Right Sized Newton has just published its list of endorsements and according to this comment from Ward 2 Ward 3 At Large City Councilor Jim Cote isn’t impressed.
@rightsizeNewton: Seriously with all the work being done by At Large Councilors City Wide you couldn’t find one incumbent to endorse? You searched far and wide and endorsed new candidates, some founding members of RightSize, that have never worked on, and voted on large projects. Politics is about collaboration.
@rightsizeNewton: Seriously with all the work being done by At Large Councilors City Wide you couldn’t find one incumbent to endorse? You searched far and wide and endorsed new candidates, some founding members of RightSize, that have never worked on, and voted on large projects. Politics is about collaboration.
@V14: Thanks for the opportunity to express my opinion. Next time I’ll spell “collaboration” correctly!
@V14:
One correction: I’m At Large, Ward 3 (West Newton)
Fixed your spelling and your ward, thanks councilor.
BTW, nice way to make friends and influence people, @RightSized.
Mostly I feel bad for the candidates they did endorse since they are now pigeonholed as being hardcore anti-growth candidates just as voters might be starting to get to know them.
On the other hand, Jim seems to wish he’d been endorsed.
Yes but most likely voters already know Councilor Cote from a wide variety of issues. With the exception of Julie Malakie, who is known for her tree advocacy and other advocacy (including as a Village 14 blogger) the other endorsed challengers stand the danger being seen as one issue candidates in a city where most voters care about multiple issues.
@Jim Cote: collaboration, yes. Capitulation, no.
@Sean: I’m seldom endorsed by groups with a singular focus, as its not my background. To have receieved the RightSize endorsement I would have to have voted no on every project, and that position is not fair to the residents we represent.
Endorsements by groups who represent a viewpoint on issues tell us a lot about a person. Right Size Newton is a one issue group – anti-development – so now we voters know what those candidates think about development.
A candidate will many endorsements by groups tells voters much more. Using Bryan Barash again – this time more positively.
He is endorsed by groups that stand for many things so a wider view of the candidate emerges.
Greater Boston Labor Council
Newton Teacher’s Association
Bay State Stonewall Democrat’s
Trailblazer’s PAC – Front Porch Politics
“Trailblazers PAC is proud to stand with Bryan’s people-powered campaign because he doesn’t take advantage of loopholes that could let him hide his donors. Bryan is a Trailblazer because he isn’t just making campaign promises, he’s taking real action for clean government while he’s running, and he’s accountable to continue putting voters first once he’s in office.”
— LESLIE DANKS BURKE, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT OF TRAILBLAZERS PAC
Bryan commits to running a clean, positive, grassroots campaign. To that end, and because he is so concerned about the pernicious influence of money in politics at all levels, he is refusing contributions to his campaign from municipal lobbyists and developers.
This means he will not be accepting contributions from anyone who is paid to lobby at the city level in Newton, or who has had, or is expected to have, a special permit for a multi-family development before the city council.
I don’t agree Sean. Councilor Cote doesn’t support or deny every development as it comes from the developer, he works to find a balance. He’s become a good representative of West Newton constituents on any side of issues.
These endorsements by right-size newton are only relatable to those voters in Newton who will always vote no on everything new and different “coming down the pike.”
I appreciate that Councilor Cote is clear-eyed about what developers are trying to do, but works with all parties to try to make projects better rather than just saying “no” to everything. He does say “no” to things that make no sense, but tries to improve things that have potential. Keep up the good work!
I feel the need to be fair to people under the “Right Size Newton” umbrella. This isn’t a uniform group. I have personally talked with several people who self classify as members who are objectively (to me at least) not anti-development. They have offered thoughtful critiques of major projects, done in-depth analysis, and actually put forward counter-proposals based on facts and goals and principles.
In short, they have something they are willing to say “yes” to something that isn’t “yes, don’t change anything”, and they can back it up in a clear and logical manner.
I applaud them for it, I think it strengthens the debate. It moves us away from fears toward reasons, and reasons toward solutions, and solutions to compromises, and compromises towards consensus.
The problem with a term like “Right Size” is that it is by definition open to interpretation. It naturally attracts “Exactly the Same Size” advocates, and a few “Government Is So Incompetent And Corrupt They Can’t Do Anything Right Size” people, and repels “Super Size” people. That pulls the center of gravity towards one end of the spectrum of debate. All those opinions are of course entitled to be heard too, but when it comes to endorsements the detail-oriented people closer to the middle are not likely to be represented.
Which goes to Councilor Cote’s point: given that there is at least some component of the RightSize constituency who is willing to work as part of the system, using facts and analysis and working across the spectrum of ideas, is there really no incumbent who you think is worthy of your support? Who can work with you to make your voice heard? Maybe we’ll get more nuance later.
I guess we’ll really find out when all decisions become individual: at the ballot box. I think there are many voices in the public, and on the Council, that are somewhere between a hard “yes” and a hard “no”.
@Marti Bowen you say that “Right Size Newton is a one issue group – anti-development” – Really? Is this helpful to the conversation? I don’t know how many times I’ve heard Right Size members say they are not anti development, but that they are for right sized development. If you want to not take them at their word, then say that, but don’t accuse them of being something they have not claimed to be.
Above, Councilor Cote suggested that he would have had to vote “no” on everything to be endorsed by Right Size Newton. Councilor Kalis and Mike Halle both suggest that the group, as a whole, isn’t uniformly anti-development.
With all that in mind, do we know what was in the questionnaire that they circulated to decide on endorsements? And then how they used those answers in their decision making process? I know that many groups choose not to share that information, but it would help inform the discussion here.
@Marti Bowen, @David Kalis – Curiously, I think you’re both right.
As someone who lives in Upper Falls, will be affected by the Northland project, and has some concerns about it, I’ve been frustrated by Right Size Newton’s strategy.
David is right. I know many of the folks who are active in Right Size Newton. I know that many (most?) are not against the project in principle but have very specific issues that are of concern to them.
Marti is right. Because Right Size Newton is averse to taking any specific position of what specifically they are fighting for, they have instead become a general umbrella for everybody who has ANY issue with the Northland project. The effect of that is that as a group, the only outcome that can effectively satisfy Right Size Newton is to not build anything.
The trouble is that one person is worried about traffic, the next about impact on the schools, the next about the number of affordable units, the next about green space.
This makes it next to impossible for Right Size Newton to negotiate concessions from the developer and makes it very difficult for any elected leader to represent their position, since they don’t have any specific goal that they are fighting for.
So ultimately, the only outcome that can satisfy the group collectively … is to build nothing.
Of course the elephant in the room is that even if this project’s Special Permit were denied, the property owner can still build a massive project on this site “by right” with minimal input from the city … that would make no one happy.
@Jerry, I would love it if Northland would build a “massive project” by right on this property. From what I remember, by right they can build 1.5M ft.² of office and commercial space which would provide a huge tax benefit to the city of Newton with very little services required in return. Even though we wouldn’t be able to demand traffic mitigation, they would almost certainly have to do that anyway in order to make the project a success. If we proceed with this mostly residential project, we are removing one of the few potential commercial zones from our tax base.
@Jerry: “So ultimately, the only outcome that can satisfy the group collectively … is to build nothing.”
I disagree with your assessment. Your oversimplification of the diversity of opinions by stating that the only way to appease the group is to build nothing at all only serves to negatively categorize the group as anti-development. I haven’t met anyone within the group that wants nothing to be built. I believe they want the parcel to be developed. I believe, the outcome that will satisfy the group collectively is to reduce the number of housing units by MUCH MORE than 22 units, increase the affordability within the project, increase the open space and accept conditions that will ensure traffic impacts will not negatively impact the community. And I’ll add my wish – that they make more than one building age-friendly.
Branding is best viewed in hindsight. I’m sure someone at some point thought ‘Coke Zero” was brilliant.
Right Size should have been “Responsible Size”. No one I’ve ever spoken to ever said NOTHING should be built on the Needham Street sight, just something that better fits the infrastructure there to support it. It’s asking a lot of neighboring residents to simply trust that traffic mitigation plan will magically work, that the new tenants won’t drive cars, that classrooms won’t be packed.
And on a related note, I wonder how many who supports the proposed density actually resides near the Needham Street area or lives in a single family home (which according to the housing crisis doomsayers, is an evil unto itself)?
@Amy Sangiolo – I think you misunderstood me. I agree that there is a great diversity of opinion within RightSize Newton and that the majority of people within the group are not “anti-development”.
My disappointment with the way the group’s has operated is that they have never come up with a clear collective statement of what they as a group are pushing for. So you can say “I believe the outcome that will satisfy the group is ….” and someone else can say “I beleive …”.
Without some kind of clearly atriculated goal the group ends up functioning as a collective of every possible objection there can be to a big project.
Despite the fact that the majority of its members may not be inherently “anti-development”, the group ends up functioning as if that is their guiding principal.
I’d love to see that change and see a clear articulation of what they would support.
@Jerry: “Despite the fact that the majority of its members may not be inherently “anti-development”, the group ends up functioning as if that is their guiding principal.”
So this is where we definitely disagree. You acknowledge that the majority of its member may not be “anti-development” but because the group cannot articulate exactly the number of units and design the project to what it would make it welcoming to the community – makes it a “NO DEVELOPMENT AT ALL” group? That’s the kind of labeling that made folks like me – who were against that override proposed when Newton North’s costs escalated – to be an “Anti-education, anti-kid” Councilor in them day. That’s what feeds into the divisiveness that exists today.
I think it’s too early to tell if internal consensus will emerge in RightSize Newton (for any or all of their different development subgroups).
However, I believe meaningful and constructive civic discussion has to start with facts and helping ordinary people understand them.
If I go to the RightSize Newton home page, and it says:
“Developers plan to add thousands of new apartments in outsized developments in the near future. Currently, the numbers are:”
*Washington Street – 1200+ units
…
This is too much too quickly.”
The development plans I’m aware of on Washington St, even including Austin St, are: 140 (Washington Place) + 243 (east of Dunstan) + 68 (Austin St.) + relatively small number (Armory). That doesn’t even break 500.
1200+ units are not developer plans. Perhaps they would be allowed under full buildout in a not-yet-finalized, not-yet-approved Washington St re-zoning, which is designed to guide development over multiple decades. Quite possibly there will be more projects announced in the next few years. But that’s not what the RightSize Newton web site says.
I get that the difference between zoning vision, zoning code, development proposals, and development plans might be confusing for lay people.
And I also get that people might have different views of what a future for Washington St should look like at full buildout.
But any person or group who wants to be part of a constructive discussion about these very serious issues should be committed to clarity, facts, and correcting errors and misstatements. Saying plainly that there are plans for 1200+ units on Washington St is incongruous with educating the public and conducting a fair and reasoned public debate based on facts.
Again, I have talked to several very involved individuals who know their numbers and have thought seriously about the issues involved. Perhaps they can help correct these types of misstatements within their own organization.
@Amy sangiolo – I wasn’t around for that newton north fight but it doesn’t sound like an apt analogy.
It sounds from your description that you had a clearly articulate goal – you were campaigning against the override.
I live in the Northland neighborhood but I cant tell you what RightSize Newton’s explicit goal is. I can tell you many different concerns that its members have, but not what the group’s goal is.
I agree with Councilor Cote – there are a number of councilors whose efforts have been in the best interest of the city – to navigate complicated housing debates with the goal of getting the best possible benefits for the people of Newton.
While there are many issues on which Councilor Cote and I disagree, here’s one place we are certainly on the same page: “Politics is about collaboration.” Working with people who disagree with you is the hallmark of a good legislator.
@Marti – Thanks for the shout out about my endorsements. In my pre-campaign life, I always tried to put my time and energy into improving our government – to reduce the influence of money in politics, increase civil rights for all including the LGBTQ+ community, to ensure that people get a good paycheck for a hard day’s work. I am proud to have a diverse coalition of endorsers, I hope because they know I’ve been fighting for our shared values.
@Mike Halle
I believe the number of units get larger when you consider a 10 story building in the site of the Whole Foods at craft street. That is part of the Washington Street vision plan, and that part of the vision I’m sure comes directly from the fact that mark development has purchased that corner at craft street and Washington Street. The Washington Street vision plan was never out in front. It is an “oops we better plan something because a developer just bought the whole street yikes!!” response.
Fire, Ready, Aim is basically the plan.
As I drove by Washington Place on my way home from work yesterday, and encountered a fair bit more traffic at Walnut and Washington than usual ( traffic tends to get slower as the days get shorter; people drive more slowly in response to less light) I looked up at the large building and thought ” what’s the gonna be like with all those residents trying to get home to their apartments, and also anyone at the retail trying to go there ( Perhaps to a restaurant) after work – it’s gonna be a nightmare”.
Guys,
By my observations RightSize Newton was created to inform, educate, and inspire those who share similar concerns about development scale to engage and share their concerns with their elected officials and neighbors.
By all accounts they have been successful at that.
They are a group of volunteers, spending what little free time they have, balancing families and (for many) full time jobs. They are NOT professional lobbists and their funding appear to be nothing more than donations on a gofundme.com page. They do not have the resources to fund studies and peer reviews, not have a seat at the table with Northland.
So to assume they can simply “come up with a number” is not fair. That’s like asking a child to guess my weight. (Fairly certain I don’t weigh, “7 bazillion pounds”.) 🙂
If someone only read V14, you’d think RightSize was the Evil Empire; personally I think they’re more like then Rebel Alliance.
#MayTheForceBeWithYou
To all those commenting about Right Size Newton being comprised of residents who are not anti-development, being composed of residents with a diversity of opinion on development and chastising those of us who believe the group is anti-development,
Many residents, including me, don’t know who is in Right Size Newton so all I and the many other residents who aren’t privileged enough to have this information must go by what is said on their website and actions we have witnessed the group take in the past.
All we can tell from reviewing their website is that a number of volunteers from several villages in Newton joined together to create what they call a grassroots organization “promoting right-sized development” and that 50 others have joined them. In other words – a bunch of gobbledegook!
I do know a good bit about who they are endorsing and who their chosen candidates are running against.
For example: The two Ward 2 at-large challengers are running against Councilors Susan Albright and Jake Auchincloss – both counselors embody the traits Right Size says they are looking for. These councilors review thoughtfully any new developments and challenge developers to make their projects fit well into Newton life.
So until I know differently (hearsay doesn’t count), I stand by my first comment. Since their is no “right size fits all,” Right Size Newton is against new development.
Rick Frank, the RightSizeNewton says there is are developer’s plan for 700+ more units on Washington St. I am not aware of any such plans.
What you say is true in that the draft Washington St. Vision allows for much more development, including at Crafts. Developers may also own other large pieces of property on Washington St (I personally don’t know the details.) So say that. Educate me. Educate the public.
This entire issue is wrapped up in details. Coming up with a plan requires an understanding of those details. Shorthanding them into a big number and labeling that number as far more definitive than it is doesn’t help trust, doesn’t accurately educate the public, and doesn’t get us closer to a plan.
The group is called “RightSize Newton”. Looking “holistically” at the size of development is their thing. Can’t really do that without an accurate statement of the size of planned development and an accurate state of those plans (if any).
As I’ve said repeatedly, this isn’t an existential criticism of the group. I’m just asking that the detail-oriented people who I know are involved try and fix these kinds of statements and bring the level of discussion up.
@rick wrote: “I believe the number of units get larger when you consider a 10 story building in the site of the Whole Foods at craft street. That is part of the Washington Street vision plan, and that part of the vision I’m sure comes directly from the fact that mark development has purchased that corner at craft street and Washington Street.”
I think this gets to Mike Halle’s point. This is conjecture but not fact. The hypothetical 10 story building is on a plan that has not yet been approved by anyone. Even on that plan it only comes under a special permit and once other conditions have been met. It may even be commercial. So to talk about it as a fait accompli with apartments attached is entirely a scare tactic.
You also tie it directly to influence from a developer with absolutely no proof that any such thing has happened. Are the developers watching the plan? Sure. Are they active in the process? Well, yes… considering that some of the developers here are also residents, they’re as active as anyone else with a vested interest (like anyone living in the neighborhood). This doesn’t mean we’re going to have 1200 units of housing. That’s not a fact.
Who’s going to take out the ten story plan at the Whole Foods site? Susan Albright? Ha fat chance.
It’s part of the vision plan right? Are you saying that you’re against the 10 story allotment? Are you saying that you think the developer won’t build a 10 story building and with all your moaning and complaining about the housing crisis do you think they’re not going to build housing or that the city won’t require them to build housing? I don’t see why this is conjecture at all. It’s just common sense for gods sake . If you allow it they will build it that’s for sure and the new vision plan is allowing for six stories up and down various places along Washington Street. I was at the last meeting and saw their presentation. I live four houses away from Washington Street and I’m very concerned about traffic noise and infrastructure. For everyone here to take my concerns and other Newtonville residents concerns as minor conjecture or what have you it’s really insulting and it’s dividing the city and if you want class warfare well then let’s build over with Korffs house is in West Newton Hill ( By the way living in West Newton Hill is a far cry from living north of Washington Street in West Newton give me a break). I hope that you all volunteer to have a five story building next to your house and if you’re not gonna do that I don’t know what to tell you at least Sean up zone Roche is willing to ups zone all of Newton including Chestnut Hill in West Newton hill where the “rich people live”. Everyone else should get in line for an apartment building next to their home.
Whining about apartment buildings on Washington Street is kind of like living near a park or a school and being shocked and outraged at the noise coming from those darned kids playing ball or scampering around the jungle gym.
If the buildings were not there when you purchased your piece of property or rented your dwelling, then unless you were born in the 19th century perhaps, you should have anticipated the possibility of such development and planned accordingly. THAT is common sense. Anything else is pure, unabashed, and selfish NIMBYism.
Folks didn’t the option on Whole Foods lapse? Meaning no plans for development at that site right now?
I think Elmo is being a bit harsh but there is some truth to the fact that Washington street isn’t a side street. It is a 4 lane road next to a major highway. I can’t say I’m surprised it is being developed.
Also for the abutters, the larger buildings are difficult but they also block the Pike, no?
As for RSN, I think they should endorse away. Completely fine with any group endorsing. And if they feel they aren’t anti-development, I look forward to them fleshing our that assertion a bit. But I do hear Matt’s plea that they are just volunteers with day jobs and families. (Same applies to the folks running the forum btw).
I don’t view RSN as the dark side or the light. Just one more voice. Voters can make their own judgement. I just ask that everyone use facts and try to push their truth and no more.
I think where RSN loses me is when they move from the mega projects to the ones with 30 to 50 units or so. Trying to convince me that those midsize projects aren’t right sized doesn’t move the needle for me. And I don’t think there is a city wide movement to oppose those types of projects.
Jim Cote and I disagreed about many things while we were colleagues on the City Council, but I never doubted that he always put the city and its residents first in coming to a decision. Any organization that uses a single issue litmus test for an endorsement has zero credibility in my book.
Last night, I held a house party for Ward 3 Councilor at Large Andrea Kelley and candidate for Ward 3 Councilor Carolina Ventura. Jim and his wife showed up and I was thrilled to hear that he is endorsing both of them. So I am going to be supporting all three of them.
Vote these three for 3 on Election Day!
Thank you, Elmo, for articulating exactly what I have been thinking….
And, Ted, I haven’t been so excited about my ward 3 councilors since, well, you were my councilor!
When we bought the house Washington Street was zoned for three stories for three stories , sure OK we could guess that wouldn’t last , But six stories all the way up and down including up to 10 stories well, Elmo, anonymous coward with no last name build them next to your house. I wasn’t planning on the city planning department to be so stupid as to permit all that building without taking into account a the opinions of the neighborhood and be all the infrastructure that’s going to get overwhelmed by all the traffic and sewage. Really I think Greg shouldn’t allow anonymous names here it’s really unfair to those of us who are willing to put our names out and stand for what we believe instead of hiding behind an alias.
Rick, I generally like reading your comments but this last one was one of those that would have been worth thinking more about before posting it.
Anonymous commenters have been discussed many, many times on this blog. It always comes down to there are more pros than cons to allowing anonymous posters. Most of us have gotten a general idea of who Elmo is after his commenting here for years with the same name.
Since the rules allow it, then the same rules apply to those who comment here either way. No outright personal attacks are allowed on this blog.
Basically you just don’t like what he had to say so just say that.
At this point you are arguing over something that hasn’t happened yet – i.e. speculation. No one can guarantee that over the years everything around them will stay the same or change in just the way “everyone” can agree with. There are no guarantees except change will come in one way or another. Change is an inevitable constant in life.
You do have every right to disagree with the planning department and anyone else and to fight to make things go more your way. Just continue to do so without lashing out.
This is a great thread.
I deleted the rest of the comment. I got confused.
I wanted to note that RightSize Newton’s home page has been updates to reflect more accurate numbers of housing units proposed under current development plans:
“Washington Street – 500 units and potentially 1200+
Riverside – 500 to 600 units
Needham Street (“Northland”) – 800 units”
I thin this is a good step towards providing the public with accurate information. Thanks!
@Marti
Ok, sure I don’t like what Elmo said
Elmo say
“Whining about apartment buildings on Washington Street is kind of like living near a park or a school and being shocked and outraged at the noise coming from those darned kids playing ball or scampering around the jungle gym.”
Elmo also say
“Anything else is pure, unabashed, and selfish NIMBYism”
Addressing the first topic:
To repeat ( and repeat) , as most of the people who want to have some limits to the proportion and size of apartments or other commercial buildings, I am not anti development. I am not whining about apartments in Washington Street. There’s a nice apartment building on the corner of Walker and Washington that’s scaled well for the area, has nice big trees out in front, with enough setback to let them grow. That apartment building was here when we bought our house. There’s a low income housing development, quite large, at the end of our street, across from Horace Mann school, that takes up a fair number of lots but also has enough setback and limits to height that it doesn’t feel out of proportion. That was also there when we bought our house. It’s the height and mass of Washington Place that is out of proportion, and to continue that up and down Washington will add huge amounts of traffic, infrastructure wear, and in general completely makeover Newtonville. That is the current Vision plan.
I’m not quite sure how I can be accused of NIMBYism living 4 houses in from Washington Street, with apartments already within my block. I think people whose neighborhood will remain single family might be better candidates for that label.
Hi Rick, there you go with your usual interesting comments that add to the thread.
I am always skeptical at first about almost anything promised by a developer, real estate broker, lawyer, government in general, etc. but until some proposal has been laid out, I don’t see any reason to speculate.
Unless it’s whats in the new draft zoning amendment, then it’s time to speak your/our collective minds. I
After reading the Washington Street Vision Plan, the Pattern book and the report and recommendations from the Principle Group, I still don’t know what zoning hopes to do for Washington Street.
I expect there to be changes on a lot of the street. I’m not happy with the look and feel of Washington Place. I think it tries to make a statement to the past but fails miserably. I don’t like 5 stories straight up from the street.
I don’t know why developers are stuck on a certain look and feel but this style and Austin Street are all over the place. I like developers who hire architects to design building that add beauty either by retaining part of an attractive facade or by picking some part of the neighborhood around it to emulate.
There was a good article about How We Can Stop Building Ugly Architecture in the Plaza Perspective. It starts with: “The ugliness of the built environment is one of modern life’s most damning features. By creating places lacking local character, detail, and charm, this pervasive unsightliness brings quiet and often unconscious misery to millions of people.”