Tomorrow night, we as a community, through our elected representatives, have an opportunity to breathe life into a vision of Newton that is truly welcoming and sustainable. As our City Councilors engage in final deliberations on the Northland development, I hope they stay focused on the enormous benefits that so many residents and local organizations—Engine 6, Green Newton, 350Mass, the Newton-Needham Chamber, the League of Women Voters, Mothers Out Front — see in this project.
The benefits have been enumerated many times and from various angles, but briefly, the project will transform 23 disjointed acres of an obsolete industrial tract into a walkable, environmentally sensitive new neighborhood with the following features (list not exhaustive):
- 800 new homes, 140 of them affordable—the most ever created in Newton by a single development
- 10 acres of public open space, including 8 new parks, and new connections to the Upper Falls Greenway
- significant new retail and office space, generating millions in new revenue
- ample parking for cars and bikes, plus car-share and bike-share infrastructure
- a “mobility hub” with free public shuttle service to the Newton Highlands T station every 10 minutes (plus free T passes for residents!)
- cutting-edge sustainability, including LEED for Neighborhood Development certification and 3 Passive House-certified residential buildings, making it the largest Passive House multifamily project in the state
At this point, all foreseeable impacts—on traffic, parking, city finances, the environment—have been evaluated. Plans for their mitigation, inscribed in the Council order, are strict, comprehensive, and enforceable (see 11/14/19 Planning memo).
Nevertheless, opponents of Northland complain that they haven’t been “taken seriously” and “a compromise balancing different points of view has not been reached”—and so have given notice that they’re moving forward with plans for petition drives to reverse Council approval (should this happen) not only of the Northland project, but also of the Washington Street Vision.
The threat is no joke. Even so, it’s hard to take seriously the notion that development negotiations should always come to rest at some magical midpoint between thoughtful, far-sighted planning informed by a wide range of community needs and constructive feedback (on the one hand), and (on the other) the short-sighted views of “neighborhood groups” who seemingly would be happy if nothing ever changed. What opponents are asking for is not a balanced “compromise” but special treatment—or else.
Claims reported recently in the Boston Globe—that councilors have failed to “meaningfully address traffic [and] the financial impact”—are simply untrue. In fact (as Councilor Auchincloss explained in his Nov. 19 newsletter), traffic “was the subject of a dozen surveys or reviews and intensive negotiations,” and now “traffic control measures are robust.” The project will have a “net-positive fiscal impact (including school costs)” and comes with “almost $10 million to upgrade area infrastructure,” including $1.5 million for a new Countryside school.
Some opponents, stuck in their own nightmare visions of “mega-development,” have argued that denying the Northland rezone and special permit, and forcing the developers to “go 40B,” would produce a better project: smaller in scale but with a greater number of affordable housing units. My pro-housing Engine 6 colleagues and I reject this argument, which fails to recognize (a) that the housing crisis is largely due to extremely low overall supply, and (b) the current proposal’s manifold other benefits.
The Northland developers have shown themselves to be open-minded, reasonable, and willing to try new things in the face of daunting challenges (climate change, housing shortage). As they told the Globe, they are at the end of a process that began three years ago and has included hundreds of community meetings. They have “engaged with anyone and everyone who wished to meet with [them] to provide feedback.” In return, they have made major changes to a project that started out looking pretty good, but now will truly be a “landmark green development” (see Green Newton endorsement) that makes a significant dent in our housing shortage (see Engine 6 housing explainer).
So: It’s time. I hope our City Councilors set their sights high tomorrow night and approve this game-changing project. I hope they can steer clear of the trap we sometimes find ourselves in: the idea that Newton—in the midst of a region desperate for more homes—is somehow finished, closed, without room for any more people. This is not a welcoming vision. I don’t think it’s who we’re meant to be.
In my opinion, the story at the top of this thread is a load of malarkey [with apologies to Joe Biden]. This Northland proposal for Newton represents the single worst development deal of the last 50 years for the city. Again, I’ll remind people that I am pro development and have supported most major development proposals that have come to Newton in the last decade.
But our city “leaders” have blown the Northland negotiations and appear intent on giving away an extraordinarily valuable Special Permit in exchange for pennies on the dollar. When those “leaders” should have required more affordable housing and a substantial mitigation plan for our schools, they sold us out for shuttle buses and a sprinkler park. Our schoolchildren will pay a very heavy price for this astounding lack of leadership.
I get it. This project will add some inconvenience to the lives of Newton residents, and if I lived next door to the site I am sure I’d have mixed feelings about it. I work on Highland Ave and travel through the Chestnut/Oak St intersection multiple times a day and it still gives me pause. But then I remember that this is not a perfect world, and we all need to make some sacrifices for the greater good. I wish there was some way to bring additional much needed affordable housing to our city that didn’t add some inconvenience, but there just isn’t. We must add diversity at the expense of, at worst, an extra minute or two in our commute or we’ll watch our city slowly starve.
Kathleen makes some really good points here and I highly urge everyone to remember them if and when someone walks up to you with a clipboard asking you to sign a petition. This project is really good for Newton, the City Council has heavily reviewed it, and any petition you might be asked to sign would be an attempt to undermine the work of our elected experts in this process.
Don’t support this project because it’s perfect. It’s not. Support it because it’s the best compromise the smartest and most compassionate people in the city could come up with.
@Nanci: I appreciate your comment and sentiment. But I don’t fully agree.
I actually think this is an extraordinary project. I love the ten acres of open space, including the village green, an area large enough to hold events that Newton really doesn’t have. As someone who lives in the Highlands and works on Needham Street, I’m going to love the free electric shuttles that leave every ten minutes. My friends who understand sustainability better than I do, tell me the passive house technology is a standard beyond anything anywhere in the state. My friends who understand congestion say Northland’s parking concessions will make a big difference. Seniors looking to downsize will welcome age friendly apartments with elevators, And I know that the small and midsize business owners who have been looking for interesting office space are going to love being in a historic Saco-Pettee mill building surrounded by amenities. I could go on.
@Mike: Yawn. You could cut and paste your comment about Northland going back more than a year and it would be identical to your comment today. What you’ve failed to take into account is how much this product has changed and the enormous number of give backs and negotiated changes Northland has made, including, but not limited to: $5 M for transit improvements, burying power lines, the splash park neighbors asked for, school renovation money, subsidized rents for local retailers, parking concessions, and more. I doubt you’ve even compared the plan today to the original.
Kudos to Mrs. Hobson for so eloquently outlining the benefits of this project and putting them in the larger context of our obligations as a city. I could not agree more.
Mike, as we have debated in the past, I could not disagree more with your assessment. I believe this is, in fact, the BEST development deal for Newton in the last 50 years. This is a dramatically different project than what Northland originally introduced, thanks to the dogged work of the City Council and countless community members who engaged in the process. Do you think these pieces of the mitigation plan–which I assume are costing the developer tens of millions of dollars–came out of thin air? There have been years of public meetings on this project with ample opportunities for public feedback. It seems to me that this feedback has indeed directly shaped this project. The school piece has been debated ad nauseam on Village 14, but NPS has stated clearly over and over again that they are more than capable of handling new students generated by this project and others. Are you saying they are just full of malarkey?
Beyond these important points, I think your expectations for an “ideal” project are unrealistic and speaks to Ms. Hobson’s point re: a “magical midpoint” that frankly does not exist. If the developer was forced to adopt your astronomically costly suggestions, why would they not just go 40B, or just build nothing at all? How many community benefits would Newton get then?
Can someone clarify what affordable housing means in Newton? I would appreciate it if someone could speak in explicit terms when answering this question.
@Greg – does that mean they got rid of the steps leading into the elevator buildings?
@Meredith: I’m not sure what you are referring to. (Perhaps you’re confusing it with an early rendition of the Riverside project where I think this came up?) But I do know that many of Newton’s leading seniors advocates have met with Northland, provided feedback that lead to design changes and now strongly support his project.
Greg– You’re correct in stating that my position on Northland has remained consistent for more than a year. As priorities of a Special Permit Northland should have been required to designate 30% of the housing units as affordable, and provide 15K square feet of onsite educational space for Newton Public Schools. Instead, they are designating a smaller percentage of affordable housing than would be required of a far less profitable 40b development, and they are giving nothing more than a token amount of cash to mitigate the major impact of this project on Newton’s schools. I’m a very strong supporter of development in Newton, but this is a joke.
The lengthy permit mitigation agreement has loop holes wide enough for Northland to drive Mack Trucks through. There are allowances for Northland to make changes down the road coupled with almost impossible city reviews. It should be tightened up big-time! But then Northland would likely balk since the agreement’s escapes from what are being presented as requirements would be foreclosed.
BTW, since Engine 6 is raised in the post’s narrative, what Waban residents ‘were able to do’ re the Engine 6 Firehouse is certainly no template for the ‘more unfortunates’ of Upper Falls.
@Ryan Williams–
You are a man of truly great vision with your ability to assess the Northland project all the way from Palm Beach. “The BEST development deal for Newton in the last 50 years.” Ha, I think that’s total malarkey!
Here’s the problem… Personal and political agendas among elected “leaders” trumped both opportunity and need for the city…
1.] Because the massive Northland project requires a Special Permit, Newton had the opportunity to ask for a higher percentage of affordable housing than would be attached to a 40b development. The Special Permit adds much more value than a 40b permit. The developer will make a lot more money. So why did the city officials ask for LESS affordable housing under the Special Permit than they would have gotten by law under 40b?
2.] There is no question that Northland will add many children to the public schools. I’m delighted to welcome growing families to Newton. But I do believe the impact on schools should be mitigated as part of the Special Permit deal. The million and a half dollars in mitigation Northland has proposed would not even be enough to replace and maintain the existing modular classrooms at Countryside School. Those are the same modulars that first had to be built when city “leaders” inaccurately predicted the impact of Avalon Apartments, right down the street from Northland. Why are city officials so quick to forget the lessons of the past?
Less affordable housing than Newton would be entitled to under 40b. A plan that will do practically nothing to mitigate Northland’s impact on schools. And that’s being called the “best development deal in the history of Newton”???
“Affordable housing,” as a technical term in the government & housing world, describes the relationship between household income and housing expenses. Generally speaking, paying 30% or less of your income for housing expenses is considered affordable housing. The Area Medium Income (AMI), determined each year by the state, also comes into play when ascertaining eligibility of families for affordable homes. For example, those families whose income is 50%-80% of the AMI are one of the groups that, by Newton’s Inclusionary Zoning ordinance, can usually enter the lottery for affordable housing in projects like Northland. If they are lucky enough to be selected, they can be charged no more than 30% of their income for all their housing expenses. Unfortunately, every time affordable housing becomes available, as happened recently for about 23 homes at Austin St., there are hundreds of eligible families who enter the lottery, demonstrating that there is so much more need than can be met by our current housing supply. Needless to say, this makes the 140 affordable homes in the Northland project extremely important to the Newton community. This is just a thumbnail sketch of what affordable housing means in the context of a development project, and probably doesn’t answer all your questions, Jason. Malcolm Lucas, the Newton Housing Planner who specializes in managing affordable housing eligibility and housing lotteries, could give you a better explanation and more details than I have done, and he can be reached at 617 796-1149.
@Mike
Perhaps we’ll never agree on Northland’s project, but when I return to Newton in the spring maybe we can find some time to get a cup of coffee and find out what we do agree upon!
It’s so good to read a post that points out the many–and urgently needed–gains from thoughtful housing growth in Newton. I too hope the Northland project will go forward, despite the efforts by proponents of “right-sized” (read: “walled-off and unaltered except by McMansions”) Newton to derail it.
As an acknowledged high-density skeptic, I’d like a sense of what the rents at Northland will actually be for two, three, or four bedroom apartments: the prices for both those units deemed “affordable” and those at “market-value.” If these rates bring in the diverse citizenry that we are supposedly targeting, then I will feel better about the whole thing.
Can someone supply this set of specific details? As a lowly English teacher, I could not follow the explanation given earlier in this stream- my problem, I admit. I’d love some figures in dollars and cents.
Finally, it seems important to provide Newton’s citizens with anonymous demographics on those who have moved into Austin Street: both those who are paying market-rate and those in the “affordable” units. I’d be curious about the level of income and size of family of both groups. If the goal be to win over the support of those harboring doubts about high-density housing, then more information will help the cause. The high-minded talk that usually accompanies developers’ plans will not suffice for many of us.
Bob,
But the “high-minded talk” accompanying Northland developer’s plans WILL (apparently) suffice for Newton’s Mayor and City Council.
@Bob – I don’t have everything you asked for but can supply some numbers regarding affordable housing. It gets complex because there a multiple levels of ‘affordability’, and different rents and income limits based on family size… but here’s at least a sampling for perspective.
For affordable units at the 80% AMI (area median income) level:
Rents
studio – $1,561/mo
1 BR – $1,673/mo
2 BR – $2,007/mo
3 BR – $2,319/mo
Income limits (by household size)
1 person – $62,450
2 person – $71,400
3 person – 80,300
4 person – 89,200
These rents and income limits are set by HUD for the Boston-Cambridge-Quincy region (of which Newton is a part).
Bob – I think the important concept is that an “affordable” rent will be based on the renter’s income. It will be no more than 30% of the family’s income, so will vary from family to family for the same size apartment. Therefore, it is not possible to give you a list of those affordable rents in advance. The best I can do is give you a rough idea of the AMI figures as possible examples:
4-person family at 80% AMI has income of $89,200, housing = $29,704 per year
4-person family at 50% AMI has income of $59,250, housing = $19,730 per year
1-person family at 80% AMI has income of $62,450, housing = $20,796 per year
1-person family at 50% AMI has income of $41,500, housing = $13,800 per year
The affordable housing unit rents also include all other housing costs, such as parking and utilities.
I can’t tell you the range of rents for market rate apartments in Newton, but I am guessing a two-bedroom would go for $48,000 and up per year. The market rate homes, of course, subsidize the “affordable” homes in a project like Northland. Therefore, when the total number of housing units in a proposed project is reduced, that generally means the number of affordable units will be reduced as well, to make the project financially viable. I hope this helps make some sense about what affordable housing is. Again Malcolm Lucas, at 617 796-1149, is the city expert on how this all works.
Funny how someone who lives in Waban near one of the most exclusive golf clubs in the area, can write about how Upper Falls need to, “suck it up” and deal with all the downside of this Northland project. Classic.
I live far enough away from this that I’ve generally tried to stay off the comment threads on this project (and Riverside too)
But for this one, I do have a question for folks against the project and pushing the referendum. Do they really believe Northland won’t go the 40B route?
I don’t say that with any inside knowledge, but in general there is a finite amount of time to get projects off the ground, and a 40B is still profitable. A sale to another owner is not likely to be. Leaving it empty is a cash suck. Northland’s best option if this is denied is to go 40B.
So to Rightsize and others, what is your best alternative to this deal? Why do you think Northland won’t move forward without you and cut the community benefits (and increase the amount of affordable to fit 40B). ISn’t the risk that they will do that if there is a referendum anyway?
If this was in Newtonville I’d be very worried about the size, traffic and schools as well. It is far larger than Washington Place and Austin Street, and it is coming online from one developer all at once. But trying to put myself in your shoes, I’d be also worried about what comes next. Hence my question. Don’t shoot the questioner, I’m really interested and we have multiple 40B projects coming on the North side.
Also, just to Mike Strair: Looking at what I can make of the numbers, size of buildings, and open space, I think they traded some amount of affordability and school benefits for the other stuff. The parking/green building/open space are all expensive, as is the transportation. Part of the problem of course is we don’t know how much more could be extracted as an accommodation, but I also don’t feel it is the worst deal ever like you seem to.
I do agree that the splash park is…frustrating as an accommodation, considering that Parks and Rec should have built them at Cabot Park, Angier and Zervis. School is out during summer. Summer is hot. Pipes were already being run for the schools. Seems like a missed opportunity to me.
@fig, you always bring good points.
From what I’ve been told, Northland’s owned this property for a very long time, and have seen a healthy does of resistance (annoyance?) from Upper Falls in the past 24 months. They’ve had plenty of opportunity to go 40b and have not.
As a resident if Upper Falls, I’m fine rolling the dice on 40b. At least with 40b, the community gets more affordable units…because isn’t that what everyone wants?
Matt, I’m not as familiar with Northland as I am with other folks in the space, but most real estate holders have a time horizon for an up and out. I hear lots of talk these days about what happens when the music stops on the cheap money and what happens when the recession hits, etc. (it is somewhat confusing, since cheap money is more likely to exist if there is a recession, at least lately, and inflation seems to be rather tame these days, but still…lots of worry).
Northland may be patient capital. But what is their endgame if this falls apart? More concessions to the neighbors? Is there a point where that would actually sway folks a la Riverside?
If a 40B gets them X profit, and the extra concessions and time spent reduces their profit below X, I’d imagine they go 40B, reduce the concessions, increase the affordable housing, and move on.
Perhaps the referendum just buys time. They hold until 2021 to wait out the results. Do they bargain for a reduction in benefits due to the delay (can they?)
It is a gamble for sure.
As for everyone wanting affordable units, I think the list of supporters probably view this differently. There is a coalition of folks supporting this, and they don’t all have the same mindset.
To be honest, I’m sympathetic to the folks against this project, even if the negotiated deal is a good one. Needham Street is overburdened. I get the worry if this goes south. I just don’t understand the end game for the developer side if this gets rejected or there is a referendum. And there is definitely a downside to an agreement that isn’t negotiated.
Ok, too many words from me on this. Gnite all.
@Matt: I predict your dice roll will turn out very badly for you and your neighbors.
You keep writing about how Upper Falls residents will get the worst of this project. You’ll also be getting the best: New shops, new restaurants, money to renovate your local school, money to explore connecting the Greenway to the T, free shuttles and ten acres of public space including water features and the splash park that your neighbors asked for.
And, for heavens sake, it will be replacing what can only be described as an eye sore: Empty broken parking lots, decaying buildings and an obsolete shopping plaza.
Say goodbye to all or most of that with a 40B.
It’s snowing .
Watch out for those bicyclists !
How about the reintroduction of hitch hiking. . Just think of the car trips saved. The solution to our traffic problems! This will be next.
@blueprintbill yes, please watch out for us. While biking up Nevada Street today a BMW decided to pass me in front of the new Horace Mann School. It had to move into the other lane to do it because of snow removal equipment at the school. It splashed me with muddy road water. Luckily I was wearing my waterproof gear (cheap, easy to throw over my work clothes). My studded tires helped with traction.
Also worth noting, on Sunday afternoon my son and I biked to West Newton to take in a movie, then, as the snow fell, biked to Trader Joe’s for some regular shopping. We were the 2nd and 3rd bike on the rack there. Yes, cyclists add commerce to the local economy.
@Matt – There is certainly opposition and concerns about the Northland project in Upper Falls but I bristle every time I hear people speak definitively about what Upper Falls thinks or wants.
I live in Upper Falls. I also have concerns about the Northland project. The scale of it is definitely daunting with lots of possibility for unwanted side effect – traffic, school crowding, etc. On the other hand, much of the site today is largely an abysmal waste land. I see lots of things to like about the proposed project. I see lots of possibilities for this project to bring some big improvements to Upper Falls. There are plenty of other folks in the neighborhood who share my ‘cautiously optimistic’ view of the project.
Over the years the project has been unfolding there have been numerous changes to the plan, nearly all of them coming as a result of input from the community, and nearly all for the better. As far as I can see Northland’s been dealing in good faith throughout and been quite responsive.
Right Size Newton now wants to nix the whole project, roll the dice, and hope that somehow something better will happen on the site with negligible input from the Upper Falls community. That sounds like a wildly unlikely outcome to me.
@ Tanowitz, You ARE hard core ! How many more of YOU will occupy Northland? And with the 1200 bicycle parking spots reserved, how many will be out on these streets?
I’ll be giving up my daily 5 mile ride until it gets dryer and safer, getting my exercise shoveling my long suburban driveway. The Right Size !
We should all be grateful — and courteous and cautious — to the men and women who brave harsh weather to bike. Every car they take off the street is one less contributing to our traffic congestion.
@fig– I believe you’re correct in your assessment that city officials traded-off affordability and school benefits for “other stuff.” That’s my problem with this deal. Elected “leaders” failed to properly prioritize schools and affordable housing, because they all have their own agendas.
Regarding your concern that Northland might go 40b if their Special Permit is rejected… what would that get them? It would certainly get the city a higher percentage of affordable housing than the current plan. But it would be a far less profitable endeavor for Northland than the mixed use development they have proposed.
@Ryan– I’d be delighted to grab a cup of coffee and chat whenever you’re back in Newton.
[email protected]
@Jerry Reilly…
My biggest issues with the Northland project are three fold.
1. Do as I say, and not what I do
2. Sequencing of the Plan (especially TDM)
3. Misconstrued purpose of the referendum
Will now addresses them one by one.
DO AS I SAY, NOT WHAT I DO
We all want more housing (and affordable housing) in Newton, and as a society, should be less reliant on cars. We share many of the same friends, both in Upper Falls and the Countryside community. Consider this…
I can name on ONE HAND the number of neighbors and friends who rely on the T to get to work. Not everyone works in Boston, and the majority of our friends drive – to navigate Newton (lack of intra-Newton transportation services) for errands, shuttling kids to school and their many activities, not to mention the ever changing weather patterns of New England.
Our mutual friend on Columbia Rd is the only person I know of who rides his bike to work – and perhaps @Chuck and Alicia Bowman.
Even City Council candidate Bryan Barash drives to work at the State House, which is directly outside the Park Street T stop, not to mention the very fast Newton Express bus from Downtown Crossing to Newton Corner/Newtonville. I would argue most of our elected officials drive as their primary mode of transport as well. SO WHY ARE THE RESIDENTS CLOSEST TO NORTHLAND, our friends and neighbors, being asked to roll the dice that Northland’s TDM plan will work?
SEQUENCING OF THE PLAN (TDM)
Northland’s whole plan is based on “what if”. Now, had they said, that….
a. TDM includes regular cross town service
b. Assurances that the Greenway CAN be extended to Highlands (including a way to transport people on the Greenway) during construction, not just after. (And let’s face it, owners of existing property on the path between the Greenway and Highlands will also have to agree to sell their land/rights to Newton or Northland is a huge barrier as well).
c. TDM specfifies the number of busses to be deployed to guarantee 10 minute intervals – both for “last mile” and cross town/intra-Village services
… if all of these were in the plan currently, then support for Northland would be much greater. As it stands currently, lots of stars and moons would have to align for the desired outcome, and again, asking Upper Falls to “trust Northland” is a huge, risky ask.
MISCONSTRUDED PURPOSE OF THE REFERENDUM
The purpose of the referendum and Right Size Newton is NOT to “shut down the project all together”. I think it’s safe to say we all agree, that property needs to be developed. The referendum allows the zoning to be put to vote by the citizens of Newton. Not by those who wants us to, “do as they say, not what they do”.
Rena Getz garnered the support that she did in the Sept preliminaries – particularly in Ward 5, precint 1 (Upper Falls) – because of all Ward 5 candidates, she agrees with the points above (reality vs wish list) more so than any of the others. If she had run for At Large, or entered the race sooner, the results may have been different. Ideally I would have loved to have seen her run for At Large and perhaps Kathy Winters would have won the Ward seat – but that’s all water under the bridge now.
Jerry, you seemed to have formed an opinion in the last 6 months and I can respect that. And if the referendum does become a reality and the citizens of Newton do not vote to challenge Northland, then we have no one to blame but ourselves, and you will see a lot less argument from me on this project. Until then, all I can do is TRY to inject a degree reality and probable use cases into the equation so the RIGHT SIZE, RIGHT SEQUENCED project can move forward.
@Matt: Do you realize that the earlier version of the Northland project included cross town shuttles and even shuttles connecting Needham Street with downtown Boston and Kendall Square but that it was fiercely opposed by the same folks who are part of Right Sized’s petition drive? If only you had spoken up earlier.
@Matt –
I guess that’s one way to say it. I would say the referendum would overturn Northland’s Special Permit and kill this project.
The most likely result of that is that a different project will either be built by right or via 40B. In either case none of what any of us think about transportation, TDM, sequencing will make much difference.
@jerry @greg
I don’t think this will happen, but let’s say HYPOTHETICALLY enough Councilors vote “no” tonight…do you really think Northland would go full 40b and do 800 units with more affordable and call it a day?
There are no other opportunities for city intervention? I am NOT an expert on these matter have am quoting from both Right Size and some regular V14 commenters.
So that’s your excuse for misrepresenting her record and commitment?
@Matt –
I really don’t think this is fair to Kathleen, who by the way got involved in housing because she was saying yes, Waban needs more housing, when the 100% affordable Engine 6 project was being proposed “in her backyard”.
You can criticize her opinion, but you can’t criticize her commitment to affordable housing. This just rings kind of hallow to me, I hope you’ll consider a different approach towards her.
@bryan, she’s come at me pretty hard, both here on V14 and on FB in the past. #JustSayin #GanderGoose
Not making excuses.
So you admit that you’re misrepresenting her views because she was mean to you?
That’s pathetic.
As Marc Laredo commented on at the end, I thought tonight’s debate had thoughtful, respectful, and valid points from all involved. The closeness of the vote reflected the difficulty of the decision and the impact/benefit balance.
Congratulations to our city councilors, city staff and the Northland team on this collaborative effort.
This project will transform 23 drab acres of old asphalt, an outdated shopping plaza and industrial buildings into 800 desperately needed homes — including the most affordable units (140) that’s ever been created by one project– amenity-rich office space and eight new parks.
It’s been thoroughly vetted by independent experts and will bring workforce housing, jobs and economic vitality to our region and new tax revenue to the city.
I know nobody’s looking at this thread anymore, but a) I thought @Matt was talking about @Nanci (either way, totally uncalled for), and 2) @Matt, what the heck do you mean by “she’s come at me pretty hard, both here on V14 and on FB in the past.” I don’t comment all that much (hardly ever on V14). We’ve disagreed, sure, but I’ve always been respectful. The harshest thing I’ve said was something like, “You’re fear-mongering again, please stop.”