Newton City Councilor Jake Auchincloss sent this to his colleagues following Tuesday’s night Land Use Committee meeting about Northland’s traffic mitigation plans.
Hi colleagues,
Last night was a long night and no one, including me, felt like hearing Jake talk about parking at 10:30PM. However, I want to respond with three points to the comments we heard that addressed my parking position:
- The connection between more parking and more traffic is well documented. To argue for less traffic but more parking is not logically coherent. I’m not going to link to all the articles and statements by the APA, Congress on New Urbanism, Strong Towns foundation, CityLab, parking consultants for the developer and the city, Donald Shoup, et al. We can all Google and research for ourselves. The findings are robust.
- Uber and Lyft complicate but do not break that connection. Concerns about ride-share are well founded. (And we need state VMT fees on them.) Parking is not the right lever to address those concerns, though, because both the cure (more parking) and the disease (ride-share) have the same effects: induced traffic. Additionally, ride-share tends to cannibalize transit more than vehicle-ownership, so the ‘cure’ is not even well-targeted. The right lever is to measure total trips on site, including TNC-rides, as part of the ‘measure, monitor, enforce’ program that planning & petitioner have agreed to.
- ‘Measure, monitor, and enforce’ is missing the most important step, though. These are all ex-post-facto mechanisms. The petitioner has three critical stages to go: financing, leasing, and then operating. At each stage, the petitioner’s incentive is to internalize the benefits of more parking while externalizing the costs of more traffic. By the time we start measuring and monitoring, they will have signed covenants with their creditors, agreements with their tenants, and standard operating procedures with their managers that will be premised upon their parking allotment and will be almost impossible to reverse. We must bake into this project, during its very conception, the economic incentive to plan & develop away from the car.
Jake Auchincloss
Councilor-at-Large, Ward 2
Despite Committee Chair Greg Schwartz’ best efforts at crowd control, last night was not one of Newton’s better moments. The catcalls, sarcastic laughter and shouting helped no one.
It was intimidating. I know several people who planned to speak but choose not to because they did not want to be treated the way Jay Walter was during his remarks (go to the 1:58 mark here).
I understand why this project concerns many people. I get how many of the transportation mitigation strategies (including Auchincloss’ points above) are foreign, frightening or inconceivable to some people. (And, BTW, comments to the contrary, the Needham Street traffic will never be “worse than the bubonic plague.“) But booing and hissing because you don’t agree with some one?
This is not the way to deliberate. It’s not the way neighbors should treat each other.
Here’s hoping for a constructive debate going forward.
@Greg,
Last night might very well just be the start of it.
This city council pays lip service its citizens. The Councilors all appear to listen, but then they vote against what they are hearing.
A while back Lenny Gentile made the point the council needs to start listening to its citizens. People are getting angry, and feel that they are being betrayed. It appears you heard and felt that your self last night. You, my friend, are on the wrong side of the people who are talking common sense.
When will people realize that we can’t build our way out of traffic? If we only design our roads and developments around the automobile, then people are forced to drive. When we build for and incentivize transit, walking and bicycling then people have choices. For our health and the environment, prioritizing these modes over the automobile must be the way forward.
@jake – while I understand what you are getting at by saying ‘less traffic but more parking is not logically coherent,’ grouping these two separate concerns together in that way seems to imply that the concerns of the residents are in conflict and therefore invalid. To group those two points together just shows how you were not listening to the people last night.
First, the traffic nightmare that is already Needham Street is a huge concerns for the residents of Oak Hill and Upper Falls. I agree that it would be great (and beneficial) to the residents to abandon our cars, but the reality is that Newton and the MBTA have not done enough to entice people out of their cars. As a parent, I drive my kids all over the place, to schools and activities. We do not take public transportation because while the MBTA is great for traveling in and out of Boston, it is not for N-S Newton travel. How would I get from West Newton to Upper Falls without a car at this time. Until the MBTA (or Newton) builds public transportation infrastructure in place for those types of trips to occur, people will need to rely on their cars, plain and simple.
Second, if Northland does insist on putting 115K SF of retail/restaurants in this space, people will need to have some place to park. I would say the problem comes between weekdays from 3-5 pm. Think of the perfect storm of office workers (who work until 5 or 6), residents who are coming home from their jobs, people running errands at the store on their way home from work, and parents taking kids out to an early dinner after sports or activities. Sure, 1,500 spots might be great for a Sunday afternoon at 2pm, but it may not be ok for weekdays.
I agree with @simon – a point you just reaffirmed with this post. Some members of City Council aren’t listing to their constituents concerns, and people are starting to get upset. All of the recent frustration I’ve seen, just emphasizes to me, that some of the Councilors are listening to the developers and not for the people who have given them the privilege of representing voter concerns. This needs to change before its too late.
@Simon — I don’t believe that the the most vocal people at last night’s meeting and on this blog are necessarily representative of public opinion. In the most recent election, with development at the forefront, the people of Newton voted to increase the proportion of the city council that is open to mixed-use development. Should Jake Auchincloss listen to the angry crowd in the room, or the much larger crowd that voted for him, knowing full well that he is receptive to this form of development?
Getting back to the subject of the post, it is inescapable that bigger residential parking lots will increase traffic. You should want the parking lots to be as small as possible, with a sticker system in place to keep the apartment residents from parking on the streets. If the developers are wrong in imagining that there will be high demand for the apartments, and have to charge less as a consequence, why should you care?
After last night, I promise to be brief.
@greg – one of the constants in life is the concept of perception is reality. Fair or not, the PERCEPTION among the community is that factions of our city government and business leaders are siding more with Northland vs it’s own neighbors and citizenry? Fair? Probably not and unfortunately Jay took some of that heat. But PERCEPTION IS REALITY and the REALITY is that enough people in Newton feels unsupported to generate that type of response.
@councilorJake – want to address two of your points
1. Less parking equates to less traffic. In a vacuum, there is no debate. It’s pretty black and white (if not math).
Where the math does not compute, is the notion that less parking is enough to support the current density planned – and that is a very fair and logical argument.
There has been no corollary reduction in need (# of residential units in particular) to offset the reduction in parking spaces. In essence, the public is call BS on the concept that reducuing the solution without reducing the need can be successful.
Perception: “more fancy, double talk by Northland”.
2. “Measure, monitor and enforce….We must bake into this project, during its very conception, the economic incentive to plan…”
This should apply not only to the Traffic component of Northland’s plan but the overall plan. 800 residential units (which frankly is the biggest point of contention) is a lot to ask for with a single special permit approval. If the Council can demostrate to the public the plan overall is not “one and done” but rather a journey of MEASURED planning, and milestone/checkpoint/gates, you will see a much more supportive response by those who oppose the scale of project as it is presented today.
Desired perception: “If it’s good enough for the Traffic plan, it should be applied to the development plan overall. The City should an advocate for its citizens first and foremost”.
HAving been a member of the Economic Development Commission of the City of Newton for too long, I can remember when we released our report on The renaissance of Newton Centre. Advocating for transit related apartments and businesses. Creating shuttle service from Boston College to Newton Centre , so that nearby students could spend their dollars with local businesses. Only to have a city councilor who purports to support village centers, help quash the shuttle. And then, the Panera Bread fiasco, where Panera Bread and their landlord had to spend over $100,000 in legal fees contesting lies and untruths from Neighborhood groups. One neighbor testified that allowing Panera Bread into Newton Centre would be the end of western civilization. And Jay Harney commented that he liked Panera Bread, but it belonged in strip malls and shopping malls. And who can forget the first stop and shop proposal, when they offered to pay for the betterment of Needham Street, only to be shot down for their special permit. Is Newton only about traffic, schools and convenience?
I am unsure of how to educate Newton Citizens who are so wrapped up in individual rights and entitlement that they also have community responsibility.
@Matt Lai, the idea is to provide apartments to people who are comfortable with limited car use, enforcing that limited use by purposefully reducing residential parking, foreclosing the possibility of parking up the surrounding streets, and good transit options. This can definitely work in principle, as many people would ditch their cars if given an alternative. The great challenge for this location is to make the shuttle system workable enough so that the residents will not rely on Uber/Lyft and thus clog up the streets.
Our public transit in Newton is nowhere near reliable enough for most people to move here and live car-free or with one car for a family with two working parents. I think it’s naive to assume that we can inconvenience people out of car ownership. My guess is they will either park on the street and shuffle their cars around during the months of the parking ban or simply live elsewhere.
MMQC: We (two working adults, one kid then) lived here for 5 years with just one car. We currently have two cars, but the second only gets used occasionally. How? Carpooling to work, walking to run local errands within a mile, biking (yes really). I’d love to be able to take public transit more, and if there was a way for my son to get between high schools / middle schools for after school activities, we’d get to cut out a few more weekly trips. I know several other families living here in Newton with similar situations.
It’s incredibly naive of you to assume that your experience is universal, and that everyone — even everyone here in Newton — lives the way that you imagine that they do.
Jessica, I am trying to understand why you are arguing with me because as far as I can tell you made my EXACT point by saying that you have TWO cars and you would like to go down to one car if public transit was better. That’s what I’m saying – the public transit here isn’t good enough for most families to go down to zero or one cars. You obviously can’t make it work either if you have a second car, however infrequently you use it. Even if you don’t use it often, you need a place to house it.
Both Mary Mary and Jessica P are saying that two cars are needed in Newton because there is not adequate accessibility to public transportation. Even if you use a 2nd car infrequently, it needs to be parked somewhere. So, my guess is a lot of people from the Northland development would plan to park on the surrounding streets. Especially if/when the winter street parking ban is lifted.
I should have added I meant for families.
Matt:
I understand your post about perception, but I think you need to be a bit clearer. That is YOUR perception. If you choose to base your views on YOUR perception, than you are correct, PERCEPTION = REALITY. But your perception is based on the meetings where folks who are most interested and often have personal interests directly involved (neighbors) are most likely to attend and be very vocal. When surrounded by folks of like minded views, it is always easy to believe you in the majority and that folks care as much as you do. But perception is not reality. That is why I push for facts in these discussions, since you and I might not agree on end results or policies, but we can actually have a real discussion if there is a set of facts that make sense to both of us, or come from an independent source not influenced by either side.
Simon. Your vote is your voice. These public meetings are not a democratic vote, they are just one method for our elected officials to get feedback. I never can go, I send emails and go to small group meetings with city council folks instead when they offer them (office hours). My voice should be heard too, no? If we base all decisions off the catcalls of the loud angry meeting participants (LAMPs) it would be helpful to know that upfront, and to change our system our city government to a pure democratic town meeting. I’d surely attend that, and vote my positions. Until that time, you have every opportunity to vote out incumbents who don’t agree with you. In Ward 2 alone we’ve had multiple folks who are anti-development run against Jake and Susan. And yet Jake and Susan keep winning. Easily. Maybe the majority of the city doesn’t actually agree with you. Or more accurately, this is not the issue that the majority of the city chooses to care about.
That’s a hard fact to swallow. I care about several issues deeply that few others care about. I meet with state officials and Congressfolk about one of them in particular. If I’m lucky, I make incremental progress. If I ruled the world, I’m sure it would be faster. But it is probably a good thing I don’t, and you don’t, and that we operate in our flawed, slow manner.
And for the record for both of you, I think Northland is too big, I think the shuttle won’t work very well, I think the city should proceed cautiously on a project of this size. But I’m also listening to the proposal.
Fun Fact: The Dutch village of Giethoorn is the town of no roads instead its buildings are connected by canals and footbridges. Please google pictures and imagine the possibilities…
@Greg: I take great offense at your implication that we, residents of the city, and major stakeholders (an inconvenient truth) were somehow behaving in an unbecoming manner. I find your (and Greg Schwartz’s and others) condescension highly distasteful. We have every right to express ourselves about issues directly impacting our quality of life in this city that we, again, are stakeholders in. What, are we to sit blithely smiling while we watch it signed away? When repeatedly this Council turns a deaf ear? What recourse do we have? Oh, wait. That’s right, I forgot. This is an election year.
@Pat: No one should feel entitled to heckle, jeer or boo fellow human beings at a public meeting.
I’m stunned that someone would argue otherwise.
@Greg,
The people who fund your job, and thus your views might have deep pockets, but they can’t buy peoples voices, especially when they are being cast aside. I personally believe what you saw last night is the product of that last night. As for you being stunned, isn’t that what you do here? Isn’t Village14 public?
Pat and Simon:
I’ve attended a fair amount of hearings over the past 20 years. Generally, the side that jeers and catcalls isn’t the side that convinces folks, elected or otherwise, to their position. I’m not offended by it, just don’t see the utility in it. Frankly I think letter writing campaigns and personal visits with lawmakers are far more valuable on the local level than calling out at a public meeting. I realize that is time consuming and frustrating, but it is also from hard experience.
(A friend of mine once compared the yelling at a city council meeting in another state to the character Brick (from the cult classic Anchorman) screaming “LOUD NOISES”. ) Still makes me smile…
Again, I don’t think your argument can be that the city council is ignoring the will of the majority, just that they aren’t paying as much heed to a vocal minority, which happens to be who you agree with.
As for this blog, I think lately we have more posters in favor of curbing development than folks posting in favor of it. Certainly I’m not seeing a groundswell of opinion for the Northland project like I did for Austin Street. And while folks like to post at Greg for his being “bought and paid for”, the reality is you post often enough to get your voice heard, and he doesn’t censor you, and Bob posted about the meeting to organize as a blog poster, etc, etc. You don’t seem like thin skinned types to me, complaining about cesspools and such. Right?
A large developer who buys up a lot of acreage is going to build something. Thus far, the argument against it isn’t coherent to me. Is it too large? Too many apartments? Too many kids? Too much traffic? All of the above? Ok, what are some thoughts for balancing the ability of the developer to go 40B, or to build to existing code? Would you rather it remain undeveloped?
Personally, a mix of office, residential, and commercial is usually my cup of tea for large projects. So why not here? Just too large?
Finally, my view as to why the city as a whole doesn’t care as much is because most of the time the project works out ok. I think once folks see that Washington Place and Austin Street aren’t a disaster, it will be much harder to convince folks the world is ending for similar projects. It is a bit ironic actually. Because so many folks cried wolf over medium sized projects, less attention is being paid to bigger projects like this one and like Riverside. And these are the ones that should get torn apart and examined with a microscope.
@Pat Irwin – Passionate speeches, big bold signs – great.
Hooting, hissing, yelling, and booing – that quickly becomes a real problem.
If this becomes the new normal and public meetings are routinely warring groups shouting each other down then we’ve got some serious troubles ahead.
Yes, we have every right to express ourselves about the issues that affect us. Many people expressed themselves very clearly last night at the microphone and everyone in the hall had the opportunity to do do. That’s an entirely different matter than heckling, jeering, and cheering those citizens who are also expressing themselves on those same issues.
@Fig,
I suspect you do not frequent Needham St too often. Its a disaster. I agree with Jake that reducing parking reduces cars… When I worked in Boston I took the T. It felt like a Mule train, but everyday I endured. It seems ridiculous to have to state it here, but our public transportation infrastructure in Newton is appalling. We simply do not have an effective network. Even the MBTA are proposing to reduce services due to low ridership. If you want to advocate for less cars, you need an effective alternative.
As far as I’m aware Jake doesn’t have kids. But as a parent with young kids I often feel as if I’m chauffeur on the weekends. Music, Soccer. Gymnastics, Softball, Singing, Ice Hockey, Badminton, it goes on. If Northland was to go thru it I suspect it wouldn’t be long before music and gymnastics lessons would cease due to inconvenience of traffic. And if I didn’t use a car to get my kids to these venues I guess we wouldn’t be utilizing these places. Perhaps that would be a good thing economically!
On the flip side, Needham is not helping. The Muzzi Ford Site is up for redevelopment, and they are considering rezoning for large residential. It seems a little unfair to Northland, when Needham is potentially screwing us over. Seems to me our problem as a city is that we are not a destination, people just transition through, and we are not in control of that. Yet the people the city brings in for professional help do not address this.
I actually don’t think the City has been “bought” by developers but rather they strong believe in trying to solve 2 issues
– global warming
– social justice
The developer allows them to implement their “social engineering” experiment to solve these 2 issues. The developers see this and are more than welcome to keep building
They believe thousands of people will give up their backyard and extra bedroom to move to a 2/3br condo/rental and free themselves from the shackles of a car. If it means cramming more kids into a classroom or higher property taxes, you must sacrifice for the “cause”
Some believe that living 8 miles from Boston in an affluent community with low crimes and excellent schools is a “god given right” and should be written into the constitution. If someone can’t afford to live here, WE should lower our property values in the same of “fairness”
The majority of Newton is liberal, but it seems we have swung so far left (similar on national level) and no one is listening… we are forced to shout
Rightsize Newton has made a clear case that they are not against development of the site. They welcome it. What they oppose are the massive buildings and the high density that is currently being proposed. I think Northland has been responsive to some of the concerns raised by the City Council and the Planning Department BUT they seem to overlook one of the most important concerns raised by the community – Density.
I was at the hearing on Tuesday and I was appalled at the booing and hissing and I’m someone who is used to being booed and hissed at! But I do believe it exemplifies the frustration that exists in the community. Residents feel they are not being heard or their concerns are being ignored.
There was a lot of information presented that night. A few things discussed were quite interesting: inclusion of empty, unoccupied buildings in the comparison of existing vs. new trip generation; the 128 Business Council Rep assurance that the shuttle will work while acknowledging that it has never been done anywhere in the country; and the response regarding shared parking – that residential spots not in use can be used when needed by other commercial users.
@Amy: Thanks for acknowledging that the booing and hissing was appalling while also putting it into the context that it reflects some peoples’ frustrations about not being heard. That’s a fair assessment.
Perhaps the public needs to be reminded that the Land Use process is a process. The developer presents, the public provides feedback, the council provides feedback, the developer chooses whether or not the make changes, the council or individual councilors negotiate changes in exchange for their support, etc. etc. It’s only after all of this that a final vote happens.
In other words, as you know so well, this isn’t decided by a long shot.
Booing and hissing are absolutely not acceptable. However, as Amy noted above, it is sign of frustration.
Lets be honest, we the residents are just not engaged. We have jobs, children, parents.. other stuff. We rely on our Councillors to be vigilant and advocate on our behalf, be our voice. However the Ward 5 councillors have their own agenda – they are pro high density housing. I do not recall a single meeting that Deb Crossley or Andrea Downs hosted to hear us out (I m sure I will be corrected for snoozing as well). I have not seen them engage on blogs or other public forum.
So yes, we are responsible for this. First because we were not engaged, and second because we elected these two Councillors. The fact we cannot defeat these two politically connected councillors. They will win, despite losing the ward. In fact, I doubt if they will even get challenged.
So here you go – its a bleak picture for us. Our backs are against the wall. No doubt, we have to scream to be heard and taken seriously. Afterall your experiment and political ambitions, affects quality of life for my family and the little equity I have build in my house.
Not condoning the hissing, just providing one person’s source of frustration.
PS – Review their website and show me where they are transparent in their goal of high density housing. I dont know their history and dont know how to read the “code”.
http://www.andreae4newton.com/vision.html
http://debcrossley.org/
@Neil P: Thanks for joining those who are calling out the booing and hissing. Much appreciated.
Just one question: Why characterize someone who shares a different position as having an “agenda”?
Why is that not, simply, having a different view?
I think Neil raises a great point. The citizens of Newton have a lot of stuff in their lives, and we elect representatives to advocate for our viewpoint and generally ensure the evolution of the city is consistent with our collective views on its direction.
Its easy to be glib and say that’s why we have elections. But we indisputably have concentrated wealth in certain parts of the city, and that money and power biases our elections.
Its not coincidence that certain parts of the city are immune from high density projects. That is a direct result of money and power, not good policy. Its ridiculous that Newton Center and Waban, with stops on the green line, are not among the highest priority sites for smart transit, mixed density development. Those spots have the best transit options in Newton.
I resent the fact that people are paid money to advocate for minority views full-time, whereas the citizens of Newton have to do it after managing jobs, kids, parents, and everything else in our lives. And yes, that means Greg. Its a subversion of the process. If the businesses want to inform government, they can spend the time, just like the rest of us. Lobbyists should be absolutely banned from the city, and political discourse should happen on a level playing field.
Buttegieg is raising some very interesting points about current structural issues at the federal level, and that addressing them is paramount over the standard policy issues. Supreme Court nominations, filibuster and others. The same is true in Newton. The boos and hissing, while disappointing, reflect local dissatisfaction with the current structure of our system. Money and power seem to be winning over fairness and compromise. The inequity of treatment of different parts of the city is a much larger issue than booing and hissing. Let’s be upset about the right things.
America was founded upon the fundamental principles of a representative democracy. Edmund Burke, one of the few members of the British Parliament who expressed support for American grievances that led to the Revolutionary War, best described the nature of a representative democracy in his most famous speech to the Electors of Bristol:
The elected members of Congress, the Massachusetts Legislature, and the Newton City Council are there, not as delegates bound to obey their constituents, but as representatives who must listen to their constituents and then exercise their best judgment for the good of all.
One other thing. Heckling, booing and hissing our elected representatives and fellow citizens is not a sign of frustration. It is merely childish and boorish.
I think Amy really hit the nail on the head in her post. It was the first meeting I have attended at City Hall. It is not that I have not been following the issue however I am out of town most nights. I did not hiss or boo others however I will admit to having cheered some. I would agree that the vocalness that occurred is due to the crowds frustration about not feeling heard.
There are significant concerns with traffic. I am one who avoids Needham St like the plague at certain times of day. I have to buffer my trips to destinations on Needham St. One day at 2pm I saw traffic backed up from the light at Christina to B.Good which is almost the whole length of the st. Unfortunately that it is not unusual. Thus the developer using comparisons that include existing unoccupied buildings to make their case does little to reassure me.
The parking situation where they were talking about shared spots also was a bit mystifying. Obviously not all spots will be used st all times however their theory that residential spots will be repurposed at peak times did not sound realistic. If someone is paying for a spot then they expect access to that spot. To have 1500 total spots with the over half bring residential at one spot per residence and then thinking that some of these residential spots will have to be shared at times seems like a reach to me.
I love that the mill building will be repurposed and feel some development there has some value but at 800 residential units it is plopping a new village into an area that does not have the infastructure to support it.
On a side note could anyone provide a link to their proposed shuttle routes. I am wondering if they go directly down Needham St or will they use Oak/Eliot to go to the Highlands.
@Greg, @Jerry–I agree booing and jeering are not the best ways to express frustration under normal circumstances. However, it’s hard not to respond this way when we, residents, taxpayers, STAKEHOLDERS hear our best interests being undercut. Written communication and face-to-face meetings are an appropriate method of letting our officials know our needs. But when these are ignored, what recourse do we have (until the next election)? I echo another poster that the focus is not where it needs to be right now. Again, the condescension was/continues to be palpable. Also telling! It was lost on no one there that night (or reading now).
@fignewtonville–you say “most of the time these projects work out OK”. You are optimistic that Washington Place and Austin St. won’t prove disastrous. Can you support this? When was the last time two projects of this size were constructed concurrently within close proximity to each other and a village center? (If so, what was the result?)
Addressing the so-called “vocal minority”: does anyone have any statistics about the majority? Have most of the residents been polled as to how they weigh in on high-density development on multiple fronts? (hint: some info could be found in the NAC survey). I suspect most are unaware of the scope and simultaneity of these projects.
@Bugek–can you support this? Global warming will not be helped by the addition of 800 more cars (low estimate). And the “affordable” units will still be way out of reach for those who most need them (the developer ‘can’t afford’ more subsidized units).
“Social engineering” sounds to me like surveillance capitalism at work. :/
@Ted Hess-Mahan–“The silent colossal National Lie that is the support and confederate of all the tyrannies and shams and inequalities and unfairnesses that afflict the peoples–that is the one to throw bricks and sermons at.” – Mark Twain
Pat:
I love the NAC. But their survey work isn’t scientific, and was designed to produce a result that happened to fit the views of the folks on the NAC. We can certainly have a discussion about how to prove results, but quoting a survey that doesn’t meet any of the usual independent methods of assuring consistency, lack of multiple entries, etc etc, really doesn’t convince me of much. I know folks put a great deal of effort into it, but I’d say the same thing if a developer produced an equally slanted and un-scientific survey.
As for folks being unaware, I live in Newtonville. This is all we seemed to talk about for months. Most folks don’t care unless it directly impacts them. And I tried to make them care about Austin Street. But most just didn’t. Some were annoyed about the loss of parking. That seems to have worked out. But in general the partisans on both sides don’t reflect the wider populace on most issues. You and I can discuss this to the cows come home and/or the creeks rise, but while it is a topic of conversation, as long as the projects were managed well by the city, folks just care about their everyday life. Doesn’t make it right, but I don’t think the populace is ignorant or unknowing, I think it just doesn’t care.
And if it did care, there were tons of opportunity to vote folks out who supported development. Sometimes that happened, but I think the City Council is now stronger on development issues than it has been the past 5 years. In Ward 2, Susan and Jake both won the WARD and the city. Their opponents were great people, and the choice seemed clear. And yet…votes went the other way. I trust in that more than an unscientific survey or a group of 20 folks at a town meeting.
As for success, my definition of success might be different than yours, or that wide uncaring populace. I would love a more complete village, with traffic calming measures and wider sidewalks, better streetlamps and seating areas, more outdoor seating, and a more vibrant village that stays open later. That probably means more people. I would have liked more setbacks for both projects, and more green space. Folks wanted more parking. But as long as parking is sufficient, businesses open in the new commercial, and we use the proceeds from Austin Street to redo the village as promised, I’ll be pretty happy.
What is your definition of a failure? How do you know it will be “disastrous”?
Also, based on personal experience with my job, lots of folks object to projects in the beginning, but it is the really large ones that tend to have sustained objections and major change. That’s why I’m not yet sold on Riverside or Northland. But the world will continue to turn with an additional 68 or so units on Austin Street, and an addition 140 units at Washington Place. And with the additional commercial spaces and green spaces, you might actually learn to like the new projects. Generally folks do in my experience, absent being a direct abutter.
Let’s agree to discuss again next year. I’ll be honest if I’m unhappy with the changes. I live and use the village daily. Hopefully we can have a follow-up discussion about Newtonville where folks are honest about the results. We already had one about parking.
As for the various accusations of condescension, I just think some folks disagree with you. That’s damn difficult if you feel you are in the right, I certainly know the feeling on a national level. You feel the focus isn’t where it needs to be. But it is your focus, others could be looking ahead or behind or at another item altogether.
Just because folks are loud and angry and frustrated doesn’t make them right or wrong, it just makes them passionate strong believers who are loud and angry and frustrated. But I fully do appreciate the frustration.
The main thing I don’t like about all these projects is the process used to evaluate them. The developers bought the land knowing what they could do with the property “by right,” and then they go for a special permit to up-zone it and make it more valuable. The city doesn’t have to grant this special permit unless it decides that the city will benefit more from the upzoned project than it would have from a “by right” project.
They should calculate what the benefits to the city are from a “by right” project (financial and otherwise) and only grant a special permit if they think the benefits would be greater from the upzoning. Otherwise, deny the special permit and tell the developer to focus on what they can build by right. Instead, it seems the city takes whatever proposal the developer gives and tries to pull it back a little from the edges based on community feedback.
@Laurie: Sorry I overlooked this earlier. Northland is not up zoning. Their as of right is 1.5 million square feet (not 1 million). They are not upzoning, they are downzoning by 100k square feet.
What would happen if Riverside and Northland did not get built?
Here’s my shortlist in no particular order.
1. Many people, including seniors and millennials, would not be able to live in Newton.
2. Newton would continue to be woefully under its 40B threshold with no end in sight, which means developers could build a monster housing projects that would pale in comparison to what’s being proposed, wherever they please, without any city approval
3. Folks looking for homes would continue to move further and further from their jobs, creating more sprawl, green house gas and traffic.
4. Local employers would continue to struggle to find employees.
5. Local mom and pop businesses would continue to suffer from inadequate foot traffic/customers.
6. Both properties would continue to be massive ugly, heat-generating, parking lots that send pollution and other runoff into our storm drains and onto the Charles.
7. The city would lose millions in potential new tax revenue.
We’re staring down the throat of a modern-day gold rush. Only this time the gold is land. Your land. My land. As far as they’re concerned it’s all fair game. “We need housing! We need housing!” We need for the housing we have (an ever-diminishing variety, along with green space and mature trees) not to be sacrificed on the altar of greed. That’s what we really need. Nuff said.
On a smaller scale, a few years ago a house in our neighborhood was sold to a developer. The lot had a lot of abutters, all of whom objected to the developer’s proposal. The proposal didn’t get City Hall’s approval. Eventually the developer sold it to someone else who built a place that was in fact acceptable to the abutters.
@Ann the specific answer to your question is that Northland can build about 1M square feet of commercial space (no housing) by right on their 22 acres (I believe this is what I read on a previous thread). If the city wants to gain all the benefits that Greg has outlined above, then they can grant a special permit to override the zoning. However, before doing so, they should compare the value of those benefits with the value they would get from a “by right” project, IMO.
I don’t know what can be built by right at Riverside, if anything. Since that land is mostly owned by the MBTA, I suspect anything would have to go through a special permit process.
…or a property owner could build thousands of units of housing from one edge of the property to the other under 40B without the support of a single city councilor. And under 40B they’d not be obligated to provide shuttle buses, a community center, a village green, playground or any of other community give backs.
We’ve been fortunate in Newton that we’ve not had a hostile 40B built here. If it ever happens in Newton then folks will really have something to boo and hiss about.
I will put forth the idea that we let Mary Mary Quite Contrary and FigNewtonville decide and design the new villagesof Northland and Riverside. Of all the commentors, they are the most thoughtful, and inclusive, and understand the concept of sharing and sacrifice, at least from their comments.
@Greg re: “We’ve been fortunate to not to have a hostile 40b”
Was Court St. friendly? https://77courtstreet.com/residences
On the general discussion, I can tell you in my experience, parking cost and availability contribute directly to Uber/Lyft use. It is now often much less expensive to Lyft in and out of the city than park there (e.g. Boston Garden $50 to park, $20 each way to get driven). Uber/Lyft contribute >1.5 road miles for each customer mile so they drive traffic up.
My mistake Jack. I meant a large hundreds of units 40B
@Fig
“But their survey work isn’t scientific, and was designed to produce a result that happened to fit the views of the folks on the NAC.”
That is quite an accusation. Do you have any evidence to back that up?
@Greg–the “hostile 40B” thing sounds like a veiled threat
Paul: Of course. Any survey you can enter multiple times and fill out multiple times with no controls, no randomly selected participants, and non objective questions meets my definition of a designed survey. Let’s have the good folks at the National Science Foundation back me up:
“Are the results of an online poll or a call-in vote scientific? What if millions of people participated? Does that make it more “legitimate”?
Many people are understandably suspicious of poll results. Unless you know that a survey is done scientifically, there is cause to doubt the results. Sample selection and type of questions are two cues.
When conducting a survey, how a researcher selects participants is just as important as how many participate. Scientific surveys can include every member of the group to be studied, but this approach is usually impractical and/or expensive. Instead, researchers often draw conclusions about a target group using information gathered from a small representative sample of that group. Representative samples must be selected carefully and without bias. For example, samples made up of self-selected responders, such as people who participate in a survey or poll by calling an 800 number, are almost certainly biased samples. In a scientific survey, researchers choose samples through some random process that is usually mentioned in the survey background materials.
The term “random” has a different meaning in statistics than in ordinary language. In everyday terms, a random event is one that is unpredictable, lacks purpose and/or has no discernable pattern. In statistical terms, a random event is one that occurs with a certain, measurable chance or probability of happening. For example, under the simplest circumstances, where each member of a population has one chance of being sampled, the probability of getting selected for a survey can be calculated just by knowing a population size and desired sample size. One would have a 10 percent chance of being selected for a 100-person sample out of a total population of 1000. But, researchers use several methods for randomly selecting samples. These include stratified, cluster and systematic sampling. Stratified and cluster sampling require prior knowledge about the survey population but can produce more representative samples than simpler “blind” sampling methods. Researchers often use stratified sampling to capture the diversity of large populations with distinctive, homogeneous subgroups—such as the U.S. population. In all cases, feasibility and cost influence the sampling technique chosen by researchers.
Nonrandom samples include those that select members of the population based on their proximity, availability or through referrals by friends. There are sometimes scientific reasons to conduct non-random surveys, but they are often unscientific and should not be used to generalize statistically to larger populations.
The phrasing of questions in surveys is also important. One can be reasonably sure a survey is not scientific if questions are biased—that is, designed to elicit the answers that the survey’s sponsors want to get. “Is the search for more oil worth the environmental damage?” is a question that may elicit a negative response. Biased questions may also be phrased more subtly than that, with the understanding that people tend to give positive rather than negative responses. (One way to counteract this tendency is to ask a second question, reversing the possible responses.) Respondents also tend to choose the first option from a list and to answer as they think they “should” rather than telling the unvarnished truth. Scientific surveys are designed to minimize and account for these known tendencies.
Randomly selected samples and objective questions are two principal elements in a scientific survey. By paying attention to these factors, survey takers and consumers can learn to recognize a survey as scientific—or not.”
For the record Paul, I don’t mind that the NAC puts out non-scientific surveys. They are good people, and I think they are well intentioned. But every non-scientific survey shouldn’t be relied upon for much in terms of data. It is more anecdotal. Since the NACs mailing list and participation list has grown to be a bit biased in recent years towards a particular point of view, that anecdotal type evidence, and the folks motivated to complete a very long survey, are going to be biased as well.
I realize it can be expensive to have scientific surveys done. But NACs survey wasn’t impartial. And thus I discount any reference to it on any controversial matter. I’d rely on it more for less controversial things perhaps.
The city can do scientific surveys, local colleges often do, etc. It is possible to arrange it, and it isn’t as expensive as you might think. Using an independent surveyor is a good result as well.
Pat, the phrase “hostile 40B” is somewhat a term of art. I really don’t think Greg meant it as a threat. But if you work in housing/real estate you hear it alot.
Friendly 40B: City and developer work together to find some sort of common ground in 40B process.
Hostile 40B: Developer uses full force of 40B, City and Developer go to war over terms, whether city meets 40B exceptions, very expensive for all sides legally.
Again, terms of art used among real estate consultant and developers and city folk on a regular basis. Don’t be offended, Greg didn’t come up with it.
@Greg,
If they are not upzoning, why is it they are requesting parcels to be re-zoned?