Here’s the NewTV/Newton League of Women Voters debate between between Julia Malakie and Carolina Ventura who are running for the Ward 3 City Council seat being vacated by Barbara Brousal-Glaser.
Decision 2019: Ward Three Ward Councilor from NewTV Government on Vimeo.
Since Julia Malakie is clearly opposed to NewCAL in Albemarle or any park, would consider retaining the existing Senior Center, which could be combined with any new smaller senior center, is for much more limited additional growth, density and housing, and is for preservation of the architectural character of the city, while Carolina Ventura appears in large part to take either an opposing or less supportive view on those points, IMHO Ms. Malakie is the preferable candidate. Coupled with that, Ms. Malakie’s background on the tree commission makes her an ideal choice for those like me, who would favor an aggressive tree planting program throughout the city, with reinstated significant city funding for that purpose (as was the case years ago), both for quality of life and beautification as well as a natural step for carbon offset.
Very good discussion with excellent questions.
Let ‘s elect both.
I was impressed by Julia Malakie’s knowledge on the issues in Newton and on how local government works.
I’d like to know how the candidates would support Newton’s new residential sidewalk snow clearing ordinance.
LOL, I think the reason we both look so happy and relaxed in this frame grab is the debate was over! They’d forgotten to put the ‘so and so is a ___ and has lived in Newton for x years’ into the teleprompter, so they had to redo the introduction at the end.
I thought Carolina did great, especially considering it’s probably her first political debate — but I would expect no less from a Wellesley grad, even without a law degree!
To answer Lucia’s question, it’s pretty much what I said in answer to, I think, the Ward 3 debate in the church basement last time. I support the snow shoveling ordinance because we need people of all ages to be able to walk safely in winter. I would not have delayed implementation of the fines for so long, because they are unfortunately what it takes to get better compliance. Everyone has seen houses with well-cleared driveways and uncleared sidewalks. Except for really low-car traffic small cul-de-sacs, I wish unpaved (grass and gravel) sidewalks were not exempted, because people still have to walk somewhere, and interruptions like these in otherwise shoveled blocks force people out into the street. I appreciate people like my across the street neighbor on Larkin who clears the grass portion of his sidewalk on Murray Road.
I also appreciate the people lucky enough to be on sidewalk plowing routes, where the heavy lifting is done for them, that clean up after the plows or bobcats. I’ve walked on frozen treadmarks on Grove Street to get to Riverside/Logan Airport, and find it’s easier to walk on a few inches of slightly crusty snow, than it is to walk on icy tread residue.
Many snowblower owners are great about voluntarily helping out their neighbors by doing their whole block, especially if they’re retired and have the time. But there is a cost in fuel as well as time. I would like to see newtonma.gov host, or link to, an online clearinghouse, searchable by street, analogous to Airbnb for rooms or Lyft for rides, for people who are willing to snowblow for neighbors, to post their rates (including ‘free’) and a little coverage area map. Maybe someone has invented such a website already, but if not, I’m sure there are NNHS and NSHS kids who could do it!
I know there are advocates for having the city take on all sidewalk plowing, but I don’t see that as realistic. Aside from how to pay for it — what would we cut, or would it be an operating override, based on an average snowfall year? — who are the people, and who buys and owns the equipment, that could spring into action and clear all the sidewalk on as quickly, and within 24 hours, as 20-something thousand homeowners working simultaneously?
Julia presents herself well, is courteous, and knows what she’s talking about. However, I think she represents a Newton of the past and Carolina is looking toward the future. I’m looking forward to casting my vote for Carolina.
There used to be a city list of people who would shovel your walks. I don’t know where that went. Kids are so busy with homework, and Newton parents would rather the kids do their homework than shovel.
When my son was younger, after a big snow he and some friends would walk around and shovel people for 20 bucks or so (often they would get more). But he was too busy to do that all the time.
It’s difficult to find a reliable snow plower – we had some non – snow years some of them stopped doing it as it wasn’t worth it. And now they do the commercial lots first, and you’re lucky if they show up at all.
So I ended up buying a snowblower when my “snowblower” went to college.
I think if they are going to start fining people for not doing their walks, it’s only fair to not plow residential sidewalks. Only those *directly* in front of the schools or other city buildings.
I notice that the sidewalks on Beacon Street from the Whole foods to Newton Center are routinely plowed. I find this unfair, as my block is one block from Horace Mann school (at least the old Horace Mann school) and was never plowed.
Stop plowing the “rich people’s” sidewalks. They can hire someone.
Julia Malakie’s closing point in the debate is crucial: if we get (or continue to get) housing and development wrong, we’ll be stuck with the consequences permanently. It’s true, as Carolina Ventura says, that change is coming to Newton whether we like it or not–and much has come already–but to me Washington Place is living proof we’ve been cooperating a bit too smoothly with developers. And as Julia observes, rents at 28 Austin Street now begin at about $2800. (1/1) and go up to about $6000. (2/2) and more. For whom is that affordable? In the present climate I prefer a candidate who’s willing to push back a bit more and “collaborate” a bit less.
Excellent points Elizabeth. I completely agree!!
@Elizabeth – I believe those numbers you are quoting for the Austin St project are for the market rate apartments, not the ‘affordable’ ones.
Yes, Jerry, fair enough, but they’re still indicative of how profitable the property is for the developers. I believe only 15% of the property is set aside for affordable units.
Elizabeth you have your facts wrong….
33% affordable units at Austin street (the percentages vary by what you call affordable but way above 15%)
25% afforable at Washington place
Feel free to still oppose both but please let’s all use the same set of facts. Or at least use the google. ;)
For the record the affordable stuff is confusing and you probably mixed up these projects with 40b which only requires 15% I think.
Well the market rate apartments are just that – market rate.
You say “… and go up to about $6000. (2/2) and more. For whom is that affordable”
If the answer is “no one” than those prices will drop. If people pay it then that’s indeed the market rate.
I’m with you though. I have hard time imagining anyone paying those prices …. although I’ve found myself saying that in the last few years about other apartments in the area and then hearing that they have rented at what seem like crazy prices to me.
@Jerry
Prices will drop. But only so far, or the building will be out of business.
They made a bet that what they spent in construction and maintenance will yield them a profit. And like any product, it has a price below which they will lose money, and, that cannot go in for long ( well unless you’re Uber or WeWork)
@Fignewtonville Thanks for the correction about percentages. I’m glad to see that Washington Place is at 25%. Could I ask where you got the figure for Austin St? Also, my understanding is that 40B requires a minimum of 25% affordable–that’s why developers can override local restrictions to build these projects.
I looked on the city’s website which advertised the affordable units and divided by total number of units. The hard part to explain is that I think not all the units are at the same level. As in some are targeted to lower incomes than others I think. Amy probably has this stuff in her head, perhaps she will chime in to make sure we have it right. But way above 15% either way.
As for 40b I can’t keep the percentages straight either I guess! Makes sense that it would be higher.
Austin street is almost done. Folks must be moving in soon. It will be interesting to see if folks think it was worth the bruhaha after it is finished.
@fignewtonville – all the Austin st apartments are affordable at the 80% of AMI level. At washington place the units are – 15% at an average of 65% AMI and an additional 10% at the 80%-110% AMI – for at total of 25%.
Regarding 40b (from a CHAPA fact sheet)
To qualify for Chapter 40B, a development proposal must first be approved under a state or federal housing program, such as MassHousing, MassDevelopment, the Department of Housing and Community Development, or the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. At least 25% of the units
must be affordable to lower income households who earn no more than 80% of the area median income (Alternatively, for rental housing, the project can provide 20% of the units to households below 50% of median income.) Towns are allowed to establish a local preference for residents (currently, up to 70% of the units can be for local preference).
Susan Albright — thanks for the statistic. But the problem remains. The market rate apartments are exorbitantly priced and will set a benchmark for the even larger Washington Place apartments and others (including the massive (!!) Northland project) will follow suit on pricing and drive up rental prices on native rental housing stock and make it harder to live here, not more accessible.
Plus the burdens on city services (including schools) are vastly underestimated by the developers’s projections that you are accepting hook, line and sinker. This will drive real estate taxes for the current residents.
You — like the Mayor — live in an area buffered from all the impacts of this rush to let developer run the City.
You zoning plan is for the birds — the (over)development vultures!
A comment has been removed because the same poster is using two user names, a violation of our comments policy. That person is invited to republish under their previously used name.
Well, the horse has left the barn on Austin St and Washington Place, and I guess we won’t know their real impact on affordability in Newton until the horse will have also left the barn on several other large projects.
Elizabeth:
That’s not entirely true in my view. We have 50 units of affordability being added, of various sizes. Will these projects reduce rents for the region? Nope.
Even if you subtract the loss of the “affordable” units that were not protected on site of Washington place, that’s a large net gain of affordable units and all units are restricted as such forever.
This is probably the wrong thread for this discussion.
Elizabeth,
If Newton hadn’t approved and developers hadn’t built Washington Place and Austin St., what do you think would be happening with rents in Newtonville? In Newton?
Are you saying that the developments are the cause of rents in other buildings going up? If so, how does that work?
Fignewtonville and Sean Roche, I’m neither a financier nor an economist. Abe Zoe’s post about the impact of the new developments seems to me just as plausible as the rosy projections I’ve seen from apologists for those developments, and I was responding primarily to his point. In truth, I don’t believe anyone really knows what the impact will be on affordability. The impact on quality of life in Newton seems to me obvious already. But I agree this is probably the wrong thread for this discussion.
Simple plan for a better Newton: more new trees planted and less new housing constructed.