The Emily Norton campaign forwarded this press release
The Campaign to Re-Elect Emily Norton announced today that over 550 voters in Ward 2 have endorsed Emily in her bid to continue representing Ward 2 on the Newton City Council. See the entire list at www.emilynorton.org/supporters.
In addition to Ward 2 supporters, endorsers across the city include City Council President Marc Laredo and Vice President David Kalis, numerous current and former City Councilors and School Committee members, and seven members of the Newtonville Area Council.
Emily is also endorsed by the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus, the Humane Society Legislative Fund, and the Sierra Club.
Emily’s colleagues on the Newton City Council emphasize her leadership as a key strength. Ward 3 Councilor Barbara Brousal-Glaser notes,
“For five years, I have watched Emily lead the way on some of the most important issues in front of the City Council. She has been instrumental in taking action for the health of the environment: from banning plastic bags to supporting solar installations to divesting the City of Newton from fossil fuel companies. She has fought for equity in the schools – opposing activity and sports fees and pushing for full-day kindergarten – before it was cool.”
City Council President Marc Laredo says,
“Emily is a leader on the City Council and a tireless advocate for Ward 2 and the environment.”
I don’t generally pay too much attention to endorsements but 550 voter endorsements from within the ward in a ward-only race is pretty impressive
What, another thread about Emily Norton? Are you guys for read? 😉
@Greg – We’re all for read. That’s why we come here
Ugh. “Real”
Actually, as a multi-term incumbent you’d think that by this point a lot more than 500 voters would be supporting you, so I’m not really very impressed at all. I’m sure that Norton’s opponent Bryan Barash has identified at least 500 supporters by now. Most interestingly, Barash has the support of a number of incumbent councilors. Over the years it’s been extremely rare for incumbents to endorse challengers to sitting councilors so the fact that Councilors Albright, Crossley, Downs, Greenberg, Kelley, Krintzman, and Noel have all endorsed him is far more significant than what Norton & her supporters are trying to make you believe with this thread.
Endorsement by voters? Isn’t that what voting is for?
I do not put much weight on Emily’s endorser list as I have several friends who show up on that list who do not, in fact, support Emily. I also have friends who had yard signs show up that did not ask for them, both this time around and 6 years ago when she first ran for the seat.
Emily would not put out signs that people don’t request. Sometimes, in my own campaigns, I’ve seen that one spouse will request a sign and the other isn’t aware and asks how it got there. Surprised me when it happened once in 2015 but now that I’m married I get it!
Since her signs are still up at those houses, I imagine whatever confusion existed has been resolved.
Sorry – Jake, one house in particular, the sign is now down and neither spouse requested or agreed to a sign.
@Andrea, it could have been placed my an over-zealous supporter. I am 100% confident that Emily wouldn’t be instructing her volunteers to place signs on peoples property w/o permission
Claire and Jake – there is still the question of the names on her endorser list who do not support her. I guess that happens sometimes, too?
And one more thing, I can’t help but notice that one of the endorsers Emily proudly claims is Alan Dechter, who is active in the so-called “Americans for Peace and Tolerance” group that has been harassing our teachers and falsely accusing them of anti-Semitism. Alan Dechter is actually the lead plaintiff in the frivolous, harassing lawsuit against our schools and teachers that has now been dropped. Bryan Barash, on the other hand, has been endorsed by the Newton Teachers Association. I know which endorsement I’d rather have.
How many folks voted last time in ward 2 when it was contested?
This is why it is really hard to knock off an incumbent in any race. Emily has a network of supporters, the benefit of a email list and established financial supporters, and she has been through the charter vote which allowed her to expand both.
I’ve always viewed Ward 2 as pretty much split regarding development, to be honest. But lots of folks don’t vote on that one issue. In fact, I think the majority don’t vote on that one issue. Lots of folks vote on the environment, familiarity, support for women candidates, support for other school issues, charter reform, etc.
Is it correct that Susan Albright isn’t supporting Emily’s relection, as someone stated above?
Fig,
As I mentioned elsewhere, there were just over 2,000 votes cast the last time the seat was contested. Councilor Norton won 1046/997.
@fig — apparently. See https://www.bryanbarash.com/endorsements.
On the battle of lawn sign, a home owner took down the Barash sign because “that nice young man” failed to point out that he was running against Emily Norton head-to-head and that he favored the ongoing development wave. So when the homeowner educated herself and found that out she swapped out his sign for a Norton sign.
Wow, how often does that happen? I’m shocked. Really.
I never thought they were close but an active endorsement of a political rival is surprising. That’s a pretty big story.
Did Emily endorse the two new candidates in Ward 2?
@Fig
Already backing away… Just two weeks ago you said the candidates were both strong and this election was pretty much about development. Faced with Emily showing 500+ endorsements (I think 800 was a win the last time Ward 2 was contested), the tune is changing already- just like it did with Charter reform, which was another proxy fight for development.
I don’t what data you have that supports Ward 2 being spliton development, but this election coming is as good as it gets.
Last contested election Councilor Norton won 1046 to 997. So, 500+ endorsements is impressive.
Expect the vote totals to be higher this year. It’s an incredibly well-funded, spirited campaign.
Paul, you are putting words in my mouth. Please don’t. I don’t do that to you…
Backing away from what exactly? I don’t think I ever said it was “pretty much about development”. And I’m sure I’ve talked about the power of being an incumbent before in regard to all three Ward 2 candidates. I believe I mostly talked about how it is good to have a choice and how Emily had a style that stood on principal and Bryan was more a believer in compromise.
Also, Emily has always had a very impressive list of folks endorsing her. She had a list she sent out on another thread! Not anything new there in my opinion….
Charter reform wasn’t a proxy fight on development. It was a proxy fight on ward councilors. And development. And size of the council. and local control. and…and…and….
I realize folks want to make these races into neat little buckets, but that is really hard to do. What do you say when Susan and Jake and Emily all win? And when Susan and Jake win ward 2, like they did the last time? That’s where I got my 50/50 split on development btw.
I think Emily is a really strong candidate. I think Bryan has run a terrific campaign as well.
As for what the results show…you tell me when it is all over. I’ll be happy to discuss either way. So long as you tell me what Susan and Jake winning mean as well, especially if they win the ward. 😉
@fig In the last two elections Emily made it very clear who she supported and it wasn’t me. I’ll never forget the very first debate in August of 2015 when there were 5 people running in 2015. Emily came to the studio to support her friends. She came into the room and gave high 5s or some such thing to all three of our opponents and said zip to me and Marcy. This is something you don’t forget. It was that way in 2017 as well. Immediately after the elections i went to Emily both times and told her we should work together and we did. I buried the hatchet and we have done good work together. This is different. Turn about is fair play – don’t you think? If i win and if Emily wins we will work together again. But just maybe I’ll be working with Bryan instead.
Over the years I’ve had 2 or 3 candidates I wasn’t supporting plank signs on my lawn. I don’t think that there was anything sneaky or malicious about what they did, just an honest mistake. And why would any campaign organization knowingly place a sign on the lawn of a homeowner who wasn’t a supporter? In instances this occurred, I quietly removed the sign and returned it to the candidate or their campaign office.
@Susan Albright
So your endorsement is based on whether Emily supported you in the past, not on the merits or substance of the two candidates? Yes, you just said that. Everyone can read what you wrote above. Very clear.
@Paul, I’ve never met either of these individuals, but my takeaway from Susan’s story (if true) is that Emily sounds to be quite rude. Character is important.
@Michael. I’ve never found Emily to be rude and I’ve observed her in many campaign and group settings over the past several years. At the same time, I can’t imagine her allowing anyone to roll her in a discussion or debate and I admire her for that.
@Fig
Just posted a long comment and lost it, I’ll hit the highlights.
I genuinely thought you said the only difference between Barash and Newton was development. Looked and couldn’t find it. Insert snarky comment on too many Norton posts to search through.
Re: Ward 2. I don’t think split on development is a fair characterization. Ward 2 opposed the Charter 58-42, one of the largest oppositions in the City. While other issues were involved in the debate, do you really believe these other issues one led to disproportionate opposition from Ward 2 otherer than development?
Similarly, the last contested election in Ward 2 saw Johnson lose, Albright survive by 6 votes. Jake was strategically ambiguous on development and the fourth place candidate, clearly opposing development, and otherwise unimpressive, lost by 6 votes. You recognize an incumbency advantage- applied to Albright, she wasn’t really supported, even if she survived.
So overall, the Ward 2 looks like it opposes development. Not surprising given how the City how disproportionately focused its efforts o Ward 2. And Norton vs Barash will be another data point. At some point, you cut through the noise, see the pattern and call it for what it is.
Paul,
Where are you getting those numbers? The last contested election was in 2017. Braden Houston lost overwhelmingly in both Ward 2 and overall to Jake and Susan.
You are probably talking about 2015.
First number is the total for the four Ward 2 precincts. Second number is the city-wide total.
LeBlanc — 791/3502
Johnson — 647/4347
Auchincloss — 949/4816
Albright — 795/5390
But, I wouldn’t put too much stock in the ward numbers in a city-wide race. Lots of possible confounding factors. This year’s head-to-head race will certainly clarify things.
Agree that development should be spread more equally across the city. Will probably be easier to make that cases with a councilor who is for some development everywhere rather than a candidate who is a no vote on everything and, therefore, loses much leverage to make a difference.
@Michael-
I’m going to have to hear this type of story from someone other than Susan Albright before I put any stock in it. Yes, character is important, maybe a little less so to Ms. Albright who has been no friend to our neighborhood over here near Needham St, nor our local elementary school. For years Albright fully supported a realtor ward 5 incumbent I ran against who sat on her hands when Avalon Bay was built and sent ALL of their children to the already overpopulated Countryside school.
Albright, my realtor opponent and the rest of that class of aldermen displayed a shameful lack of character and spine when they sashayed away from the Avalon Bay collateral damage by blaming it on 40B laws.
Albright was on the school committee for good spell too, so i’ll let you judge by the state of our school infrastructure how effective her tenure was. Like the current state of Needham St? Albright has been in city politics for years and she owns a part of that mess whether she wants to or not also.
@Sean
Appreciate you pulling up the data.
I had forgotten 2017 was contested- never met the guy nor heard anything about him, not really much of a campaign. I did mean 2015, and the Ward specific numbers, thanks for clarifying/jogging my memory.
Again, there are always confounding factors, there is a pattern there, though. If Norton beats Barash, that’s another to add to the list.
Re: Emily’s support on development, I’d ask that you be more accurate. She’s supported development, just not as large as others wanted, and when compromise was not offered she voted against the larger development. For Austin St, she supported 30-40 units, with emphasis on affordable housing and preference for a non-profit developer (which bid on the project). Mayor Warren chose to back a campaign supporter instead. Your back-and-forth on the Whole Foods lot was about her opposition to 10 stories, not no development at all. Just because she doesn’t agree with you, doesn’t mean she is against all development. It’s an inaccurate representation, that has “echoes” (eh, you get that?) of being dishonest and playing dirty tricks.
Paul,
As far as I understand, she has voted no on the major developments. Hence the characterization of her as a “no” voter. She may have been a “yes” to other hypothetical projects, but those were not the ones put before the council.
I agree with Paul Green’s comments. It’s easy to smear someone on the internet or this blog when you’re posting behind a single name or basing your comments on rumor or innuendo.
However, if you actually take the opportunity to get to know Emily Norton, I think you would find that she is as polite as anyone else and would not be surprised that she has over 550 public supporters.
As for getting along with her colleagues, Emily Norton has brought important environmental ordinances to the City of Newton which have been passed by the entire city council, so obviously she is able to work with her colleagues.
Also, Emily has been a strong and independent voice for her constituents-she fought the Charter Commission request to eliminate Ward Councilors and also fought the over sized luxury developments called Washington Place and 28 Austin Street.
And contrary to Sean Roche’s repeated misleading claims and attacks, Emily isn’t against all development in my opinion.
Unfortunately, what we’ve seen repeatedly are developers who appear more concerned with their profits, than benefiting the citizens of Newton or in listening to the residents in the neighborhoods where they want to build.
And unfortunately, some folks in Newton are drinking the “developer’s kool aid.”
Arthur,
Let me clarify my “misleading claims and attacks.” I have never said that Councilor Norton is against all development. First, she’s clearly (and I think sincerely) in favor of not-for-profit-developed affordable housing. (I don’t know if she’s stated a position on city-built and city-run housing.) She appears to be okay with some very modest development around the village centers. And, in light of the inevitability of development at Riverside and Needham Street, my understanding is that she favors significantly less intensity than is likely or perhaps even financially feasible. She has, however, been crystal clear that she does not think that we should add significant new privately-developed housing.
I have been frustrated with and pointed out Councilor Norton’s development-skeptical position, in light of the overwhelming consensus that housing density in suburban inner ring municipalities supported by transit will help combat global climate change. We need significant density in this city to fight climate change. I do not believe she has made a statement either that she rejects the consensus on the impact of density on global climate change or that she thinks other considerations — like denying developers profits — are more important. That would be an important clarification from a councilor who claims to be a leader both on combatting climate change and resisting intense development.
Councilor Norton’s support for not-for-profit-developed affordable housing is laudable. But, as I have pointed out, the reality is that private developers are a source of significant affordable housing in Newton. Councilor Norton’s anti-developer, not-for-profit-only position would actually be an impediment to adding affordable housing if adopted by a significant portion of the City Council.
We need intense development. For environmental justice, social justice, and economic justice. You and Councilor Norton don’t appear to agree with me.
Focusing on developers is a distraction.
Sean- Your words above are she “is a no vote on everything”
Not has been, but is. Not on the votes that were in front of the council, but everything. It honestly shouldn’t be that hard to simply apologize for an inaccurate characterization.
Unless you aren’t arguing in good faith.
Paul,
You’re going to have to do better than pulling a few words out of a sentence that gives it clear context.
Councilor Norton’s not generally in favor of privately-funded development. She says so, regularly. It’s going to be hard for her to argue that the way to release some pressure on Ward 2 is to promote development elsewhere in the city.
It seems like an appealing position for a Ward 2 voter who doesn’t want a lot of development in the ward. Councilor Norton is against private development everywhere, but especially in Ward 2. Yeah, she’s on our side! But, sadly for the Ward 2 voter, the pressures driving development in Ward 2 are bigger than one Councilor. (Would have been easier for her to make a difference on a smaller city council, but that’s a different story.) One release valve for all that pressure would be to promote development, but spread fairly and equitably across the city. That release valve is not something that Councilor Norton is fighting for. She doesn’t think there should be much private development anywhere.
I realize this election is a heated one, but this back and forth is getting needlessly personal. How about both of you take a break from this thread for a few hours?
@andrea: My campaign does not put lawn signs where they were not requested. But mistakes can happen – I once placed one on Oakwood Drive but the request had actually been for Oakwood Terrace which is in Ward 6… the Oakwood Drive resident contacted me and the sign was removed. No one has contacted me saying they are on my website as a supporter in error, if they did so they would be removed. In fact most of the requests to be listed as a public endorser OR for a lawn sign are done in writing so there is a level of quality control.
During the battle against Bryan’s effort to eliminate locally-elected representation in Newton in 2017, I only recall one of the No campaign’s ~900 signs coming down. It was due to a canvassing miscommunication.
Only two names came off our 600 resident public endorser list. One was a out against the charter in other public forums, but I had misread a their response to a permission email. The other was a new city employee that Emily’s opponent pestered for weeks to come off due to some city policy. So much for support for 1st amendment.
I did have a sign turn up on our lawn in an earlier election without opponent’s explicit permission. I will just say its a bit ironic given the candidate involved.
Comments on this thread are now closed and a few needlessly personal and unpleasant comments have been removed.
Play nice people