As an appointed member of the Commission on Economic Development, I try to stay well-informed on the issues and challenges Newton faces, particularly if they impact our local economy. No surprise, one of the most relevant and “hot button” topics is tied to new development in our city.
Several proposed developments are winding their way through the City Council’s special permitting process – to mixed reviews. I fundamentally believe that dense, transit-oriented, mixed-use development helps address several challenges our city is facing, including: increased housing options, to climate change, and public transportation to economic development in our village centers. The City Council is tasked with reviewing these projects, typically via both extensive Committee and full City Council review that includes much public commentary, frequent third party studies and the opportunity to directly address important City priorities with the project proponent. The end-result of this process is typically a project that balances the needs and goals of Newton overall with the economic realities of creating new projects in greater Boston. This is how a productive land use process should work.
That is why I’m very disappointed to learn in today’s Boston Globe that a small but vocal group of Lower Falls residents are considering usurping this important piece of the City Council’s authority. The Lower Falls Improvement Association is actively preparing for a ballot question that would overturn any zoning change passed by the City Council that would enable the Riverside MBTA project to move forward. This ballot question would likely be presented to Newton voters in a citywide, low-turnout, special election. It makes political sense for some in the Lower Falls to promote this strategy: the “angry” side always has an advantage in a special election, even if they are in the minority. But I believe a ballot question like this makes no sense for the rest of our city and sets a terrible and dangerous precedent.
The Riverside project offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity for a mixed-use development that checks all the boxes that Newton needs it to – and in a site that is bordered by a major highway and currently home to an ugly parking lot. To date, Mark Development has been transparent with the city and local stakeholders. Newton only has a few parcels of land left suitable for this type of development, including along Needham Street in the Upper Falls. The density of the project as proposed economically creates some critically important benefits for Newton, including new affordable housing units, new commercial and retail space which will expand our property tax base, and acres of new outdoor recreational space along the Charles River.
On the merits, this is a good project and I’m confident the City Council’s input will only make it better. But the threat of this ballot question gets at something even more important for our city: should the voice of a few stubborn people, who are averse to change in their neighborhood, outweigh the solemn responsibilities of our elected representatives and the City of Newton as a whole?
I urge those behind this effort in the Lower Falls to reconsider their harmful approach. This divisive ballot question would be a major black eye for Newton and a serious threat to our shared obligations as a community to make our city better. Nothing worth doing has ever been easy.
Jack makes an interesting statement about Newton and his quest
to promote unlimited housing growth in our city.
He believes city residents should not question the rezoning process. That people ought not to oppose the destructive forces of rapid economic growth.
Well I disagree. There is a very important reason why ballot
referendums exist. Mainly they give voters a choice about new laws and government officials who fail to represent their constituents.
I applaud the effort by our community to ask the residents to hold government responsible. No matter the out come of this future vote, at least voters have a chance to determine their own future. After all we are all stakeholders in our city.
Newton has continued to change and grow over the decades, just in a more sensible way. Jack and others should not transform our city dramatically without majority consensus. Our city will fail if citizens are at war with each other.
I’m concerned that this effort to put this to a ballot question is tyranny by the minority. California passed the Three Strikes Law via ballot initiative which hamstrung judicial flexibility in applying the law and disproportionately affected minorities (as it always seems to do). This seems like the same.
Let representative democracy work – by voters communicating with their reps and letting their preferences be known. This ballot initiative feels like an end around our democratic process.
I live down the street from the Towers of Chestnut Hill next to Route 9, two 16 story apartment buildings. I don’t notice any issues from having this large apartment complex close to me. I actually wish it were more well integrated into the community – it is very isolated.
Housing is ridiculously expensive in Newton and surrounding areas, and it will not be resolved unless we have more housing supply.
Nelson,
Great point about the Towers! The folks there should be better integrated into the community. It’s drive in and drive out.
“should the voice of a few stubborn people, who are averse to change in their neighborhood, outweigh the solemn responsibilities of our elected representatives and the City of Newton as a whole?”
Ouch – those stubborn residents are voters and they pay taxes and elect officials just like every other resident in Newton. While you might view them as stubborn, it is hurtful. Maybe these “stubborn” people moved out of a densely populated area for a more suburban area, and want the status quo. There is nothing wrong with holding an opposing view. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and to then really call them out using a negative adjective is not correct either. Maybe they want curbside composting as part of Newton’s trash services. Should they call the other side “stubborn” for not wanting change and to keep the status quo of trash and recycle collection?
Having different views is what makes this country unique and it is okay to be different, and to express that opinion.
It is okay to debate the points, but not name calling.
NewtonMom,
“Ouch – those stubborn residents are voters and they pay taxes and elect officials just like every other resident in Newton.”
But, they want to do an end-run around the decisions of those same elected officials and get a different result than the one generated by the system every other resident of Newton relies on.
You do get the irony, don’t you?
Let me make it more explicit. Newton has a representative government. The residents of Newton elect a 24-member body to make decisions like this on our behalf. We are on the eve of an election where development will be one of the most contested issues. State law requires a 2/3 super-majority for most land-use decisions. Approval of development at Riverside is going to require that 16 of the 24 councilors that the good folks of Newton chose to represent them think it’s a good idea. So, approval requires two-thirds of the councilors chosen in an election where development is top-of-mind.
The threat that the neighborhood will a referendum is a cynical rejection of the power of residents in Newton to elect officials to act on their (the voters’) policy preferences. In the face of what will be overwhelming evidence that the citizens of Newton want intense development on this parcel, the neighbors are going to drag this out as long as they can.
“Stubborn” is kind.
Angry, stubborn, averse to change.
Hmmm. If the intent of this post was to persuade the people who are considering a ballot question not to do so, I doubt it achieved its goal.
Who cares about a “black eye”? What matters is that the threat of a referendum has caused the developer to reduce the value to the city of the development. Less affordable housing. Less tax revenue. Less money for open space. And, the neighbors are still going to scorch the earth. Worrying about a black eye is the kind of thinking that prevents good folks from standing up to these bullies.
I strongly support the proposed Riverside development but have no problem at all with the final decision being taken to the voters via referendum. It’s in the charter, it was done when NNHS was built, and there’s no reason not to do it again. As a matter of fact, if the City Council somehow approves the misguided proposal to site NewCal on Albemarle, or on any parkland, I’d expect that decision to be brought to the voters, too. It’s not a black eye, it’s a good way for the voters to have the final say in cases where our city government does idiotic things!
I am opposed to referendum questions in most cases; the whole point of electing representatives is that they have been tasked with looking deeply into complex issues of governance and giving them due consideration. Referendum questions are usually “mob rule”, if you look at the terrible mess they usually cause in California in particular.
I try to take some care about who I vote for, and then work with them on issues I care about. I do not like trying to yank the decision making out of their hands and throw it up for grabs in a last minute couple of paragraphs on a ballot. That is irresponsible, and subject to highly emotional and hasty review by busy voters.
I’m again puzzled. Mr. Leader writes that the opposition consists of only “a small but vocal group of Lower Falls residents–a few stubborn people who are averse to any change in their neighborhood”. If you believe this, then it has to follow that a solid majority of Lower Falls residents are on board with the Riverside proposal or some variation of it. I’d like Mr. leader to explain how a small but vocal group of stubborn people can, in essence, roll the rest of their village, get a green light from the Mayor and City Council for a referendum of this nature and then entice enough voters throughout the City to endorse their position in either a high or low turn out referendum.
Or enough signatures on a referendum petition.
Lower Falls residents have legitimate concerns about parking spaces (which appear to be based on overly optimistic projections) and traffic density. We are, in effect, being asked to subsidize items that are good for other city residents who won’t have to deal with any of the negatives. If there were more community improvements to make this a neutral deal for Lower Falls then it might make sense. As it is, some bear the costs and others reap the benefits. That doesn’t work well, and LF residents are right to fight it.
If a referendum has no place in a representative democracy, why is it in our charter? If voters are disappointed by what the City Council votes to approve or disapprove, by representation by electeds or by the lack of transparency and inclusiveness in decision making in our government, referendums give them a say.
Newton already has black eyes from over the years, who cares what other people think of Newton – I certainly don’t. I don’t want my city government always seeking to lead the pack in decision making. That type of mindset leads to as many unintended consequences and paradoxes as referendums.
The city council doesn’t have to approve a petition for a ballot question with only a small number of signatures. This group would have to gather many more signatures to automatically get a question on the ballot.
As for name calling and it’s affect on groups of people, there have been many studies during the last few years that all show discussions stop when name calling starts. So if we are looking for more silent brooding and being divided, keep it up.
If we want to have productive discussions, we have to learn how to have a civil discussion with those whose mindsets are different from ours. If we don’t, we are doomed to continue to silently disagree and build hatred.
I highly recommend most of Malcolm Gladwell’s books but his newest one explains how to do the above.
“Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know about the People We Don’t Know”
The Riverside Station development was approved by Newton Aldermen about 15 years ago despite the overwhelming opposition from the Lower Falls community. That approval process took more than 5 years, but the previous developers failed to gather funds to build it. If not for those financial circumstances, the Riverside would have been built, the community would have had a community center and the rest of Massachusetts would have had a nice residential-commercial center and a better public transportation.
And now the history repeats itself. The opponents of this new, project proclaim “we are not NIMBYs”, but that is exactly what they are. NIMBYism is happening all over this city, this state and this country. These people fail to realize the natural growth of cities and the inevitable transformation of suburbs to urban centers. Their psychology is based on the primal instinct of territorial imperative and the fear of newcomers. I suggest that the Lower Falls community concentrates on affordability and the architectural excellence of the proposed development instead of fighting any development near them.
Anatol, many, many houses near Riverside, off off Grove, are smaller capes. The affordability of the homes in lower falls are more “affordable” than houses in Chestnut Hill, Waban, etc.
My own house was “affordable” as it is a Cape, but I am sure if I sell it, the house will be torn down for a bigger house.
The residents in Lower Falls don’t want a massive project in their backyard, because they are the ones that will have more congestion and pollution due to more cars. I am not against affordable housing. I moved to Newton because it wasn’t Cambridge or Brookline. I like houses (small and large). I didn’t want to live in a large dense city.
I am still concerned about the effects that all this development has for the schools. Building smarter is great. Just don’t plop a multi building development in with cape’s and smaller homes with out the STRUCTURE needed – Grove Street will become a parking lot.