Read the full editorial here but here’s a key excerpt….
For local politicians, the easy way out is often to oppose just about anything — and hope some other community picks up the slack. But the most tragic consequence of the resulting housing shortage is that it worsens the very problems that antidevelopment forces often contend that they care about. Preventing development in dense urban areas near transit pushes the demand off to auto-centric suburbs, where it does more environmental damage. Displacement of low-income residents happens when insufficient supply creates gentrification pressures on existing neighborhoods. When you hear critics complain that developers only build new luxury housing, it’s worth remembering that failing to build those new units to keep the market in equilibrium turns all housing into luxury housing. Newton has resisted development, and now its median sale price for single-family homes is above $1 million.
Bravo! So well articulated. And congratulations to Engine 6 for having its advocacy (and endorsed candidates) recognized. Well deserved.
Massachusetts cannot solve its housing problem without solving its transportation problem.
Yes, building housing is important. But the focus of government effort should be a world-class, regional, reliable transportation system.
With that in place, the housing-price differential will start to close between inner and outer suburbs.
The conversation about housing needs to start and end with transportation.
Our transportation crisis and our housing crisis are each too big and complex to solve without the other. We need to address both at the same time.
Jake,
Or, the conversation about transportation needs to start and end with housing.
It’s not realistic to think that it’s all about commuting. We need to rethink the suburbs, not just connect suburban centers with the urban core. We need to start with Newton and create a place where people can get through their day without spending most of it in a car.
@Jake—while transportation would surely help, and you know that the real control lies at the regional and state level, you are forgetting the school funding structure that allows Newton to raise almost enough to sustain world-class schools while leaving Brockton and Lawrence behind.
And housing near current transit helps keep the transit system alive, while building further from transit helps add to traffic for everyone. Hi
The oversimpifications of the editorial were stunning, in my view. That McMansion around the corner from me, purchased for $2.5 million and now renting for $12,000 a month, came into existence in part because a realtor grabbed the property, tore the house down, and replaced it with something no person of low or moderate income could dream about renting or purchasing. Newton city government has chosen to look the other way while speculators swallow up the moderately sized houses on the market and convert them into palaces for the wealthy. The result: the rapid disappearance of houses ordinary people could afford.
Similarly, high-density developments, under the current plans, will largely offer units whose rentals defy any hope of attracting families “of low and moderate income.” Newton can do much better if it sincerely wants to create housing for young people, the elderly and retirees looking to downsize, and people from less prosperous communities. Pious, self-serving talk cannot replace real plans to build housing that those of low and moderate income can actually afford. In this sense, the Globe editorial was misleading concerning Newton.
Jake, It’s good to hear someone state that the housing problem is not ONLY simply supply and demand of physical structures.
Unfortunately, I don’t really feel optimistic about any world class public transit systems being developed any time soon. Our society, and I date the more recent incarnation of this to the Reagan era – and the Ayn Rand nonsense- feels that any social good paid for by taxes, is creeping Socialism. Let’s throw Grover Nordquist in there too.
Meanwhile we have full blown monopolies, e.g. Facebook, Amazon – and Banks recently bailed out, seemingly in control of our government. Sure Zuckerberg gets called up to mea culpa in Front of Congress, But nothing substantive changes and every web site ( including this one ) still has a “follow us on Facebook” icon.
Kinda bleak.
Bryan Berash is Exhibit A of why cities can’t build their way out of the climate change and housing crises.
From what I have read and heard the candidate lives a 5 minute walk from public transportation but chooses to drive his car, alone perhaps?, to the center of Boston.
Many of us might do the same – but not if I was running for office on a platform of environmentalism and housing near transportation.
The notion that development can occour in the suburbs without the attendant automobile ( and the parallel problems it generates,.. traffic, loss of green space etc), is pie in the sky fantasy. The further out from urban density and a walkable urbanity, ( like the spokes of a bicycle wheel ), the further apart are the threads of transportation systems.
The consequence of which obviates the need for secondary transportation to get to the station. ( two good feet, or a bicycle, scooter, automobile). Two good feet work ok if the distance isn’t too time consuming, but given rain, wind, snow, wet leaves, crowded intersections, automobile traffic etc. public transit in the suburbs is always going to be problematic at best. And the further from the urban center the greater the problem becomes.
Density in the suburbs is not a solution, it just exacerbates problems in living there.
@Peter Kay, that’s a BS, no true Scotsman, appeal to purity fallacy you’re leveling at Bryan.
One can push for structural change without being absolutely pure
(speaking as someone who has opted for 100% green electricity and composting, so my argument obviously carries more cred than yours /s)
Interesting – didn’t I already post this?
Amy: you linked to a news article this is an editorial.
@Blueprintbill – when I was married and lived in Lincoln, decades ago, I could drive 2 miles to park and catch the commuter rail. Yes, I was still using my car, but was using much less gas and not contributing to downtown traffic. The main obstacle to me using the train every day was its infrequency, but I did use it regularly.
However, the spoke & hub nature of our transit is a real problem. When my son was at Brandeis, 6 miles away, it would have taken him about 1 1/2 hours to come home using transit.
Shuttle buses can help. When my son took classes at Mass Bay Community College they had a shuttle bus to Riverside so he could be car free, and BC also has a shuttle to the D line. While Newton’s attempt at a shuttle failed years ago, ones that are thoughtfully planned and provide links between public transit, high schools, and high density developments and between commuter rail and T, could potentially be feasible.
@Meredith – From my work with Regional Transit Authorities at the state level, it really seems like less dense communities are moving away from fixed route service to solve the last mile problem. (For those who don’t know, the last mile problem refers to how you get people from their homes to transit hubs and back)
We have the technology to use shared rides in varying sized vehicles to solve the last mile problem. Here in Newton, we’re already doing it with NewMO, which is a branded version of Via. Our version is just for seniors, but Via has many different flavors and there are other companies exploring this space too.
Check out the program Via just launched in Cupertino, for example: https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/07/via-and-city-of-cupertino-are-launching-an-on-demand-public-transit-network/
It’s not the whole solution, but it could be a revolutionary piece of the solution. And if you’re over 60 years old, you already can access the service right now!
@Greg: Oh. Didn’t realize there was an editorial too.
@Greg: “Our transportation crisis and our housing crisis are each too big and complex to solve without the other. We need to address both at the same time.”
YES – I agree – but we’re not doing that, are we? What is the state doing about our transportation crisis? Where is the vision? Where is urban rail and where is the State on this and why isn’t Riverside part of that plan?
Amy: have hope. Interest rates are low. It is not too late to meaningfully address the transportation crisis.
@Amy There are visions for public transportation that have been proposed to improve public service. For instance, The Commuter Rail has their Rail Vision project to expand and improve their network (https://www.mbta.com/projects/rail-vision) and already there are various orgs and politicians (including Jake Auchincloss and hopefully the rest of the incumbent city councilors and their challengers) coming out in favor of the most ambitious vision, Option 6 (https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2019-10/railvision_alt6_0.pdf). This alone would be a big boost for Newton and other communities which don’t have fast, reliable commuter rail service and would get a lot of people to ditch their cars (or at the very least park their cars at the station) and take the train in or around Boston. While I will concede that state action is more difficult (due to the neolib scoundrel that somehow got reelected last year along with our dysfunctional state house), the good news is that politicians are feeling the pressure as advocacy orgs (i.e. Transportation for Massachusetts, Transit Matters, etc.) are demanding better transportation. Combined with the fact Green New Deal proponents want Massachusetts to move away from a car-centric transportation grid towards a public transportation network which relies on renewable energy, it is possible that by 2023, we will be investing in a New Deal-like project to fix and expand our public transportation system. Lastly, with regards to Riverside, 3 of the 6 Rail Vision plans include not only adding a commuter rail station at Riverside but making it a frequent hub, which would mean commuter rail trains from Riverside every 15 minutes (https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2019-10/railvision_alt4.pdf, hhttps://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2019-10/railvision_alt5_0.pdf, https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2019-10/railvision_alt6_0.pdf). While I think there should be more bus service to Riverside as well, there definitely will be urban rail at Riverside. Overall, I think the issue isn’t whether there is a plan or not but how we will get the state to follow its commitments.
I’d add to Terry’s comment that the business community has spent the past six months looking at how to fix transportation. It was done at the request of the House Speaker and Senate President.
These are NOT easy problems. But it’s wrong to suggest that there is no political will or that no one is working to address them.
https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2019-10/railvision_alt5_0.pdf
@Greg: Sorry – I must have missed the Vision for Transportation espoused at the Riverside hearings by the State – MassDOT/MBTA or from our local electeds….or from the Chamber…(yes – lots of sarcasm here). Please provide links…More than happy to be corrected.
Ah that’s the tricky part about your multipart questions. You asked “What is the state doing about our transportation crisis?” Terry and I answered. Then you become sad because thats not the part of your question you really wanted answered
@Greg: I’m not sad – just waiting for a response to my “multi-part” questions.
@Amy – the state is “looking at how to fix the transportation crisis.” They’ve been “looking” for decades.
In the meantime – build build build! Damn the consequences of increased traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, overcrowding, light pollution and loss of sunlight.
This is getting nauseating…champions of density, but not in the village where they live. Transit advocates, preaching from the comfort of their car. #NIMBY360