John Hilliard explores affordable housing and development as a campaign issue this fall in a new Boston Globe article
Newton is facing nothing less than an identity crisis as a wave of development proposals stand to reshape the cityscape, spurring the most hotly contested City Council elections in 16 years. In all, 35 people, including Wright in Ward 3, are running for the council in November, including 24 candidates in nine contested races.
For most of the candidates, the race boils down to this question: How do you make Newton more affordable and attractive without damaging its village character?
If there was any doubt that the Globe was serious when it announced plans to step up coverage of Newton, that should be erased today.
In addition to this story, we had the page one schools story, plus articles in Globe local about Washington Street zoning, the Shoe Barn’s upcoming move and the Ward 5 election results.
I hope everyone reading this who is not a Globe subscriber, signs up to get home delivery or an online subscription so the powers to be there know how valuable this is to our community and so we can be better informed.
This is an incredibly important development for the city. The near total lack of journalistic coverage of serious Newton news, as the Tab has faded away in recent years, has been alarming.
Much as I enjoy Village 14 and think it’s a great resource for the city, it worries me when people say they get their local news from Village 14 or confuse Village 14 blog posts with journalism.
I agree with Greg. If you think having regular in depth news coverage of Newton is important, please support the Globe’s new Newton initiative by becoming a subscriber (online or print) today.
The Globe’s expanded coverage is critically needed. But this article doesn’t exposit the issue of development. It’s a litany of comments.
It makes the cardinal mistake of journalism today, which is to equate good reporting with “balance,” by trying to get an equal number of for and against quotations.
Journalism should strive to report the facts and the context, not to umpire a tennis match where each party gets to volley their lines back and forth.
Um, I was at the whole meeting. There were clearly more speakers not in favor of the existing vision plan than in favor ( again, mostly due to height of buildings, not against development) . Coupled with the ( elected ) Newtonville Area council’s presentation and results of their survey, I have to agree with you, Jake, that having equally balanced quotes might not have presented the consensus of the speakers. Problem is, probably not in the direction you might think it should be.
From the article: “In interviews with 28 of the City Council incumbents and challengers, 21 said they expected development will be a key issue in the election.”
Who were the other seven?
I agree with Councilor Auchincloss. If the Globe is really serious about Newton coverage, then let’s see some serious coverage, not a compendium of quotations representing both sides of an issue that’s being faced by most every decent sized community in metro Boston. And what’s with that headline proclaiming “the most hotly contested local elections in a generation?” That is simply not true, as anyone who lived through the mayoral election two years ago can attest. Come on Globies, get it right and do it accurately or go back to your usual focus on all things Boston.
Many Globe readers complaining about the excessive coverage if Newton in the comments. :).
@Rick Frank – I don’t doubt your observations from the meeting, but as this piece based on recent research at BU confirms, comments at public hearings aren’t necessarily reflective of public opinion:
Public input is valuable. However, conventional mechanisms of public input may provide a distorted picture of what those with a real stake in a place actually believe or want. Whole classes of people might be marginalized from the process, while elected officials end up catering to a perceived “public” that is actually much narrower and more homogenous in its views and interests.
A new study from Boston University confirms that formal public hearings held by local governments have exactly this shortcoming. This likely won’t be news at all to anyone familiar with such meetings, but it’s still valuable to have empirical evidence. The problem: the “public” that shows up doesn’t look that much like the whole public, in terms of either their demographics or their attitudes.
Useful Globe coverage would provide background information about the effects of similar zoning and development efforts regionally and nationally.
Huge development projects have been built around us over the past decade. Understanding how they impacted their communities would be immensely helpful in allaying (or confirming) the fears of those concerned about new development in Newton.
Printing other people’s opinions widens the debate, but doesn’t deepen or inform it in an objective way. It also requires the least work for a reporter (though I am still appreciative of it).
Public hearings and meetings don’t come anywhere close to measuring public opinion to online petitions, where for example nearly 7,000 people have already signed opposing in no uncertain terms the Mayor’s NewCAL in the Park Project.
I certainly hope attendees to those public hearings and meetings make that known to city officials.
Interesting that the word ‘character’ when referring to a neighborhood was used at least twice. Presumably, it was a code word for ‘architecture’ or ‘history’.
Without question, development skeptics are outspoken and organized in Newton, and dominate much of the discourse. And yet, their preferred candidates have tended to lose elections in recent years. Will November be different?
@Jim Epstein: Petitions are a bad way to measure public opinion (opt out anyone?), because only one side signs them. Online petitions, in particular, are extremely unreliable.
Hi @Jake, I believe that it is the responsibility of Newton City Councilors to make their case for development to their constituents.
@Jake, actually, would it be possible for you to provide a pointer to the context that you believe is missing from the Boston Globe article?
As a Newton voter, I am genuinely interested on learning about the pros/cons of the Northland development. I do try to stay informed – I read the Boston Globe, I follow various Newton City Councilors on twitter, and I watch some Newton City Council meetings on NewTv. But I am left with questions about Northland.
I am interested in understanding the effect of the Northland project on Newton as a whole and on Newton Upper Falls specifically.
I am specifically interested in the effect on traffic/parking. I am interested in understanding the assumptions behind the traffic plan – percentage of people that are expected to take the shuttle, vs. green bike, vs. Uber, vs. driving their own cars.
@Jake, thank you in advance for any information that you can point me to that would provide this context.
Thank you, Karen
@Newtoner I think in this case the petition does have more validity than your typical online petition. People who normally don’t pay attention became aware of the risk to our park land and it reached a significant amount of signatures very quickly. This was a way to express their opinion.
The shortcoming of petitions is that they are one way devices: they don’t in themselves allow dialog or conversation. They’re a civic tool, but primarily a one-way one.
I’ve been clear that in the NewCAL/use of parks case, there was a lack of needed dialog on the city side before the petition, so I don’t mean this to be a criticism of the petitioning itself in this case.
I also don’t put too much stock in the exact number of signatures, in both directions. An important petition could raise an issue that slipped through the cracks, but only have a few signatories.
@Allison Sharma
Likely true. But, as they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
And, I consider the enthusiasm of those that show up a countervailing force to the outsize influence and money
the developers typically wield.
Given the sad decline of the Tab, I am delighted that Gail Spector and her class is working with the Boston Globe to increase news coverage in Newton. What’s not to like?
As for the petition to keep NewCal from being constructed on green space, apparently mayor Fuller and city government did “put much stock” in the enormous number of signatures. The petition’s success indicates that Newton’s residents by and large agreed with the its sentiments. Almost all the city councilors I have spoken with agree as well.
Having read the city’s justification for not placing NewCAL within the Northland project, I am disappointed with the reasoning. Earlier, Northland seemed willing to offer part of the project’s space for civic use. It is all hard scape, and the presence of NewCAL instead of, say, three hundred expensive rental units might mean a net loss in car traffic and greater incentive to put electric bus routes along Needham Street. Almost no one at present goes to the Newtonville senior center via commuter train or the bus route. Either the seniors drive there or are driven. For now, so it will be wherever the senior center lands.
Newton needs much better public transportation within city limits. Hmm…I think I will write an article with that theme!
@JohnWhite I am guessing that I am one of the candidates that John Hilliard was likely referring to that did not agree with his premise on development. His question to me was do I see development as THE ISSUE of the campaign.
I am running for Councilor-At-Large from Ward 6. Since May I have knocked 1700 doors, spoken to 350 residents there and many more at the 14 campaign events in neighborhoods around the city and the many community events I have attended. While yes some people want to talk to me about development, many people want to talk about fixing the streets, putting in sidewalks, upgrading their childrens’ schools, maintaining open space (post NewCAL announcement), fixing the MBTA, bike lanes and HOUSING and since the fires in Brazil CLIMATE CHANGE and what Newton is doing to address it. It is very rare when I am speaking to people that have a concern about development that we can’t find common ground on the need for housing, especially affordable and accessible housing and the need to create more housing close to public transportation and close to jobs to reduce the strains on our roads and environment and the opportunities more people living in village centers will bring to supporting local businesses. Because I am hearing all of these issues from people I am speaking with I could not agree with John’s idea that development is THE ISSUE. The issues facing Newton are complex and are not well served by making councilors line up as pro-development and anti-development.
I agree with Alicia. When you talk to voters outside of public meetings, there are a lot of issues on their mind. The state of the roads – potholes, paving, bike lanes, etc – are by FAR the most common topic of conversation.
@Alicia Bowman you’re running in ward 6. I have friends in your ward, and they are for the most part completely uninterested / don’t know much about what’s going on on Washington Street. Of course they don’t put it at the top of their list.
I bet if some of the single story office buildings in Newton Centre are replaced soon with 6 stories ( I hope you’re in favor of that, btw, Newton Centre has excellent Green line capabilities) they will start to mak3 som3 noise.
@Alicia Bowman also my friend whose lives in your district and I were looking at the new zoning and your district ( and his home) is largely spared from going away from single-family housing.
This is precisely the thing – and that is the income/wealth inequality between Newton center / waban and the villages north of the pike – that is dividing this town. The villages of Newton are divided by income / wealth.
Since I have an office in Newton center, I know that the sidewalks on Beacon Street to Newton center are plowed by the city. Sure they’re near Mason Rice school, but my street is right next to Albemarle/ Horace Mann school and it’s not plowed by the city.
The fact that Newton Center is not taking its fair share of the development is a real issue for me. There should be a push to put five stories six stories in Newton center, it’s much more transit oriented than just the commuter rail in Newtonville.
@rick you bring up a few issues. First the easy one. The city plows about 80 miles of sidewalks across the city not for the students only but to keep some routes open right after a storm connecting neighborhoods to village centers and schools. Next housing in village centers including Newton Centre. Many of my neighbors asked what could be done to make Newton Centre more vibrant (eg. Less banks and salons). When I suggested housing so that businesses had more foot traffic they were very supportive. BTW N.C. has a six story building and it is senior affordable housing. Casselman House.
Here’s a link to a google earth photo of 195 sumner Street.
https://dominionsw-my.sharepoint.com/:i:/p/rfrank/EdRKXYFNswZNm1ubVsWcZ_cBiDjnr5LURGWCJzuWd9nFRA?e=DybhYi
It’s 5 stories, has only 43 units and is not mixed use. Quite a bit different than Washington Place and the other planned and potential large buildings.
And, I still scratch my head about the plowing. The stretch on beacon along Whole Foods to Newton Centre is seldom walked by anyone but students. I used to park by crystal lake ( I’ve had an office at 825 Beacon Steet for 25 years ) and walk to my office along beacon( that’s how I know it’s plowed well ), but, over the years I suppose the neighbors complained and the streets turned into 3 hour parking, so now I park in the lots…. Plowing beacon along all those residences, is, in my perception, simply a sign of the strings that money can buy….
This is why many of us on the north side think the mayor and the city council are out of touch with the impacts of the large developments on Washington Street. It’s in the other side of the tracks, so who cares?
@Alicia Bowman, thanks for explaining the misleading sentence I quoted from the Globe. Like many you have met, I am looking to preserve and improve our excellent public school system, plug the whole in the budget, get serious about transit and walkability, and improve the local economy and tax base.
I appreciate @Rick Frank’s point. As a citizen of Ward 6, I absolutely support more mixed-use development in Newton Centre and Newton Highlands village, for two main reasons. First, the city needs more housing that is at least conceivably affordable to people without established wealth. Second, as you point out, bringing more people to both village centers would make it easier for small businesses in the villages to thrive, and give me more things to do without getting in a car.
@john White,
I’m interested to hear more details, for example, I currently rent an office at 825 Beacon Street, second floor above Liberty Travel. From what I can tell, mixed use seems to ignore office space for lawyers, dentists, and software consultants ( moi ), psychologists, etc. these are precisely the tenants in my building. I hope that the councilors in ward 6 won’t make the same mistake. I might feel ( slightly ) better about Washington Place If there was an office there I could rent and walk to. But there’s no such amenity.
Second, to get the equivalent type of space, you would have to tear down the whole block in the corner of beacon and Centre- all the way down including the CVS – to equal the size of Washington Place in Newton Center. John, would you be ok with that? To give you an anecdote, I can tell when it’s 3 o’clock in Newton Center. That’s when the car horns start honking because of the gridlock at Center and Beacon. Like clockwork. Now imagine a large development going in replacing my 2 story building with 6. Think about it, and imagine it, picture it. In theory may be appealing to some. In practice it would be a nightmare. And, I’m sure I would be abl3 to afford the rent. I’d have to move further away.
Correction would not be able to afford the rent.
@Rick I stand corrected Casselman House is 5 stories and provides a precious amount of affordable senior housing.
As for the plowing there are 6 routes that go across the city. DPW convenes a group every fall to review the routes. This group includes the ADA Coordinator, the Mayors Office, Safe Routes to School, Transportation Director and DPW personnel. These routes are not related to how wealthy residents are but need to get routes clear quickly to access major amenities, transportation and schools. Routes also need to make sense, eg. go more or less in a loop that enables efficient use of the machines. More can be learned here. http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/dpw/highway/plow.asp
@Rick, I’m not a developer, but I think additional office space would be a great idea. And although the buildings in Newton Centre and the Highlands don’t seem as dumpy as those on Washington Street, I would not object to a raze and re-do of the scale you describe.
You raise a critical point about traffic, which is already terrible for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. In return for allowing medium-scale development, we should insist on better transit, and we need to discourage car use. I believe this can be done, but it will require significantly limiting residential parking for those new residents, and using neighborhood parking passes to keep them from parking up the local streets. I’d even argue for congestion pricing in Boston to discourage people like me from driving to work. I’d support this with or without new development. People can live a good life without getting in a car every time they need a quart of milk.
“and although the buildings in Newton Centre and the Highlands don’t seem as dumpy as those on Washington Street, I would not object to a raze and re-do of the scale you describe. ”
I might object to that, as I sit here typing in my office above the Starbucks. :>/
A couple things.
“insist on better transit”
I wish. But it’s going to be a drag if we let developers build before that’s in place. The city has limited power (it seems) over the MBTA.
Furthermore, I will repeat again that what is driving all this development is the fact the BOSTON is building and encouraging businesses to move into Boston. Which, if we believe the climate change models, is going to be flooded often and perhaps even underwater. And our Mayor, and others, signed an agreement to build more housing so BOSTON can have more workforce housing.
Uh, that’s not a plan for the future, unless waders become the next big fashion item.
Really, I am convinced that climate change is upon us. Where I differ from others is that, in spite of young people protests, and old people’s (me) reduction in carbon, we need to move to higher ground, and start building berms, and stop developing downtown boston.
A few years ago, we pondered the fantasy of moving to a Condo in the South End. But then I looked at the Union Of Concerned Scientists map that shows the potential flood zones in Boston and I decided it would be a bad investment.
I don’t get how Boston is building all this stuff and encouraging businesses. Millenials like it, the night life, and all that. But, it’s gonna be flooded more and more frequently and that’s gonna be a problem.
The other problem with our current eco-system of transportation is; right now, I’m about to drive to Chelmsford for a 2.5 hour meeting with a client. Even though I have a short commute to my office, I still need my car to drive all around (mostly 128 and 495) to my clients’ offices. Such is our current transportation. I have a 40 mpg hybrid, so I’m trying :>}
Alicia & Bryan,
If constituents care less about development issues than potholes why don’t you address potholes instead of advocating for unaffordable housing?
Is this because you have what’s known as an “ agenda”, and you know better?