Mike Ciolino asked, in a thoughtful series of questions in response to my post on Councilor Jake Auchincloss’s (Ward 2, at-large) (and others) and Marc Laredo’s (Ward 7, at-large) divergent views on auto-inevitability, why can’t we just leave Newton as it is?
I love where I live, I’ve got a good life, and I’m able to make a decent living here. Personally, I don’t need Newton to grow.
Fair enough. And, I understand the sentiment. My wife and I chose to move to Newton some twenty years ago, because of the Newton that was twenty years ago. I didn’t move here with the intention of upzoning Newton. In fact, one of my first bits of public testimony was at a hearing to rezone a nearby street from multi-family to single-family-only. (Oy, if I could take that back.)
My answer: the world is changing all around us, and Newton needs to grow in response. Not to do so would create or exacerbate a series of injustices: environmental, economic, and social.
The most immediately pressing issue is the global climate crisis. As an inner-ring suburb to Boston, with a host of transit options, Newton is uniquely situated to provide car-free or car-lite living for many thousands more than live here now. At around 30%, transportation is the biggest contributor of carbon emissions. Increased density, especially near transit and close to job centers, like Boston, could be an effective tool to reduce carbon emissions. Newton already has plenty of amenities within a walk or a short drive for many. And, density creates a virtuous circle: the more density, the more close-by amenities, which reduce the need to drive.
No matter how much we like the Newton life, the urgency of the climate crisis compels us to sacrifice the status quo.
The ubiquitous stories about Boston-area traffic congestion highlight the economic injustice of Newton’s (and other area communities’) residential zoning. Regional employment growth is outpacing planning estimates and way outpacing regional housing growth. The consequence: more and more people spending more and more time in their cars commuting from far-flung suburbs in increasingly congested traffic. This costs folks money — hard transportation costs, like gas — and time. Allowing more folks to live in Newton, with its relatively rich transit options, would reduce the economic burden of working in the region.
Mayor Ruthanne Fuller is among 15 metro-Boston mayors who have signed a compact to increase housing by 185,000 units by 2030. Our pro-rata share of that is 11,000 new units. We currently have about 32,000 housing units in the city. It’s going to be difficult to absorb that growth. But, to deny people badly needed housing a reasonable commute to Boston exacerbates an economic crisis.
We benefit from a robust, growing Boston economy. We must do our share to ensure that everyone can live within an affordable commute to that economy.
Finally, but by no means least, our current low-growth is enforced by exclusionary zoning. It is extremely difficult to add new units in Newton. It’s illegal in most cases. There is no polite way to put this: exclusionary zoning is one of many tools historically used to segregate white America from black America. In Newton, the tool forged in racism has had its effect. Newton has about half the black population as Boston, which is about half the black population of the country. Certainly not everyone in Newton who enjoys, like Mike does, the benefits of exclusionary zoning is a racist or actively seeks the segregating effect that exclusionary zoning has.
It is a moral stain on our community that we have exclusionary zoning on our books. It is unforgiveable that we are considering a “reformed” zoning ordinance that maintains the social injustice of single-family-only zoning.
These are the reasons that some of us pursue growth. Not, as a recent post suggested, because we want to revitalize our village centers. The stakes are far more urgent.
How we manage that growth to ensure that we do not displace the vulnerable, that we do not concentrate growth in the already dense areas, that we create affordability across a spectrum are complicated issues that merit further posts and discussions. We need significant transit investment to actually enable car-free and -lite living at that scale. We will need to invest in schools, open space, and other civic amenities to match the growth.
But, not growing is not an option.
Sean is right.
>As an inner-ring suburb to Boston, with a host of transit options, Newton is uniquely situated to provide car-free or car-lite living for many thousands more than live here now.
What is this based on exactly because my experience with the MBTA is that it can’t even handle the current demand. Anyone that relies on public transit (or reads the news) knows this.
And how does building luxury high-rise apartment buildings that rent 1 bedroom apartments for $3k a month make Newton “affordable”? Using the legal definition that’s not affordable at all–in fact it’s nearly twice the HUD allowance for “affordable housing”.
https://www.avaloncommunities.com/massachusetts/newton-apartments/avalon-at-newton-highlands/floor-plans
Mr. Roche is wrong or at best right for the wrong reasons. More specifically, the priorities of this committed social justice warrior may end up being those of our city. If so though, it should not be for reasons articulated. The only “should” associated with the development of Newton is that the city “should” evolve in a manner essentially consistent with the goals and objectives of the people owning the property. Should these people be the citizens of Newton, then sure let people like Mr. Roche burn bits in his quest to make the world a better place. Should the ownership be private though, it is the duty of our elected officials to largely tune out the likes of Mr. Roche and enact policy consistent with (or at least largely encouraging of) how the folks who own the property wish to dispose of the property. If that means some level of growth which aligns with Mr. Roche’s vision, fine. If that means large private residences each with four car garages, well if that’s how people want to live, who are we to say it is wrong? Sub-optimal from Mr. Riche’s perspective, perhaps. Wrong no. And if it is not wrong, it should not be legislated away.
I overall agree with Sean’s sentiments and am mostly excited to see Newton grow. But this stood out to me: “Newton is uniquely situated to provide car-free or car-lite living for many thousands more than live here now.”
This simply isn’t true right now. Development could help people run errands by foot (but that’s only if practical things open in the new developments; I don’t want to see a bunch of boutiques, I want places where I can buy boring stuff like socks or a plunger), but our public transit here in Newton isn’t really useful for everyday use. It COULD be if we had better bus routes and if the commuter rail became more than just for commuters. And improving bikability will help as well – right now I barely bike because I’m too skittish but protected lanes would change that.
I guess what I’m saying is that I’m pessimistic about our state of public transit and I’m not sure people will give up their cars yet.
The mayor will be a hypocrite in my eyes, as she lives in a bubble in Chestnut Hill. When we upzone Chestnut Hill, I believe her. Until then, walk the walk, don’t just put it all in my neighborhood. Am I NIMBY? Everyone calling me that look in the mirror. Newtonville p, compared to waban and Chestnut Hill, and Newton highlands, has no green line and only a commuter rail. But we get stuck with all the traffic, sewer water, school enrollment. If Sean is right, then the burden of climate change should be shared by all and. It just sticking all the density in Newtonville/ West Newton. That’s going to exacerbate the already high class differences in Newton.
@Mary Mary
Retail is DEAD. you will not be buying a plunger by walking. We’re lucky Swartz hardware isn’t out of business.
There’s going to be BANKS ( with the recent request for an exemption at Washington Place ) coffee shops, and the usual boutiques.
Forget buying socks except going to a mall ( what’s left of them ) or online.
I mosty agree, but I think Mike Halle has mentioned it here that perhaps one of those small Targets like in Porter Square could actually be a good fit for Washington Street. That could fill the need for last minute practical purchases that people can make by foot. Or a grocery store with an expanded miscellany section. Banks and boutiques won’t help Newton lower their carbon footprint. People will drive to Watertown for Target or Needham Street for TJX stores.
Yes folks, double/triple up on housing, take in boarders (preferably illegal immigrants, we’re a sanctuary city), encourage or at least allow houses to be torn down for replacement by dense apartment units everywhere possible, restrict cars only to certain thoroughfares, endeavor to lower property values to attract the lower/lowest economic groups everywhere we can, and, most of all, grow, grow, grow. Yes folks, we need to do our part, not only for Boston, but for ‘global warming’! We don’t want to continue to be a “moral stain” do we? We absolutely must relinquish our quality of life. Our Mayor wants this, our civic leaders want this. Let’s all do our part!
Everything Sean said is totally offbase. I wish I had the time correct each sentence of misinformation, but here are some highlights.
1) Most people in Newton don’t work in Newton. Boston’s public transportation is better than Newton’s. More density in Newton means MORE people commuting long distances to work, which is bad for the environment.
2) There is no “exclusionary” housing. It is against the law to discriminate when you rent or sell your home. If Sean thinks people are being discriminated against, he should stop typing and call the police.
3) The incessant V14 narrative is that the cost of living in Newton has gone up too much. Whip out the moral authority and claim a white chokehold. Let’s look at the census data. Between 1990 and 2018, the percentage of African-Americans in Newton has increased 64%. The percentage of Hispanics has increased 177%. The percentage of Asians has increased 211%.
4) A careful study a couple years ago that looked at race-based mobility. They found that housing costs did NOT explain neighborhood racial bunching.
If you love high density and concrete, just say so. Don’t justify it with moral superiority.
RE: “transportation is the biggest contributor of carbon emissions”
Close, but not quite the case in Newton. As you cited country-wide figures, here are figures, as percents of total greenhouse gas emissions, closer to home:
* Residential Transportation is 29%
* Residential Heating, Cooling and Applications are 33%
* Commercial amounts to 25%
See internal Page 4 of the Newton Citizens Climate Action Plan (NCCAP) report for citation of the 2013 analysis. (http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=98477)
From page 9 of the NCCAP: “it is technologically and economically feasible to meet the IPCC targets, and that the City of Newton should adopt them as its climate policy goals”. Notably, the report does not conflate growth (or a lack of it) with progress on the environment.
The Newton Citizens Commission on Energy brought its NCCAP analyses and recommendations to the mayor and the planning department initially in March. At 7:00pm Monday, August 26th, a joint meeting of the Zoning & Planning and Public Buildings City Council sub-committees will take-up that report and a submission from the City Planning Department.
You might consider attending and lending your energy in support of that/those initiatives designed to achieve the IPCC’s recommendation for 2050.
Everyone has a role to play in reaching the target on time (or before). That is equally true if accomplished within Newton’s current footprint or a different one. Action toward lowering greenhouse gas emissions need not be conflated with minimizing development. In fact, getting there will require faster construction regardless of the population and demographic forecasts …
Mayor Fuller had no right to sign anything on behalf of Newton residents. She ought to have laid out honestly her aim to build new housing across the north side of Newton and its implications
for higher taxes, traffic and safety impacts and overall loss of local businesses. When will public response be considered?
This city needs a referendum on excessive development.
For decades new housing has been built at a reasonable pace.
Everyone accepts modest annual growth.
What the majority do not want is unmanageable, destructive change. We want a voice in how our city designs village development.
What Colleen said. Here we go again…Notch. (@Fignewtonville: if you need a reminder ref: what that means, speak up 😉
@Jeffrey – I appreciate that Sean’s argument is somewhat aggressive, but several of your responses are at least as challenging to the overall accuracy of the discussion.
Your point 1) is backwards unless you think that Boston proper has unlimited capacity to add housing, AND that the people moving to Newton developments are more likely to be moving out from downtown rather than in from Natick or Needham. What evidence we have suggests that virtually any housing inside of 128 – even in communities with far worse transit access than Newton – decreases aggregate miles commuted for the region and increases transit share.
Your point 2) confuses exclusionary zoning with housing discrimination. Exclusionary zoning has been a big topic in city planning for quite a while now, economists are in agreement across the board on the detrimental effects, and support for reform is relatively bipartisan.
Your point 3) again confuses things, offering large percentage increases on tiny base numbers with little context. I’m not sure that Sean makes his point too clearly on this issue either, really, but let’s not pretend that going from 1.5% A-A to 2.5% A-A over thirty years means we should put up the “Mission Accomplished” banner.
If you’re happy with your ability to have an auto-centric single family home somewhere between five and ten miles from the central business district of a city with a significant housing crisis, I mean, I get all the perks, I live (and own) in Newton too. But there is definitely an ethical argument as to whether using zoning to artificially keep Newton’s share of the regional population lower than it would be otherwise for the benefit of entrenched interests is a good thing, given the challenges of Boston and the planet. I’m not as far out on a limb about it as Sean is, but I don’t think he just wants to add concrete, either.
I love when people say that Newton can’t possibly supply a car-lite lifestyle and then get in their car to get a coffee.
The issue here isn’t that people can go 100% without a car. Even in New York City I know people who keep a car around or rent one when necessary. The idea is that you can reduce your usage of one. Right now, for those of us living more than a half mile from a village center, walking to dinner or to just pick up something small (like prescriptions or coffee or meeting a friend) is a bit of a trek. But if you live near there, then those types of small trips aren’t by car.
And if you really sat down and looked at your life, you’d realize that you do that a lot. We can fix this problem… and it IS a problem.
When our village centers emerged they solved a simple problem: they gave local residents a place to get the things they needed close to home. We had hardware stores in every village, as well as a series of movie theaters, schools, grocers, etc. Amazon didn’t kill our village centers, the car did. Supermarkets gave us a way to drive our car over and fill our trunk (our own Star Market in Newtonville is an early example), Home Depot allowed us to get lots of hardware and housewares at lower prices, so long as we drove there. Costco did that for everything else. Movie theaters grew and moved to places along highways.
We can’t put it back, we can’t recreate the village centers as they were. But we can create something new by building on that base infrastructure. Growth, as described above by Sean, allows us to do just that.
We should welcome it, embrace it, and work to create something amazing.
Over on Universal Hub a commenter wrote to the students who will report on Newton, saying “I’ll save them time. Here’s your headline, fill in the blank with ‘housing; development; residents’ et al as applicable:
‘Newton Residents Say No to New ________________'”
That’s how Boston sees us. Let’s start saying “yes.”
Sean Roche for Mayor 2021.
@Chuck
‘That’s how Boston sees us. Let’s start saying “yes.”’
That type of black and white thinking serves no one. There are a lot of people of people who fall in the middle of being pro and anti-development. I know many people in Newton who feel this way. I lean pro-development, but I don’t think it helps for everyone to just be like “YES YES YES!!!” These are big changes that are going to occur, and some people who are enthusiastic about positive changes in the way of development also have concerns and those should be taken seriously.
I’m pro-development, but I have a lot of concerns that aren’t being addressed: schools (yes, I know the study says that schools won’t be impacted, but I’m still concerned and so are a lot of people), our crappy public transit not being able to handle more commuters, our crappy public transit not suiting peoples needs and forcing more cars on the road, empty storefronts giving neighborhoods a blighted feel (look at Elm Street).
I’m sure I’m not alone by being sick of the all-or-nothing debates that happen here on V14 and posts like this that even though I agree with the sentiment really seem to want to pit people against each other. The antis feel like the sky will fall if we build more and the pros claim that the sky will fall if we don’t.
If the students only report on development, transportation, and housing, and cars, the initiative will fail.
Frankly, these topics has been beaten to death on this blog and we need a media outlet that can broaden the range of discourse. It’s not even that I disagree with you. I don’t at all. However you make people in various demographics really uncomfortable and frankly feel excluded by the constant drumbeat about density, development, and cars.
Most of the benefits to increased density will go to people who don’t live here now but would like to if they can get less expensive or subsidized housing. It will be interesting to see if current residents are willing to pay more taxes, lower their quality of life and schools, or decrease their current property values in order to move away from single-family neighborhoods and “do our fair share.”
http://www.reimaginerpe.org/node/5724
One of the big problems in our world is the number of people who put “do our fair share” in quotation marks.
Social and moral arguments aside (I’m not a fan of those in this context), Newton has to grow simply because “not growing” isn’t really an option. Between our schools, transit and proximity to Boston the demand is such that development is going to happen one way or another. We don’t have 40B safe harbor so if push really comes to shove on developments like Northland and Riverside the city is ultimately holding a bluff. Even assuming we did have 40B there’s still the issue of constant tear downs allowed by our current zoning (which itself was intended to limit development).
Thinking pragmatically, the options are stay the course and end up with 40Bs and McMansions or try to set the direction we want for development and hopefully mitigate the impacts to infrastructure, schools, etc.. For example what would it take to get a commitment on urban rail, between Washington St/Riverside and Zoning Redesign could we put something together to secure that option? How can we make these developments work for the city? There are options but it requires a big picture strategy, we can’t treat each one as a one-off along with zoning on the side if we want something that’s going to be workable.
@Chuck – Devil’s advocate, why do I care how Boston sees us? Will Boston be contributing some of it’s commercial tax base to offset what we’re loosing to resident development? Will Boston be contributing to our unfunded liabilities, school costs and infrastructure costs? I don’t necessarily disagree with your thought that car-lite can work in Newton (if we can get the transit infrastructure to support it), but trying to frame it in terms of “we need to do this because Boston thinks we’re NIMBY jackasses” isn’t a compelling argument.
It matters because it’s why we don’t get businesses to move here. It matters because we may not attract the development we want. It matters because people have choices about where to move. It matters because I think we all want to think of ourselves as welcoming, but our actions don’t demonstrate that.
I’d love to live in Sean Roche’s fantasy dream world, but Cambridge and Somerville are too expensive these days and the schools aren’t as good.
@Chuck: Needham, who is certainly building housing – has lost PTC and that building has been empty for at least 8 months. Tell me, what is Needhams’s strategy on how the housing is encouraging businesses to move there. Is it that the housing is not close enough to PTC? Is that the reason for the vacancies at Wells Avenue? Or is the branding of Needham and communities like it – as more family oriented – with great schools and open space and really not a young “bar scene”?
I think I read somewhere that the Pike extension – which split our city and destroyed a community of color, was to benefit the construction of the Prudential and aide in the economic future of the City of Boston.
Why should Newton build more to house people who don’t live here or work here? And what about the congestion, crime and change in the neighborhood that these units will bring us? I guess we get more people to live here, and hope they continue to work in Boston and these new residents can continue to depend on an already inadequate public transportation system.. all this for the purported end result of reducing carbon emissions that someone with no ties to Newton may be creating. Being my brother’s keeper I understand. Being a messiah who actively seeks to fix problems created by others by hurting his own self, that I don’t understand.
For the past two years, I’ve seen the pro-development, pro-density MINORITY soap box about what Newton should do, what Newton must do, either because of some moral high ground, or because they are bought and paid for by the Developers.
Followed by a MUCH LARGER counter response by those who feel that level of rapid growth asked for is not founded in reality, feasibility or thinly veiled in hypocrisy and corporate greed.
Last I checked this is still a democracy, which is why it is important that each of us, ask very directly where each candidate running for office stand on this issue….and if they are willing to provide a clear position on development and zoning.
When they knock on your door in the next few months, ask them to take a side. Don’t get side tracked by maybes and what ifs. Your vote should represent YOU, and not special interests, or their next seat after Newton government.
Amazon will eventually kill Home Depot, except for possibly contractors buying wood a plumbing.
They have terrible service. I bought a tool bag that had to be ordered and delivered to the Watertown store. It took 5 days. I did this to support a non Amazon store.
I got an email saying my item had arrived. I went to the store, and after 1/2 an hour of searching they couldn’t find it. I got a refund, went home, ordered it from Amazon and it arrived in 2 days.
It’s probably more carbon efficient to get rid of retail. One delivery truck on an efficient route likely uses less energy than 100s of people all driving to Watertown.
I love how a small vocal group has declared themselves the moral authority on all issues regarding the way 85,000 people live, work and play. The arrogance of these few to have decided that their vision is the morally correct one is astonishing.
What I find more interesting is the fact that if the conditions were ever so slightly changed, they would be the ones screaming. Perhaps if a small group of religious people tried to dictate what food you could eat (Be served) in Newton on certain days because it is morally right. Or maybe set mandatory business hour restrictions for moral proper-ness… They would be raging that they deserve the freedom to do as they see fit, but here we are being told that anyone who drives to work is bad. Anyone who drives to do errands is worse, we should all take the T, move out of our houses and into apartments and condos so that we can turn Newton into a car-less, wealth-less (Because money is evil), identity-less over-populated extension of Boston/Cambridge.
Newton will have to change its nickname to the “Roof-Garden City”
Hysterical (and true) @NewtonGuy.
NewtonGuy,
Do I understand you correctly?
Are you against rules that tell you what to do? How to live your life?
Really NewtonGuy? You couldn’t come up with a dumber analogy than comparing religious freedom to freedom to pollute as much as you want? I mean, I don’t think I could could come up with anything dumber than that, but hey, apply yourself.
Really NewtonGuy? You couldn’t come up with a dumber analogy than comparing religious freedom to freedom to pollute as much as you want? I mean, I don’t think I could could come up with anything dumber than that, but hey, apply yourself.
In living organisms Cancer is considered a growth. The acceptance of 11,000 new units of housing sounds like a cancer, that not taken care of, would be a metastatic unintended death wish.
Ralph Ranalli, speaking of analogies, here are some analogies (perhaps “dumb” as you like to repeat) between global warming and your average religion:
– there is something up in the skies, that the average person has never seen in person
– experts tell us it’s causing all kind of disasters, which is our own fault
– we have to listen to these experts to save us, or it’ll bring about the apocalypse
– and pay a lot of taxes to the government and these experts, who’ll use the money on all manner of projects
– anyone who defies or even questions this belief will be socially shunned and legally punished
…and now there’s a very important power couple betting big time against (aparently not believing in) ‘global warming’, none other than Barack and Michelle Obama, who just purchased a $15 million waterfront Martha’s Vineyard Estate. (No rising sea level there.)
Does economic prosperity require growth? Read “Steady State Economics” by Herman Daly. What happens when the population of the earth starts to level off / shrink as the logistic curve predicts? Will our economic system, which depends on selling more goods and services collapse without new customers ? Food for thought.
Jim, thank you for taking my point all the way to the finish line!
Sean, really? No, I’m not writing from a prison cell. But again this is the hysterical hyperbole that gets drummed up. “People who are against a higher density in Newton Hate (Select: The Planet / Poor People / Minorities).”
If I may use another analogy… This is like someone who used to drive a Subaru WRX (Sporty, nimble, small, good fuel economy, isn’t stopped by snow) and then trading it for a Cadillac (Big, Luxurious, lots of amenities, expensive to maintain) and having buyers remorse. So instead of trading the Cadillac back for another WRX they go to their mechanic and swap the Big V8 for a Flat-4, rip out the heated/cooled leather seats for cloth and have a custom 4×4 conversion done. All you did was ruin the Cadillac and it still isn’t a WRX.
NewtonGuy,
I think I wasn’t clear.
Let me ask the questions a little differently: Are you suggesting that I’m proposing restrictions on what people can do? That I want to restrict your freedom?
I think folks should never confuse what happens on this blog with real life. I’ve said it before, the ballot box is what matters. And thus far, the folks in favor of moderate development have won consistently. Who knows if that will continue, as the scale of development has increased. But in Ward 2 for sure, we had multiple anti-development candidates, and they all lost at-large races.
There are certainly vocal voices on this blog. But the only issue where I’ve seen major outside opposition is NewCal.
Finally, folks should also realize that there is often the “sky is falling” with new development. Austin Street is a prime example. I walked by it yesterday and I have to say, the sidewalk and the trees make it so much better. It breaks up the street view and I’m really hoping they continue that type of outer trees/inner sidewalk throughout Newtonville.
If our tree loving folks are reading (JM!) I’d love your opinion on the type of tree they used and the placement. They used a similar tree along the greenway in Boston and it is a fast grower. I also like London Plane trees for that effect.
Anyway, when we were all fighting about Austin Street, there was so much concern about the parking, the look of the block. Folks compared it to a shadow filled alley. Same with the whole Reefer madness posts. Sometimes the unknown is scary but the reality works out ok. And sometimes a group of posters are super active on this blog, and it becomes a mini-echo chamber. Just because Greg/me/Jane/Jerry/Sean agree on some random issue doesn’t mean that much in the real world. Same for Rick/Jim/Matt/Jane/Paul etc. You can post 50 times on this blog, but that doesn’t mean the whole world agrees or cares.
I get the fear is real and not every project of every size is good. Some of the recent projects seem too large to me for sure. But we should (myself included) try and be reasonable about the plus and minus discussions.
And everyone should vote.
fig-ster,
Nicely put, though I do hope that the conversation here has some impact on the other 13 villages.
Fig and Sean, without the (at least slightly) larger setback, I wouldn’t call, and certainly IMHO most Newton residents wouldn’t call, Austin Street as “working out OK” — as opposed to what could have been with a larger setback. The City dropped the ball on that one, and now we all must live with it. Ugh.
I think the question isn’t about if there’s going to be growth (increased population) in the Boston metro area, but rather where it’s going to go.
Let’s imagine that Newton stays the same. Maybe there’s an override to support a capital purchase of however many acres we need to convert to affordable housing (per MA and federal law definitions). Nothing forcing us to change/get more dense.
So where do the new residents go? If they end up in Boston or points directly north (e.g. lynn) or south (e.g.) there would be little impact on traffic or transit congestion. Of course, if they end up at points west, or north west, or south west, Newton will still be affected by their traffic and transit congestion (90, 128, and the Framingham/Worcester line come to mind).
Housing in Newton will be limited to the current supply.
If more workforce housing is built in Boston/city core, that would reduce the appeal of Newton and other “inner ring” suburbs with medium commutes – why have a medium commute if you could have a short one? It would make newton appeal even less to the college kids and young professionals here.
If it’s being built further out, I don’t have a good idea of what that might do to demand here.
Either way, what I think is going to be the driver of higher housing prices – if Newton retains higher housing prices – is the quality of our schools. When we were looking to buy (and also When a friend sold a month or so back) it seems that houses in Waltham go for 2/3rds of a similar house in Newton. The biggest difference (and only difference if you’re next to a town line) is the schools.
So who’s paying a premium for schools? Families with kids. Right now I think somewhere around 1/3 of Newton homes/units have kids. But looking at the sales on my block/neighborhood, 100% of the buyers have had kids. Sometimes a toddler (2-3 years until they hit NPS) but they’ve had kids.
So as housing stock turns over – even with NO new development – the number of kids in NPS is going to increase. If 20-30-40 years down the line, 1/2 of all units have kids, that’s going to increase the school population by 50%. That’s 1 high school, 2 middle schools and 3-4 elementary schools we’d need to staff.
There’s no significant change in the adult population, and no new retail or economic development (Newton is staying the same) so an increase in the schools is going to come straight out of taxes if we want to maintain quality.
Of course, not taxing (and not maintaining the level of funding above the foundational level we currently have) is possible. Our tax burden will still go up (we are required to fund to foundational level x student) but other things will be cut. Maybe trash service (Needham doesn’t have municipal trash or recycling, it’s not unheard of), or we start stealing from the capital budget to fund operations and our roads return to gravel.
Due to my position at the T, I’m not going to comment on any hypothetical changes to transportation. But I will say that if the area adds 80,000 units and none of them are in Newton, you can draw you own conclusions about where the MBTA and MassDOT are going to invest.
So yes, we could stay the “same.” It would take upfront commitment to doing so (having the city buy us out of 40B through building affordable housing) and an ongoing commitment to fund the town primarily through residential taxes. There would be none of this “balanced growth” – costs are going to go up more than 2.5% a year, much more if the main thing Newton has to offer is schools – Newton would have to commit to regularly passing operational overrides. And ( if the growth is west of 128) there’s going to be more traffic and congestion.
This is a choice we can make – and I’ve probably made mistakes or forgotten consequences – but it is a choice with both up-front and on-going costs.
Note: this refelects my personal views and was written without respect to the views, position policies, and planning efforts of the MBTA and MassDOT.
@fig, funny you should ask. I’m pretty sure they are ‘Princeton’ American elms, but I only saw them in the dark the other night so I need to check in the daytime.
I was sort if impressed at how big they are in caliper inches, but the downside is that they’ve lost more of their roots in the process of digging up for ball & burlap, so they will likely take longer to recover from transplant shock and really start growing. The root balls were still exposed; I hope someone was keeping them watered and filled in the soil by now. Trees are best planted when dormant, not in summer.
I did cringe at seeing a monoculture. ‘Princeton’ and other elms planted now are Dutch elm disease-resistant cultivars, but not DED-proof. If one elm gets DED, it can spread to nearby elms easily. Designers love allees of identical trees, but for urban forest health it’s better to diversify. Not lose whole blocks in the future to DED or ALB or Emerald Ash Borer or oak wilt or whatever species-specific bug or fungus comes along.
Aside from that, they’ll be great shade trees and fast growing once established.
Julia:
Agree on the monoculture and all points! I will say I saw Boston plant similar trees Downtown and I’ve been shocked how much abuse they took and how they flourished. Here’s hoping!
The trees they replaced were dead or stunted, so I’m hoping for some potential shade here and a real improvements.
On the monoculture I’ve assumed in the Newtonville redo on walnut they will be smart about this but they weren’t smart on Washington street years ago….
And thank you for responding!
Regarding the trees, because of the lack of setback, they’ll never get that big without hitting the building. They’ll have to be pruned asymmetrically if the get larger. Unlike the apartments on the corner of Lowell and Washington, which have enough setback to let the trees grow.
Rick is right, they will need pruning away from the building. But being in the shade of the building, they will be in a similar situation to trees in a forest, having to grow up, up, up to reach light. As opposed to the CDBG elms on Washington St near the Armory, which get unobstructed south light and are overdue for pruning (which for elms should only be done in the dead of winter so cuts don’t attract the beetle that carries the fungus). They look like globes now, but with pruning will eventually be very tall and vase-shaped.
Fig-Interesting and relevant comment on who posts, who’s aligned with whom, how much people post, who listens. I do believe my following comments relate to communication and transparency to V14 in a small but significant way.
One of the posters whom you had me aligned with told me in person that he thought always disagree on issues. I was shocked because, like you, I thought we were almost completely aligned.
As for how much people post, it can be somewhat deceptive. 90-95% of what goes on in the city is fine with me. IMO, we live in one of the finest communities in the country and I’v always felt grateful/privileged to live here. You’ll never read a post from me about density, traffic, parking, roads, sidewalks, or snow removal and those are topics of great interest to many people in the community. Not only don’t I post on those topics, I don’t read the threads.
However l’m considered a regular because I’m passionate about the other 5- 10% – the schools, infrastructure, and capital building projects. Sean has his areas of interest. Greg’s a great advocate for the business community-a neglected area before he became head of N-N Chamber of Commerce. You, Fig and Bob Burke are two of the few who seem to be able to comment on a wide variety of topics with great insight so you both better stick around!
But in the end, quite a range of topics are covered here, sometimes with insight and knowledge, sometimes heatedly, and perhaps too often over the top.
As for who listens to whom, probably very few. That’s okay. Especially in the last few years, with the diminished influence of the Tab (how was that for a polite understatement?), V14 has been a solid, though uneven, source of information about what’s going on in the city, and that’s been a good thing.
Fig, you post “the only issue where I’ve seen major outside opposition is NewCal.” Outside of what?
Fig, you also post, “I think folks should never confuse what happens on this blog with real life. I’ve said it before, the ballot box is what matters.” However, this blog was central in facilitating attention to the misguided NewCAL odyssey.
Jim, Sean and Jane (and others):
By outside opposition, I mean the petition and the organization to fight NewCal. Outside of the forum itself is what I was trying to get at. I shouldn’t have just said NewCal, another issue was ward councilors, another was Newton North High School many years ago.
We often get a heated discussion here but there are crickets in the wider community, and on some issues the forum mirrors or is the beginning of community wide concern.. The petition to me was far better proof of a wider objection to NewCal than the number of objectors on Village 14.
We often get the comment in some form like “so many posters are objecting, why isn’t the city listening” or “Look at the number of posters on here angry about this issue, we must be right”. But if 5 or 10 folks push an issue on this forum, it can certainly be an issue trying to get attention, but it isn’t necessarily something that more than those 5 to 10 folks really care about. Clearly lots of folks care about NewCal and Ward Councilors. But I don’t think the mayor is going to get voted out of office based on leaf blowers, snow clearing or any of a dozen or so topics where the forum gets lots of discussion/posts. And even on the most heated of topics where the community cares deeply, often time one side on this forum dominates attention, but there are folks offline who disagree, and just vote their mind (vs speak their mind)
This forum is great for raising attention to issues. I think it serves a very useful purpose and it is a great little community of folks and readers. I really enjoy my interactions here, and I find it nice to engage in conversations when I have downtime. My point was not that Village14 was worthless (far from it) but not to confuse it with community wide engagement or community wide passion about a particular issue.
In the election in a few months, there will likely be folks who are clearly identified with a particular issue, and others who are more status quo. If we see incumbents lose and folks who are somewhat anti-establishment win open seats, that means a lot more to me as a indicator that the community has spoken.
I wasn’t trying to pick a fight on any of this, just my view of how online forums work. In the absence of a strong newspaper and “trusted sources”, I guess these types of Forums gain additional importance, but it is still very hard to predict community feeling based on the Forum alone.
I was actually just adding to your comment. One of the problems with blogs is that the assumption that a comment is a somewhat/very adversarial response when it’s likely more of a conversation.
As an aside, the NewCAL petition continues on. About 5820 signing on at this point.
https://www.change.org/p/mayor-ruthanne-fuller-save-newton-s-parks.
Again, his figness brings the wisdom. The Village 14 conversation is not representative. But, it is often, I’m proud to say, a conversation.
Also, since the early days of the Garden City blog through the heyday of the TAB blog and now here, one thing has been very clear: the folks who comment are but a small sample of those who read the blog (and the comments) and those who comment are not necessarily representative of those who read.
I post and comment (and testify at public hearings and write and call city hall and councilors) because I would like my voice to be heard. Sometimes I get traction. Sometimes not.
I read others posts and comments because I want to hear (and respond to) opposing views and to understand what I’m missing.
Carry on.
What never ceases to amaze me is how folks like NewtonGuy and Matt treat our current built environment as some expression of the natural order of things instead of the consequence of years and years of specific policy decisions.
Single-family-only zoning is the imposition of the will of a minority of people against a larger group of people who would like to live here. It creates suburban sprawl, which has exacerbated the climate crisis. It creates car-dependency that many in Newton, including some of our leading lights on the city council, think is inevitable and irreversible. It has created economic hardship across the region. And, it has had a very clear — and likely intended — impact on African-Americans, consistent with its racist origins as policy tool.
So, yes, in NG’s analogy, I bought a Cadillac. I now realize that a Cadillac is a bad transportation choice, especially in light of what I’ve learned since I bought the de Ville. But, I don’t want to turn the Cadillac into an WRX. I want more public transit options.
The thing is, NewtonGuy, I don’t want to dictate anyone’s choices. If you want to live in a single-family home, more power to you. But, I want to remove the restrictions that allow you to dictate what others do with their property. If someone else wants to build a triplex on the lot down the street from you, I don’t want it to be possible for you to dictate that they cannot. Why should you be allowed to dictate how that person uses their property?
@Sean should I be allowed to build a gas station on my property? How about a 15 story office building.? No, make that 20.
If you want to remove all restrictions, and go full libertarian, you’d have to say yes . If you say no, then the slippery slope of zoning comes in.
Our house was built in 1893. There was an apple orchard here before that. There wasn’t any zoning back then. Was it a natural occurrence of housing growth? Yes, it wasn’t a plot to create a single family car oriented nightmare. There weren’t even cars.
Sean,
“His” Figness? Hmmm.
And I’d always assumed it was Her Figness. Really.
Just noticed my name has been referenced more than once on this post.
Generally, my social media activity is mainly for fun. But what inspires my involvement on V14 are posts like Sean’s last one and how this blog treats development in general.
No one realistically believes that, “things should never change”. That would be counter to evolution. Yet also counter to evolution is the voracity that Developers have for Newton land in recent years, and the willingness of a few who are supportive of giving the Garden City away.
On climate change…its cause is the energy needed to create what we consume most – food, water, electricity, etc. 100 people will consume the same amount of “stuff”, whether they live in single family homes (like most who comment on this blog) or an apartment building. Yes, the climate is at real risk, but targeting development as the savior is like cleaning a floor with a tooth brush. How we build in Newton is not going to move the needle. Perhaps Thanos was on to something with “the snap”.
(Watched “Avengers: Endgame” again last night) 🙂
What inspires me most to get involved, is the different and extreme arguments some are willing to make in support of big development – morality, ecology, etc, even shaming those who differ in opinion by calling them (us) NIMBY, racist, etc. And sometimes, all you can do is open the window, and shout in frustration as loud as you can, whether anyone hears it or not.
And yes, the proof in the proverbial pudding will be in the election results – starting in Sept (for Ward 5), Nov and beyond. If Northland and Riverside gets approved at their current levels of density, and the Councilors who did not oppose gets to keep their seats, well then shame on us voters; like the folks the Carrier plant in Indiana who voted from Trump, only to see their jobs lost automation anyway.
Finally, while many do not comment, they ARE concerned about the destiny proposed. Councilors’ mail and inboxes have been flooded. Land Use Committee meetings have had more attendance than I can remember. Rightsize Newton is a real thing. And singling commenters like myself and others as the “vocal minority”… well, that’s like the pot calling the kettle black.
Is economic growth at odds with the environmen generally?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/world/americas/brazil-amazon-rainforest-fire.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
Jane,
Their figness?
Matt,
First, around 30% of carbon emissions are the product of transportation, not consumption. One hundred people living in closer proximity to work, school, and amenities require much less fuel to move around. In fact, they may require very little if their neighborhoods are walkable and there is public transportation. Residential zoning restrictions lead to sprawl, which leads to greater private-car use.
Second, it is yours and everyone else’s right to elect representatives who will vote according to your policy preferences. And, on development, you may be in the majority (or at least a large enough minority to block changes that require a super-majority). But, being in the majority in support of exclusionary zoning doesn’t change the fact that it is a policy born from racism, that contributes to the climate crisis, and that exacerbates our regional housing crisis. That you consider those factual statements extreme says more about you than me.
Third, it’s not just about big development. It should be legal to build duplexes, triplexes, or four-plexes on every lot in Newton.
The rise of feminism and the 2 income household was a plot to sell more cars. Discuss.
( no I don’t believe that it was a plot. But, it did sell more cars, and double the cars on the road, that’s for sure. Was that a good thing?)
The great thing about data Sean is that it can be malleable interpreted to support a view point.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
According to the EPA, transportation edges electricity by a scant 1% as the top category. But “transportation” category as they’ve defined it is not just passenger cars, which would make that piece by itself a much small let piece of the pie.
Where I do agree is that we should be doing better on carbon and walk ability is a means to get there, but last I checked, Northland is not offering space for an elementary school. If you’re going to walk the walk, join those who are asking Northland to provide onsite space for a Newton school.
Oh, and before going down the holy path of, “(it) says more about me than you” on exclusionary zoning, understand that 1. you’re speaking to a minority, and 2. if you sold your single family home and moved in to the condo they’re finishing down our street, you’d be welcome with arms wide open (as were the other families, mostly with children were the past 5 years – how about them “declining enrollment” stats?).
Figness is state of mind.
“The past and present wilt—I have fill’d them, emptied them.
And proceed to fill my next fold of the future.
Listener up there! what have you to confide to me?
Look in my face while I snuff the sidle of evening,
(Talk honestly, no one else hears you, and I stay only a minute longer.)
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
I concentrate toward them that are nigh, I wait on the door-slab.
Who has done his day’s work? who will soonest be through with his supper?
Who wishes to walk with me?
Will you speak before I am gone? will you prove already too late?”
Per Sean, “The most immediately pressing issue is the global warming crisis.”
Apparently Barack and Michelle Obama don’t agree. They just purchased a $15 million WATERFRONT estate on Martha’s Vineyard.
Yes, Your Figness, your gender is of no import. Your ideas and insights are. But the unfortunate reality remains that a male voice has higher credibility/value than that of a female, so the assumption that a highly valued voice is a male should come as no surprise.
It’s all good, Sean.
Jane, the gender gap is of tremendous import, wider than any other single factor:
“In a new Pew Research Center survey, nearly six-in-ten women (58%) say they prefer a bigger government providing more services to a smaller government providing fewer services (36%). Among men, the balance of opinion is nearly the reverse: 59% of men prefer a smaller government (37% prefer bigger).”
(I believe a similar gap pertains to Trump/anti-Trump voters.)
Folks on this blog should read more poetry.