Former Mayors David Cohen and Setti Warren have endorsed Bryan Barash in his race against incumbent Emily Norton for Ward 2 city council, according to this Patch article.
Warren, a Ward 2 resident, is quoted as follows:
“Bryan is balanced, intelligent, reasonable, and there is nobody I trust more to make the tough decisions,” said Warren in a release. “When I have needed him, he has been there for me, which is how I know he will be there for you. I’ll be voting for Bryan Barash on November 5th.”
What a disrespectful comment by the former mayor.
This is unfair to Emily who has been a trusted, hard working
Councilor. Bryan has no proven record of any public office.
Setti should have not betrayed Emily in such a disgraceful
manner.
Colleen:
C’mon now. Folks endorse all the time. I’m sure lots of folks will endorse Emily too, including you. It isn’t disgraceful or disrespectful, especially since no one said a bad word about Emily, they just endorsed Bryan.
Two questions for Bryan, when Mayor Fulles states “When I have needed him, he has been there for me” do you unequivocally REJECT: (1) NewCAL in any park, including Albemarle Park and (2) spending one more dime on architectural plans and contractors until the scope of the NewCAL athletic complex is scoped down to being solely a Senior Center.
Any equivocation on a “yes” will be deemed a “no”.
I think Bryan is a great guy, but he’s focused on what’s best for Newton, not Ward 2.
He’s running for a position that he didn’t believe should exist during charter reform.
Wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Setti lives in Ward 2 so his endorsement helps Bryan. This is the race to watch this year.
Sorry Fig, you know nothing of whom I plan to vote for. I disagree
with Emily on several key issues.
My complaint is that Setti is cruel and unfair to Emily as an
encumbant Ward 2 councilor who worked closely with Setti.
She has toiled tirelessly on behalf of Ward 2 constituents. Bryan has never been elected.
This is a betrayal by Setti and shows his lack of respect for Emily’s
commitment to her Ward.
He may support Bryan but should never have made it public.
No wonder he did not last long as mayor, he has no depth political
and ethical behavior.
Colleen:
My apologies, I made an assumption as to your endorsement of Emily based on your comment and many years of supportive comments to Emily on the forum. I meant no ill will to you or Emily by the assumption you’d endorse her.
That said, I do think that politicians endorse all the time, and it is neither a betrayal or unethical for a former mayor to endorse a candidate. Quite the opposite.
The fact, as you point out, that Setti worked closely with Emily yet is publicly choosing to endorse Bryan does certainly relay a message. I’ll let others decide what that message means.
And Jim, you might want to correct your post, Mayor Fuller has nothing to do with the endorsements. I think you meant to say Mayor Warren. But the rest of the post is clear. Just a clarification.
The hypocrisy of running for an office you didn’t think should exist is disqualifying whatever that candidate’s merits.
These Leaders understand what I have come to know. Bryan Barash is a fantastic leader who will do a fantastic job for Ward 2 and all of Newton.
I am supporting Bryan for lots of good reasons. His voice on the council will be a positive ‘can do’ one. Bryan has shown that he really cares about the issues facing our city right now – issues of housing costs, business development, making our city safe and welcoming etc. He is smart, respectful and he will be an excellent member of the Council – he definitely has my vote!
Congratulations to Bryan for the wide range of impressive endorsements he has received from individuals and organizations who recognize his exceptional integrity, character and commitment to Newton.
I am supporting Bryan for many reasons. However, as a sitting School Committee member, my decision mostly rests on the fact that he is the best choice for our schools. The Newton Teachers Association agrees and has endorsed him for good reason. He is a strong supporter of our local unions and was an active advocate for keeping our custodial union from being outsourced. Having dedicated countless hours on the Human Rights Commission and Bay State Stonewall Democrats, he has proven that he is 100% committed to civil rights and has already done much by way of supporting NPS initiatives such as FORJ, Families Organizing for Racial Justice. Bryan is hard-working, deeply invested in public service and has strong moral values. I am supporting Bryan because I feel he is the best choice for the City of Newton.
I have a few Ward 2 endorsements of my own :-)
https://www.emilynorton.org/supporters/
(I also have many electeds endorsing me, which I appreciate and will get up on the website soon, but frankly I am most touched and honored by the nearly 500 Ward 2 public endorsers.)
Congrats to Bryan! These are well deserved endorsements. He has been engaged in local issues for as long as I can remember, and I know he cares deeply about Ward 2 and the wider city. He’s EXTREMELY thoughtful, hard working, and thorough. I love how detailed his platform is – and I especially appreciate how much he knows about planning and development, housing and transportation. He’s a great choice for Ward 2.
I don’t see any conflict between Bryan Barash’s work on the Charter Commission and running for the City Council. The Charter Commission recommended removing the Ward Councilor seats because they viewed reducing the size of the Council as a way to improve its functioning. The voters rejected the Charter reform, and Ward Councilor seats continue.
Whether or not Bryan supported Charter reform, as 47% of Newton voters did, is irrelevant to the job that he can do as a Councilor for Ward 2, and for the city. Bryan is intelligent, experienced, thoughtful and dedicated to both Ward 2 and Newton as a whole. He is a person who really listens, and who can work with individuals on all sides of an issue to build consensus, a critical skill on the Council. I trust him to be honest, straighforward and open to hearing other views and discussing issues, whether he agrees with me or not. I suggest that voters in Ward 2 take the opportunity to meet him and talk with him.
@Eileen Sandberg
You are omitting some key facts. There were multiple ways to reduce the size of the City Council. An alternative would have kept the ward-specific Councilors, and reduce the number of at-large ones. Bryan opposed that approach, because he felt that all Councilors should be focused on what’s best for the City, not just one Ward. Now he’s running for the position that he opposed.
When two recent, former Mayors endorse a City Council candidate, it tells me something. It tells me that people with unique and valuable knowledge about Newton government and how to run this city think that Bryan Barash is the best candidate, and one who will make a really useful contribution to the work of the City Council. First, former Mayors don’t typically endorse in ward Council races. So, these endorsements tell me they think Bryan’s contribution will be exceptional, and is needed. Second, these two Mayors are very different. Yet, they agree on Bryan’s exceptional capabilities. And, they do so from the vantage point that only a Mayor can have.
Bryan brings a mix of varied and deep local experience combined with lengthy professional experience at the State legislative and advocacy level. He’s got a track record of real work on human rights, both here in Newton and at the state level that’s rarely matched by City Councilors. Perhaps his stature on these attributes is why he attracted the endorsement of two former, very different, mayors; and his competitor did not.
Thank you so much to everyone who has posted their support, I am honored to have your support and call you friends.
@Paul –
I’m glad you enjoyed meeting me. I actually don’t think the interests of Newton and of Ward 2 are at odds. We want to be a great community with a diverse population, both economically and racially. We want homes we can afford and roads we can drive, walk, and bike on safely and conveniently.
If anything, what I do hear all around Ward 2 is that we shouldn’t be the only part of town driving these changes. I agree completely. As a voice for Ward 2, I’m going to fight for new housing to be spread out through the city, not just on Washington street. I’m going to advocate for the same road conditions on Lowell Ave and Washington St that we see in the middle of a the city.
Nobody will fight harder for the people of Ward 2. The voters said this is the city council system they want, and I’m excited to ask for their votes for the Ward 2 Councilor seat.
@Bryan
Nice words aside… Can you just explain why you are running for a position that you wanted to eliminate?
Its hard to understand how you believed the ward-specific Councilors had a job (representing their ward vs the City at-large) that you believed was bad policy, yet now you seem to be saying their is no difference between Newton’s needs and Ward 2 specifically.
Which is it?
After being one of the lead proponents of eliminating these positions, you owe an answer on this seeming contradiction.
PS We have met this cycle, I do like you as a person. I’d easily vote for you over Albright and Auchincloss. But Ward 2-specific reps need to be advocating for Ward 2, particularly given the inequitable treatment of Wards in this City. (I’d also like to hear you explicitly address whether you also believe our government has historically treated certain parts of the city differently than others.)
PS Auchincloss voted for a zoning allowance for a storage unit facility to be built larger than allowed by zoning regulations. This is across the street from one of the most popular City parks in Ward 2.
Property values will clearly be higher with the larger facility, bringing more tax revenue to the City. It will also bring more traffic, as people from all over Metrowest use the storage facility- right across the street from where children are playing, and in spitting distance to the new Cabot school.
City interests took precedence over Ward 2 needs. We don’t want a huge storage facility in our neighborhood.
Do you agree? Do you you believe this was wrong and Auchincloss specifically was wrong voting for this allowance?
Paul, I honestly don’t recall and you know I agreed with you on this, but did Susan and Emily also vote in favor of the storage facility?
@Fig
IIRC, it was a Zoning Committee (may have the wrong committee name). Albright abstained or was absent, Norton was not on the committee.
I have to agree with Paul. Why do people support a candidate who in the last election was trying to eliminate Ward councilors, but who now has decided he wants to be one? It would have been much consistent if Bryan ran for an at-large council seat, but I guess consistency doesn’t matter to some people. Why did Bryan decide to run for a Ward seat that he wanted to abolish? We don’t know.
And who can be surprised that Setti Warren endorsed him? Setti Warren was an equally ambitious politician not really caring about the niceties when he ran for the Senate and for Governor while still holding the position of mayor. I wonder how long Bryan Barash is thinking of being city councilor or if he is already looking at a position at the State House or Joe Kennedy’s seat?
Here’s another reason Setti Warren endorsed Bryan over Emily Norton. Emily Norton was against Warren’s sale of the Austin Street parking lot to a for profit developer. Emily wanted the parking lot to be sold to a non-profit affordable housing group. So if you’re against affordable housing and for $5K rents for 2 bedroom apartments, then you won’t be supporting Emily.
I don’t understand people who suggest that Emily Norton is not a hard worker as a city councilor. Emily Norton was a leader in bringing more clean energy to Newton through Newton’s Power Choice Program and to start the process of the city divesting its funds from fossil fuel companies. So I guess if you’re not a supporter of the environment, you won’t be supporting Emily.
And Emily voted against the huge Washington Place development that towers over the surrounding buildings in Newtonville and will be filled with more luxury housing. So the pro-development crowd is definitely against Emily.
So if you also are for way too large buildings lining Washington Street, for creating traffic jams in Newtonville due to over develoment, and for turning Newton into place more like Allston than the current village of Newtonville, than you won’t be supporting Emily.
However, if you don’t know much about Emily, I encourage you to get to know her. I’m sure you if do, you will decide she is a worthy candidate for re-election.
Two questions for both candidates in Ward 2: Do you support a smaller City Council and what specifically do you propose to make it happen? What is your position on the proposal to raise City Council salaries?
@Peter – I do support a smaller city council. The most recent City Council meeting went til midnight – that’s not how good local government works.
That being said, I think we have a lot of work to do to get a sense of what a version of a smaller council could look like that would get majority support. I don’t have the answer right now but I’m up for asking the right questions.
Pay raises – no raises until the Teachers have a new contract. That’s crystal clear to me. Beyond that, I do believe that making sure council pay at least keeps up with inflation is critical if you expect to have a diversity of backgrounds on the council. People who are working class and need that money to be able to afford to serve should have a seat at the table too.
@Bryan
I’ve posted fair, real questions that many in Ward 2 would like clear answers.
Would appreciate a response.
I wish that I could vote for Brian because he has demonstrated a commitment to social justice issues over time, and engages in civil debate at all times.
Glad we do not live in Ward 2. Two very strong candidates. Ward 2 wins with either. Not a decision I would like to have to make.
Best of luck to both!
With the election getting closer, it’s time to pay attention to what endorsements truly mean from different perspectives. This comment is not about either candidate. It just seems to fit here where specific endorsements are posted. Since endorsements mean different things to different mindsets, I recommend reading the candidates pages, asking them questions in person or by email and listening to their debates – then come time to vote, use your critical thinking skills to select which candidate to vote for.
Example:
Bryan has the endorsement of two completely different former mayors. These former mayors had very different strengths and weaknesses – So there is no way to discern what those endorsements mean?
Former Mayor Warren says Bryan was always there when the mayor needed him. “Always there” could mean many things. Mayor Warren made some huge mistakes in housing – was Bryan there? I doubt it but that scenario illustrates that these endorsements can be interpreted from several perspectives. What exactly did Mayor Warren need Bryan for?
Mayor Cohen made huge mistakes in keeping infrastructure maintained, from schools to roads, and in budgeting and spending the city’s money. NNHS turned out to be much more costly than projected – the school did turn out to be great in that it encompasses “majors” in almost anything preparing students for both college and careers that do not require college. That’s rare in these days of magnet schools, public schools and charter schools that prepare students for only a few things. It keeps students with different aspirations together.
I hope you see what I mean.
Bryan- I do not believe pay raises for City Councilors is in order until the Council size is reduced. Years ago there was no pay and then an honorarium was offered which slowly grew. The proposed increases are absurd given the fact that Newton offers health benefits and pensions after 10 years of service. If pay raises are not coupled with reducing the size of the Council it will never happen.
@Paul,
Please move on. There is no inherent conflict in Bryan running for the ward 2 seat.
The charter commission research found that city councils w/ a *majority* of councilors elected by a single ward run the risk of parochial, divisive behavior. They “have potential for the classic problem of ‘log rolling’ or vote swapping” to quote the Model City Charter. We found real-life examples to support this idea.
The charter commission never opined that ward-elected seats are “bad”, just that a ward-elected councilor can have incentive to put the ward ahead of the city. A council w/ 50% or more ward-elected councilors could act in ways detrimental to the city as a whole.
Bryan will balance the needs of the local ward and the city as a whole, and he will keep the dialogue respectful and constructive and work hard to build consensus. He is exactly the kind of person we need in a ward councilor seat.
What Rhanna said!!
I think one of the reasons Emily’s supporters (and there are many of them on the forum) stress this question of the elimination of the ward council seats as being a “disqualifying” aspect of Bryan’s candidacy is because Emily was the face of the campaign against the charter commission changes, based largely on this issue. I get the emotional connection to it, and on some level it seems unfair to them.
But life moves on. The “no” folks won that vote, and we now have ward councilors for the longer term future. Is it just the folks who volunteered to be on the charter commission that are now randomly disqualified? Am I disqualified because I supported it? Something like 45percent of folks supported it….
It is certainly a good sound bite issue and I’m sure Bryan will be asked about it in a debate. And Emily will I’m sure point out the fact in her campaign.
But in my view, it makes no logical sense that it would make a difference. The position exists. Anyone in ward 2 can run for it. Full stop.
As to why this seat….My recollection is that a selling point of the idea of ward counselor was that were easier to run for due to smaller footprint. All 3 Ward 2 folks are incumbents. So why not run against the ward 2 ward councilor incumbent in that case, whose views also differ from Bryan’s? Knowing that Susan and Jake were also going to get challengers might have played a role as well.
Honestly this is good for Newtonville no matter who wins. I’m very glad we have fully challenged folks in ward 2. I want to hear Jake and Susan answer debate questions, as well. With the power of incumbency, it is an uphill road but no one should be protected from the type of open discussion of viewpoints that a contested election brings.
And for the most part, thank you to all who are being respectful of the various candidates and their responses. It is going to be a long few months so I hope we can continue that here.
Going to ask a question near and dear to many. The Friday Packet has not been published yet, but I recall reading somewhere that the topic for next Wed’s Land Use Committee meeting is the Needham Street project and Northland.
@Bryan and @Emily…
If you were asked to vote on the special permit today, as it is currently constituted, would you vote yea or nay? If nay, what changes would you ask of the Developer for your yea vote?
@Rhanna
Bryan can speak for himself.
There were more questions than just the one on the Charter Commission. But that is a legitmate question. You called it “parochial” concerns– its a different word for the same thing– local/ward concerns taking precedence over the city. So you’ve acknowledged the same point, but used different words. Bryan legitimately should have a perspective.
But MUCH more importantly, I am concerned that Bryan is papering over some serious issues. Many in Ward 2 believe that we get the short end of the stick from city government.
— A major storage facility in a completely inappropriate place.
— Most recent major developments are concerntrated in our Ward.
— The only school building with delays, and schools with lesser needs according to Mass SBA (Zervas) cutting in line.
— NewCal is being proposed to be put onto Albermarle field. (?!)
You can argue the particular details on any of these, but the pattern is clear. Some parts of the City get treated differently than others– many, many people in Ward 2 feel that way.
And now Bryan comes along, and is papering over the differences between City needs and Ward 2 needs. His words above: “I actually don’t think the interests of Newton and of Ward 2 are at odds.” He is entitled to that view. But many people in Ward 2 don’t feel that way. And history suggests that Ward 2 has been treated differently, than let’s say…. Waban?
So this isn’t about dredging up the past to pick at old wounds or score points. This is an important issue now. I and many others in Ward 2 want a Ward 2 representative that will fight for us. Bryan claims Ward 2 and the City needs are the same. They’re not. And if he doesn’t understand that or won’t acknowledge that, he isn’t suited to be our Ward 2 rep. That’s what this is about.
And Bryan can either answer these legitimate concerns, or remain quiet. We’re waiting for answers.
@Paul – you are assuming that all of Ward 2 agrees with your positions. I am excited about some changes to Washington St and some thoughtful development adding some vibrancy. I look forward to possible improvements in the commuter rail, which will only happen with some critical mass. I appreciate my representative being at the table when it comes to what happens in my neighborhood, and being willing to proactively help shape it.
I do believe Bryan can balance the needs of the Ward with the broader needs of the city. He has exhibited an ability to listen to all views, and help to drive a concensus. When change is coming (and it is), not everyone will get everything they desire. But ideally we will be able to priorize those issues most important for our village and city. I do believe that the development that is planned can and will be aprorpriate for the Ward and for the broader set of city residents and looking forward to what is ahead.
I think the idea of proactively shaping is a good differential point here. I view Emily as a very principled advocate for what she believes, whether it is the environment or low impact development. I’m not trying to put words in her mouth on any of her positions, that’s just my viewpoint. But she tends to take a stand, like on Ward councilors, like on plastic bags, like on green energy, like on halting or limiting larger developments in Newtonville. Her supporters love her for that. I admire her passion for those causes, even if I sometimes strongly disagree with her positions.
I think Bryan (just from seeing his positions on the blog) sees his role differently. I view him (personally only, again, speaking for my own view of the person) as being less rigid, and more wanting a seat at the table to “proactively shape” the issue at hand. I’m not saying he is not principled, he clearly is a staunch progressive. I just think there would be more conversation and trying to reach a negotiated solution.
My issue with taking an uncompromising stand is that if you are in the losing position, you get nothing. Sometimes you win a total victory, like with elimination of Ward councilors. Emily’s principled stand there won the day. But on development in Newtonville, I think it yielded very little.
Austin Street did end up with more affordable housing, but the credit in my view goes to Amy, who did a terrific job of using her vote to extract more from the developer. Washington Place was built. Austin Street was built. Cabot was built using the old design. Hello Washington Street examination occurred, etc, etc. 40B eliminates the power to completely stonewall developers using zoning.
Folks often accuse me of just taking the side of the developer. I don’t. I take the side of hard nosed negotiation to get as much from that developer as possible. And I also realize that the developers have options to push forward with 40B.
The question and the difference in my view between our two candidates is what is the right approach? Attempt to block the project? Or negotiate the best deal possible? Principle stand or seat at the table to proactively shape the final result?
Honestly there is no right or wrong answer and it isn’t just dependent on Emily and Bryan. Matt Lai and others are right about the voting. It would only take a few more folks to combine with Emily to vote down special permits and push more projects to 40B route. Perhaps that works. (I just think it gets you a crappier project personally, but too much to discuss on that here.)
@Fig
Bryan played a key role in the Charter Commission and both “uncompromising” and “ending up with nothing” are perfect descriptors of that process. I saw Bryan as someone continually trying to explain why his side was right (as were other CC members) and didn’t see much compromise.
We don’t need to relitigate the specifics of the Charter, but his track record there is an important data point.
@Paul
You took what Bryan wrote out of context. You posted:
“And now Bryan comes along, and is papering over the differences between City needs and Ward 2 needs. His words above: “I actually don’t think the interests of Newton and of Ward 2 are at odds.” He is entitled to that view. But many people in Ward 2 don’t feel that way. ”
Bryan did write:
… I actually don’t think the interests of Newton and of Ward 2 are at odds…
and explained what he meant by that with:
” We want to be a great community with a diverse population, both economically and racially. We want homes we can afford and roads we can drive, walk, and bike on safely and conveniently.”
but more importantly CONTINUED with…
“If anything, what I do hear all around Ward 2 is that we shouldn’t be the only part of town driving these changes. I agree completely. As a voice for Ward 2, I’m going to fight for new housing to be spread out through the city, not just on Washington street.”
Though I do not live in Ward 2 and cannot vote for either candidate, I must express my favorable impression of Emily Norton’s work in city government. I have attended many subcommittee meetings and plenary sessions of the City Council, and her interventions are crisp and to the point. She has championed many good causes, among them limiting the use of leaf blowers in the city, and she is not taken in by the smoke screen of so much of the talk about development.
Defending projects like Austin Street and Riverside as promoting socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic diversity is absurd. Yet so many of the establishment-endorsed candidates for city council this year take this stand, as I witnessed at the Ward 5 candidates’ debate last night. Even with subsidies, the rents at Austin Street make no sense for a family making, say, $40,000-50,000 a year and seeking a modest 2-bedroom apartment. Retired couples content to live in a modest 1-bedroom apartment there might find the rents reasonable, I guess. Austin Street was a missed opportunity despite the best efforts of councilors like Amy Sangiolo.
I am a lifelong Democrat and progressive who feels that the city’s party committee ought to steer clear of endorsing one Democrat over another. We need independent city councilors who don’t toe the party line but think for themselves. Emily Norton certainly does that, and even if I sometimes disagree with her on one issue or another, I still respect her. And if you truly want to sustain socioeconomic diversity in Newton, let alone promote it, don’t look to private developers for the solution. Prevent the speculators, abetted by supportive city councilors, from spurring on the teardown/McMansion epidemic; build partnerships between city government and non-profits to build housing that truly meets the needs of families of more modest income.
@Bob Jampol. Bravo. I could not have said it better and since I don’t have to repeat what you said, I think I’ll take a nap.
Thanks for all the kind comments as well as the great questions. Happy to answer them as best as I can.
@Paul –
I think I answered your initial question clearly. Patricia broke it down quite well so I’ll just say, what she said.
Senior Center –
I am on record about this. See here from the Globe:
Bryan Barash, who is running against Norton, said he didn’t support using parkland for the project, and is concerned about how the city will fund it.
“I have a lot of questions that haven’t been answered yet and I do not think we are ready to settle on a definitive location yet,” Barash said.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/globelocal/2019/08/28/residents-balk-newton-eyes-albemarle-field-for-senior-center/GngXSjNvsy6zRFw4HWHr1J/story.html
Storage Facility –
I’m going to do something you won’t see a lot of politicians do – admit that I don’t know. I didn’t follow that permitting process closely and would be interested to learn more about how it has gone since being approved.
Compromising –
I think several commenters are correct, I do see myself as someone who forges compromise and brings people to the table. I don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And Paul, I wasn’t uncompromising on the Charter – in fact, I was one of four votes for a compromise proposal (which was ultimately defeated).
Bryan,
In response to my questions, you wrote on 8/4/18:
“@Anatoly – I am very interested in options for reducing income inequality and in proposals that will make it easier for those who live here to stay here, especially if their living situation is cost-burdened (>30% of income spent on housing). I’ve begun looking into your question about water / sewer rates. Interested in whether we can lower costs further for lower income residents. I know the city went through a planning process for sewer/water infrastructure, and that Deb Crossley was instrumental in that, so I’ll be seeking her advice.
In terms of residential tax exemptions, I think they are a good tool to make our tax system more progressive. I would love to see Newton adopt one, so long as the financial implications make sense for the city.”
Do you have any updates on these matters? Would you plan any initiatives on them if elected?
@Bryan
Appreciate you answering many of the questions from a clear skeptic.
There is a big one that didn’t get answered:
– Do you believe that the City has historically treated some parts of the City different than others? I believe than Ward 2/Newtonville gets less favorable treatment compared to richer parts of the City like Waban, and that needs to change.
Do you?
A simple yes/no would suffice.
@Paul – You can always ask me questions, and I will always do my best to answer them respectfully no matter what your position is.
To answer your question: Yes. And we still do treat some parts of the city differently.
Sometimes for good reasons – Different villages have different public transportation access, different existing housing stock, etc.
But there are some things where there is unequal treatment – resistance to new housing in some parts of the city has led to plans being abandoned, whereas resistance in other parts has been overcome. Now I support adding housing throughout the city, so I want to be crystal clear: We need more housing.
I want to see vision plans for Newton Centre, Newton Highlands, and Waban T station areas to match the process we went through for Washington Street. Proactive planning with robust citizen input is the best way to make sure we grow sustainably and build public buy-in.
As I recall, not only did Bryan dedicate two years of his life to fully eliminating ward-elected representation in Newton, but so did a large number of those commenting in his favor above.
@Bryan — In your opinion, did the charter commission’s proposal retain ward representation as the YES campaign maintained it did?
The residents of Ward 2 favored retaining ward-elected representation by a large margin. As a resident of Ward 2, did you “represent” (speak to the merits of) that Ward 2 majority viewpoint on the charter commission as well as your own?
@Matt Lai – Unfortunately, I can’t answer your question. The special permit process requires City Councilors to sit in a quasi-judicial role. If elected, the special permit for Northland could come before me for review. Therefore, I cannot pre-judge the application without reviewing all of the information in the permit before me at that time and weighing it fairly. As a lawyer, I take that responsibility very seriously.
I can tell you more generally that I have some concerns about aspects of the Northland site and see some opportunities as well. It is clearly an under-utilized site that has enormous potential for economic development. At the same time, the location provides serious transportation problems. The shuttles are an interesting concept but I am skeptical of privately run public transportation.
I also have questions about whether the project can afford to subsidize more affordable housing or more deeply affordable housing than it does now.
@Anatoly – I continue to look into residential exemption. It is a great concept but has the drawback of treating renters differently than homeowners. I am excited about the possibility of tax relief for our most vulnerable homeowners, but trying to find a way to do so that doesn’t potentially harm lower income renters. I’m still looking into it and talking with folks to see what the options are.
Bryan,
You forgot the water question. Would you sign my petition at https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/newton-aldermen-rescind? One of its signers commented “[t]his board and mayor tout housing for lower income people all while shifting the burden of water usage to the poor among us.”
Appreciate your response, @bryan (which is more than I can say for my own At Large Councilor in Ward 5).
This was included in the Friday Packet…
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/98794
After 2 years of, “we need more affordable housing” and “we need to get rid of cars to save the environment”, what we still have is…
1. A planning department in the back pocket of the Developer
2. Developer who is unwilling to reduce the number of parking spaces (a position strongly held by some councilors)
3. Some traffic lights updates and walking paths
…and 660 new apartments at or higher than Austin Street’s market rates (padding the Developer’s war chest).
I voted against the Charter Commission’s recommendation because I believe there is a place local representation.
My 6th grade teacher (Mr. Bossange) make a joke in his social studies lesson that I still remember today, “the best form of government, is a benevolent dictator”. ;-)
In the absence of this person, us “little guys” need someone to stand up and fight against Goliaths like Northland, with the financial and political capital to squeeze a small city into our village.
This “fight” is what many appreciate from Emily in and outside of her ward. If you are elected, I hope you do the same.
(This should be an interesting November for all of Newton)
Matt, two questions:
1. Why do you think it’s so expensive to live in Newton?
2. What makes you think that a developer can arbitrarily set rents?
Bryan B: “I want to be crystal clear: We need more housing.”
Jim E: “Why?” (Please be succinct in your answer.)
Jim,
Have you been to Bryan’s web site? He answers the question here.
More generally, you can bone up on the growth basics here. You may not agree with the goals, but the basics are pretty straightforward.
@Jim: Because there is a regional housing crisis that is driving rents and home prices further and further out of reach for the middle class.
And I refuse to believe that we in Newton are the kind of community that says it is someone else’s problem and shuts the gates behind us.
Hey @sean,
One answer for both questions:
Expecting the private sector (developers) to be the solve for affordable housing is a conflict of interest. The community needs to give up too much – i.e. 8 market rate apartments for every 2 affordable. And I don’t blame them for that. If we were selling our home, we would not discount either.
Instead, if AFFORDABLE housing is to be address, it needs to be treated like an entitlement. The public would have to contribute in form of taxes, but it’s goal, intent, and path to get there is clear, and not used as a means to a very different end (profit$$).
This is why the devil and angel each sit on separate shoulders. :-)
Matt,
You didn’t really answer either question, so I’ll hazard an answer to the first question and see if we can reach consensus, then we can move to question 2.
I asked, “Why do you think it’s so expensive to live in Newton?”
Housing costs, much like other costs, is, generally, a question of supply and demand.
Demand first. The most obvious reason for high demand for Newton housing is its proximity to Boston. People want to live near the main employment hub in the region (and also near to the 128 corridor).
Capacity. Newton has roughly 30K housing units, a number that hasn’t come close to keeping up with regional economic growth. There are many more than 30K people or families that want to live here. So prices are high.
It’s really that simple. We can’t have a reasonable discussion about housing until we all acknowledge that the central virtue of the city is its proximity to jobs and that we have way less housing stock than the market would bear.
Single-family lots and good schools both contribute to demand and reflect capacity. Yes, people will pay more for good schools and for single-family lots. But, it’s a cycle. Schools are funded through property taxes. (It’s criminal, but for another post.) Because housing is restricted, median house prices are high. Because housing is restricted, the number of school-aged children is restricted.
High demand with constrained capacity leads to high per-lot property taxes, which leads to high school funding, which creates great schools, which fuels demand, which increases home prices, which leads to more tax revenue available for schools.
Concentrated wealth is a wonderful thing for a school system.
Single-family lots are a lot less complicated. There is demand for single-family lots. But, to preserve single-family lots, you have to constrain the housing supply. So, single-family lots contribute to both high demand and limited capacity.
Proximity to Boston is the foundation for demand. Constrained supply limits supply. Voila, high housing costs. It’s good for the schools, increasing demand further. And, single-family lots are both the reason for limited supply and a driver of demand.
If we can agree on these basic facts, we can then move onto why you think developers can arbitrarily set rents and also address your points about affordable housing. (Spoiler alert: adding housing units is not going to fully address the affordable housing crisis, but it will help.)
PS @Sean
Why WE paid top dollar to move here from our JP condo almost 10 years ago…. schools, our own backyard, a little space between our home and the next, a little quieter neighborhood, moving away from Boston traffic…. but knowing a fun day/evening in Boston is a short T ride or drive away.
Sad to see that may all go away.
Bob Jampol and Matt Lai wrote some very convincing statements about why Emily Norton has been a successful and strong advocate for ward 2 and why there is no reason to replace her on the city council.
Bob wrote, “I must express my favorable impression of Emily Norton’s work in city government. I have attended many subcommittee meetings and plenary sessions of the City Council, and her interventions are crisp and to the point.
We need independent city councilors who don’t toe the party line but think for themselves. Emily Norton certainly does . . .”
Matt Lai wrote about Emily Norton:
“In the absence of this person, us “little guys” need someone to stand up and fight against Goliaths like Northland, with the financial and political capital to squeeze a small city into our village.
This “fight” is what many appreciate from Emily in and outside of her ward. ..”
So why is there an election for the Ward 2 seat?
The reason is that Emily Norton is an independent voice that will stand up for the “little person” against the powerful interests in the city who have been pushing the pro-development mantra without any concern on whether that development benefits the city or ward 2.
Councilor Norton,
That’s quite an impressive list of public endorsers.
One might quibble over 462 being nearly 500, but given that you won your last contested race (2013) with 1046 votes (to 947), having 462 endorsers is a great start for this year. If nothing else, your race with Bryan Barash promises high turnout.
One question: are you sure all 462 endorsers are Ward 2 voters? I don’t recognize that many names, but there are one or two that I think live outside Ward 2.
@Sean There are 463, keep up!
And yes they are all Ward 2.
Ok, here is my question for housing supply and demand. (And I’m not being facetious; I don’t understand the economics of this) If places like Austin Street charge $3000-6000 for their units and people are willing to pay that, won’t other apartment buildings charge similar amounts because they know people are willing to pay that? How will the price ultimately come down?
MMQC,
My own suspicion is that the rental market is pretty mature in Newton. If so, the Austin St. landlord won’t get those rents. They sound kinda high.
Some may contend that the proximity to Newtonville’s amenities merits a higher rent or that the enhanced amenities from Austin St. and Washington Pl. will make the whole area more desirable and result in higher rents. Gentrification, in short.
We’ll have to see.
Apartment prices may not come down in Newton, if the demand is there. The impact of more units in Newton will likely be felt more regionally than locally.
Boston, including the seaport district especially, is going to be dealing with flooding caused by global warming. Already there have been floods on Atlantic Ave. Instead of thinking ahead, we have Boston and gov Baker on a tear to bring businesses into Boston with the tax incentives. Thus is causing pressure on the suburbs to add housing. Fair? Hardly. Thinking about sustainable climate resistant development? Well, they’re gonna need to build a big dike around that area like they have in The Netherlands.
Build a train along 495 and have the business develop out there where it# high and dry.
@MMQC – Basically, there are a finite number of people willing to pay a certain price for an apartment each with their own price cutoff, and a finite number of apartments (although we are also impacted by the regional market) competing for those renters.
When we add, say, 68 units at Austin street to the mix, that’s 68 people who were apartment hunting that would’ve otherwise been competing for the existing housing stock who are no longer driving up the prices of the existing stock.
Take me for example. My wife and I rent half of an older two family. Let’s say couple 2 would’ve been willing to pay $100 more than us, and would have otherwise gotten our spot. But because they now have the option to move into a more upscale option that’s within their price range, they are no longer competing with my wife and me for our older two family.
Does that make sense? I’m not an economist so if that wasn’t clear I can dig up some good articles for you about it.
Bryan B said:
Not true. Not finite. We’re not an island in the middle of the Pacific. We have open borders with Waltham, Framingham, Worcester, Vermont. Build more units, and more college grads from Boston will stay in the area instead of choosing to get more for their money somewhere else. Like my sister and brother-in-law who thought Boston was too expensive when they graduated from law school — in 1981. So they moved to Maine, where they’ve lived happily ever since.
Maybe we’ve been spoiled by all our World Championships, but we’ve got this peculiar conceit that Greater Boston, and specifically Newton, is the only place to be, and anyone who doesn’t live here is deprived.
Rick Frank is right. Instead of packing more people inside of 128, Massachusetts should be diversifying it’s economy geographically. Spread the wealth and the jobs around. Before we have to, or spend billions (trillions?) on enclosing Boston Harbor. https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/in-the-face-of-climate-change-bostonians-need-to-call-a-retreat/
@Julia – So you’re advocating for the Greater Boston economy to stop growing, so we have less jobs? I can’t imagine many people want that. I support economic growth.
I’m for less concentration of wealth. I’m for not having all the best school systems concentrated in one part of the state. I’d like school systems to be more equal around the state, so a kid’s education doesn’t depend on how ambitious their parents are. Who’s the progressive here?
A lot of people in Queens decided the Amazon HQ2 jobs weren’t worth the consequences. A lot of people in northern Virginia may be feeling the same way. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/us/politics/amazon-housing-northern-virginia.html
When will Greater Boston be big enough for you? When it’s as big as NYC? LA? Sao Paulo? Serious question.
Julia,
There’s certainly merit to your idea. Problem is that companies, particularly high tech companies, want to be where the talent is. And, talent wants to be where the companies are. I suspect that increasingly shorter average tenure has a lot to do with that.
Regardless of how many regional employment hubs you build, they need to be compact. Compact living is more environmentally sustainable. So Newton should densify, even if Boston doesn’t add another job.
Even if we agreed your suggestion made good policy sense, Boston isn’t going to stop adding jobs, so we’re going to have to adjust. You can’t have a city full of people who work in Boston and whose land value is determined by what’s happening in the region try to insulate ourselves from the impact of regional job growth.
The land is going to be at risk of flooding
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/global-warming-impacts/sea-level-rise-chronic-floods-and-us-coastal-real-estate-implications
I don’t see how Boston is going to avoid some big problems by 2045 at the latest. But I think our current political / economic thinking isn’t looking that far out. That’s one reason ( besides the prices) I wouldn’t consider downsizing to the Seaport or the south end- at least not buying. Renting maybe. I think I’d be hedging against property values in the areas marked as chronic flood zones in the maps I linked above.
Head for higher ground folks.
Sean,
Seems to me you are basing your case on multiple wrong or at least unsubstantiated assumptions. For example, “talent wants to be where the companies are.” Wrong. Talent today wants to work remotely, have flexible work arrangements, and rarely wants to live where the office is.
Julia said: “Massachusetts should be diversifying it’s economy geographically. Spread the wealth and the jobs around.”
And what’s the mechanism to do that? Economies of scale and clusters of talent form around concentrations of density: usually cities. If we’re talking high paying jobs, that means cities with universities. Boston just happens to have one of the largest concentrations of world class universities. Not a big surprise that leads to density and desirable (and scarce) real estate. Do companies like paying crazy commercial rents in Kendall Square? No, but they do it in no small part because it’s a fast walk from MIT.
If you want to “spread the wealth and the jobs around” at the governmental level, the most efficient use of money is to spend it on one of the other cities like Worcester or Springfield. And there certainly is some investment to do that. How many times have you used one of Massport’s other airports?
Ultimately, though, government (especially state government) has limited control over where people want to live, or as a result where companies want to set up shop. Jobs aren’t the government’s to distribute, and for the most part neither is the wealth (though we skim taxes off the top).
If “spread the wealth and the jobs around” means something outside major cities in Massachusetts, that’s really hard and really inefficient for government to do. First, you have to convince companies to build outside of major cities. Second, you have to build up the infrastructure to support those people. That seems like the definition of sprawl, and it goes against what I thought we learned about the downsides of 1950’s style suburban and exurban development. And someone somewhere out there in more rural Massachusetts is going to object to big plans changing *their* way of life.
I see state government’s job to use some of the wealth generated in the economic engines of the state to help everyone in the Commonwealth get great education and training, just like you want. That’s effective tax and spending policy. Second, the state should be doing the planning that the hand of capitalism won’t. That’s land use policy, facing climate change and eventual flooding of critical sections of Boston metro, while at the same time countering the inefficiencies of sprawl that lead to CO2 emissions. Finally, it should do infrastructure planning and improvements to reduce the impact of more efficient, higher density living by, for example, investing heavily in transit and schools in metro areas. For example, the state should support its 40B housing mandate with improved transit.
If, as a city, we decide to say, “it isn’t our problem, go away”, we push people and development further out from Boston, decrease density, reduce the effectiveness of mass transit, increase sprawl, and suffer the impact of increased congestion and emissions anyway as all those people drive down the Pike to get to their work. I don’t see the environmentalist case in that.
We didn’t make this wave, and we can’t really hold it back. Our best bet is to ride it in a way that helps us as a city out the most. That’s the debate. We should set our standards and our ideals so that we build a better city, not just a bigger one. Do it best so we are a model of doing it right. Finally, we should ask more from developers and businesses as good corporate citizens because is helps us to realize that vision, not as a complicated way of saying “no”.
Anatoly Kleyman, I would say companies want to be where the talent is, and many pay obscenely high salaries and pay high commercial rents to be able to get that talent. In Boston, the talent is streaming out of our universities, and capturing it early is the primary recruiting strategy of countless local firms.
Talent may want to work remotely (and that is definitely a gross generalization), but running a company the size of a Google or Amazon regional office with a large percentage of remote workers is unprecedented. Running a biotech company remotely where a good number of the staff uses specialized equipment, like Kendall Square’s biotech companies, is even more difficult. It may also not be in a company’s interest for workers to work remotely.
And even if people can and are willing to work remotely doesn’t mean they want to live far from work. Many like living in the city, and Boston metro is a pretty good one.
The government is trying through tax incentives, such as the one given to GE, to entice corporations to move into Boston. That wouldn’t bother me so much if it weren’t going to be flooded because of sea level rise.
It’s true that medical device and life sciences companies need people on site – that’s why as a medical and scientific software engineering consultant I often have to travel out to 495 area, where there are quite a few of them. Right now I’m working on a project for a company with 3000 employees ( world wide) and a manufacturing facility on site. They can’t all fit in Kendall Square.
My attorney was counsel for a medical software company that had 300 employees and NO office. That’s unusual, but true.
Up zoning in Austin Texas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsYOurWEoSc
Definitely worth watch. Thanks Rick!
PS How did this thread go from over 100 comments back down to 78?
The Bay State Stonewall Democrats proudly stand with Bryan and strongly urge the voters to support him in the upcoming election. The LGBTQ+ community are encountering a surge in discrimination and hate crimes and it is important to have allies like Bryan in elected office. Bryan has not only been present, standing with the LGBTQ+ community for many years, but also an active participant assisting legislators as they work to promote LGBTQ+ equality. We are certain he will continue to advocate for the community as a City Councilor and encourage you all to support his candidacy.
Old thread, but I wanted to fill in some background regarding the Austin, Texas upzoning video.
It’s true that Newton and Austin are considered great places to live. That’s about where the comparison ends.
To put things in perspective, Austin metro is called Boomtown. It is growing faster than any other American city, with 19.1% job growth from 2010-2015. Population has grown 23% from 2010-2017. 16.4 residents per thousand are new. The influx is weighted towards well educated people between 25 and 44.
159 people move to Austin every day. What’s more, Austin has been growing at these unbelievable rates, or higher, consistently since 1860.
From 2000 to 2012, the Austin region grew by nearly 570,000 people, but added “only” 84,000 housing units. A survey of housing stock estimated that 69,000 units would need to be added by 2025 just to maintain the the current tight housing market.
To address these issues, the zoning plan discussed in the video aims to add 135,000 units over 10 years, with 60,000 of those units to be affordable and uniformly spread out throughout all sections of the city. Eventually, the plan includes 400,000 new units (but see the population growth).
Austin clearly has housing issues unimaginable in Newton, Boston, or basically anywhere else in the US. Austin is adding a new Newton’s worth of people to its population every 600 days or so. I am not surprised that fairly dramatic plans are being created, nor that there’s rampant land speculation. I don’t envy any planner who has to figure out where to put people and infrastructure and everything else a city needs.
Yet, US News calls Austin its #1 best place to live in the US, and #4 best place to retire. Austin has an average home price one third of Newton’s, with a significantly lower cost of living.
I get that the people in the video feel like their neighborhoods and way of life are changing. I’m sure the process for affected neighborhoods seems brutal. But this also seems like the historic trend for Austin.
There is simply no meaningful comparison between the two cities, and I think we actually diminish the challenges we face in Newton by trying to draw parallels.