While we await the architects’ rendering of the space use of NewCAL on city parkland, I thought I’d offer my own schematic as to the land taking that would result on one candidate site, Weeks Park (not Weeks Playground, as the Mayor called it.)
A soccer field is about one acre. [This was incorrect. I just learned that it is 1.5 acres, so I’ve adjusted the image below accordingly.] NewCal will use 2.5 acres, unless a swimming pool is added, requiring perhaps another quarter acre. So I conservatively doubled the size of a soccer field for the NewCAL footprint (displayed as the hexagon below.) [Less than doubled, consistent with the above.]
I put it at the Hereward, Allerton, and Rowena Roads end of the field because you can’t construct a new building at the other end of the field: As any driver can tell you, Paul Street is too narrow a street to handle the construction vehicles and worker traffic that would be required. (Housing, including the historic Luther Paul house, would have to be taken and razed to make that end possible.)
Note that I have not included any estimate of space that would be required for construction vehicles, supply laydown, worker parking, and the like for the duration of the two-year construction program. Based on my experience running large construction projects, I’d be surprised if that didn’t require another acre.
This plan would be severely disruptive to the thousands of adults and students who use Weeks for walking, running, soccer, lacrosse, ultimate, tennis, cross-country skiing, and sledding. (There is a shortage of playing fields in the city. Newton South High School, for example, sends a number of its teams to play at Weeks because of insufficient space at the school.) Please note that the Newton Parks and Recreation Commission manual says that transfer of open spaces for other municipal uses should only be “as a last resort after all other reasonable options have been found deficient.” Further, “The consideration of intrinsic public values will include an estimation of the costs necessary to provide equivalents to the existing park and playground open space.”
I make no prediction here as to other direct project costs beyond the “equivalents” mentioned in the Parks and Recreation Commission requirements. Indeed, the NewCAL Working Group does not offer a sense of the type and cost of mitigation measures that would be required to insulate the 67 mixed-income senior apartments and the 8 low-income families at Weeks House (plus other neighbors) from the traffic impacts, construction noise, vibration, and dust during that same construction period. Again, having run construction projects in the suburbs, I can tell you that such costs are substantial.
A similar map could be drawn for the other candidate sites.
Thanks for reading.
Paul Levy
For full disclosure, please give us your home address Paul.
Better yet, just circle it on the map you provided us. Its right there adjacent to the field. Yes in your back yard……..
@Rick – of what import is it where Paul’s home is located? I live miles from there but can easily recognize what a terrible idea this is.
I’d like to see a similar map done of the Albermarle site. If the project could be built on the pool/changing rooms/tennis courts and not take green space, the site could work. (And without a gym).
Rich,
Very true that I am a neighbor to this field, which is a matter of public knowledge. Now, please focus on the merits of my points rather than casting aspersions. We are all neighbors in this city, and the points I have been making with regard to this project apply equally to the other candidate sites.
Paul
Its the definition of not in my backyard. His home backs up to the field and would have a view of NCAL if it was located there. It is quite relevant.
It has amazed me that putting forth the idea of building a new senior center on City owned land is such a distasteful endeavor. The senior population in Newton is growing and deserves to have a world class center. We have world class schools for our children and strong real estate values, a superb library and amenities that benefit their parents and everyone. It is time to take care of and consider the seniors in our community. Our services reflect our values and clearly we are lacking in just one corner of our foundation. Our seniors deserve choices and vibrancy and support from Newton and this center will fulfill our obligation to that end.
We have narrowed our choices down to six locations. Yes they are all on public land, open space, as it should be. We control these areas and the cost of building on privately owned land is prohibitive. I for one see trading a portion of a field for the betterment and support of a large segment of our community to be honorable and reasonable. I will reserve my opinion as to the best location until the Council begins deliberations.
Rick – I’m shocked at your comment. People throughout the city are organizing so this community center that no one asked for and we can’t afford won’t be near them. The Friends of Cold Spring Park organized first and wasted no time when that park was on the top of the list. People are organizing in Nonantum against taking parkland in their village. Do you remember when the Cabot community organized against taking a small, underutilized section of Cabot Park for 20 parking spaces?
In a built out city, people oppose taking green space and I’m flummoxed that the city council and the mayor aren’t aware of that.
This project is pitting neighborhood against neighborhood over a facility no one asked for and the city can’t afford.
The problem with calling, or in your case implying, that an individual is a NIMBY is that those who live closest to building projects are typically the most informed about a flawed process, a lack of transparency, and a mission that’s gone totally off the rails. All of these issues have been and continue to be a problem with this community center. The city needs a new senior center, not a community center.
The city would be wise to listen to the current feedback rather than attacking people who are questioning the scope of this project and the taking of public land. The council and the mayor are not listening, and the result is a backlash.
This is not a $16m project. Not close, and it’s the city council’s responsibility to be the fiscal watchdog. What I’m hearing, with the exception of three councilors who are appropriately seeking broader feedback, is complete silence.
Jane, I look forward to discussing this with you more over a cup of coffee in the near future. I miss you and it has been too long! This gives us a reason to get together!
Rick – No one objects to a senior center. They are objecting to community center and they are objecting to taking parkland. Build a senior center – with spaces specifically designed for the needs of younger to older seniors on purchased land and be done with it . You will find the outcry completely disappear.
As for the “world class schools”, try taking a tour of more than half of the school facilities in the city. They are not world class – not by a long shot. And it’s not just the schools. Newton has many buildings in disrepair, that are cold all day long and rundown. These are the conditions that you’re asking city employees to work in every day. Fix what we have, including building a designated senior center, and do it out of respect for the world class people who work in them every day.
Paul Levy’s critique of this plan has been consistent, constructive, and well-informed. It has raised important civic and operational questions, questions that simply must be addressed for this project to move forward with wide public support. Paul certainly hasn’t just been critical of a plan “in his back yard”: we all naturally pull from our own experience.
We do ourselves no good by factionalizing and subdividing ourselves. It is *always* time to take care of the needs of our residents and businesses, all of them. We should *always* be considering them, young, old, rich, poor, any background or creed or any and every possible amalgam.
That doesn’t mean we stop looking at tradeoffs, finding balance, or stopping respectful disagreements and debate (and this particular debate has been surprisingly respectful so far, certainly by Newton’s standards). In fact, it means we redouble our efforts. “Considering people” means considering everyone, individually and together: listening, discussing, educating, learning.
There is clearly a disconnect between and information-gathering and concept generation efforts that have occurred around NewCAL so far and the more broad-based outreach and planning that will be required to make it successful (or to find alternatives). Plenty of reasonable, tuned-in, informed people appear to have little or no knowledge about this plan. That should be a warning sign about the process: a hint to broaden the discussion, not a call to shut it down prematurely.
To their credit, I think the administration is now trying to broaden the discussion. In retrospect, it might have been better (and ultimately more expedient) to have done so a little earlier.
Terry – if “the project could be built on the pool/changing rooms/tennis courts”, where would the outdoor pool go? Or are you suggesting we replace the Gath Pool with an indoor pool?
Rick – “We have world class schools for our children” Let me fix that for you: “We have world class schools for SOME of our children, and we hope to get to the rest over the next 20 years or so.”
Tricia- yes, a pool to replace Gath. Tennis courts would be a casualty.
Lipoff and Jane- I want in on your cup of coffee. But there will be better juice than coffee.
I also want to chime in to support Jane’s and Tricia’s comments. Our public facilities should be world class, not out of competition but because of the value they offer all of our citizens, employees, and children. And they simply aren’t right now.
Our pride on our city should drive us to ever make it ever better. Our older school facilities do a huge disservice to the great educators and staff who work tirelessly inside them. The condition of City Hall, in the cafeteria (which is also a public meeting space) or its restrooms. Gath pool. Many of our parks. The list goes on. They simply don’t live up the the high standards we should be setting.
That’s not a reason to throw up our hands and give up. We just can’t settle, closing our eyes to it. And if we keep our eyes open, maybe we find a way to fix problems creatively. We all like new and shiny, and we’ll likely need some of that to support the needs of Newton’s older population. But seniors (and the rest of us) use many more civic spaces than just a senior center.
2.5 acres seems like a VERY large footprint to me. I realize this came from somewhere official, but could someone confirm.
Paul, I think you’ve been terrific pointing out this issue, but it probably would have been best to disclose your home location. But you posted under your real name and this doesn’t just affect that one site.
Jane, in the same vein, are you still involved in the teacher negotiations? Were you talking to the mayor as a citizen or as a school representative? (I’m not being accusatory, I still think your comments are very valid. But it helps to know the backstory if you are willing to share). Again, you are posting in your own name, which greatly decreases any possible issue in my mind.
Folks are allowed to post pursuant to their self-interest. And I’ve always thought NIMBY posts aren’t to be dismissed. Rick Frank has made some good posts on Washington Street for instance that made me rethink my assumptions (or at least question them). Folks who live near a field or new development know the area very well, and ignoring them makes no sense to me.
Anyway, with that, I’d appreciate knowing how the 2.5 acre site number came to be. Also, 2.5 acres is somewhat weird to just plop in a diamond on the fields. You could make the building taller or longer. My point is that any building gets planned to help it fit into its surroundings, lowering the total land usage (or decreasing its reliance on previously used land).
I’d be opposed to siting the building at Weeks. I’m not sure how it works for that site.
A building that takes up 2.5 acres is also not 16 million to construct. I’m not sure what I’m missing, but I’m clearly missing something.
Why do so many Newton projects have to turn into grandiose overkill? The city doesn’t need a community center with a gym and pool. It does need a senior center that is larger and in better shape than the current one, has rooms that are suited for uses such as exercise classes and so forth, and is fully handicapped accessible. If there’s a need for more spaces for community activities in Newton, let them use the ones in the senior center but don’t design it around those extra needs.
I appreciate that Paul is focusing attention on this decision and process. In addition to his long history of civic leadership, he’s been an advocate for youth sports, our outdoor playing fields, a soccer referee (he even wrote an excellent book linking the lessons learned on the soccer field the leadership).
But Councilor Lipof is right, Paul should have disclosed that he’s an abutter to one of the proposed sites. Readers can then decide if it’s relevant or not.
Also, for anyone looking for more information about this process, meeting notes, etc. Amy Sangilo has compiled all of that here.
Thank you, Mike. Shiny and new certainly isn’t what employees need or want in order to complete their responsibilities. I was with a group of teachers the other day, and you want to know what they say they want the most? Heating systems that work and windows that keep out the cold. Thousands of Newton elementary and middle school students sit for six hours a day, ten months a year in these buildings. To be clear, I include on that list all of our city employees who work in spaces without basic infrastructure in good working order. Newton too often focuses on the new and shiny at the expense of the basic needs of its world class employees.
Does it upset me to hear that a city councilor thinks we work in “world class” conditions and we’re all set? Yes, it does. Painfully, it does. This line of thinking just makes city employees feel undervalued, that no one listens, that no one cares. Because no one appears vaguely interested in even learning about the situation. And it’s more frustrating if you’re a teacher speaking out because you’re accused of wanting everything for yourself, of being selfish – all the while, you’re standing in front of a bunch of kids who are too cold, too hot, and who don’t have enough space.
Terry – I don’t need coffee or any other kind of juice. It’s past time for all 24 city councilors to take tours of city buildings to see the conditions employees work in. Maybe the Working Group should join them. Too many buildings in the city are in the same dire condition as the current senior center. That’s why we need to return to the original mission – rebuilding a designated senior center that focuses on the needs of the seniors in the city. Then move on the the next worst building and take care of that one. Then the next. And the next. It took decades for our buildings to fall into this state of disrepair and it’s going to take decades to dig our way out of the problem.
If a new 2.5 acre building was going to built in what was parkland in my backyard, even at a 16.67% chance, I’d start posting as well on the topic. .. And Paul’s posts are excellent on many subjects, not just this one.
Just being honest.
Also, the 2.5 acre building includes the parking apparently. I wonder if the siting changes the overall need for parking.
Fig, not just parking, but traffic and transportation as well. Placing another public facility at Albemarle, for instance, would exacerbate an already dangerous traffic gorgon (my term).
Minivans are literally ending up in Cheesecake Brook.
Siting there would pretty much demand that this problem be addressed.
I am a strong supporter of a new senior center. I hope that pressing need does not get lost in the current discussion about where a center should be built.
I am also a strong supporter of not taking public parkland for such a center. I will repeat what others have stated in earlier posts: Newton’s current inventory of both active and passive recreational land is exceedingly modest. We need to expand it whenever possible, not eat away at it to meet other needs.
While in the best of worlds being able to build a community center to serve all ages might be a terrific goal, the central need that has been identified and must be addressed is for an appropriate modern facility to service our fast growing senior population. Maybe a scaled back facility at a smaller site (non-parkland) should remain on the table as an option.
Disclosures. I am a senior, though I am not a user of the current senior center. I participated on Mayor Fuller’s transition group which studied unmet needs of various age groups in Newton particularly seniors and kids from birth through K-12. We studied data, read numerous reports, and interviewed officials and service providers. The data and observations overwhelmingly support a new or much expanded center focused on seniors. I also am a close neighbor to McGrath Park (old Warren fields). Those fields are heavily used. In addition the access/egress to that site off Washington Street is challenging as it is. More traffic to the site might prove problematic.
I have been an elected official and have been involved in trying to site new facilities (e.g., taskforce on siting a fourth middle school circa 1995). It’s a very tough assignment in a mature community with little undeveloped land to try to site a new public building. I applaud the Mayor for committing to a new senior center. I empathize with those charged to find a site. I also applaud Paul Levy, Jane Frantz, and others for pushing back with questions and strong arguments on which sites make sense. Twenty-five years ago I learned a great deal from many residents who came out to walk each site we were considering for a new school and to tell our taskforce how their local parkland was used. Sure, some neighbors don’t ever want any change in their neighborhood. But a discerning listener can tell the difference when a neighbor is providing vital information on what’s at stake to be lost with a particular change and when he/she is just being anti-change. Decision makers can use that information to better understand the trade-offs involved in using that site for a new purpose.
Let’s keep this important discussion going and let’s focus on how to meet the very real need for a new senior center without intruding on scarce parkland.
Thanks for all your thoughtful comments. Apologies for not posting my address on this post: It was included in my original Tab op-ed and also on the first Village14 post. (https://village14.com/2019/07/03/slow-down-on-newcal/#axzz5vkjbAJ7a) I didn’t think I needed to put in in every subsequent article or comment.
I’m struck by the helpful ideas that people have offered and the wonderful level of discourse here and in Gail Spector’s previous post (with over 70 comments!) I am also struck by the fact that the only person who has chosen to engage in a personal attack on my motives is someone who turns out to be a City Councillor (unidentified as such here in his comments.) He says, “We have narrowed our choices down to six locations.” For whom does he speak when he says “we?” The NewCAL working group has no legal authority as a decision-making body. Indeed, their meetings are not even subject to the Open Meeting law, and their publicly available minutes are not up to date. So “we” don’t even know how they made their decisions.
The Councillor makes an argument that we shouldn’t spend money on a non-City site since the parkland is “free,” but that argument is vacuous. As I have noted above, the Parks and Rec Commission guidelines quite clearly say that the City must find substitute land to replace that lost: “The consideration of intrinsic public values will include an estimation of the costs necessary to provide equivalents to the existing park and playground open space.” So if you take it away, you have to buy something to replace it.
I have not heard from anyone who doesn’t want an excellent Senior Center for Newton, and I count myself among the advocates for services for that group of citizens. (I’m on the Board, by the way, of 2Life Communities, which owns and operates the majority of designated low-income senior housing in the city.) I have however heard from many–including City Councillors–who question how brainstorming sessions by an advisory body became the basis for programmatic decisions, site selection criteria, architectural drawings, and budgets.
Having spent 27 years coaching youth soccer and 25 years refereeing youth and high school games at Weeks, Cold Spring, Warren, Albemarle and elsewhere, I have up-close knowledge about the importance of those resources to people from all over town. The kids who play on Weeks and these other fields draw from families throughout the city. Further, there are thousands of adults–including those of us in the “senior” category–who also make use of the fields for recreational, fitness, and social reasons. Once gone, those open spaces are gone forever. This is not just a concern to those who abut the parks.
Let’s keep the discussion going. And let’s ask our Councillors to ensure that the process is revisited before irrevocable decisions are made.
World Class Schools???
We have world class teachers? But the buildings – HA!!!! There is one classroom in Brown without any windows – an interior classroom. I spent ten minutes in that classroom for parent open house, and I could NOT leave fast enough. It was claustrophobic with NO air. I suggest that our elected officials work in that classroom for 30 days and tell me about the world class schools.
If our elected officials spent a month at the Gath pool, they would see families not having all the fun because chairs can’t be brought in, and there are so few benches. And we can’t eat a bagged lunch there. We have to leave the facilities and eat in our car or the park, and then come back inside. And if these elected officials tried to spend time at the pool with a toddler and an elementary school kid, it would be impossible, because you can’t access both pools. It is NOT family friendly. NOT at all.
The senior center needs to be rebuilt (as did Cabot and Angier). We didn’t take parkland for those two new schools.
Our elected officials need to be creative and get the senior center part of Riverside (which is on the D line) development. If they can build 8 stories buildings, there is enough room there for a senior center. And the Austin Street Parking Lot could have been used for the senior center. Get creative! I want our elected officials NOT to use my parks and my kids parks (or soccer fields). Use the developers to help build it, since they are using us! I can’t imagine that we have enough retail needs in our city for new retail space on Needham Street, Riverside, Austin Street, The Old Karoun, etc. We have empty retails spots.
Please don’t use any open space for development.
First, let me say that I agree that seniors in Newton deserve a larger and better functioning gathering place than the one we have now. They deserve a space they can call their own with special programming and space for meeting up with other seniors. It is essential for our City to provide this amenity to the large population of seniors who live here.
However… my kids play sports on several of these fields. The others on the list are favorite playgrounds. With field space at such a premium, and many Newton town sports teams struggling to find practice/game space, I don’t know why the City would so this. I, for one, am disappointed that there is not one existing building (that can be reused and redesigned to house senior activities) is on this list of suggested sites.
Now, I know that economically it is cheaper to do a new build, but we should remember that once we develop green space, it is gone forever. We need to protect our open green spaces and parks…not pave over every blade of grass in this City.
I would love to see an alternate vision with includes the adaptive reuse of a building that is currently underutilized or sitting vacant. I am sure there are one or two of those around in the City. But, if there aren’t any buildings to consider that exist in within the list of City assets, there have to be reasonable alternatives to parkland, sports fields, and playgrounds.
If the Mayor and City Council insist that we NEED to build Northland and Riverside, while they are still in the special permitting process, why not make the developers build a new senior center on their property as a condition of the special permit. If those buildings are truly meant to attract Seniors (as the developers, City Council, and Mayor say), than wouldn’t a Senior Center on one of those sites be the right solution?
Put the new Senior Center on the open space in front of City Hall. It’s only used for a kiddie ride thing once a year, otherwise it’s just full of geese.
No? Why not? Seriously what are the true arguments against using that space.
If it’s that important, any space should be considered.
It’s a shame that Austin Street wasn’t considered at the time the space was available.
One note: from this forum/various official documents, I’ve come away with a building size of 37,000/45,000 sf, with 70-75 parking spaces on a 2.5 acre (110,000 SF) site.
If the building is two stories (including the 14,000 SF gym@2 stories) we’re probably looking at a 26,000 SF footprint , if it’s three stories that shrinks to 22,000 SF.
I would think in a site 4-5 times the building footprint there would be ample space for lay down and temporary haul roads. To suggest that the contractor is going to need another acre (2x the footprint on top of that!) is absurd.
Source: I was planner and scheduler for Suffolk construction for 2 years – on urban projects with little to no lay-down space.
[Disclaimer: these are my personal opinions and do not refelect the positions of my current or former employers]
I would urge people to avoid the use of the term NIMBY, either explicitly or implicitly. It’s a term of disrespect most often used by those who are not affected by a development/project.
People who live closest to a proposed project/development frequently are the most informed – with the facts. The ones who use the term or imply that an individual is acting out of self interest frequently don’t have the background knowledge of the area in question, the process up to the point where the project enters the public conversation, or the facts involved in the project.
Paul Levy is an abutter who did his homework, and he did it thoroughly with his statements based on facts. Good on him. If it hadn’t been for his thorough investigation, this very expensive project very well may have passed through the entire process without a thorough review.
I urge everyone to be more careful in the language they use to refer to their neighbors. We have a lot to get through in the next several years, and keeping language civil will be a step in keeping the divisiveness in check.
1915
In his address Mayor Edwin O. Childs states:
“Playgrounds and their activities are today a
necessity not a luxury, and that department is just
as important as the Police or Fire Department.
It conserves both life and property. The boy
without a playground is the father of the man
without a job. The secret of play is the secret of
life itself. Those that make a study of the young
realize that youth must have legitimate outlet for
surplus vitality.”
Being an abutter does not disqualify Mr. Levy from expressing his opinion. It may have been wiser of him, however, to use one of the other proposed sites for his analysis.
An Alternate view of what 2.5 acres might look like:
link to image
This tok me 20 minutes in google maps. Again, this is my own view (Not Newtons, my employer’s, or anyone else’s)
Of the six proposed sites, I feel that McGrath Park, the space behind Warren House on Washington Street is the most appropriate. As far as I know (which I admit is not much), it’s not used as extensively as others, and it’s already pretty dense over there. Could someone familiar with this space comment about how it is being used?
@Anne Alvarado: Nice work!
I thought that “state of the art” senior centers, programming, and the like had evolved away from the sequester them into age-dedicated facilities dogma in favor of multi-generational community centers with appropriate facilities and programming for each of the age groups to be served.
Come to think of it, Newton already has at least one such multi-generational center on the south side of town, in the JCC, and another one on the north side of town, in the Y.
The mayor and city councilors have yet to argue that the identified unmet needs cannot be better addressed through existing institutions and, instead, require a government operated facility. And after making that case, the mayor and city councilors ought to also make the case for why they are foregoing the opportunities for city government to partner with, work closely with, and leverage the facilities, experience with senior programming, and professional experiences present in our civic institutions in abundance.
Or was someone going to cast aspersions and claim that the JCC and the Y are somehow incapable of fulfilling Newton’s aspirations?
So many good points by @Jane Frantz and @Paul Levy,
Let’s create an improved space for seniors but let’s not give up parkland to do so. You don’t have to be a neighbor of a park to object to parkland being taken away for this purpose. In this area we need more not less. Many people benefit from each park in both active and passive ways. Weeks for example is used by hundreds of kids who live all over the City for soccer games.
For full disclosure both of my kids play soccer. Having been a team manager for their Newton teams in the past I can tell you it is a challenge finding space for all of the youth teams to practice or if you need to reschedule a game. These days I often travel to other towns for games and practices. Seeing facilities in other towns I am amazed at the quality of facilities that exist compared to what exists in Newton. During their practices or before games I often explore local greenspaces or paths to run or walk so I can tell you we are also lacking in comparison in this area as well.
@Rick Lipof quality educators yes, quality facilities not quite.
Parks and green space are few and precious. As an abutter (or pretty darn close) to Needham Street, personally I would welcome NewCAL on a portion Northland’s site vs the 800 apartment and multi-use monstrosity currently proposed. A reduction in the latter to make space for the prior.
Seems like a win for NewCAL, parks and green space, even if it outweighs corporate profits.
The city map of Weeks Park is at:
http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/parks/city/weeks.asp
Paul Levy captured the map but he omitted the data line immediately above it:
Hereward Rd. or Paul St. or Cedric St., Newton Centre (adjacent to Weeks Housing), 11.1 acres
Now, 2.5 / 11.1 = 22.5%.
Paul, can you explain why, in a blog entitled “Here’s what 2.5 acres looks like”, you show a hexagon that appears to take up almost 50% of Weeks Park?
I am grateful to Anne Alvarado for showing what 2.5 acres would actually look like if the site layout at Weeks Park was well designed:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aKBkeAyr6grF_n6lyTBF65TSRFoEuVBN/view
Paul, since you have made a point of the accuracy of your analysis, please explain why your 2.5 acre area was so far off.
Thanks.
As I mentioned in my post, I attempted to illustrate against a known standard of measure which is already laid out on the map. This is the one acre size of a soccer field, and I essentially doubled it. She chose to organize the site along several edges of the field. That’s another perspective. I’m sure there will have to be a full analysis of setback requirements, soil conditions, the conduit containing the underground drain (formerly a brook) under the field, street expansion, and all the rest.
To Anne,
Your urban projects likely had less laydown space because contiguous space was not available, so steel and other supplies were likely kept elsewhere and trucked in as needed. This adds costs. Likewise worker parking was probably on nearby city streets. On a big open site like this, unless contractors are restricted in adjacent use, they will seek to spread things out nearby to reduce costs. And the city will likely require the workers to park their pickup trucks and cars on site rather than filling up all the adjacent streets between the site and Centre Street. Quibble with an acre if you’d like, but some spillover beyond the 2.5 acres is likely.
Mr. Rasala, if I disclose that I am an abutter to one of the recommended sites, should you disclose that you are a member of the NewCAL Working Group when you critique my thoughts? And will you act to urge the Group to promptly publish its minutes so we can all have the benefit of your analyses?
Paul:
My wife, Sue Rasala, is an official member of the NewCAL Working Group.
To help the NewCAL process, I decided to build a large data site with detailed information about the Newton Senior Center and about 43 other senior centers in Eastern Massachusetts. I made this data site known to the city officials and they decided that it would be useful to the community to provide links to the data site from the NewCAL page. People may find those links on the menu bar of the NewCAL site and at the bottom of the NewCAL page.
To my surprise, I was then asked to attend NewCAL meetings as a consultant relative to data issues. I was never made an official member of the working group. I was to serve as a fly on the wall in order to comment on data issues and to make more analytical remarks from time to time.
It happens that there have been mostly discussions not votes at the meetings. My wife and I were in California visiting grandchildren at the time of the July 30th meeting when the list of 24 sites was pared to 6. We learned about the decision via an email that came in shortly before the official announcement by Mayor Fuller to the public. We had no input into the decision. At the previous meeting on July 2nd, all 24 sites were on the table.
Now that I have explained my role in NewCAL (such as it is), can you explain why you failed to mention that Weeks Park is 11.1 acres so that a 2.5 acre site would take up 2.5 / 11.1 = 22.5% of the land area?
I believe that presenting this numerical data should have made you realize that the hexagon you drew to show “what 2.5 acres looks like” was far too large. In no sense did that hexagon represent what what 2.5 acres looks likes.
I think it would be fair to the community for you to provide some explanation.
While optimizing the shape of 2.5 acres is interesting as a topological exercise, I’d prefer we stick to just not using any existing open space to build a new senior-community-whatever center. I’m not convinced ( as a senior myself) it’s needed, and I’m definitely against the cost being losing any existing open space.
Ralph – You’re nitpicking. No one cares if the area Paul Levy carved out was a hexagon, a square, a circle, 2.5 acres, etc. They care that the city intends to take parkland for a building. It’s concerning that an unofficial member of the Working Group isn’t able to focus on and process feedback about the four major issues people are discussing:
1. Taking green space/parks for this project. The sentiment against this idea is overwhelmingly negative.
2. The process: why was the community not informed when the project morphed from a designated senior center into a community center? Can you direct people to the meeting minutes at which that decision was made? When that happened, did it occur to the Working Group that the entire city should be informed and included in the process? Was there a discussion about broadening the outreach?
3. The cost: the city budget, by all accounts, is very tight. Newton simply can’t afford a community center with the amenities included in the plan.
4. Do we need a community center or do we need a new senior center? I hear clear support for a new designated senior center that’s able to provide excellent senior services. Outside of the Working Group and one city councilor, virtually no support is apparent for a community center when we have multiple spaces in the city that provide the same services and are likely to be more convenient for a larger portion of the senior citizens across the city.
The conversation about this project has been as civil and lacking in personal attacks as you’ll find on Village 14. I urge you to express your concerns in a way that doesn’t turn this into a personal attack. As for why Paul Levy focused on the details of Weeks field, that’s the one park he knows the most about. Expect to hear the same level of detail about other parks as people who live near them express their displeasure.
How can you say ‘no one cares’? Ralph cares. Anne cared enough to illustrate a different way of positioning it. And I would care to know how much and/or which parts of a park would be needed for this use.
I’m undecided on this issue. But it seems to me that building a community center that could be used year round has a certain benefit that a public park in New England doesn’t have. And vice versa.
Also good for Jennifer Bentley for her willingness to weigh in here at all. It would be helpful to hear more from other candidates in contested races this fall on this issue (and others).
Dear Mr. Rasala, How generous of you and your wife to devote your personal time to this issue. It’s that kind of community involvement that has characterized the city over the years. Thank you! (BTW, you are listed on the NewCAL site as a member of the Working Group.)
I’ve twice explained the approach I used in my schematic. Anne used a different approach. No doubt the architects will use still another.
@Mary P – the Y and JCC are much more expensive than the senior center. I don’t see the need to replicate their gyms and pools, but they don’t offer many of the services that are currently provided by the senior center or else offer them at a much less affordable price.
Greg – My statement about “no one cares” was hyperbole. I thought that was obvious, given Ralph’s comment, but I should know better on this blog. I stand by my statement that residents have expressed concerns about four particular, significant aspects of this project.
We currently have three other capital improvement projects in the works, none of which are being funded by a debt exclusion override. Given that we’ve been told repeatedly that the budget is very tight, would you support a debt exclusion override to fund this project?
I wouldn’t rule it out. I also believe there may be some public private partnerships that ought to be explored as well.
Belonging to the Y or the JCC is expensive and requires a monthly membership. Our city should have a senior center with activities available without membership.
Frankly, the Gath pool should be more friendly also (chairs, snacks, sun shades, etc). The JCC outdoor pool is $1,000 in addition to the general membership, which we do not do, because of the cost.
Newton should be offering more community things for seniors that are affordable. And if we are going to build NORTHLAND on Needham Street, that should be attracting older residents, then NORTHLAND could put in a senior center, and then the city wouldhave funds to re-build Gath.
The J and the Y are great places, but cost money. Country clubs also have beautiful facilities. But all of this requires money to join.
Greg – Last question: do you think it’s fiscally responsible to fund capital improvement projects without a debt exclusion overrides? Multiple projects without debt exclusion overrides?
Paul Levy pointed out to me:
BTW, you are listed on the NewCAL site as a member of the Working Group.
Wow! I did not know that. I have been playing the role of fly on the wall and I was not aware that I had been added to the Working Group officially.
Concerning your methodology. The map of Weeks Park is accurate but the soccer fields are an artist’s conception and are not drawn to scale. Since you have much experience with soccer, I assume that your statement that a field takes 1 acre is correct. 1 acre = 1/11 of Weeks Park or 9%. In the artist’s drawing, much more than 9% of the area is used for the soccer field drawing.
My concern is that if people come to your Village 14 post they will come away with the impression from your image that almost one half of the space in Weeks Park would be taken by the NewCAL project.
You should know now from Anne Alvarado’s Google map plan and from my computation of 22.5% that your map image is giving the wrong impression by substantially visually overestimating the amount of space that would be used in Weeks Park for the NewCAL project.
You give every indication that you are honest and thoughtful but a mistake has been made and you should own up to that and correct the record.
As to the more general comments made by you and others that there must be an alternative to parks:
Since I did have the privilege of being a fly on the wall, I can say that the city does NOT own any building that has unused space and that could be converted to a substantially enlarged senior center. If such a building existed, it would have been the focus of discussions from the start. A lot of time would have been saved in committee meetings.
Also, the cost of acquisition of private land in Newton is extremely high. It does not seem reasonable to me for the city to take this approach.
This leaves city owned undeveloped property, that is, parks.
Parks are wonderful. I love parks. I use parks all over Newton.
But I also think that a much larger senior center is essential and that using some park space in as optimal way as can be designed is the way to make this senior center goal a reality.
“undeveloped property, that is, parks.”
The concept that open space is “undeveloped” is bias towards buildings and man made structures/modifications.
I don’t mean to be PC here, but it’s kind of like calling a perfectly functioning ecosystem “primitive” or “the untamed wilderness”.
To paraphrase – pave paradise, put up a senior center.
When will it stop? When every piece of build-able land owned by the city becomes some sort of human usable space?
The Y and JCC cost money. It would be cheaper for the city to subsidize seniors (and perhaps kids < 18 if you want to broaden the appeal) than to build AND MAINTAIN an elaborate (by all I've seen) senior center.
The city owns some old burial grounds. Any chance we could take the land from the dead and let the living enjoy their parks?
Why not build over the Newton Centre parking lot?
Just to follow up on my previous comment:
The Y and the JCC (and perhaps other places) are in the business of providing these services. They have the staff, the expertise, the buildings, and equipment. To duplicate all that and have the city run, maintain the structures, provide trained staff, etc. just seems out of scope for what the city can do efficiently.
I’m not one of those “free market does everything better” people, but in this case it seems to me that a subsidy for seniors to one or more of these existing organizations makes more sense than starting from scratch.
The soccer fields are drawn to the right scale, Mr. Rasala. Here’s another website on which they are shown in detail: https://newtongirlssoccer.org/home/fields/field-weeks/ Check out Fields K and G on the diagram, virtually the same as shown on this map.
Perhaps the 11 acre figure given above the City map includes lots of the little ins and outs of the park. Perhaps it also reflects the variation in topography, where a sloped surface has more square footage than a flat surface. Perhaps it includes all or a portion of Weeks House or its parking lot. It likely includes the park’s right-of-way to Athelstane Road behind three houses on Oxford Road (starting at #119 ). Perhaps it’s just wrong. I had always been told, for example, that Weeks was a 9-acre park.
But, more importantly, you fall back on the need for “a substantially enlarged senior center.” That “need” has not yet been demonstrated. The City Councillors asked for a report on that aspect, in addition to the site selection criteria. It has not yet been provided to them. The program will determine the needs. Then, we can also evaluate whether those needs can be met in multiple locations. Or whether they can be met by renovating or replacing the existing Walnut Street Street. The cart is way ahead of the horse for this project.
@Rich Frank – most of the expensive parts of NewCal are really aimed at making it an all-ages community center. To make a stand-alone senior center wouldn’t be nearly as expensive nor need nearly as much space.
This is a classic example of “mission creep”. We need a senior center – what else would be nice to have? This would be great, and this, and as long as it’s there let’s add… and suddenly instead of having a reasonably priced building to serve the needs of seniors, we are duplicating the Y/JCC.
We *do* need a new building to provide the services currently being provided by our senior center (many of which are *not* available through the Y/JCC/etc.), with more space to expand the offerings aimed at seniors. We do not need a new community center – no one was clamoring for one until the working group decided it would be great to turn the senior center into a multi-generational facility.
If other recreational facilities need upgrading, that should be a separate discussion. I’m not saying that’s not important, just that it is a separate issue.
From Newton Comprehensive Plan Section 7 http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/53304
11. Restrict use of municipally owned open space for building or parking except as accessory
to conservation or recreation use or if such use is essential, provide compensatory open
space.
Not so sure how a Senior Center fits the description.
Full disclosure: I’m not quite a senior yet (but close), all my kids are out of the public schools, and I live nowhere near any of the parks listed…and I’m still concerned about taking space in the parks (or playgrounds) for a senior center. I remember how busy all the parks were when my kids played soccer–and not just on the playing fields, but also the playgrounds where siblings played, the other space where people had picnics or walked their dogs, or various other activities. I do support new space for a Senior Center, though. I was in our current one a few times for meetings, etc., and can see how difficult it would be for people with mobility issues…plus it seems small for all the programming.
But I don’t believe that there are only 6 options in Newton, and that the only ones require taking space from our public parks. Whoever is in charge of choosing the site might need to adjust the criteria to find some other possibilities. And I wonder if it would be possible to spread some of the programs over several sites (for example, instead of building a new gym, holding a class at one of the current ones) so that a smaller footprint is needed.
It really seems like the process is flawed here. I support having a new senior center but it seems like the morphing of that intent into a community center has gone way off the intended course. Many decisions are trade offs. Of course when asked would you like you to see a gym at this facility most people would say sure why not until they realize the trade off is the loss of park lands or financial cuts elsewhere then their opinion changes. One of the flaws seems to be trying to create something that the people of Newton aren’t looking for in a community center and determining a site without even validating that the public at large was in support of this robust facility. The fact that most people weren’t (& many others probably still aren’t aware) of what is being considered here until Cold Spring and the other parks got mentioned shows quite a problem with the process. Did the Working Group really think using parkland would be a good idea? The skeptic in me thought the parks were all a ruse and that the Mayor would then have it included in Northland or Riverside. As Matt Lai mentioned including a senior center and lowering the number of residential units would be preferred. I would still be concerned if this grandiose idea of a community center is pursued as the ongoing costs could be substantial and there are existing areas of our city that are not well maintained.
I like the idea of creating a space to meet the seniors’ needs either by renovating their existing building or coming up with another facility as their base. One that is accessible and easy to navigate. Giving them their own space but I also giving them access to other existing facilities and programming to supplement that facility. I think subsidizing the Y or similar facility is a great idea. I am a member and it is realitively quite during the day. Have the new shuttle stop there. This is supposed to be the Garden City lets not give up parkland to build something that people are not looking for.
Possible municipally owned non-park sites:
The convent portion of Aquinas unless the School Department has other plans for that; Crescent Street – former Parks and Rec headquarters; oh and why not the Armory – I think it already has a gym (although we don’t have it yet and the cost will be more than $1 if it’s not used for affordable housing.
Can the city work with the Y to offer subsidized rates for seniors? I know that their current rates for seniors could still be prohibitively expensive for some, although I find their financial aid offerings to be pretty reasonable. But the Y is great for seniors. Why are we reinventing the wheel when we have such a great facility for our community already? If there’s a way to make it cheaper and more accessible (NewMo?) the idea of rebuilding the senior center and taking green space away seems like a bad idea.
I’ll add myself to the voices urging against building on park or playground land. The city does not have open land to spare; that land is an asset for the future that cannot be replaced.
The planners also need to think more about why they need 2.5 acres (108,900 square feet) to house a 2 or 3 story building with 37,000 square feet of internal space.
Here’s the latest back-and-forth between Mayor Fuller and me:
August 6, 2019
The Honorable Ruthanne Fuller
Mayor of the City of Newton
Councilor Rick Lipof
Newton City Council
Dear Mayor Fuller and Councilor Lipof,
While I do sincerely appreciate your (Mayor Fuller) quickly getting back to me, there remain two immediate concerns.
First, you now point out that [the NewCAL Working Group] is “continuing to search for, and analyze non-City owned parcels” for NewCAL. In view of the provisions of the City of Newton Parks & Recreation Commission Manual (pages 44-45), pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 45, there shall be no diversion “of park and playground open space to other uses unless there has been a compelling showing that there is no feasible and prudent alternative, including both publicly and privately owned potential sites, as well as potential sites that are not currently in open space use.” To have inaugurated the NewCAL site selection process to the point of actually determining the six park sites, without first having made a “compelling showing” of “no feasible and prudent alternative” is the proverbial “putting the cart before the horse”.
Therefore, with all due respect, it would constitute an abuse of discretion currently to continue to commit City expense of money, time and effort further to analyze among those six park sites. But more than that, it is committing Newton residents unnecessarily to have to commit expense of money, time and effort to protect and preserve those parks, which dovetails with my second immediate concern:
Councilor Lipof has implied on the public blog site, Village 14, that opposition to sacrificing particular park land is largely Nimby driven. That is a gross underreading by Councilor Lipof, since overwhelming opposition to sacrificing any park and green space is city-wide (unless we say all Newton residents are Nimby to all Newton parks).
Perhaps (although it seems difficult to believe in this day and age among seasoned politicians), those forces backing NewCAL are simply lacking in awareness of the intense opposition to using existing parks and green space — which opposition is rapidly accelerating. In any case, I, along with many others, feel it would behoove you to, and therefore request that you, immediately suspend all action on assessing among the six park sites at least pending the determination that there is no feasible and prudent alternative (and even in the case of no alternative, whether Newton residents elect to sacrifice parkland for NewCAL). This will both comply with the law as well as eliminate the fermenting storm.
Finally, if you or the City take issue with the above legal requirement or its applicability here, your letting me know would be most appreciated.
Respectfully,
Jim Epstein
cc: Newton City Council
—–Original Message—–
From: Ruthanne Fuller
To: James Epstein
Sent: Tue, Aug 6, 2019 10:34 am
Subject: RE: Loss of Park Land/Green Space – NewCAL
James,
Thank you for your thoughtful and heartfelt email regarding the potential location of the Newton Center for Active Living, or NewCAL. It is good to hear from you again. I appreciate hearing your perspective on the sites that are being considered.
The NewCAL Working Group, which includes members of the Council on Aging and Parks and Recreation Commission, members of the senior and parks, recreation and culture communities, two City Councilors, and leaders from City Departments, is now thoughtfully and thoroughly analyzing each of these sites to consider not just whether the location works for NewCAL but also the impacts of NewCAL on current important uses and open space and the neighborhood around each site. They will also be looking at the impact on green space.
We are also continuing to search for, and analyze, non-City owned parcels as well.
Thank you for writing, and please feel free to send along additional thoughts regarding this process and on NewCAL. You may be interested in attending the next community meeting on September 19 at 7:00 p.m. at the Education Center, room 111 at 100 Walnut St.
Finally, more information is available at newcal.projects.nv5.com and you can sign up to receive updates by emailing [email protected].
Warmly,
Ruthanne
Jim and to all:
I never got your letter Jim. You say that I say that is largely NIMBY? No. I did not say that is prevalent. I directed that comment to the author of this thread who has a view of weeks field from his back yard. I did not say that about everyone who may not agree with the use of a portion of a parkland for the betterment of our seniors. There are varied reasons. NYMBYISM is just one and was only attributed to the author and not to our citizenry at large.
As the recent outgoing Chair of the Board of Directors of the WSYMCA, I can represent to V14 that we have had discussions with city representatives and continue to be open to the City of Newton for discussion of any partnership opportunities that could be developed. Josh Morse and his team toured the WSYMCA and is familiar with our membership, usage times and facility and programs. We are grateful to have the opportunity to participate in this process and continue to be open to further discussions.
The Y prides itself on being a community resource in Newton for over 140 years. We strive daily to fulfill our mission of healthy living, youth development and social responsibility for all. We have a beautifully renovated facility, gymnasium and two pools to serve our members and the community. Jack Fucci our CEO and others in our leadership team has been a willing partner at the table offering our expertise, facilities and programs to support and compliment the City’s vision for NewCAL. We applaud the city for continuing to listen and deeply investigate possibilities both public and private as a prudent and a responsible way to ensure delivering the expanded program and services NewCAL can offer.
Rick,
1. My letter was emailed earlier today (as well as cc to ALL Councilors) and absolutely NOTHING, not one, came back non-delivered, so I question you “never got [my] letter”, that is, unless you elected not to read your email.
2. As a reader, the implication from your comment most definitely was Nimby.
3. Your comment was on this public blog site, not just to that one person.
4. Not once that I’m aware did that person predicate opposition on the exact siting of his house.
5. The implication was to disparage that person’s comment and/or the substance of the many articulate and detailed comments from that person.
6. You never acknowledged or gave credence to any other of the many valid objections or any of their aspects, by that person or anyone else (including “citizenry at large”), on the site thread — other than Nimby attributed to that person.
7. As a result of your comments, others felt the same implication, proven by their feeling of the need specifically to counter that their concern was city-wide, not Nimby.
8. Your comments definitely left the impression that others objecting who happened to be living near a park, would meet with the same Nimby claim, discounting their objections and substance of their objections.
9. Your above supposition that destruction of parkland and green space is “for the betterment of our seniors” is unfounded, and clearly, by a large margin, would be rejected by those same seniors, as well as anyone in Newton — if ever submitted for their approval or vote.
10. If you still don’t have my email, please let me know and I will RE-SEND.
11. This is all particularly disconcerting in view of the fact that you are a public official who presumably would be voting on this as to use of a park for NewCAL, which I more than doubt will ever get that far.
This would be an excellent time for the City leadership to step forward, embrace the fact that this project has entered a new phase of public discussion and attention, recalibrate, and bring together good ideas and constructive criticism to chart a path forward.
Comments here and elsewhere have helped expand the conversation, but they aren’t going to build consensus. Defensiveness, hardening of opinions, and misunderstanding are going to worsen the debate.
My suggestion:
Acknowledge the ongoing hard work by NewCAL’s planning group as well as the thoughtful critiques and questions of other people. Reiterate our commitment to Newton’s aging citizens as well as the value of our open spaces and pride in our existing facilities. Let people know they will have time to have their say, that their voices will be heard, and that the ongoing process will be inclusive and deliberate. Then do it. Set an expectation of respect for and by everyone involved.
And try to avoid saying that any one group deserves its due. That divides us. We are one Newton. We’ve got each other’s backs. The expectation should be that we look out for each other, that we work together to get everyone everything they need. If we momentarily forget that commitment, be sure to remind us.
Leadership is important, and great leaders react. This is one of those times.
Can someone from the Working Group state when and how the plan for a new senior center morphed into a community center? It must have happened at one of the meetings so there should be minutes at the very least, but a more complete explanation from members of the Working Group would be appreciated.
Ralph – You’re missing the point. The objection is to taking any parkland for any building of any sort. We live in a built out city so green space is limited. The parks are used by all generations for a variety of events, sports games, practices, walking, jogging, etc.
Greg – Still waiting to hear if you think it’s fiscally wise for the city to pursue the number of major capital projects in the pipeline without debt exclusion overrides to fund them
Bravo, Mike Halle! All I would add is that it would be great for the Mayor to also provide a “road map” for that process, making clear the approval process that will be necessary for any proposal and how and when the public would be part of that process.
@Mike: I think what would be most helpful going forward would be for this process to be transparent. The work of the Working Group is not subject to Open Meeting Law – but providing – agendas and minutes would help many understand the decision making process.
They are not subject to the OML, but there is nothing that would preclude them from choosing to follow its procedures if they wanted. If there is a concern about the meeting lengths, doing so doesn’t mean they have to take time for public comments in every meeting.
Amy, I agree, with the caveat that we can’t change the past. Not being fully transparent from the get-go unfortunately means that there’s a lot more explaining required now about all the initial outreach and conclusions drawn from it. There’s also the surprise factor that some people are feeling. That isn’t judgement, that’s reality.
But let’s move forward. At some point, the decision-making process was going to have to become accountable, verifiable, and open so that that outsiders can learn about it and provide real input. That point might better have been earlier, but it certainly seems it should be now. We’ve transitioned from pure envisioning to a more conventional planning process.
I think what’s needed goes beyond open meeting laws. That’s just a mechanism. The larger “we” has to be behind this project for it to succeed. That means supporting the underlying goal (that’s the easy one), approximately agreeing on its scope and general approach, building some sort of consensus on the siting (with possible mitigations) if something central does get built, and agreeing on the specifics of the funding mechanism.
Reasonable, informed people can differ on all of those things while still strongly supporting a generational commitment to Newton’s older residents. And at least some of those people aren’t currently on the Working Group, nor should they have to be.
Keeping those people informed and letting them have their say is good government, and part of a good plan. Unfortunately it is also a real political and time investment.
Sometimes it feels like this whole darn city is a senior center.
For those following this thread, please see the corrected image, as described above.
@Mike: “Keeping those people informed and letting them have their say is good government, and part of a good plan. Unfortunately it is also a real political and time investment.”
Not sure if I understand what you are saying here but for me, good government demands taking the political and time investment to make sure that your constituents/residents are well informed and have a say in the “process”.
I do hope there will be more transparency going forward in all city decisionmaking.
If you oppose the use of parkland for NewCAL, please sign the petition
https://www.change.org/p/mayor-ruthanne-fuller-save-newton-s-parks
and forward the link to your friends!
Let’s mobilize and show the Mayor the widespread opposition to this plan!
I’m curious: The make-up of a working group for a senior center would logically differ from the make-up of a community-center-focused working group. Is the NewCAL working group representative of its expanded mission/audience?
@Marcia: The info on the NewCAL working group can be found here: http://amysangiolo.com/2019/08/newcal-newton-center-for-active-living/
Thanks, Amy. I’d seen the last but I don’t know most of the community members. The ones I do know are seniors. I’m trying to figure out if there are eg parents of young kids and teens, young adults, and others besides seniors if we’re talking an all-ages facility as opposed to a senior center. I also don’t see any officials representing youth services, NPS or others who might be able to speak to services that non-seniors are looking for. I’m all for a new senior center but, like others on this thread, wondering about the need and demand for the NewCAL concept.
A lot of great feedback and opinions on here but I must say that I am extremely impressed with Mike Halle. Your comments are spot on. You clearly bring reason to the discussion, which truly mirrors our process in Newton government. My drive to do something good for our community and see a new Senior center become a reality has lead me to consider all options, including utilizing existing open space. Clearly the voices of opposition to that are being expressed and heard loudly. And so the process continues. So often an immense amount of work goes into the beginning of a process, yet the greater community joins in later and fear and panic abounds at thinking that they have missed their opportunity to weigh in. Not so. An example: At land Use, we often have people come to the microphone to express that they just heard about a project and we are rushing it through when in reality, its the third public hearing over three months and they are just getting on board. People complain that we take to long at City Hall but that is because we are thoughtful, look for public comment, always, and know that a detailed process brings the best results. So thanks Mike for centering the discussion and debate about what the process should look like. That is how I approach my responsibility to Newton.
Councilor Lipof, thanks. I think it’s worth some time trying to figure out why we end up in this kind of situation in Newton with some frequency. While I appreciate your stated commitment to public information, comment and participation, I can also tell you from personal experience that not everything in Newton works that way. Some projects go from “it’s early in the process” to “it’s too late, we’re sorry” very quickly. Some is at the Council level, but other times it’s at the staff or working group level.
That has broad negative ramifications. First, the people who are involved in the early work (like the NewCAL working group) get frustrated and defensive because their significant work doesn’t seem valued/understood. Other thoughtful/constructive people, who might have different views on the project, feel left out and may be forced outside the process to have their voices heard.
That brings the concerns/fears of yet another group who may be more oriented to a single issue (“parks”, “seniors”, “parking”, “traffic”, “buildings too tall”, “affordable housing”, “taxes”, “we have no money”, etc), who are forced to react without being part of the more complex specific discussion at hand. This then reinforces the existing divisions in our community.
Once we’re at this stage, you as lawmakers or the administration have no choice but to backtrack (which wastes time and can’t undo the social damage done) or push through (which holds greater risk but sometimes needs to happen). In either case, it isn’t clear to me we get the best plan. Come the next issue, we’re in a worse starting place because of distrust. All of our issues become tangled up, and we lose our ability to make even modest changes, much less implement bold visions.
We see this pattern time and time again. I don’t accept it has to be this way. It makes me wonder, can we do better from the beginning of the process? There are some counterexamples. I felt that the West Newton Square redesign, at least up until the very end, built a lot of consensus around what I think is going to be a great civic improvement. Because the process was well done and inclusive, it for the most part survived last minute concerns and second thoughts. Hats off to Planning, and in particular the now departed Lily Canaan Reynolds, for the great and tireless job they did.
Here are a couple example suggestions:
If someone is interested in tracking an issue at City Council, they often have to look through all the meeting agendas to see what is coming up and the meeting notes to see what happened. If that information was pulled out or cross-referenced on a project-by-project basis, the public could easily see the entire discussion, better appreciate the work that has gone into the process, and know when they should contribute. Moving from a process-centric to an issue-centric model helps interested citizens stay informed and involved.
Second, 311. 311 is much better than no 311. But other municipalities provide issue reporters much more information and feedback. I once reported an overflowing storm sewer in Waltham, and I was thanked by the supervisor through the app, who also told me they were scheduling work to fix the problem in the near future. I could imagine that kind of incremental approaches to civic education cuts down on angry calls to city hall. It also reinforces the idea that we’re in this together. Newton doesn’t take advantage of this opportunity.
Two small examples. I’m sure we could come up with many more.
Sorry, Lily, if you’re out there, for misspelling your name (Lily Canan Reynolds).
Councilor Lipof,
If you’d like NewCAL in the Park “feedback and opinions” and want to be ‘”impressed” — I’d suggest you link to the below petition, with well more than 500 signed objectors and 50 written opinions — in the first 18 hours alone!
https://www.change.org/p/mayor-ruthanne-fuller-save-newton-s-parks
Mike is dead on here.
There has got to be a way to gauge voter enthusiasm for ideas before they get so far down the road. A poll perhaps? That is what the city did when the Newton Highlands Historic District dust-up happened.
I fully support building a senior center, and don’t mind spending more if it means it is done the correct way.
What does make me upset is how much money has been spent on architects, etc… without knowing if there was a place to put this thing or if the voters even supported the idea.
In the era of rising pension trust fund payments and OPEB liabilities looming, we cannot afford to waste any money.
And if I hear the “world class schools” thing one more time… Go see how the kids eat their lunch at Mason Rice or go play a little league game at Memorial Spaulding. Then tell me again that it is “world class.”
Patrick,
Not only what you say, in view of the provisions of the City of Newton Parks & Recreation Commission Manual (pages 44-45), pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 45, there shall be no diversion “of park and playground open space to other uses unless there has been a compelling showing that there is no feasible and prudent alternative, including both publicly and privately owned potential sites, as well as potential sites that are not currently in open space use.” To have inaugurated the NewCAL site selection process to the point of actually determining the six park sites, without first having made a “compelling showing” of “no feasible and prudent alternative” is the proverbial “putting the cart before the horse”.
It constitutes an abuse of discretion currently to continue to commit City expense of money, time and effort further to analyze among those six park sites. But more than that, it is committing Newton residents unnecessarily to have to commit expense of money, time and effort to protect and preserve those parks.
Our Mayor campaigned on keeping open space
https://ruthannefuller.com/issues/environment-open-space/
Open Space
Newton has many green gems, from small parks and wetlands to conservation land, forests, and streams. Our open space is a crucial component of Newton’s livability.
As Mayor, I will have comprehensive strategy for acquiring, preserving and maintaining our green and open spaces:
• Acquire open space using the Community Preservation Act (CPA) and, when necessary, city funds. As with the Waban Hill Reservoir and Webster Woods, we are likely to face some “buy it now, or lose it forever” opportunities in the coming decades. States and cities around the country acquire property regularly; Newton should, too.
• Maintain our conservation lands and parks by allocating more budget and staff. This funding will allow for more accessible and thriving natural spaces.
Before proceeding further, I think we need to know:
-what the difference in cost would be between NewCAL and a senior center without a full gym and pool
– what proportion of residents want NewCAL instead of a senior center and want the city to spend the extra money
– what proportion want NewCAL instead of a senior center at the extra cost and are willing to give up park land for it.
Meredith
@Councillor Lipof: I also am very surprised by your argument that Paul Levy’s critique of the NewCAL project should be discounted because he lives nearby one of the proposed sites. I am sure many of those objecting to the current proposal (including me) live near or next to these parks. Indeed, all of us as residents of Newton are objecting _precisely_ because these parks are in our neighborhood in the larger sense.
Is it unreasonable to hope that a city development would be attractive enough, and contribute enough to the surrounding area, that even its neighbors would welcome it? Are you conceding that citing NewCAL in a park will make the park less attractive and reduce the quality of life of its neighbors? And are you claiming that only those neighbors—and not all the other users of the park —would suffer?
And I’m one of the many who isn’t by a park who also object.
As usual, Daniel Jackson gets to the heart of the matter: If Councillor Lipof felt that my concerns about a senior center were related to what would be an adverse affect on the quality of the neighborhood, that should seriously damn our expectation of the design of the facility–wherever it goes. If, as I’ve stated and Daniel suggests in his petition (signed now by several hundred people), parkland and other open space deserve protection, the address of anyone raising that point is irrelevant–except perhaps that we get to see first-hand how often the park is used by thousands of people.
Here’s that petition link again: https://www.change.org/p/mayor-ruthanne-fuller-save-newton-s-parks
And by the way, can the Mayor and everyone else stop talking about “Weeks Playground?” It is Weeks Park. http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/parks/city/weeks.asp Playgrounds and parks have very different level of protection from other municipal uses under Massachusetts law. The small tot lot in the corner of the field near Weeks House does not even have an asphalt surface: It has two bucket swings, a small climbing structure with two small slides, a table, and wood chips covering the soil.
Just yesterday I heard the expression for the first time “the train had left the station” on the expanded community center. So much for an ongoing process.
I’d like to see answers to Meredith’s questions before another step is taken.
Also, Marcia Tabanken raised an interesting point that no one has mentioned before and one that shouldn’t be lost in the mix of comments: once the scope of the project changed from a designated senior center to a community center, were other people with expertise in the needs of other generations brought onto the Working Group? If not, then did the original group make the recommendations without input from people in our community.
I’m not particularly interested in what might be in community centers in other cities and towns. The demographics may be different; other resources may be different. People in the know at different ages in our city have a better handle on our needs.
Jane,
Not only has the train not left the station, if it did, it is being stopped most assuredly as I write.
In the first 18 hours of the anti-NewCAL in the Park petition, there are over 700 signers and oodles and oodles of objecting comments. See — https://www.change.org/p/mayor-ruthanne-fuller-save-newton-s-parks
Not only that, as I wrote the other day to the Mayor and City Council:
“In view of the provisions of the City of Newton Parks & Recreation Commission Manual (pages 44-45), pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 45, there shall be no diversion “of park and playground open space to other uses unless there has been a compelling showing that there is no feasible and prudent alternative, including both publicly and privately owned potential sites, as well as potential sites that are not currently in open space use.” To have inaugurated the NewCAL site selection process to the point of actually determining the six park sites, without first having made a “compelling showing” of “no feasible and prudent alternative” is the proverbial “putting the cart before the horse”.
“Therefore… it would constitute an abuse of discretion currently to continue to commit City expense of money, time and effort further to analyze among those six park sites. But more than that, it is committing Newton residents unnecessarily to have to commit expense of money, time and effort to protect and preserve those parks…
“[The Mayor must] immediately suspend all action on assessing among the six park sites at least pending the determination that there is no feasible and prudent alternative (and even in the case of no alternative, whether Newton residents elect to sacrifice parkland for NewCAL). This will both comply with the law as well as eliminate the fermenting storm.”
Jim is right to focus on the jurisdiction of the Parks and Recreation Commission. As noted by one of the City Councillors to me: “Nothing can happen in the parks without their approval.” This is an appointed body that is separate and distinct from the Commissioner, who is beholden to the Mayor.
As Jim points out, it would be a gross violation of the Commission’s owns standards to approve this proposed siting based on the NewCAL process to date. And they cannot rely upon a finding that use of non-parkland would be more expensive: That’s explicitly stated in their manual.
Who knew!!
http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/parks/commission/default.asp
I’ve read with interest all of the topics on Village 14 talking about NewCAL. It seems that one of the primary issues being discussed centers around “transparency” and the fact that the writers commenting did no know about the NewCAL project until it was raised here.
Given that Newton no longer has a newspaper I’m wondering how information about NewCAL,or any other project in the city, can reach some, most, all of the people in the city so that there is no longer the surprise that NewCAL apparently represents.
We all get the Mayor’s email newsletter. Seniors get a newsletter from the senior center. We also get emails from councillors. Beyond that, you’re right, it’s unclear–except for this forum.
There should be some simple avenues for communication, even in a city with numerous things going on from week to week. But even those sources that exist – the Mayor’s update emails and the senior center newsletter – were not used to broadly share information about this particular endeavor. Until her June 25 update email, none of the Mayor’s emails sent this year, other than a single sentence in a prior email, included any information about NewCAL. Not one of this year’s mailed senior center newsletters has had any information either; no update about the process, progress, or even a listing of the community meeting dates. (If I’ve missed something, please correct me.) And while the minutes for the March community meeting are up, the minutes of the June community meeting have not been posted as of today, Aug 8.
David Olsen’s weekly email is another possible avenue for communicating official city meetings. It has not included the Working Group’s meeting information.
While it’s a side issue, why is this group not required to follow the open meeting law? Why did they not choose to follow it even if it wasn’t required?
The reason given to me was that the body did not contain a quorum of City Councillors. I’m not an OML expert, but I would have thought that a deliberative body advising the City Council on takings of public lands would be required to abide by the OML. Perhaps someone can comment on that. See page 2 of the AG’s memo: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/09/25/2017%20Guide%20only.pdf: “The law includes any multi-member body created to advise or make recommendations to a public body,”
@The Working Group was not formed as an advisory group to the City Council but an advisory group to the Mayor. As such, they are not subject to the Open Meetings Law. Their meetings are not posted on the Electronic Bulletin Board (where I get most of my information from for my newsletter updates) and not on the City Council’s Friday packet or in the City Council newsletter. I would have expected they would at least be posted on the NV5 NewCAL website – but only a few agendas were posted. Perhaps, the Administration will start posting these meetings/agendas/minutes to provide transparency to this process given the level of concern raised.
I noticed today at the senior center the bulletin board with comments behind the front desk has a newsletter posting from May 🙁
Closing comments here. Please join at https://village14.com/2019/08/09/united-we-stand/#axzz5w9WAmYvk or elsewhere on Village 14!