I don’t want a referendum on the Northland special permit. (Do not sign the petition!) However remote, the downsides are too unpleasant. But, jeez, if by some miracle the Right-Sizers get the signatures, what an opportunity to settle the whole question of whether folks oppose or favor reasonably intense development in the city.
Right Size Newton — clarifying agents
by Sean Roche | Dec 6, 2019 | Newton | 59 comments
Regardless of how anyone feels about the Northland project, I hope residents will think twice before signing the petition.
We elect representatives in part because residents do not have time to understand and decide every issue that comes before the council. Putting a matter like this to a referendum places a burden on voters to understand all of the complex data and analysis that the city council has studied and deliberated over the last two years. The 2/3 threshold for a land use petition is set high to protect residents from a decision like Northland going through without overwhelming support from the duly-elected council.
Newton’s charter does not require any minimum threshold of voters to show up at a referendum election, so a very small number of voters could end up deciding the issue. And the associated costly ballot question campaigns will increase the role of money in politics in Newton.
Government-by-referendum is a dangerous path to go down. The petition disrespects the hard work that the council has done over the last two years, and it ignores the will of the voters who elected this council. In my opinion, the charter’s referendum provision should be used for extreme cases like a controversial issue that passes with 13 votes or is rushed through with limited public deliberation / public comment.
The petition is completely legal, but voters can choose whether to sign and I hope they won’t. We shouldn’t set a precedent of putting all controversial Council actions before the general public (in special elections that cost the city $100,000+), creating a time-consuming burden for residents and ramping up the battle of which side can raise more money to get their message out. The last thing Newton needs right now is another divisive ballot question.
Context matters. This wouldn’t and shouldn’t be a referendum on development in Newton. This is about a project. We should keep issues focused on this project, just as we want and expect City Council to deliberate on each and every project on its merits.
Also, why is this another thread?
I rarely find myself in complete agreement with Sean R.
Happy he might favor the referendum!
And @Rihanna K. re her …”because residents do not have time to understand every issue that comes before the council.”
EVERY ISSUE ?!
So this is just another regular every day issue ???
Give it a rest .
This is the latest on the referendum drive.
One councilor has attempted to stop people from gathering signatures. Someone has attempted theft of signed petitions.
These tactics may slow down the signature gathering but the process will prevail. The law supports referendums. People have a right to challenge a city council vote.
Right Size Newton is playing a very risky game.
Rather than the 800 approved apartments, Northland could potentially build over 1,800 apartments under the state’s 40B law (640 units on each of the site’s three parcels). And under 40B, we’d likely also lose $10 million in traffic mitigation, free shuttles, free T passes for residents, parks, school building funds and other community give-backs that Northland and the city have thoughtfully negotiated.
Plus for those folks who’ve used concerns about school enrollment as a reason to oppose this project, you should know that under a 40B, Northland would be required to include a lot more three bedroom apartments than the existing plan. So even 640 apartments under a 4oB would likely result in more students than 800 under Northland’s approved project.
Do readers here think there actually will be a successful referendum against the project?
Were that to be deemed the likelihood, I offered an essentially cost free solution — see previous Northland thread — whereby I think the parties can agree on a way to avoid this.
Time is of the essence.
1) This is not about winning, this is about having it. See my other comment.
2) Your solution is not cost-free. See my other comment
Colleen,
Have the police been notified of the attempted theft of signatures? They should be, that’s a serious allegation. If the police haven’t been notified, I’m going to pull your comment.
Thanks.
Colleen,
Also, what’s wrong with a councilor telling people not to sign the petition? This particular referendum is a terrible idea.
Can someone educate me about when the referendum would be held?
Sean, if it was held on a day where it was the only thing voted on, that would NOT be a fair estimation of how folks feel about anything. If 400 folks should up to vote, how is that fair?
Could they do it the same day we have an election primary? At least then you’d have people going to the polls.
Fig: My understanding is it will be a special election likely late March or April. And yes while there was a proposal that came from the committee the council formed after the charter was defeated that would set a minimum turn out (i.e. if say 15% percent of the voters don’t show up, it would be non-binding) we have no such rule in place. So yes, a two percent turn out could be sufficient to stop this project.
I’ve been told a police report has or will be filed. Someone stole a box of petitions, so obviously someone is afraid that it may have consequences. And apparently some people think the current plan is “right sized” and think the 40 b would be worse or something. Those of you who believe this, whether you want to admit it or not, have you’re own definition of “right size”. So, you too are right sizers even though you don’t think you are.
The latest word is that there was no foul play with the petitions.
Meaning the lost petitions were found. The councilor did send out a mailing asking people not to sign the petitions though which to me seems improper.
Am I incorrect in assuming at this point, looking ahead, that likely there WILL be a referendum and that likely the current project WILL be rejected.
And NOTHING is being done to endeavor to mediate a resolution to save the project?
Lisa,
Thanks for the update on the petitions.
Why is a councilor having a position on this inappropriate?
Wait- the project needs saving? After a super-majority CC approval? Goodness.
Doug,
It looks like (and anyone correct me if I’m wrong) the referendum process will likely kill the current project.
And knowing that, our civic leaders (and developer) who favor the project are doing essentially nothing (other than I’m assuming going to spend taxpayer money on an advertising campaign, only to be countered by an advertising campaign from Right Size etc.)
There is need to think outside of the box — there ARE avenues to save essentially the project.
The 2017 charter proposal required a 20% minimum turnout for a referendum to be binding. That was uncontroversial given that non-mayoral elections hover around that range, and an big issue would be expected to boost it over 20%.
But it had an unrecognized flaw that Dave Kalis identified in the review committee. In a special election, with no candidates to vote for otherwise, the NO side could just boycott, and thus force YES to turn out 20% of the voting population.
The original intent of the commission could be met by requiring a proposal both win AND to receive YES votes from >10% of the voting population.
I can’t imagine any “yes” side boycotting a referendum. Too risky.
Boycott is the better strategy unless you think turnout will be >40%. The 2013 override had a turnout of 32%.
I just got caught up on the ongoing Northland controversy by reading the many threads already on Village 14. This development is a provocative test case for the movement towards large developments and high-density housing in Newton. As a cyclist, to be sure, I am delighted that bike lanes will eventually appear along Needham Street. The shuttle bus service to the Green Line is also a good idea, as are other improvements to that crowded thoroughfare.
I worry nonetheless that these measures will prove insufficient in preventing increased vehicle traffic along Needham Street and the adjoining roadways. Most of the new residents will own a car, and many will work in offices far from the reach of our limited regional transit. The D-Line is no way to reach tech centers along 95 or 495 or in Cambridge (it takes too long), not to mention the Longwood Medical District. Though the new supermarket near Avalon helps the cause, Northland residents will still want to shop in Chestnut Hill or Brookline or Natick, as the rest of us do.
Let’s make sure that at the very least the project truly becomes a housing site for those of low and moderate income. City government should gather and publish statistics on the nature of those who move in. Thanks to several of you, I now grasp the way it’s supposed to go. But verifiable proof that Northland and Austin Street and the others provide affordable housing would make high-density housing more palatable for me.
Interesting, if the Referendum gathers enough signatures and forces an election it will probably be combined with the Override that will be announced in January. If that happens, the cost of a special election is neutralized.
@Fignewtonville, If a petition w/ the required # of signatures is certified, the city council has 30 days to reconsider the Northland item. If the council votes down the item upon reconsideration, then the referendum is over. If upon reconsideration the item passes again, then the council has 30 days to call a special election which must be held within 120 days of that vote. So it seems that the special election could occur sometime from late February to May. (If the council allows the 30 days to elapse without reconsidering the item then they must still set the special election under the same time frame.)
@Sean – As Matt said elsewhere, and I am paraphrasing, the reason there is a petition drive is that a decent percentage of Newton residents disagree with the Northland project as approved by the City Council and feel their elected representatives were not responsive to their frequently expressed concerns. So it seems improper or inappropriate or perhaps tone deaf for the councilor to email Newton residents asking them not to sign the petition.
More like, what an opportunity to determine the effect that advertising and FUD propaganda will have on the general public.
@ Jack Prior, notwithstanding the thought raised by Councilor Kalis, in the home rule petition that Mayor Fuller refused to sign, the city council decided to retain the charter commission’s provision that a 20% turnout was required.
Lisa, what constitutes a decent percentage? 10, 20%?
As I travel around Newton, I find a decent percentage of voters in Newton want their elected representatives to do their job. And move Newton into the future, not back to 1959
I’m actually inclined to agree with Sean and Greg on this one, seems like a very high risk/low reward gamble. Let’s look at the possible scenarios if the referendum passes:
A – Northland moves to a by-right commercial development. For the city as a whole this would add much needed commercial revenue but because it’s by-right the council and community would be very limited in the ability to get any mitigations or concessions. Neighbors that are directly impacted would effectively have no voice. I would consider this a loss for people that live close enough to be directly impacted.
B – Northland moves to a residential 40B development. For the city as a whole this will add more affordable units but again because it’s a 40B the council and community loose almost all input. Under this scenario Northland has to meet all 40B requirements and nothing more, so we would get more units at the cost of the concessions in the current plan. Again, neighbors that are directly impacted would have no voice due to 40B. I would also consider this a loss to people who live close enough to be directly impacted.
C – Northland comes back to the table and acquiesces with a smaller development and/or additional concessions to satisfy RSN. This would be the win scenario for RSN and those who feel the current proposal is unsatisfactory. One potential challenge – is there a concrete counter-proposal in terms of what a satisfactory development looks like? For Riverside the LFIA came up with their own zoning proposal for what “good” looked like and put numbers behind it which gave a starting point to work from. I haven’t been following Northland as closely so I’m not sure whether anything similar exists. If this ends up falling through then we’re almost guaranteed A or B, Northland isn’t just going to walk away completely.
A referendum would be attempting to call a bluff on Northland that they’re not going to go down either the A or B scenarios, and I’m guessing that if it does pass there’s no easy way to go back legally if they do respond with either a 40B or commercial development. I would think really hard if that C scenario is worth the potential 40B or by-right development that could result with a successful referendum and would be really nervous about that if I lived close enough to be impacted.
In the case of Riverside it does seem like the potential referendum got Mark Development back to the table and within striking distance of what the LFIA was advocating for, although it’s worth noting that both sides made concessions – IIRC the approved zoning is roughly ~20% more than LFIA’s counter proposal so as much as some people like to cry about LFIA they didn’t get everything they wanted out of it either, just enough that the risks of a referendum outweigh the potential added concessions. Riverside also didn’t have the years and back and forth that Northland did in terms of changes and concessions. So for Northland it comes down the same question – is the risk of a 40B or by-right development worth the potential additional concessions?
Lisa,
What if a councilor does not think that they ignored the desires of any group of constituents, feels like they came to a thoughtful decision, and thinks that the outcome of the referendum would be a disaster?
The more councilors who take a position on the referendum, the better. Either side.
Patrick Butera,
I agree with your analysis. Your Scenario C is the best way forward. I ‘d say — and there’s not much time so time IS of the essence — the City, Northland and Right Size negotiate an agreement under the terms of which Right Size will abandon and oppose a referendum once the parties reach agreement. I’d recommend, for example, or at least partially for example, the following:
1. Make the project a bit smaller.
2. The smaller project makes the traffic a bit less.
3. The bit less traffic can entail eliminating the bus shuttle fleet.
4. Northland’s smaller project’s lesser revenue and profit is offset by ridding Northland of the expense of the bus shuttles.
5. This is a win-win-win, for the City, Right Size and Northland.
BTW, prior to my retirement, for 42 years I was an attorney with the the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and later the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, serving for many years as Interior’s Deputy Regional Solicitor covering the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States, and have been involved in similarly structured negotiations, among the federal and state, county and municipal governments, and land developers and contractors.
Even at this late stage, after the City Council vote, essentially the current Northland project does not have to be an all or nothing situation. There ARE ways forward.
Greg,
I think you may be in a professional position (Chamber of Commerce) to get things going toward some negotiated resolution so we can avoid the all or nothing risk of referendum.
I know how you feel about maximum development including shuttle buses, but can you take a look and possibly initiate some dialogue. Don’t let the City Council Vote preclude any initiation on this.
Jim: This is my last comment to you on this. I really like the current plan and so do the overwhelming majority of our city councilors. I’m not interested in a smaller project. It’s the right size now. Full stop.
As a general matter, I think government by referendum is a bad idea. It overwhelms the essential and healthy nature of a republic, where discourse and compromise rule. So I think it should be used only in compelling situations. I don’t see this as one such example. Our elected representatives have spent months evaluating and negotiating this proposal and have overwhelmingly approved it. To now revisit and put it up for a yes/no vote—even if the sole purpose is to bring the proponent back to the negotiating table—would raise substantial doubts about the efficacy of our governmental process and likely impair our ability to secure other appropriate investments in the future. And, as noted above, with no secure, community-responsive end game at all assured.
Paul,
I completely agree with you, but were stuck with that reality — and I’m just seeking, given that reality, the best way we (Newton) can come out of this.
Thanks for the paraphrase Lisa. 🙂
Guys….the minute the 17-7 vote was cast, this went from left brain (logic) to right brain (emotion).
People are pissed. They feel ignored by their elected official. They’re tired of being called names like NIMBY and “(they’ll) accept nothing but a complete shut down”.
The more folks insist this IS THE RIGHT SIZE, the more people are asked to not sign the petition, pens are effectively being pushed to paper. The haves (political influence) vs the have nots (politically ignored and over looked).
This has all the makings of a revolution or a spousal fight – where emotion overpowers logic. This will come down to an olive branch or something boiling over.
@Jim: Am I missing something? Do you represent, or have you been given authority to negotiate on behalf of, or do you have some agreement to broker negotiations on behalf of the Right Size folks?
Yes
So the social media campaign to sway influence against this petition is completely backfiring? Thought so.
So far no takers on my brokering a deal.
When y’all (pro-Northland, City, Northland Development, Chamber of Commerce, Greg et al. as well as Right Size and the anti’s) look back after being left with several gargantuan 40b’s, remember, I told you so — a little bitsy further minor concessions could have gotten the job done!
This is not tongue-in-cheek.
It’s the “art of the deal”!
Referendums are certainly allowed. And I don’t live near enough for this to effect my life. But it feels like a big game of chicken to me, and I don’t think I’d want to do that with my neighborhood. Righteous anger and emotion feel good, (I’ll show the supermajority of city councilors that I shall not be ignored!) but then you look at the damage left in their wake and you question the strategy. I do get the frustration. I sometimes feel it with Newtonville. I wish Austin street was a floor taller and had better amenities for the community. The project with 5 million payment could have gotten us a good portion of a commuter rail station for instance…(Frustration goes both ways btw)
I think the best case for the Right Size folks that Northland tries to renegotiate based on the referendum threat. I don’t think that is likely. Feels like this is going to set in motion events that are hard to control or negotiate. All of the other possibilities seem more likely to produce a worse project, either now or in the future, if the referendum passes.
The folks organizing the referendum will own the results. Maybe they will look back a decade from now with pride. I hope they do and that whatever is built there will stand the test of time. And if the property is sold or 40bs are built they will own that too.
I won’t be signing the referendum because this is the wrong way to do special permits. We have elections for a reason. Perhaps a low turnout special election will allow the referendum to pass. And then what?
I’m not a member of any group and I have no horse in this race, but I believe the number of housing units needs to be scaled back. Adding 800 units of rental housing will force Needham Street into a huge parking lot. Coupled with all the other developments going on in the City the scale of this project is overwhelming. Negotiating a little smaller project will prove a win win for all. What is the impact of this project on the Countryside School?
Peter,
Yes, along your lines, my negotiation plan will start with allowing the developer to scale back the housing units, and to the extent the developer loses profit and revenue thereby, is offset by eliminating the expense of the silly (actually further clogging with minimal passengers — in any case totally unproven) shuttle bus every-10 minute to only one location, the overburdened Greenline T, stop at Newton Highlands.
This step is a no brainer!
…and the bit smaller project will generate a bit smaller traffic on Needham Street, thus replacing if any traffic ameliorating affect of the Shuttle Buses.
no, no, no, no, no.
A smaller project does not necessarily equal less traffic if you eliminate the bus. A smaller project without a bus REQUIRES car trips. It’s built into the concept. A bus allows people a choice. You’re idea eliminate the choice.
It’s a BAD idea, which is why your idea was REJECTED during the course of a 2 year discussion.
Just so people realize 800 housing units is actually double the number (423) units at the Chestnut Hill Towers. This project by any means is huge! Everyone seems silent on the impact of this development on the Countryside Elementary School and to think that everyone is going to use a shuttle to get to the Highlands T is not realistic.
@Greg Reibman (or anyone else with the answer): what are the terms of the scope of COMMERCIAL building (only) by-right that Northland could construct?
Are there an associated # of parking spots with that construction? (And can you remind me of # of parking spots associated with currently approved project?)
And most importantly, what would the tax revenue to the city of Newton be (estimated of course… I’m sure you can take a SWAG)?
Chuck,
My idea was never presented at this current stage of the project. The current size of the project is predicated on the shuttle buses. A smaller project would generate less traffic, less car trips, let’s say equating those less car trips theoretically stemming from the shuttle buses.
Will these unproven, untested impact shuttle buses serving some narrow parochial pet project interests be allowed to stand in the way of a smaller project which could pass muster with Right Size etc.? I guess, Chuck, you think so, meaning the current project will go down to defeat and you’ll end up with much larger impacting 40b’s with NO shuttle bus!
Of course a smaller project means, in terms of numbers/projections, less traffic. If not, none of your numbers and projections mean anything either as to how many people will actually use these shuttle buses, which have to sit in the one lane Needham Street traffic along with all the cars (actually exacerbating traffic congestion). Every ten minute buses!?! — please — during off peak hours especially they’ll be nearly empty, idling and clogging traffic.
Chuck, please think beyond those parochial interests. (Everybody thought Nexus would be a great success. Remember that? — I know, I know, that was different — but was it really in a significant way?)
Met a signature gatherer in Auburndale this morning.
(Did NOT sign.)
When asked about the developer going 40B if it passes – and the potential for 1,000 more units he told me that “40B can only happen with some local support.”
The look on my face at hearing that does not translate well to text…
(As always, this is my personal opinion and does not reflect my employer)
And I met two nice signature gatherers in West Newton.
I asked them “Aren’t you concerned that if this is overturned we could get three times as many apartments as a 40B but without any amenities?”
Her response: “There’s already a lot of 40B in that project now.”
I did not sign.
@Greg Reibman – hoping you can comment on my question a few comments above re: potential commercial development by-right at the Northland development.
@ANP – According to this current zoning would allow them to develop 1.5 million square feet of commercial space on the site.
For perspective, Wells Ave has about 1 million sq ft of commercial.
Yes, based on my own experience, I don’t think the folks gathering signatures understand what 40B is.
Jim, I think part of the reason folks are getting frustrated with your posts is that this has been a multi-year process with lots of give and take. Now you are coming in and saying…if you only drop this part of it, and give up a bunch of units, this can all work!
But the shuttle bus was important to a bunch of folks negotiating. And there was a lot of give and take on both sides. So it isn’t as simple as renegotiating. The cake is baked. Asking for it now to be low-fat or a different flavor seems unlikely, and ignores the rules of the kitchen (special permit rules).
Finally, someone above asked if you speak for Right Size. I think part of the problem with folks who want a smaller project is that it is difficult for them to speak with one voice. Right Size means…what? 200 units? 500 units? And absent a competing proposal or set of guidelines, it is like trying to nail jello to a wall. I don’t think you or anyone else truly speaks for the opposition.
I’m sure for the Right Size folks it feels like a no win situation. Allow them to build it and holy cow big project in my area. Push for a referendum and risk a bigger 40B, or all commercial. I’m just not sure what is their “win” scenario.
Finally for the traffic aspects of this, is there any truth to the argument that traffic is going to be at Needham street regardless due to 95? If we wipe out big development on Needham street, does traffic greatly lessen?
Fig,
OK, you’re saying since “this has been a multi-year process with lots of give and take. Now you are coming in” means apparently NOTHING should or can be done. “The cake is baked” and “this ignores the rules of the kitchen.” I say that’s balderdash. Something CAN be done.
“Whilst rules are important in the governance of organisations they are not enough. Practical wisdom requires the use of wise improvisation!”
This referendum is a Brexit vote, and in the unlikely event that it passes, it will certainly have as bad an impact on our community as Brexit on the UK–1600 units with no shuttle and no amenities, etc.
I understand that the people who only got one of their anti-development slate elected to the city council are upset. But there *was* a democratic election and most people voted for councilors who support the negotiated agreements for Northland and Riverside! Voters have already made the choice–these issues definitely affected my votes and those of other Newton residents I spoke with.
Pushing for a referendum to repeat the issues in the November election will cost the city money in an already tight budget. What do these people want to cut to pay for this election: money to schools or to seniors or to road repairs? I would ask people collecting signatures if they will promise to pay higher taxes or to publish their names supporting school and other budget reductions to pay for this election. I doubt they would.
Those against Northland and Riverside HAD their election, and all but one of the candidate slate that promised to oppose those agreements were not elected to the city council in November. People who want to cost all of Newton and its services time, money, and good will by repeating the same issues in a new Brexit-style election are the worst sort of neighbors: bringing harm to us all because they didn’t get their way in a democratic election. People confronted by individuals requesting petition signatures need to tell them that they are now doing worse damage to our community than the development companies.
Brexit. How apt.
Brexit got passed. DJT got elected. That’s what happened when citizens are pissed and feel under represented.
Argue logic all you want but we’re past that point. This is now an emotional issue.
Does anyone have the political clout and charisma to print the parties together? To the best of my knowledge, Mayor Fuller has NEVER reached out to Right Size. An olive branch would do wonders.
What, if anything, prevents issuance of the duly authorized Special Permit, tomorrow morning?
Once issued, what if anything can claw-back, cancel, or otherwise invalidate a properly authorized and issued Special Permit without creating a municipal liability?
What force would cause or what power would allow Newton’s duly elected executive to not now act promptly to implement the will of the citizens of Newton as expressed by their representatives, the city Council?