party supplies, toys, and miscellany, while being able to stay in their neighborhood. Especially if we’re discouraging car ownership, we need businesses that serve a practical purpose for people of different incomes, not just boutiquey places.
OK folks, now that we’ve come this far in the thread, I’d ask you to read this article — https://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/why-government-planning-always-fails — and then re-read it, and think, and then re-think.
There’s an important element that has been left out of this discussion: the relationship between added housing density in and around the village centers and the commercial development nearby, both existing and that built in tandem with the apartments. I’m not at all certain village center (and Needham/Washington streets) retail can thrive moving forward without being bolstered by nearby foot traffic. Especially nowadays with Amazon, etc.
There’s also nothing wrong with creating housing opportunities here for those who are less than super wealthy. I’m not at all comfortable with “social engineering” either, but the affordable housing aspect of the type of development we are discussing involves a private sector funding mechanism: the exhorbitant rents for the “luxury” apartments like Avalon pay for the affordable units. A person who pays $4,000 a month for an apartment has a choice to rent elsewhere.
The potential issues I see are the cost of increased school enrollment and determining when we have passed the point of new development being beneficial.
@Bryan
Its great to hear that you’re looking to bridge the divide.
The rest of your post seems to just argue that the current path is the right one. There are many of us that aren’t comfortable with the current process, at Washington St or rezoning more generally.
Where are you exactly willing to compromise?
Paul, to follow up what you say, readers should take a look at the video link posted by Julia on the other zoning thread for the West Newton update on Washington St, zoning, & WN Sq at Franklin School (Feb 27):
https://youtu.be/cUrlXPWmcxs
“The last half hour or so is people asking the mayor questions after the event.”
And see what poster Bugek says on that:
“The feb 27th video just shows how frustrated residents are having this shoved down their throats.
The level of anger and opposition to this zoning proposal is simply not captured on this blog or other listserv. I encourage everyone to watch
To me, the presenters came off as condescending and not attuned to residents needs. They wanted this to help climate change (even though the commuter rail is horrible! And they want to create 3000 parking spaces???) And to prod the market to create cheaper housing (even though prices in Newton has always been relative to brookline/boston)
… i feel residents will have to “lawyer up” to have the city take their concerns seriously. People were frustrated and it showed”
@Paul – great question. For me, it’s actually not a question of what I would be willing to compromise. It’s a question of trying to navigate the preferences of the people of Newton. There are people who would prefer a moratorium, people who would like to see limits to certain number of stories or certain geographic locations, people who would like to see development spread more evenly in other parts of the city, people who prioritize commercial development or affordability, people who would welcome any and all development, etc etc.
It’s a complex puzzle. My goal is to support processes like the Vision Plan to try to get the community’s input and have that drive the conversation. The critical role I see myself playing is encouraging collaboration, buy in, and managing expectations.
It also means making a plan and sticking to it. My goal is for the community to be in the driver’s seat, not commercial developers. But it is really important to recognize that the community has a lot of varying opinions on these issues, and nobody should claim to have sole authority to speak for the neighborhood.
Making a desirable city more affordable (little-i) is tough, but the current approach is not realistic either, and has high externalities. Since St. Ronald the Addled destroyed public housing in favor of subsidies for landlords, the favored approach seem to be to let developers build luxury buildings and then use lotteries to distribute a few subsidized “Affordable” units for means-tested lottery winners. It assuages some slightly-liberal guilt but overall raises the market rents in the area, making the area less affordable for others.
A better approach would be to make “naturally affordable” units available. Yes, they can exist. They come in the form of two and three-family houses and auxiliary apartments. These work two ways. Rent in these properties is lower than in a VASSLS (yuppie tenement, like Washington Place or a lot of new buildings in Watertown), and the rent makes it easier for someone to become a homeowner. (I owned two two-families before our first single.)
Newton has a lot of big old houses that can take auxiliaries. And there are a decent number of old two-families, but the city seems intent on tearing them down, when more are needed. I also suspect that many prospective tenants would not turn down a house because it lacked HGTV-approved granite countertops.
Of course these need not only be in the traditional north side lower-rent areas. Newton’s own special type of property is the “multi-family mansion”, a multi that looks like a big-hair house, not like a tenement or three-decker. Recall that the price of the house is less than half of the value of the property; land is what’s in short supply.
Very well put Mr. Goldstein!
I would encourage everyone at check out and add your name to keep in touch.
https://rightsizenewton.org/
The concerns that people have here in Village14 and other online forums; comments in City planning meetings; letters and emails written; calls and office visits made; are largely dismissed by our Councilors.
We need to band together on this one.
https://rightsizenewton.org/
Fred,
Newton has already enabled “natural occurring” affordable rental unit creation via the “accessory unit” ordinance. If the city REALLY wanted to, they could encourage homeowners to create affordable rentals.
– any homeowner who creates and RENTS out an accessory unit below market gets a 20% discount on their property tax
– an accessory unit which is rented out WILL not increase assessed value
– $xxx provided for a interest free (or low rate loan) to create accessory unit
If the city was serious about affordable rentals, enacting the above would DRAMATICALLY create tens of thousands of affordable units in a short time frame…
FYI: Approx 23 accessory units have been built in the last 2 years. Go to this website and choose “permit type” first dropdown “BUILDING PERMIT – ACCESSORY”. The list is ordered by date, permit 17010287 is from 2017
http://apps.newtonma.gov/egovplus