As a long-time public administrator, I always take heart when an elected official has the creativity to propose a forward-looking project for the benefit of the public. It’s not easy to go through the process of scoping, planning, designing, siting, and funding such ventures. But it’s also not the case that all such proposals deserve to go through to completion.
We’re currently going through such a process in Newton—with a well-intentioned mayor with a big idea—but there are already signs that the proposal has fatal flaws when measured against other priorities facing the city. I refer to Mayor Fuller’s plan to build a new senior center (“NewCAL”) to replace the current facility on Walnut Street. After a series of scoping sessions, the plan has evolved into a 38,000 square feet building on a 2.5 acre site, with a currently estimated design and construction cost of $16.45 million, to be funded from the city’s operating budget.
The process has been through several phases since its initiation about a year ago: vision statement; data collection; program development; and determination of site and building metrics. We’re now in the “pre-feasibility” stage, during which the project’s working group will identify possible sites in the city that can accommodate the proposed facility and then create a short list to be further evaluated. This is all with an eye to complete the project by September 2023.
The rub is that, as noted by the Newton Tree Conservancy, virtually all the candidate sites under consideration would involve the loss of precious open space, whether it be passive recreation space, playing fields, or woodlands or other natural areas. This is not just a matter of using fringe space along the edge of a forest or athletic field. To mention just a few examples, the new center would take up 72% of Ward park; 60% of Pelligrini; 50% of Burr; 46% of Warren Lincoln; 22% of Cabot; 17% of Weeks.
The Commonwealth has a strong commitment to the preservation of open space. Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution provides that property “taken or acquired” for conservation purposes “shall not be used for other purposes” without approval by a two-thirds vote of each branch of the state legislature. In a 2017 case, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that even a public playground is parkland protected by Article 97.
Mayor Fuller understated the problem in a recent newsletter, noting, “residents who use . . . parks on the list are likely to have concerns.” The issue is not just those people who “use the parks.” It is all the people in the city. As asserted by the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, “our citizens have a right to the quality of life that clean water and undeveloped open space can provide.”
But there are specific issues relative to those who use the parks. For example, there is already a shortage of playing fields in the city for the schools and youth sports programs, programs of importance to thousands of families.
Finally, there is the matter of using millions of dollars from the city’s operating budget without due consideration of other municipal priorities. For example, the Mayor has asked for and received initial City Council approval of $400,000 from the “free cash” account for just the next phase of the project, i.e., completion of feasibility, schematic design, and site plan approval. These piecemeal expenditures create their own momentum: It’s the nature of things that, once initial money is spent, it’s very hard for public officials to put the brakes on and reconsider the wisdom of a project.
This administration and members of the City Council have rightly prided themselves on their environmental credentials and programs. That they would support a project that will conflict with legitimate and important environmental priorities is a troubling conundrum.
Paul Levy, 69, lives on Oxford Road in Newton Center. He chaired the City’s Blue Ribbon Commission for Financial Resources, in 2006-7. This column originally appeared in the Newton Tab. Reprinted here with the author’s permission because the Tab does not seem to have published it online.
My concern is once you take Parks for the Senior Center, where does it end?
A new school? Take a park!
New Police HQ? Take a park!
New Teen Center? Take a park!
New library? Take a park – oh wait, we are out of space. Now the kids are inside because there are no open spaces to run around and swing!
This is a dangerous place to be.
I agree with Paul. Newton has ample recreational services
throughout the city. Between May and Oct. many seniors play in the senior league at Commonwealth golf course. I seldom
attend events at the senior center.
The cost of the new center will escalate far beyond $16 million.
No new site will have ample parking. Seniors need something close to home. Many seniors go south for the winter. Those who stay do not need an indoor pool as Newton North has one.
Seniors have adult swim programs at the Gath pool.
One new large center is not needed. Build a smaller structure on the south side and renovate the north side senior center.
First of all, NEWCal is not a senior center – it’s a community center with a senior center added on. Support for a new/renovated/expanded senior center is strong, but no one knows if there’s community support for this project. What constituency is calling for a community center?
Secondly, building capital projects from the operating budget is a serious mistake. This project should be funded through a debt exclusion override.
The $16m price tag appears to be much too low for a project of this size and complexity and if the price tag rises, the city could be in serious financial trouble. You can’t say on the one hand that the budget is tight and we have many outstanding obligations, and then claim to have an extra $16m in the operating budget. Either we have the extra funds in the budget and we can stop the talk about OPEB obligations or we don’t.
Build a new senior center or renovate/expand the existing one – it’s what the city needs to support senior services. If the community really supports this project, it would become apparent through approval of a debt exclusion override for it.
$16m and the loss of a significant portion of a park doesn’t seems like a good deal for the Newton residents who aren’t retired. I also agree it sets a bad precedent and preserving open space should be of the utmost importance.
Why don’t they spend the money on actually fixing the roads which would benefit all citizens. The pace of construction and the process of replacing 1/2 the sidewalks and driveway entrances in Newton Falls to pave Chestnut seems idiotic. I’m not an engineer though and maybe I’m missing something? Originally there was a sign that said paving would be done by the end of June, it hasn’t started yet…
* I previously posted the below item on Village14, introducing my NewCal “Olympic Village” concept in response to the Park list being posted by the Administration. Since I started working on this concept it has gained additional backers on the City Council and throughout the community. Our city budget cannot handle a massive expenditure especially when it appears we have most of the assets in place. (Please read previous V14 comment)
@all: The below is copied from the email that I sent to the Administration on “cost effective,” and more efficient NewCal Concept: (Details to be studied and worked out)
The purpose of this email is to add to the NewCal conversation an idea that I proposed in the Finance Committee meeting 2 weeks ago. (early June)
Recognizing that the older residents (I’m one) of the City of Newton went “all in” on education starting in the early 1990’s, building one of the top systems in the country, it’s now time to address the needs of seniors.
By this email, I would like to add into the ongoing analysis an “Olympic Village” concept for the NewCal program. The concept is that we utilize existing City assets and develop NewCal as a city wide concept with programs being offered at multiple sites focussing on uses/needs in different parts of the city. As examples of city assets:
*Existing Senior Center (Update the facility)
*Former Library buildings in Newton Corner and Newton Centre (update facilities). Possibly add in Waban and Auburndale.
*School Buildings after hours and on weekend. (Athletic facillities, pools, theatres, auditoriums)
*Armory Building: Many uses
*Parks for outside activities and no land taking
*Other locations to be identified: (Special Permit approved Community Rooms, and Community *Centers such as Upper Falls, Lower Falls, and the Highlands.)
*Newmo: for transportation, along with adding city Senior Center shuttle buses.
Concerns:
*Parks and Recreation Sites: Why take these properties with other options such as this idea available?
*City Budget: This concept will significantly reduce the cost of one new large facility
*Building one big facility will attract a certain, and set demographic, and the project could then be construed as a poor use of valuable municipal funds.
Action:
*Add this concept to the design and planning team
*Develop budget numbers based on the “Olympic Village” model
*Reuse Committee: Administration begin the reuse process on the previously mentioned city assets.
I’m with Mr. Levy,.
NewCAL IS a senior center, with a teen/community center added on.
But more than that: This questions the City’s seriousness about its determination to put into achieve the goals it set forth in 1) the City of Newton’s “Climate Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation and Resiliency Action Plan,” which was prepared by the MAPC specifically for the City of Newton; and 2) the goals put forth by the Energy Commission’s “Climate Action Plan,” which was detailed, comprehensive, and certain in its call for urgency.
The location of the current senior center, which clearly does need substantial improvement, hits the mark regarding its access to public transportation: The 59 bus along Walnut St stops right outside, and other bus lines run are a few blocks away, along Washington St. Shopping is close at hand, so seniors can easily combine errands. Improvements to Bram Way will make walking even easier and safer. A new pedestrian crosswalk across Highland is planned for right outside the center’s exit and parking lot. There is even a mail box located on the nearby corner. Locating a new and enlarged senior center will never be able to replicate that convenience, which is something that seniors have been requesting. It will require more driving, more cars, and more miles.
NewMo is not the answer and only raises the same question: At a time when we are talking about our climate action goals, the new NewMo vans are internal combustion engines and the investment on those will not be recouped for 5-7 years, at least. Placing a new senior center far from city centers will necessarily require more driving, more mileage, more carbon emitted into the atmosphere.
The current senior center could be rehabbed, space increased, with greater ease of movement and more efficient use of space. The McMullen Art Museum at Boston College, just down Comm Ave, was a converted archbishop’s residence. Glass exteriors were added, and overall the building added 7,000 sq feet in the renovation. It was modified to even allow moveable walls. The current senior center has an old incinerator or furnace which clearly is not needed any longer (see the tall chimney stack?) and can be removed, allowing additional added space. An extension over the current parking lot could provide sheltered parking, and even solar panels could be on the top, or a green garden.
A temporary location would need to be found during this renovation, but that’s doable and minor.
If the City is serious about meeting its climate action goals, the time to start is NOW.
@Paul: As I understand it, the way the City gets around Article 97 – is that the “NewCAL” would be considered a “recreational” facility.
Paul Levy is 100% right in voicing his concerns about the siting, financing, and indeed entire rationale for building this facility. And Jane Franz is 100% right in adding her concerns about the financing, while also asking what perhaps is the key question here: “What constituency is calling for a community center?” I was late to learn about this proposal and since then have been asking around looking for that constituency, but I cannot find it anywhere. This is the wrong idea at the wrong time in the wrong place. Mayor Fuller needs to realize this expeditiously — good try, no harm, no foul — and move on to more pressing issues facing Newton, like paving our pothole filled streets and cracked sidewalks, not to mention paying our school employees what they deserve.
I agree with all of the above. And wonder about all the spending on studies: “the Mayor has asked for and received initial City Council approval of $400,000 from the “free cash” account for just the next phase of the project, i.e., completion of feasibility, schematic design, and site plan approval.”
I’d rather the $400K went towards an EV for the new senior shuttle or into a fund for clearing snow from sidewalks.
Most seniors I have spoken to feel there are enough community places and would like a dedicated community center. I am actually shocked that giving up green space/parks is even on the table.
Why wouldn’t we be renovating the existing Senior Center?
@Amy Sangiolo notes: As I understand it, the way the City gets around Article 97 – is that the “NewCAL” would be considered a “recreational” facility.
They could try, but it could be challenged, either in MEPA through a Request for Advisory Opinion or in court.
@Paul: I didn’t say it was a winner argument – just the argument they think they may be able to use to justify building on one of our open spaces/parkland.
Our current senior center does not have the capacity for the number of users we are expected as our senior population is on the rise. I fully support either a complete renovation/addition or a new center – but I do not support use of any of our parklands.
Right. Thanks, Amy. I didn’t mean to imply that you thought it was a persuasive argument!
This is one senior who feels that a completely renovated and better organized senior center with a few more amenities is all that most of us would need or want. The current location of Newton’s Senior Center is perfect in just about every respect, but the facility itself is old, decrepit and very uninviting. Most of us are looking for something warm, inviting, friendly and inclusive. Huge and lavishly appointed facilities at some other senior centers often lack warmth or coziness.
I have hardly used our senior center, but I’m almost certain I would if it was a more inviting facility.
Jim Cote’s proposal is an innovative 10 strike.
Hat’s off to the mayor for proposing a very generous proposal for seniors. I just don’t think most of us need something that ambitious and I know a lot of seniors who still drive would be happy if the excess went to repairing roads and sidewalks
By using the term “better organized”, I wasn’t referring to the staff or volunteers, but to the layout of the Senior Center building itself.
Too bad Austin Street wasn’t considered for the new Senior Center.
And the parking lot that could have helped serve an expanded Walnut Street center is now gone.
Take the golf courses, starting with Woodland.
Sell some acreage for commercial, office, and dense residential development. Build a school or two. Build the senior center. Build a quality competition pool adjacent to the schools and/or senior center. Retain a big chunk or chunks and convert to real open space, available for the benefit of everyone.
Take the golf courses.
Perhaps a silly thought, but what’s the underlying motivation for building a new Senior Center at another location? Sell the current site for more high-density development in Newtonville? It sure looks like a nice parcel for such things.
@Miles Bingo.
Starving the parking will also knock off the other one story buildings on walnut street. That is the plan in my opinion. If the CVS moves to Washington place, that block will be sold and another 5 story block will go in there. It’s only a matter of time before all the single story shops are gone.
As long as existing merchants have a place to go, Rick’s proposal sounds good to me!
@Paul Levy, I may have misunderstood your last comment that the parking lot that would have served an expanded senior center is now gone. If this is referring to Newtonville and the Austin street metered lot, there is parking for tenants below ground, and the building has been situated and built so that most of the existing parking lot has been preserved, although someone with a Cadillac Escalade May have to park on the street. And given the number if illegal UTurns I have witnessed on walnut street by senior drivers, I would prefer they Uber to the senior center.
How about building a senior center on top of the west newton MBTA commuter lot. No parks or open space will be confiscated.
And it already has a pretty good size parking lot.
@Jack Leader. Seniors ain’t the only ones taking illegal U turns in our fair city. In fact, I’ll bet they do it far less per capita than the rest of drivers.
Ok, before we go in the usual loops by the usual folks, a few thoughts:
Paul, did you mean the Austin Street lot could have housed a new Senior Center? Or did you just forget about the 100 or so PUBLIC spaces coming online in about 3 months or so? About a block from the current center, so your point about the parking lot is incorrect. Not a big deal of course, but with so much angst about the current center, I’m eager to correct the facts. Parking is NOT an issue for the current senior center once that lot opens. And it wouldn’t be much of an issue if they expanded it as well.
As for using the Austin Street lot for that purpose, yep, that would have been a fine use in my mind. A combo project with senior housing and a new senior center and community center would have been great too. I bet we could have had all that, if it had been part of that crazy RFP process. But we would have had to sacrifice height limits or parking I’d think. But perhaps not. This senior center and most importantly the suddenly available 16 million to build it was not an option 5 years ago. Different mayor, different priorities, different fiscal picture I guess.
One good spot that we could have bought was the 4 corner location near Whole Foods (Where the abandoned sushi/korean bbq place was located). Huge lot.
I still think finding a way to build next door to the Y is the best possible option.
I also think we have a disconnect between what we would like and what we can afford. If this can move forward, it should come from a debt override. Like they did with the schools. We should vote on it. Seniors should vote on it. I’d vote for a debt override to support it for sure.
As for the one story buildings in Newtonville, of course they should go. They aren’t charming or historic, they are in only ok shape, and I wouldn’t mourn their passing. Now I’m not sure I want a row of 5 story buildings either. But a mix would be nice, some 2, some 3, some 4. As for CVS, if there is a new and improved CVS at Washington Place, I won’t mourn the passing of the current site. It was small and cramped and had limited hours in comparison to other CVS stores, and no minute clinic. Sometimes change is good.
Thanks to @Jack Leader and @fignewtonville for correcting my misconceptions and mistakes about Austin Street parking!
Seems this project could be integrated into some of the current large development already underway, why not work with Riverside new development, invest the money there to offset the developers land costs, a win-win – transportation, affordable housing, parking, easy access from 128, right near the Hamilton Senior Housing that already exists Work the numbers on this NewCal in the scope of the existing development here. Or look at Northland development. The tax revenue from each is pretty low in comparison to the invest in this senior center.
It’s interesting to note there’s little interest in exploring/explaining how to pay for this major capital project other than taking the golf courses, which would mean losing more public green space if you’re referring to the Leo J Martin or Newton Commonwealth Golf Course. If you’re referring to Braeburn CC, good luck to you. To my knowledge, only two councilors have expressed ideas about how to pay for this project other than through the operating budget (Cote and Auchincloss) to make it more cost effective.
Integrate the services for kids, families, etc. into existing facilities and build/renovate/expand a designated senior center.
jack l:
I hope that was sarcasm about west newton mbta lot:
I think a nice spot would be California st and crafts
Jane,
I mean the private golf courses.
Woodland is directly adjacent to two Green Line stops — Woodland and Riverside — and 128/95. Brae Burn butts up against the Waban Center stop. Charles River is right next to the JCC, where a senior center could share resources.
Golf courses in the urban ring, even public courses, are terrible open space. They are primarily grass, which is an invasive with low bio-diversity, and are water and fertilizer intensive. By design, they can be used by very few people.
The three private courses are also very exclusive, making a mockery of the “open” in open space. Search each of their websites for membership applications. LOL.
Finally, the private courses are highly subsidized. They pay significantly less than the going tax rate.
The time has come to take them.
“Take them”? Are you suggesting eminent domain? What do you think the cost to the city (the highest and best use of the land) would be to acquire them? Even if you ignore the added costs of the lengthy legal battle that would surely follow, do you really think it’s something the city financially could do? Or is this just a hypothetical argument tossed out to provoke discussion?
@Sean,
The private golf courses are not subsidized; it’s a State law that lets them have reduced taxes if they keep open space. If you want to have a fight about that and reduce or eliminate the tax reduction, fight it at the State level. Are you even in favor of maintaining the open space? That’s not clear at all from your post. I would think a more focused goal these days, given the Climate Action Plan and the City’s climate action goals, is to maintain the open space but eliminate or reduce the tax break and use that money for other purposes, such as better sidewalks, reducing heat islands (such as by reducing crossing distances for pedestrians at crosswalks), and so much more. Purchasing EVs instead of internal combustion engines for the NewMo senior vans. That to me would be a legitimate fight.
Golf courses are not good for the environment:
“Although dependent on the environment, golf courses are often criticized for their negative impact on their surroundings. From ground water pollution caused by fertilizers and pesticides to loss of natural habitats and wetlands, the concerns are great.”
http://golfturf.rutgers.edu/golf-courses-and-the-environment.asp
Private golf courses may be open space but they do not support biodiversity or any other sort of diversity.
I side with Sean – I don’t want to be supporting private golf clubs with tax breaks. Newton should take it to the State.
Golf is also very much on the decline. If they’re a waste of space now, they aren’t likely to be increasing in use anytime soon.
“Take the golf courses”
(1) Why not push to redevelop the course that the city already owns before going after the private clubs? Do we not like golf, or do we not like snotty people?
(2) Woodland is 135 acres at the junction of two major interstates, two T stops, and easy access to a commuter rail station in one of the strongest real estate markets in the world. What do you suppose that “taking” it would cost? I would surmise that the bidding opens at $1 billion. The 11 acre office park across the street (Riverside Center) sold for $200M in 2013.
(3) As long as we’re taking private property, why not grab a school like Fessenden that already has unbelievably great facilities (hockey rink, indoor pool, etc)? Surely we deserve to use that stuff before a bunch of snotty 13 year old boys do!
I think it would be wise to go back a step and reconsider the programmatic scope of the center size and scale of the proposal. The current ideas are what is driving the apparent need for so many square feet of building and so much land area around the place. I’m hoping to offer, in my next posting, some thoughts about the scoping process to date. Stay tuned.
Sorry, should read: I think it would be wise to go back a step and reconsider the programmatic scope of the center, which led to the size and scale of the proposal.
The city isn’t going to”take” the golf courses. You may not like to hear that, but it’s the reality of the situation.
This is the right time to reconsider whether the scope of this plan is financially viable and/or has broad community support. Does the community need or want a community center with the extensive additional space beyond that set aside for senior services? To state the obvious, one way or another, residents will pay for this major capital project, either through cuts in other parts of the budget or a debt exclusion override, so let’s get it right.
Joe Rizza, yes it was sarcasm about the west Newton MBTA lot.
As was the location of crafts and California. But if the city needs to take my house by eminent domain for the good of the city, who am I to stand in the way.
On a more serious note, a senior center should be located in or very near a village center. And I wait for Paul Levy’s more detailed critique of the process.
jack
we on the northside of the pike in west newton are very touchy
about whats to happen to our beloved west newton sq
after looking at Austin st and newtonville
Paul Levy has published a new thread on this issue here. Closing comments here.