Candidates for the Ward 2 City Councilor seat — Bryan Barash and incumbent Emily Norton — participated in a debate sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Newton and NewTV. NewTV has posted the video here. Topics discussed included local representation, affordable housing, development and growth, environmental sustainability, village life, traffic and transit, government transparency, campaign finance, and marijuana regulation.
Decision 2019: Ward Two Ward Councilor from NewTV Government on Vimeo.
Thank you for posting! I appreciated the opportunity to have an open debate and thanks to NewTV and League if Women Voters for making this happen.
To get involved or to find out more about my campaign, head over to http://www.bryanbarash.com/!
Isn’t it funny how ones personal hopes or agendas will color ones take on a “debate” like this?
The majority of V14 denizens will tell me I’m wrong but I think she walked all over him .
Thanks for being up there Emily !
What Blueprint Bill said. As I’VE said: look at the record, not the rhetoric. “Where’s the beef?” (Hint: Emily’s got it.)
Bryan leans to more dense development.
Emily leans to preservation of village character and trees.
Vote for Emily!
@blueprintbill – I’m always struck by how regularly people regularly say V14 denizens are all ….
From what I can see sentiment on development issues, and most other contentious issues, are pretty evenly split on Village 14.
I’m looking forward to watching it. I love that the league and newtv provides this important public service.
I’ll try and post some thoughts later in the week. Can’t believe the election is around 7 weeks away!
@ Jerry,
I agree ,.. on V14 .
OK. I’ve watched it. I’m bummed it was so short! They barely got to talk!
I’m really not seeing how folks could think either one “won” the debate. They both came off as articulate and filled with good knowledge. They seemed to agree the majority of the time. I wish they talked more about 40B, about Cabot School, about special ed, about small business improvements in the villages, about traffic, about road improvements.
They spent about 25% of the time talking about donations to their respective campaigns, which I really didn’t care about. It seemed rather silly, both of them were saying how they don’t take money from lobby firms, and then they got super nuanced, with Emily repeating the words FRACKING and BIG MARIJUANA a half dozen times, which made me laugh. (mostly because you don’t see that much fracking in Newton, and Big MJ is just makes me think of a portly individually getting especially high). So basically both of them don’t take money from people before the Council. Not too much difference on that issue in my view despite the time spent on it. And the idea that Bryan is going to be influenced into fracking or big MJ by some small donation seemed…like a stretch. It felt like an attempted “gotcha” moment that kinda backfired.
Emily had an advantage in being the incumbent for sure, especially in talking about the conversations she has had in her current city council position. Bryan seemed more open to new ideas, Emily seemed to focus on defending the status quo. I thought Bryan had a stronger closing.
I doubt this debate is going to change anyone’s mind. And if you weren’t decided, I’m guessing you’d watch that “debate” and sort of shrug.
(And maybe chuckle at FRACKING and BIG MJ being part of the discussion!)
I’m surprised that Councilor Norton didn’t know that the Northland shuttle proposal no longer includes service to downtown Boston (the proposal was modified in June).
But I was even more surprised that she seems to believe Newton is in Suffolk County.
@Greg: The report did not look at Middlesex Country. I still thought it was relevant for our area, as Middlesex Country abuts Suffolk County.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/08/11/will-higher-uber-and-lyft-fees-get-more-commuters-some-are-skeptical/5x0q4njIw2H8Nqb9ZSRQtL/story.html
“County” [before Greg comments that “COUNCILOR NORTON THINKS MIDDLESEX IS A COUNTRY”!!!]
Having read Bryan’s website as he suggests, in addition to reading his comments on previous Village 14 threads, it appears that his chief aim is to drive more affluent out of Newton and attract less affluent to move to Newton.
This would be accomplished by making Newton more like Somerville in terms of density and affordability of housing.
IMHO, the above pretty much sums it up. However, it would be interesting to hear if others think my take is off on this.
Jim:
I think you probably need a new reference point than Somerville. Somerville is pretty awesome these days, and has great restaurants. And the housing isn’t so affordable these days either…
I think your take is way too simplistic. I think Bryan is willing to allow greater density, and he has a stronger focus on “new” affordability than Emily, who has tended to focus much more on preserving affordability by protecting already existing housing stock.
But I’m not seeing how that translates to making Newton more like Somerville, nor do I see where his chief aim is to drive the affluent out of Newton to attract the less affluent to move to Newton.
Do you really feel that threatened by what is going on with the small amounts of affordable housing being built around the city? Do you intend to leave due to Washington Street? Does anyone?
The reality is that 95% of Newton is the same as it ever was. And while major development is occurring around Washington Street, a decade ago, major development was occurring around Route 9. And a decade before that, around Newton Corner.
A few decades ago, in my original hometown, folks tore down a historic neighborhood to build 8 story apartment buildings. Boston did the same thing in the West End. Both were huge mistakes. Both cities regret it.
A few neighborhoods away in my hometown, the city invested major money to create an entertainment district. Folks were angry about the new people and new buildings. Now it is one of the nicest neighborhoods in the state, and it seems like it has always been that way.
Why the two examples? Because development isn’t good or bad on its face. Well planned and thought out development can be transformative. Poorly planned or hodgepodge development can be a disaster.
So which is Washington Street? I don’t actually know. The folks in Boston who tore down the West end thought they were doing G-d’s work. And I would be a liar if I didn’t admit upfront that mistakes get made, and some developments look downright hazy in hindsight.
But Washington Street has a lot of room to be improved. Some of the development we have limited say over due to 40B. And many of us, Bryan included in my opinion, look at the possibilities and say, well, let’s see how we can make it better. And perhaps make it better for affordable housing as well. But there is also the possibility that by these changes we will make it worse.
Is that the right answer? I don’t know that either. Emily doesn’t seem to think so. Or at the very least, she sees very different possibilities, and looks towards the past with a view of preserving those halcyon days as much as possible. But in a time when Newton housing prices have doubled in 15 years, how long can you hold back the tide?
Two very different viewpoints in two very progressive packages.
@Jim Epstein – Hmmm. I just went through Bryan Barash’s entire web site and couldn’t find anything could even remotely indicate that Bryan’s ” chief aim is to drive more affluent out of Newton”
please point us to what exactly you saw that would lead you to that conclusion.
He does indeed clearly support increasing more affordable housing but that’s a far cry from having a goal of driving out the affluent.
One thing I love about Emily is she doesn’t talk out of both sides of her mouth. Indigenous Americans once referred to this as “speaking with forked tongue”.
Fig & Jerry, replacing more expensive/less affordable housing with less expensive/more affordable housing, replaces more affluent residents with less affluent residents. Adding “new” density of “added” less affordable housing throughout Newton, as Bryan has expressly advocated to such extent to achieve true “economic diversity”, makes Newton more like Somerville — or as Fig has pointed out that Somerville “is not so affordable these days — say more like Chelsea.
Regarding 95% of Newton remaining the same, clearly Bryan wants more than 5% for economic diversity — albeit as Fig suggests, will never happen, which is precisely why Bryan’s advocacy of his “social justice” by converting Newton will not really succeed, and his candidacy is completely out of sync with Newton.
@Jim Epstein – Where has more expensive housing been replaced with less expensive housing in Newton. What recent or current plans (Austin St?, Washington Place?, Riverside?, Northand?, the armory?) have replaced more expensive housing with less expensive housing? Where on his web site does it even hint at that?
If you don’t want any more affordable housing to be built in Newton that’s fine but there’s no need to make stuff up. Nobody is trying “to drive the affluent out” of Newton. If anyone were … good luck with that.
Jerry, you make my point precisely that, despite Bryan Barash trying to achieve social justice and true economic diversity, it won’t happen (thankfully) — as it would convert the desirable character of the city enjoyed by most current residents, many who have strived to get here.
For Bryan to tell voters otherwise is, as you say, “making stuff up”.
Hi Jim – you’re absolutely right, I believe in social justice and economic diversity. You may be offended by this, but I’m actually a renter living in Newton on a government salary, with my wife, who runs her own small business from home. I happen to believe that people like me should be able to build a home and a community in Newton.
I am betting that most people in Newton want that too.
Do you intend to leave due to Washington Street? Does anyone?
Yep. We’re seriously considering it. We live 4 houses in from Washington Street. Been here for 35+ years. Don’t like it the incoming density. Already live with 70dB pike noise on my front porch. Where to go? Not sure. But for a town with density like they want to put in Newtonville, I’d rather be on the green line. Commuter rail does nothing for me. So either Brookline or further out, maybe outside 128, still thinking about it. The future on Washington Street is bleak.
Bryan, why shouldn’t people like me be able to afford to build a home and a community on Nantucket or Palm Beach? No “social justice and economic diversity” there.
Like Rick Frank I could easily be driven out of Newton.
We’ve recently spent a month in Scandinavia and given the current political climate here , Oslo, Bergen, or Helsinki look like nirvana !
The grass is definitely “greener “ in oh so many ways.
Norway a country of 5-1/2 million people ( like Massachusetts ), makes us look silly. They will have all electric/ hybrid vehicles by 2025. ( saw Tesla taxis in Tromso !).
I currently live 2 blocks from a green line station, next door to a wonderful 95 year of neighbor who has been in her home on a 2/3rd acre property for er 50 years.
Do I feel threatened? ( and not by her ) Oh Yes indeed de !!!
Blue, interesting comment.
Could you say what specific about “political climate” here or in Newton is affecting your daily life?
Also, where or how is the electricity generated to fuel the electric cars in Norway?
“Having read Bryan’s website as he suggests, in addition to reading his comments on previous Village 14 threads, it appears that his chief aim is to drive more affluent out of Newton and attract less affluent to move to Newton.”
“…replacing more expensive/less affordable housing with less expensive/more affordable housing, replaces more affluent residents with less affluent residents. ”
How does this “replacement” process happen? Wouldn’t it involve one of those “more affluent” residents selling their property for development? Seems like a pretty voluntary and likely highly lucrative process to me.
How do teardowns where a more expensive single family replaces a modest home (the kind that happen all over Newton) work into this picture? Are those OK because they give the affluent more of a fair shot to stay in Newton?
Mike, I believe you are omitting that I said: “Adding NEW density of ADDED less affordable housing throughout Newton, as Bryan has expressly advocated to such extent to achieve true “economic diversity”…”
And, beyond that, your comment further proves my point that Bryan’s goals are realistically unobtainable in his effort to achieve “social justice and economic diversity”.
Jim E.
The “current political climate “ here – for me – refers to Washington and the choke hold the trumpeters have on Congress AND the Supreme Court.
It’s the same trumpeters ( in our case , real estate developers ), who the majority of our local political establishment cannot / will not say no to,.. just like the republican senate won’t say boo to the donald.
So you get out of town ( the country ?), while the getting gets good!
New construction is expensive. It’s not “affordable”. The 20% “affordable “ units that get carved out of these mega projects are paid for by the unwary buyers of the overpriced 80% of the rest of the project. The developers are not running a charity. In fact just the opposite, they build as inexpensively as possible, pedal their product as quickly as they can, pay off their hedge fund investors, and run gleefully to the bank. When the roof leaks, or the elevator stalls it’s the condo association or the secondary REIT that gets the call to perform the inevitable fix (s).
Sadly , for the economically less fortunate, Newton is located closer to the economic center of gravity of the region than the outer western suburbs. Those citizens are forced to sit in the twice daily parking lot that the turnpike becomes,.. all the time, wishing they could shorten their commute and live here. Thus spiking real estate values, which make living here even more unachievable for the hundreds of thousands even less able to afford it.
It’s sad, and at the same time I feel very fortunate, to have been able to live here, but I prefer giving to the charity of my choice, not the mayor’s or city councilor’s. Their hope, ( for their own self aggrandizement ?), is to allow my ( our ) investment here to be exploited by the development community, by building these oversized
( overpriced?), apartment buildings,.. for who ? Seniors? Hipsters? Poor folks?
At the same time it’s these same political forces that refuse to modify our zoning regulations to control tear downs of what affordable housing we have left and get replaced with McMansions!
So how can Norway power it’s electric cars ? 98% of all of their electric power comes from hydroelectric sources. And that number is being reduced as they build enormous offshore wind farms,.. all owned by the state.
The state is the majority owner/ developer of all of its offshore oil, the profits from which ( trillions of $ in a sovereign wealth fund ), are being invested in a spectacular array of infrastructural efforts, ( bridges, highways, tunnels under fjords and thru mountains ), free medicine, education, transportation systems, social services etc etc.
We have oil too. Who owns it ? What do we see of the results of that ownership? Apartment buildings in Newton ?
And Norway’s all electric cars by 2025 effort?
Today if you buy a gasoline/ diesel vehicle you pay a VAT of 25%, an additional $1,500 environmental tax, and a couple of other smaller added taxes.
If you buy an electric or hybrid electric car you pay ZERO VAT, and none of the added taxes, thus pricing electrics well under the cost of conventionally fueled cars. And they afford those Tesla’s everywhere!
A great on-line interview with Emily Norton has been posted on the Patch.
Respecting the Patch’s prerogatives as the publication of record, below is just a “fair use” excerpt from that on-line interview. Folks should read the whole Q&A at: https://patch.com/massachusetts/newton/newton-candidate-profile-emily-norton-runs-city-council?utm_term=article-slot-1&utm_source=newsletter-daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
One question posed by the Patch was: “What are the critical differences between you and the other candidates?”
Emily Norton’s response was: “I have sought to represent the residents of Ward 2 who have consistently expressed a preference for village scale development of no more than 3-4 stories, as well as truly affordable housing rather than new luxury housing. That is why I voted against Austin Street and Washington Place, but voted in favor of every nonprofit housing proposal. My opponent supported Austin Street and Washington Place and in the future would support additional massive projects for Ward 2 that I believe are out of scale for the village; he supports zoning that would allow ten stories at the Whole Foods site, whereas I do not. We also differ in that I led the effort to retain local representation in the form of the Ward Councilor, whereas my opponent led the effort to eliminate the ward councilor seat – ie he is running for a seat he tried very hard to eliminate. Lastly my opponent has taken campaign contributions from corporate lobbyists, I have not, as I believe corporations have too much sway in our democracy.”
Emily — you sure summed it up brilliantly!
This is a troubling mischaracterization of my position. I don’t support “massive projects”. I don’t supported zoning of 10 stories at the Whole Foods site.
I DO support having a plan for our neighborhoods so developers aren’t driving the conversation around housing, we are. I DO support trying to get to yes for projects where we maximize the benefits to the City and prevent a 40B over which we have no control. I DO support adding housing thoughtfully throughout the city.
This is a critical difference between my opponent and I. No is not a plan.
I think Bryan is one of the only candidates with a reasonable approach to development and it closely mirrors my own. Development isn’t all or nothing. I’d vote for him if I lived in his ward! (But I will be casting my vote for Carolina)
But I do live in Ward 2, MMAC, and I will be voting for Emily. She has a proven track record of responsibly and responsively representing her Ward constituents (on a wide range of issues) and the City. She works hard for transparency in government. She is a real listener (not my experience with Bryan, frankly) and does her homework thoroughly and thoughtfully complex issues. She is a selfless hard worker.
@Bryan, at the last hearing on the Washington Street vision your public comment was that there should be a requirement for a special permit for everything above 6 stories. That would indeed allow up to ten stories.
Ouch.
I missed another piece of your comment. You turned special permit above an unspecifird number of stories by-right into an affirmative support for six- and by extension-ten stories.
There’s a lot of interesting issues embedded in this discussion. Why not make your arguments clearly and explicitly, without attributing intention?
I’m doing a rare lunch break post because I feel the record really needs to be set straight here.
Before I speak publicly, I tend to write down what I’m planning to say. In this case, I have my actual comments from the referenced hearing, which I said verbatim:
“I do have one note – one version of the plan had relatively high heights by right near the crafts street area that also is envisioned for a transformative commercial development. I would strongly recommend that the heights by right in that area be decreased to allow the city more control over any proposed redevelopment at this critical junction.”
So my only recommendation here is that we lower heights in the plan by right. Which is exactly what it seems like the City Council plans to do. Yet you are putting words in my mouth that I wanted taller heights, which I never said and is not my position. In fact, it is the opposite of what I said.
For those who don’t know, the most recent version of the Washington St Plan says it will include heights in the 3-6 story range in the Crafts St area.
Councilor Norton, I tried to ask you to stop mischaracterizing my position privately, but obviously that didn’t work. Now I’m asking you publicly: Please stop mischaracterizing my position.
Let’s stick to the facts.
Reducing what is allowed “by right” means larger heights are still allowed with a special permit. Special permits have been relatively easy for developers to obtain in recent years. I did not mischaracterize anything.
What Abe said. (Eloquently!)
Councilor Norton,
Welcome back to V14.
That’s a neat rhetorical trick. Bryan says he’d support up to 6 stories by-right. You make the assumption that any developer is going to pass up the by-right development for a special permit. And, you make the further assumption that the council will give a developer whatever they want. And, then you attribute your assumptions that support for 6 by-right means 10 in-fact to Bryan as his intention.
Bryan said he would support 6 stories by-right. That is the environmentally sound position and the one that will likely yield truly affordable units to add to our inventory of permanently affordable units. A decent balance with the neighborhood concerns.
If you want to make the case that support for 6 stories by-right may have the practical consequence of 10-story buildings, make that case. But, not quite legit to attribute intentional support.
Also, since taller buildings along Washington St. are more likely to result in less carbon emission and more affordable units, are you ready to acknowledge that climate change and affordable housing are not your priorities?
Here we go again. @Sean: nice try twisting Emily’s words. Won’t work. Wow. The developers and their sycophants will go to any lengths, won’t they?! It’s not just Newton, BTW. It’s everywhere. A couple of documentaries have illuminated this process. Check them out and see for yourself – how much will sound amazingly familiar. (Links in next post)
I watched the whole debate. Bryan, since you were a very strong advocate for eliminating ward seat, and issue that Emily pointed out in her opening statement, I am curious why you are now running for a ward seat?
I watched the whole debate thinking that maybe you would respond to her comment or that it might come up in one of the questions, but nothing.
So can you please address this point
To reiterate my position, here’s what I said, and what I stand by:
I would strongly recommend that the heights by right in that area be decreased to allow the city more control over any proposed redevelopment at this critical junction. I don’t supported zoning of 10 stories at the Whole Foods site.
It appears the City Council and the planning department are going to take my recommendation on that item based on the most recent version of the plan.
I hope this makes my position crystal clear – and that the mischaracterization of my words will stop.
@Claire I’ve been asked many times and I’m always happy to answer.
Nobody will fight harder for the people of Ward 2. I did support a smaller council but the voters said this is the City Council system they want, and I’m excited to work within the system the voters chose.
Not to take away from Bryan’s very reasonable answer, but I know from canvassing countless homes that voters overwhelmingly do not want this system but were disinclined to vote for the charter commission proposal because of the misinformation that they’d been fed by the Emily-led No campaign.
What’s worse…at least the margin of victory voted No because they were going to support the “third option”, the council of 16 proposal, led by Emily and supported by 14 colleagues. None of the councilors who supported that effort disclosed to voters that they didn’t actually have the power to make it happen…which of course, it didn’t.
@Bryan, but since you believe in that At Large model why not run for an At Large seat?
Rhanna’s response seems to suggest it is payback against Emily Norton. I wish I could vote for her, but I think she will win. There isn’t a compelling reason for the good people of Ward Two to turn her out and I am not hearing a compelling reason why you should replace her.
I think the Pro Charter crowd hopes to get her out and stack the council for those who will take another run at that question as Rhonna clearly thinks the vote of the people was illegitimate because the voters were confused.
Claire, I’m not going to speak for Bryan, but what if, of the three Ward 2 representatives, he found the greatest policy differences with the ward-seat incumbent. Wouldn’t it make sense to run for that seat? That’s what I would do.
Check out the money raised for this race. It was not the path of least resistance.
@Bryan: I actually took notes on what you said. This was the quote: “I would strongly recommend that the heights by right be reduced.” Note you said “by right” – the implication being that a higher height BY SPECIAL PERMIT would be acceptable to you. I personally do not support 10 stories at that site whether by right OR by special permit, so you and I have different views on this subject, and it is an important distinction I want the voters in Ward 2 to understand.
That said, I am pleased that the Planning Department listened to the residents and to councilors such as myself who expressed the view that 10 stories is too high, and the latest version of the Vision plan only allows 3-6 stories at that site.
An important distinction based on a clearly refuted implication. Got it.
Let me make this crystal clear. I do not support a 10 story building on Crafts St by Special Permit or By Right.
Just a little tidbit because I keep hearing this thrown around. I also rarely comment on V14 posts, but have been following the blog for years.
I keep hearing that it makes no sense that Bryan is running for a position that he voted/campaigned to eliminate. Forgive me, but I do not see why that is important? First off, focusing on ones goals for the seat is more important.
Bryan spent 2 years volunteering his time. And the Charter Commission proposal lost. People who say he should not run are essentially saying that when someone loses something, they should hang their head down and give up. Why? Bryan has a vision, and wants to let the voters decide. And we all know that amid the drama this race is essentially pro-development (Bryan) vs Anti-Dev (Emily). Imagine if Bernie Sanders gave up the first time he got 1% of the vote. Imagine if MLK gave up early on. Mandela. The list goes on and on.
I for one am undecided and live in Ward 2. But I am happy I have a choice, and above all, people should be supporting contested elections every cycle first and foremost, instead of knocking someone for running.
Just my 2 cents.
@Anita McGuiness, I’m not questioning his right to run but why not run for an At Large seat since that is his preferred model. That was an available option. Then these questions would be mute.
Well it’s news to me that the Whole Foods site is down to 6 stories ( unlikely anyone would stick to 3).
Special permit for > 6? I would bet a bitcoin that a special permit would be asked for….but I like the 6 by right limit.
As promised:
“Zoned Out” (Austin, Texas)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsYOurWEoSc
“The False Promise of Upzoning” (Ballard, Seattle, Washington)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v =JexO2iV52pM
You’re welcome.
Pat, I’m glad you brought up the Austin, Texas video. I watched it when someone sent a link to it on the West Newton email list. No doubt, those people are facing a lot of change. So I did some research.
Newton and Austin are both widely considered some of the best places to live in the US. That’s basically about where the parallels end.
Austin is called Boomtown. The city itself is about ten times the population of Newton. It is growing faster than any other American city. (Newton has flat growth). Population has grown 23% from 2010-2017. About 16.4 residents per thousand are new. It has 19.1% job growth from 2010-2015. The influx of new residents is weighted towards well educated people between 25 and 44.
159 people move to Austin every day. What’s more, Austin has been growing at these unbelievable rates, 2-5% per year, since 1860.
From 2000 to 2012, the Austin region grew by nearly 570,000 people, but added “only” 84,000 housing units. A survey of housing stock estimated that 69,000 units would need to be added by 2025 just to maintain the the current tight housing market.
To address these issues, the zoning plan discussed in the video aims to add 135,000 units over 10 years, with 60,000 of those units to be affordable and uniformly spread out throughout all sections of the city. Eventually, the plan includes 400,000 new units (but see the population growth).
Austin clearly has housing issues unimaginable in Newton, Boston, or basically anywhere else in the US. Austin is adding a new Newton’s worth of people to its population every 600 days or so. I am not surprised that fairly dramatic plans are being created, nor that there’s rampant land speculation. I don’t envy any planner who has to figure out where to put people and infrastructure and everything else a city needs.
Yet, US News calls Austin its #1 best place to live in the US, and #4 best place to retire. Austin has an average home price one third of Newton’s, with a significantly lower cost of living. A whole lot of people love it there, and apparently a whole lot of people want to move there.
I get that the people in the video feel like their neighborhoods and way of life are changing. I’m sure the process for affected neighborhoods seems brutal. But this also seems like the historic trend for Austin. I mean, it’s called Boomtown.
In short, from a development standpoint, there’s simply no meaningful comparison between the two cities. I think we actually diminish the more subtle, complex challenges we face in Newton by trying to draw parallels.
@Claire, My comment was not meant towards you specifically, rather the ongoing narrative that questions why Bryan is running. Sorry if you felt that way. At this point, 6 weeks before voting day, we should focus on who (and what ideas these people represent) will be on the ballot. We need more races to be challenged.
Also a note to the candidates, I do not believe that either of you have done a good job being professional towards the opposing party. Emily seems to be personally offended whenever her viewpoints are questioned, while Bryan is somewhat arrogant. Both tend to be passive aggressive. But, I think both of you are some of the most hardworking people in the city, so please use your passions for positivity.
Correction: the ‘g’ in the first link should be a ‘q’.
@Sean , well I suppose it’s kind of pointless for me to argue about what is racist or not racist language, or language that traces its root to such. I’m a white guy and what do I know. I’ll leave that for people of color to inform me. I’ll leave councilor Norton to reply to your letter if she so chooses.
On a last note, I’ll leave any interested readers with this magazine article. I know it’s not on topic – but, well it is slightly.
Note – it’s a piece of garbage, and I do not associate myself with it at all. The author was associated with the campaign of Lyndon LaRouche (sp?) who was kind of a nut job running for president back in the 80s.
When I was a student at the New England Conservatory of Music it was left in bulk on the doorsteps in front of Jordan Hall. Being a Jazz Studies major/musician I was of course interested.
I still have my paper copy, because I thought it was so nuts.
The article is titled “The Racist Roots of Jazz”.
OK more disclaimers – I do accept that in many cases zoning and banking were used to discriminate against “others” of all kinds. And this is not any equivalent or analogy. OK?
Now, that said, it’s a quite, I wouldn’t say well argued, but rather long winded argument.
Any music lovers out there? Take a moment or two and read this.
http://wlym.com/archive/campaigner/8009.pdf
PPS I have no idea who or why this magazine is on the web. But it was easy to find.
I’ll leave this issue/thread with this.
Pat Irwin, I’m generally the gatekeeper of not hijacking threads so I’m breaking my own rules here but I can’t think of another space to say it – so here goes.
Your comment, “One thing I love about Emily is she doesn’t talk out of both sides of her mouth. Indigenous Americans once referred to this as “speaking with forked tongue”
is a perfect example of institutionalized racism – meaning it resides in the subconscious, not in the conscious mind so I know you did not mean it this way. Which is a major reason it so hard to eliminate.
The image of a forked tongue has been used figuratively in English for hundreds of years to mean an intent to deceive, including in the Bible.
The earliest recorded example is from Magnificence, a morality play written around 1516 by the English poet John Skelton.
Continuing on past hundreds of years, the full expression “to speak with a forked tongue” showed up in American English in the 19th century, in a March 23, 1829, letter by President Andrew Jackson addressed “To the Creek Indians”:
“You know I love my white and red children, and always speak straight, and not with a forked tongue; that I have always told you the truth.”
The letter, which urged the Creeks to move West, was part of a plan by Jackson to move all Native Americans living east of the Mississippi to Oklahoma. Defiant Creeks were driven out of Alabama and Georgia in the Creek War of 1836.
Keep in mind that whatever cliches and banalities have been credited to America Indigenous Peoples are the work of those who translated the words of Tecumseh, Seatlle, or whomever — and that translator may or may not have had a particularly high opinion of the speaker’s intelligence — or a particularly subtle grasp of the language he (or she) was speaking.
@Marti: thank you for the exposition! (For real). And also for introducing me to an ancestor (John Skelton). So my quote should be: “One thing I love about Emily is she doesn’t talk out of both sides of her mouth. John Skelton once referred to this as ‘speaking with forked tongue’.” Either way, Emily is a straight shooter. (What’s the origin of that term?)
Now to address the substance of this post and thread. I have been undecided in this race since it’s inception. I think Emily is a good Ward Rep and have been waiting to see who I thought would make the best Ward 2 Rep.
This thread has made my decision for me. I cannot abide telling any type of lie to win a point. That is the reason I have differed with Emily and her supporters in the past – particularly around the proposal for Austin Street. Both she and her supporters have a different version of what integrity and truth means. Surprise! It doesn’t mean what they think it means!!
I will not support anyone who tries to win by using both lies and misrepresentations of facts in evidence – no “that implies” or “that suggests” allowed. Just cold hard facts.
Bryan is bringing facts to this conversation and Emily and her supporters are attempting to change those facts by insinuating or just plain saying what they want him to have meant. This to me is unacceptable.
I now support Bryan Barash for Ward 2 Councilor 100%. Bryan, please bring me a sign to put in my front yard – it will look cozy with Jake and Susan’s sign.
@Marti: I knew this was coming. There’s something about Emily that bothers some people. What could it be? Perhaps it’s because she unhesitatingly and unapologetically speaks truth to power and won’t back down. She passed on the punch, and so did I. Wish I could vote for her. She’s earned it.
Pat,
I assure you that it is as tiresome for me to raise this as it is for you (and the rest of the V14 community) to have to read it, but your straight-talking councilor has yet to answer a simple set of questions. Does she acknowledge the consensus that housing density, especially in inner-ring suburbs, especially near even not-perfect transit, is an important tool to mitigate climate change? If so, what are the values that are higher priority than stemming climate change when shaping housing policy?
A ten-story building with housing at the Whole Foods lot would result in less carbon emission than the suburban sprawl that would be required to house the same folks if the building were not built. It likely would add more traffic to the neighborhood. It might cast some shadows. It would not have as much truly affordable housing as we would like. Even in the rosiest of scenarios, it would not significantly reduce housing costs in Newton. The developer of the building would likely make more money than is seemly. And, it might (or might not) contribute to gentrification in the area.
All reasonable criticisms.
But, on net, a ten-story building at Whole Foods will have a positive impact on the fight against climate change. Why won’t your favorite councilor acknowledge that? If she does, I’m happy to move on. She will have established that, by fighting against tall buildings on Washington St., fighting climate change is not her priority. Resisting growth is. That’s fine. Climate change is not everyone’s most urgent priority. Plenty of councilors for whom that’s true.
If she answers that she doesn’t acknowledge the consensus on density and climate change, I’d be happy to engage her on the facts and the science. But, we can move on from this admittedly tiresome effort to get her to go on the record on this relatively straightforward question.
Unless I’ve missed something, she has never publicly taken a position on the relationship between density and stemming climate change.
Pat:
And I certainly get why some folks love Emily. But she certainly didn’t speak truth to power when we needed her for the Cabot School Renovation. She tends to speak truth to power…selectively.
If you agree with her main positions, you love her. If you need her for much else…maybe not so much.
It is incredibly hard to knock off a ward councilor, so Bryan has his work cut off for him. I’m just hoping that no matter who wins, they will be a voice for Ward 2, and speak openly and honestly to all, and listen to all perspectives.
I don’t need my ward councilor to change the world, although that is nice if they’d like to attempt to do so. I need my ward councilor to help my community, my village, my schools, to focus on the local needs first. I like both candidates, and I worry about both of them losing their perspective and fighting bigger battles. Emily certainly does that, and Bryan may want to do that as well.
Watch “Ward 2 City Council – Emily Norton – Bryan Barash – Debate 2019” on Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/368387585?ref=em-share