Second in series.
A friend of mine, an accomplished economist, was once testifying before a regulatory body. The opposing lawyer, in an attempt to question his credentials, noted that he had listed membership in the American Economic Association. “What does it take to be a member of the AEA?” the lawyer challenged. My friend replied, “About 50 bucks a year,” producing a good laugh as everyone in the room realized that the issue was not germane.
What does that have to do with NewCAL? Well, we need to be alert that assertions used by the Administration in its advocacy for this project, while possibly true, are not germane. Here’s an example from the frequently asked questions posted on the NewCAL website.
Why is NewCAL important? Part of the answer given is that “Newton has been designated as an age-friendly community and as such we have committed to combat ageism, isolationism, and barriers that prevent Newton’s seniors from aging in place.”
Did you know that we had been designated as an “age-friendly community?” Who did this, and what does it mean? It turns out that the idea is a product of the AARP, a form of self-designation to which communities can subscribe. Among other things, it “supports AARP’s goal of being recognized by elected officials and others as a leading resource for how to improve the livability of communities for people age 50+ and their families.”
Somebody in Newton applied for this designation in 2016. Was it the previous mayor, acting on his own? Was there a City Council vote? I find no record of an official act of the City government or its population in support of this designation. [Update: I note with gratitude that John Pelletier offers the following correction to these points below: “This was led by the Council on Aging, an appointed board with membership approved by the city council, the department of senior services, and the city council at the time.”]
In any event, there is nothing about the designation that requires anything to be done with regard to the specific plan of a particular senior center.
Look, I’m not disagreeing with the desire to combat the problems of ageism, isolationism, and the like. As a 69-year-old deeply involved in efforts to build affordable housing for seniors and having run a hospital with a large geriatric population, I get those issues and believe in working on them. Having better senior services and facilities in the city is a good idea. Where I disagree with the Administration–and find its approach to be cynical–is the use of a vacuous designation in support of the process, program, siting, and construction of a particular senior center, not to mention the capital and operating costs needed to carry out that program.
Can we please focus on the actual issues surrounding the NewCAL proposal without making assertions that are not germane?
Can we also please focus on a senior center rather than an athletic/sports complex (‘NewCAL’) pretending to be a ‘senior center’ because a few of its rooms are priority reserved for senior activity and use. And also, can we please drop the supercilious moniker ‘NewCAL’ for simply “Senior Center”.
I am frankly a little sick and tired of the anti-senior and anti-NewCAL slant of recent topics, this one included… As for Age-Friendly Designation. This was led by the Council on Aging, an appointed board with membership approved by the city council, the department of senior services, and the city council at the time.
Before being appointed to the COA here in Newton to help with their transportation work, I led the designation of Salem, MA as an Age Friendly Community with my work in the Mayor’s office there. The designation was presented and officially accepted by the Mayor and the City Council after work by citizen advocates with the support of the COA and myself. I expect the process was similar for Newton, I was not involved in the designation at the time.
There is no grand conspiracy here, there is no data manipulation to fit facts, there is no “fake news” here about the needs of our senior residents and the significant increase in their number and the increase in their expectations for services.
The note you mention here is absolutely relevant to the topic because all too often seniors are forgotten about. The Senior Center needed a complete rehab and expansion 20 years ago, its worse and even more overcrowded now. Seniors are aging in place and need facilities and services that will keep them active members of the community. Being designated as Age-Friendly means we are focusing on those issues, and to be fair, this administration has done a pretty good job of keeping that focus.
That said, the previous administration understood a bit of the issue and was supportive of both receiving funding for the PLAAN sessions that were held to help with that study and ultimately help understand what our seniors need, and I expect was supportive to some degree of the work needed to be designated Age-Friendly.
The COA and our seniors have been advocating for a new center for most of those 20 years, this is the first real proposal with specifics and plans behind it. The team looking at locations had a broad mandate, the COA contributed additional locations to look at. Quite frankly any non-city-owned piece of land would need to be purchased at market rate and people think the current facility is costly, try purchasing a parcel at market rates in this current real estate market. Not gonna happen.
Some COA members hoped a facility could be combined with market or affordable housing as part of a private development. Some communities (Salem) have had success doing that, but unfortunately this route was not pursued here for various reasons.
Let’s work to make sure it fits at this location, but let’s not think that issues of ageism and barriers to involvement are not germane to the discussion of a new facility and are not having an impact on the vitriolic discussion happening across local discussion boards.
@John – a lot of us who are against NewCAL are NOT against a new senior center and are not anti-senior. Many of us ARE seniors.
What we are against is turning the need for a new senior center into an expensive mega-project of a community center that no one in Newton, as far as I know, has been clamoring for, and using precious open space to do so.
I very much want a new, improved senior center. But the needs for providing for seniors are modest compared to this $16 million boondoggle that has been steam-rollered through.
John P.:
If Council of Aging was/is actually concerned about seniors, it would be promoting a Senior Center, NOT an Athletic/Sports Complex with some side rooms reserved for senior priority use.
The Mayor currently is doing a great disservice to COA by conflating the project — and potentially sinking the whole thing.
And, BTW, losing ANY parkland has a far greater cost (in terms of value to the community as well as residential property values) then the City acquiring a piece of private property.
If any doubt, go here — https://www.change.org/p/mayor-ruthanne-fuller-save-newton-s-parks
Thanks, John, for those thoughts. I haven’t met anyone who is opposed to a new senior center; but I have met lots of people who think that the process for deciding on this one was severely flawed.
@John “Let’s work to make sure it fits at this location”
Why do we need to make sure it fits at THIS location??? There in lies a major problem. Seems like to the Mayor, the location was pre-ordained
John,
With regard to your point that non-city-owned land would be more expensive, please note the rules to be followed by the Parks and Recreation Commission when considering the transfer of park or playground facilities to other city agencies:
1. The Parks and Recreation Commission supports the long term preservation of open space in the City of Newton for the benefit of current and future generations of Newton citizens. Open space used for park, recreation and playground purposes should be diverted to other uses only as a last resort after all other reasonable options have been found deficient.
a) In considering the transfer of land for a proposed new use, the Commission will analyze the short and long-term need for the new use in balance with the public trust served by the existing public open space use.
b) The Commission will insure that the intrinsic long-term public values of park and playground open space are weighed explicitly and substantially in the balance and are not overridden by the expediency that publicly owned park and playground open space does not require purchase or eminent domain. The consideration of intrinsic public values will include an estimation of the costs necessary to provide equivalents to the existing park and playground open space. The fact that using park, recreation or playground open space for a new use would be less expensive is not by itself sufficient to warrant the transfer of the land or to reject another potential alternative.
c) The Commission will not divert park and playground open space to other uses unless there has been a compelling showing that there is no feasible and prudent alternative, including both publicly and privately owned potential sites, as well as potential sites that are not currently in open space use.
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/44215
One reason the current process is flawed is that no such showing has been made by the Administration, and yet its focus remains on use of parks and playgrounds. Many of us supporting a new senior center are concerned that this flaw overwhelms the hope of reaching a community consensus on this project.
Obviously I agree with John and thank him for posting. I think the criticisms have included some cheap shots at the mayor and the process. Personally, I am grateful for her leadership on this issue. Being an Age-Friendly community should be source of pride, not ridicule. The population is aging and making changes in Newton to adapt to this new reality will be beneficial for people of all ages. A common example is curb cuts in sidewalks. They help an older person using an assistive device (e.g. walker, cane) to keep mobile and help the young parent pushing a stroller. There are thousands of changes that are not huge but can make life a little easier and healthier for people of all ages. Newton should and is embracing that, recognizing that people of all ages contribute to making Newton the wonderful community that it is.
The NewCal workgroup may have made a compelling showing that the site is the best alternative. The upcoming 10 community meetings will be an opportunity to express that to those who are filling up the discussion boards with complaints about the program, cost, site, process and any other issue related to it.
Beth, with all due respect, unfortunately Mayor Fuller has done much to retard the cause of senior center expansion, which the vast majority of Newton residents favor, precisely by her very poor political, financial and administrative judgment in approaching this.
@ John and @ Beth,
I strongly support the creation of a bigger and better senior center…a first class facility that provides for the needs of our seniors. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t. And I sincerely appreciate the people volunteering their time to make it a reality.
I will just add my voice to the overwhelming majority here who are questioning how we can be at the point of selecting a site when there is a clear lack of consensus in our city about the scope of the project. How did we make the case for including a pool? A 14k sf gym (50% of the net square footage)? Seniors take advantage of excellent gym and pool facilities at the Y and the JCC. Are these facilities overcrowded and turning seniors away?
The focus on the site continues, while questions about the scope of the vision seem to go unanswered…the size of the facility will determine what sites are viable. Let’s agree on the scope before we find a location.
I think this might be the first time I liked and agreed with a post from Rhanna Kidwell…Charter Hangover.
But I agree 100% and share the concerns