Takeaway #1
The electorate, at large, supports or is neutral about redevelopment. Neighbors of big projects, though, push back hard.
Twelve candidates were endorsed by Voters for a Vibrant Newton (V). Vibrant Newton favors redevelopment and multi-modal transportation policy. Vibrant Newton won 10 of its 12 races. A Vibrant Newton challenger, Alicia Bowman, unseated a Newton Democracy incumbent, Greg Schwartz. (That race is under recount because the margin was only 30 votes.)
Ten candidates were endorsed by Newton Democracy (N), which opposes the redevelopment City Hall is debating. Newton Democracy won 3 of its 10 races. Newton Democracy did not unseat a Vibrant Newton incumbent.
City-wide, then, candidates who tend to support redevelopment did better. In the precincts next to big projects, though – Northland, Riverside, Washington Place – the opposition candidates outperformed. And Newton Democracy’s three victories were significant:
- Julia Malakie (N) defeated Carolina Ventura (V). This was the ‘cleanest race track’ in the competition between Vibrant Newton and Newton Democracy: the only head-to-head between two oppositely-endorsed candidates, neither an incumbent. Newton Democracy won.
- Emily Norton (N) held off Bryan Barash (V). Barash ran the best organized city council campaign I’ve ever seen.
- Pam Wright (N), a first-time candidate, won city-wide.
Takeaway #2
The claims of anti-Semitism in the Newton curriculum do not resonate with the electorate.
Three candidates for school committee tried to energize voters concerned by allegations of anti-Semitism in Newton pedagogy. They were each defeated by about 40 points. The more noteworthy school result was Julia Gaebler’s. She seems to have gotten 900+ votes in a four day, write-in campaign fueled by outrage over facility shortcomings at the new Horace Mann. More on that in the prediction section, below.
Takeaway #3
On the 100th anniversary of women’s suffrage, the Newton City Council is now majority women for the first time.
Assuming that Alicia Bowman’s victory over Greg Schwartz holds up in the recount, 14 of 24 city councilors will be women next term. This includes Holly Ryan, Newton’s first openly transgender person elected to office. Statewide, less than 30% of city council seats are held by women.
Finally, one prediction:
Education will succeed development as the new paradigm of Newton politics. Since at least 2015, development has been cresting as a point of contention. It will now recede. Education will become the frame of debate. Here’s why:
First, redevelopment will become less salient. Northland, Riverside, and Washington Street re-zoning are each, by themselves, a big issue. All happening at once (in an election year,) they became a city-wide flash-point. The planning and development pipeline will not be as full in coming years.
Education, meanwhile, is becoming more salient. The public schools are the beating heart of Newton, and several issues are raising our collective blood pressure:
- The mayor will soon propose a Prop 2 1/2 override (I predict) to fund reconstruction of three schools. Higher taxes will always spark debate.
- The teachers don’t have a contract. And they’re even talking about a strike.
- Housing questions lead, naturally, to schools questions. As the city digests new housing development, parents will increasingly want assurance about class sizes. The city’s demographer asserts that aging in place countervails new construction. Parents may be skeptical, and they are a political force.
Jake is wrong about development.
If rezoning were to pass as is, every Ward in the city will experience more aggressive development. Every village center
could be transformed. Even now West Newton is close to being totally rebuilt. Nonantum is changing quickly.
Of course, Newtonville is already impacted. Once developers
get a foothold there is no way to reverse the trend.
Schools will need to be renovated or rebuilt. No one knows where
the new revenues will come from. There are limits to ever escalating taxes.
The only real takeaway is that more often than not, incumbency wins. It is very difficult to unseat an incumbent city councilor.
The schools need to be rebuilt/renovated and expanded in order to provide a 21st century education to all students. The developments are a minor factor at best.
Those who live closest to any development will be the most vocal. They will also be the most informed about the area and the council should listen carefully to their input. If the input is a flat out No to development, then those who take that position lose a vital opportunity to provide input.
IMHO – Newton voters will flat out reject an Override. Newton officials need to start thinking creatively for potential new tax revenues. First, all local colleges and Newton-Wellesley Hospital need to pony up and make payments in lieu of taxes.
This has been talked about for years and needs to happen. BC should be the first major contributor!
@Peter: “BC should be the first major contributor!” Guessing not likely when we take the Woods….
@ Amy- It should have been happening for the last several years!
Jake is right that many in Newton would like to see development in the City, asking as it’s not in their neighborhood. Its classic NIMBYism at a neighborhood level.
The richest parts of the City have done a good job in making sure development happens in other parts of the City. And many on V14 don’t seem to care.
@William Berkman – How come every time someone makes a statement like that they always ignore Chestnut Hill which both has some of the most expensive homes in the city AND some of the densest and most recent big development.
It’s amusing when I put these comments together:
1) Voters will hate new development, so we should listen to those who have it in their backyard and who don’t want it.
2) The schools need rebuilding. (as do our roads and other infrastructure)
3) The voters will reject an override so we should find other sources of funding.
Let’s throw in the fact that the tax burden is on residents because of the single family zoning that dominates the city. So… um… where is this magical money going to come from?
Oh… I know… development! But… wait… we can’t have that. In fact, we were supposed to have an additional 300,000 sq ft. commercial property t Riverside until Right Size stepped in and negotiated it away. So that’s potential revenue gone for good. While you were all watching Northland, that was voted away last night.
@Jerry
The Chestnut Hill development started in the 1970’s, with the most recent major development decision (Avalon) now close to 20 years ago.
That’s a generation ago. Not such a conpelling counter.
We’ve got green line access in Waban and Newton Center, and all those “smart” growth advocates are nowhere to be seen. But that commuter rail in Newtonville with intermittent trains? That’s the Mecca alright.
You’re really going on record that these developments are equitably distributed across the City?
Hmm. The Wegman’s plaza on Rt 9 was the last completed big development project in my memory and that was just a few years ago. It sits amidst a sea of even bigger development between the two malls and the two high rise towers.
So yes I say it is mistaken to keep saying the richest parts of the city foist all the big development on other parts of the city. If that’s their aim they’ve failed.
That said, could/should Waban and or Newton Center have additional development. Sure.
HMMM. Facts please. Mr. Berkman, please give us a number that compares development in Chestnut Hill to the city that supports your conjecture. The last time I looked at data, Chestnut Hill was putting up with much more development than the rest of the city.
@Jeffrey
We’ve got 300 units slated for Newtonville, with a intent for Korff to add hundreds more down the atreet, and an ongoing zoning process to make that happen.
Zero school capacity to absorb any of it.
@Jerry
Squeezing in a Wegmans in the sea of already existing development. Meh. Your lukewarm support for Waban and Newton Center, rather than typical zeal you display for development is telling.
Mssrs. Reilly and Pontiff:
Your credibility wanes a bit if you are pushing the narrative that development on the south side of Route 9 truly constitutes a sacrifice by those who dwell in the Chestnut Hill neighborhood of Newton that predates the expansive zip code boundaries.
Let’s try to keep it real.
I hope people will read the Globe series on traffic congestion that began today.
Summary of Day 1: 1.7 million people drive to work in Greater Boston. Nearly 60,000 new daily driving commuters added in the last 5 years.
Meanwhile, subway and bus ridership have inexplicably dropped over that same period.
Boston has the worst rush hour traffic in the nation.
The State House has one of the worst track records when it comes to employees using public transit (Bryan Barash?)
Massachusetts has done little to address the congestion crisis.
Instead, we just build, build, build and increase congestion and pollution.
Will the horses ever be able to catch up to the cart?
@peter would encourage you to read the Boston Magazine piece on the same issue: https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2019/11/19/transportation-big-ideas/.
Pay particular attention to Newton resident Amy Dain’s ideas on a “128 Mayor”.
It’s not as simple as saying “we just build and build” because it’s about building the right way in the right places. We have a huge advantage within 128 because of our proximity to jobs, but our zoning keeps us from building in a way that can increase opportunities for workers and for better transit options.
Zoning, jobs, housing and transportation are all tied together.
Interesting that Jake chose to create a deeper divide in Newton – the (V)s the (N)s. Dividing vs uniting.
Not a great optic for a Congressional candidate to represent Massachusetts.
“Instead, we just build, build, build and increase congestion and pollution.”
The more we build, build, build just outside of Newton, the more congestion and pollution we have going through Newton. 80% of Needham Street traffic is cut through traffic. I believe there are 40B projects going up on Newton’s border with Needham and Wellesley.
If we want to reduce congestion and pollution, we need to get effective, reliable mass transit going so some (not all!) people have alternative ways to get around.
We also need more walkable communities, so people can run small errands – shopping, going to the park, dining out – without getting into a car. The average car in Newton drives over 44 miles a day. The most popular work places in Newton are Boston, Waltham, and Cambridge. All less than 10 miles away. Most of our driving isn’t commuting.
Free school buses would help reduce traffic too!
@Jake raises an interesting issue, which is probably more complex than his info. The reality today is that in 2 municipal elections, over a 2 year period, 1/2 of the City Council turned over. An historian would have to tell you if this has happened previously in Newton within such a short time frame. There are many factors: A 2017 mayoral race, retirements, great campaigns from newcomers, and the advent of PAC’s. By law the political parties are not involved, but PAC’s are, and these PAC’s are usually one issue groups that mobilize and raise funds for their cause. As a point, if the goals of Newton Democracy were to remove me from office, and also elect Bill Humphrey in Ward 5, then they were successful. If not, then their wins are not significant, given that Emily Norton worked hard and would have won with/without their endorsement. (my opinion). There would probably be more turnover on the Council, except that some Wards simply do not have elections wherein new people are seeking the office. Hopefully, the increased compensation will add candidates where currently none exist.
Chuck, nothing in your comment or that article controverts what I wrote. Further new construction of apartment / condo complexes without significant improvements in public transit is irresponsible environmental suicide. But per usual, greed will carry the day.
@peter I think we may agree on the sickness but not the cause. Building will continue to happen because there is a market. Jobs keep coming, people want to be close to those jobs, people will continue to demand more housing. The area (whether it’s Newton or another community) will build those houses.
Yes, we need to fix transit and transportation. That solution will not be built on cars, that much is also clear. Public transportation works best in places that have significant density.
So if Greater Boston (and Newton) is going to build anyway, which it is, and we need to fix transportation, which we do, and that fix won’t rely on cars, which we know it can’t, then the answer is to build in a way that adds the appropriate density.
I agree with Jim Cote 100%. And glad you are still posting Jim.
@JimCote, sad to see you are leaving.
The City has become polarized with sides. The PACs exacerbates the issue.
And many on the Council are too focused on supporting certain causes (du jour) vs pragmatically supporting what’s best for Newton (IMHO).
Voted for you because to me, in reading your emails and posts as well as watching your debates, you seem more like the latter than the prior.
Hope that you maintain and active voice in Newton. Thank you for your service.
I actually think Newton has the potential to be more moderate than the makeup of the incoming Council, but hard to validate with only a 25% voter turnout. If all of these development projects goes to (poop) and we get hit with an override, we have no one to blame but ourselves.