There seems to be multiple threads on this issue – one on an article by the Boston Globe, and one on an editorial by the Boston Globe. But I’d like to start a thread on what it takes to be a “supporter” or “advocate” of affordable housing and who makes that determination? For instance, it appears that some leaders of this blog and some commentators, believe that folks who call for a “Right Sized” development are anti-housing. (maybe that term was taken down and replaced with anti-development – I can’t keep track). Does this mean that anyone who objects to a specific development proposal because of it’s size is automatically ant-housing and anti-development (I’m not debating the “racist” issue now). I am genuinely interested because – the City Council almost unanimously voted against amending a condition of a Board Order to allow housing development at Wells Avenue (and I’m not suggesting that development there was a good idea) and some members of the then Board – stood outside the rail so they didn’t have to vote on the project. Yet I don’t recall the outrage against those who voted against amending the order and labeling them – anti-housing? What about the B’nai B’rtih Housing Development on Commonwealth Avenue? Are the then, Ward 7 City Councilors (which include our Mayor) who negotiated to significantly reduce the size of that development (and use significant CPA funds) also anti-housing (BTW the development is near transit and I don’t recall the outrage against that deal)? It just seems like a random, very unfair and negative label imposed by some very well-meaning (zealous) housing advocates on people who just have a very different view point on how dense a development should be in a given area (you can call it NIMBY if you’d like or genuine concern about adverse impacts).
Frankly, I see that there is desire in this community to support affordable housing – the difference between the factions – is how much of the current development is actually providing affordable housing vs. the more expensive market rate housing.
Thoughts?
Where is the support within city government for affordable housing? How is it possible that 25 elected officials would allow a project the size of Northland to move forward without insisting that affordable housing be a priority? It’s truly mystifying!
Amy: You’re asking a lot of questions in the same post. It’s hard to know where to begin.
Is every supporter of Right Sized Newton anti-housing or anti-development? Of course not. But certainly some. And some aren’t.
But as both the Globe article from earlier this week and today’s excellent Globe editorial point out, there is a documentatable NIMBY movement and a documental YIMBY movements in Newton and in other communities across Eastern Massachusetts.
There are people here who want no growth. There are people who want a lot. There are people who want growth; just not next to them. And there are people in the middle.
But I think your point is, it’s not black or white. Agreed. There’s many shades of gray. Good people who see it differently.
And yes as a community we’ve made mistakes along the way. Yes some of your former colleagues made mistakes. The Wells Ave vote was not one of the board’s finest moments. (We never even tried to negotiate with that developer who was offering significant traffic mitigation and to fully fund a shuttle bus system that we really need on Wells Ave. )
But I’m not sure what crying over spilled milk of past missed opportunities does to address our housing crisis or to build consensus now.
Looking back doesn’t get us any more units of desperately needed housing. The question is what do we do?
@Greg: Maybe the first step is to stop vilifying those who may object to a particular development project but not totally object to all that is proposed – and labeling them as “anti=housing” or “anti-development” or “racist”. You don’t seem to want to look back at some votes – but you certainly have no problem looking back when it suits you (eg. the Somerville example). Apply your vitriol to all fairly.
Amy,
As Greg said, there is a lot to unpack in this post.
Your first questions:
One way to determine a supporter of affordable housing is for that individual to have supported any development that includes affordable housing. The determination is made by the individual herself by either supporting or not any developments that include affordable housing. Easy Peezy.
Next:
Not a question – a supposition.
Next question:
I don’t know. Does it? Only those “anyones” know for sure?
If the “this” refers to a resident’s belief that there is a right size for developments, without of course defining what “right size” means, and objects to a development because of its “size” using the lack of information above, then unequivocally “yes” because without explanations this “anyone” made a determination that cannot logically be backed up.
Next:
You have asserted there are many varied viewpoints used to choose whether or not to support a particular development – if true your addressing the “factions” as what you believe to be two distinct perspectives doesn’t follow whatever reasoning you are using. Your final expression is not a difference between “factions,” it is the question you and your supporters ask and answer for yourselves. Is the answer ever “the correct amount” meaning support for the development in question?
After all of the above rigmarole and saying “I am genuinely interested,” you present a conclusion negating all of the above.
Because Wells Avenue was a 40B and I was a member of the Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee, which handled the developer’s appeal and sided with the city, I was not able to vote on the amendment. Nevertheless, I would have voted for it because regardless of the merits of the project, it was an appropriate site for housing and Newton was–and is–way below the 10% minimum required for affordable housing in every community. The City Council was–and is–full of councilors conflicted about allowing large residential developments. And, I have no doubt, some of them voted against it for all the wrong. The wrong reasons are as follows:
NIMBYism. “Not In My Back Yard.” Residential developments with 25% affordable housing paid for by the developers is wonderful for everyone as long as they are not near me, not on my street, not in my neighborhood, not in my ward, and will not add one single child to the schools. It is free speech when residents who come to the public hearing say it, but it is a fair housing act violation when the City Council and the Mayor (which was the case with Engine 6 and Wells Avenue) stop that kind of development for the same reasons.
BANANAs. “Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.” Some residents and their councilors have a rose colored view of a Newton that never actually was or is. They see it as a Levittown, the prototypical subuirb, comprised of mostly post-war, 20th century single families homes with a husband, a wife, a family, and a dog and a cat. A station wagon (SUV) in every driveway, and Franco American spaghetti in every pot (or microwave). And they want to keep it that way. Little boxes, little boxes, albeit not made out of ticky tacky, but little boxes that all look much the same. And as long as most of the city is zoned for single family housing, the only new residential development with affordable housing that we’ll get will be large, multi-family 40Bs paid for by developers. Because with property values being what they are in Newton, the only way to make housing affordable is through density (another dirty word for BANANAs).
CAVE people. These are the Citizens Against Virtually Everything. They don’t have a hard time with affordable housing or large developments per se. They are just against anything those libtards in socialist Newton want to do on principle. Or they just want to Make America Great Again. Or both.
Lest you think the folks referred to above only come out of the woodwork for big projects, my many years with CAN-DO and as an alderman/councilor taught me that even the smallest project, say five units in a neighborhood full of existing multi-family housing, will fight with everything they’ve got because they think it will bring down their property values, bring too much traffic, overload the schools, be “out of character” with their neighborhood (even if that IS the character of their neighborhood), or just plain change the status quo (in other words, they would prefer an old, run down building with zero charm to more housing). They are convinced that if that project is approved, Newton will be headed toward a disaster of biblical proportions: “Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together–mass hysteria.” And they will always find a sympathetic ear on the City Council, because, of course.
Does Newton have to eliminate single family zoning districts altogether? No. But if we don’t make it possible for multi-family housing to be built in and around village centers, close to public transit, the economics of (supressed) supply and (the resulting) demand for affordable housing will mean nothing BUT 40Bs and large mixed use developments are the only things that will get built. Because math. Which to my mind is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Ted, your comment, as usual, gets right to the point. I agree with your choice of “the wrong reasons.”
Amy, I know there are definitely residents who support affordable housing, realize that developers must must make a profit like anyone else in a business enterprise, know that in order to do so and include 25% affordable units they must build relatively large but still want to make sure the developer supplies appropriate mitigation, builds something that is an attractive addition to Newton and includes either green space or some type of plaza – gathering place. I know because I, and many others I know, am one of those residents.
I would never join a group like Right Size Newton because I don’t think there is a right size or want to be associated with a group that is supporting only candidates
who question everything about a development until there is no development left –
who force developers to build 40B’s so Newton loses control over where they go –
who question every detail until dragging the process out until some developers just cannot afford to go on or build any project – small or large – so they sell it to another developer who is forced to raise the cost –
who say they support housing but have never supported anything proposed –
Who pose conspiracy theories about developers –
Who think density is a negative word.
I hesitate to object to Ted’s witty summary of housing positions in our city. I also hate to be the politically correct semantics police. I do not mean to pick on Ted here.
But I have to say it- can we all please stop calling anyone retarded or a tard? Even in funny ways like libtard or f*tard? (not sure if we say f*** on Village 14).
The term “mental retardation” has been replaced by intellectual disabilities. While it was a big step up from older terms like moron, idiot and mental defective in its time, that time has passed. I too was raised in an era where mental retardation was a polite term, so I understand the confusion.
I have a son with a low IQ, who came home one day a few years ago and asked me if he was a “Sped”. I was stunned and asked him who called him that, and he replied that it was another kid on the “tard cart”. The short bus for kids being bussed to citywide programs for special education was apparently referred to this way among the kids. If we use the term as a joke, how can we expect our kids not to?
These days the use of the term, even with humor or irony, can be seen as implying that those with intellectual disabilities are an appropriate group to use as an insult. I know Ted would never deliberately do that. Individuals with disabilities are not the “other” in a city where 20% of our students receive special education services. They’re us, our kids, our neighbors.
So how about turd? No one is going to get offended if you call them a turd, right? (no need to comment, that was a joke. ) It’s only one letter off from tard- Libturd might work!
@Ted “Does Newton have to eliminate single family zoning districts altogether? No.”
I love answering your own questions. It’s Donald Rumsfeld-speak.
Sean Roche would certainly disagree. And if we don’t, isn’t that the ultimate NIMBYism? I suggest we start on the mayor’s street where 10000 sq ft houses exist. And there’s a green line stop not far away.
This is the hypocrisy that gets many of us crazy- where’s the shared responsibility? Where’s the sacrifice that the wealthy make?
Newtonville has been zoned multi family since I moved here 33 years ago. It’s time for the rest of the city to take some responsibility, or hold their peace.
Eileen, thanks for pointing out that even the use of “libtard” in jest is referring to “tard” or retarded. I certainly get your point and had no idea the term “tard cart” was used to describe your son’s means of transportation to school. I had hoped the terms for that had evolved into a better not worse name.
Its use by Ted though poses a dilemma when a liberal writer is plainly using satire to illustrate a point and needs to incorporate the actual word used to denigrate liberals.
Of course the ones who do not use it in jest know exactly what they are saying.
@Marti
“who force developers to build 40B’s so Newton loses control over where they go”
You contradict yourself.
Who is the “Newton” you speak of here, and what “control”over where they go should they have. Certainly the people who oppose a development are trying to exercise control. It’s just not the control that you want.
You can’t have it both ways- there is no “right size” and want “control over where they go”.
Rick, I generally like a lot of your comments whether I agree with them or not because they are fact based.
This one about me contradicting myself is missing your usual logic. Newton is the city of Newton – self-explanatory.
When a developer is forced, by all of the circumstances I have listed in my above comment, to use MA Chapter 40B or chooses to just because s/he can because the city of Newton has not met the 10% affordable housing threshold required, the city of Newton’s zoning can be overridden so the city of Newton loses control over where in the city the development can go.
”Right size” and “control over where they go” have no relationship to each other. Right size is about the size of a development and whatever else residents want changed.
“The people who oppose a development” want to exercise an entirely different control. One is control over zoning and the other is control over everything else.
I think the “labeling” conversation is a distraction. How dare you call me “anti-development”? I’m for “right-size” development!
But right size and no size seem to be somewhat aligned, no? And lots of folks within Right Size want no changes. And right size has not yet identified any project that is more than a few units and is “right size”….
I’m happy not to call right size anti- development. It seems to turn the conversation sideways into pointless posts like this one.
But I certainly won’t call them “for” affordable housing. I won’t call them “for” density, I won’t call them “for” compromise, I won’t call them “for” understanding real estate economics, I won’t call them “for” understanding 40Bs and how that law changes negotiations with developers. Because as of yet they have proven none of those things.
I think groups like the lower falls improvement association (I may have the name wrong) who recently negotiated a compromise are different. Because while I might have wanted a different project at that site, the parties met and negotiated a compromise. I tend to err on the side of compromise being the way things actually work.
So Amy, happy to call certain groups “pro” anything. They just have to prove it in the real world. Until then, folks define you as they will. Nature, and forums, abhor a vacuum. We can certainly debate the fairness of that, but thus far I see no evidence that the anti labels are incorrect. Compromise on a project and we can all talk again. Right size should be true to its name…and stop complaining about the labeling….
Also 40B changes everything in this debate. We meet the requirements and the forces of build nothing or build small become the forces of we’ve built enough dammit. Until then, the council and the mayor are somewhat forced to live in the real world, labels be damned.
You lived in the real world when you were a councilor Amy. You were one of the deciding votes for Austin Street and got the project more affordable housing. And that project wasn’t even a 40b possibility! I’d just like the various groups that care about the future of development in our city to be equally pragmatic.
We could talk about that of course. But this post mostly rails about the hypocrisy of those who make the definitions. How dare they define the vacuum?!? That is *so* unfair!
So why doesn’t compromise happen? My theory is that if you have a coalition of the unwilling combined with a coalition of the willing but only under limited conditions, it is awfully hard to compromise and not blow your coalition apart. If you are gathered now around neighborhood but around compromise, your best solution is status quo and no more. And whining about process…that too.
Thus far I’m not seeing much difference between the old newton village alliance and right size newton And other groups. I’ll keep listening and waiting for compromise.
Regarding the insults, we live in a different age, and the internet has enabled a kind of bullying that didn’t exist when I was a kid. And kids can be cruel, certainly when I was a kid. I wasn’t very “tough”, and got physically beaten up ( pretty badly but no broken bones just bruises and a black eye) twice in Elementary and middle school. Once by someone older who did it just because he could. Didn’t even know me. The other time by two kids, again older, who were just picking on me for no reason I can remember. So, I’m of a generation that’s a little less sensitive to words… “sticks and stones….”
I’m not talking about racial slurs. That’s a different level.
That said, the internet has an amplifying effect because of its reach and because of the distance between the insulted and insulter. And anonymity.
And yet, I am a huge Mel brooks fan, and Zucker Brothers ( airplane etc ) movie fan. And Marx Brothers. It’s a fine line to walk between satire and offense, but it’s worth walking.
@figneetinville
Anti abortion and pro life.
Pro choice and anti choice.
These words are bantered around all the time. It’s nothing new to label people.
Councilor Norton has said, she would have been in favor of Washington place at 4 stories. That’s a very numerate, precise, answer. Yet she is often vilified as anti development. I don’t think that a limit of 4 stories is anti development. It sounds like a reasonable position, and I would have been amenable to that, albeit begrudgingly.
I’d like to know if any of the “pro development” people think there is a maximum size – be specific – that they might have been against washington place. 6? 10, 20 stories? I’m not expecting an answer because I don’t think that most of them have thought about it. At least Emily gave a numerate answer. Some people think that 10:stories is too high. Ok then what’s the number that between 5 and 10:that’s the right size. You can’t avoid saying what the “right size” is because ultimately it’s expressed as a number. or at least a range. So for one I’d like to hear the “pro development ” people give me their maximum heights for Washington street. I expect no answers.
In 2017 on the eve of the Mayoral preliminary, the leader of Engine 6 vilified a certain mayoral candidate because she forced too much affordable housing into Austin St for it to get her approval. She was too hard on the developer. Tells you all you need to know about priorities.
Rick, maximum of 6 stories with a tiered setback for 5 and six. Depending on a massive giveback like a deck over the pike, I might be convinced to go up further but I doubt it. And the base should be 4 to 5 stories with significant public benefit over 4 stories. Additional affordable housing, community space or ideally green space works for me for significant public benefit.
See that was easy. Just my view but I think lots would agree with me.
As for Emily giving a direct answer, I think it is easy to give an answer like that when you know no developer will accept it. It is the equivalent of the “hold me back” move in a fight, when you know you have no intention to fighting for anything of the sort. It sure does give her supporters a talking point, but not much else. The rest of us live in the land of the practical and the 40b. Emily doesn’t have to live there she just gets to resist on this issue. But the votes are against her, so I’ve never seen what shouting at the wind gets you except a loss of your voice.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that in the end once Austin Street and Washington place are done, there will be some things we wish we could have done better, but that most folks will say…huh, that’s not so bad. What was all the fuss about again? Where was the parking Armageddon I was told about? Some of these shops and restaurants are pretty good. And some of the fuss about 5 story buildings just evaporates.
I’m personally looking forward to enjoying a latte at Cafe Nero on an outdoor patio, a first for Newtonville. Life goes on, even if not perfectly.
See that was easy , six stories but why not 7? Why did you choose six? Can you give me an exact reason? Or just “ oh that what I feel like?” And how do you know the developer wouldn’t agree to 4 If some other negotiations were included? Did you talk to him It’s just your opinion, and why does your opinion outweigh someone else’s. Just because you say so?
I say bullocks to you !
( can I say bullocks, Greg? I don’t even know what it means LOL )
Rick, I’ve only been saying that for 5 years or so. But hey, glad you are listening now.
My view of height is that I compare it to other portions of village centers, I look at shadows and massing, I review architectural elements like setbacks on upper floors. Parking requirements tend to require a second floor of basement parking for larger buildings. which makes natural plateaus at certain floors amounts, using base acquisition price as one of the considerations. In other words, there are natural heights that fit certain lots, and you’d need to go much higher to justify another floor.
Developer profit tends to be maximized by that additional floor from 5 to 6, which is why the affordable portion can be much higher, or the lots can be made more narrow to allow for more public space. So I’m good with 6 vs 5, especially if the view from the street is 5.
So there are a lot of folks who actually do this for a living and deal with the push and pull of the various considerations. Planning Departments make recommendations for real reasons you know.
You can certainly push for 4 floor buildings, but 3 floors are as of right in a lot of areas. So with 40b not much leeway for developers to want to do that and still make a profit at normal acquisition and construction costs. And that’s with low mortgage interest rates. ROI in real estate is a real consideration that lenders, investors and even contractors consider.
Anyway, you are free to call nonsense, but you were complaining about no one being willing to respond and you were accusing me of pulling it out of my backside.
I actually have given this a lot of thought and talked to a lot of folks about it. Newton is similar to thousands of other sized towns and cities across the US….
Wow – I go out to canvass for the day and look at all of these comments? I’m going to have to make a cup of tea and start reading it but I do have to get this one bit in….
Right Size Riverside folks and the neighborhoods impacted by the potential Riverside Development and the Developer seem to have come to some sort of agreement on developing that parcel. I would say that should take them out of the NIMBY and “anti-housing” label.
Amy:
I’m curious to see the details. But if the developer and Rightside have managed to come up with a compromise, terrific.
Devil is in the details of course. And we’ll see if both sides can deliver the actual goods and get a project done and permitted.
It would be great if you could share the details!
@Fig: Read my newsletter tomorrow morning!! Or wait until after I make dinner and I’ll post!
Rick,
Bullocks are steers. Male bovines without testicles. Bollocks is British slang for testicles, kind of like saying, “Balls!” I have no objection to either phrase!
No one set of building size criteria works in all settings. That said, Fig’s ideas seem like a reasonable starting point to me.
We need more affordable housing, and we need the intersection of affordable and accessible housing for Newton’s residents with disabilities. That generally means new construction, ideally near accessible public transit.
There are other ways to address affordable housing beyond private development, and we need to explore them all.
I don’t think I’ve been on the “cesspool” of v14 for 5 years, and since you’re anonymous I would have no idea what you might do for a living.
Maximizing profits ( one model being linear programming which I’ve mentioned here a lot) is something I understand pretty well – well from the math side. Are you a developer?
You seem to be saying the ROI is maximized given current parameters in time at 7 floors. So why not say 7 floors? Just maximize it then.
As for planning, well we had the Principle Groups recommendation for Form Based Codes, and for 500000 dollars the planners said “ah thanks, but we’re not going to do that. We’re going to do something we’re going to call “context based” zoning. So I guess that was 1/2 million down the toilet. ( I met in person with James Freas and discussed this with him).
I’m not impressed with planners, sorry to say. They are just doing whatever mayor fuller wants them to do.
Anyways, all this will thankfully be over Tuesday and my wife and I will decide how much longer we want to live in Newtonville. It’s no longer that appealing to stay here.
@Fig: Here are the links – which will also be in my most excellent newsletter and website: http://www.amysangiolo.com
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/99760
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/99882
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/99881
Amy, I don’t live in Lower Falls. But while I see the Lower Falls Improvement Association approved the compromise, I didn’t see Right Size Riverside. Did they? I already complimented LFIA for their willingness to compromise in my original post. Is Right Size and LFIA the same group? Not being snide, I’ve got no idea.
But if they are separate, I think you need to correct your post, and I think I’ll wait and see Right Size Riverside come out with a response.
And Rick, for a cesspool, you seem to be neck deep in it my friend. You post here as much as anyone… 😉 Perhaps you just like to get your hands dirty.
As for your question about not going up to 7 floors, you misunderstood me. 6 floors is where it is maximized, depending on a lot of factors of course. I’m saying above that you likely have parking issues, construction issues, etc. And most of Newton except for Newton Corner isn’t built above 4 stories, so at some point set-backs on the upper floors don’t work.
As for not living in Newtonville any longer, I sincerely hope you decide to stay. We don’t always agree but that’s ok with me. And I think you add a good perspective. Perhaps when these new Washington Street projects open up you won’t find it as bad as you think. In all seriousness, as a near abutter, does nothing about these changes appeal to you?
I’m pretty happy about Cafe Nero and the toy store for instance, on Austin Street. Doesn’t some of these buildings act as a noise block for you from the pike? Not poking the bear, just curious as to whether you are thinking of leaving because of the traffic, the development, or if you really see no positives about Washington Place/Hello Washington.
Have a good night all. See you on the flip side of the election.
Isn’t in interesting that the staunchest advocates for affordable housing…do not live in villages where these mega-developments are proposed?
Deferring density to another village for the sake of affordable housing may help you sleep at night and maintain your pious throne, but guess what… you’re NIMBY. Last I checked, no one is proposing the parking triangle in Newton Centre be turned into 500 units of luxury apartments with 10% affordable. #waban #chestnuthill #newtoncentre
And that the 1,000th time, I am supportive of affordable housing, but 800 units at NND is too high of a price to pay.
None of the buildings block the pike noise from where I am. I live four houses in from Washington street. Perhaps one of the houses on my corner will come down and a 6 story apartment will go in, in which case I will surely move out. I have a feeling that’s why one of the houses between myself and Washington street failed to sell recently even after 2 large price reductions. Because the interested buyers didn’t want the uncertainty of what might be built right next to them.
The noise is 70 dB on my front porch. It’s 100dB ( with spikes to 115dB ) across the street from Washington Place. It’s pretty loud at Austin Street too, so good luck with your outdoor cafe. There’s nothing but the star market lot between Austin Street and the pike.
If they could affordably build over the pike, that would be a huge win for Newtonville in terms of making it more walkable and pleasant. Walking down Washington street, which we do a bit to got to the West a Newton Cinema, is most unpleasant because of the pike noise. But apparently it’s not economical ( I presume).
@Eilleen
If only I had known that word when it would have been most useful- in 7th grade.
Any answer I didn’t know on a test would be filled in with “Bullocks!”
LOL
@Fignewtonville Actually the developments on Washington street, the pike noise, and with the exception of councilor a norton the sense that “the other side of the tracks” is getting the shaft all the time would be a reason for us to leave. The Charter Commission eliminating local representation was a blatant move in that direction which was fortunately stopped. Now the Carr school problems.
It’s the exacerbation of class inequality, further exemplified by ( fair or not ) the perception that mayor fuller is out of touch with the folks that live in Newtonville/ Nonantum. The charade that was “Hello Washington Street ” was a con.
The last mayor that I felt was connected to our side of town was mayor Mann.
I didn’t follow local politics that much then, but he was always seeming hanging out on this side of town. That was my perception at least.
@Jack Pryor What was this about Engine 6 vilifying a candidate in 2017?
Jumping into this late, but here’s a tell: if a candidate or partisan says that they would approve Riverside at the originally approved size, they aren’t really serious about adding housing. That project didn’t get built because it was not economically feasible.
Here’s another tell: you support only not-for-profit affordable housing. Given the price of land in the city, the opportunities for not-for-profit development are very limited. We’re going to get most deed-restricted units as a consequence of for-profit developers seeking a special permit, the inclusionary zoning rules, or 40B. Just look at the last ten years. How many units have those three mechanisms built v. not-for-profits.
Here’s another tell: you vilify developers. For-profit developers, I would wager, built 90% of the housing in Newton, if not more. They are responsible for the very character of the community people are hell-bent on preserving. The only reason we seem to have only the greedy big developers is that developers can only afford to fight the fight for big projects, the process is too expensive at a smaller scale. Want less rapacious developers? Make it easier to build more moderate projects. Like it or not, for-profit developers are the engine for affordable housing in Newton. To wish it any other way is naive or cynical. Which is it, Amy?
Here’s another tell: you talk about preserving naturally affordable housing. People are not paying for the small Cape on the lot, they are paying for the lot. And, yes the lot is more valuable if you can tear down and rebuild. But, it won’t be affordable. The market is on fire. Eventually, people will decide to live with a minimal footprint and renovate. See Palo Alto and the rest of Silicon Valley where restrictions on tearing down didn’t prevent 1,500 sq. ft. bungalows from reaching well over $1 million.
Here’s another tell: you complain about building height when you live across an eight-lane highway from a project. That’s what tells me the LFIA isn’t acting in complete good faith.
Here’s another tell: you complain about the impact on schools, but don’t advocate for building more school capacity.
Here’s another tell: you complain about displacement, but don’t propose even short-term rent control.
Here’s another tell: you smear a candidate with an innuendo that her non-profit getting money from a developer makes her unfit, when her non-profit provides housing and other services to the most needy! The candidate and the developer trying to make it easier to live in Newton. And, you’re convinced that should be a political liability. Ken Parker made that argument. Lisa Gordon made that argument. Carolyn Gabbay made that argument. It’s not only despicable, it is the very antithesis of advocacy for affordable housing.
Candidates say they are for “reasonable” housing because it would be politically untenable to say the quiet part out loud.
@Terry — This came out in an email against Amy on the eve of the 2017 preliminary:
“I am distressed by reports from friends who’ve been impressed by Amy Sangiolo. Amy is actively campaigning against the new charter and supports the city’s current 40B stance. In the four years since I started paying attention to Newton politics (Engine 6), Amy has repeatedly tried to obstruct progress on housing. She voted against Washington Place, and was the 17th (not the crucial 16th) vote on Austin Street—and only because of a last-minute increase in the number of affordable units (intended to appease her), which paradoxically endangered the entire project by making it unfinanceable without an infusion of state money. ”
Washington St was built in any case and Amy WAS the 16th vote or the developer wouldn’t have negotiated. She got the city 50% more affordable housing than the project’s supporters had settled for.
Supporters of affordable housing should have been thrilled with her getting the project approved, but instead she apparently made nobody happy?
I think revisiting the pro-forma for Austin St. with the actual rents will show it to be more profitable for the developer than originally stated, and even more so with additional state money. We need a diversity of views on the council to drive hard bargains like this.
My concern for Austin St. was preserving the health of the wonderful small businesses that make Newtonville special during the construction, and the loss of acres of city property that might have a critical alternative use.
The small businesses have faired well with the negotiated parking mitigations (particularly availability of parking in the Shaws lot). Let’s hope they can weather the village street renovation as well.
On the other hand we now suddenly have a need for a NEWCAL location to replace the senior center that Austin St. sits next to. Well, at least we do have the affordable housing Amy negotiated for, and the $820/month in lease revenue the deal provided the city.