Right Size Newton’s sign reads:
RIVERSIDE DEVELOPMENT: DON’T LET CITY HALL BRING LAS VEGAS TO NEWTON!!!!
Discuss
Categories
[youtube-feed feed=1]
Archives
Tags
40B (20)
alien abductions (61)
Alison Leary (19)
Amy Sangiolo (21)
april fools (40)
Austin Street (48)
Barney Frank (76)
Bob Kraft (36)
Brooke Lipsitt (102)
Charter Commission (27)
Chestnut Hill (25)
Chestnut Hill Square (76)
David Fleishman (30)
Donald Trump (25)
Emily Norton (28)
Frank Santo (20)
Gail Spector (18)
history (2269)
jacobson (20)
Jake Auchincloss (38)
Joe Kennedy III (30)
MBTA (25)
NewCAL (23)
Newton (45)
Newton Centre (36)
Newton Highlands (74)
Newton Nomadic Theater (28)
Newton people (19)
Newton Public Schools (19)
Newtonville (60)
NewTV (48)
Northland (34)
politics (83)
recreational marijuana (35)
Ruthanne Fuller (77)
Scott Lennon (44)
Senate (65)
Setti Warren (38)
Susan Albright (26)
trees (39)
Upper Falls (81)
video (23)
Village 14 blog (144)
Washington Place (22)
Webster Woods (21)
Why wouldn’t it be appropriate?
Not on public property.
Assuming that it is not on public property, unless the 1st Amendment has been repealed this week, it is appropriate…whether or not you agree with the sentiment.
@Nathan Phillips: Exactly.
It’s also total BS. What does whoever made this sign hope to achieve?
How would Riverside bring Las Vegas to Newton?
What makes you think this is a Right Size Newton sign?
Also the things in common are that Las Vegas has large hotels and 16 and 20 story office buildings and so does Mark Development’s Riverside Station proposal.
I assumed that a group that wants us to believe Riverside Station is not a transit oriented site would be behind this ridiculous claim too.
And for the record (since otherwise this is how rumors start) the only hotel proposed for Riverside Station replaces the existing Hotel Indigo with essentially the same number of rooms. There’s no gaming, no floor shows, no Elvis impersonators planned.
Wait, are you saying Wayne Newton is coming to Newton. (I guess that’s appropriate in a way)
Also, the berm (the area between sidewalk and road) is public property. I know campaign signs are not permitted in this area. What about this one?
My husband and I had a good guffaw when we saw that dramatic sign.
@Lisa – maybe so, but comparisons to Las Vegas are usually saved for situations involving gambling and casinos.
Is appropriate? Sure. Is it smart? No.
I’ve said it before, but Rightsize is making themselves look very silly with their opposition to Riverside. I’m with them against Northland, but it’s increasingly hard to believe their arguments are in good faith when they say things like this, and that Riverside isn’t transit oriented.
Maybe it’s a false flag operation? If so it’s brilliant.
Let’s call a spade a spade, shall we? Compared to its surroundings, that’s exactly what it would look like.
To me, respectfully, it feels ironic to be put out by a misplaced sign when you are supporting the project you are just a short distance away. I guess we all have things that we feel are important enough to speak out on.
Mr. Reibman,
I’m new to this debate and trying educate myself on the issue. To be honest, I lean against the proposed development from what I have heard so far as a resident of the Riverside neighborhood, but I am trying to understand all sides and am interested in seeing how interests might come together as one point. I understand you are one of the champions of the proposed development, and I would like to tell you the nature of your posts come across as from someone who doesn’t want to listen to concerns of the neighborhood. I understand how you must get frustrated by comments you see as exaggerations, but if you stop and think I’m sure you could understand where people are coming from and that they are not being literal when they say a casino is coming. Folks are concerned about the neighborhood, please try to listen.
As the professional spokesperson for the business community in our area I think you could bring a more respectable tone to the debate. As a newcomer to the issue, your approach is not persuasive to me.
Look forward to seeing more information about the issue. Thanks for being someone who is concerned about the small businesses in Newton.
There is a difference between legal and appropriate. On the bern, which is public property, it is not legal. Moved to the owners’ property, it probably is legal (unless it’s legally subject to being factually accurate).
But is it appropriate?
Since Newt Gingrich’s 1994 ad hominem attacks via his so-called Contract with America, there has been increasingly less civil discussion in the US over differences in public policies. Gingrich and his latter-day heirs are the ones who have moved from consideration about what is best for the public good to willingness to do anything to stay in power. Trump, for example, threatened not to accept losing the 2016 election. And only today, Republican state senators in Oregon have called up vigilantes and threatened civil war in order to avoid their legal obligation to vote on a legislative bill that they do not have sufficient votes to defeat.
Not just lawmakers but also ordinary people spreading false information and refusing to consider the public good make all of us less safe. There are now public health threats nationwide from measles, due to people’s refusals to vaccinate their children.
Here in Newton, there are already regular examples, both large and small, of ad hominem anti-civility:
– Nazi symbols and Confederate flags at schools,
– accusations of anti-Semitism for teaching about tragedies on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
– dog-walkers scorning park users who don’t want to interact with their off-leash animals.
This sign is not appropriate because its factually dubious content does not contribute to thoughtful discussion about what is best for Newton or Metro Boston; it only serves to expand ugly, divisive, anti-civil attacks. It makes me think less of the people who put out the sign.
Matt S:
I think overall the tone of the blog always gets a bit darker when there is a contentious issue. I agree that Greg can get snippy at times but I also think some of his usual foils on the blog tend to go low and most of the time do so anonymously.
Greg is who he is. He makes no secret of his job (and certain folks posting annoying reminders every post wouldn’t let him even if he wanted to). He’s been a consistent voice, snarky at times, but consistent about development and the city.
I’m glad this forum allows lots of different voices to post and a smaller group to set the topics.
I tried a more argumentative tone years ago and gave it up. I generally try and state my opinion without negativity. Don’t always succeed but I’ try. But I also don’t get the vitriol like Greg does…
As for the sign, I think most people think of Vegas as lights and casinos. It isn’t the sign or metaphor I would have chosen. I don’t really care if it is posted in the berm, that is small ball. More importantly, if you are explaining you are losing as the saying goes. I would have gone simple: TOO BIG for our community. TOO MUCH TRAFFIC for our community.
Maybe they were worried if they used NYC folks would be offended and instead used Vegas.
But While Riverside is big, it ain’t Vegas big. I’d get new signs and disappear that one down the memory hole….
And hope you post more often Matt! Welcome.
@Matt Selig: Thanks for your comment and reminder that the tone of our discussions matter.
Newton, it’s Everett with trees.
Is it in bad taste to note that the sign itself has been placed on what appears to be public property – and as such, is almost certainly in violation of public ordinance?
The most notable and interesting feature of Las Vegas – to me – is its proximity to the Nevada National Security Site. I understand that the windows in the hotels would rattle when an above-ground device was detonated.
I’m of a mixed mind about the sign. Yes, it’s a gross over exaggeration, but it does bring attention to the fact that for better or worse, this development will have a profound effect on that part of Newton and beyond. And, I’m learning in the charged environment we now live that subtlety has a hard time breaking through all the noise and clamor.
Plus, all this coverage got their message more exposure than it otherwise would have received .
But Bob, in this “charged atmosphere” that exists not just in Newton but in politics nationally, shouldn’t we all be striving for a more moderated, less-hysteria driven, political discourse?
There are legitimate reasons why good people are concerned about this project and legitimate reasons why people favor it. Our city would be better off if we all committed to making the discussion about that, not whipping people into a frenzy with a “gross over exaggeration.”
I’m not a fan of hyperbole in political discussion, especially when the objective is to incite fear.
No, Newton won’t become Las Vegas. Or even Boston, or Cambridge, or Brookline, or wherever we don’t want to be this week. We have a unique character and it has always included a variety of different types of neighborhoods, villages, and collections of buildings.
However the unique historic and charming community oriented character of the Auburndale and Newton Lower Falls villages that it’s residents have enjoyed for many decades is most definitely being threatened by the prospect of this new massive, too tall, too large, highly dense, too much traffic for this economically tenuous proposed development.
Last evening’s joint land use and zoning board meeting at city hall was an embarrassing example of how some of Newton’s city councilors these city committee meetings have a limited understanding of the purpose of these two committees and how they are expected to work together. A perfect argument for careful consideration by Newton voters of how they should and shouldn’t support In the next elections coming up in November.
Similarly, but perhaps not exactly to this, many of us who want more mindful development are labeled without any distinction as ‘Anti-Development”. This is equivalent to someone saying let’s not have “casinos”. It paints people with a broad brush and is not accurate.
Specifically, with respect to Washington place, the building was in need of repairs, redo, or a knockdown for sure, the question then becomes, given that there EXISTS zoning, how much do we let the developers deviate from that zoning with special permits and what does the city get in return.
I do not believe that the city councilors negotiated a good deal for the city in return for the traffic, size, and school impacts of this development and others. Setting aside aesthetics, the building is too large and the setbacks from the street out of proportion for the height. And, I am unaware of any worthwhile givebacks from the developer other than perhaps some improvements to the intersection.
Recently a public hearing was poorly advertised on the building and in the public newspapers that the developer is already requesting a change to the special permit to allow a 3800 sq ft commercial bank to lease on the first floor. Before the building is even half finished.
Councilor Albright said to me ” let’s hear what he will offer”. My response was, “No, figure out what the city needs and ask for it.”
So, you see, in my opinion the councilors are not taking a position on what the city needs to make these developments better for the residents. They are letting the developers call the shots. We need new representation in the council who will look after our neighborhoods.
@Rcik: I believe you are being both unfair and underestimating our city councilors. Both Austin Street and Washington Place ended up with more affordable units than proposed and more public amenities due to the persistence of our city council. Northland has also greatly enhanced that project in response to council and community input. That’s the way this process does and should work.
As for the bank at Washington Place, it’s entirely appropriate for the petitioner to explain their proposed changes and offer and then the council in turn to decide if that acceptable. That’s the way this process does and should work.
@Nathan Phillips on June 22, 2019 at 4:54 pm: “Just the facts, Ma’am”
The plot map on my parcel clearly shows that the City of Newton owns the sidewalk and the space between the sidewalk and the curb on the street.
And so, if generally the case, the sign pictured is on public and not private land.
Greg and Rick:
Regarding Washington Place, what was the offer for allowing the bank as a tenant? Part of the problem we have now is that none of this stuff gets reported, and the websites for the project and the city are rarely if even updated until long after the fact. So unless you go to the meeting you don’t hear what the offer and counter-offer actually are.
I trust our city councilors to make informed decisions and I don’t want to micro-manage. But the information gap tends to both suppress support and increase fear/doubt that somehow we are all getting screwed in the process.
@Greg. et.al. Las Vegas at Riverside was a big stretch and I’m certain that most people saw it as such. But, perhaps it also has the effect of strengthening the perception by many in Newton that the mega proposals at Northland and Riverside are just too large for the small, traditional villages they border and for transportation, traffic congestion and parking they will draw to the area. In no way do I see these signs as threatening fear based assaults to folks on either side of the issue.
Fair or not, many in Newton are convinced that the scope and substance of these mega plans were formulated in advance and that all public participation procedures (by village associations, civic and neighborhood groups etc.) are really only influencing items that developers had already agreed could be bargained away. The irony is that I don’t know anyone who opposes a robust and diversified development at either site. Done right, it could be a 10 strike for the City and for adjacent villages and neighborhoods. It’s the size and concomitant stresses on fragile village structures, traffic congestion, public transportation, parking etc. that fuel the opposition. Size is the watchword.
I don’t have it handy, but everyone should take a look at a letter in this week’s Tab from former Alderman John Stewart that takes issue with the size of the Riverside development proposal. John is a good friend and a model of institutional probity, restraint and moderation who has most often sided with past large development proposals in Newton; but he, too, has always been sensitive to the adverse impact of these proposals on adjacent villages, neighborhoods and streets.
@Greg :”I believe you are being both unfair and underestimating our city councilors”
Nope. This under the radar meeting is part and parcel of how all this bs works between the developers and the council.
Bait and switch. Make it look like you’re getting a concession and then long before the building is even finished ask for a change. It’s completely corrupt.
I’ll believe it’s not iif ( google that ) they reject the proposal and tell them to look harder for a non bank tenant. I can’t believe they’ve even tried at this point.
@Rick: There’s a new thread here on the proposed special permit change at Washington Place, so everyone can discuss the substance there and maybe we can focus on Riverside here.
That said, I’d like to suggest that your frustration over this not getting more attention is really part of a larger problem, which is a lack of local media coverage, as opposed to a conspiracy on the part of the developer or anyone else.
This request for a special permit change would absolutely have received more attention in a previous media era.
It’s hardly the only issue that slips the public’s attention. And it’s a significant problem for our community.
Sorry, should have been iff not iif
@fignewtonville
This happened tonight. I could not attend the meeting.
The original permit prohibited them from leasing to a commercial bank ( for somewhat obvious reasons)
Now he wants that prohibition lifted.
#179-19 Petition to amend Board Order #96-17 to allow bank use at Washington Place WASHINGTON PLACE OWNER, LLC petition for SPECIAL PERMIT/SITE PLAN APPROVAL to amend Special Permit Council Order #96-17 to allow modification of Condition #34 to allow the petitioner to lease commercial space to not more than one commercial bank with a total square footage not to exceed 3,800 sq. ft. at 845 Washington Street and 245 Walnut Street, Ward 2, Newtonville, Section 21 Block 29 Lot 10, containing approximately 123,956 sq. ft. of land in a district zoned MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. Ref.: Sections 7.3, 7.4 of Chapter 30 of the City of Newton Revised Zoning Ordinances, 2017.
I don’t know what the outcome of tonight’s hearing was.
Greg , agree 100% on the lack of media attention. That was my point above, you just stated it better I think.
The sign…when NOT taken literally, shows the frustration of Newton residents opposed to the disproportionate scale of projects like Northland and Riverside – scale unable to be supported by Newton’s current infrastructure. A 10 min shuttle bus to Newton Highlands and a study that predicts declining future school enrollments (that does not meet the sniff test of today’s overcrowded classrooms and busses) is not a solve.
Yet despite a flood of emails, letters, and gavel banging discourse at public meetings, the majority of our Councilors appear to behave contrary to their constituents wishes and interests.
I’ve attended (or watched online) many of the public meetings and it was not until this one, that a few brave Councilors even brought up the topic of scale or challenged Northland…
https://vimeo.com/340257359
…while the majority still appear to clearly support Northland, without thought of their voters.
So while the sign may have an exaggerated comparison, and placed in a questionable location, the utter frustration is understandable.
Oops. Wrong link.
https://vimeo.com/343329707
Matt, letters/emails/gavel banging isn’t really enough. Thousands of letters perhaps. But most folks don’t really care unless it directly impacts them. I went through this with Newton North High School, which at the time felt like it was a direct affront to my property value (it wasn’t and isn’t, but tough to know sometimes and I was younger and more concerned about such things).
I want the city councilors thinking of the entire city. Not just the 50 or so true believers in front of them. And I say that as an occasional true believer. I do think the meetings/letters/emails are important, but you don’t know how many emails/letters and support the other side gets, and you also don’t know how many your side has sent. Having some experience on the development side, it is actually much less than you think. But man those 40 folks are vocal. Sometimes it does matter. And it does get concessions. But I also think developers have options (like 40B) which give them some degree of leverage in the process.
And please do recognize that other folks disagree with you, and feel that the additional affordable units, the additional retail, the various amenities are worth it. I don’t know Riverside or Northland projects well enough to comment on that reality, I usually only get super involved in projects that affect Newtonville, my home village. But in general I think folks overreact to development, just like I did with Newton North. Austin Street and Washington Place aren’t perfect projects, and I agree with the opponents on some of the issues (like setback). But the sausage making rarely makes perfect projects, and often the logical answer gets lost in the process.
That doesn’t mean mistakes aren’t made, and Needham Street is full of them. The fact that we sold elementary schools shows we don’t know it all about school attendence levels, and that facts on the ground do change, and buildings last far longer than projections.
I continue to think the best way for you and for me to influence these types of decisions is the ballot box. In the past, I can make a strong case that absent an incumbent, Newton as a whole votes for continued development (or at least doesn’t vote in folks that focus on stopping larger developments as a campaign issue). Several of the races this time around (like Julia’s race, perhaps Emily/Bryan’s race) will be good indicators of what the overall population believes, and what the wards want as well. There is a real power to being an incumbent in a local race, and the picture might be a bit muddled, but in general zoning and special permits actually have pretty high bars in Newton. It just so happens that the high bar is also reflected in the counsel.
Finally there seems to be 2 paths when opposing a project. Try and oppose it, or try and change it. I believe the second path has a history of success, but it takes a willingness to compromise on both sides. Developers are also better at this than the city. And I’m glad folks are pushing the development teams to produce better projects, and I hope the city does that as well. But I rarely see outright opposition win, but it can certainly delay things for many years. But in the long run I’m not sure it is worth it, absent a change in the real estate market as whole. Something will get built in both places.
Just my 2 cents.
@fig… appreciate the 2 cents (truly).
All very good points. Generally speaking, I don’t think “opposition” (all or nothing) is even a fair comparison. There is MUCH to appreicate about Northland’s plan. The 120 (not 140, as some have said) units of affordable, open space, underground parking, passive house, etc. And if placed on a secluded lot it would be awesome.
But not in the proposed location (for reasons which I’ll spare repeating – mostly, if not strictly infrastructure related).
Earlier in the process, I was somewhat hopeful that a ‘change’ could be made, but the closer we get to the tail end of this process, the more Northland has dug their heels into no less than 800 residential, no more than 120 affordable, and now an even harder stance on parking spaces.
I fear “change it” may not be an option and this may get passed by the current set of Councilors before the next election. And once approved, the leverage sways more heavily towards Northland and concessions much harder to get at that point.
Thoughts, Fig?
@Matt: There are also a large number of affordable housing and environmental advocates who believe the right size would be something larger.
From those Newton residents’ perspective, 800 units is a compromise.
My personal take Matt is that 800 is too large for the site, that the shuttle will do little to help with traffic, and that the city should reject it. While I also agree that overall school number are likely to go down, this level of concentration of new residents will have a localized impact on the school system no matter what, and cause redrawing of school buffer zones I’d think.
But that is largely based on personal gut feelings vs a traffic study and other real world analysis. And a real world analysis should take into account what happens if the city does just say no.
What you should be asking yourself though is what can they build there as of right, what can they build as of 40B, and what is worth fighting about? Size? Parking? Amenities?
IS your fight a holding action until a new council? That hasn’t worked before. Force them to build as of right? That has produced some bad results as well. 40B? Talk to Brookline about that.
I also think compromise is more available that you think. It just has to show the developer that absent that path forward, they lose time and/or money.
But again, this isn’t my neck of the woods.
Just saw the Wellesley is reviewing a proposal of 350 rental units at Wellesley Office Park. That area is already the bane of my existence when the policeman is blocking a lane to let the traffic out there.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/globelocal/2019/06/28/wellesley-considers-affordable-housing-part-commuter-rail-station-proposal/EkoOkdtSQCLjpB6YapALwJ/story.html
Also interesting in the article is the fact that a developer is proposing 45 units of mixed income rental units (with 45 parking spaces) and 45 luxury condos (90 parking spaces) near the Wellesley Square CR station.
Have you considered taking up a hobby?
According to The Swellesley Report, the developer for the projects proposed for the Wellesley commuter rail lots is also including “new ADA accessible commuter rail platforms and elevators up to street level.”
https://theswellesleyreport.com/2019/06/wellesley-square-redevelopment-plan-raises-parking-traffic-concerns/
Nice try, Greg. The elephant is in the living room and not going anywhere. No use pretending it’s not there. :/