I was approached by someone from Right Size Newton today at the entrance to Whole Foods Market who I’m sure had the best of intentions, but what I heard concerned me. After being asked to sign a petition to stop Northland, the conversation went something like this:
me: What outcome would you expect if this petition succeeds and the referendum wins?
rsn rep: The neighborhood would get a smaller development.
me: How would that happen?
rsn rep: People who live there would propose a smaller development.
me: But the people who live in the neighborhood aren’t the ones building the development. Wouldn’t that be up to the developer? What incentive would the developer have to negotiate? Have you heard of a 40B? Why wouldn’t the developer go that route?
rsn rep: It already is a 40B. The current proposal has affordable housing.
Of course, the current proposal is not a 40B. A 40B is what proponents of the project believe the developer will fall back on if a referendum succeeds, and that will mean a much larger development, with more affordable housing, but no meaningful concessions to the city. Whether that’s good or not depends on your point of view, but it certainly doesn’t seem like what Right Size Newton would consider a good outcome.
I’m curious if my exchange with the RSN petition drive matches what others have experienced. I’m very worried people will be making endorsements based on faulty information. I’d also genuinely like to understand what RSN’s strategy is, if there is one.
Since the approval of the Northland project, it has become popular here on V14 to hold out the bogeyman threat of the project going to 40B if the voters reject it.
But IIRC…Newton is absurdly close to the 1.5% of developable land ‘Safe Harbor’ under 49(B). I have not seen an updated figure since the City’s Jan 2018 memo, but at that point, it was less than one acre from meeting the threshold.
The Northland project is on three parcels. The approval of ANY one of the three as a 40(B) development would certainly put the City over the safe harbor threshold, preventing the other two parcels from being developed at all without a special permit (except as commercial by right).
Has something changed that makes these parcels viable as 40(B)s?
I had a very similar experience in West Newton today Adam.
I asked a women with the clipboard if she was concerned if Northland world come back with a bigger project under 40B
She said “there’s already a lot of 40b’s in [the current project]. “
Of course what she meant was that there are 140 “affordable” units in the approved project.
Not the same thing.
But the misinformation is disturbing.
I hope the mayor will use her column in the Tab to explain the difference between generic affordable housing and 40B developments and what could be built by right on the property.
Misinformation implies malintentions. Not the case here.
I repeat…this referendum is an emotional reaction, not a logical one. People are tired of having their comments tossed aside as NIMBY. They can’t grasp how it makes sense to add 800 households in a neighborhood of only 1,200 – all at once.
Keep posting how they are misinformed. That is just fuel for determination.
There may be a compelling answer to the 40B argument, but I haven’t heard anything to that effect from anyone associated with RSN. They apparently haven’t offered any guidance to signature collectors and seem unprepared to deal with this question, which will undoubtedly come up if we have a referendum.
A search for “40B” on the Right Size Newton website yields 0 results.
@Matt Lai – What would an appropriate number of units look like in your mind (700? 500?), and are you comfortable with the chance of ending up with a 1000+ unit 40B that the community and council have no input and control over instead of 800? I would strongly recommend not approaching this as an emotional referendum- if the number of units is the biggest issue then a referendum is a risky gamble because Northland could at any point turn around and just go with a 40B which would be larger and immune to any community effort. Or they could do a large commercial development by right that would also be significantly bigger than the proposed development. In both of those cases there is nothing RSN, the council, or your neighborhood can do to limit the development.
I would be concerned that there isn’t a concrete counter proposal being pushed forward as part of this referendum (Jim aside), when LFIA made the threat of a referendum for Riverside they also put forth their own zoning preposition. I think that was a really important point as it gave Mark Development a clear goal post in terms of what the community was looking for, and even in that case LFIA did end up setting for roughly 20% more than they would have wanted to see. If this referendum does end up passing what’s the end goal? What size is appropriate? If the thought is to just get Northland back to the table without a clear end state I don’t see how this doesn’t end up as a 40B.
Focusing on the 800 units is missing the forest for the trees – there are two much larger alternatives that need no city approval in play with a referendum. Think about whether the 100-200 reduction is worth the risk of an additional 400+ or a commercial development. I don’t live near Northland, so I’m looking at this from a pragmatic perspective – perhaps the risk is worth the lowered size to those impacted, just make sure you’re aware of the potential consequences. A successful referendum doesn’t necessarily mean they are coming back with a smaller development and you’re passing the point of no return if they do go the 40B or by-right commercial route.
Even though the threat of a referendum did work for Riverside I thought it was a risky gamble despite not actually getting to the point of gathering signatures (and I live close by Riverside, so I’m personally impacted by that one). Riverside also didn’t have anywhere near the amount of back and forth negotiations that Northland did prior to getting to that point. LFIA settled for a roughly 33% reduced Riverside development to put the numbers in perspective.
Matt, I believe that you are correct that this is an emotional reaction on the part of the people with the clipboards. The problem is that we should not be deciding land use and zoning on emotion. Also, the people signing those petitions are trying to make rational decisions. If they aren’t given fair information then they’re not making logical decisions. That’s not fair to them or to the city as a whole.
Isn’t the Barn site that Korff bought being developed as 40(B). Wouldn’t that put the City at/over the minimum 40(B) requirement? If so, wouldn’t that prohibit the Northland developed going 40(B)?
@FifthGenerationNewtonite: I’m not completely sure about the numbers, but I believe we are very far from meeting the40B requirement (10% affordable for moderate income households) .
DON’T SIGN THE PETITION. The misinformation people are getting from RightSize signature-collectors makes a mockery of the democratic process. If the petition drive succeeds and the issue goes to a vote, I and others will knock ourselves out making sure people understand what’s at stake, but inevitably, many residents will vote in ignorance.
I don’t like how 40B is being tossed around to spread fear, on the one hand, and hope for a better deal, on the other. The 1969 law has been responsible
for the creation of thousands of affordable and multifamily homes that otherwise wouldn’t have been built. It’s a necessary process in a state where exclusionary zoning and neighborhood resistance were and are pervasive and powerful, and I wish the minimums were higher and Newton were farther away from “safe harbor.” I think we have 750-800 more SHI-eligible units to go. So pretty soon, whether it’s Northland or some other project that puts us over the top, all we’ll have left to rely on for building multifamily and affordable housing (because 10% affordable isn’t nearly enough) is the contentious process that brought us this fantastic, ground-breaking project.
If Northland goes to referendum and gets killed, we have no idea what will go there instead. It’s impossible to know. We can assume that whatever it is won’t be nearly as good as what we might have had.
The residents of Newton love nothing more than rich multi-millionaires from expensive neighborhoods who live in large homes telling people who live in “other” neighborhoods how to vote.
Anyway, i believe the referendum will fail because Newton residents outwardly support high density low income housing…. just not in their neighborhood. Someone else’s backyard. Residents outside the northland vicinity will vote to approve Northland with pride because it doesnt affect them.
This is why no waban or newton center councilor have a main agenda on their website to tear down and build hundreds of low income high density housing in waban or newton center.
@Bugek: How did the Upper Falls councilors vote?
All three councilors from Ward 5 voted in favor of the project and are also urging voters not to sign the referendum.
I’m an Upper Falls resident who has been intently interested in this very big project’s inevitable impact on our neighborhood – for both good and bad.
I urge you not to sign the referendum.
Zen koans from V14:
“Increasing the housing supply will drive up the cost of living — and depress our property values.” (a koan within a koan!)
“If you point out that our volunteers are poorly informed, it strengthens our movement.”
“More density will increase traffic, and you aren’t providing nearly enough residential parking spots.”
“You only want to put dense developments in Northside locations like Upper Falls, and poor locations like Chestnut Hill.”
“Having no credibility with either side, I alone can salvage this situation.”
This referendum is a Brexit vote: attempting to use misinformed oversimplification of a complex issue to get voters to pass something against their own interests. In the hopefully unlikely event that this municipal referendum 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 in November 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 think that the reports of these exchanges with people collecting signatures are way too meek. They cede the popular support that the November election demonstrated to a vocal MINORITY, perhaps with the misguided intention of civility. Instead, I suggest asking the people collecting signatures if they will promise to pay higher taxes to fund this election or if they will promise to publish their names supporting school and other budget reductions to pay for this election. They need to understand that the referendum itself negatively impacts Newton residents and the services we receive. They should be telling signatories that this election will require higher taxes or cuts in other services. That’s what the mayor ought to spell out in her TAB article: that it will require higher taxes or cuts in services.
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.
I’d argue that the T-shirt the signature collectors wear is misrepresentation. What is it a picture of?
Donald Ross raised a very important point at the top of these comments. A large 40B project may not be possible because Newton is near its land area limit.
I believe Donald Ross is incorrect and using old information. The City’s memo is dated and doesn’t reflect the most recent guidance, this has been discussed on here before.
Amy, posted about it on her website a while back, and with full credit to Amy S.:
“According to a memo from the City’s Law Department, although the City previously calculated its land area percentage of affordable housing at 1.47%, due to new method of calculation (in accordance to the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD)’s guidelines), the City (as of February 2019) is at 1.27% and a housing percentage of 8.3% – subsidized housing inventory eligible units.”
I’ve heard this line of argument a bunch from folks I’ve talked to. Basically that they heard from their brother’s, sister’s, cousin’s roommate who went out to dinner a few months back with this really knowledgeably dude who was a 40B EXPERT, that the city met its requirements YEARS ago, and the proof was being kept in the basement of Mayor Fuller’s mansion. (I’m paraphrasing of course. The records could be in Greg’s basement)”
I think some of it stems from the fact that the city has made arguments in the past that the golf courses are not developable land. I don’t think the Commonwealth agrees. We are not the only community to try and stretch our numbers to reach the required cut-offs.
But to base a referendum on that, or to state incorrect and old information to try and convince folks 40Bs aren’t an option, is, in my humble opinion, dishonest. Or at the very least, uninformed.
@NewtonUpperFallsResident. Can you confirm this is the correct document to review the financial analysis done on this project?
http://www.newtonma.gov/documents/Aldermen/08-31-18%20Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Impact.pdf
It has some great numerical based analysis but I did not know if there were other documents?
Thanks!
SIGN THE PETITION!!!
Yes it’s an emotional decision! And it’s coming from the grass roots.
People are p…ed sitting in their cars for a hour to go a mile to get to their home. They are angry that development(s), like this are going on all over Newton. They express disgust with the social engineering going on at city hall, ( and Village 14), and wonder how it is and why, the City Council, the City Planning ( and Development ?) , department, and the mayor’s office get in bed with the Development industry to “work out” solutions to every proposal put forth. They don’t see any resistance or opposition to the density and attendant problems being foisted on them and their city. The feedback I get collecting signatures, is frustration – and yes anger- at the whirlwind of change they are seeing and feeling.
Yup,.. lots of emotion and it’s being expressed. And it’s not by uneducated, unfeeling citizenry but by folks whose expectation of some sort of stability in staking a claim here is being undermined.
I’ve already collected a lot of signatures! This will be telling. Will you be listening?
The 2018 memo that I cited above has been replaced by one in Feb 2019:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/95401
This is not hearsay, or my brothers-wife’s-friend-told-me…it’s the City’s view of the facts.
According to that analysis, the city is about 8 acres short of the 1.5% threshold for safe harbor (“about” because the calculation is somewhat ambiguous, as described in the memo).
A 40(b) built on any of the three parcels that Northland controls would push the city over the threshold and preclude a similar development (but not commercial development) on the other two.
The real shame in what the City Council approved is that by agreeing to only 140 (out of 800) units as affordable, only the land area of those 140 units “counts” towards the calculation of the 40b safe harbor. If the Council had demanded that 25% of the project be affordable, the whole project would have counted (22 acres) and Newton would be DONE with 40b.
I don’t love the project; but I would happily accept it as the price paid to eliminate the 40b threat across the City. Instead we get the project and the continued 40b blackmail.
Thank you Donald for including a link to the updated calculations for reaching a safe harbor in Newton and to how having these new DHCD guidelines both give municipalities a standard structure to follow and provide consistency through out the state.
According to those guidelines, Newton is NOT just 8 acres short but is actually 17.5 additional acres of affordable housing short of reaching the 1.5% threshold.
And even with the developments both approved and in the pipeline, Newton will not be significantly closer to reaching either the 10% or 1.5% land area safe harbors.
Donald, it is good of you to correct the record, but your original citation was incorrect. This stuff is complicated and I don’t doubt your intentions, but others are using posts such as yours to convince the wider community that 40B has been met, or is close to being met. Even in your recent post, I think your math is off. The memo states that there is 98.52 acreas of affordable, out of 7730.99 acres, for 1.27%. To get to 1.5% (EVEN WITHOUT ADJUSTING AS BELOW) I believe you’d need an additional 17.53 acreas. 115.95 acres would be needed total, and 115.95 acreas minus 98.52 acres equals 17.53. Someone check my math…
Reading the city’s memo, it seems clear to me that the open space is not part of the calculation. You can only count the directly associated areas. In addition, the land area devoted to affordable housing must be reduced if the total number of units on site is less than maximum permitted. As such, 1.27% is likely to drop even further as the city refines its numbers. So that is 17.53 acres PLUS a few more acres to get below the true threshold.
Now, to your point, the memo also states that if future pipeline project take the form of large scale rental developments containing 25% SHI eligible affordable housing units, allowing the full acreage of the site to count and all of the units to count, that such projects could bring the City closer to one or both safe harbors.
From my calculations, even if every 40B currently in the pipeline occurs (I know of 2), Northland would still be able to build at least 2, and likely 3 (after refinement) 40B projects at the site. Even if just one is built, and the rest is as of right commercial, it ends up being a net loss to the neighborhood. All of the pain, none of the gain.
Also, one other thing to note is that some of the affordable housing in Newton (and its land area) loses its protections every few years and the units and acreage drops off. This isn’t a static number, especially for the older group homes and affordable projects.
Not picking on you and the others who keep claiming that 40B is so close, but unless the city were to challenge the DHCD guidelines in court, I just don’t think that is true. Check my math, read the memo you were good enough to post. This is important so I’d want to be corrected if wrong.
Also, my hearsay comment was a joke from the movie Spaceballs. I didn’t get it exactly right…
Dark Helmet: I am your father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommate.
Lone Star: So what does that make us?
Dark Helmet: Absolutely nothing.
People, if we don’t have Mel Brooks movies, what do we have?
Donald Ross,
So it appears by what you’re pointing out, if Northland had entailed more 40b, Newton could have been altogether DONE with 40b henceforth; but instead Newton gets the objectionable (by many) Northland Project and Newton must still contend with 40b density projects elsewhere — and that’s a principal argument of the referendum proponents.
If the above is accurate, referendum proponents have nullified the principal argument of the referendum opponents.
I think I’ll double down on my previous Northland comments, THERE’S NEED RIGHT NOW FOR DEVELOPER AND THE CITY TO SIT DOWN WITH RIGHT SIZE, elsewise, with the upcoming referendum, its Bye Bye Northland.
Jim, it wasn’t accurate. See my post and my math.
But I will say, if the folks who live nearby want a 40B, I’m not opposed to that result personally. That’s a lot of families helped out by that affordable housing, and Donald is correct it gets us closer to the 1.5% goal. Not fully there, but closer.
Probably not the goal of the person asking for my signature though.
Fig,
It was accurate insofar Donald Ross’ thinking essentially that currently a 40b alternative project is the boogie man thrown against referendum proponents. So if 40b Newton safe harbor can be met with one (or even two) of the Northland parcels, that’s not such a bad outcome vis a vis the City of Newton in lieu of the current Northland Project.
Jim, just saying do the math. I think all 3 would fit. You don’t get to count open space portions of the site. It would certainly get us closer though. Right Size indeed!
I guess they’ve been reading this blog
@fignewtonville – did you get the upside or the downside of the Schwartz?
https://needhamstreet.rightsizenewton.org/40b/
What I don’t get is the politics of this. All of this could have been avoided had the city councilors and especially the mayor been more politic. Why would the city councilors vote for this project knowing that there were still substantial opposition by the surrounding community and that a referendum was likely, one that would divide the city. Better representatives would have had an ear to the ground and made sure their constituents were behind them or made sufficient concessions so that they would come around. By rushing the vote they are getting a big mess. It’s easy to blame the surrounding neighbors but shouldn’t we expect that our councilors are more politic?
Here’s what I get and don’t get.
I get it when folks say they don’t like the final project or certain aspects of it. That’s fair. Good people have different priorities.
But I don’t get it when folks say this decision was rushed or that people weren’t listened to. This project has been before the public since 2016. There were dozens of community meetings, followed by 16 public hearings, emails, letters, social media deliberations, etc. And the project was modified many times in response to community input.
Do opponents believe that if it instead took five years to deliberate and there were 20 public meetings they’d be happy? I suspect the answer is yes, only if the results were more to their liking. In fact, they would have been happy if the whole thing was decided in one meeting, as long as they got the results they wanted.
That’s all fair and good.
But let’s drop the line that this was rushed or that people weren’t heard. Barack Obama was president when Setti Warren launched this project.
Re: Rick Frank’s comment above: The Right Size take on the scope, substance and limitations of 40b developments seems to paint a far less disruptive outcome than what’s been presented on this post to date.
I’d like to see both sides engage in a factual and dispassionate discussion of the many points that Right Size has surfaced.
I read through the FAQ on the Right Size site and I’m very confused. One of the main concerns is traffic, for which RS asks for more studies. Then it asks for a smaller project with more parking, criticizes the shuttle bus and asks for the Oak Street entrance to be shut off. By my reading this means creating a car-centric design with no modal shift that exits ENTIRELY onto Needham Street. I’m not quite sure how that kind of design equates to less traffic. Rather than taking a first step toward moving people to high-occupancy vehicles, it simply tells people to drive.. .and to do that on Needham Street in particular.
If you really want to be bold, join with the Needham Select Board in calling for an engineering study to determine if the Upper Falls Greenway can be used for a shared bus/ bike path, thereby pulling buses off of Needham Street and giving them their own shuttle zone. That plan could also extend to the commuter rail in Needham Heights via bridges over the Charles and Route 128. Personally, I never felt that this was a viable solution, but it’s at least thinking with a bit more foresight.
I’m really losing any of the logic here.
Bob and Rick:
That 40B pamphlet by Right Size is a bit of a mix. They ignored some facts that helped them, ignored some facts that hurt them.
I’ll try and respond further with what I mean if I get more time this week. But a quick point:
Both proponents and opponents toss around 40B without really knowing the reality of the program. You’ve never heard me say that the maximum number of units could be built on this site from 3 40Bs. I think that is possible, but also improbable, for lots of reason. But I do think it is entirely possible to build as of right, on the 3 parcels, a significant commercial project, a significant 40B project, and “dealer’s choice”. And I don’t think the developer would be obligated to give back much of anything in terms of accommodations.
As for the idea that phasing can’t happen on the above, it can. If you aren’t spending money on community accommodations, it is easier to build in phases. I’d build the residential 40B first, then as of right commercial/office.
There is a lot more to unpack, I just don’t have the time to do it for a few days.
As for folks wondering why city councilors and the mayor didn’t stop everything because of the threat of a referendum, that’s a pretty horrible way to run to a city. Sort of like hostage taking but without the hostage. If folks gather the signatures, we’ll have a vote. The advantage will be with the vocal minority if it is a special election on just that one issue. So be it.
Fig, Thanks for the calculation .
However, you do not need so many acres if each building is 3 story high.
Bottom line, the Mayor’s failure to have the City specifically sit down with Right Size before moving things on to the City Council vote is — as was her similar lack of politic in pre-determining a plan of an expanded NewCAL in the park — a failure in judgment.
The City is quickly running out of time to avert the referendum and because of its insistence to die on the shuttle bus hill rather than afford a bit smaller project because some planners/prognisticators would see that as “a car-centric design with no modal shift” (see Chuck Tanowitz’s comment), the Northland plan will be defeated.
Jim, who should the city “sit down with” when they would meet with Right Size? Is it the community? Isn’t that voice built into the Upper Falls Area Council and into the Ward 5 City Councilors? Is it the abutters? I’m not sure they’re represented in Right Size.
Or is it a group that developed out of anger with no real legal standing, but amassed enough people and a voice to wield power? Because that’s how I see it. This is a small yet loud group that has managed to start making city-level decisions with no authority. Should the Mayor sit down with them? Certainly not, that’s now how I think any of us want our city to run.
Do you really want cyclists to mimic this organization? I’m sure we can referendum something by running out in t-shirts and clipboards to get bike lanes put on every road. I mean, come on… this is now how any of us want government to run.
Chuck,
I believe Right Size has either an attorney and/or official representative, contact or spokesperson. But I think the Mayor or the City Government could figure that out.
There’s no point, especially at this stage, raising the possible past involvement of UFAC, Ward 5 CC’s or whatever or whoever. The referendum is a fact, whether you or I like it or not. Right Size is a fact, whether you or I like it or not. I’m sure there were avenues and are avenues specifically to sit down with Right Size.
Agree that the correct (as far as the City calculates, but subject to review) gap is 17.5 acres.
If Northland has gone full 40b, it would cover the full gap (+22 acres) and Newton could no longer be held hostage by 40b. In the City negotiated project, the amount that “counts” will be much less, and leave the city vulnerable to future 40b threats.
Wellesley solved their 40b problem by working with a developer to build a single, large affordable project (and practically in Newton to boot!); Newton could have used this opportunity to do the same, but chose not to.
@Donald Ross, my read from @Marti’s comment is that 17.5 acres of 40b is not nearly enough unless it is at least 80% AMI. A typical commercial 40b project is 20% AMI.
@Donald Ross – This is a private property owner who proposed a mixed use development. It was not the city’s decision to make.
@Greg It’s certainly easy for me to understand how the folks on the north side of the pike and within 1 – 4 blocks of Washington Street don’t feel listened to wrt Washington Street Vision plan. In spite of hearings, “Charettes”, and $500000 consultants (who the city didn’t listen to either; the Principle Group recommended Form Based Codes – the city, according to my in-person conversation with James Freas – chose not to do that approach, but chose something they called at the time “Context Based”. ). You can have a lot of “Hearings” and be ignored. And, I might add, the election showed that to a large degree the residents responded as such.
I can understand how people who are anti-anti-development wanted to have the local representation eliminated for all at-large councilors. Messy business when you have organized neighborhood opposition to a development project.
Boy don’t you guys LOVE to get into the weeds with this petition !
40b, 1-2-3 , traffic mitigation, %AMI, safe harbors, negotiating, etc etc.??
It’s much more simple than all these striations, variations, arguments et al.
The question is,.. Is a monster project on Needham Street with 800 units of new construction, 100s of thousands of new retail and office commercial space built in this location the “Right Size” or not?
The mayor and city council have spoken and now their constituents are acting.
SIGN HERE !!!
Donald, I think that is wrong. You couldn’t count the open space associated with the project, and the site has areas where you can’t build. The full 22 acres would NOT count, something less would count under the new guidance.
For instance, the city used to count the full YMCA site, including the woods and the parking lot. Now they can’t count the woods/parking lot/track, etc.
There is no scenario that a 3 parcel 40B gets us over the top. Gets us closer, yes. Over the top? No. Plus, 17.5 is the minimum we are missing. Read the report. As we got closer to 1.5%, the city would need to evaluate each of the sites to make sure the full volume could count according to the guidance laid out by DHCD.
With all that said, many communities have done what you suggest. Friendly 40Bs to get them over the top. Eventually we might get there.
But this thread has moved in quite the opposite direction from the folks at the market for Right Side not being honest about 40b (with me and others as shown above). If 3 40Bs are built, that’s a lot of affordable housing and a net win for the city. Not quite sure Right Side gets what they are promising their folks.
Rick, I’m not at all proposed to organized neighborhood groups. I’m organized and I speak loudly about Newtonville issues. I just want the pluses and minuses to be clear for all parties and I think Right Size isn’t doing that fully. And didn’t the local rep vote for this in this case?
If this was my neighborhood, I’d be going to meetings, asking questions, and trying to identify risks. Because as much as Matt and others say this is based on emotion, that’s a bad thing in my book. The useful life of buildings is measured in decades. Many decades.
@John White
The 40b requirement is that 25% of the units are available to households with less than 80% of Area Median Income (AMI), or 20% of the units are available to households with less than 50% of AMI.
IF a project achieves these thresholds (under the safe harbor), the entire acreage of the project (with some caveats) is counted in the safe harbor calculation. If the project falls short of the 25% threshold, only that portion that is affordable will count in the calculation. So Northland is going to ‘count’ as something like 3 acres of affordable development instead of 22 (if it were built under 40b).
@Jerry Reilly
The grant of a special permit is certainly the City’s decision to make. They could refuse the permit, which would have resulted in Northland building a 40b, building a commercial development (by right), or abandoning the project. If this were purely a private developer operating within their rights…none of this would be up for discussion. But it is.
@fignewtonville
You’re right in that without seeing the design, it’s not possible to know with precision *exactly* how much of the site would count. The DHCD guidance is imperfect – open space left open, and deemed not “part” of the landscaping of the project (i.e. the woods at the YMCA) would be excluded. But that’s unknowable without seeing the designs. We both read the same memo.
It is indisputable, however, that if the project had achieved 25% affordable units, dramatically more of it would count against the safe harbor number. Potentially (but not certainly) exceeding the 1.5% threshold.
We also agree that this is *probably* not what the “Right Size” crowd has in mind.
@Donald, thanks for the clear explanation. Very helpful.
Donald, we probably agree more than not. The question is a matter of degree for what would be excluded, and how much the 1.27% would drop once the DHCD guidance is applied to the city’s group homes and other projects. But even if you take your best case, I think all of Northland could be done as 3 40B. I believe you have to be OVER the threshold for 40B to no longer apply.
But there is something I don’t know. If Northland under a 40B no longer buries the parking (a likely loss due to the cost to bury it), then MORE of the area might count towards the 1.5%. Maybe. I don’t know, but that fits the memo I think. Now, that’s a horrible result for that neighborhood (more cars, more parking, more asphalt), but it could get us closer to the 40b threshold.
Pleasure chatting with you on this btw.