Update: Here’s the Globe’s coverage of the Newton City Council’s vote to approve Northland project, 17-7 on Monday night.
Voting no were: Ciccone, Gentile, Kalis, Markiewicz, Norton, Schwartz and Baker.
Northland approved (updated)
by village14 | Dec 2, 2019 | Newton | 64 comments
Congratulations are in order for the 17 City Councilors and the countless more people across Newton that made this a reality through their hard work and advocacy.
Fingers crossed that Right Size Newton does not force a needless, expensive, and divisive referendum on our city because they did not get their way.
Voters take note: signing Right Size Newton’s referendum petition could equate to signing in favor of a 40B project, possibly without all the wonderful community benefits that were negotiated and hard fought over the last several years. What a true shame that would be.
Referendum is coming….
@Matt
I believe one of the Councilors said last night that there could be 3 separate parcels of land open to 40B projects if this is not approved and I assume the same would be true if the zoning is overturned by referendum? Or, if the developer doesn’t go 40B, I assume they could build 3 large commercial buildings?
How many units would that mean? Certainly much more than 800. How many more cars on Needham Street if there is 20 acres of commercial space here? I fail to see how even more units and more traffic would be the “Right Size” but perhaps you can enlighten me.
To me, it seems like the “burn it all down” approach. Matt, perhaps you and Right Size see that as a “win, but you will find that to be a painfully lonely opinion.
New slogan for right sized group: Never Change Newton.
These sore losers won’t stop fighting, they can’t be reasoned with. It is truly sad.
Next we should eminent domain back the schools-turned-old-peoples-homes!
I’m amending my first comment to say congratulations to all 24 City Councilors for last night’s historic vote. Yes, even those who voted “no”.
Their concerns and input over 14 months of deliberation undoubtedly shaped a better plan. I hope their good work isn’t wasted if Right Size Newton pursues this foolish referendum, where they will leave the developer with no recourse but 40B, thereby leaving Newton little room to negotiate even an iota as effectively as the Council has.
Again, I call it the “burn it all down approach”. It is not limited to our national politics it seems.
While I agree entirely with Ryan’s assessment, I actually think the problem is rooted in eternal optimism. The attitude of Newton residents seems to be “If this is what we have now, imagine how much better it can be!” There is no recognition of the fact that things could go either way. In all the discussions on this site about what Northland may or may not do with a 40b, imagine if Northland sells?
Commercial developers come in all types. Some are build-and-hold, others are build-and-sell. Some want to be part of the community and create something for the long-term, others just want to build and cash out. Some have visions, some don’t. Right now we have a developer we know who has offices in the city and who has proposed something interesting. They’ve worked with the city and with neighbors, they’ve even tried to bring in retailers that would have otherwise disappeared (New England Mobile Book Fair). This has already been an expensive process, now the residents are talking about making it even MORE expensive, so what does that do to the final project? What does that do to how they approach it? If they sell, what if the company that buys it is really only interested in putting in a truck depot to act as a staging facility for some other site in the Boston area? What if they choose to build just commercial boxes with parking lots?
There is a HUGE risk here, the future isn’t just better than what’s been hammered out in years of negotiations.
Keep in mind that Normandy NEVER BUILT at Riverside. After all the negotiations and all the back and forth with the community to scale down the project, it just wasn’t a viable project for them. They handed it off to Mark Development, which is a LOCAL COMPANY, and Right Size went to work on whittling that down too, holding the threat of a referendum over the developer’s head as a constant threat. I believe that what Right Size negotiated on behalf of the city cost the people of Newton more than $2-million in tax revenue ANNUALLY.
Winning a referendum doesn’t mean you make it better.
For those of us who support modernization in Newton, it’s not too early to consider the longer term political implications of this vote. While no-voter Schwartz thankfully is being replaced by a likely yes-voter in Bowman, yes-voters Cote & Brousal-Glaser are being replaced by 2 likely no-voters, Wright and Malakie. So in fact it appears that the last election swung the Council toward anti-modernization. Most disappointing is the Kalis no vote. As with Schwartz, there was much excitement when Kalis was first elected, but as with Schwartz, his service has been a great disappointment to many of us who originally supported him. Time for someone in Ward 8 to come forward as Alicia Bowman did vs Schwartz in Ward 6 and send Kalis into retirement.
Ahh, Gerry. There it is. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to call to send me into retirement because I have a different view of this project. I just didn’t expect it so quickly. As far as I can tell, democracy functions better when you have different viewpoints challenging each other respectfully, pointing out areas to improve, and agreeing to disagree without calls for retirement. Of course, it is also your prerogative, as democracy allows for that as well. Just disappointing, however.
I agree with David that “… democracy functions better when you have different viewpoints challenging each other respectfully, pointing out areas to improve,…”
It’s laughable that for the past 2 years, many of our Councilors hid behind, “we’re not allowed to negotiate, and only play a quasi-judicial role in this process” when questioned about this project, yet spent the past two weeks bending over backwards patting themselves on the back for their “negotiations”. I digress…
There ARE a number of ground breaking attributes to this project, but sometimes, WHEN YOU LOOK TOO FAR IN THE FUTURE, YOU LOSE SIGHT OF
WHAT’S DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE.
Councilor Kalis gave a logical and impassioned appeal as to why this is not the right project for that location starting at the 1:03:10 mark of last night’s proceedings. Others shared his concerns and wondered about the Developers’ unwillingness to phase, and some concern for the folks of Upper Falls (unfortunately not enough).
Because of last night, the South Side of Newton is at risk of becoming a parking lot. And while many can come enjoy the open space and splash parks, you still return to your quiet, single family homes and quiet streets in Waban, Newton Center and Chestnut Hill….while we in Upper Falls gets to pick up after all of you.
I will be signing the Referendum and hope others consider the same, because your neighborhood could be next and the precedence was set last night.
https://vimeo.com/376944977
I hope that the volunteers collecting signatures for Right Size will be honest with voters and explain that reversing the council’s vote could result in the 40-B project that would likely not include the millions of dollars in traffic mitigation, free shuttles, parks, elementary school renovation and other community give-backs that Northland has put on the table. I hope they will tell them that Northland’s transportation mitigation plan, economic impact study and every other aspect of their project was thoroughly vetted by some of our region’s top independent peer reviewers.
Matt, in one of your comments you say:
The quote referenced in your comment isn’t correct – or I’m misunderstanding what you meant. The law does not say/mean that the city councilors cannot ‘negotiate’ with developers, it means they cannot discuss a special permit application with residents.
Since in Newton the city council makes final decisions on special permits, it does operate at that time in a quasi-judicial role so the councilors must be objective in their decision – as any judge should. They are not to engage with anyone who wants to sway their vote.
Matt, you comment that:
It’s “laughable” that your comment says your justification for signing the referendum is that “last night a precedence was set and another neighborhood could be next” when other parts of the city have gone down this road long before Northland – and are continuing down it now.
Northland is too big for Needham Street. Those councilors who voted for it don’t live near there.
Actually that’s just not true. Upper Falls resident Councilor Crossly spoke eloquently last night about how close this is to her home. And Councilor Downs, who lives not much further away, acknowledged that if the traffic mitigation didn’t work she might never get out of her driveway. Both were enthusiastic yes votes.
David, I didn’t work for you and vote for you in all of those elections so that you could respectfully disagree with the positions I expected you to take based on how you campaigned. I expected you to work to modernize Newton in the proper scale. Instead, given a proposed development that has been whittled down from huge to something reasonable, you’re working to sabotage modernization and keep Newton mired in the 1950s. Sorry but that’s good enough reason for me (and many others, as apparently you’re well aware) to call for your ouster. So let’s hope some good potential replacements from ward 8 step forward. You say you didn’t expect this so quickly but I say it can’t happen soon enough!
Gerry, who determines he “proper scale” for Newton?
I would have voted for Northland but I don’t want 24 councilors who agree with me. As David said, if their were not a diversity of thought on the city council – there would be nothing to deliberate and projects are improved throughout this process.
Every councilor must look at each special permit objectively not as a mouthpiece for some constituents.
Obviously they will not say all that, but fortunately we have an educated and informed electorate in this city. We like to say this election (and the previous one) was a “referendum on development”. There is not reason to expect a direct Northland ballot question to produce a different result.
As the Greek philosopher Heraclitus said, the only constant is change. When you accept the fact that this huge parcel will absolutely be developed one way or another and you understand the concessions made and the by-right possibilities, you can begin to appreciate how good this plan really is.
The idea that shutting down this plan will allow us to negotiate for a smaller development on the site is unrealistic. If this plan is turned back, the developer will not waste any more time trying to negotiate (time is money) and will pursue what can be done by right with no concessions for the city. A much bigger 40B or a massive office park would be devastating.
Moreover…we should not start down this path of government-by-referendum. We elect representatives because residents do not have time to develop expertise and understand the pros and cons of every issue that comes before the council. Anyone who doesn’t have time to slog through all of the detailed data and plans that have been presented to and debated by the city council over the last two years will have difficulty deciding on whether this plan is a better use of this space than likely alternatives. We elect representatives, and our representatives studied the details and decided to move this project forward.
I would expect that some of the 7 councilors who opposed this project would get on this blog and speak to the dangers of setting a precedent that calls on Newton voters to decide on every contentious issue. Regardless of how they voted, all councilors appreciate how much time, analysis, and thought is required to make a decision like this.
“Northland is too big for Needham Street. Those councilors who voted for it don’t live near there.”
3/3 councilors from ward 5, where the project is located, voted yes. 2/3 councilors from ward 8, across the street from Northland, voted yes. In ward 6, the next closest ward, 2/3 voted yes. What an uninformed statement.
Matt says:
“Others shared his concerns and wondered about the Developers’ unwillingness to phase,”
I have heard suggestions for phasing in this and other projects. Is sounds great.
I believe it’s unworkable in general for a project like this.
There are a bunch of practical problems with phasing. First, people want all the amenities early, but the economies of scale aren’t there to provide them. Thus, the first phases are likely not profitable on their own. That means the project doesn’t get started.
Then, there’s the uncertainty of the future. Developers, just like all of us, like certainty and like to minimize risk. With phasing, there’s no certainty. The risk bigger and it gets dragged out. That’s because of the primary problem with phasing:
Who gets to decide if a phase is successful? What’s the process? It’s not like consensus building and decision-making is some pleasant, enjoyable, deterministic process even without phasing, let alone with it.
And even if the current phase is successful, there’s risk in the next phase that people will be concerned about. Phasing means the same public debate again and again and again. I don’t see that as healthy for the body politic. Northland has phasing. They have more land they want to develop. The phases just aren’t bite sized.
Finally, I’d like to put a different spin on the 40B thing with a focus on traffic. Needham Street has regional traffic problems beyond Northland’s or even Newton’s control. Northland owns property on Needham Street. They have a right to build on it. It isn’t their responsibility to fix Needham Street’s traffic problem, and it’s completely beyond Newton’s control to tell them they can’t add to it.
No matter how much Northland constrains its project, traffic isn’t going to go to zero. It isn’t clear to me what level of site traffic is acceptable for people who think traffic is already unacceptably bad. So for that set of people, there’s really no good answer besides no build.
Newton could possibly try to put constraints on the property that would render it infeasible, except for two things. As of right development means they can build anyway. And 40B means the developer always has a way get around a municipality rendering a problem economically infeasible.
If traffic is unacceptable on Needham Street, it’s the responsibility of the state or the city to fix it. Not an individual developer (though they can and should help with the solution, and do their best to not make things disproportionally worse). Any notion that puts the burden on the developer to do anything more than aggressively manage their own site’s traffic is both unrealistic, unfair, and destined to fail.
Within a reasonable delta, the city did what it could to hold Northland to high contemporary standards of traffic and parking management. Any vision of something radically better seems unrealistic to me. It is easy to imagine worse by imagining no constraints on the developer at all.
A previous poster said we rely on our councilors to study the details and make decisions on our behalf.
Several of the councilors who voted against the project last night said the special permit did not meet the below criteria for permit approval in the city of Newton:
“The use as developed and operated will not adversely affect the neighborhood.”
I hope we can agree that despite the benefits of the project, there will definitively be (some) adverse affects to the neighborhood.
I believe it was Councilor Lisle who said that the rule should be changed if the Council is not going to follow it.
I’m disheartened, perhaps naively, that most of our councilors disregarded the stated permit criteria to push forth a project they wanted and/or believe in.
We have laws, rules and guidelines for a reason. I expect our elected officials to follow them, and no longer trust those who don’t.
If they no longer believe the rules are relevant, they should formally amend them. There’s a process for that as well.
Could Councilor Kalis explain his opposition to those of us who weren’t there last night?
When a deeply experienced local government lawyer such as Lyle Baker, a thoroughly knowledgeable Land Use Chairman and respected physician such as Dr. Gregory Schwartz, a finance expect with decades of city government politics under his belt such as Leonard Gentile, an ear-to -the ground police officer such as Allan Ciccone, Jr., an independent voice such as Emily Norton and an experienced and sincere marketing expert such as David Kalis…when all these elected officials voted against Northland last night, it should compel the citizens of Newton to ask why….
@Matt
Your side fought hard and deserves credit. But ultimately you lost. Now your solution is to guarantee a lesser outcome than what was accomplished at City Hall last night?
If this project loses on the ballot, it WILL end up 40B, a huge amount of commercial space, or remain an empty parking lot forever. This could end up being the case just due to your threats of a referendum. This uncertainty must be making the finance people at Northland very nervous. I assume they are good at doing their due diligence. They must be actively considering alternatives to fighting your asinine referendum effort.
Other than spite, and I don’t want to assume you’re spiteful, I just don’t get the logic.
A lot of fear being expressed here.
Fear of what might happen if Right Size were to prevail.
Fear that the agendas ( promoted by the political insider group now in power),which they have promoted, in collaboration with the development industry, might become problematic.
The very agenda calling for “affordable housing”, would not be realized with a 40b project here?
The fact is these political insiders invested in a position to help Northland, painting themselves into a corner that mandated their approval of this monster.
If traffic were not to be a problem as Councilor Lipof argued, why not go the 40b route? At least then the affordable unit count and / or the 1.5% land coverage would have met the state requirement, and the rest of the city could rest easy, being better able to fight the insiders / developer agendas.
But that might not be good for this insider group and developers.
If Northland goes ahead it will stand as a monument to the 17 who approved it.
It’s their project let’s not forget. If it’s problematic its their fault, and let’s watch to see how they accept that responsibility.
@Maria,
Are the 17 councilors who voted yes of lesser intellect or experience than the people you mention? Because that is your implication.
Newton residents would be better served asking why this project crossed the incredibly difficult threshold of receiving a 2/3rds vote of 24 Councilors.
The answer? It is a good project.
Councilor Marc Laredo’s last comment last night was about the civility of last night’s discussion. It was true and well received. Whether you agree with the end result or not, the City Council was at its best last night. For the first time in ages, the people on the other side of the rail were also civil during the Northland debate.
This thread quickly took the discussion on a negative turn. Is it possible for the supporters of this project to be gracious in prevailing? If the referendum happens, then it happens. Getting nasty about it isn’t going to convince anyone to support it and alienates some supporters (include me in that group) from taking part in future meetings.
The public divisiveness on all sides about every controversial issue in the city is tearing us apart. If you want to say something nasty about another group, call a friend who lives far from Newton and complain, but don’t publicly berate neighbors on a local blog.
So many troubling comments here. I never saw this as an all or nothing approach, not do I believe the majority of people associated to Right Size Newton.
I wanted development for that land, just not at the scope originally approved. The traffic will impact Needham street, no way it will not, but for all those that use a app like Waze, traffic will be impacted on a large number of cut through streets as drivers are instructed to by pass the busier Needham street. That size is just too big for the surroundings.
As for the 40b talk, I thought the law states that any “by right” development over 20,000 square feet requires a special permit (which is why Northland was in front of the council current proposal), so nothing even remotely close to the size of the current proposal can be built “by right” without approval by the City Council. If I’m wrong, correct me with the facts.
While not opposed to the Northland project as currently generally physically depicted, my objections have been and remain two fold: (1) the City should have directed what Northland is paying (wasting) to build and operate a (misplaced) ‘sprinkler park’ (leaving that area as grass & trees) instead to permanent upfront physical traffic ameliorating improvements to Needham Street — beyond that to which Northland has already agreed, (2) the City should have directed what Northland will be paying to operate a bus shuttle fleet instead to permanent upfront physical traffic ameliorating improvements to Needham Street — beyond that to which Northland has already agreed.
Maximum attention needs to be focused on PHYSICALLY improving, redesigning, and traffic ameliorating Needham Street all the way to 128 at one end and all the way via Winchester St. to Rt.9, that is, beyond what is now contemplated, rather than shuttle buses ala the old failed Nexus, clogging the roads in excess of whatever unclogging is to be accomplished by the few riders on each of the supposedly all day long shuttles.
The main remaining problem as it stands now is the inevitable CHAOS of what will be Needham Street, in spite of, actually exacerbated by, bus shuttles.
Does anyone know why Mayor Fuller, the Newton Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and the City Planning Department have stood down on prior efforts to show that Newton has met the requirement of 1.5% affordable housing on developable land to meet the ‘safe harbor’ threshold for 40B?
My recollection is an appeal from the ZBA to the MA Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) showed the City was close, if not at that limit. The DHCD’s 2017 ruling came down to how golf courses in Newton were classified and the need for additional proof from the City.
A few questions I had that folks more knowledgeable on this topic may know:
1) Will affordable units in housing projects completed since Jan 2017 count toward the 1.5% threshold?
2) How will affordable units in the soon to be completed Austin Street and Washington Place projects be classified by DHCD?
3) Will the taking of Webster Woods further the City’s prior ‘safe harbor’ claim by removing 17.4 acres of developable land.
I raise these 40B questions because Mayor Fuller and City Councilors who favor swift passage of the Northland Special Permit and the Washington Street vision frequently cite developers turning to 40B projects as a risk. If the City has decided not to pursue this matter and carry on the work started under Mayor Warren, it appears that Newton is inviting this risk and weakening our ability to negotiate with developers who can threaten 40B projects to get what they want.
@Jim Epstein’s analysis of how Northland could get around offsite vehicular transportation requirements in their special permit helps reinforce the need for the City to be in the strongest possible negotiating and enforcement position. (See Jim’s Nov 30th comments in the Northland Village 14 post below).
https://village14.com/2019/11/29/fuller-northland-is-right-sized-with-a-transportation-plan-that-makes-this-work/#axzz673exaYlR
@Greg Reibman – When has traffic mitigation ever worked? I know you have been a big fan of the new 95 ramps at Kendrick St and Wells Ave. development but when have you ever driven down Wells Ave. at 3, 4, or 5 pm to be backed up for miles in bumper to bumper traffic that doesn’t move? I live on Nahanton St. and it is a daily nightmare just to get out of the driveway with all the “new traffic” routed down Nahanton St. All this new development has consequences!
In my opinion, referendums should be saved for those rare occasions where something inappropriate or underhanded happens in the City Council, or where the City Council refuses to act on an issue where there is vast support among the population.
In this case, this vote was contemplated for over 2 years. 2 different PACs were formed based on whether folks were likely to support or oppose this type of project. We literally just had an election, and it is hard to argue development wasn’t a central theme in the campaign.
So I hope we can accept the results of the election (and I’m saying that as someone who came up short) and not re-litigate this vote at the ballot box. We’ll end up spending tens of thousands of dollars and very likely end up with the same result as the election we just had.
Jim, Can we please leave US constitutional issues out of the discussion of this development? There is already enough sloshing back and forth on what issues are jurisdictional to our City government! :)
Paul,
I was merely pointing out, by example, the basic inconsistency in Bryan’s position that on a local level, once there are election results they should be accepted, it being wasteful to expend money, time and effort when the outcome would remain the same, compared to the national level where once there are election results (63 million votes) there is endeavor to expend far greater amounts of money, time and effort beyond when it is evident the outcome will remain the same.
If the reader is to be informed of a vague reason why the comment is thought to be not relevant to the conversation, there’s no harm in at least including that one comment for context and so the reader can decide.
Paul, sorry. I learned that Greg deleted the comment.
For the record the comment by Jim that was removed was about national politics, not Northland or Newton.
Don’t believe the people pushing the false choice between Northland and 40B. Typical pro-development tactic. Northland stands to make a huge amount of money and refuse to make certain concessions the would make this a project that we could all celebrate. The project is going to be as big as the Natick Mall, which has has big roads on all sides, this project abuts and has entry/exit going on to small Newton streets. Reducing the number of housing units could still benefit retail, and commercial, and would be more in scale with Newton. Additionally, the developers refuse to phase things which would have allowed for changes as things are built. This is a clear case of developers pushing to get what they want and councilors who seek to protect their patrons and not Newton resident. The future students will end up costing taxpayers money. This is not a net neutral project–we will all end up paying more for schools, and infrastructure. The developers took it to the city council because they thought they could win because of the power of their allies and get what they want with minimal concessions. And they were right.
I’m concerned about the size of the project and I believe the number of housing units should be scaled back. We have a lot of development going on in the City and we need to protect our Village concept. Slowly, Newton is turning into another Framingham. Any character assault on David Kalis is unwarranted. David represents Ward 8 with dignity and professionalism and I will continue to vote for him.
I was going to write up a lengthy comment about this but since it’s late, I’m going to pass. However, I will say this: the smearing of Councilor Kalis is extremely uncalled for and frankly, is very appalling considering this measure passed even though he voted no. He gave a very well though out speech explaining his concerns and uneasiness about the project and -although I disagree with his conclusion that Northland should not have been approved- he should be commended for thinking long and hard about the issue and doing his best. Frankly, at the end of the day, even though I agreed Northland should be approved, I thought some of the city councilors who spoke in favor of the project didn’t seem to have put much thought or weighed the options before approving the project though there were others who spoke in favor who definitely did do so.
Also, I think Jane Franz speaks for everyone with her remarks. If there’s one thing that will get Newton voters riled up, its seeing how arrogant people can be on both sides of this issue.
Greg,
For the record, you elect to ignore my comment of relevance explanation, above. The comment was/is primarily PRECISELY about Newton politics — addressing the reasoning on the pro and anti positions on a Northland referendum (and why someone may or may not feel it’s a waste of time and/or counterproductive).
For the record, since you raise this point, I say again — now with emphasis — WHY NOT JUST INSERT MY COMMENT, and let the reader decide?
Maybe my point is right on the money and you feel uncomfortable with its implication, and therefore want to censor it.
The comment is concisely and politely written — even bland, not harming or insulting.
Um. Against my better judgement (and because we also received a complaint from one of Right Size’s leaders, alleging I’ve been censoring comments), here’s the comment from Jim that I removed.
So what say ye readers? Do you find this comment relevant to Newton or this Northland discussion?
No need to comment, just give me a ‘thumbs up’ if you agree with the decision to remove this distracting comment
@Jim Epstein – We’ve been down this road too many times and it always ends badly. You take a Newton issue, find some way to tie in Trump, Democrats, Congress, etc. Someone reacts and then we’re off to the races – another thread hijacked and a food fight begins about national politics.
Please (everyone) refrain from dragging national politics into into these discussions about local issues.
I felt strongly that the remarks made about Councilor Kalis were totally unwarranted and amounted to bullying of the worst kind particularly threatening David Kalis with an opponent.
If, as looks likely, we will have a referendum on this issue, I will want to know what the alternatives are to this deal if the Zoning relief and special permit are denied.
1. What does the commercial development that Northland will likely build ‘by right’ look like? what are the net revenues and other pros and cons?
2. What could Northland build there under a 40b? What are the pros and cons of that?
I’d like this answered by an actual expert who has looked at how 40b applies to this particular site. So far, we’ve gotten a lot of speculative, fact-free “40b will be a disaster” from one side, and “we can get a better deal” from the other side. Voters deserve a proper, unbiased analysis.
I agree with Jim: people like to selectively apply procedures where it best suits them and Jim’s analogy was wholly appropriate, should not have been removed. But this is after all a pro commerce blog so I can understand why they would want to censor it.
This whole topic has been fraught with lies, i.e. “10 acres of parkland” was claimed by one recent shill post here. Uh, setback and drainage ponds are not PARKS!
And yeah, it’s a mall. We just approved a mall and if we’re to believe the political ideology this mall, because it has a free bus, will save the planet! What a joke.
My plan: never venture down Needham St again. Buying online has never been more appealing. Sorry local businesses but you reap what you sow.
@Greg, on the one hand, you and your team provide an extremely valuable resource to the citizenry, providing critical information that we should be getting from our sad little newspaper. On the other, most of the threads go off the rails pretty quickly, either because of the passions that social media inspire, or because of active, disingenious trolling.
Regarding your question: you and the other moderators get to decide the rules. It’s your site. If any of us feel censored, we can always set up our own.
Greg,
Thank you for including my comment.
John,
I’m not questioning Greg’s right to decide the rules, merely the manner of his implementation for consistency in this case. Analogy is a perfectly acceptable tool for argumentation. Moreover, there are innumerable comments on V14 where, for example, statements about POTUS Trump are made and included. And finally, as a regular reader and commenter on V14 I more than agree that V14 is not only a valuable, but has become a critical, go-to resource, especially since the essential demise of the TAB. And while I frequently disagree with Greg’s point of view, he and the moderators are to be more than commended for their time, effort and service to the community.
Jim, I don’t really have an issue with your comment, but I would have personally stopped reading if the thread had gotten into a back and forth on Trump, 65 million vs 63 million votes, impeachment, or pretty much anything on a national level.
Those debates can be fun, but I already read enough national political blogs/forums, both conservative and liberal. I post here because it is local. And national politics will derail almost every thread if we let it.
I will say I’d prefer if the moderators remove comments only in the most extreme circumstances. And that sometimes it is warranted, and that the folks that play games with posting under different names, multiple names, etc. should rethink their choices. ;-) (Jim, that isn’t you of course)
Moderating this site is not easy and certainly inconsistent, due mostly to the fact that we have day jobs and don’t often see off-topic comments until they’ve been up for a while. The participant in question has been asked offline many, many, times to not devolve into national politics. There are plenty of blogs for that but only one focused on Newton.
Thank you @David Kalis for speaking up for those of us who will be impacted which also includes the edge of the Highlands. The traffic at Needham St already causes back ups on Centre St and leads to people choosing side roads to avoid the traffic. His comment that this project another location this would be a great project is spot on.
Also relating to @Richard Heald’s comments does anyone know where we measure vs 40B? It seems like the City should have someone compiling information to validate where we stand vs this benchmark and deeply understanding what land is excluded from total of land where building is permitted (i.e. where do golf courses fit in, etc) so that they can confirm our perceived position is accurate. Also how does 40B factor in units in the pipeline? Is it just reflect of what is already built and on the market? As Richard mentions from a negotiating standpoint it would be useful to remove the 40B threat so that the CIty could negotiate the best projects possible (I would include in that pushing for more affordable units in that negotiation).
Fig,
I more than agree that V14 should remain local. In this case, Bryan Barash’s comment on the waste of time, money and effort after the Northland “election” to endeavor, with likely failure, to achieve a different outcome, would certainly contrast with what is presumably his (Bryan, please correct me if I’m incorrect) political position on endeavoring with much MORE time, money and effort, with CERTAIN failure, to achieve a different outcome on the 2016 POTUS election.
So I’m questioning Bryan’s reasoning re his position on (against) referendum after City Council’s Northland vote.
I am NOT an expert. Will someone more knowledgeable than me to confirm my understanding of the facts, from reading previous Village14 threads? I do NOT want to insult or criticize anyone, argue about the merits of 40B, etc.
According to Newton in April 2019, Newton is not within reach of either 40B safe harbor status with affordable housing land at 1.27%/1.5%, and affordable housing at 8.3%/10%, and furthermore pipeline projects would not cross the safe harbor thresholds. Is this wrong?
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/96428
Obviously Northland prefers the Special Permit route. But after several years of effort, if the Special Permit fails and Northland has to start over, the property would remain private and valuable, with a significant, ongoing opportunity cost to Northland, and further risk the next Special Permit may also fail. Is this wrong?
Without a Special Permit, Northland or a new owner would still have the power to split the parcels, build a 40B complex, and develop the remaining commercial development “by right”, and Newton would have limited or no control at all. I’m guessing under this scenario, the developer’s financial incentive changes from getting a Special Permit approved with whatever concessions may help, to building as big as possible. Is this wrong?
https://village14.com/2019/09/21/northland-project-alternatives
If this is all correct, I am personally very concerned a referendum would not help and exacerbate specific complaints with the Special Permit proposal.
I agree we should keep the discussion focused on local topics and to this point, the City of Newton debated and ultimately approved on a non-binding vote to impeach Trump in 2017. At that time, Bryan (and others) had no objection to spending city resources to second guess a national election–and if you have any doubt go back and read the V14 posts.
But today, with this very real binding issue of the City exempting the Northland Mall and Luxury Apartments from existing zoning, ordinances, and other permitting requirements the tone is the opposite: respect the vote.
Obviously the Pro-Mall camp knows the good people of Newton will vote down the exemptions granted for this Megacomplex. Otherwise they wouldn’t be scared to let the people decide.
YES to 40B; YES to new [conforming] construction; but NO to exemptions for corp profiteering.
@Newton Resident, thank you for finding this information. It does appear we are far from 40B’s safe harbor requirements. Each new development, with 17.5% of the units (and less than 17.5% of the area) deemed affordable, inches us toward the goal only incrementally. For example, at that rate we’d need over 10,000 new units to be compliant.
Jim’s comment attempting to tie a local city council decision to a specific national political vote is way off base and should have remained in the trash. The analogy doesn’t work and this blog should stay about local news.
I would even suggest that all attempts to tie local decisions to national ones should be deleted without any comment about the nature of the comment – except behind the scenes to the commenter. (This process has been done numerous times including times the poster or commenter has not been notified.)
The comment just above about Bryan’s calling attention to what a referendum would cost Newton to the cost of overturning a national election should also be deleted because 1) it isn’t an analogy at all even resorting to calling approving Northland an “election” and 2) it’s not local.
David M, we have no control over the city council choosing to vote on national politics but we do have control over this blog. The decision of the city council to move forward with a special permit for Northland is not an election causing the comparison to a national election to not be anology at all. I think your comment should be removed too.
Marti,
Bryan Barash first used the term “election” in connection with the Northland vote. Last sentence of Bryan’s comment: “We’ll end up spending tens of thousands of dollars and very likely end up with the same result as the election we just had.”
So this is where this blog has sunk to…debating which comments should be removed. Sad!
P.S. hope I didn’t offend anyone by using a P.S. or this comment might be removed too.
Wow, this thread took a life of it’s own! Been out a couple of days, but…
1. Special thanks to @davidkalis for his defense of the neighborhood.
2. No one wants to be out in the cold collecting signatures for a referendum. So why are they doing it? Because they (we) do not feel accurately represented by our elected officials. (Someone noted above correctly that 3 of 3 Ward 5 Councilors supported Northland – no other words needed). A referendum is democracy’s safety net when a group feels under or misrepresented. It is not done on a whim, and there is great effort involved to even get the process started.
3. The referendum would repeal the special permit approval, effectively undoing the 17-7 vote. Again, people are feeling under/misrepresented. Unfortunately, perception is reality, and we’ll never come together as a community until that is recognized.
4. To my knowledge, there has never been a 40b at 800 units, let alone much greater than that as some are saying. Also, Northland is not known to be a 40b developer. But even with 40b, traffic and safety would need to be addressed before it can be approved by the ZBA.
Lastly, those who know me personally, know that I tend to wear my heart on my sleeve. That may rub some here the wrong way, but that was not my intent. My reactions and the reason people are out there collecting signatures for a referendum, is because they feel like they are not being heard.
Let’s hope ultimately this Northland experience pulls Newton closer together vs apart.
Matt,
As you collect signatures, are you guaranteeing that, if you prevail in the referendum, there will be less intense development on the site? Isn’t more intense or differently intense even more likely an outcome?
Wouldn’t overturning the special permit throw the future of the site into uncertainty (chaos?), with virtually no city control over the outcome? Talk about no representation!
As for no 40B with more than 800 units, does the statute cap the number of units? Has there been a 40B project with such a huge (22 acres!) site in a municipality with such a profound demand for housing?
As Bryan B. has said, no is not a plan.
This ballot initiative is just civic nihilism, pure and simple.
@matt lai – “perception is reality”. I’ve seen you write this multiple times with no explanation. Huh?
Perception is one person’s view of reality … that may or may not coincide with reality.
@Matt Lai, I appreciate the fact that you express your passionate views without meanness. Clearly, the RightSize groups are within the rules in petitioning for a referendum. But I think it is a mistake to do so, for several reasons:
1. I believe you will lose. The housing-friendly councilors keep winning a super-majority in part because most Newtonians are comfortable with more dense development.
2. Win or lose the referendum, the concessions you have received will be off the table if the developer goes the 40B route.
3. I personally think that referenda are over-used, and should be saved for things like overrides or for recall of politicians who are criminals.
Northland is a mistake. Hugely disappointed in our representatives.