Here’s an interesting Tweet from Newton City Councilor and Charles River Watershed Association Executive Director Emily Norton from the student-lead Boston Climate Strike.
I spoke to #NewtonMA students before they left for #BostonClimateStrike — I said none of your leaders are doing enough, not Newton City Council, not #maleg — pressure us to do more! #ActOnClimate #CitiesLead #StatesLead #ClimateStrike pic.twitter.com/CpCrKt7xsj
— Emily Norton (@_EmilyNorton) September 20, 2019
Do you think the Newton City Council is doing enough to combat climate change? What more should it do?
This is rich. Perhaps more than anyone on the City Council, Emily Norton has been a major roadblock for any new, sustainable development in this city.
Experts are now saying that densely built living/working space is MUCH better for our climate and emits MUCH less carbon into the atmosphere than single family homes. How does Councilor Norton sort out her hypocrisy on this issue?
By a mile, the SINGLE biggest and most significant environmental enhancement the City can make, including to offset carbon, is save Webster Woods (and preserve all the trees and natural habitat therein). NOTHING else the city could do would come close.
I’m sure this will prove to be a very civil thread
Ryan, since most of Newton currently is single family homes and lots with surrounding greenspace, rather than replacing them with densely built housing construction (presumably eliminating most of the lot’s green space), why not residents be encouraged (through City Council enacted incentive or otherwise) to let their surrounding green space revert to natural condition, both enhancing biodiversity and maximizing carbon dioxide sequestration. That could have a very substantial positive impact — at essentially no City cost, actually savings in owners’ lawn maintenance.
100% on reverting lawns.
Jim, we actually agree on Webster Woods. I certainly don’t like the way it is being done, but preserving those woods would make a big environmental difference vs paving/bricking over the space.
With that said, this particular thread is kinda silly. I don’t think making a fuss about a line in a tweet is worthy of discussion, especially in an election season. I see very little daylight in the environmental views of the Bryan and Emily, except for their views on development.
I will say that if Emily believes this type of change is needed, she should run for mayor or statewide office. Or at least join the conversation about what more she wants the city council to accomplish on this issue.
Jim, I believe these projects will actually end up creating more public greenspace if they’re approved and built than if we allow the lots to sit largely empty as they are today (I’m specifically thinking about Riverside and Needham Street here). In fact, the heat-island effect of the massive parking lots at both locations is only adding to Newton’s climate footprint…
Fig, if you don’t like how a substantial carbon dioxide sequestering Webster Woods is being sought by the city — that is, if negotiations with BC fail, then endeavor to acquire by eminent domain — would what you suggest?
Ryan, I wasn’t referring to dense housing projects replacing largely massive parking lots, rather dense housing projects replacing existing single family lots. Also, public greenspace requiring polluting lawn maintenance etc. is not a net gain in carbon offset, only greenspace left in its natural condition (or with new development, first planted and then left in its natural condition).
If Councilor Norton thinks it’s so important for the Council to do more about climate change then why isn’t she proposing action and leading the charge? Instead, as Ryan Williams points out, all she does is hypocritically obstruct progress. What she also does, as recently noted in the Patch, is constantly lie about her campaign challenger Bryan Barash’s stand on issues. If you’re a ward 2 resident who wants to move Newton into the future, whether it be about the environment or development or if you’re like me and you’re sick and tired of the crumbling state of our streets and sidewalks, then vote for change. Bryan Barash will be respectful and responsive to your needs and will represent you. He will not disrespectfully stonewall and constantly push a minority viewpoint. Speaking of climate change, what a nice breath of fresh air that would be!
Jim, are you earnestly or sarcastically suggesting that we replace single family homes with mixed-use developments? I’m leaning toward the latter.
Ryan, while I personally would be way more than opposed to replacing single family homes/lots, since many advocates of dense new housing development of sufficient degree to actually significantly increase affordability, diversity, and density/proximity to Boston in terms of traffic etc., then yes replacing single family homes/lots (the majority of land within Newton) would be on the table.
If I’m misreading such advocates, for instance Bryan Barash comes to mind, I’d certainly stand corrected.
Come on. Building dense housing near energy efficient transit is the best thing communities like Newton can do to combat climate change. Imagining a post-car Newton and greater Boston is an urgent task. Is Councilor Norton interested in any of this? If not, what does she think metros like Newton can do to fight climate change? Do I need to recite the scientific evidence for the urgency of all this?
To add more housing units at single family units, increasing the paved surfaces ( loss of green space and tree canopy = more heat ), to accommodate the increased number of cars serving those units, not to mention the fumes/ co2 from those cars, and the addition to existing traffic jambs, just simply is counter to a better environment!
“Density is the Problem”, not the solution !
Blueprintbill: your argument, while scary sounding, is demonstrably false. I won’t do your homework for you but dense transit-oriented development is good for the climate and takes cars off the road in the long run. This is universally recognized as a fact among experts on the matter. I am no expert, but I’ve been well served in life by listening to them…
I’m extremely disappointed that the City Council takes no action to put forth a concrete proposal to reduce the Council size.
I was hopeful that Emily would be a leader on this issue showing the same enthusiasm and determination she shows for climate change and the environment.
V14 has an odd obsession with Emily Norton.
It’s creepy.
What Paul said. Get a life, gentlemen!
I agree with Paul and Pat. I wish we had a legitimate blog / website for the city.
I agree with @Paul and @Pat … what’s going on here? It’s been “pile on Emily” by @Sean Roche and @Greg Reibman to the dramatic exclusion of any of the other city council candidates. What gives here? It’s starting to look shady, guys. Almost like you’re trying to give free ad space to her challenger.
Methinks some folks doth protest too much.
I posted Councilor Norton’s tweet and said it was an “interesting tweet.”
Let me repeat that: she wrote it. All I did was quote it.
If that strikes you as somehow negative or piling on, then perhaps the problem is with the message, not the messenger.
A little explanation about why I pile on one city councilor to the exclusion of others. Because the particular councilor made ill-formed comments about driving in Newton. Nope, sorry, that was this councilor. Because the particular councilor made racially offensive comments in an official council meeting about parking. Wait, wrong again, another, different councilor. Because the particular councilor addressed the racially offensive comment in an official council meeting about parking behind closed doors. Hmm, yeah, different councilor again. Because the particular councilor was embarrassingly ill-prepared for a League of Women Voters forum. Shoot, I was sure that was this councilor. Because the particular councilor made disturbingly nativist comments in a candidate forum. Oh, now this is embarrassing. A candidate for a different ward seat. Because the particular councilor made repeated mistakes of fact in a candidate forum. I’m going to have to stop. I misremembered again.
Why isn’t anyone talking about the energy repercussions of the building a center that will attract apx 800 seniors a day, mainly using cars to get to Abermarle. There is no public transportation directly there, nearest bus is one block away. There is no village center in walking distance. The most dangerous intersection in Newton is AT the entrance to the park, discouraging bikers and walkers alike (two accidents this past weekend alone). I just see clouds of smoke when I think of that.
@Ryan,
“Universally recognized as a fact by experts “, ??? Paid by whom, developers, real estate investment trusts,… ?
Common sense , “experts” aside, dictates that if you pave over the yard to accommodate additional cars (bicycles in January, Febuary & March excepted ), you lose ground cover, add heat, increase auto traffic and compromise the environment!
“Density IS the Problem”, and to the extent it can be minimized so much the better for the “Garden City”.
@Peter Kay – if you with there were a better blog, go start one. It’s not that hard and you can start a free one on several platforms such as WordPress.
Blueprintbill: I could spend a whole lot of time and energy copy and pasting a bunch of different studies here on Village 14. It would be much more efficient if you just went http://www.google.com and educated yourself on the facts. Come back when you have more than boilerplate NIMBY talking points.
I get it….V14 is not “journalisms”….just guys that lost their jobs in journalism…but like @paul said (correctly), this obsession with Emily is super creepy!
Public scrutiny is part and parcel with being an elected public official. It takes a lot of courage to put your name out there and while I don’t always agree with Emily, I admire her for that.
Instead of whining about that public scrutiny, I would suggest that people actually engage in our democracy and advance a counter argument instead. Go ahead… no one is stopping you!
@Matt Lai – most of the V14 posters/moderators have never been journalists.
I disagree with several of them on a variety of issues and find a couple completely annoying, but that’s ok – no one’s forcing me to read their posts. Sometimes I’ll argue with them, sometimes I’ll decide to just avoid that particular thread.
There are few blogs I like to follow (the other excellent local one that really is a news source is UniversalHub). If I consistently dislike a blog, I don’t read it. If I consistently dislike one poster on a multi-owner blog, I don’t read that person’s posts. It’s not like anything’s forcing you to read V14 or anything else.
Matt, Emily tends to be at the front line on a bunch of issues. Environment, development, charter commission. She was the actual face and voice of the group opposing the charter revisions!
I’ve had 5 conversations this week alone about the Ward 2 race. In my neighborhood alone there are 20 signs! It is a bit nuts, but that is what happens with a contested race.
I gotta say though, this idea that normal discussion of the most front and center city councilor of the day is somehow unfair is just so much poppycock. From the new “creepy” designation to the old school “cesspool” criticism, I’m super sick of the complaining. There are a huge number of supporters of Emily on the blog, even if she only rarely graces us with her presence these days. They are very vocal. They post often. From Amy to you folks, Emily doesn’t lack for a cheering squad of supporters.
I get it. No one likes their candidate to be criticized. But we’ve had multiple posts about Bryan about Jake, etc. She’s the biggest personality in the city council right now. And Village 14 tends to post more about the major issues of the day…which happens to be the very things Emily is most interested in as well.
What Fig said, except, how was Norton criticized in this thread? It’s her tweet. What didn’t you like about it Matt?
I will also add this, and I hope Emily takes this to heart. Because it is meant as honest criticism, and if she remains my ward councilor it will matter to my community.
I’ve tried to be involved in multiple projects in my village over the years, including Cabot Elementary. I’ve run across many folks who absolutely love Emily, and many folks who have the opposite feelings. But also lots of folks in the middle. Most of my neighbors are in the middle. Sort of torn. They like both candidates.
But there has been one consistent criticism of Emily from her detractors and folks in the middle. If you disagree with her or criticize her position, she tunes you out. She stops listening. And she takes it personally.
I think a lot of people passionate about issues do this. If I’m being honest, I do it as well, although less now as I’m getting older and more tired. And with so much chatter now on electronic media, it is easier than ever to do this. If I pushed as hard as she does on her issues, perhaps I’d do the same. It is tough being the lightning rod for something as controversial as the charter reform opposition and not put up some barriers. But the barriers definitely exist.
I have no idea if Bryan would do the same. He’s an unknown in this area. And I think Emily is very popular in the ward and lots of folks support her. But I don’t hear the same criticism about either Jake or Susan, and folks in particular praise Jake’s willingness to talk about the issues with you even if he thinks you are completely wrong.
Look, in the end, no matter how passionate this stuff gets we are all going to have to live in the same community. And we should all try and listen more to the views of folks who disagree with us. Maybe we find common ground, maybe we don’t. But I think we’d be better for it.
But our public officials need to be leaders in this regard and help show us the way. And that goes for Emily, for Greg, for Sean, for everybody.
And Greg, maybe let the Ward 2 candidates rest for a bit. There is a long way to election day.
@Greg R. — Here is a simple question? How many other of our 24 councilors do you repeatedly link their city council roles to their day jobs? It seems to be a favorite tactic for you during election season for this councilor.
@Greg C. Newtonville has two new dense developments (three if you count the nearby Sunrise), and those Newtonville developments have a lot more affordable housing than they would if we had the 100% at-large rubber stamp city council that’s Emily’s opponent advocated for. What big developments have been “blocked” in Newtonville? Newton needs diverse viewpoints represented on the council. It makes our project better.
@Peter Karg — Emily led the 1st-in-history successful (and ordinarily override proof) 17-6 vote in favor of reducing city council size. Her opponent helped block Newton voters from getting the option to vote that up or down, as his group’s agenda was clearly to eliminate locally-elected representation, not to reduce the size of the council, as their lead tag lines claimed in the charter fight. I very naively thought they would be thrilled to get half way to their goal after loosing at ballot box. Instead the council is 50% larger now than it might be if Emily’s opponent and allies didn’t block the effort to let residents vote 8-8 up or down.
Ward 2 wanted locally-elected representation retained, yet in his 2 years on the charter commission (a public service omitted from most of his bios), Emily’s opponent didn’t discuss the merits of that option (all meetings have detailed minutes and its not there). This council doesn’t have the votes to pass 8-8. It may have the votes to eliminate local representation though depending on how the election goes.
@Jordan — “Building dense housing near energy efficient transit” — Bryan’s and his financial backers claim Newtonville/WashingtonSt. developments are transit-oriented, yet he personally drives right pass the commuter rail station next to his home in and out of Boston each day. That’s a perfectly fine personal choice (although not one Emily made when working for Sierra Club when she rode the rail each day) but not if you are going to claim these Newtonville projects are transit-oriented. Newtonville has a great walk-score, but a middling transit-score.
Your figliness,
I appreciate your wisdom. I really do. I read your comments and wish I had your insight and your way with words.
But, I’m really going to have to disagree with you on two points. First, it’s not just about a councilor’s day job v. their position on housing. That part doesn’t bother me.
There aren’t a whole lot of levers that at city can pull to reduce climate change. And, the city is pulling on some of them. But, one of the biggest is reducing emissions from transportation. Increasing density, particularly, but not exclusively, near transit, even imperfect transit, reduces driving. The councilor’s self-proclaimed leadership on environmental issues (at least somewhat merited), their refusal to answer a very simple set of questions about the relationship between density and fighting climate change, and their very public leadership on development skepticism is creating a political problem. It is a form of climate-change denialism that distorts the conversation.
Yes, there are other councilors for whom there are higher priorities than climate change when it comes to development. But, they aren’t greenwashing.
Second, there are higher priorities than whether or not I get along with the group of people I feel are promoting environmental, social, and economic injustice. Those priorities include environmental, social, and economic justice.
Civility is a tool designed to maintain the status quo. Planet’s burning. We don’t have time for civility.
And a minor point. There are thirty-two days to a low-turnout, low-information, high-stakes election. Not a lot of time at all.
The path to less driving is to FIRST address the public transit system that underserves its riders.
Adding housing and people en masse before addressing transit….is like trying to lose weight…on a steady diet of cheeseburgers. And frankly it’s not fair to those of us that live in this community now.
Okay, Matt, now we’re talking!
You seem to be acknowledging that, yes, dense housing near transit is a tool to fight climate change. (Not trying to put words in your keyboard. If I’ve got it wrong, let me know.)
Where we part company is on the urgency of adding housing and whether or not you need “fixed” transit to get the climate-change benefit.
But, you don’t appear to be denying the consensus that density helps with the climate crisis.
Yes, we are getting somewhere, Sean!
I’m not against density….just irresponsible density.
Traffic, schools, etc…build up the infrastructure and resources needed to support the density first…and I’ll cut the ribbon myself.
Oh, and transit! Fix that too first, before adding the density!
Who can lead us on fixing transit??
Thanks, Matt.
If you don’t mind, I’m going to put you in the climate change is important, but not as important as traffic, schools, infrastructure, &c., camp, which is regrettable, but, unlike the councilor’s position, not that newsworthy.
@Sean: I find it mysterious that you clamor for high density development, yet we rarely hear you call out the T for it’s substandard service, which is the key to allegedly getting cars off the road. If it isn’t greatly improved, and soon,, an enormous glut will result (spoiler alert: happening already) with all the new construction in progress, not just in Newton. As Matt said: infrastructure first. What’s the big rush? (Hint: I think I know.)
Sean and some others think that if we build build build and create small parking lots people will simply ditch their cars because they have no place to park it. No, it won’t work that way. Plenty of us have inadequate parking situations, we park on the street, and we shuffle our cars during the parking ban. The T isn’t good enough in Newton for people to rely on in lieu of an automobile. It just isn’t. In West Newton all we have are express busses and the CR which are literally only useful for commuters. I’m pro-development for the most part but we should be advocating HARD for better T service in Newton before we build and naively hope people won’t bring their cars.
Sorry I’m not newsworthy Sean. I guess it’s the downside of not proactively trying to be (newsworthy).
So why do I comment here?
Newton is not that big. I’m sure we know some of the same people. Fairly certain you’re not personally as Green, as you are enthusiastic about letting developers screw the public, and flood our City with density before infrastructure. If Emily is allowed to continue her work on transit, perhaps we’ll be at the same ribbon cutting ceremony some day.
Until that day, it’s going to take a lot more to convince me to, “do as (Sean) says, not do what (Sean) does.”
Walk the walk, brother!
Happy Thursday!
(PS. I’m writing from the T.) 🙂
Matt, I agree that public transit in this state needs dramatic upgrades. But in Newton, building density near mass transit is the best way to get the MBTA to prioritize resources into our city.
The T is cash strapped and looking to do a lot with very little. With major problems in other parts of the state (particularly Boston and the commuter rail), I doubt expanding T access in one of the state’s wealthiest communities is near the top of MassDOT’s list of things to do. If we build near (or close) to T stations, it will dramatically increase ridership in Newton and perhaps require the MBTA to make upgrades in Newton by virtue of just needing to serve more customers. It’s just not realistic to think the MBTA will increase resources here without a substantial increase in rider demand first.
But, let’s be honest Matt–I’ve been a “lurker” here for some time and I’ve read many of your comments. Your organizing principal on this blog seems to be opposing real estate projects and that’s about it. I doubt my argument–or any argument, for that matter–will move you. But facts are facts nonetheless.
@Ryan…
Your point is a good one. So much so that I’m taking a min break from my work morning to reply. 🙂
You are correct, the T needs capital to addresses these issues, and to your point, this is somewhat the chicken vs egg conundrum.
Where I’ve done a poor job is your comment that I, “(only oppose) real estate projects and that’s about it”. This could not be further from the truth.
Expecting Newton to be “Mayberry USA” is not realistic. Completely recognize that. Where you and I diverge is your faith that putting development in first, will spur the MBTA to take action. I disagree. Northland and Mark Development are not “mom & pop” organizations. They are well funded. Their pockets are deeper than I can fully appreciate (short of some luck with Powerball).
As the holder of the keys to their future, I HOPE that our elected officials can make a better deal for Newton, and not to approve these special permits until something substantive can be done about the MBTA. Perhaps compel the Developers to inject some of their capital to jumpstart the MBTA’s efforts to plan for and better support the density before the first brick is laid, not the other way around.
Beyond transportation, there is also the issue of schools. The City Council should ask for MORE financial concession regarding our schools – for more classroom space, teachers and supplies to in front of the added density.
The urgency is now. Newton has only one chance to get this right. Once the special permits are approved, the ability to revisit negotiations erode. Otherwise for those who live in Newton currently, quality of life will get much worse before it gets better.
You’re missing my point. We simply won’t get more money from the MBTA without more rider demand first. Transit oriented development is the only way we increase that demand.
I completely agree that Newton’s elected officials should be doing everything possible to extract more resources from the MBTA and developers alike. I think they are doing a good job in that regard. Don’t forget that both projects you mention would be massively tax revenue positive once they are built. The proposals have also improved dramatically since first being introduced, thanks to the advocacy and hard work of the City Council along with a whole lot of community input.
When it comes to our transit argument, you could say it’s a “chicken vs egg conundrum” but it really isn’t. It’s simple: more housing near mass transit = more T customers = more leverage for our elected officials to push for additional resources.
The Greenline is so overcrowded that it is virtually inhuman to spend more than 20 minutes on a train without feeling nauseated. A 45 min ride from Boston or Cambridge is interminable. You cannot squeeze any more people in these tin cans. They are packed. The T needs to be updated and expanded before you expect MORE people to ride it. Dense development near the Greenline means more cars in the road. Period.
@Ryan: I’m chiming in to the chicken and egg school of thought. “Build it and they will come” is hopelessly old-school in this situation. You think someone is going to miraculously pump money into the T just because ridership goes up? Can you cite a precedent? Dream on.
Pat, I won’t do your research for you but there are many examples. Ever hear of Assembly Row in Somerville?
SoccerMommy, the T is already committed to doubling capacity on the Green Line. My point is that if we want more Newton-specific investments, we need more demand in Newton.
For your consideration in this discussion:
I live about 5 to 10 minute walk to Newton Highlands T. I would take the T regularly when going to Logan AP (Green Line to Blue Line, or Green to Red to Silver) — or destinations not too far from T Stops when going into Boston (no hassle with parking etc.). That is, until I started taking Uber, so much easier, time saving, comfortable and not too costly. My family does the same.
I bet there are others like me. Uber/Lyft etc. should be factored into projected T usage, even with improvements.
The MBTA’s GLT (Green Line Transformation) team gave a presentation at the Newton Public Library on 9/23. According to the GLT team, they know the Green line is already overcapacity. They have a multiple-step project plan to addresss this, including the introduction of new train cars (Type 10 Supercars). Here’s the kicker: the plan to increase rider capacity by 50% will be completed by….wait for it….2040! Over two decades from now!
All of this new “transit-oriented” housing is coming on line WAY before 2040.
What’s the plan? Cutting parking spots in the new developments? Making biking more amenable to those who can do it 12 months/year? I’m guessing we’ll all be sitting in Uber/Lyft-induced traffic jams.
@NewtonResident: It’s absolutely true that the MBTA improvements aren’t happening as quick as we need them. But (and I was at the same MBTA presentation you were at) it’s disingenuous to lead people to believe the Riverside line improvements are all 30 years away. That timeline is for an entire project. We will see benefits (again, not as much as we need but still benefits) as soon as the current track/signal replacements are completed later this year. And we need to push the Baker Administration to accelerate its public transit improvements.
@Greg: the Baker administration’s push is housing, Housing, HOUSING! Do you have an ear with him? Is he saying he’s going to push the T to speed up it’s timeline? Didn’t think so. Let’s use some common sense: this is putting the cart before the horse. One doesn’t need a crystal ball to see a lot more road rage coming down the Pike.
Actually Pat, the Newton-Needham Chamber is working very closely with business groups across the state on delivering a message to Beacon Hill calling for an accelerated schedule and revenue to address our transportation needs. I’m optimistic that we will see some incremental progress.
And housing is very much joined at the hip with transportation. 85 percent of Newton residents commute out of Newton for jobs while 89 percent of Newton workers commute here from somewhere else. That’s why we have such horrible rush hours.
I said the project would be completed in 2 decades, not 30 years.
Yes, D line work will be done by the end of 2020 to allow trains to go faster in some stretches between Beaconsfield and Riverside. This is only part of the issue, though. The current rail system, whereby the B, C, D, and E lines all merge into the same tracks in the city, limits what you can do to really improve capacity. You can’t run more trains than the eventual merged, underground tracks (Kenmore-Govt Ctr) can accommodate. This fact was fully acknowledged at the MBTA GLT meeting.
@greg….
Your efforts in the NNC (N2) with Beacon Hill are very much appreciated. The question comes down to who owns the BURDEN OF PROOF.
For the public to embrace the scale, the burden of proof sits with Beacon Hill (or MBTA) via Northland, to PROVE OUT that the transportation needs will be addressed BEFORE the proposed scale is accepted.
It could be in the form of a formal announcement that schedules will be accelerated. Less time between trains. Assurances that measures are put in place to ensure signals do not fail regularly (and in fact it’s been better of late – but winter has not started yet). It could also be guarantees from Northland that the TDM is more than just shuttles to Newton Highlands (which I’ve mentioned in other comments).
And lest not forget the schools. $1.5m is effectively the a duplex condo and a half. Insufficient to meet the potential demand from all the 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units proposed. If not a larger infusion of $$, or onsite space for a school, then perhaps they can reconfigure their alignment and remove many of the 2 and 4 bedroom units and add more 1 and 2 bedroom units – especially since they continue to tout their desire to provide housing for millennial and downsizing community. Or reserve the larger units for affordable/workforce housing.
These would be sincere tactics to gain public support. Or just reduce the scale.
You’ve got influence with Northland, Greg. Your help would be much appreciated.
PS That’s just spit balling between (work) meetings, Greg. If you want to grab a beer sometime, it’s on me.
@Matt: A beer summit sounds like a splendid idea! I’m in.
But I will share part of what I would say then, now. We can’t afford to wait. Our planet is getting warmer. Our weather is becoming less predicable. We need to do everything now that we can to curb suburban sprawl and the green house gases that are coming from forcing people to move further and further from their jobs. That means, more multi-family housing and transportation fixes. We can’t wait to do one now and one later.
@Greg: you’re “optimistic”. ‘A bird in the hand’, as they say. “Incremental” will be meaningless to everyone stuffed like sardines staring out at crowds waiting for car after car to go by before one stops with enough room to board. The T, unlike a private carrier, has no incentive to speed things up. What could Baker do – threaten to shut it down?
@Pat: Yes, I’m optimistic because I believe our elected leaders know that they can’t keep kicking the can down the road on these things.
Will we wake up one day and everything is fixed, no? But we can make progress.
As Councilor Norton said to those kids gathered on the steps of City Hall last month….”none of our leaders are doing enough, not Newton City Council” We must “pressure” them “to do more!”
That’s, as you would say, is speaking truth to power. Now let’s pressure Norton and our other electeds need to do more!
The Green-line is so overcrowded that it is virtually inhuman to spend more than 20 minutes on a train without feeling nauseated. A 45 min ride from Boston or Cambridge is interminable. You cannot squeeze any more people in these tin cans. They are packed. The T needs to be updated and expanded before you expect MORE people to ride it. Dense development near the Green line means more cars in the road. Period.
The funny thing is, I took the Green Line from my (rent controlled) apartment in Brookline into Back Bay for 6 years starting in 1979.
At rush hour, (about 4-7pm) it was always standing room only, from Kenmore out to Boston College. I didn’t take it inbound in the morning, and it was often very empty.
The problem is that the usage is so high at the peaks.
Nothing has changed since then, and it’s hard to imagine that they will ever run enough trains to make it be pleasant. Not without massive investment in some kind of high speed rail. Which maybe we will get someday, but I don’t see where that kind of money will come from.
I’ve never taken a rush hour subway anywhere (NYC, Paris, Hong Kong) that was pleasant. Probably the Hong Kong was the most pleasant, and most modern.
Oops sorry the first paragraph in my comment is a quote from SoccerMommy.
@greg
I am the proud father of a 15 year old, and I can say with the utmost sincerity, I care deeply about the environment.
That said, I still firmly believe that the special permit put forth by Northland has more to give (back to the community). And as I’ve learned more about the workings of city politics and processes this past year, I believe there is still room to close to gap to consensus – a fair partnership between Northland, Newton and it’s residence. Since I have to add my email address every time I comment, you know where to find me for that beer. 🙂
Cheers!
Want to get back to @ryan…..
Remember “trust falls” in grade/middle school?
No one is refuting there is a climate issue to address. But asking the public to “trust” that more housing will bring improvements to transit is asking too much. As it is the MBTA has asked for price hikes with no appreciable plan for improved service. Many Newton residents are not willing to simply fall back not to be caught.
And let’s look at this pragmatically… the MBTA has always been transparent that fare hikes and ridership are like plugging holes in a leaking dike. Their true issue is their pension obligations. True change can only be made with a capital infusion outside of fare increases.
But if say, a private Developer were willing to infuse the MBTA with the capital to address issues specific to their projects (i.e. Boston Landing); with guarantees and assurances, then it’s something the public can feel more comfortable supporting.
Matt,
Would you support Boston Landing-level development on Washington St.?
Apples and oranges Sean…. apples and oranges.
@Sean: you SO love high density development! I find it incompressible that you don’t MOVE somewhere ELSE that has it. WHY are you so insistent on bringing it HERE?! Groan.
Really? Anyone who wants to see improvements in their community should just move somewhere else where those improvements have already been made? That’s not how it works.
@Ryan not everyone agrees on what improvements are.
@Pat
Sean Roche like high-density development– for other people. He keeps living in his single-family house, in one of the richest parts of the City.
The old saying: Actions speak louder than words.
Sean cares about the enviroment– just as long as it doesn’t crimp on his lifestyle. But he has no issues ripping on other people for not being 100% pure on the issue.
Fraud.
@Rich…I agree, but that doesn’t mean someone should move out of town.
@Paul…I don’t think Sean is “ripping on other people” for living in single family homes. I think he is politely criticizing people who incorrectly disagree that high-density housing is an important component in fighting climate change.
I live in a single family home. But I would like to see more high-density housing in my neighborhood. Does that make me a fraud too?
@Ryan
If you believe low density housing is an important driver of causing climate change, constantly post on the topic, criticize others who may have stronger pro-environment bona fides but disagree on the priority of high density housing, and you’ve lived in a single-family home yourself for 20 years? Yeah, that’s being a hypocrite and a fraud.
20 years is a long time to make a conscious decision to live in low density housing when you so strongly believe its terrible for the environment. Makes you wonder what’s really genuine about that value system.
Paul,
You inspired a new post.
I’m a 3B. I accept that I’m not a burn-it-all-down 3C, but I could be convinced. But, for now, 3B would be a huge positive change.
Also, my moving to existing dense housing might seem like the most eco-warrior response, but it isn’t going to solve the problem. It’ll displace someone already there. We need to change our low-density spaces to higher density. I’m going to stay in Newton to fight. Maybe, I’ll move into an apartment down my street if one gets built and I’ll convert my home to a three-family!
Where do you stand?