The Garden City seems a particularly turbulent place these days. Every day some contentious issue bubbles to the surface, and there seems to be an interconnectness to the various controversies. If only we could synthesize a sweeping response to them all! Despite our best efforts, coherence lies just beyond our collective grasp. Here’s a sampling of some boiling issues:
- Development: Two diametric views keep clashing here. One views Newton as in desparate need of an overhaul to revive its dynamism. Restrictive zoning and NIMBYism, in this view, have hindered its ability to construct needed housing and to offer more opportunities to entrepreneurs to revitalize “dead” areas like Wells Avenue, Oak Street, the Riverside station, and Washington Street. In particular the villages, supposedly moribund, could become attractive destinations for commerce and coffee if allowed to blossom.
Those in opposition believe that the Newton they love, a quiet and even sleepy place, is losing its placid, leafy quality thanks to the influx of aggressive developers. City government, they argue, is all too willing to pave the way for crowded thoroughfares, teardowns, McMansions, and gaudy housing developments. They react with horror to each new plan to spur Newton’s population growth, pointing out the flaws in the city’s infrastructure and its increasingly crowded schools.
- The environment: These battles are fascinating. Newton’s city government , in general, believes in environmentalism and is quite keen on helping to combat climate change. To that end, it has fostered the use of solar energy in public buildings and encouraged solar panels on our roofs. It also seeks, to an extent, to reconfigure some roadways to encourage more cycling. If people choose to ride bicycles instead of driving their gas-burning cars, another blow is struck against global warming. Recycling remains a high priority, as well as conserving existing resources and eliminating waste.
A few of these measures have met with surprising resistance. Some residents, who do not ride bicycles, fear that reconfigured roadways will impede the flow of automobile traffic. Some tree advocates resist solar projects that endanger any tree, despite the city’s assurance that every tree cut down will be replaced by another.
In the latest, oddest twist, the city plans to construct a new, greatly expanded senior center on one of six sites, all of them popular parks and playgrounds. Senior citizens, our leaders argue, deserve a special place of their own, given Newton’s large investment in the young. But where to put it? There’s the rub.
The plans have engendered a strong backlash against the idea of eliminating any park land in the city. Once lost, the argument goes, green space can never be replaced. Some residents doubt that a centralized senior center is even needed, and others would place senior services in several existing sites. Proposals and counterproposals are swirling, and many residents are stunned that building the center in a park could even be an option. “Paving paradise to put in a parking lot “ seems to contradict the city’s own environmental instincts.
Where do we go from here? Fortunately for all of us, democracy is alive and well in the Garden City. Elections for both city and village councilors are approaching. If you attend the various candidate forums in coming months, you will hear those vying for elected office expressing their views on the issues that matter locally. You yourself can weigh in at venues like Village 14 or write letters to the Newton Tab (yes, it still exists if barely). Check out websites like the Newton Patch, an online newsletter that is picking up the slack for the dying Tab. Attend committee meetings and general sessions of the City Council to watch our democracy in action.
Most importantly, communicate with your elected officials, in person or via letter and email. Find out how they feel about pressing local concerns, and express to them your own feelings. Whatever your opinion of our local leaders, almost all of them are quite responsive to constituents and prepared to share their views with you. In these troubled times, that at least is a blessing.
Don’t forget Webster Woods… The potential loss of green space there dwarfs any outstanding project, private or public.
Since the new senior center vis a vis parkland is raised, 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
@Bob – and many of us want a centralized senior center that isn’t grossly inflated in size and price to make it a community center. And I’m surprised that no one opposed to using park land for it has brought up environmental arguments (as opposed to the also-important recreational ones).
Meredith, in this day and age, opposition to using green space and parks includes, even if not specifically said, destruction of the remaining valuable natural environment in a dense built out city. That’s what opposition to using green space is in addition to quality of human life.
Mike Halle offered this thoughtful comment on the NewCAL issue earlier today:
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.
Read more: Here’s what 2.5 acres looks like | Village 14 https://village14.com/2019/08/05/heres-what-2-5-acres-looks-like/#ixzz5vsURPVkb
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike
Follow us: @14thVillage on Twitter | Village14 on Facebook
It is important not to conflate multifamily, transit oriented housing in village centers with teardowns and McMansions. They are not the same issue and in my view do not have the same solution.
Teardowns that raise the values of already expensive single family or two family homes are not helping housing affordability, housing supply, or our carbon footprint. We should reform our zoning code to discourage the current trajectory we’re on there.
Transit oriented multifamily housing, on the other hand, is a key strategy to lower housing costs, increase housing supply, and reduce our carbon footprint. It has to be done right, which is why I’m out there listening to voters to get a sense for what they would like to see prioritized as new projects are proposed and, hopefully, we proactively plan for our future.
Just as a point of information, the statement “increasingly crowded schools” is not accurate. See the current statistics and projections for the next 5-10 years:
https://www.newton.k12.ma.us/cms/lib/MA01907692/Centricity/Domain/1099/Long%20Range%20Facilities%20Planning%20Presentation_JOINT_6_13_2019.pdf
Things get a little complicated when you look at different age ranges and different time periods. In addition, some of the mechanisms for balancing schools (specifically the use of buffer zones) have some negative impacts on neighborhoods and transportation, so extra capacity may have other benefits for the city. The projections also look at future development.
But schools as a whole are not currently becoming increasingly crowded.
Mike – Overcrowding in a school is not just caused by an increase in enrollment. A significant increase in programs that require designated spaces are another significant source of overcrowding. (other than the schools that have been rebuilt). The other elementary schools don’t have the type of space suitable to accommodate these new programs. These programs are then put in spaces that are not conducive to a 21st century education (closets, storage spaces, divided classroom space, etc).
Schools should be built to last 50 – 60 years. That means enrollment will go through peaks and valleys over the lifetime of a building. Enrollment reports shouldn’t be used to plan new school facilities because they only project out 10 years at the most. Short term reports are an inadequate and often misleading means to conduct long term planning.
The Newton school population increased by several thousand over a 10 year period, at a point when most schools were already at capacity. It’s going to take a very long time to get back to the point when the schools aren’t overcrowded, and even then, the space will not accommodate the programmatic additions.
It should be noted that the additional programs are excellent and allow for a much wider range of students to attend NPS. More to the point, they are not a choice – a number of the programs are unfunded state mandates.
What about Article 97? Have non of these spaces been dedicated as a public park?
Jane, I enjoy reading your posts on the school system, since you clearly have in-depth knowledge. Are you still involved with the teacher’s union or the contract negotiations in any way? On a prior post you mentioned meeting with the mayor, and I was just curious as to your involvement.
As for Newton being “in flux”, honestly I disagree. Have we been “in flux” the past 20 years? Because these are the same conversations we’ve been having for all my time in Newton. I do think the blog has a bit more activity these days. I do think that Right Size Newton has spurred some discussions, which is great. But Newton Villages Alliance did that before them.
I’m old enough to remember the kurfluffal regarding Austin Street, and Newton North, and Engine 6, and the firehouses, and the various elementary schools. So much back and forth.
We’ve made some great progress over the years folks. 3 new elementary schools. New firehouses. Austin street is almost done, and West Newton and Newtonville are due for facelifts. Tree work is MUCH better around the city, I’m seeing trees being planted in the berm all over newtonville and it no longer takes YEARS to get a dying tree removed from the berm. Water and sewer is much improved. The city has had no major scandals, crime is extremely low, and pot is legal here (I know Mike, I know, it took forever. But slow progress is still progress)
If all we’ve got to be “in Flux” about is how to manage the fact that tons of folks want to build and live here, how to be green (solar panels or bike lanes or trees) enough, and that an election is coming up, well, let me just say we’ve got it damn good.
Sometimes we talk ourselves into believing that what interests folks on this blog and in passionate folks like Right Size Newton is what is driving folks around the city.
I recently asked my neighbors about what they thought about Newton, and mostly they complained about the roads and the turkeys. One mentioned they thought Austin Street would look good once it got finally finished, and said Washington Place looked too tall. Another was upset that the deck on Bullough’s Pond had been removed.
No one mentioned Riverside. Or green issues. Or NewCal.
Newton is doing great. It isn’t in flux. It is a normal city in today’s Massachusetts, dealing with the issues of the day. Housing. Green issues. An aging population. What kind of city to we want to be in 10 years? 20 years?
Bob, I love your posts, but I just disagree with this one and the tone it sets. It isn’t as bad or as split as you are implying. Except on this blog maybe.
Everyone should vote. That’s a great thing. But I also recommend folks look around the Commonwealth, appreciate what we have, and keep the good conversations going. If you are getting angry, there is a little business on Washington Street that might be able to help you. Appointment only!
😉
Except the state of our commuter rail stations. Everyone is free to have righteous anger about those.
RIGHTEOUS ANGER!
Thanks, everyone: great discussion! Flux doesn’t necessarily mean decay- just controversy and change. As for me, I have lived and worked in Newton for most of my life, and I’m not going anywhere! And yes, I wish that public transit in Newton and across the country got the attention it deserves, as it does in Europe. That would solve lots of problems, from improving housing opportunities to decreasing the carbon footprint. Even on the Vineyard, where bike lanes abound and the local transit system is growing, automobile traffic is mounting.
I agree with Fig, Newton has been in flux for a long time. And we live in a city of 80,0000-plus which has 80,000-plus people who believe they are experts in pretty much everything so opinions run high.
But if it feels like Newton is in flux right now, it’s because our state, our country and our world are in flux and NEWTON DOES NOT EXIST IN A BUBBLE.
We’re living through a time of remarkable generational and demographic changes. The ways we communicate, learn, eat, shop, get from one place to another, and so many other things have changed and will keep changing. And after decades of warnings, a growing number of the population is experiencing the impact of climate change and are — hopefully — ready to embrace an urgent need for even more significant changes.
The things we passionately debate in Newton are both minuscule and massive (is it flux or reflux?) because they reflect who were are, who we may become and where we are going.
Fig – After 35 years of teaching at the elementary level (Kindergarten,
and grades 1, 3, 5, at Burr and 6 in Brookline and two years as a teacher in special education programs), I officially retired 10 years ago but was pretty bad at it – I was back in the schools after the 60 day hiatus required by the state ( I think it’s the state, maybe it’s MTRB). Since that time, I’ve been very involved in teaching students with limited or interrupted formal education (SLIFE). SLIFE students are typically unable to attend school due to civil unrest in their home country. I developed and taught the literacy part of the SLIFE program at NNHS half time for 7 years.
Then the grandchildren began to arrive (4 in two years!) and I wanted more flexibility, so now I’m teaching students with the same profile at Bigelow MS on a reduced schedule, as well as developing the literacy curriculum for the middle school SLIFE students.
I’m very involved in NTA, but I’m not on the negotiating team and never have been. While I will not benefit from a new contract, I have been and remain concerned about Newton’s ability to attract and retain top candidates, given the competition from excellent nearby school systems.
I met with the mayor with the intent of discussing the possibility of developers paying for playgrounds for schools that spend an inordinate amount of time fundraising to build new playgrounds (it took Burr 4 years!). It seems to me that those funds would be better spent on other enrichment programs. Unfortunately, no one seems interested in the idea.
Jane, I for one think that is a great idea. I think every mayor likes the flexibility to use developer monies in a less specific manner (ie budget gap fillers and pet projects). But it is insane that the playgrounds aren’t covered by city money already…
I do agree with Bob that the elections are always very important. And that more passionate folks tend to perk their heads up around election time to fight for their issues, and that can create an atmosphere of more opposition and stress.
But I also work in many of our surrounding areas so I get to see the rest of the Commonwealth’s operations on the city/town level. We are doing ok overall. Always room for improvement, but trust me it could be much worse!
I do miss a better local newspaper.
During the school fundraising equity discussion, there was a good bit of discussion that NPS would/should increase its spending so that PTO fundraising wouldn’t be as critical.
I never heard anything about whether Parks and Rec would pick up more or all of the playground costs.
Relying on PTOs for this purpose is something that unintentionally plays to our divisions and increases inequities. Given how relatively small these capital costs are at the city level (but large at the school fundraising level), this seems like something that should just be fixed.
School playgrounds are parks.
Mike – I agree completely, and many, many of us have made that argument re: playgrounds over the years, to no avail. Parks & Rec does very basic maintenance and occasional very minor repairs, but that’s it. If a playground structure is deemed unsafe, they’ll remove it, but that’s it. Major repairs and replacements are funded by the PTOs, or they don’t happen.
I thought it was a pretty good idea and even put together photographs of one of the nicest playgrounds in the metro area and downloaded photos of low cost items for playgrounds. But Tricia is right – no one is interested and I’ve really tried to get people to consider the idea in the last year. To say I’ve been blown off would not be an understatement. It’s a lost opportunity, in my book. Imagine if the schools that have more difficulty raising money were able to spend what they raise on enrichment programs instead?
And I agree with Fig that Newton is a great city for people of all ages. The one area where we’re not great is infrastructure. In the past, we were bad at maintenance (really bad, as in terrible) so we have a lot of catching up to do.
It is absolutely maddening that the PTOs have to fundraise for playgrounds and most maintenance. The pricing is astronomical for almost all of it. Just the cost to paint the markings for a basketball court and foursquare at my child’s school was jaw-dropping.
I actually don’t think developer money should go directly to playgrounds. I think the city should just commit to maintaining them, and can find the funds however they would like. That preserves flexibility and establishes accountability.
I don’t see this as controversial. I think there would be broad agreement and support across the school community. It is the easiest piece of the school equity puzzle to solve. And there is probably some savings by buying at larger scale.
The coming change in leadership at Parks seems like a great opportunity to set this plan in motion.
Is this really something we can’t solve in Newton? I’d help getting parents to sign a petition. The only reason not to do it is because we’ve always done it another way.
@Fignewtonville: respectfully, for whom and where do you work?
I’m asking because you referenced it in your post.
Pat, respectfully, why does that matter? I don’t work for the city and I’m not a developer. I’ve been posting here since the blog started on lots of topics. If I’m somehow a Plant for some interest, boy I’ve been playing the long game…
Mostly I post about Newtonville. Since that’s my village.
Also I like cookies. Hence my name.
Folks are free to disregard my posts if they think I’m biased. But I’d hope I have some credibility here.
Mike – It seems like a total no brainer, but no one has been able to get the city to move the needle on it over decades. I still remember fund raising for the first Cabot playground in the 80’s because there wasn’t one at all. The kids played on the blacktop in front of the school. Then once the money was raised, it was the parents’ responsibility to put it up!
I wish you luck – I really do. The lack of interest was the reason why I tried to think of another avenue to get the playgrounds funded. It isn’t Bob DeRubeis’ fault.
Fig – You definitely have credibility here, but because no one knows you it’s easy to misinterpret some comments. As an example, I really couldn’t tell if you wanted to know my background or if you were baiting me a bit.
On the other hand, if Greg or Terry Malloy had asked me that same question, I’d know they were needling me. (Joke, guys, joke)
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!
Jane, to be honest, I was just trying to figure out how you got a meeting with the mayor. And then I got curious if you got dragged into the contract negotiations.
No other motive on my part. I’ve never asked to meet the mayor and was curious how to go about it.
I knew your general bio from the charter stuff, so I knew you wouldn’t mind sharing.
I’m too tired to bait anyone. Plus, my kids can read what I write, which is an amazing motivating factor to be your best self.
I wrote to her with my playground suggestion and she said she wanted to know more about it. We never talked about the idea so it was kind of a wash.
I think she has open monthly open meetings that anyone can attend and have a short conversation with her.
The people on both sides of the negotiating table are saints in my book. They’ve been at it for almost a year and there’s still no contract. I’d rather stick a needle in my eye than be on the negotiating team.
I was almost certain that your question was legit, by the way.
I shouldn’t write after 9:00pm. Always make stupid mistakes.
Daniel, I understand the motivation for the petition. I don’t doubt people will sign.
But how does it help us solve the problem of providing for Newton’s elder community? Or make our parks better (living up to the words on your petition)? Or improve the civic process, encourging discussion and communication? Or even just educate people about the topic?
We are where we are because of a lack of communication. I don’t see petitions and hardening of positions as the best response to that situation right now.
It drives us toward the characature of “parks vs seniors”, which will not be either pretty nor helpful. We have already seen some of it on V14. Those kinds of divisions between neighbors don’t heal quickly.
I think it would be interesting to talk to her, but frankly I think I’d be afraid I’d just start ranting about undergrounding utilities, road diets, and road repairs, and I’d get them confused and start talking about underground roads and diet repairs.
I’m better online posting in my pajamas while I watch food shows on Netflix.
As for the parks vs seniors, we aren’t really there I think. Folks can want to keep their parks and still support seniors. More than one thing can be true. I just view this issue as a challenge of urban landscaping as much as it is anything else.
Mike,
I think a petition is useful to allow people who have felt disenfranchised to date to express a point of view. It is a long-standing, respectful, and useful vehicle in that regard.
BTW, I think if we drew a Venn diagram of people interested in protecting the parks and people interested in expanding senior services, we’d get about a 90% overlap. The latter were invited to the NewCAL process; the former were not. That was where the division was actually encouraged by the City’s process. And meanwhile there has been a small and growing group who have tried to get the City’s attention w/r/t enhancing the quality of the parks, but they have been virtually ignored by city officials.
Hoping, like you, that the two groups (actually one) can be invited by the City to work together on solutions. The Mayor has a chance to help make that happen, to unite us rather than divide us. The ball is in her court.
Mike re the ‘NewCAL out of the Park’ petition:
“But how does it help us solve the problem of providing for Newton’s elder community? Or make our parks better (living up to the words on your petition)? Or improve the civic process, encourging discussion and communication? Or even just educate people about the topic?”
Mike, actually, the petition does accomplish precisely all of the above (remember, the petition also states, “It is undoubtedly important to serve Newton’s seniors…”).
@Mike Halle: The petition aims to contribute to, not undermine, a civic discussion. It does NOT oppose the senior center; on the contrary it notes the importance of serving Newton’s seniors. The Mayor herself has expressed, publicly and in messages to many of us, her interest in listening to Newton residents. My own view is that she has not grasped just how much our city’s greenness and public parks are valued, and that this petition will give her a clearer picture of that. It also allows signers to customize the petition with their own personal comments (which many have done).
My comment about the petition revolves around the fact that is focuses on what not to do, rather than what to do. I guess it makes things simple: “don’t do X”. But “Newton in flux”, or even just the perception that it is, isn’t simple.
Let’s talk about parks, rather than just NewCAL. The petition says the parks “have been nurtured and protected by the city for decades if not centuries”. Contrast that to Jane’s comments about school playgrounds, which are part of parks but privately funded by school parents of varying means across the city.
Or other recent commenter’s observations that there are no spray parks in Newton. Or the state of the Gath pool, which if improved could be a place for aquatic exercise for seniors and others (even beyond what the initial NewCAL proposal). Or the piecemeal maintenance that is done with funds from youth soccer and little league.
Communities around us, affluent and not, manage to do incredible things with parks and play spaces big and small. We have such great spaces, but we could do so much more with them.
To be clear, I’m not dissing Parks and Rec. I’m commenting on the City’s commitment to its parks, which simply won’t change unless people start saying it’s important to them. So, I would like to see any momentum behind “no” (“don’t touch the parks”) turned into “yes” (“make our parks better for everyone”).
Perhaps the other commenters are correct and one is a stepping stone to the other. But it won’t happen if we don’t take that next step. Let’s stand up for what we want rather than just fighting for what we don’t.
@Mike Halle: The reason that the petition focuses on what not to do is that its scope is necessarily limited. It recognizes that finding a suitable site for NewCAL, and determining an appropriate balance of cost and size, is a major undertaking — and indeed is a task for a thoughtful project team and should not be dictated narrowly by citizen proposals.
The key issue is that many of us feel that there is a principle at stake here. We are not opposing constructive modifications of the parks, but simply asserting that Newton — in this day and age especially — should not reduce its parkland or green space. Many of us are shocked that this principle does not seem to have been taken seriously by the NewCal team or the mayor and we feel it is critical that it be reaffirmed going forwards in any consideration of how to develop the city.
Mike Halle, since you raise what not to do and what to do, the below is from my recent email letter to the Mayor:
“… 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…”