If you haven’t already, please go watch the Ward 2 candidates forum between Councilor Emily Norton and challenger Bryan Barash, competing for the Ward 2 ward councilor seat. This promised to be one of the more interesting debates in the series of informative forums hosted by the Newton League of Women Voters and produced by NewTV Government. It does not disappoint.
If you have to choose between watching the video or reading this analysis, definitely watch the video. But, if you can do both …
Some takeaways, in no particular order.
1. Best response of the debate: Candidate Barash telling the stories of three people in Newton who are having housing issues. Might actually be the best response of any of the league forums.
I think about my friend Kara. She recently had the rent raised by over sixty percent by her landlord, and she might not be able to stay here.
I think about my friend Andrew, who graduated from college recently and doesn’t think he’s going to be able to move back here even though he wants to.
You know, I think about a woman I met, Liza at her door, who would really like to downsize into a condo, but she says there are no options there for her.
Takes that into a discussion of smart growth.
I wish he’d tied it together a little more explicitly, but these stories really drive home how there are not enough housing options in Newton. There are not enough multi-family housing options. And, it’s not new development that’s driving higher rents. Kara’s rent is going up because more people want to live in Newton than there are apartments for, so landlords can get more rent. It’s the same reason market-rate units in new development are so eye-popping. People are willing to pay a lot of money to live here, and it’s going to displace those who can’t afford the escalating rents. Even if we don’t build another unit of market-rate housing, rents are going to go up.
If we remain a city of primarily single-family homes, if we don’t build a lot more housing, we’re not going to provide reasonable options for Kara, Andrew, and Liza. And, we’re not going to help solve the regional housing crisis, which Candidate Barash both acknowledges and says we have an obligation to help solve.
This is in sharp contrast to Councilor Norton’s who supports not-for-profit affordable housing, but otherwise advocates for little or not change. As she states, her desire is to protect the suburban Newton that people chose when they moved here.
2. The two took very different approaches to the question of drawing distinctions between the two of them. Councilor Norton was very comfortable going negative. She criticized Candidate Barash for his work on the Charter commission, specifically the difference between the two of them on the question of ward representation. She supports it. He advocated for a council without ward representatives. She also criticized him for driving to work and for taking campaign contributions from two state lobbyists. And, in what can only be described as a smear, she implied that, because he works in state government, Candidate Barash is somehow responsible for the exemptions to open meeting laws for legislators and the governor. He’s a staffer.
It was clear that she went into the debate prepared to make the attacks. And, they weren’t glancing blows. She wove the attack about the two contributions (since returned) into three different answers (including her closing statement).
Candidate Barash deftly answered the transparency smear, noting that he got the endorsement from an open-government advocacy PAC. And, he counter-punched effectively on the contributions, noting that Councilor Norton did not reveal the names of sub $50 contributors. (My understanding is that she has since revealed all names.)
Otherwise, Candidate Barash did not explicitly call out his differences with Councilor Norton, which seems odd for a challenger making the case to replace an incumbent. (On the other hand, it’s a bit odd for an incumbent to go on the offensive.) He articulated what are clearly different policy preferences, but did not identify them as differences.
I have no idea how this is going to play for the on-the-fence voter.
3. [Deleting this.]
4. Both candidates are strong on the need for better commuter rail. Councilor Norton recently organized a great Transit Matters event on Regional Rail. Candidate Barash says commuter rail is priority one and that he’s ready for Newton to spend money to fix the platforms. At the Transit Matters event, Councilor Norton learned that there might be money to get for platforms from the feds as part of the coming Pike straightening Allston/Brighton and she says it’s a priority for her to go after that. Clearly, whoever wins, the platforms are going to be a focus.
Was a little weird for Councilor Norton, though, to describe herself as a strong advocate for commuter rail and also say that she only learned from the Transit Matters event that our one-sided platforms are the blocker to more frequent commuter-rail service, both inbound and outbound.
5. Candidate Barash says we should combine repaving with bike lanes, wider sidewalks, make it a part of roads program to make streets more walkable and bike able. Exactly right.
6. Candidate Norton’s position on parking and traffic is basically a protection of the status quo. She wants to protect neighborhood parking. Worried about people “experiencing traffic.” People who complain about traffic because it makes it hard to drive are the traffic.
7. Tough to get on board with Candidate Barash’s assertion that a lack of pro-active planning is what’s keeping us from revitalizing Newton Centre and other village centers. Newton Centre has had plenty of planning efforts. The plans go into a closet in the mayor’s office, without any action taken. Unless there’s a change to its current trajectory, zoning reform is not going to be the answer, either. The draft minimizes changes to the intensity of development in favor of future changes after, you guessed it, more planning.
The problem in Newton Centre is that, unlike with Washington St., there’s not a a developer with a bunch of property lighting a fire under everyone. Frankly, Newton Centre needs a Robert Korff more than another study. That’s what’s going to initiate change.
8. Councilor Norton takes a lot of credit for having led a lot of stuff: Newton Power Choice, plastic-bag ban, electric-vehicle charging, accessory apartments, divesting from fossil fuels, changing the name from aldermen to city councilors*, protecting open space, protecting the ward councilor seat, affordable housing, diversity. There’s no question that Councilor Norton has been a leader, indeed the leader, on some of these issues, notably her opposition to charter reform. But, why then does she take credit for leading on issues that were driven more collaboratively or, in fact, by others? And, given her opposition to projects that have generated or will generate significant affordable housing, it’s tough for her to claim credit for affordable housing, generally.
9 Whether you agree with her or not, Councilor Norton is very clear on where she stands. At Riverside, she colorfully said, “I think we really need to be looking for support from the community, not ramming things down people’s throats.” These are neighbors who are separated from the project by an eight-lane highway. You could not get purer advocacy for hyper-local control of land-use decisions.
10. Councilor Norton says she works well with colleagues. Seven of them have endorsed Candidate Barash. (Nine have endorsed her.)
11. Anybody who says that this election isn’t primarily about housing and development has to explain how three of the eight questions were directly related to housing and development and the candidates raised housing and development in their openings, their answers to why they were running, the transparency question, and their closings.
Opening 2:40
Primary reasons for running 5:55
Suburban character and need for affordable housing 9:00
Non-taxable institutions 12:05
Northland 14:12
Riverside 17:26
Traffic Congestion 20:20
Transparency 23:30
Marijuana 29:58
Closings 32:12
* Fun personal fact. Back in 2010, I happened upon an official city document that, among other things, said that the proper address of all aldercritters, male and female is “Alderman.” I thought that was crappy and wrote to all the then sitting women aldermen. Some were fine with it. Nobody thought it was worth worrying about. Good for Councilor Norton for working to change this relic.
Didn’t we already have a whole thread on this debate?
Fig-aroni,
Yes. But, in that thread I asked you a question and you didn’t answer it. So, I did a whole post as a pretext for reframing my question to you. See #11.
In all seriousness, I have posted on some and intend to post on all of the League forums. I’m operating under the delusion that anyone cares about my opinions. Such is the nature of a blog post. You are not obliged to read these posts if you find them redundant. I have helpfully made clear the subject in the title, posted them all under my own name, and spend a few lines point readers back to the video posts.
You proceed at your own risk, but with full disclosure of what lies ahead!
How delightful to have two well spoken and informed candidates–and with clear differences in viewpoints. (Not my ward, so I’ll stop there!)
Gee, I wonder which candidate Sean heavily favors? I also wonder if Sean sits around, like all day long, trying to come up with new ways to SMEAR Emily or anyone else, who likes their neighborhood the way it is, on this same issue over and over and over. At least Greg comes up with new topics to bash Emily (although they usually center around development.) Both Sean and Greg appear obsessed with her though. Creepy.
The absolute best line from either candidate was from Emily stating that she doesn’t think the city should ram huge developments down our throats. Agreed! Thank you!
I wish she was running in my ward!!!
I feel absolutely zero obligation to provide, find or subsidize housing for any of Bryan’s examples. Sorry…
If there aren’t affordable housing options for you in a given community,
you move to where there are. It’s that simple.
That’s what people do.
Is Newton really going to base its entire housing and development policy on people like this, just because this is where these people want to live come hell or high water?
A recent college graduate who wants to move back here but doesn’t think he will be able to? BUT HE WANTS TO!!
Remember the Charlie & the Chocolate Factory movie?
Can’t you see a petulant child stamping his feet?
Move to where you can afford to on your own nickel! or move back in with mom & dad and move back here when you are on more solid financial ground.. what’s wrong with that?
Am i wrong?
A renter who had their rent raised and might have to move..
what’s wrong with moving to a community that you can afford to like everyone else does? I’ve done it many times. It happens every day.. it actually happens to people that have very few options.., or money… or politicians who feel an obligation to find there college friends affordable apartments –
in an expensive community..,
Liza who wants to downsize into a condo has no options?
How about buying a condo in a community where you can afford to buy a condo? that’s not an option?
Bryan is an excellent candidate but these are hardly individuals worthy of sympathy. All of these people have plenty of options, just not exactly where they want to, in Newton. Can someone please tell me why that should be anyones problem other than their own? Why is this my problem?
These are the examples we are using to justify high density building?
Forgive me, apparently i just woke up, but when did the perceived entitlements of people like these become my problem to deal with?
What ever happened to living within the budget you have and renting
or owning where you can afford to?
I dont understand the compulsion to find affordable housing in Newton for individuals whose financial wherewithal suggest they should be looking in another community…,
Can anyone explain this?
I feel like I’m on another planet…
Anyone else curious which of the two candidates has a background in social media? You don’t need to research this yourself, and it should be obvious anyway. I’ll answer: Bryan. He also seems to be handily recruiting keyboard warriors along the way. The good news is that these hit pieces have finally become so obvious that they’re backfiring. Here and on social media. It’s about time.
@Paul Green “Can anyone explain this?”
Let me take a crack at it.
I grew up in Jamaica Plain. 50 years ago Newton was then known as a ‘wealthy’ town. By nearly any measure it was indeed – overall.
A generation ago, within the overall wealthy Newton there was a substantial range of housing and housing prices. Those beautiful big houses on West Newton were expensive then and they are expensive now. What’s changed though is that a generation ago there were sections of the city that were filled with modest houses at relatively modest prices – prices that lower middle class people could afford. Back then, in Nonantun, Upper Falls, parts of West Newton, Oak Hill Park there were lots of folks who worked for the city, or were bus drivers, or barbers, or teachers, or any of a myriad of other “regular” jobs.
In my neighborhood of Upper Falls many of the old-timers who are now dying off, worked at just those kind of jobs and were able to buy a house and live in some parts of the city of Newton. Even then in any part of Newton you would pay some kind of premium on a house price over an equivalent house elsewhere. Even then some people could afford to buy in Newton and others couldn’t.
The difference between then and now is that the very cheapest housing in the city is now priced out of the reach of the most frugal of those people working ‘regular’ jobs.
Just this afternoon I had a telling experience. Over the last six months a relatively modest house around the corner has been undergoing renovation/additions. It was turned from a modest older one family house into a two family house. The front unit had some balloons and an Open House sign. I pulled in and went for a quick ‘nosy neighbor’ tour of the unit. It was very nice. It had been completely overhauled. It looked pleasant and comfortable, had all new fixtures, etc. The price? $1.2 million for just the front unit.
That’s not an anomaly. That’s Newton house prices today.
Do the math. Whole wide classes of the people we rely on every day – teachers, police, fireman who a generation ago could find a place to live in Newton if they scraped and saved and were frugal and bought a modest house maybe with a little work needed can no longer come close to possibly doing that today.
So you may have absolutely no concern about Bryan’s friend Kara as an individual but I think it’s worth for us all to stop for a second and consider whether we want to live in a city where all of the people we rely on day to day can’t possibly live here. That’s a very different type of city than Newton has always been, through all its history, up until very recently.
Definitely some people will say “no problem, that’s great. I love it.” As a homeowner I certainly get the personal allure of rapidly appreciating house prices. But I think we’re all sticking our heads in the sand if we think its no big deal for Newton to quickly transform from being an actual city with a wide spread of incomes into a gated community for the very wealthy.
There certainly are no simple answers and yes, everyone can’t live in Newton but I think we should all be very concerned if absolutely none of our teachers, police, firemen, DPW workers , City Hall workers can’t possibly ever aspire to live here going forward. Worse still is if we all know that and don’t bother trying to make any provision – just go live somewhere else
@Jerry-
I hear what you saying, however
few DPW workers, teachers, firefighters, policemen, and city hall workers live here now. That train has left the station. We speak of being a welcoming community and
valuing “rich diversity” and human rights, so instead of giving a leg up to another white college grad or an equity rich home owner buying a condo, we should use these opportunities to break the mold and be real pioneers. Game changers even.
Why not use this opportunity to create and subsidize affordable housing right here in Newton for the people who travel here from Boston and other parts of the state that we exploit to clean our toilets and homes, watch our kids, rake our leaves, clean our gutters, shingle our houses, and do all the other jobs we seem to be able to pay other people short money to do. If we are going to create, enable and sustain a new generation of entitled people who feel it is our obligation and responsibilty to make it affordable for them to live here, then I’ll pass. People who are expecting others to accommodate them won’t add any real value to any community that they live in so why fight any battles on their behalf? I might be the only person
brave or stupid enough to say this out loud, but I’ll bet you there are many others that would never admit it,
but feel the same way I do, in fact i know there are.
The millennials, GEN X’rs and even some baby boomers don’t much
value old school views, and sentimentality nor are they as besot
with “community“ as we think they are.
I think as the city continues to develop
evidence will bear this out…
@Paul Green – ok, I get it. I’ll put you down in the “That’s great. No problem. I love it” column.
@Paul Green, I actually take a much more self-interested approach to the affordable housing issue. My kids need it. And if they don’t get it in Newton or some other community close to Boston, they will move out to the ex-urbs, where they will have to drive 45 minutes to an hour and a half each way on the interstates, creating GHG emissions that will accelerate climate change and degrade the quality of life in Newton. Because most of those cars will pass through on 128/95 and the Masspikje, right through Newton. The good news is that within 50 years, maybe Newton will have ocean front property because of sea level rise. The bad news is, your kids, my kids, our grandchildren and everyone else will eventually perish because we have fouled the air and the earth and the water beyond the point of no return.
So, what do we do? We create more housing, closer to where people work, and that will warrant increases in spending on public transit. Because demand and supply. If people need public transit to Boston, and there are enough people who demand it, it will be supplied.
The alternative is, we all pretend everything will be alright, and eventually we either drown or starve because North America will become just another desert where nothing grows.
That’s not what I want, and I don’t think it is what you want either. So, in our own self-interest, and in the interest of our progeny, we need to make it possible for them to live near their work, and travel to work in a way that won’t choke us to death with GHG emissions.
I know you are a smart guy. We have talked before. You must know that our society is on its way to disaster without bold action. I sincerely wish Emily Norton, who is an evironmentalist at heart, would use her mind as well as her heart and reject the NIMBYism and the BANANAism that continues to hold sway in Newton. Let’s do this. The future of our community depends upon it.
@Ted Hess Mahan: Amen
@Jerry & Ted
What is wrong with simply moving out a bit? Waltham, Watertown, Dedham,
Arlington, Medford, Roslindale, Natick, etc etc etc
There aren’t any cheaper rents or houses or condos in those communities? Seriously? It’s absolutely Newton or bust? I know people from all over the country who can’t afford to live in the towns or cities they grew up in… this is ludicrous..
Have people gotten that weak, lazy and inflexible that they can’t change or adapt, or they won’t?
People cant relocate or they wont?
If everything is that dire Ted then everyone, starting with Alicia Bowman and the rest our city pols are going to have to severely alter their life styles starting right now because action talks and BS walks. I recommend the Paul Green
ASNC( all stick no carrot) program i detailed on another thread.
I propose we start by requiring all climate care crusaders including myself, to submit to a comprehensive carbon footprint analysis & evaluation:
Size & Square footage of home
Size and square footage of secondary homes & number of homes owned..
Use of AC or Central AC
Number of cars per family &!usage of these cars
Analysis of spending and consumption
habits
Frequency of air travel…
etc etc etc
Or better yet, lets just build our way out of it.,
@Ted Hess Mahan why are we allowing ( enabling) so much development in Boston if we’re going to be beachfront property in Newton? Everyone has to work in Boston? because Boston gets the office tax revenue and the surrounding suburbs sheepishly signed up to build the housing.
There’s no reason, other than it’s fashionable, to build all these new offices in Boston, especially when public transportation has been so poorly supported.
Build a train along 495 – take way a few car lanes – and make that area into a fashionable ( and livable ) place to live and commute.
The obsession with building in a Boston is driving the bus here.
One last point and I’ll leave..
Newton is not going to solve our regions housing shortage nor severely curtail the impact of the global climate crisis no matter how densely we build the city out. We are absolutely obligated to do our part as global citizens and living creatures on this earth, but it sure would help if we were at least all rowing in the same direction. I still think we can and should be encouraging everyone in the city and region to engage in some life style modifications. I’ll leave that to our great motivator & explainer Sean.. I’m offering that in the spirit of levity, not malice Sean…
Not clear what you’re driving at here, Paul.
No, adding density to Newton will not singlehandedly solve either the global climate crisis or the regional housing crisis. But, adding density would help with both, most measurably with the regional housing crisis.
So, we do what we can as global citizens. We drive less. We ditch our SUVs. We use battery electric vehicles. We reduce our use of natural gas. At the policy level, we add density. We make our streets more walkable. We eliminate the subsidies for driving. We invest heavily in mass transit. We invest heavily in renewables. We put solar panels up wherever we can. We change the way we heat our homes. It’s a series of ands. We do all we can on all fronts. Personal lifestyle changes are important. Policy changes are important.