This week, a local activist said I should be whipped.
At Monday’s public hearing of the Zoning and Planning Committee of the Newton City Council covering zoning changes for West Newton, a number of people used language like “preserving neighborhood character” to oppose proposed changes or argue for more modest change. That’s not atypical at a zoning or land-use meeting.
I used my two minutes before the committee to request that the community avoid such language.
But, I would like to make a request of everyone that we recognize in our language and in our tools that there is deep history to the kinds of conversations we’re having here and that when people use terms like “preserving neighborhood character” … those are terms that have historically been used as code for racial segregation.
The full text of my comments is below. The audio is here. The full meeting audio is here. My testimony begins at 2:52:18.
You can hear in the audio that I did not get a warm reception from a big section of the standing-room-only crowd.
Forty minute later, West Newton lawyer and activist Peter Harrington testified. After his time was up (all those speaking see a countdown timer), he responded directly to my testimony. The audio of this portion of his testimony is here. The audio of his full testimony is here. The full meeting audio is here. His testimony begins at 3:32:45.
I see that my time is up, but, Madam Chairman, as a point of personal privilege, I would like to say that that man that good … stood up and talked about people who are opposed to development being racist is someone who should be whipped.
I have been to countless public hearings. I have never heard anyone — anyone — suggest physical violence in response to someone’s testimony.
But, that’s not the worst of it. For the crime of asking that we consider the racial history and racial impact of zoning, Mr. Harrington would have me “whipped.” Whipped. While practically shouting his outrage at being accused of racism, the form of punishment he suggests is the slavers’. Yeah, we don’t have any lingering racial issues we need to address.
And, what was the response to Mr. Harrington’s racially-charged call-to-violence? Crickets. He didn’t get gavelled. He didn’t get rebuked or even interrupted by any of the councilors in attendance. He didn’t get booed. Nothing.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think I was or am in any actual physical danger. But, it is instructive that a white man, outraged at the thought that he was being accused of racism, would call for violence, even for rhetorical effect, and that nobody stirred. It’s hard to rebut the conclusion that, despite our country’s horrific racial history and deep structural racism, to certain white men there is still no greater injustice than being accused of racism.
He went on.
I think that to introduce that kind of talk into this kind of discussion and I would have to say that this evening this discussion has been very civil and I would like to say that I am very offended by that and I would … I don’t know who he is but I would be willing to match my record on supporting affordable housing and being opposed to racist talk, actions, and activity against his and I tell you, he would lose.
Zoning has historically been used as a tool of segregation. Historically, there have been folks all over this country whose opposition to development in their neighborhoods has been animated by racism. Facts. Undeniable, indisputable facts. And, the racial impact of zoning continues to be felt in the African-American community, where household wealth is a tiny fraction of white Americans’ wealth, largely due to home ownership. If a zoning public hearing is not the place to raise concern about the potential of zoning to have a disparate impact, where is?
The call to civility is also telling. Civility is a virtue to those who wish to maintain the status quo. But, what was uncivil? This man who proclaims his opposition to “racist talk, actions, and activity” does not appear to be upset at how I spoke, but by the fact that I requested that we as a community wrestle with the legacy of racism that pervades zoning and how we talk about it.
Also, I was not the one who called for someone to be whipped.
White privilege is a hell of a drug.
My comments
Sean Roche, 42 Daniel St.
Generally, I speaking I am in favor of more development across the city on the basis of environmental, social, and economic justice. And, I recognize that change is hard and that there are a lot of folks that have legitimate concerns about change.
But, I would like to make a request of everyone that we recognize in our language and in our tools that there is deep history to the kinds of conversations we’re having here and that when people use terms like “preserving neighborhood character” … those are terms that have historically been used as code for racial segregation.
I don’t think anybody here in the audience is necessarily racist or necessarily is looking to segregate. [Crowd noise.] These are terms that have historically been used and to make arguments in favor of racial segregation.
Zoning itself has been a tool for racial segregation and I urge the City Council to listen very carefully and discourage these kinds of terms and understand that zoning is a very, very powerful tool and that when we use it …
We have inherited zoning. Nobody can be faulted for that. But every step forward we make with zoning we should be very, very careful to understand the historical significance and the historical damage that zoning has done and to be very careful about its use.
@Sean. I’m sorry that you were treated this way. Neither you or anyone else deserves this for arguing for things I know you passionately believe. I also agree with your historical assessment of exclusionary zoning and racism in the United States and elsewhere and your call for tolerance and more temperate language among folks that have different viewpoints on development issues in our City. But I’m still smarting a bit when a few people accused me and others of hidden racism when we proposed a local historic district for Newton Highlands a few years back. Some also subtly claimed that we were using it as a tool to exclude poor and racial minorities from the center of Newton Highlands village because we talked about preserving the “physical character” of a very small part of the Newton Highlands community. I can honestly state that it never crossed out minds who might ultimately live in the proposed district. It was physically preserving some truly historically significant treasures that motivated all of us who participated in the required planning and public involvement processes.
I mean let’s get real. Does anyone with a even a modicum of fairness think that Rodney Barker, Brian Yates and myself really had any such nefarious objective in mind, or that other members of the Highlands Area Council that approved advancing our initial study harbored such dark feelings. Much of the area we included in a proposed draft plan, including the heart of the village on Lincoln Street, had already been included in the Federal Register of Historic places a decade or so before we began the effort to determine if homeowners wanted to give the area state and local protection as a Local Historic District. There was clear precedent for what we did because of the Federal designation, just no protection. The charges against us, which got back to us from various sources, were patently false, but they caused pain especially for Rodney.
One other point. The term “anti development” has been loosely applied on this blog to groups or people that take exception to the scope and size of some or many development proposals in Newton. I looked up the many meanings of “anti” in my on-line dictionary and almost all of them imply that if someone is “anti” anything, they are totally opposite or opposed to it–my favorite being the “Anti Christ” who is totally opposed to the teachings, principles and messages of Christ. But people with questions about development come with many different viewpoints; many are far more preservationist than I am; but I don’t know any of them that would freeze development or turn the City into a virtual and static museum. I think all comments should discuss what a person or group is really advocating rather than labeling opponents simply as “anti development”. It’s not fair.
While I don’t support Harrington’s harsh comments as described, I do agree with Bob that injecting racist charges into issues where they don’t exist (though they did in the past) tends to shut down conversation.
Many commenters here who are trying to preserve the “character” of their neighborhoods, live in areas with relatively modest one and two-family homes that are more affordable and accessible to middle class families of all races than the ones they are being replaced with.
Bob,
Thanks for your comment. I tried to be very careful in both my testimony and my post to distinguish between historical and present uses of language and regulation. We should give people the benefit of the doubt on their motives.
But, when those historically racists precedents are identified and explained, then people should not get a pass. If people persists in using historically racist language and regulation after being notified, that is an affirmative choice. They should be held accountable.
Ignorance is not a defense after information is provided.
What was remarkable to me is just how quickly and pointedly, for an avowed anti-racist, Peter Harrington dipped into the pool of racially charged tropes and imagery. The white guy as the real victim. The call for violence. Whipping. The call for civility.
Makes you wonder if he really deserves the benefit of the doubt.
I can’t speak with any authority on your particular historical preservation efforts. I do know that historical preservation has, historically, been one of the tools of exclusion. I hope folks in the city are very careful using it going forward.
Preserving some nice buildings can be nice. But, sometimes there are higher values.
Sarah,
Displacement is only going to be a bigger problem the longer we have exclusionary zoning. Every modest one- or two-family will be a target, especially rental units that can be converted.
Just another fact check about labels on V 14. Someone commenting on a recent blog referred to Brian Yates as a “reactionary conservative” and it was in the context of being pleased that Brian had been swept from office a few years back because of these so-called reactionary tendencies. It’s baffling how anyone could refer to Brian, of all people, as a reactionary conservative. Brian devoted his professional life to serving immigrants, racial and ethnic minorities and the poor in Lowell and was passionately involved in the late Dorothy Day”s Catholic Worker movement and other such programs within his parish in Upper Falls.
Sean-
I think you’re looking for a villain where there is none. In whose language is the expression “preserving
neighborhood character” code for “racial segregation”? Yours? While I can’t say I agree with Peter Harrington’s response, it seems pretty clear to me that you went to the meeting with this speech in mind looking for a reaction,
and you got one. Happy?
Don’t you live over near the Bowen school? Why are you concerned with what’s going on with Washington St zoning on the other side of the city?
Are you involved with the Washington St zoning issue as part of a committee, or do you have recognized legitimate academic or professional credentials that given some weight to your expertise, or are you one of the many hobbyists in the city that are interested in public policy with no CV?
A friend of mine whose family just recently sold a house about a block or two away from you on Cypress St(not far from Daniel St), and I honestly can say, in all the years his family lived there, practically next door to you, that neither he nor I can remember a neighborhood that was well represented or populated by families of color. Clearly this is an issue that’s near and dear to your heart.
Surely you have much bigger goals than simply stirring the pot at some zoning meeting.
Exactly what actions are you and your neighbors taking, or do you plan to take to insure that you neighborhood
does not remain “racially segregated” as it has for most of the last 40+ years?
So many good questions!
Let me answer the last one.
Devote hours trying to convince city officials to make it legal by right to build duplexes and triplexes on any lot in the city (subject to some dimensional constraints) and small apartment buildings close to the village centers.
I’m not going to get into the specifics of the back and forth here, but for anyone who’s interested in doing some soul searching and learning more about these topics, I highly recommend:
– The Color of Law – an excellent book that details the ways in which the law has been used to explicitly discriminate against people of color, particularly black people, and most of it is tied to housing.
– White Fragility – if you are ready to really do some soul-searching, this is a fantastic book for white people to really think about how they can help do anti-racist work. It is written by a white woman named Robin DiAngelo, and is intended to help white people better understand racism.
Honestly I am getting sick of this anti development label. It just paints too broad a brush on people’s views. I think there are a lot more people out there who favor some level of development but also don’t want to lose some of the beauty we have in our older buildings and open space. It is a lot more gray than an anti stance. I am ok with density expanding to different areas of our city but I would hate for zoning changes to lead to the loss of diversity in the types of homes that exist. I live on a st with a mix of single, two family and multi family dwellings. I love the older architecture whether they be single or multi unit homes. The dense apt buildings serve the purpose of providing housing so I’m not adverse to them in the mix especially if they include affordable units. I would hate it if profit in building dense luxury apt building reduces our smaller homes inventory just as profit drives the loss of smaller homes to McMansions.
I also hate the nimby label. Sometimes if you live close to something you have better insight on what the issues are that exist.
These labels just don’t take the time to understand differing opinions and nuances to viewpoints. It also tries to invalidate people’s opinions. Just because people don’t like one project doesn’t mean they don’t like another or that they might not like it under certain conditions.
Lastly I really hate the racist label.
If you can’t use reason to win a debate, resort to labels.
Sean, you have to better define ” small apartment buildings”
@Bob, such is the nature of social media and, apparently, local politics. Few of us have the discipline you show in refraining from mud-slinging on these pages (a shout-out to Fignewtonville and Bryan Barash for keeping it clean from the more pro-development side).
It is worth noting that there are different degrees of awfulness being noted on this page. Being called a reactionary, or an unwitting dupe of racist policies, is pretty hurtful. Being threatened with physical violence, reminiscent of the worst institution in American history, is far, far worse.
Both good books Bryan.
Political theater is nice, but Sean is a very smart individual who wanted to make a point and he got called out on it. The idea that a white guy living in an all white neighborhood took the time to go to city hall to call other people racists, while his own neighborhood is entirely white, is about as rich as it gets. No wonder race relations is at an all time low in this country. Sad!
@Sean, I appreciate that you are educating us in the use of terms that might be inadvertently offensive or hurtful. What words would you suggest that people who would like to keep the current scale and historic nature of their neighborhoods use in lieu of “character”?
I have no explanation or can imagine no excuse for anyone who would say that another human being should be whipped. For an expression of an idea no less. In response to a topic that includes race no less. In an official public proceeding no less. No place in civil society.
I was in the crowd when Sean spoke. As his transcript represents, the reaction came when he said “I don’t think anybody here in the audience is necessarily racist or necessarily is looking to segregate.” I think the wording here, specifically the disclaimer “necessarily”, was interpreted as a personal attack by the people who reacted. If Sean’s intent was to educate, his wording about this highly sensitive subject was not the best teacher.
In a previous comment here, Sean says that “We should give people the benefit of the doubt on their motives.” Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I think that’s what he really believes.
Beyond word choice, I think context matters.
The topic of discussion was Washington Street vision for zoning. This is an upzoning proposal that addresses mostly the conversion of commercial properties to housing as part of mixed use development. Moreover, it’s north of the pike, where post-war significant tracts of land were built on open space to provide modest housing to GIs and working class folks. These houses, while still mostly single family, are some of the most affordable in the city.
Many of the people who have expressed concerns about the size of development are worried about impacts on themselves and neighbors (traffic, parking, schools, taxes). They are also concerned about changes in how their villages look (big buildings where there are none, additions to existing buildings, or demolition of historic structures).
These concerns, even when they include the phrase “preserve the neighborhood/village character” are pretty-straightforwardly understood outside any attempt to preserve racial or socio-economic inequality. In fact, the opposite: more people seem to be worried that the new units will attract more affluent people rather than help older residents and others who need more affordability.
If you’re going to try to make the case about zoning being an exclusionary tool, this is not a good case or audience to use as an example.
I personally believe many of these concerns can be addressed, and that development of significant scale can benefit the neighborhood (of which I am a member), Newton, and the region. I too share concerns about a lack of affordability. But that’s beside the point. Independent of “pro”, “con”, or “in-between” where most people are, zoning is the tool we have lets us shape what our part of Newton will look like.
Sean is right in that zoning in general has been used to impose explicit racial and implicit socio-economic barriers in the past. We are also living with the impacts of previous zoning decisions today. If we put aside the hot-button term “racism” and focus on socio-economic divisions, you can hear echoes of this conflict in comment after comment here on Village 14 about north vs south side density and equity. This isn’t an easy conversation to have, even for thoughtful well-meaning people.
But a solution to the Washington Street zoning process will move us in the direction Sean wants, in a part of the city where many people of average means have lived and live today. Most of them are questioning not “whether” but “how much”. Zoning represents their engagement with the system. They were making their voices heard, within the system. That’s what we want.
Independent of the intent, having them feel personally attacked when they are playing by the rules doesn’t move us toward a solution for Washington Street, and doesn’t help us heal the divisions of race and class that remain present in our society.
Mike,
Your Saturday 10:18 comment provides a lot to ponder.
First, I appreciate your empathy for the challenge of speaking extemporaneously. I didn’t have prepared remarks and so was certainly not as artful as I might have hoped. Listening to myself repeatedly to get the transcription right was not fun!
That said, if “necessarily” was not the perfect word, I don’t repudiate it, even now that I have the ability to consider my words more carefully. If I were able to rewrite what I said, I might have used “intentionally,” which I doubt would have been have received any more favorably. But, I am somewhat vindicated by Mr. Harrington’s reaction, which, if not necessarily or intentionally racist, certainly trafficked in racially charged language and tropes.
Second, while I appreciate your effort to rehabilitate me, I don’t think I have the motives that you ascribe to me, which results in some unfortunate language and argument.
I don’t believe that we should treat “racism” as a hot-button term or put it aside. That is how we perpetuate institutional racism.
Likewise, I don’t think we should convert the conversation about racism into a socio-economic discussion. There is a large overlap between socio-economic issues that effect all folks, regardless of color and the consequences of racism. But, race and socio-economic issues are distinct. To treat them as an equivalent is to deny the specific conditions of racism that make things worse for people-of-color, particularly black Americans. It’s another method of perpetuating institutional racism.
You caution me about the impact of my words on the almost exclusively white audience and, at least implicitly, caution against blow-back. But, accepting that a white audience is entitled to feel victimized by a frank discussion of race is another way we perpetuate institutional racism.
Elsewhere, you talk about the need to have those closest to development have an outsized influence on the development process. But, hyper-local control of land use is another form of institutional racism.
Finally, you say that my words won’t help “heal the divisions of race and class that remain present in our society.” See above about the conflation of race and class. But also, my principal concern is not healing divisions. That’s another formation that injects the the white experience into a discussion of race and denies the specific experience of the victims of racism, overt or otherwise. The impact of the divisions of race do not fall equally on both sides of the divide. To suggest otherwise is to perpetuate institutional racism.
There are lots of important class-based issues related to housing in Newton and Washington St. in particular: possible displacement, equity across the city, gentrification (which is, itself, hugely complex). But, I reject your assertion that the presence of socio-economic issues means that race can’t also play a role. Your argument boiled down is that folks have lots of reason to maintain the status quo. Almost by definition, the status quo is exclusionary, regardless of who you think is going to move here.
I will touch on one topic socio-economic. The pressures that are driving development of expensive market rate housing in Newton are going to be felt by you and your neighbors whether or not there’s new development. The current zoning rules make the north side of the pike particularly vulnerable to displacement. It’s hard to see how adding units is going to make that worse, unless you posit that the new units and attendant amenities are going to make the neighborhood more attractive. In which case, we need to talk about anti-displacement initiatives, not reducing intensity. Nonetheless, you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who is not a near neighbor of impending development who has been more vocal about the need to spread the development pressure across the city than I am. Upzone Chestnut Hill. Upzone Waban. Upzone West Newton Hill. And, yes Paul, upzone Newton Centre.
Paul Green nailed this I think.
Anyone who follows this blog can tell Sean is a clickbait king in it for the reactions, nothing new there, shame on me that it worked.
Character ?
How about “physical image “?
See the old urban design bible “The Image of the City “ by Kevin Lynch.
It’s a lot more about aesthetics than social engineering.
And zoning. I always thought it was a mechanism to protect the existing property owner from unsavory, noisy, or unhealthy property usage next door.
It should not be a means of designing/ or imposing a social agenda from afar.
@Bob Burke-
I just reread your earlier post about about the reaction you, Brian and Rodney had to your historical district proposal. Although I did not support the proposal, never for a minute did it even remotely enter my mind that any of you were motivated or driven by considerations of race exclusion. I’m sorry the three of you had to experience that. It must have been galling to you with your long history here in the city as an open minded, civil, community service oriented person to be slimed by that.
All three of you deserved better.
I appreciate that there is a lot to talk about regarding Sean’s comments, as well as the broader topic of zoning and race. Let’s have that conversation.
But quite a few folks in this thread have said they while they don’t agree with Peter’s actions that they can understand the sentiment or that they were an unfortunately result of some sort of baiting by Sean. I’m not sure if that is because folks are giving Peter the benefit of the doubt because he is a nice guy or because they agree with his underlying feeling or because they just dislike Sean. And it doesn’t matter.
So let me be blunt. No matter how great Peter might be, how frustrating a discussion might be on a difficult topic, or how much Sean makes your blood boil, Peter clearly lost his temper, said something awful, and owes Sean an apology. And a public one at that.
If any of my kids said that in school they’d be suspended. If I said that in a similar context at work I might be fired. And if I said that in my private life I’d be ashamed.
No one is his or her best self all of the time. These issues are difficult and can certainly cause personal reaction and pain and hurt. But that doesn’t excuse the words or the phrasing used.
Righteous anger towards someone who disagrees with you doesn’t justify such a response. Peter should know better and Peter should apologize.
Bill, I think most people think of zoning as a mechanism such as you describe. I did. Here’s an article in Strong Towns on the history of zoning that touches on the more complex realities:
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/7/17/a-history-of-zoning-part-ii-the-problem-zoning-solves
The fact is that once you do something as simple as set a minimum lot size, you’re setting a minimum economic level for a membership in a neighborhood or community. Set a maximum number of units on a property, you’re doing the same, and you may also, say, discourage cultures where extended families might live together, or where workers would live together (the Irish and Jewish three-deckers of Boston, for instance). In their day, some neighbors definitely considered them an “unsavory property usage”:
http://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/rise-fall-rebirth-new-england-triple-decker/
These kinds of restrictive zoning choices could have been explicitly discriminatory, or they could have been made without awareness of the possible ramifications. But once the decisions are made, the zoning code sticks for decades, becoming the framework around which neighborhood character grows.
Later generations may unknowingly perpetuate these same exclusions without any awareness of them of the reasons behind them, since “it has always been this way”.
Interesting fact: Three-deckers have a narrow frontage in part because some municipalities charged for sewer connections based on street frontage. The most arbitrary decisions can have vastly oversized influence on the character of neighborhoods.
Sean, since you persist in raising historical racism as being somehow currently relevant to preserving Washington Street
neighborhood/architectural character, why not raise racism in even preserving the street’s name, Washington Street, since historically George Washington was a large slave owner.
Preserving character means different things to different people. I used that expression when there were new McMansions being squeezed on small lots, because I thought that (at least in my part of West Newton) the “character” was mostly two family homes and smaller to medium sized single family homes, many from the late 1800s-early 1900s.
To Mary’s point, then there are additional shades of complexity. We have several adjacent neighbors in West Newton who have added whole floors or significant additions onto their older homes. They simply don’t have the capital to move to a larger house in Newton, so even extensive renovation is preferable.
In all cases, the additions have been well done and fit the needs/preferences of a modern family better. But we’ve also heard that longer-term neighborhood residents haven’t uniformly found the changes positive.
Where does “preserving character” and extending the versatility life of older properties while increasing the property value fit into this situation?
@Mike
If you believe your community is racist, denigrate, compromise, weaken or do away with zoning!
Is Newton racist ?
Bill, I’ve spent multiple hours now trying to lay out fairly the nuances and different sides of this issue. I won’t be drawn into oversimplification of sensitive and complex issues. It serves no benefit.
I’ll go this far:
Is there socio-economic tension and inequities in Newton between different villages and neighborhoods? Yes.
Have they been exacerbated by legacy zoning decisions? Yes.
Does the current citywide rezoning process address these issues? Not primarily; the stated purpose of the current citywide rezoning process is to align zoning with current housing conditions. That’s important in its own right.
Is there a simple answer to addressing these tensions and inequities and their underlying causes that will not cause further divisions in Newton, at least in the short term? Not that I know of. That’s why we need to work together.
Will these issues be resolved by oversimplifying things or pretending they don’t exist? No.
Washington Street will have it’s own specific zoning, separate from the rest of the city. It’s purpose is not to align zoning with current development is my perception. It’s purpose is to allow developers to build taller buildings along the street, and it is created In belated response to a developer purchasing the land, and so is really a response to try to do something after that fact. The city was caught without a plan after Mark Development purchased a bunch of lots. It’s not really a planning department- it’s a response-to-developer Department.
So the developer and they’re investors are going to push to make money. The city is going to try to do what it can to maximize its tax revenue, and in spite of the Principle groups recommendations for form based codes, and the Newtonville Area Council’s survey of what the most impacted residents wish, they’re basically going to approve what’s in the Plan, now on it’s 3rd draft. Btw, there’s an error/ typo in the plan. There is a photo of the Star market with a 1940s car parked with the caption “Newtonville in the 19th century”. Except it was the 20th century.
At this point I think it’s basically a done deal. In spite of Councilors saying it’s not. After all the work that’s been done there’s not going to be any substantive changes to the plan at this point, now we’ll just have to see how it works out.
Those of us who want to see the height lower can work to elect councilors who agree with our positions of lower heights- maybe some of it can be reversed in the future, who knows. Up I think that’s where we are at this juncture.
Sarah,
What I would have someone say is:
A bit more of a mouthful than “preserve neighborhood character,” I acknowledge.
@Sean
“Devote hours trying to convince city officials to make it legal by right to build duplexes and triplexes on any lot in the city (subject to some dimensional constraints) and small apartment buildings close to the village center”
Is Washington Place a small apartment building?
Also, I’m not sure that Newton ( or anywhere ) HAS to add more housing. Who exactly is more or less making that command? It might be good to do so, but the commandment like statement is kind of weird to me. As a town, and operating under a regulated free market, we can say that developers can purchase land, and under some constraints ( to borrow your words ) bulld more housing. But to unilaterally say “Newton has to….build more housing”, we’ll last I checked there was a fee market and there was a Democratic process involved. President Xi may have a command economy, but where you lose me is to imply that somewhere someone is telling Newton what it HAS to do.
Rick,
Why does Newton have to add housing? Because you commented on my Why must Newton grow? thread, I assumed that you had read it.
Somebody (you?) asked elsewhere what is a small apartment building. The proposed new zoning code says a 3-story multi-family building that meets dimensional controls similar to a big house (p.37). I might expand to 4 stories. So, no, Washington Place is not a small apartment building.
@Sean, if someone gets up in the next public hearing and says they want to “retain some elements of what makes each neighborhood appealing,” will there be racist overtones to that?
Are only “those of us who want to remain” after these “appealing elements” are gone the ones who deserve to live in Newton?
Is one racist if they don’t agree with the statement “Newton must add a lot more housing”? Is it racist to only want SOME more housing?
I happen to be in favor of more development but I don’t like this process of name-calling fair-minded people who don’t agree with that.
@Paul Green. Thank you.
@Sean
I don’t remember every post I read. I re read your post.
I appreciate your consistency in wanting to eliminate single family housing throughout Newton. It’s not what the current plan is calling for as you know.
There’s a lot of things about climate change that people can do. There was a young girl on the daily show the other night who is a climate activists and sailed across the ocean because she now refuses to fly. Flying whether for business or pleasure uses a lot of carbon. I don’t recall how much but anyone who goes on vacation or flies to visit a relative is using a heckuva lot of carbon. I guess I would say that I am not going to become an aesthetic monk at this point in my life, live in a hut with no electricity, or even think that I can do much more than I can by driving a hybrid car, trying to keep my office in Newton so I don’t have a long commute, and whatever else I might be able to do. But it probably won’t be enough. One of the things that I think we should do (the collective we here) is discourage new building in Boston where it’s likely just to be flooded out. This is where I disagree with the governor and the mayor of Boston who seem hellbent on bringing more business into Boston especially in Seaport etc. and this is part of what’s causing the pressure on the suburbs to provide more workforce housing for the companies who are in my opinion taking and building space in a floodplain which is Back Bay and Boston. As I’ve said before if we really wanted to do a command economy like planning, I would suggest building a train that runs along 495 encouraging Businesses and housing along that corridor, where there are already many businesses, and away from the flood zone which is going to be Boston.
Sean, I think this discussion would benefit from more specifics about how you see racism manifested in zoning in Newton, and specifically Washington Street (since that was the topic of the testimony).
In my best-effort attempt to provide some of those specifics, I offered the historical examples of lot size and number of units that might intentionally or unintentionally have denied racial, ethnic, or poorer groups housing and the opportunities that go with it. That may have seemed like a conflation racism and socio-economics, but it wasn’t. I was describing two mechanisms of discrimination that happen to hurt particular groups along a socio-economic axis.
I also tried to pointed out that the phrase “preserve neighborhood character”, which has historically been also used to preserve “enclaves of racism and classism”, has other straightforward interpretations in the Washington Street discussion.
So, besides those issues and that specific phrase, are there other examples you can provide of how Newton’s zoning has historically been either explicitly or implicitly racist? How you feel it has been perpetuated, either by inattention, lack or awareness, or consciously by individuals or government?
Are there specific elements of the zoning process on Washington Street that you feel are implicitly or explicitly racist? How can we do better?
I think it isn’t enough to say that zoning is tainted since it has been used in the past to advance racism. It has also been used widely to partition or merge commercial and residential uses, and Washington Street rezoning has a large component of this type. As the Principle Group said, zoning is the mechanism by which we shape the future.
I don’t feel I have sufficient context or life experience to speak with confidence on these topics. Like many of my neighbors, though, I want to do the right thing and I want to learn. But that requires specifics. It also needs a better discussion forum than blog comments, so if you have ideas about how to continue a constructive discussion within the larger community, then let’s talk.
> Elsewhere, you talk about the need to have those closest to development have an outsized influence on the development process. But, hyper-local control of land use is another form of institutional racism.
Not me. Never said that. I think development should provide benefits to the larger community and should work and play well with its neighbors. That’s a part of successful planning. Just because local land use policy has been used as a tool of racism doesn’t make context sensitive design based that incorporates neighborhood input racist.
Zoning has also been used to (try) to isolate manufacturing from residential. (see Zoned in the USA, The origins and implications of American Land-Use Regulation, Sonia A Hurt, Chapter 4. Roots).
And, it’s a shame that wasn’t more enforced right here in Nonantum, where the ground water was polluted by chemicals (trichloroethylene ) from a plant years ago although they claim to not know the precise location of the start of the contamination.
https://newton.wickedlocal.com/news/20180602/contaminated-site-cleanup-in-nonantum-moves-forward
Certainly this is a tragic situation for the property owners impacted.
Care is need to monitor Mixed Use development for potential chemicals (acetone from nail salons, and gases released from nail salons, to name one, or even turpentine used to clean artist brushes from an art studio.
Although a leak or contamination is bad wherever it is, when it travels through the groundwater and into someone’s home, it’s an even bigger problem.
@Sean – re: “preserving neighborhood character” – No question, historically those words have indeed been uttered in the context of racial segregation … but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Given our nation’s voluminous history of racial injustice there are thousands of otherwise innocent words and phrases that have been uttered at one time in the defense of the indefensible. Trying to banish every such phrase or word as permanently tarnished is a fools errand.
In the here and now if a citizen publicly uses one of those phrases (see “go back to where you came from”) in a racially loaded context I think they should be called out for it. Calling out people for using otherwise innocent phrases in non-racial contexts is, I think, counterproductive.
As for “that man should be whipped” – that is absolutely indefensible and makes one wonder what’s rolling around in that guy’s id.
I’ve read Why must Newton grow? thread and found all arguments presented there vague, unsubstantiated, or/and just plain wrong. Take the very first one: “As an inner-ring suburb to Boston, with a host of transit options, Newton is uniquely situated to provide car-free or car-lite living for many thousands more than live here now”. Not sure what “a host of transit options’ or “car-lite” means, but we should be very careful about calling for car-free living in this country. A historical report tells us: “To get out of the way of the wind and water when hurricane Katrina was approaching, some form of transportation out of New Orleans was necessary: in this case, a car was your lifeline”. Massachusetts tips for storm preparation also recommend to keep your car’s gas tank full, not to refill your Charlie Card. Massachusetts Statewide Evacuation Coordination Plan assumes: “As much as six percent of the affected general population may have a need for transportation assistance, including those with limited access to personal vehicles”. Does this itself not indicate how far we can go with car-free living?
@Anatoly Kleyman That’s a good point, and one that may be rather nearer than further away. In today’s Boston Globe, I looked at the real estate insert. 2.5 million dollar condos on the Seaport (2 bedroom btw).
The dissonance is:
– There’s been little investment in Public Transportation
– Someone (Boston Mayor, Governor, Corporations, all of the above) is really pulling out the stops to -encourage development, both business and residential in Boston (short term interests).
– Boston is in the short term and definitely in the long term going to be flooded.
– The mayors of the surrounding suburbs have enabled this by agreeing to build workforce housing to supply the businesses with workers.
Long term thinking seems lacking, IMHO.
Peter Harrington made a very cogent argument during the main part of his speech and then at the end of his speech, he used very inappropriate language. It’s not defensible. I would hope that if you gave him a chance to apologize, he would.
However, is it the purpose of this website to embarrass or shame people when they make an inappropriate off the cuff comment?
I know we are in the “age of Trump”, but I didn’t know that school yard bullying and shaming was part of the Village14 mission?
Frankly, suggesting that people who happen to not want large buildings in Newton are racists is also completely inappropriate, particularly when the accuser doesn’t have a shred of evidence that opponents of large development are racially motivated.
I started following Village14 because there’s a lot going on in Newton and it seemed like a good place to get some additional information. Hopefully, going forward this site will be used to promote constructive dialogue and not to launch personal attacks.
I would like to add a quote from the Washington Street vision statement
“Preserve the Scale and Character
of the Villages along Washington Street
Many residents participating in the planning process expressed a desire to see human-scale villages nurtured at the street level, with attractive ground-floor shopfronts offering inviting places to walk, sit, and linger. Residents value lush streets with green landscapes to provide a sense of serenity and ease. For the Washington Street corridor, new zoning can ensure that the ground-floor levels of buildings contribute to a visually appealing pedestrian experience within the context of the neighborhood.”
While the paragraph header is succinct, the remainder is vague. But “preserve the scale and character” is embedded in this document. Whether it has any real meaning or not.
The city council can decide if they want to keep that language.
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/95389
I have commented many times about the need to slow down
the housing development in Newton. However, I am shocked by
Sean Roche’s position regarding institutionalized racism and his
implications for political opposition to rezoning.
Peter Harrington spoke for hundreds of people at the zoning meeting. He was right to call out Sean Roche for Sean’s endless
criticism and denigration of those who oppose his personal values.
Peter used a verb to indicate a disciplinary rebuke, an older form of disciplinary action. So what, how did Sean manage to take that word and spin it into another reactionary almost hysterical tactic to race bait once again.
Sean should apologize for his incendiary racial comments.
He indeed needs to stop using the race card as a tactic to promote
passage of the rezoning legislation. People are insulted by it.
Colleen & Arthur, very well said. Unfortunately there are City Councilors and candidates who proclaim or imply that zoning/rezoning’s chief purpose is/should be to accelerate dense housing to achieve social justice and combat racism, rather than preserve the scale and character of our villages.
@Arthur Jackson – I think the term “schoolyard bullying” would apply to someone calling in a public meeting for someone “to be whipped”, rather than to a person reporting that the incident occurred.
To those that were truly offended by my remarks, I am sorry. Perhaps I should have used a more moderate term.
One can take so much hypocrisy and then we must speak up in the strongest terms. Roche and his allies are racial provocateurs. The photograph they inserted in his comment was surely inserted to inflame others. They are an example of the sly cowards who stand in the front lines of protest marches, being the first to throw rocks and incite trouble, then they slink away. One of the reasons that there is so much discord today is that these people are not called to task often enough.
For those that claim not to know what neighborhood character is, I suggest they read the Zoning Ordinance to determine if they live in a class protected, discriminatory, large lot zoning district where two and three family homes and apartment buildings are not allowed. They should check with their neighbors to see how many would support a five, eight or ten story building in the neighborhood. Perhaps they would support a proposal to eliminate discriminatory single family house lots and allow two and three family homes in every zoning district in the city?
I am surprised that those who manage this blog allow the placement of that photograph. Unintentionally or otherwise, they are complicit in this back door attempt to deprive working families of an opportunity to live in Newton.
Any apology that begins with “to those that were truly offended by my remarks,” and then adds “I am sorry. Perhaps I should have used a more moderate term.” is no kind of apology. (Although perhaps it’s better than having an elected official accuse you of being homophobic, with no evidence beyond a chip on your shoulder, and then never even pretend to be sorry.)
@Peter Harrington your comment was insensitive at best. But your response is worse because it makes clear that you have no idea how egregious it was and because you have no genuine remorse.
There is no excuse for saying another human should be whipped. But in this context. Pfffft.
Please change the photo attached to this article. To say there is a magnitude of difference between being threatened with a whipping and what this man went through is a vast understatement. The comparison is, to me, offensive.
“Roche and his allies are racial provocateurs. “The photograph they inserted …. They are an example of the sly cowards who stand in the front lines of protest marches, … they slink away. One of the reasons that there is so much discord today is that these people are not called to task often enough.”
Who, specifically, is “they”?
“I am surprised that those who manage this blog allow the placement of that photograph. Unintentionally or otherwise, they are complicit in this back door attempt to deprive working families of an opportunity to live in Newton.”
Can you explain how are these two ideas are connected?
What is the connection to the Washington Street Vision, the topic of the public hearing, which doesn’t involve “large lot single family zoning districts”? That’s the thing we really need to make progress towards consensus on….
I read Peter’s comment several times since it went live. I keep coming back to it hoping that I didn’t read it correctly. So I ask this:
@peter, what more “moderate term” should you have used when you talked of physically assaulting Sean?
See what I did there? I asked a question that wasn’t a question, it was entirely an accusation. I could also ask “what more ‘moderate term’ do you think would be appropriate in that situation?” or “Now that you have more distance, what reaction do you think would have made sense?” Those questions are both more open-ended and more fair.
The reason I bring that up is that this comment stream is filled with deep discussions about word choice and interpretations. Yet, Peter responded by choosing to establish a “me vs them” narrative, painting himself as the victim of some unseen, non-existent cartel that is conspiring to promote unrest. Worse, he alludes to “throwing rocks” to position his supposed attackers as violent.
I’m also impressed with the “change the narrative” strategy by focusing on the photo, not on the facts of the meeting. It’s a nice touch.
If you’re going to apologize then please, apologize. But following it with a long explanation about how you’re the victim just rings hollow.