As I testified recently — and subsequently posted, the history of zoning is steeped in racism, both in intent and impact. Choosing to re-authorize exclusionary zoning with knowledge of that history is, arguably, an intentional act to perpetuate the racist intent and impact. Using language similar to language used by those promoting racial segregation with knowledge of that history is, arguably, apologizing for those earlier sentiments.
A response in a recent League of Women Voters candidate forum raises these issues again.* A candidate was asked:
[Candidate], how would you balance maintaining Newton’s suburban character with the area’s need for more affordable housing?
The candidate answered (full response below),
As I’ve been going door-to-door and as I‘ve been listening to people over the last six years, what I hear over and over, that people say they moved to Newton because they left Somerville or Cambridge or Boston. They didn’t want such an urban environment. And, so I think that we need to respect that. […] But, I do think that we want to keep our villages keep Newton a city of villages rather than become something that is something that most people here I think want.
If you are at all aware of the history of white flight in this country, indeed in our region, this is really troubling language. This is basically a recap of the argument for escaping mixed-race cities for all-white suburbs, which remained all-white through exclusionary zoning that created the single-family housing that distinguishes the not-urban environment of places like Newton. Exclusionary zoning, plus government loans that were only available to white families. And, red-lining that denied black families the ability to buy in the suburbs and join in the wealth creation and educational opportunity that these homes represented.
The suburbs are perhaps our most enduring example of structural racism.
I don’t want to suggest that this candidate was motivated by racial animus. On the face of it, the language is racially neutral. Some people simply have an aesthetic preference for their own house on their own yard in a neighborhood of similar houses and yards. In fact, the full answer below demonstrates some admirable (though intentionally limited) concern for affordable housing, which is a compensating social justice issue.
But, the fact that the candidate’s constituents’ aesthetic preference is available to them has history that is not simply aesthetic preference. That history matters. One would hope that a candidate for Newton City Council, aware as they must be of how central housing and zoning are to this year’s races, would be sensitive to the racial dynamics of housing and zoning and the history of white families leaving cities, especially Boston, to create all-white enclaves. And, one would hope that a candidate would avoid positively reinforcing the white-flight sentiment expressed by their constituents, however innocently.
And, one would hope that those constituents would be aware of the cost of their aesthetic preference and, perhaps, not insist on their elected officials protecting those aesthetic preferences.
I don’t wish to make this about any particular candidate. Our collective ignorance of the racial dynamics of housing and zoning is broader than this one candidate and needs to be identified and discussed at every turn. I just happened to catch this one example.
Full question and response.
Moderator: [Candidate], how would you balance maintaining Newton’s suburban character with the area’s need for more affordable housing?
Candidate: As I’ve been going door-to-door and as I‘ve been listening to people over the last six years, what I hear over and over, is that people say they moved to Newton because they left Somerville or Cambridge or Boston. They didn’t want such an urban environment. And, so I think that we need to respect that. Keep Newton the Garden City. Keep trees. Keep open space. But I think that we can do that. And, I’m actually very proud of my record on affordable housing. I led on the accessory apartment ordinance that made it easier for people to build small units in their homes. I’ve supported every non-profit housing development that has been proposed during my tenure. But, I think that we need to be doing more to reach out to our non-profit developer friends. I feel that at this point we are a bit too solicitous of the private developers and they have the money and the wherewithal and the lawyers to be able to move very quickly. I sat down recently with a non-profit developer and got some really helpful feedback and good ideas. She said for example one thing the city could do would be to put together a fund that non-profit developers could tap when a property became available. Because private-sector developers can move so much more quickly. She also suggested we should look at what Cambridge does, which is proactively reach out when properties come up for sale or even before they come up for sale so that they can identify opportunities and jump on them. So, I think that there is more that we can do. But, I do think that we want to keep our villages keep Newton a city of villages rather than become something that is something that most people here I think want.
* The question itself is terrible. It assumes that preserving Newton’s suburban character is a virtue. The League should know better. Besides the terrible racial history, suburban density is a matter of environmental and economic injustice. Why should the question validate the preference for Newton’s suburban character?
I agree with the candidate’s answer. I think the author of this post is inherently racist by equating urban neighborhoods with races other than white and that wanting to preserve a neighborhood’s character is a ‘white thing.’ Do you think a black family would want a 5 story building in their pretty backyard? Sheesh.
The fact is that Newton in not Somerville and if we wanted to live in a dense city, we’d move to Somerville. This is the same conversation we have every year with this author. Stop trying to make Newton into something else.
Another despicable attack by Bryan Barash’s dirty trickster Sean Roche! Utterly disgusting! Sean your last attack failed miserably and this one will too. In your warped mind, two thirds of the citizens of Newton would be charged with racism! What a fraud!!!
This is simply garbage, and I really question Greg’s judgement in allowing it on this site. Newton residents are allowed to prefer any type of zoning they wish without being slandered as racists. Moving away from an urban cityscape out of a desire for grass and trees for the kids is exceedingly common. Virtually every family I know in Newton came from either Boston or NYC.
Furthermore we are also allowed to question the wisdom of “affordable” housing without being castigated. What is it? Who pays for it? Who benefits? What are the tradeoffs?
Good grief.
The real inconsistency shows when they propose any limits. That is if it’s really a housing “crisis”, the city should take by eminent domain any house > 7000 sq ft and convert it to an small apartment building, ( just happens to fit the mayor’s house size ). I understand via Twitter that Sean is in favor of taking golf courses by eminent domain to build housing.
There should be no zoning. Washington Place should be at least 20 stories tall because housing is a crisis, and a crisis requires crisis level action.
But instead, they question councilor Norton’s commitment to housing.
They would prefer a command economy, such as they have in China. But they don’t think about what the difference would be if the leaders decided that a command economy took property by eminent domain and built a coal fired plant. A mayor Trump, for example. Then there wouldn’t be support for eminent domain.
Rick,
While I think one could make an argument that the global climate crisis and the regional housing crisis are serious enough to warrant taking privately owned single-family homes by eminent domain, I’m not there yet. For sure, when I am there, you’ll know about it, because I’ll post it on V14!
I’m always struck by the argument that wanting to ease zoning restrictions is equivalent to government intervention. Zoning is government intervention. The free-market approach to zoning would be to allow a landowner to do whatever they want on a privately owned lot. If the government, in this case our City Council as authorized by state law, had never implemented zoning, yes, we’d have a 20-story tower at Washington Place. It wouldn’t require state intervention.
But, I’m not ready to get rid of zoning altogether, at least not yet. There is some valid use for land-use regulation. But, I do want to get rid of the parts of zoning that are most egregiously racist in origin. Single-family-only zoning is a tool designed to create and perpetuate segregation. Historical fact. And, it has been very effective at achieving the ends of its originators. Historical fact.
The people who like single-family-only zoning now may not share the same objective as the segregationist originators of exclusionary zoning. They may have an aesthetic preference for private lawns and free-standing homes. Fine, if that’s the case, they are not out-and-out racists. But, that aesthetic was achieved at an enormous cost. We shouldn’t ignore the racist origins of the tools we use today to achieve aesthetic ends.
It goes beyond just aesthetic ends. Single-family-only zoning is a key element of the pervasive, often hidden, system of structural racism. It perpetuates gross income disparity. The notion that we would affirmatively choose to include a tool of racism in a brand-new zoning code is offensive.
Also, I’m not coming for your house or anyone else’s house. If we get rid of single-family-only zoning, nobody is going to be forced to raze their home and build a triplex. But, if that’s your choice or your neighbor’s choice, the law won’t stop you or them.
I’m one of the League people who organizes the forums and wanted to explain a little about the process. We received over 50 questions for our sorters to consider for the forums. The question sorters review all the questions, and choose about 12-13 for each forum. They sometimes take them directly as they were submitted and sometimes merge or reword a question to cover a wider perspective. I think this question Sean noted was one modified from a slightly different question.
We ask our question sorters to try to make each question ‘neutral’ and not judgmental, so that candidates can give their positions clearly without being on the defensive or offensive. Our goal is to draw out differences between the candidates so the voters can see and make a choice.
Personally, I don’t think the question is that bad—a candidate who feels affordable housing should outweigh suburban character is able to say so, with enough time to explain why. The candidate Sean quoted clearly felt the other way. The question is intended to get to the heart of the argument over development and it seemed to do achieve that objective.
Sue,
First of all, thanks to the League of Women Voters for all the effort that goes into making sure that voters are informed when they go to the polls. We all benefit.
My point is that the question is only truly neutral if both sides of the “How would you balance x with y?” question are legitimately valid policy preferences. How would you balance high-school students need for sleep with working parents’ need to get to work?
But, if x or y is contested, then the question is not neutral. The question validates a particular position on x or y. How would you balance the need for greater city council diversity with the discomfort incumbent men have working with women?
I get it. Right now, the overwhelming number of people think that “preserve suburban character” is a valid policy preference. It might conflict with other policy preferences, but it is not itself invalid.
I don’t think so. The tools that delivered us a “suburban character” within the urban ring are seeped in racism. The exclusionary zoning that created and maintains “suburban character” is among the most odious elements of institutional racism. And, people’s desire to maintain “suburban character” flies in the face of economic and climate justice.
I hope that in the not-too-distant future, someone saying “preserve suburban character” will be just as cringeworthy as saying that you want to “be with people like me.”
And, I hope that the League helps lead us to that future as it has on so many important issues.
I agree that the response given by the candidate could be an example of structural racism at work. I would also guess that if pressed on that issue, the candidate could reflect and perhaps see that perspective and work to move from it. What strikes me is that this is unlikely to be the first time in a public forum that a city councilor has said something that supported, intentionally or not, white power structures. But this is the example Sean chooses to use. Is it about what was said or who said it?
Josh,
It was my intention to focus on the language, not the speaker, hence my decision not to identify them.
Josh,
This isn’t the first time I’ve called out a councilor on objectionable language. See this.
I wholly agree with Sean – these dog whistlers know exactly what they’re doing.
In my hometown of Needham we’ve actually one-upped you guys; in our zoning debates there have been a number of individuals who have referred to 128 as a “wall” that keeps us safe, and described Needham as a “Norman Rockwell” town.
So, you Newtonites think you’re the exclusive ones, with your alleged “village” lifestyle? Please be aware that Needham (of all places) looks down on you. How you feel now?
@Sean
Mayor Fuller supports maintaining existing zoning for large parts of Newton. Is she being racist?
Sean and Michael, I hope you aren’t limiting these concerns to message boards. These vicious racists in our midst need to be confronted in person, by any means necessary. I bet you can find them walking the revolting golf courses of Newton and Needham.
Paul,
If you want to make this binary, have at it. I’m trying to suggest that we need to get educated on the racist origins and impacts of exclusionary zoning and follow the lead of places like Minneapolis and Oregon and rid our regulations of it.
I don’t think it’s binary. You can be ignorant of the racial history and impact of exclusionary zoning and support it. You can be aware of the racial history and impact of exclusionary zoning and not think it matters. You can be aware of the racial history and impact of exclusionary zoning and think that circumstances have changed sufficiently that exclusionary zoning no longer has a racial taint. Or, you can be aware of the racial history and impact of exclusionary zoning and think that it is morally repugnant to make it the foundation of a brand-new zoning code.
Obviously, I think it’s the last. Your mileage may vary.
Craig,
I’m on it.
@Craig the golf courses won’t last. I think they want the city to take them by eminent domain and build housing.
@Sean
You can’t have it both ways Sean.
YOUR post was binary. You attacked someone as using “white flight language” very directly. You are weaponizing racism to attack someone that you oppose politically. White male privilege, Exhibit number 1.
I ask you to be consistent in approach, and use similar language to criticize the Mayor, who is embracing many of the same racist policies and approaches– according to you.
And you won’t come out and say it.
If you believe this position– then share a similar critcism of the Mayor’s policies. Otherwise, you’re just another white male distorting real concerns with racism, to attack a political opponent who has ZERO racist intent in her position.
Paul,
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. My interest right now is in the language. If you are aware of the history of the language of white flight, what this candidate said is particularly cringeworthy. But, I don’t know if this candidate knows the history. Therefore, I’m not going to attribute racism to them. If they repeat such language in the future, we might be able to make assumptions.
I would hope that a candidate for elected office in 2019 in a city where land use and zoning are top campaign and governance issues would be familiar enough about the racism behind our built environment that they wouldn’t use this kind of language. Possibly (and disappointingly) ignorant of the issues, but not racist.
And, the fact that I chose not to name them kinda puts the kibosh on the notion that I “attacked” them.
As for the mayor, if, as this candidate did, she defends our current zoning using language that tracks justifications for white flight, you bet I’ll be on her. And, my general argument applies to everyone involved in the zoning code rewrite: the mayor, her staff preparing drafts, councilors, and any boards or commissions with an opportunity to weigh in. There is no excuse for choosing to include a regulation designed for racist ends in a brand-new zoning ordinance. If you do, up to you to explain how re-upping a tool of institutional racism isn’t racism.
What Paul said.
Perhaps we should just give the land back to the native Americans. Private property is the ultimate zoning.
Rick, the native Americans took that land from the animals that came before them. Giving it back to them would simply build upon a prior injustice and enshrine it into law.
A much better solution would be for Sean to start from scratch and populate Newton entirely based on intersectionality theory. Think of how much fun he would have confiscating the property of “racist” old white men.
Of course he would need to have this job for life, because wokeness is a rapidly evolving pseudo science. African American women deserve your back yard now (hell, give them the house and you can have your yard), but what is to say there won’t be a more deserving population group five years from now.
Sean so it’s just the language, not the actual actions? That’s pretty shallow. You should critique actions ( or non actions ). What people do is at least if not more than what people say.
Rick,
Not sure that your comment is in good faith, given that I explicitly wrote, “There is no excuse for choosing to include a regulation designed for racist ends in a brand-new zoning ordinance.” Obviously, I’m interested in more than just language.
But, let me clarify. When I say that language is my interest “right now,” I mean my interest with this particular comment by this particular person at this particular time is with the language. My hope is to identify that it is objectionable language and urge this candidate and others to avoid this kind of language.
But, I intend to make every participant in the zoning redo aware of the racist purpose of exclusionary zoning and urge them not to further that racist purpose by including it in a brand-new zoning ordinance. And, yes, I want them to worry that they will be considered racist for preparing, arguing for, or voting in favor of exclusionary zoning provisions.
Sean said: “They may have an aesthetic preference for private lawns and free-standing homes. Fine, if that’s the case, they are not out-and-out racists. But, that aesthetic was achieved at an enormous cost. We shouldn’t ignore the racist origins of the tools we use today to achieve aesthetic ends.”
Sean, how does this view square with your personal choice to purchase and live in a free-standing home with a private lawn in a single-family zoned neighborhood – a choice made possible by a regulation designed with racist ends?
Tricia,
Really great question. I struggle with this all the time.
I think it starts with understanding that exclusionary zoning has more to do with controlling what others can do with their property than what I can do with mine. At least for now, I have little objection to people continuing to live in their standalone homes. What I object to is somebody (like me) who lives in a single-family, standalone home preventing a neighbor from building a duplex or a triplex. if you want to live in a standalone home, fine. If you want the city to make duplexes and triplexes illegal so that you live in a neighborhood of standalone homes, not fine. If you want to make it enormously difficult to build an apartment building in your neighborhood, also not fine.
But, that doesn’t address the fact that I have accumulated wealth and been given opportunities because of exclusionary zoning. First, I fight to fix the rules so that part of that benefit — being surrounded by standalone homes — goes away. If you want to build a duplex next door to my house. Fine. A triplex down the block. Fine. An apartment building behind my house. Fine. If you want to start eliminating Newton’s exclusionary zoning in Newton Centre, knock yourself out. You’ll get no objection from me.
All of those things may reduce my property value. Reduce my accumulated wealth. Fine. It was ill-gotten.
I’m am also in favor of tax-funded public housing. Land-use regulations that promote affordable housing in private developments. More investment in public transportation. Some form of a land tax. Funding education out of the state general fund, not municipal property tax. &c.
And, if you want to propose something confiscatory when I sell my house, to recapture some of the wealth created by exclusionary zoning. I wouldn’t object.
This is, for me, an issue of urgent moral significance. I’m ready to do my part.
I think making Newton a more accessible community for a more diverse group of people is something we, as a community, should work on. I think Sean is unassailably right that the roots of single family home zoning are racist (and classist). However, I don’t think the libertarian fever-dream of no zoning would resolve any of this…it would simply be a free-for-all for developers to race to make more money. How do we build more affordable housing? How do we connect that affordable housing to those who want to access it? How do we allow those folks to build the equity in ownership that many families have benefitted from over the years without encouraging move and dump schemers? These are important questions that haven’t really been gotten at here because of the charged nature of the conversation. In the end, how do we make Newton a more welcoming & livable community for all people? I would say that if I was a person of color investigating Newton as a place to live, some of the comments here would make me wary, so maybe we could all take a more reasonable tone that represents how we truly feel.
Well your wishes may be well intentioned but the outcome may not be what you hope for. Since we live in a free market society, and, as I have pointed out, the simplistic model of supply and demand with respect to housing is not accurate. You need to look at more accurate modeling of business and manufacturing processes to get a more mathematically sound analysis of what building more housing will mean. I gave linear programming ( which I learned in high school, but is still valid today ) as an example of a more realistic model especially when you are looking at profit making enterprises. Linear programming gives you a feasible region, whereupon the manufacturer ( whether housing or hammers) can predict whether they will make a profit. Mr Korff and Austin. Are first and foremost going to make a profit, and it had to fall within the feasible region.
Counselor Norton objections to Austin Street, as I understand it, were that a nonprofit development should have been given the contract. A nonprofit developer would not have to maximize its feasible region and in fact could pick the minimum of the feasible region And thereby providing more affordable housing. This is basic business math. I learned it in high school back in the dark ages.
Almost none of us on the north side of the pike are in a single-family zoning. Perhaps none at all. There are apartments on my block and low income housing at the end of my street. Most of Washington is a zoned commercial ( probably all of it). Those of us on the northside who want to see more modest development are not racist. We already have one of the more dense areas of Newton. And probably diverse.
We are in favor of scaled back heights, that’s pretty much the complaint.
Councilor Norton was reflecting the views of myself and my neighbors that she hears from. I will repeat we already have probably the least restrictive zoning in Newton and I would suggest you spend your efforts elsewhere. It’s really unclear to me why you and others on this forum seem to be obsessed with her other than for maybe she makes you feel guilty for eating meat? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I know she makes me feel guilty for only having a Hybrid car…and that turkey sandwich I had yesterday.
Rick,
I stopped at “free market.” Literally. I stopped reading.
We’re discussing zoning: government restrictions on how I dispose of my property. Ain’t nothing free market about it.
Sean,
So are you saying that someone who worked hard, commuted to work for years because they couldn’t afford to live in Newton, who after years saves enough to buy a place in Newton should support changes that will drive down the price of their property? I don’t know your particular situation, but for people who recently bought here and don’t have a lot of equity in their property, why would they want their property values to go down? They haven’t benefited from any “ill-gotten gain” as you apparently have.
Yawn. Call me when Sean moves into a multi-family dwelling.
@Sean and I’m talking about your misguided notion that building more housing will result in “affordable” housing. The free market is what the developer’s are working within, regulated by zoning.
I guess if you won’t even read what I have to say, then I win by default :>P
Rick,
I’ll make you a deal. I’ll read your comment. You find the place where I said more housing will result in affordable housing.
Take a look at this.
More housing will lower rents. Supply/demand. See Seattle and other cities that have had meaningful increases in housing units.
But, as I think you are (correctly) saying, lowered housing costs do not equal affordable housing costs. We won’t be able to build our way to affordable. Without question. Truly affordable housing will require more than market interventions. Subsidized housing. Private developer set-asides. 40B. Vouchers. Recalculating voucher payments to reflect local costs. &c. We’ll also need to consider anti-displacement (though adding new units can be an anti-displacement tool, itself).
@Sean “But, I intend to make every participant in the zoning redo aware of the racist purpose of exclusionary zoning and urge them not to further that racist purpose by including it in a brand-new zoning ordinance. ”
Well it’s in there now. No time like the present. Start posting.
Sean, I understand the issue with certain words and their current racist use and use in history – community or neighborhood “character” – but I am not sure your last two posts are the way to go about weeding out systemic or institutional racism – which not only still exists and but is widespread.
Because these words are systemic and institutional, they are embedded in many current citizens’ minds sometimes without their conscious knowledge. That is what makes them all the more insidious
Picking one word, “character,” and one instance will always feel accusatory. Using a candidate’s answer to a question in a debate when everyone, at least on V14 and in Ward 2, knows the candidate, was not going to keep the candidate anonymous.
The use of old words with attempted new meanings is a confusing, controversial and necessary topic. It is being discussed all over America. It’s particularly confusing because the phrase “neighborhood or community character” is included in documents in many architectural and city planning departments, businesses and associations who use it to mean: “Neighborhood character is an amalgam of various elements that give a neighborhoodits distinct “personality.” These elements may include a neighborhood’s land use, urban design, visual resources, historic resources, socioeconomics, traffic, and/or noise.” From New York Chapter 19: Neighborhood Character A. INTRODUCTION – …
In articles from “Planetizen” and “Strong Towns” to the “LATimes” and the “Washington Post,” these words and their negative relationship to zoning, segregation of not only ethnic groups but wealth are being examined
In Pro-Publica under the broader subject of “Separation by Design – How Some of America’s Richest Towns Fight Affordable Housing” there is an article about an investigation by the Connecticut Mirror and Pro-Publica titled “Character in Westport,” CT, that fits nicely with what is happening in Newton.
The first part could have just as easily been a description of what happened with the developer, the neighbors and the city council at the St Phillip Neri site in Waban.
The article is a long and detailed account of the investigation.
An excerpt:
It goes on to say:
In the New York Times UpShot there is an article titled “How ‘Not in My Backyard’ Became ‘Not in My Neighborhood’ “The expectation that homeowners should be able to reach beyond their property lines has become deeply embedded.”
It traces the timeline of Zoning from its origins to now. It too is long and detailed.
An excerpt:
Marti,
I’m not sure what your point is. I didn’t focus on just one word that the candidate said. I literally quoted 87 words, an answer to sixteen-word question that gives it context. I did not, as you suggest, pick a single, innocent word out of context.
That 87-word answer tracks to some very ugly history in this country and this region. I’m not going to ignore that to bring everyone gently up-to-speed.
I gave the candidate the benefit-of-the doubt this time. But they were on the city council in 2015, when Rev. Howard Heywood wrote a letter talking about “how ‘the character of the neighborhood’ and other such expressions fell on me as a Black man who has lived in Newton all my life.” They should have known better.
So, time’s up. I’m not worried about white peoples’ sensitivities. Elected officials and activists: if you are going to use racist tropes to defend racist tools, be prepared to be called to account.
The fact that you can claim that your language or the proposed regulation is facially neutral doesn’t cut it.
@Sean
Language? You’re worried about the language?
Spoken like a privileged white male.
I’m pretty confident that the groups actually marginalized by these policies, while concerned about language, are MUCH more concerned about action.
And given the opportunity to comment on the Mayor’s ACTIONS, you shrivel up.
You’re not concerned about these issues as much as using them as a weapon to attack your opponents. I would be completely ashamed to exploit the real pain and discrimination of others to make a political attack on someone. Its disgusting.
These are not issues that impact you. YOU chose to live in part of the whitest/richest neighborhoods of Newton, surrounded by single family homes all around. YOU, knowing the injustices that you espouse, make no changes to your own life, but throw out inflammatory comments about others all around you. These are your choices. For you to pretend these issues are so important, and call people out for being unintentionally racist (at best), while you continue to live in that neighborhood, which embodies the ultimate epitome of the racist and exclusionary policies that you espouse, is the height of hyposcrisy.
Spare us the continued criticism of everyone else while you live a life of hypocrisy.
Complete fraud.
Paul,
I feel like I’ve missed something. Do you have in mind a particular action the mayor has taken that I neglected to comment on? I’m pretty sure that I’ve been critical of the rezoning project as contrary to social, environmental, and economic justice. Is there something else where she or her staff have evinced support for exclusionary zoning?
This reminds me of a story told by a friend of mine. She asks her teenage daughter not to smoke weed. The daughter’s response: “You a racist, mom”. Same line of reasoning, but not obscured with quasi-scientific language though.
A quick Google search on “Seattle and other cities that have had meaningful increases in housing units” returns immediately: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-now-most-expensive-city-for-renters-outside-california-census-data-shows/
She opposes multi-family zoning for the certain parts of the City. She supports the general approach of the rezoning project underway.
How would you characterize Mayor Fuller’s position given what you’ve said on the issue? Is that a racist position? According to everything you have posted, it’s a simple yes. Right?
White flight was simple for you. How about this?
@Anatoly many people can’t do math other than popular folk wisdom “Supply and Demand”, and that’s a product of our education system.
The production of housing ESPECIALLY by for profit developers, is a complex equation ( or set of equations) that do t lead to simple answers.
@Paul from that article
“Many Seattle tenants have certainly been slapped with severe rent hikes, which has contributed to the city’s fast-rising median. But there’s another factor that’s probably more significant: We’ve had an unprecedented apartment construction boom that’s added thousands of high-priced new luxury units to our housing stock. Seattle has a higher percentage of new-construction apartments than any other big U.S. city.”
Supply and demand. Hmmm
@Paul – I don’t usually respond to people who don’t use their full names, but bravo.
Thanks for your post – somebody needed to say it.
Rick,
Not sure the Seattle Times article makes the point you think it does.
@Sean “More housing will lower rents”
If only it were that simple. I read the post you linked to.
But developers- especially for profit developers- don’t think that simply, and the market doesn’t work that simply. You should read up on some business math – more advanced than eco 101 “guns and butter” or “supply and demand”, which while true in the most broad sense, are over simplifications of micro economic issues at least.
Think about cars, cars have markets, it’s not as simple as build more cars, car prices will be affordable. A car ( well I know you don’t like cars, but it’s for the purpose of illustration) is still an expensive item for most people. Why? Because car companies want to make money, there’s a low price ( the minimum feasible price) for which a car company will not make any car. The price won’t go any lower. ( for the moment let’s pretend there aren’t used cars and junkers ) And within this simple market you have Tesla and you have, well Ford Fiesta or some other lower priced car. A for profit developer like a Mark Development has outside investors. And they want to maximize the feasible range, and go beyond it, to make a profit. They may also see this as a “public good”, which is their right, and it’s basically the way most manufactured items are sold.
So housing – as the link above with the article about housing prices in Seattle shows – depends on what the for profit developers are willing to build to make money. To profit on quantity alone ( Ford Fiesta ) requires scales that probably can’t be done in housing compared to auto manufacturing. Steve Jobs brilliance was to turn a computer shopping experience to be like walking into an art gallery. And he refused to compete on price alone. And they became one of the most profitable companies in the world, selling a premium product. The Tesla of computers if you will.
This brings me to your criticism of councilor Norton.
To the best of my knowledge, she voted against Austin Street because she preferred a nonprofit developer be given the contract. That’s it as far as I know. That’s why I am voting for her. She has the clear understanding that a nonprofit developer would’ve created better affordable housing. Now we have, what in my opinion looks like rather poor construction ( Washington Place at least seems better constructed ) , going for $3000 a month for a one bedroom like 500 ft.² or something like that. That’s why your criticism, in my opinion, of councilor Norton is misguided.
So I take it you think that the market can’t solve the problem and government subsidies are needed like section 8 housing, etc. rent control would be another one. NYC has still I think 1 million rent controlled apartments- would you be in favor of that? I lived in one when I was in college, in Brookline. A nice 2 bedroom that went condo the year I moved out. They are now clearly not affordable ( Egmont Street in Brookline).
Rent control went out of fashion in the Boston area. Maybe it’s time to bring it back?
But I’m glad you agree that we can’t build our way to affordable housing. And the residents in the north side want to, for the most part, see the heights come down. That’s it. It’s not “no development” it’s not NIMBYISM ( we are already one of the denser neighborhoods, and economically diverse neighborhoods especially as you move into a Newton corner and nonantum.)
Why was Marti’s follow-up post taken down?
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/9/18/20861446/new-york-city-chinatown-gentrification-lower-east-side?fbclid=IwAR1qS0o_RurVDnUbfgRZWwK7Fv-6Tygymz7A65615zoNMQuvf6957mcJP2o
I will be the one to ask again: where is @Marti’s follow up post? Why was it removed? Net neutrality!
Sean, I think one of the reasons that you get people so riled up is your “tsk tsk” tone.
@Path Irwin – I’m not sure what you’re referring to. I can’t see any comment from Marti that was removed.
@Sean you’ve previously asked me to give you ideas for posts that don’t include the links between racism and zoning. How about these: We’ve already decided that we will have cannabis retail in Newton. Should we be discussing how it is being implemented?
1. should we be following Cambridge’s progressive lead and prioritize Economic Empowerment candidates for licenses over the big, Wall-Street-backed multi-state firms (Ascend, Union Twist, MedMen) that we are currently signing licenses with?
2. should the mayor be the only elected official that has a say on which applicants should get a license? The city Council currently has no input on the applicants.
3. The city council promised to re-look at the dispensary zoning that they hurriedly rushes through at the end of last year, but haven’t taken it up. Do we really want 5000 square-foot stores in high impact locations or should they be more modest store similar to Vape shops and less high traffic areas?
Jerry, Marti’s long comment to Sean was a separate post, but it disappeared.
Marti moved her comment to the thread at my suggestion. I suggested it was better to keep this conversation in one place. She agreed and removed her thread.
What Sarah said
@Greg: Marti moved her comment to what thread? Ditto on what Sarah said.
From Bryan Barash’s Patch interview
“The single most pressing issue facing our ward, and our city, is preparing for a sustainable future. We must be proactive rather than reactive, putting detailed plans in place for our transportation network, to add much-needed housing distributed fairly across Newton while preserving the city’s character, and to improve our environmental sustainability. These issues are interrelated, and I want to work with other elected officials and residents to lead Newton into the future on our terms rather than letting the future happen to us.”
I would like to point out that Bryan has said he is interested in “preserving the city’s character.”
So ( too ) much has been made about the language people use, on this thread in particular, I felt obligated to post this.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.