From a story on the CityLab website….
To understand local housing politics over the past several decades, consider a recent study out of Boston University. Political science professor Katherine Levine Einstein surveyed all of the minutes for zoning and planning meetings about housing across 97 cities and counties in Massachusetts…
“In every single city and county we studied, the advantaged dominated the proceedings,” Einstein said at a recent Brookings Institution panel on housing. Residents who are older, men, longtime residents, local voters, and homeowners are much more likely to participate in these meetings. And they are much more likely to oppose new construction than the general public.
Residents who oppose new housing are also whiter. The population of Lawrence is 87 percent Latino or Latina, for example. But during 80 planning and zoning meetings, only one resident who spoke had an Hispanic surname, Einstein said.
But, the article continues…
As housing affordability and inequality become national political issues, the people who have long dominated those meetings are starting to see their anti-development agenda upended.
Read the rest here.
Thank goodness Newton still has control over its local power.
Homeowners have a significant financial stake in housing policy.
Most highly populated North American cities decided in the 1960s
to centralize their political power. Thus housing and economic growth has been excessive.
Greater Boston presently can control explosive growth.
I applaud all those who provide a check on the complete
transformation of our cities and towns.
80% of life is just showing up.
Luckily this years election will put this question to test.
Candidates can make their high density development stance front and center.
If you dont vote, you dont have a say..
I guess voter suppression will be next on the agenda if the votes dont go as expected
People who are long-time residents, local voters, and homeowners are more likely to show up and speak their mind at city hall meetings?
I’m shocked, shocked by these revelations.
So if I’ve been in Newton for more than 20 years do I get more of a say than someone who moved here last year? Does someone who “grew up” here get more of a say than I do? Does someone whose parents “grew up” here get more of a say than they do? Do I get more of say if my house has been here longer?
If I want to leave Newton and move to another community, thereby opening my house up for another resident, do I get say in the housing policy where I want to move so I can have a place there?
Who speaks for the neighbors who haven’t yet moved in?
@Chuck – serious question: should all your straw men get their own ward councilor?
I would hope all the city councilors would look ahead to those who could be here, as well as those who are.
I think profiling of public meeting attendees creates distrust in government and is insulting to the people who took time and effort to attend a meeting. I would hope the goal of a public meeting was to tell the public what the City is planning on doing and why and then listen. The City should be able to convince voters using reason. I sent my Councilors this e-mail in Feb, when I noticed the profiling happening here:
I am a strong supporter of increased density in Newton. I think this demographic profiling that was done at Riverside is a BIG mistake. It seems like dividing up groups al la ‘identity politics’ which has come back to bite the Democratic party. http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=95460
The only purpose I can see for info comparing attendees to the overall Newton population is to say we didn’t get the opinion of most of Newton, only the old and grumpy. Which won’t endear the planning dept. to the old and grumpy because, to me, it looks like this is trying to marginalize their voice:
“Meeting participants represented a relatively concentrated range of ages, with 82% of attendees aged 50 years or older. This same population is representative of 26% of the City of Newton’s overall population.”
This is an extremely valuable note. Policy is being decided based on the voices and comments in a room (or in a survey). If those voices do not match the community then the decision is not just nor inclusive. True, in many things it may not have a big impact on if a person is a renter or a home owner, or it may not have an impact on somebody 65+ or 20. However, when it comes to housing it absolutely does, when it comes to transportation it absolutely does.
As a renter and somebody under 35, I often felt alone at public meetings, I am male, white, and use to public meetings so I have no problem using my privilege speaking out and supporting policies that I feel are better for me and maybe for people that have the same experience I do.
We absolutely need to be reviewing demographics of participants in our public process and working to meet folks that are not attending (renters, young, families, people of color, people with mobility issues etc.) where they are so their opinion and experiences can be integrated.
If white older males are feeling marginalized it is only because they have had an outside influence on policy and decisions for hundreds of years often at the expense of women, people of color, and younger residents. Frankly that influence needs to change and folks that have truly been marginalized and shut out of the process need to be brought in.
In the ideal world we would not have to worry about this issue, but we do.
It is critical that we all understand the voices that are not involved, why that is a problem, and how to bring them into the decision process. Maybe the outcome is little changed from what it would have otherwise been, great that is your best outcome. However, if we talk about housing or transportation I suspect quite a lot of differences to appear based on age, based on income, based on life experiences, and based on current housing.
This is of course not to say that any person in any type of demographic “block” may not have differing views from their peers, no group is monolithic, nor do they vote in lock step.
This also applies to things like the Age Friendly listening sessions the city held a few years back (and we on the COA are now working on moving forward). We know we did not get the true experience of aging in Newton if all we had were folks over 90, nor if they were under 60. It is critical that a good breakdown of those who live in Newton and are older be part of the process since needs are vastly different at these ages (I don’t have numbers off hand but I think we had a really good breakdown in age ranges which helped us understand how needs are changing as we get older).
What does it mean “Policy is being decided based on the voices and comments in a room?” Policy is being decided by a representative body (city council) that involves both at-large and home-rule members, as well as the mayor. Each of these representatives is informed by their constituency. This is representative democracy, no?
It is true that folks that are involved in their community, show up to meetings, and make their voice heard will have more influence than those who do not. I for one have no problem with this.
There are tools out there that are emerging designed to gain voices from those who cannot make it to the meetings. I know that there are many times I can’t make a meeting because of work or family obligations, not because I lack interest.
The new tools allow for digital interactions to bring more people in the room. Also, the City Planning Dept. did employ a person (Lily Reynolds) who had the job of engaging the public. Whenever you went to one of those big meetings with lots of sticky notes, or saw the planning department at the farmer’s market in West Newton, or at one of the various Village Days… Lily did that.
But she was only one person and, unfortunately for us, she just recently left the position to move to another part of the country.
The people sitting in the city council meetings and speaking at the mic, they have a very powerful voice. The problem is that it’s not really the voice of all of the people. Our City Councilors are left with the unenviable job of trying to understand whether what’s in front of them is a real uprising or a vocal minority. Without additional knowledge, that’s not an easy distinction to make.
Studies like these help clarify what is actually happening in the room.
As a general theme it makes sense – attending and speaking at a public meeting implies that you care enough about the topic to make the time to attend and the effort to present your thoughts. There’s going to be certain amount of self-selection and bias in that the people attending and speaking are particularly motivated on the issue. People also tend to be more vocal when they feel they’re going to be negatively impacted by a specific proposal. Development is a lightning rod but I’d think it’s a general theme when it comes to public comments. The recent opt-out effort is a good example of one where the vocal voices didn’t necessarily line up with the “silent majority”. Luckily we won’t need to speculate for too long with the upcoming election. Between all the developments and zoning redesign the results should be a pretty good barometer of what the general community feels.
Using the label of “advantaged” to refer to homeowners, on the other hand, seems like a bit of a leading term. I think “impacted” would be a less biased description. The most vocal tend to be those who feel that they are going to be the most impacted, especially negatively impacted. Just like Newton doesn’t exist in a bubble, large developments also don’t exist in a vacuum. They have impacts to the city as a whole and also much more direct impacts to nearby residents and especially homeowners. And those impacts aren’t necessarily the same. Someone living in Chestnut Hill sees all the affordable housing units at Riverside as a win-win while someone in Lower Falls sees a traffic nightmare. The people that are vocal are probably going to be in that second group, is a bad thing? They’re the ones that are going to bear the brunt of any negative impacts. As much as there are people who’s definition of appropriate density is zero there are those with valid concerns and fears, and it’s disingenuous to dismiss that as old white people throwing their advantage around.
There are likely some good, solid reasons for promoting Greg’s vision, but I would be extremely cautious about treading the proposition that homeowners on the fringes of major development are somehow the so-called “advantaged” people in Newton. During various times I’ve engaged with Newton residents who own small homes in Upper Falls, Nonantum, the Night Cap Corner community near Rumford Avenue, Lower Falls, old blocks of homeowners on Charles Street near the Charles River in Auburndale, parts of the Highlands and other enclaves scattered throughout the City. They sure don’t see themselves as “advantaged”. Quite the opposite. They point to specific instances where they feel they have become “dumping grounds” for public works projects that would never have been tolerated in more affluent neighborhoods including the block I live on in Newton Highlands. And they will also let you know in no uncertain terms that the ‘professionals” who promote what they would term “grandiose” plans for areas near their neighborhoods really know little or nothing about the people who live there or the disruptions their proposals are likely to cause.
A comment was removed here because it was posted by someone who is posting under their real name as well.
One user name per customer please.
I thought it would be fun to follow the money on this article.
When you get to who funder the paper – This research was funded by Boston University’s Initiative on Cities (IOC).
When you look at see who else gets funding from above, our very own Nathan Phillips. He is also on the IOC board.
http://www.bu.edu/ioc/faculty-friday-nathan-phillips/
I kind of stopped there. But I must admit I quite amused, by this part of the article
What is your favorite city, and why?
NP: A few cities I love and why: Enschede, the Netherlands, where my family experienced a month-long walking/biking/transit paradise; Sydney’s orientation around its spectacular harbor; and Boston, for the strides it has made and its potential for even greater transformation into a livable city for everyone.
What about Newton Nathan, too many NIMBYS ?!?!
I wanted to echo Chuck’s shout out to Lily Canan Reynolds (and to the Planning Department for creating her position and hiring her).
She was (and is!) extremely gifted at explaining complex planning and zoning issues so that regular people could understand them. She always listened patiently to people’s thoughts, questions, and opinions. And she put together countless events and stacks of event materials designed to make civic issues more interesting and accessible to the general public.
She made Newton better.
Thanks Lily! Good luck!
@Simon, I also looked upstream and it’s quite a list of initiatives and partners and foundations. It’s hard to tell who’s “soft” collaboration vs. “hard” money. ARUP and Citi are corporate sponsors that clearly have a vested interest in development. The goals of Rockefeller Foundation and the National League of Cities are harder to plumb.
In democracy, as in life, if you want something, you had better ask for it.
Public meetings are open to all, and people unable to attend (or unable to speak) can send written comments by email or mail. In my experience, Newton City Council reads every letter.
Oratory brilliance is no requirement; our City Council listens just as closely to ordinary people as they do to slick attorneys.
The reason that people don’t speak at public meetings is the same reason they avoid local elections and grumble about jury duty.
Newton had 42% voter turnout in the 2017 municipal elections. Many of the missing 58% were merely apathetic. We know this because turnout was 60% for the 2018 midterms and 75% for the 2016 presidential election. And even in 2018, many of the missing 25% could have easily cast their vote for president, but they didn’t care.
How many people do you know who are proud to be called for jury duty and ready to serve? Most people I know will grasp at any reason to be excused.
It is unfortunate that citizens who fail to make their voices heard sometimes have to live with consequences they don’t expect. Of course, there are some in society who don’t have the intellectual capacity or time to participate in democracy. It is up to our elected officials to understand their positions and advocate for them.
I don’t think the shaming of people that don’t show up and speak at public meetings is fair.
In the 19 years that I’ve lived in Newton I have never attended a public meeting at City Hall. That fact doesn’t indicate that I’m apathetic or lazy or that that I don’t care. I do show up for my family especially my nieces and nephews, for my clients, for my friends, for my elderly mother and for my immediate neighbors. And really that should be enough. That’s a full life.
This is exactly why I was so passionate in my opposition of the all at large charter. Many of us really appreciate and rely on our representation at the most local level. I do care and try to keep up with what’s going on … Especially in terms of development of Washington St, but these issues, especially here in Newton are so dense with so many layers, I think many of us throw up our hands thinking we’ve selected good people to represent us and trusting the’ll make the right decisions.
The more this process goes on the more I am AGAINST NORTHLAND and their tactics.
1. If you believe this post, you also believe that all who attend and speak at these meetings are those in the upper deck in “The Titanic”. Titans of industry in tuxedos with brandy and cigars. Those attending and speaking up at these meetings are quite the contrary. See the young man at the 3:00:00 mark of the April 9th meeting video: https://vimeo.com/330913124
2. At the last meeting, Northland supporters made the case that “(the property) is not really a part of Upper Falls, but sits on the periphery”. Wrong again. The map says it is. Besides 8 story apartment buildings casts a long shadow.
Newton Upper Falls, Newton, MA
https://goo.gl/maps/
What percentage of posts on V14 in the past 18 months attempts to put a favorable spin in big development??
We are neither blind, nor stupid.
One interesting question:
What percentage of voters came out to vote for the last Newton election? And what was the demographic?
If the demographic was made up of the same grumpy old white folks then what the is conclusion? The election result results should be questioned because the voters were not diverse enough (diverse being defined by who?)
@Lucia
I’m not old and grumpy.
I’m experienced and engage in critical thinking!
But, also, get off my lawn!
Don’t have the percentages in front of me, but I vaguely recall the weed vote drawing a higher than usual voting percentage. Even if not, based on people I’ve talked to and faces at the polls, more than “same old grumpy white folks”. 😉
If a vote is allowed on Special Permitting, and people do not show up (either side) it’s no one’s fault than their own. It’s fair and democratic.