So, I didn’t win, and I’m happy to be welcomed back to my role blogging with Village14 after a year-plus hiatus.
One thing that has been rolling around in my mind throughout the campaign: We, as a community, need to talk about renters. There are a lot of us in Newton. 28.9%, in fact. There are a lot of apartment buildings in Newton too, although many of them are tucked away in places you would never think to look (unless you tried to knock every door in your neighborhood).
And yet there is only one renter on the incoming 24-member Newton City Council: Andrea Kelley, who is also a former Newton homeowner. So every single member of the incoming City Council has owned a home in Newton, despite renters making up 28.9% of the city. Renters do run for City Council: Nicole Castillo in 2017, Tarik Lukas and me in 2019 (that I know of). But they haven’t been winning.
So why does this matter? Well, we talk a lot about apartments. In my conversations, I felt there were many times that being a renter meant to voters that there was a reason to question a candidate’s commitment to the community. Longtime owners would compare their mortgage payments that were set a decade ago or more to current rental prices. There was a clear and near-universal preference among homeowners to see condos built instead of apartments.
Meanwhile, as I often mentioned on the campaign trail, I watched one close friend – a 40+ year Newton resident and longtime renter – almost pushed out by a massive rent increase. And 2 more friends who were active community members – one in their 20s, another unintentionally retired – forced to leave because of lack of affordable options. I had breakfast with 2 sisters who were scared to death that their mother couldn’t afford her property taxes but also can’t afford the rents on a unit subsidized at 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). I heard endless concerns about high rents in new apartments but a startling lack of understanding of what it is actually like to be renting in this market right now at different price points and family sizes.
I don’t have a 5 point plan or any suggestions other than to say that we should start having this conversation. The 28.9% of our population who rent deserve to have a voice. I hope this will spark the incoming City Council to think deeply about what this means for their constituents, and voters to think differently about future candidates who rent.
EDIT: A comment from a Facebook group was removed from this post.
Brian, I don’t believe anyone is (or a significant number are) questioning your commitment to the community just because you happen to be a renter. It was a very close election in your case, and it appears that a majority simply may have either preferred the policies of Emily Norton or her as a candidate.
Moreover, it seems that there has been considerable discussion of renters and renting in Newton. In fact, most of the new and proposed housing which has generated the most discussion have been rental units.
Having said this, it’s likely a fact that owners are, or at least have been, longer term residents in the city with larger financial stakes and risks vis a vis city development, especially of recent concern in your City Ward.
And as you say, you “don’t have a 5 point plan or any suggestions other than to say that we should start having this conversation.” As I said, I think that conversation has heretofore started — but, certainly, let it continue.
Hear, hear.
You’ve very generously characterized comments like the one from Facebook as just “preferring condos” — I would also argue that such perspectives really amount to discrimination against renters, who tend to be people who simply lack the intergenerational wealth necessary to afford a down payment in this market. I would love to see the numbers of homeowners in Newton who have bought in the last 10-15 years *without* the benefit of family wealth- and by that, I mean both direct assistance with down payments/ mortgages, but also being able to purchase a family home for less than market value, or having had a parent pay for college and/or graduate school, which allows a person to avoid student debt and save for a home. (FTW, I count myself among those lucky people).
Slighting renters as “transient” and “not committed to their communities” misses the mark. Are some renters one or the other? Sure, but many others are not; I know many long-term renters in Newton with children in our schools who are deeply involved with the community — and many homeowners who are equally UNinvolved.
We should not be slandering nearly 30% of our population because they do not have 200K in cash for a down payment.
The problem is not the renters: it’s the high rents, as Bryan was pointing out.
Actually Isabelle, I think Bryan was talking about the underrepresented voice of renters in our municipal government.
Welcome back Bryan!
I think you are absolutely correct to urge this conversation. As a former resident of San Francisco and a homeowner in Berkeley the push pull of homeowners vs renters will become more tense. I now live in a lovely home not in Newton, but my grand daughter attended Newton Country Day/Convent of the Sacred Heart. My advice has always been when you are inclusive it means you understand a nation, a state, a city or a neighborhood must embrace all its citizenry and work for sustainable wise solutions. To have a country where everyone gets to experience a bit of the American dream ensures we all will be able to hold on our piece of that dream much longer. This catastrophic three years is providing many lessons and Americans had better be learning them. Human beings are more important than things! Period!
We should question the idea that home ownership is “better” than renting.
In the long term, higher levels of home ownership are associated with higher unemployment.
One theory is that home owners are less likely to move than renters, reducing workforce mobility.
More details here –
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/business/homeownership-may-actually-cause-unemployment.html
@Bryan – thank you for speaking up on it. Having grown up in NYC apartments, I’ve always been shocked by the attitude in the Boston area towards renters and the lack of understanding that some people are long-term renters with great commitment to their neighborhoods. I’m also horrified by the vulnerability of tenants to the ability of landlords to force people out with drastic rent increases. We should be valuing renters as residents of Newton.
VMorris,
I’m unsure what you mean vis a vis renting and housing, “This catastrophic three years is providing many lessons and Americans had better be learning them,” since the past three Trump years have seen the strongest economy in modern American history. But since you say you’ve lived in San Francisco and now Berkeley, perhaps you’re referring to the exploding homeless urination/defecation in the street population in the Democrat utopia of the Bay Area, with the widest wealth gap in the USA.
Almost of us have rented at one time or another in our lives. Just because a member of city council happens to own a home does not mean he or she lacks the mental capacity to protect and represent the interests of renters.
There are other reasons I disagree with Brian’s implication that voters “do not have a voice”.
Renters still get to vote. If, as Brian writes, renters account for 29% of Newton residents, then renters have substantial power at the polls.
Everyone who lives in Newton has freedom of speech, the right to petition the government, and equal access to the courts.
@VMorris, @Jim Eptein – Let’s leave the national politics out of it. There are dozens of other blogs dedicated to that.
Yes, I have often been struck by comments that quite casually characterize renters as inherently not being invested in their community. That really rubs me the wrong way and contradicts a lot of people I know personally.
Very close to home … the Newton Nomadic Theater was founded by actor Linda Goetz, a renter. The theater and Linda have made a significant contribution to the city’s cultural life over the past 5+ years. We may not hang on to Linda in the years ahead because nearly every renter in the city has a tenuous hold on their Newton housing in a world of rapidly rising property values, and sudden rent increases.
@AD – I totally agree. The vast majority of home owners owe their fortunate situation, at least in part, to inter-generational wealth. I know I do. We only were able to buy our first home in West Roxbury thanks to my mother-in-law’s estate when she died. We were only able to buy a home in Newton thanks to my mother’s bequest when she died.
Dismissing or de-valuing folks contributions to the community based on being owners/renters is effectively judging folks on who their parents are/were and how much wealth they accumulated or inherited
As someone who rented in Newton for several years before buying, I can speak up for my personal experience:
– I did not ever feel explicitly slighted or ignored as a renter, at least by the political system.
– I did have more of a natural inclination to be more involved and pay attention once we did buy, and were paying taxes directly (rather than subsidizing our landlord’s taxes through our rent).
– Another factor in civic engagement is having a child ion the schools. That happened for us a few years before we bought, but it was a big step in feeling the need to be part of the community, versus simply living there.
– So: I think a problem may be not that renters are not represented by one of their own on the council (not that I think that was Bryan’s point at all), but that finding ways to get more renters engaged by making them see how they are, indeed, members of the community and should participate in the structure. Some renters will be naturally disengaged for various reasons, but that doesn’t mean that applies to all- especially as we see more apartment buildings go up in the village centers, bringing in renters who should be made to feel they are needed in civic engagement.
In any case, it is great food for thought and I am glad Bryan brought it up.
Sure renters care in most respects about the communities wherein they live such as safe surroundings, convenient amenities, and schools if they have kids. However, renters would seem much less likely to care about protecting, maintaining or increasing property values, such as via zoning. In fact, it would be reasonable for them to favor rezoning and denser development which could lower property values if that translated into lower rent than otherwise would be the case.
It’s not to say there’s a right or wrong or good or bad, just varying interests and incentives in certain respects.
And Jerry, don’t discount those without generational assistance who made sacrifices to save for a down payments; or who make choices to purchase in lost costly areas often seeking to ride inflating prices elsewhere.
Correction — that’s “less costly” areas in last sentence.
Thanks for running, @Bryan. It was a vigorous and interesting campaign to watch from this side of town! It was very good of you to put yourself out there in the current environment.
Interesting points raised here, too. Many of us have led multiple lives in this arena at some point in our lives, as homeowners, renters, and/or landlords. Adopting policies that reinforce the chance for comfortable and sustainable conditions for all groups is a worthy goal.
I’m taken aback by this finding: “There was a clear and near-universal preference among homeowners to see condos built instead of apartments.” I don’t question this summary, but I know I’ve never felt that way, as I think there is a place for both, especially reasonably priced rentals if we hope to encourage young families to move here.
Like you, I’m not sure I have answers (or even know what the right questions are!), but you have to wonder whether (on top of land prices) the gauntlet that developers have to go through for special permits leads them to aim high in the income strata for new housing. On a different front, I wonder if city officials are looking at the results of liberalizing the rules around accessory apartments in 2016-17 (http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/planning/housing_strategy4/accessory_apartments.asp) to see if those changes are creating more rental options.
@Paul: In terms of accessory apartments, yeah they have looked at it and so far the results are modest at best:
year – new – legalize existing
2016 – 3 – 1
2017 – 9 – 2
2018 – 9
2019 – 12 – 3
h/t Susan Albright for helping me get these statistics.
I have to agree with Michael Singer here. There is no story here. Are politicians discriminating against renters?No! Do you have to be a renter on the city council to represent the views of renters? No!
Is this a new slogan for the city council race in 2021-“We need more renters on the city council!” Yes????
Not all Newton renters are frightened and lower income than the home owners. Not having kids in the Newton schools, Bryan misses out on what it’s like to be part of the thriving community in the schools. It’s a big part of the Newton experience for those who are in it and those who have lived through it. One thing you’ll find out living through it is that there are many visiting doctors, professors, researchers, grad students, etc. who are here for a a year, two years, five years and leave to go to their home country or their home state and were never planning or settling here. Their children and families become integrated in the school communities and then they leave. They’re quite a large group. What percentage? I don’t know. But Newton is attractive to them (close to hospitals, universities, plus the diversity and the education options for their children.) These people are wonderful when they are here and make an incredible contribution to the community but they are…transient. They don’t plan on putting down roots.
I hear a lot of fear mongering in this post and I just don’t think it’s all that dire. The close to 30% of renters have many different stories to tell and actually yes, some of them are transient – by choice.
Isabelle,
I would concur with your sentiment. Newton is a highly sought after city to reside in and for all the right reasons. Property owners aren’t looking to be magnanimous and lend the renters a ‘helping hand.” Generally speaking, a lot of people are consumed with money and profit. Fraternity, generosity, and acts of good-will are not widely enacted. Topics of this nature are dead in their tracks before they start.
Rents are driven higher by the high property taxes that landlords must pay. If there is another Override, expect rents to be driven even higher as landlords can’t keep absorbing the additional property taxes.
Renters, home owners, landlords, etc.
While Bryan’s post was intended to shine light on a perceived slight to a particular group, I would argue that here in Newton, there is an alarming trend toward Progressive Bullying.
Against 800 unit developments, and you’re labeled Anti-Development. Question the bicycle and you may as well be pouring Quaker State on the roads and storm drains of Newton. Question why Developers are only offering apartments and not condos, and you’re viewed as Anti-Renters or against affordable housing (when the real answer is that Developers make more in the long run with rental revenue vs a one time profit play with the sale of a condo). I’ve even been personally called “Marie Antoinette” and that my, “argument reeks of privilege” (and anyone who knows my personal history knows I come from neither).
I’ve even heard rumors (that is best left as rumors) that one incumbent Councilor lost the support of their peers as they were viewed as “not progressive enough”.
Labels and name calling make great sound bytes, but hardly a means to reach consensus, compromise and progress. We can do better, Newton. I will try to do better moving forward.
@Matt Lai – Totally agree that name calling doesn’t get anyone anywhere – that said, ‘Progressive Bullying’ doesn’t help turn down the volume on name calling.
There’s plenty of name calling on both sides of the housing/development issue and none of it helps much.
You’ve been pretty outspoken about Northland’s building of rental apartments rather than condos is one of the things you object to about that project. Why do you think that is such a negative?
@ Matt Lai,
Could it be that the reason developers are building rental complexes vs condos is that they develope with the intention of building cheap ( trailer house ), trash and then flipping it to Real Estate Investment Trusts ?( REIT ? )
Is this what we can expect for the fabric of our city ?
And why are these projects taxed as residential entities and not as profit making businesses???!!!
So why this sudden awareness for the plight of the renter?
I’ve watched 7 smaller naturally affordable rental units on my street in my old neighborhood in Waban go the way of the bulldozer, to be replaced with $1,500,000 condos!
This is the result of way too generous FAR and setback zoning regulations that promote / allow the Mc Mansionization city wide.
It’s not new news to anyone in the development business.
@jerry reilly….
Since a young lad, my views have more or less been consistently moderate. To some on this blog, that may as well be Regan-era conservative. Sorry if you don’t like the phrase I chose but open to suggestions.
Condos vs apartments? We talk about the need for VARIED housing stock, yet many view apartments as the panacea to the housing crisis. With 800 units proposed on Needham Street, why not make room for both? Perhaps @blueprintbill is on to something with build/flip/ditch to REIT.
Lastly, I find it interesting that any/all developers of scale all receive generally favorable treatment from the City…and they’re all represented by Schlesinger and Buchbinder. Not an accusation…just interesting.
Changing the rental stock in Newton is simple and does not require fiddling by bureaucrats. Buy a residence and rent it. Voilà!
Progressive Bullying is exactly what this is. It’s not name calling, it’s labeling this shaming for what it is. I’m not going to be shamed for owning a house. I work hard. I have always worked hard. I did my time as a renter, I wanted more and I worked for it. I’d have a whole lot more land, and a whole lot more space somewhere else but I’m sacrificing that for the other benefits of living on the east coast and living in this specific city. I’m not just a taker, I’m also a giver. In addition, I’m raising conscious, inclusive children who will also give back. This isn’t a town of only $20mm home owners living alongside the 30% renters who are desperate to live here but feel marginalized and unrepresented. So, so many unrepresented community members between those two buckets.
We deserve better than this type of shaming in Newton. We really do. Many of us, most of us, are doing our part already. Matt, please run for something. And while I’m making requests, Amy, please run too.
I’m having a hard time understanding how Bryan’s noting that renters are underrepresented at city hall is shaming.
Also, it’s fascinating when members of one group feel qualified to decide if another group needs representation or not.
@Greg…people who own Honda Civics may also be underrepresented in city hall. I would argue that renters, if they exercise their constitutional right to vote, are represented in city hall as much as any other subgroup of the voting population. Are you or Bryan suggesting that we should have elected positions that are only for renters, or Honda Civic owners?
No Indy, I’m just suggesting that — to use your facetious example — that’s only a judgement that Honda Civic owners can really make for themselves.
To use a more appropriate example, Asian Americans (also a large segment of Newton’s population) might want to say that they feel underrepresented in City Hall. Do you feel qualified to judge on their behalf if their feelings are valid or not?
@Greg…my point was not whether or not a persons feelings are valid, of course they are. My point was that positions on the city council are elected by the voting citizens of Newton in this case. All individuals who vote are represented by whomever is elected. In many case, the person that is elected does not represent the views of all subgroups of the voting population. Since I am not a progressive liberal, I feel like I am totally underrepresented in Newton City Hall. That is my belief and it is the only one I am qualified to decide on. I believe councilors should represent all of their constituents, but I wouldn’t suggest that my group “deserves to have a voice”. Can you expand on your comment “that’s only a decision that Honda Civic owners can really make for themselves”…I’m not sure what you mean by this? What decision?
@Jerry Reilly.
Re rentals vs condos :
In the world of construction it’s a well known fact that ownership is a graphic of the motive of the “developer”.
Clients of Architects / Contractors (private individuals, builders, real estate developers, corporations, institutions ) each have different objectives in putting up buildings.
Private entities build for personal satisfaction, builders and real estate developers build to make money, corporations ( John Deere, IBM, Apple, ), build to polish or establish an image,
Institutions ( Harvard, Williams College, the MFA, etc. usually build quality for long term ownership and maintenance.
It’s all about the MOTIVE of the client.
If it’s to make money, corners are cut, quality is compromised and the outcome is the lessor.
The building we see around us here in Newton reflects these motives. Older housing stock is generally better,.. built for/by highly motivated individuals, and recognized by entities like the NewtonHistorical Commission as “Preferably Preserved “, when subject to the demolition pressures of the $ oriented development community.
Generally developer built construction, does not pass the test of time, it was never valued initially by the builder and is easily dismissed come the next economic wave.
We are currently being faced with a plethora of cheap developer projects that will be a very graphic indicator historically of who we were as a society and a city.
These huge rental complexes are being built to turn a profit, and more likely than not soon sold off to a REIT. They are not being built for the aggrandizement of the city of Newton and its citizenry.
Blueprintbill,
Dittos, dittos, dittos, dittos, dittos!
Just take a look at Avalon, Austin St, Washington St., and soon to come Northland and Riverside — destroying/cheapening Newton piece by piece (actual parcel by parcel).
@blueprintbill – I was asking a different question than you answered. I wasn’t asking about the downside of developer built projects.
I asked:
In either case, Northland is a private developer whether they build condos or rentals. If what you say is true it would equally apply to both condos or rentals.
Facts matter. Northland has never sold one of their developments.
@Jerry Reilly,
Don’t you think that you would have to build better, more attractive apartments if you were trying to sell them than simply rent em? Better acoustically, nicer kitchens, quality finishes ?
A renter can more easily change his address when his neighbors noises or smells become intolerable .
@ Masterplanner,
Indeed Facts matter. Never say never . The If you work for Northland tell us about Northlands sale , June 2019, of “Fountainhead”in Westborough ( 562 units – $130,000,000 ?!
They don’t just acquire / manage,.. this is big business ,.. buy / sell, borrow on owner equity, build more ,.. all over the country. And Newton Benefits ???
And to add to that: The Newton-Needham Chamber has been a Northland tenant for many years, located in a building with three (previously four) other tenants with others across the way from us. I talk to our neighbors all the time. All of us, and others I’ve spoken to, say Northland has been an excellent, responsive and fair landlord. That may not carry as much weight in Blueprint’s conspiracy world, but it should.
But it’s a shame how this thread has gone off topic.
I do work for Northland. Fountainhead was an investment property built in 1968 by A.J. Lane, acquired by Northland in 2014. Northland has never sold one of its development projects, as typified by its 4o year ownership of Marshall’s Plaza on Needham Street, and its 27 year ownership of (its Newton corporate headquarters a)t 2150 Washington Street – both Northland developments, not acquisitions.
@Bryan-
What exactly does “having a voice” mean? Generally, having a seat at the table, or having an equity share means one has a quantifiable “voice”. Are you suggesting renters should have an electoral seat? You just ran for office, but despite not winning, surely there must be city pols that represent your segment of the population..
Unfortunately it doesn’t seem like you have much leverage. What would constitute renters “ having a voice”?
Don’t you work for the state at the statehouse? Your proximity to power on Beacon Hill almost surely means you have much more of a voice than most people in Newton do..,
Am I wrong? I’m really trying to understand what you mean..,
So… my closest friend (since high school) lives on Newtonville Ave yet despite not living on the Ward 2 side of that street, he had a Bryan sign on his lawn. @Bryan, I bet you can guess who it is. 🙂
As such I do not believe there is any ill will to the start of this post. Any friend of my buddy’s is a friend of mine.
That said, the make up of the Newton’s current elected officials skew very much on the far end of progressive. Based solely on online posts (V14, NextDoor, Newton Civic Action Forum on FB), Newton is made up more diverse points of view, but also apparent in all of these forums is that there IS bullying of those who do not conform. Let’s not kid ourselves.
Bryan does a fair job of hearing both sides, but would argue that many with POSTING abilities on V14 definitely skews the content to one side of the aisle, where those who can only comment have more varied views, but are often met with harsh, directed comments.
So coming full circle, does the 28.9% of Newton renters have a voice (on the Council)? I would say, “yes” given how much its make up skews toward the progressive left. If anything, I would argue that those who want to see more cautions, measured, PHASED development are the ones the feel under-represented. (Ok, now comes all the @Matt Lai comments). 🙂
PS I started this comment mentioning my long time friend. His political views skews very different from mine and we have had more beers than I can count debating our views. Yet he’s still one of my very best friends in the world, and if he were to run for office, I would likely vote for him out of friendship and loyalty. There IS HOPE, people!!
I would say that there are two aspects to this, in terms of “having a voice”:
– voters should be thinking about whether it matters to them that a candidate is a renter, and hopefully as a result of this post more people will think about having a positive preference for getting a renter or two on the council, rather than a negative preference.
– City councilors should be thinking about all their constituents who are renters and hopefully considering what it means to represent their interests.
Obviously I’m not suggesting that there are set aside seats for renters. But just as voters might value racial, gender, disability, etc. diversity in who they choose to vote for, perhaps they will consider whether a renter is a valued and important voice on the council.
Thanks Bryan. Understood
Voting is the quintessential act of exercising one’s voice in government.
Renters vote.
Ergo, renters have a voice.
Bryan, we have come a long way since the earliest days of our fledgling nation when only the landed gentry held the franchise. I really do not understand the argument here that renters don’t have a voice. So long as the candidate meets the residency requirements to be on the ballot, I personally don’t ask whether they rent, pay a mortgage – or even have a mortgage, or are living with extended family. I also suspect that the great majority of voters in Newton were “renters” at some point in their lives. I don’t know how many people go directly from living with their parents to being homeowners; I certainly don’t know anyone who has had that luxury.
Also, not only is there widespread experience among the electorate with tenancies, there is enormous diversity among “renters” and rental properties. Some people rent entire houses for tens of thousands per year while others pay far less. Some have children in the schools while others hardly even know their roommates.
Are you trying to start a discussion about rent control? Better ways to ensure that new developments that set aside units as affordable shall be required to keep the units affordable in perpetuity? Financial education to teach people how to save enough for a down payment? How to get out of a bad lease? Who to call when your landlord fails to provide heat and hot water? Because we could have a lot of discussion about tenants (the proper term for “renters”).
I feel there’s enough division between groups of people, without pitting owners vs. lessees, as Brian is advocating.
As a regular reader here might suspect, I’m a conservative and there are virtully no conservatives on the City Council or School Committee. So when you add in the Mayor, all 33 elected officials in Newton are progressives. Yet I’m fine living in Newton, figuring Newton is so blessed with its great geography and wealth, it can withstand all the liberal meddling for many years to come.
Insofar as Brian’s lessees, lessors will generally charge what they can reasonably optimally get, and all the city meddling will not much change that.
@Jim – Suggesting an underrepresented group should have a stronger voice in government isn’t divisive at all, in my opinion.
For example, I always felt Councilor Cote made a great case that on a council of 24, he was an independent Republican voice that deserved to be heard on the council. Clearly that didn’t carry the day in the most recent election, for whatever reason, but the point still stands.
Bryan, I like what you say on this. Please tell that to Democrats and their main stream media, social internet platforms and colleges, universities and schools throughout the country who encourage diversity of all groups imaginable EXCEPT diversity of conservative thought.
I am always surprised that so many are willing to pay steep rents in developments without gaining any equity in the properties in which they reside. It seems almost unfair not to be allowed to buy in and become part of a condo association. In any event, the Newton of the future will be home to ever wealthier people, whether they own a McMansion or rent an apartment. The distinction between renters and owners, in this context, is meaningless.
Will the city of Newton be keeping statistics on the kinds of people moving in to Riverside or Northland or Korffland? It will be interesting to learn if these renters add any diversity to the city’s socioeconomic make-up, as promised by so many candidates and voting blocs. “A Community for All,” the sign of one successful candidate read.
The most interesting detail in this post, and most surprising to me, is that nearly a 1/3 of Newton residents are renters. I would have guess far far less.
On nearly all issues homeowners and renters interests are perfectly aligned. We all want good schools, good streets, etc. The one place where homeowners and renters interests differ is property values.
For a homeowner, rapidly accelerating home prices provide a personal bonanza, so long as they continue rising. For renters they threaten their continued ability to stay in their home.
So when talking development issues, maintaining property values is an important goal, but maximizing property value (of existing homes) shouldn’t be the ultimate goal. That’s the single place I see where renters and owners interest may not be aligned.
Housing prices continuing to rise year after year at far higher rate than wages is ultimately unsustainable and a threat to us all. The only two ways I know to counter that are a major economic upheaval or a significant regional increase in the housing supply. I vote for the latter.
@Jerry – I agree with you that for the most part, their interests align. However, I do believe there is a perception that we should preference ownership, without a full understanding of the unintended consequences.
One that hasn’t been discussed on this post yet: ownership is far more likely to result from inter-generational wealth. We also know that while the household median net worth is $247,500 for a white family, that number for a black family is $8. (See: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/12/11/that-was-typo-the-median-net-worth-black-bostonians-really/ze5kxC1jJelx24M3pugFFN/story.html)
Preferencing ownership preferences families who can afford a downpayment. And those families are far more likely to be white.
@Jerry,
I, likewise, was surprised by the percentage of renters cited in this thread, and I do agree with you that the interests of residents who live in this city, whether as lessees or as homeowners, are aligned. As for property values, I would argue that the interests of commercial residential property owners are aligned with individual home owners. It is not simply the individual homeowner who wishes to see an increase in real estate value. I think it is also wise to keep in mind that for the vast majority of folks, home ownership represents their single largest investment and potential for future financial security.
As an aside, I have been actively researching the local real estate market between Newton and Boston and to my surprise, there are some very nice and what I consider surprisingly affordable properties available for sale in Suffolk County, though not in the trendy neighborhoods, and for less than the Newton real estate market.
@Jim Epstein,
Project by project,… “it’s death by a thousand cuts”, cheapening and threatening the homeowner’s investment in Newton .
Why is it always “black” or “white”? I’m thinking perhaps I and my fellows Asians are not fairly represented. 😉
As a city, most are well intended, even if some of the comments get very spirited (if not, mean spirited).
What is depressing is that with all of the issues going on in Newton – development, contracts, budget, etc…. the 25% voter turnout a travesty. We have no one to blame for the decisions made by the City Council or School Committee but ourselves.
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=76647.58&BlobID=99923
Renters don’t pay RE tax, but are allowed to vote on overrides. Is it fair?