Ward 2 City Councilor Emily Norton, staunch environmentalist, has championed the City Council’s divestment from fossil fuels. The Council voted on Monday by a vote of 22-0 with 1 absent (Kelley) and 1 recused (Cote).
You can read more about it here.
Emily Norton champions divestment from fossil fuels
by Amy Sangiolo | Jun 6, 2019 | City Council, Environment | 53 comments
How does the city go about divesting funds in regard to fossil
fuels? What does this policy achieve?
Could some one outline whether Newton holds direct stocks in oil companies?
Newton maintains close to 2 dozen fund accounts. Who is responsible for fund over sight? Does the Treasurer decide how
to pick funds? What is Maureen Lemieux’s thought on this?
Divestment from fossil fuels has become common. As a matter of fact, trillions of dollars has moved out of that sector. Most investment advisors know how to transition out of various things( , weapons, fossil fuels, mining, etc) into screened portfolios. Often it takes a number of years. I can’t speak for Newton’s situation but activist investing is a fairly big sector now.
I commend Councilor Norton for relentlessly acting on environmental issues. The most pressing issue of our time is our unsustainable lifestyle. In comparison, all the other stuff we bicker over is background noise.
Good for Councilor Norton for leading this initiative.
But Amy I have to wonder if someone who has been consistently opposed to transit oriented, mixed-use, housing in our village centers can really be considered a “staunch environmentalist.”
Single occupancy vehicles are the largest contributor to greenhouse gas in Massachusetts. Getting people out of cars really should be a top priority for any staunch environmentalist local official.
Contrast Councilor Norton’s record on this with the leadership from Councilor Leary or (with his dogged focus on walk ability and limted parking) Councilor Auchincloss.
Leary and Achincloss are leading like staunch environmentalists. Norton is only a part-time staunch environmentalist.
You can even contrast Norton with her Ward 2 opponent Bryan Barash who is going car free this week just so he can better understand our transportation challenges and wonder if she’s even the staunchest environmentalist in the Ward 2 contest.
@colleen- you are asking really important questions that the finance committee grappled with. Hats off to councilor Grossman who put in the time and research to refine the docketed item. Without Councilor Grossman conducting significant research on the City’s investment holdings and working with the treasurer and city staff this never would have passed. I am surprised she was not mentioned in Councilor Norton’s press release.
@Greg: Do Councilors Leary and Auchincloss eat meat and if so does that negate any environmental activism on their part? Do they drive electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles, or gas vehicles? Is Bryan Barash normally car dependent if it’s such a big deal that he’s going car free for just this week? Doesn’t he live right by the Newtonville commuter rail stop and work at the state house?
I am not judge and jury on anyone and my calling Emily a staunch environmentalist does not exclude others from also being staunch environmentalists. That being said, I do believe it is more than fair to consider Emily Norton, former head of the Mass Sierra Club and now head of the Charles River Watershed Association, a non-meat eater, the one who brought municipal aggregation to the City, the one who insists on solar everywhere, the one who does take public transit, bikes, or drives her electric vehicle is a staunch environmentalist.
@Amy: All the things you listed — from electric cars to veggie burgers — are important considerations for all of us. And Councilor Norton’s work with the Sierra Club and the Charles River Watershed are commendable.
But Councilor Norton could live in a dark room and eat nothing but dandelion leaves and she still wouldn’t be helping combat climate change as much as any city councilor who drives a minivan to McDonalds yet supports smart, sustainable development.
I agree with Greg Reibman and also question Councilor Norton’s commitment to environmentalism. Her consistent opposition to development in village centers near transit hubs in Newton conflicts with the goals of most environmental organizations, including the MA Sierra Club which Norton used to lead. There are several other Newton Councilors with much stronger environmental track records on the local level.
Shawn – I didn’t know you were vegan!
@Amy Sangiolo: I don’t presume to know what Councilor Norton eats, but I can tell you that consuming dairy, eggs and fish has a very high environmental footprint. If you replace meat with those products, you’re not much better off (not to mention the ethical arguments). Per weight, for example, a chicken’s egg has nearly the same CO2 footprint as its flesh. Cheese has a higher footprint than chicken and pork.
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/12/04/world/04meat.web.html
I don’t like fossil fuels, I buy 100% renewable electricity, and I barely drive anywhere. So let me be devil’s advocate:
How do you heat your home? How would Newton survive if the gas company “divested” of us?
I’m pretty sure Councilor Grossman eats meat.
@Newtoner: Yes, plant based diets are truly the way to go. But my point is that whether or not Councilors Leary and Auchincloss eat meat or not doesn’t in my mind make them any less environmental activists. They should be commended for their environmental advocacy as should Emily Norton who has done so much for the environment and should be recognized for her commitment and her accomplishments.
Thank you Amy! And yes, when I worked in Boston I took the commuter rail every day, unlike my opponent who told me he drives into Boston. PS I also have heat pumps 🙂 PPS Councilor Noel, I did not send out a press release, the Tab chose to write a story, I cannot tell you why they didn’t mention Councilor Grossman. I thanked her and Councilor Gentile in my May e-newsletter however.
Congrats and thanks to Councilor Emily Norton for making this important statement of our values – and avoiding the risk of being invested in stranded fossil fuel assets.
This is ridiculous. I’ve always considered Emily to be an environmentalist. But this is good news for Newton. And while we are on the subject, I drive a Toyota Corolla and I’m trying to cut back on my beef consumption.
I commend Councilor Norton for placing this disinvestment proposal before the City Council and I also commend the entire Council for unanimously approving it. This is a timely and well deserved action.
I’ll shed no tears for the fossil fuel interests. They and their allies in other organizations and right wing media, are largely responsible for the fact that about 40 % of Americans do not believe that human actions have anything to do with climate change while the denial figure is closer to 8 or 9 percent within the European Union.
The devastating potential of climate change first came to my attention in Washington, D.C. during early 1985. I was putting together publications and technical studies for EPA’s Office of Transportation and Land Use Planning when some of the first preliminary research and field studies on climate change came across my desk. I read all of them, sometimes many more times than than once and followed it up with long telephone calls to several of the sources that produced these studies. I became virtually obsessed with the ramifications of what I was reading because there was enough information to indicate (with a lot of admitted caveats) that we were heading towards an unprecedented global disaster.
My fight with the fossil fuel interests is that they, too, must have known where all this was heading, but chose to deny or obscure a threat that should have been apparent. And to those that argue that they wouldn’t have possibly denied something this serious, please recall that the tobacco and cigarette manufactures pulled the same denial a few decades back.
Until recently, I’ve never talked about this particular part of my professional life and I think the reason for this is nicely summed up in David Wells Wallace’s “The Uninhabitable Earth”, a great read that I recently completed. He states that having knowledge of something as horrific and all encompassing as climate change while also knowing how little and how late the remedies are arriving on the scene can have a horribly depressing effect about the future on those that can’t detach from the problem.
I’m going to follow up on this in the near future with a post I hope will start a serious discussion about climate change and all the concomitant threats to the environment that flow from it and from the tragic inability of humans to live in harmony with their environment. This transcends who is the most environmentally committed City Councilor. I would like to see data, modeling or any other kind of firm evidence that actually measure the effectiveness of various federal, state, regional and local climate change reduction measures. Some of these have been discussed on this blog. I’d like to see evidence of their effectiveness and I suspect many other people would also like to see this kind of evidence, as well.
The Burke Family has an electric “Smart Car” that adds very little to our monthly electric bill, but it gets less than 90 miles to a single charge. The other car is a 13 year old Mercedes E Class. We use the Smart car locally and the Mercedes for long distance drives. The great news is just how far electric vehicles have come in the last 5 years and how much further they will be evolving in the years ahead. The Guardian is now saying that reasonably priced EV’s with a range of 500+miles on a single charge, will be standard within 2 to 3 years.
We have cut back considerably on meat and dairy consumption, but I’ll be the first to admit that this is a result of personal dietary preferences from hitting our 80s than obsession about the future wellness of the planet. And I do not intend to stop preparing or serving my special first of winter recipe for “Saint Brendan’s Hearty Beef Stew.
@Greg — I’m confused. Or maybe you are. Are you are saying that Councilor Norton — who lives over a half a mile from the Newtonville commuter rail, yet used it daily for years to commute to and from Boston for her environmental work at the Sierra Club — is somehow less environmentally-oriented than the chamber’s apparent preferred candidate, who lives just across the street from the Austin St. commuter rail, yet drives his car each day to and from his state house parking space, just because of a self-promoting tweet about a planned campaign publicity stunt?
The bottom line is that Austin St. was built, and built with 35% more affordable housing that it otherwise would have had with a rubber-stamp city council.
@Michael Singer — Emily’s home is mostly heated by two heat pump systems that are powered by a 100% renewable electricity supply.
http://newtonwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/emily-norton-heat-pump-1-1200×820.png
@Jack: We have 24 city councilors in a city of 88,000. Anything those 24 individuals and the rest of us 88,000 do to reduce our carbon footprints is important.
But those 24 councilors are in a unique position to do something bigger that the rest of us can’t.
They also control the levers that decide if Newton will do its part to curb suburban sprawl, to establish walk-able, transit oriented, sustainable, village centers.
You and I can’t do that. Only Councilor Norton and 23 other individuals can.
So yes, it’s great that Councilor Norton does all these things to reduce her carbon footprint. It’s great that she is such a great advocate for the Watershed and, before that, Sierra Club.
I mean it. Really, that’s great.
But I’ve never understood why she draws the line at the one really important step she could take to make an impact in a way that only she and 23 other Newton residents can.
P.S. A few disclaimers: I’m not saying she should be a rubber stamp. She should be pushing hard to make projects more sustainable and denser rather than leading the effort to stop smart growth projects in Newton. Also, the chamber does not endorse candidates and rarely do I. These views are my own. And my view is it Emily Norton’s environmental credentials are clouded by her opposition to the one issue where she could have the greatest impact.
I want to applaud all the members of the City Council who supported and worked on this ordinance, including Councilor Norton for proposing it and Councilor Grossman without whom this would not be possible.
I did also want to mention that focusing on individual decisions is a really bad way to judge policy makers. Those who choose to lead by example by putting up solar, or going car free full time, or going vegan, should be appreciated.
But we elect our leaders to vote on policies that effect all of us, that have many orders of magnitude greater influence on surviving climate change than our personal decisions.
Thank you Greg for mentioning my #CarFreeWeek, the point of which is to share an experience of trying a variety of different public transportation and bike options so I better understand the different challenges people in our community face when they leave their car at home.
@Greg Reibman
I vote for Emily because
A) the village on north side of the pike gets the shaft from the city with the concentration of development all along Washington street when we already have the pike with 74 dB of noise on my front porch. I measured 79 db with a peak of 110 dB in front of Washington place the other day. Long term exposure to 85 db and higher can cause hearing loss according to the EPA. Make sure you don’t show the Washington Street Place apartments with the windows open. Not to mention the soot that builds up on the windows from the exhaust. And I live four houses in and the soot cakes up every year. We breath that stuff.
There’s no evidence that the people who are going to live in those building will be able to use the commuter rail. None. Zero. Nullity. There’s no way anyone could project that. If they do it’s magical thinking. People change jobs frequently, and I’ve been lucky that I was able to bike to work for 7 years. This was in the 90s, before the extended bike path. But then the company was sold, and now I mostly commute out to Southboro. Or outside of 128. For a while I commuted to Billerica. And while it’s possible to take the commuter rail out to Southboro, the hours are just too limited as I often work very late into the evening, and often need to drive to client meetings during the day (with out any notice) that can be in Chelmsford, Framingham, or anywhere along 495 where a lot of high tech businesses are located now.
If a two income family moves into those apartments, they’ll be lucky if one of them can take the commuter rail. And then, given how things are, they’ll change jobs and well, the odds are the commuter rail won’t work for them. That’s just how things are in the real world as opposed to everyone’s fantasy world.
The new developments lack any reasonable setbacks. Austin Street is right up in your face, and so is Washinton place. They’re too close to the road and have no sense of space. They’re badly designed and just maximize the square footage to the detriment of the village space.
B) Newton completely wasted 500,000 dollars (which Emily opposed) on a no bid contract for the Principle group, which proposed Form based code zoning (which I actually think was better) which the Planning department rejected ( yes, I met with James Freas and Susan Albright in person and they did reject it because, well, because James said “there would be too much controversy about whether they really did form based code or not” (I’m paraphrasing here). A lot of sticky notes were killed in the process of “Visioning” which was in my opinion BS
C) Does anyone here fly? Go on vacation? Carbon Footprint?
We can all do our part. But we also have to live a life. I could reduce my carbon footprint to zero by jumping off a bridge. Any volunteers? #JumpOffABridge week to save the planet.
I’m frankly sick of the holier than thou talk about climate change. People do what they can. Get over yourselves people.
Sticking the north side of newton with all this development (3000 new apartments on Washington Street) without something in return – more greenspace somewhere else? Pike Noise mitigation ? ANYTHING? ANYTHING?
That is why I believe that Emily was against these projects. It’s everything for the developer and very little if not nothing for the neighbor hood. And the only people that care are the people that live within that area. Everyone else who doesn’t live here doesn’t have a clue what’s going on in our neighbor hood.
It’s a good thing the Charter Commission was defeated, or we’d have no local voices.
@Greg
Did Emily Norton egg your car or poison your cat? 3 different times on this thread you basically said the same thing; you believe Emily Norton is a part time environmentalist. We get it ok?
Its also very clear that you are supporting more development in Newton, although none of it appears to be near where you live. The same can’t be said for Emily. There are 24 city councilors and you usually have a lot to say about them, but you haven’t ever shown
any interest in serving the city in that capacity. If you feel so strongly about environmentalism and development, why not run for city council instead of representing the chamber of commerce’s interests?
@Shawn Fitzpatrick –
Same deal. You critique Emily and other city councilors in the past, represent the interests of city and state democrats -and obviously Emily’s opponent- but I can’t ever remember you running for city council. Why not?
Anyone making an effort to protect the
environment should receive kudos.
I find it asinine that there seem to be
critics who are anxious to decide who among the citizenry are the bigger environmentalists.
What a waste of time and energy.
If we are going to go down that road,
I would suggest we start comparing and contrasting the carbon footprints
and square footage among all chatterers also.
All the virtue sharing and backslapping doesn’t help the environment one bit.
Rick, not comment on your other points, but I wanted to call out the noise mitigation from the Pike. The only practical noise mitigation at this location (limited space, elevation, no local control of the roadway, etc) is buildings, either on the pike side or on the northern side of Washington. The planning documents deal with this issue extensively.
Buildings of sufficient height to provide a noise shadow but stepped down to be compatible with the neighborhood could offer relief for the existing less than awesome conditions. Vegetation or standalone noise barriers by themselves just aren’t enough.
Should such an option become available, the buildings should be designed with facets that reflect noise upward so that they don’t make the residences on the southern side of the pike louder.
I am not sure that I knew all these great things about Emily Norton that we’re posted on this thread. I am more committed than ever to work for her re-election as councilor in November. She’s someone who is committed to environmental work in word and deed. Thanks.
Rick,
Assume all you’ve said is true. The fact is that, in their roles as city councilors, our 24 councilor-critters have very few policy levers to pull to reduce carbon emissions. Density is one of the biggest levers, if not the biggest lever, that a municipality can pull to reduce carbon emissions.
If one believes they are doing everything they can do as an environmentalist and they don’t support greater density in Newton, they cannot claim to be doing everything that they could do. Can’t square that circle.
By the way, I favor a complete ban on single-family-only zoning in the entire city, and much higher density along transit, which means that Waban, the Highlands, Newton Centre, and Chestnut Hill should all get more dense. Much more dense.
Density, it’s not just for the north side, anymore!
@Jack Prior:
Please re-read my question. I didn’t ask how Councilor Norton heated her home (I respect her because her words and actions are consistent).
I asked how *you* and other commentators on this thread heat your homes. How about other members of City Council? And, by the way, how do they heat the City Council chamber?
If you heat your home with fossil fuel, if you depend on oil and gas companies (and their employees) to keep you warm all winter, if you send your money to those companies each month–
Where do you find the moral authority to tell investors (like the City) to boycott those same companies?
The only Newton resident I know who has that moral authority is Councilor Norton. Almost everybody else who raves about this is a tiny bit of a hypocrite.
I take the T to work, compost, yell at the Newton, hypocrite moms and dads, who drive huge SUVs and leave a pile of plastic water bottles to be recycled in the park. I’ve seen councilors, such as Brenda N, be environmental hypocrites, as well as Sean F, many, many times.
1) This was not a press release (but Brenda knows that)
2) Emily has been touting this approach for years and has extensive knowledge on the subject (annoyingly so)
3) Every single person needs to drastically reduce their use of plastics, compost, use environmentally-friendly soaps, reduce their meat and milk consumption, etc etc. Everyone.
But for Greg to bring to use this as an excuse to compare Emily to Bryan was absolutely ridiculous. Bryan now has to jump in and defend his life style and Emily is getting criticized..for what I can’t even fathom….. on a BLOG.
This thread is why Trump won.
Sorry, I meant Shawn F…not Sean R
Man, this is an ugly thread. I think most people try to do the right thing for the planet but some people are able to do more than others for personal reasons. I think that both Emily and Bryan deeply care about our planet but they just have different ideas. I don’t agree with Emily on development and I wish Bryan took the CR to work but overall I think Newton is lucky to have either in the Council.
S’Mommy,
Damn, I feel left out.
For the record, I’m a bit of a hypocrite, too.
If you’re OK voting for hypocrites, I guess.
@Sean: I guess you must be really pissed off at our Mayor for working hard to reduce the size of the B’Nai B’rith Housing from a proposed 100 or so units down to a mere 57 units – particularly since it is so close to public transit. Or maybe that development doesn’t count.
@Sean: And…you must be really ticked off at the City Councilors who voted against lifting the deed restriction to allow for the 300+ unit Chapter 40B Housing development at Wells Avenue. Let’s see – if I recall, Councilors Albright, Johnson, and Crossley walked outside the rail to avoid casting a vote; Councilors Hess-Mahan and myself were recused; and well – the rest of the lot voted to support the Land Use Committee’s recommendation to deny. While that proposal certainly was not a TOD, it certainly would have provided the dense housing – which you and Greg seem to believe – is what defines “environmentalist”. Wow – I don’t even recall the Engine 6 folks being upset about that one.
Amy,
I started out as critical of the project on Wells Ave., because it’s remote for Newton (https://village14.com/2013/11/01/wheres-the-last-place-youd-put-new-housing-in-newton/). Even in that post, I made clear we need lots of new housing. (It says Bruce write it, but that’s a result of a site issue that made him the author of a bunch of my old posts.) But I came around to realizing that remote for Newton would still require less driving than suburbs less close to Boston or the Needham business park (https://village14.com/2017/11/16/the-future-of-wells-ave-is-not-first-class-office-space/#axzz5q9OvwgqA), which has evolved further into my current position that we should allow (but not require) multi-tenant housing on every lot in the city.
Also, I testified at multiple hearings in support of the project.
Amy,
I am really pissed off at the mayor if, as you say, she’s responsible for reducing the B’Nai B’rith Housing from 100 to 57 units.
The. Planet. Is. Burning.
I believe Emily and the people who push her to manipulate
Newton’s investment tactics are misguided.
If divesting of fossil fuel stocks is valid, then why stop there?
Why not boycott many other companies? There are the airlines
and auto companies. Manufacturers of air conditioners and oil furnaces are among a long list of companies which harm the environment. Even solar panels after 20 years are obsolete.
Most of human activity nowadays is bad for the earth.
For me this notion of Emily’s is a unproductive way to fight
environmental degradation. If anything it will simply increase
the cost of fuel which will be passed on to the consumer.
@Amy Councilors Crossley, Johnson and I (and there may have been others) wanted to open the discussion on the deed restriction. Lord knows that restriction had been bent and twisted already – the one I love is the bouncy house that was allowed by special permit. The three of us – and as I said there may have been more – wanted to discuss the possibility of housing at Wells Ave. This all resulted in a question to the MAPC which reviewed the Wells Ave site and advised the city that there could be housing at that site and that it should be studied. We have never gotten back to that topic. So – Amy you are misremembering the reason why we didn’t vote yes on denying the request to amend the deed restriction.
@Rick Frank The city-wide rezone has not been rejected. It has been put on hold. The Zoning and Planning Committee has so much on its plate this term that we now have 3 and 4 meetings a month instead of 2 and we will hold 3 meetings this summer just to try to handle what is currently before us. There simply was no time to handle all the normal stuff – like a new Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, an Ordinance regulating short term rentals, as well as the new stuff like the Washington St. vision plan, the Washington St Zoning Ordinance, and the rewrite of the MU3 zone – as well as the city-wide rezone which is huge. And I agree with you form-based ordinances have definite benefits for Newton.
While I’m mentioning short-term rentals – please tell anyone you know that runs a short term rental – either a bed and breakfast, VRBO or Airbnb, or any other company – that we are having a public hearing on Monday night @7:30 pm in the Chamber on short term rentals. The proposed ordinance is in this memo http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/97044
@Susan: My apologies for “misremembering” the reasoning behind your and others’ decision to NOT cast a vote on the lifting of the deed restriction. But the fact is, you guys didn’t cast a vote. You all could have voted to lift the deed restriction and state your reasoning but instead you walked outside the rail and as you state, you and the City, have not gotten back to that topic.
I only make reference to this instance because Greg, Sean and a number of others apparently are focused on demonizing Emily for some of her votes but don’t seem to care about others.
@Colleen – The City Council actually divested from something before, ie the Sudanese government to demonstrate opposition to the Darfur genocide. Also in terms of raising the cost of fuels, it would actually be a good thing to raise the gas tax and direct the revenues toward more environmentally sustainable methods of transportation such as better public transit, and electrifying the entire transportation system including buses, trains and cars (and hopefully someday air travel).
There has been an insinuation that Councilor Norton has not given any credit to others who helped with the divestment from fossil fuels docket item. Please see Councilor Norton’s most excellent newsletter (which can be found here: https://mailchi.mp/emilynorton/b18g4dt10c-2405721 where she clearly gives thanks and and credit to Assistant City Solicitor Maura O’Keefe and Councilors Grossman and Gentile.
“I am especially grateful to Assistant City Solicitor Maura O’Keefe for her work drafting the resolution, and Councilors Grossman and Gentile for their work clarifying and strengthening it. The full City Council will vote on it June 3rd.”
Well, this post and the responses to it are a clear indication that we’ve entered what I call the “Silly Season”. Others call it a contested election…
So, a few very quick thoughts:
1) Amy, your last post was a bit ironic, no? One of the reasons folks thought Emily claimed the credit was that your initial post didn’t mention anyone else, the news article you linked to didn’t mention anyone else, and well absent Brenda Noel’s reply regarding the other participants, personally I’d never know about them. Emily clearly was willing to share the credit, so this is one of those cases where blogs/short news articles failed us a bit.
2) This blog has many posters, and I’ve very glad Amy posts here. But this particular post read more like a campaign press release. That’s fine, but something for folks to remember when similar posts arise for other candidates.
3) For the record, Jack Prior, I think Amy gets more of the credit than Emily regarding the additional affordable housing in Austin Street. Emily stayed an opponent of the project until the end. I believe Amy ended up voting for it, which was very much to her credit, and showed a willingness to compromise I certainly appreciated.
4) As for the rather nutty discussion of Emily’s environmental bona-fides, as always more than one thing can be true. I can admire Emily for her environmental stands throughout the Commonwealth, but question her application of those principles to her role as Ward Councilor. But this idea that opposing transit development in her backyard makes her an environmental turncoat of some sort is just silly. Folks are allowed to be complex beings. I personally find it a bit hypocritical, others might not. But she’s clearly an environmental champion in most things, and that’s to be admired in my book.
5) Having litmus tests for our politicians (he takes commuter rail, she keeps to a vegan diet, he walks 5 miles, she walks 7, etc) is just…not helpful. I don’t care if my politicians enjoy a good steak or drive. I’m not looking for angels, I’m looking for human beings. Are they wise? Do they try to figure out solutions to complex problems? Are they willing to compromise? Are they able to handle criticisms? Do they have a plan for problems they can’t immediately solve?
6) Finally, and honestly, while I’m looking forward to hearing more from Bryan B. and Emily N. in their Ward 2 election, it just feels really early for these types of posts and responses. Lots of folks love Emily. Lots of folks love Bryan. Lots of folks seem to feel the opposite. The election is a while away. Lots of things to discuss in the meantime. Lots of different elections to focus on as well in Newton. While I love the Ward 2 focus, I’m hoping we can wait awhile before this becomes all election all the time.
Cheers and great weekend to all.
Amy,
I think the insinuation is that your post, on behalf of a single councilor, read like a press release and failed to acknowledge the work of others, particularly Councilor Grossman.
I couldn’t find it this morning, but I know I wrote something somewhere that said not lifting the deed restriction was morally wrong. The failure was contrary to housing advocacy and the spirit of 40B. It’s possible that I wrote it in letters to councilors and not as a blog post. I’ll find the receipts.
@Figgy and Sean: I re-posted an article in the TAB. Failure of the TAB to fully cover the issue or give credit is no fault of mine and I am not responsible to provide full news coverage of every issue -although I do continue to send out a very comprehensive “unbiased” newsletter – even though I am no longer a City Councilor.
My recent post was to follow up on whether or not Emily Norton gave credit to others or not. I am sorry if it read like a press release. Some of the posts that Sean and others have made against City Councilors – such as Baker, Laredo, Ciccone, and others read like political attack ads to me.
It appears that some are questioning the amount of work Councilor Norton actually did on the item and also the press release style posting from @AmySangiolo. Not too sure that either is fair but it would be interesting to hear from Councilor Grossman is she felt as though her work was just “clarifying and strengthening” or if she felt as though she did the bulk of the work on the item. That would for me at least clarify if Councilor Norton is capitalizing on the docketed item for political gain.
As I imagine, Docketing an item is very different than doing the research and presentation of the materials. If someone could clarify that for me that would great..
As for the articles genesis, it would be dandy if Councilor Norton can shed light on whether she contacted Julie Cohen of the Tab or whether the Tab contacted her for the story. I can now see as I re-read the story, how some could view this as a campaign piece that was submitted to the Tab as an article.
Lastly as @Amy suggested, I read Councilor Norton’s “most excellent newsletter” and saw a bunch of I’s and Me’s without a lot of recognition to others. This caused me to pause because leadership, much like city council is a team sport.
well that is my offhand take.
Amy, it isn’t a big deal, but while it is certainly the Tab’s fault in part, you did post the item here, and frankly the Tab was less focused on Emily’s involvement than you were (The Tab’s headline was “Newton councilors to decide on fossil fuel divestment”, YOUR headline was “Emily Norton champions divestment from fossil fuels”). I wonder why folks thought Emily was getting all of the credit…
I’m not opposed to you posting/being a strong supporter of Emily, frankly I’m glad to have the varied voices here (and as you point out there are other voices advocating for/against other councilors). It wasn’t the second comment that read like a press release, it was the initial post. It isn’t your responsibility to be unbiased in my view, just like it isn’t Greg’s responsibility to be unbiased.
Anyway, in the end it is a minor point. My other points are what I’d like to focus on, especially the hope that we can hold off a bit on election season.
@Jack – Julie from the Tab contacted me. She also contacted me about my docket item with Councilor Danberg calling for Columbus Day to be renamed Indigenous People’s Day if the folks who love to hyperventilate over me would like to get a head start. Hereis the audio of the committee discussion.
Actually those who are interested should listen to the finance committee meeting where Councilor Grossman presents her research after being “recruited to help” Councilor Norton because Councilor Grossman asked too many questions. Starts around 2:34:00
at 2:37:00 Carbon Underground investigation : Councilor Grossman states that she is the one who reached out and did the investigation.
Here is the link
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/97427/2019.05.29_18.59_01.MP3
for the Agenda, report and audio links follow this link
http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/aldermen/committees/finance/2019.asp
Bottom line congrats to Newton for taking a stand to divest from fossil fuels but the big thank you should go to Councilor Grossman for taking a docketed idea and bringing it to completion with the guidance of Councilor Gentile.
@Jack – you’re missing a few steps. If you provide your email address I’m happy to send you 9 months of emails so you can have a fuller picture of the role people played. It was a group effort and I think it shows the value of people working together that the item was voted in unanimously. I would like to see us also divest our pension funds from fossil fuel stocks but there was clearly not support for going that far, which I am disappointed about.
@Emily, the intoxication evident in anyone putting aside money, pension or municipal, that will become fossil fuel energy investments is marking rock bottom of addiction. Those doing so must obviously be holding unreasoned belief in their actions that are clearly doing irreversible harm to themselves and to others, and to myriad species now being destroyed to keep intoxicating experiences only fossil fuel energy makes available to more.
No, it’s not possible that current meager investment (or any scale of investment) in renewable energy capacity can keep the flourishing intoxication party going for hi-emissions group who buy vehicles made to burn unkind amounts of fuel, build empty /mostly empty buildings, fly when they can, support supermarket meat, and demand many other intoxicating experiences only fossil fuel energy makes available to more eager to pay for experiences. Our kids don’t have a future, the human family has terrible addiction problem.
Sobriety is in the emergency kit every family should have. We need each other sober with regard to what current greenhouse gas pollution is wrecking now before our unseeing eyes. And we need strong willed individuals to come off of fossil fuel energy for good.
@Emily Norton. Thank you for your offer. Rather than use email can you please post them to an online site for all of us to review? Something like dropbox is fine. Please include the email correspondence with the Tab’s Julie Cohen.
Jack, Emily goes beyond the call of duty proving information to citizens. She has a regular email and office hours. I disagree with her often, but she has always been a straight shooter. It was nice her to offer to email you information. I can’t imagine why you just don’t just say “thank you,” and email her. No one else is asking her for this information other than you. Are you afraid or embarrassed to email her yourself?
@JeffPontiff Easy Bro… I emailed Councilor Norton and waiting for the emails but just thought it would be easier to use something like dropbox. But we can go old school email if she wants to.
I do disagree with you in terms of interest. From this post there are a number of people including sitting city councilors who would like to see the distribution of work on the item. The press release submitted to the Tab made it seem that it was a one woman effort. I for one did not see anything regarding a “we” or even a “true team effort.”
Aren’t you curious?