Presumably the seven councilors who voted No on the Northland zoning and special permit were hoping for the same outcome as the Right Size Newton folks who seek a referendum and a reversal of last week’s 17-7 vote in favor of both the zoning and the special permit. So, do they support the referendum? I asked them.
I sent the following to the official newtonma.gov email address for Councilors Greg Schwartz (AL6), Emily Norton (W2), Chris Markiewicz (W4), David Kalis (AL8), Lenny Gentile (AL4), Jay Ciccone, Jr., (AL1), and Lisle Baker (W7):
Would you mind providing a public statement on the proposal to hold a referendum to reverse the outcome of the Council’s Northland vote?Do you support the effort to block the project, which effort is consistent with your no vote? If so, will you be taking an active role gathering signatures or otherwise supporting the referendum effort? Alternatively, do you feel the Council vote should decide the outcome? Or, do you have a different position on the matter?
The fact that the Right-Sizers seek the same outcome the no-voters sought is just part of the analysis. There are institutional reasons why even a no-voter might not be in favor and might actually be opposed to a referendum. Having established a preference for an outcome other than the zoning change and the special permit, it is important for the no-voters to communicate whether or not they feel this referendum effort is the right context to achieve that outcome. Do they really feel that a referendum results in exactly the same outcome as they had hoped to achieve with their no votes?
Only two councilors responded.
From Councilor Baker:
I am not prepared to take a position at this time. As I understand it, if enough signatures are gathered, the rezoning matter will first come back to the Council, and I want to understand more about what that may involve.
From Councilor Kalis:
First, I do think that you should be asking all Councilors this question. This is about principle. Where do you stand on the idea of a referendum? Councilors should be consistent in how they think about this question and not be able to take one position when it is convenient and another when it isn’t.
Second, on the question of referendums, this provision is in our Charter so citizens have the right to exercise it. In general, I am in favor of referendums, as it gives the voters another chance to make their voices heard.
However, the issues of an off cycle election potentially resulting in low turnout and the idea that referendums could make general elections moot (elected representatives vote on issues, but are always subject to referendum) is bothersome. Elections have consequences and thus the bar to hold a referendum should be very high. Currently, referendums require signatures of 5% of the voting population to become a ballot question – that’s approximately 3000 signatures. I am fine with this number but I also believe there should be a turnout threshold. To this point, the Programs and Services subcommittee (Kalis, Krintzman, Albright, Baker) on the Charter Question met for over a year in 2018 and made recommendations that were accepted by the City Council, but not adopted by the Mayor. One of the changes we recommended was establishing a voter turnout threshold of 15% of the voting population by which referendums would need to achieve to be binding. I still believe this is a change worth considering.
Finally, with regard to your specific questions, as I mentioned, citizens have the right to pursue this referendum. I will not be actively collecting signatures nor will I sign it.
First, poor showing by the five councilors who did not answer. If anyone is aware of any of the five offering guidance in a different forum, public or private, please let me know.
Great that Councilor Baker responded, but seems like he could have provided a little more substance. Maybe he’ll comment here after he learns more about the process.
Councilor Kalis comes to the right conclusion: he’s not going to sign the referendum petition. But, it’s a very procedural answer. It seems that he’d be fine reversing the Council vote, if there were assurance that there were enough voters participating in the election to assure a decent representation. Which is internally consistent. He was fine with the alternatives to a negotiated agreement when he voted no. And, apparently, he would fine with the alternative to a negotiated agreement if it came by referendum, if the referendum thresholds were higher.
As Councilor Kalis requested, I’m going to ask the 17 yes-voters what their position on the referendum is. I’m not sure I agree with Councilor Kalis that a councilor has to take a position on referenda in general to say that a referendum on this one issue might not be a good idea. In any case, the three Ward 5 councilors have already made their views known.
But, let’s see what the rest of them have to say.
I support the Northland project. It offers so many great things for Newton. It was exciting to be inside the rail at the vote. I think the referendum could lead to a much bigger project without as many benefits for the city and could set a dangerous precedent. If you want to know more, I wrote the following letter to my supporters “Critical Issue for Newton Voters”
https://mailchi.mp/a547a4561c36/honored-to-serve-12075493
By law a referendum holds our elected officials accountable.
Presently, there is a very large constituency opposed to very large
community housing developments which will change the quality
of life in Newton forever.
Our city officials must be held accountable. Their votes affect
everyone’s future well being.
Fairness is crucial. Everyone must be carefully listened to and heard directly on these new visions for the future. Fiscal impacts
must be considered and thought through carefully.
Why would the city council fail to listen to those who disagree with their votes on housing and rezoning? The process will be incomplete without a referendum. People need to be fully heard.
Thanks Councilor Baker and Kalis and Councilor-elect Bowman for responding to Sean’s question. I look forward to reading responses from your colleagues.
I love the referendum…mostly for reasons Colleen has summed up very nicely. 😉
Do we, the general citizenry have some accountability in the 17-7 vote? Sure. 25% voter turnout is not great. But it does not mean our elected officials can treat Newton like a social experiment, tinker with zoning as they see fit.
Every Land Use meeting involving was filled, with 50% or more of the commenters opposing NND’s size and scale. I’ve personally written the Council a number of times as did many, many others. Thankful that at least some of the Councilors had the courage to champion their concerned constituents when it came time to vote on the Special Permit.
But you know what’s best about the referendum? Since it’s inception many of the Pro-Northland Councilors and Councilor-elects, are coming out of the wood works, Tweeting and posting on Facebook, NextDoor and V14 as well as emails to their newsletter lists asking, if not begging for people to not sign the referendum.
For many, this marks the first time they’ve REACHED OUT to their constituents about Northland. If only on that point alone, the referendum has been successful. #democracy
On this and the one right before Northland thread, there seem to be complaints from both sides (developer and RSN) that the other side refused a reach out in the past.
Without blaming either side, let’s get down to brass tacks. Will the spokesman for Right Size propose, as a comment on this thread, an outline or approximation of what they might be able to live with as close to the current Northland plan as possible. I offered as a suggestion nixing the developer’s responsibility and expense for the bus shuttle system, in return for which savings developer will shrink the project giving up revenue and profit equal to the savings in expense on what would have been spent on the bus shuttles. I’m sure there are other suggestions as well and nothing suggested herein at this stage is of course in any way binding. So have at it.
If a sit down is preferred rather than saying anything on V14, please advise via comment and I’ll endeavor to arrange a meet-up between representative(s) from both sides as each designates. Time is of the essence in order to see if the referendum can be averted, so the very earliest reply on this would work the best.
If the City will take up this task as quickly as possible, that, of course, would be much better than my arranging the sit down. So if a representative from the City would do that, use this V14 forum and advise that the City will do this.
Yep, that’s democracy all right. Depending on a super low turn out election to get what you want on a special permit while decrying the much greater turn out election as being undemocratic because it doesn’t agree with your world view, all while telling folks a better deal is just around the corner when you actually have no idea except that emotionally you are super invested. #totallydemocracy!
But hey, the land use meetings were filled with 50% or more of my supporters! How dare they not listen to us! Because if the super invested folks scream and yell and fill the hearing room, they MUST be the majority! #totallydemocracy!
And how dare the city councilors with thousands of constituents not engage me and/or Jim directly, when many of them hold office hours and 300 meetings were held to discuss the project! They didn’t engage with ME enough or folks who think like me! Even though my cause refused to meet with the project directly like Riverside did! #totallydemocracy!
And how dare my three elected representatives choose to support this project I hate, when I hate it! Who cares if we just had an election and my ward voted for 3 representatives even MORE likely to support the project! Who cares if my ward councilor supports it, and that my future ward councilor supports it! I don’t! And my friends don’t either. We’ve been ignored for TOO long during the multi-year, multi-meeting, negotiated process! #totallydemocracy!
Matt, democracy is in the eye of the beholder on this one. I’m fine with a referendum, but the reason why so many folks on Right Size are overally confident in the result is that they are counting on a low turn out special election. Most folks who push democracy want high turn out elections….
Well, maybe the mayor and the city councilor will learn their lesson and put a minimum % of eligible voters for a referendum to be effective.
I truly hope it works out in favor of the local neighborhood in the long run. I’d rather be wrong than right about the end result. But man, what a gamble. And what chutzpah to call it democracy.
I think I’m grumpy I missed the party.
I was actually hoping that both Matt Lai and Figgy would come to the party tonight. We missed you both!
@Allison Sharma – Me too. Matt and Figgy were on my wish list … but we did welcome back our long lost blogger Kim. It was great to see that clown tonight.
Had to do the rock climbing drop off and pick up of the kids last night. ;-(
Next time!
@figgy, nope not shy on chutzpah.
I don’t hate this project. But everyone whiffed on the obvious. What matters most to Northland’s neighbors are traffic and schools (I believe the children are the future. Teach them well and let them lead the way.) 🙂
A couple of shuttle busses amounts to throwing a bag of Doritos at a hungry person.
Schools? $1.5m buys a handful of Teslas, but at an average annual spend of $19k/year/student, it doesn’t go very far.
But hey…..we get a splash park!!!!
My inference is that being “heard” implies benefits negotiated align with and prioritized by the needs of the concerned – solve traffic and schools; and if these cannot be solved, the project has to get smaller. Or agree to phasing, to test proposed mitigation strategies will work, before building more.
Instead, what we have are benefits that favor the developer more than its neighbors. Sure, underground parking is great, but it also allows them to build more stuff (density) above it.
And as a result, many still feel like Northland is wolf in grandma clothing, ready to pounce on Little Red Riding Hood. Sorry you’re grumpy you missed the party Figgy, but you can’t say I’m entirely wrong.
Lastly….(really)…
Mixed use is the only thing that will work on that location.
By right allows them build more office and commercial – which is partly why it’s empty today. Companies of scale do not want to move to Needham Street. Even Reebok and Converse uprooted their suburban headquarters to move to Boston.
40b gets them a larger Avalon. And without some retail, dining and office space to attract tenants, they will be challenged to get market rates desired. It be “just another apartment complex”
So best case….a new special permit that grants mixed use and has stronger solves for traffic and schools. If either By Right or 40b was even remotely attractive (or viable) wouldn’t they have gone that way in the first place?
Am I the only one who thinks Sean should move on? Or perhaps we need just one more thread: “how many shuttle buses can dance on the head of a pin?”.
If I were a councilor who voted no and Sean Roche contacted me with this question, I’d be one of the five who did not reply. Who is he to demand a reply and why on earth would any councilor feel a need to respond? Enough is enough.
If the referendum happens, then it happens. If you don’t like referendums, do a home rule petition to have Article 10 removed from the charter (good luck with that). Badgering people with a barrage of emails telling them not to sign a petition is beyond annoying. If you plan to send one of these seemingly endless emails, please remove my name. Post it on social media and I snooze you for 30 days.
I get VERY cranky when I stay out late!
#greatblogparty!
“Even Reebok and Converse uprooted their suburban headquarters to move to Boston”
Precisely the root cause of all of this. And why would they move to a higher rent district? Tax breaks or other incentives ?
The crazy over development of past and future swampland in Boston is the root cause of the housing problem. It’s completely denying the reality of ocean level rising and at the same time convincing surrounding towns to build workforce housing.
RE @Jane’s comments:
“Am I the only one who thinks Sean should move on?”
>>>Agreed. While I appreciate his commitment and tenacity, the back-and-forth on this issue has gotten repetitive and tedious.
“If I were a councilor who voted no and Sean Roche contacted me with this question, I’d be one of the five who did not reply. Who is he to demand a reply and why on earth would any councilor feel a need to respond?”
>>>Many councilors I’ve talked to say they assiduously avoid this site as a place where the same people talk past each other, often in unpleasant ways. They have no obligation to respond here and may even view it as counterproductive to their interests and positions. A good question for the V14 community is how we might make this a more attractive and relevant place for them to participate.
Paul,
I feel that my comment up-thread not only does precisely that, but is a way forward on both averting the referendum and saving Northland.
By the succeeding comments I guess everyone feels I was just tongue in cheek, to which say, really, give it a try!
@Paul Levy, your last question is a great one. It has been suggested that the moderators disallow anonymity, but I find the anonymous posters no more obnoxious than the rest of us. V14 has several interrelated weaknesses, all very challenging to fix:
1. There aren’t many commenters of us have the issues that we beat to death.
2. We frequently trigger angry responses in each other. An unfortunate bug in all social media.
3. We have a significant problem with threads being hijacked, usually by someone taking advantage of weakness #2.
Sadly, I don’t have any great suggested solutions. The councilors are wise to avoid joining in. On the plus side, I learn something important from V14 each week.
Speaking as someone who spent part of his life working to attract business to Needham Street I feel that I can tackle the “Reebok and Converse” question.
First, no, we can’t handle companies of that size mostly because of our transportation infrastructure and walkable amenities near any commercial development of an appropriate size. We cannot offer 300,000 sq. ft. of space that allows people to walk to lunch options, go shopping, run errands, etc. Think about a major office building in a place like Newton Centre.
We DO however, have smaller spaces that offer the same amenity offerings, and that’s why Examity moved to Needham Street and why the old New England Mobile Book Fair building now houses small businesses. Everpresent moved to Needham Street and stayed in the area just for this reason. Those CEOs told me that Needham Street WAS the draw. The traffic, to them, was irrelevant.
Of course, this kind of life isn’t for everyone, which is why Bright Horizons chose Wells Ave. They wanted a place that allowed their current employees to remain and they liked the running and biking trails nearby. These companies aren’t the size of Reebok (or New Balance) but allow for increased activity.
All that said, we were about to have a 300,000 sq. ft. headquarters-ready building in Newton that would have been walkable to amenities while also having some good transportation infrastructure, but Right Size Newton negotiated it away. It was slated to be at Riverside. To put that in context, the building adjacent to that property is a multi-tenant building with some pretty major companies in it, and I’m told it’s one of Regus’ busiest and most profitable locations.
So the same group behind the signature drive cost us a chance to attract a major corporation and add significantly to the commercial tax base.
Paul, many of the same councilors that slam this site certainly post here when it suits their purposes. Some of their criticism is valid, it can be a bit rough and tumble, and sometimes one or two posters get a bit obsessed and can’t let something go.
But let’s be honest, some of the city councilor hesitation is just not wanting to be challenged on their positions. There are a number of folks who send out sanitized newsletters or emails to their constituents, which is fine, but doesn’t exactly allow for a back and forth. Certainly easier on the politician, but not so great for the rest of us. Ted Hess Mann, Amy S., Susan Albright, Jim Cote all routinely posted here and some of them continue to do so. And I think I’ve learned alot from their posts. That’s good for everybody.
For better or worse this is the new public sphere. There is no more paper. There is NewTV, some occasional coverage from the Globe, NextDoor Newton (which is basically a site to sell stuff and find tradespeople sourced from recommendations), and Village14.
I’d welcome any city councilor to participate on here. I know a lot of them read it, and I know a lot of them address issues raised by the folks posting here. How do I know this? Because I occasionally go to office hours, and I’ve occasionally asked. And because they seem to magically appear when it suits their purposes, even while some of them complain about the site and how “mean” it is.
For the record, that’s also one of the reasons I voted for Jim Cote. Because he engaged with folks regularly on this site, and was happy to defend his positions. Politicians who want to be in a bubble and only speak to folks who agree with them aren’t my type of politicians.
I want to grow the site, and I want more participation especially, even if I don’t agree with it (especially if I don’t agree with it actually). But I also don’t want a sanitized forum where we basically walk on eggshells around our elected officials. It won’t be for everyone, and that’s ok.
For the record, while Sean sometimes does go overboard, asking our elected city councilors on the issue of the day isn’t one of those times. Each city councilor should answer, just like the Ward 5 folks did. Hiding from your constituents and refusing to weigh in is a far worse look than Sean being overzealous.
Even if local elected officials refrain from commenting here, which is understandable, they certainly can gain the pulse of the public on the various issues (as I’m advised this is regularly followed by them).
I’m not following this discussion. Most if not every single city councilor has participated on Village 14 at various times.
Councilor Gentile might be the only exception. But perhaps he has too.
But certainly they don’t need the City Clerk’s permission. And in fact that City Clerk has commented here too.
@Fig: We have the Open Meeting Law that prevent discussions among the elected officials that would come back to bite them! I would ask our City Clerk, David Olson, for his opinion on City Councilors open participation on V14 with back and forth on issues they might discuss at City Council meetings in the future. I don’t like the strictures of OML, but I respect the timidity of those Councilors who tread lightly around it!
@Greg: Commenting here is not the same as discussing an issue in a public forum, a forum that has not been properly “noticed” per OML. Of course, David has spoken here…about Election Commission stuff. And I am sure there is room for an occasional comment from a City Councilor. But, again, I suggest that you consult Mr. Olson about whether the City Council can openly discuss an issue on V14 that may come before them in the Council Chambers.
This is silly Sallee
City Councilors have been participating on Village 14 for eight years and before that on the TAB blog, as they choose or don’t. I see any need for Village 14 to get a legal opinion from the city clerk after all that time. Individual councilors can choose to seek whatever input they want, or not.
But basically why try and fix something that’s not broken?
@Sallee – I can’t see how expressing an opinion here is any different then a councilor expressing an opinion in their own email newsletter. Neither involve private deliberations between councilors.
I’m always appreciative of a good newsletter, but politicians of all stripes tend to be the hero of their own story, even more so when they write the story.
As folks know who follow this forum, I was a proponent of shrinking the counsel proportionately. But if we are destined to have a counsel as large as 24 members, the advantage of that is an increase in public communication on issues. We should be having MORE conversations, not less. More viewpoints, not less.
Councilors who only communicate with their constituents via meetings and newsletters are only going to get a limited cross section of true believers and folks with business before the counsel. Village14 and other online forums have a broader audience in my opinion. Councilors should be seeking out these types of public interactions, not shying away from them.
And Sallee, I realize you have some experience with this, but I’m pretty sure online engagement has not been deemed to be an open meeting violation. There is a lot of ability for councilors to interact with the public. If Emily and Susan start discussing votes or specific deliberations, maybe there is a conflict. But otherwise Emily and Susan can both comment. (just using them as examples because they both occasionally comment and they represent Newtonville, the best Newton Village.)
That’s right, Newtonville is the best.
I’m going to say something here I haven’t yet:
Sallee is right.
When you are part of an elected or deliberative body (outside of the state legislature, which has exempted itself, as @EmilyNorton reminds us regularly) you cannot “deliberate” with a quorum outside of an Open Meeting, properly noticed.
Councilors—up to 3 on one committee—can within some limits discuss their opinions in another venue, but cannot as soon as a quorum is reached.
A wise councilor who wants to avoid a lawsuit keeps this in mind when commenting on a vigorous V14 forum.
@Councilor Downs: Umm…then I would argue that I’m right!
Our wise councilors can and have been moderating themselves for years and are free to seek their own legal input if they think they need it. But there’s no reason why Village 14 has to become involved by contacting the city clerk. It’s not Village 14’s role or responsibility.
I remember this issue of city councilors participating in V14 discussions arising several years ago. Andreae and Sallee have it right – there are open meeting issues if too many councilors discuss a topic. This may be unfortunate, but should not reflect badly on the councilors who are careful about not violating this stricture since they have no control over state laws.
From Mass.gov FAQ
“May members of a public body communicate with the public through social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and webpages?
Yes, members of public bodies may communicate with members of the public through any social media platform. However, members of public bodies must be careful not to engage in deliberation with the other members of the public body through such communications. If a member of a public body communicates directly with a quorum of the public body over social media platforms such as Facebook or Twitter, that communication may violate the Open Meeting Law. Public body members should proceed with caution when communicating via these platforms.”
Honestly, I think the harder case is a listserv, since that is NOT open to the public, and multiple city councilors could belong to it and deliberate within it.
I honestly think this is just an excuse for some public officials to not communicate with a public forum, which is the exact opposite intent of the open meeting laws. Not saying that they don’t have to careful, but the fact that they need to deliberate and communicate directly solves most of the issue in my view. Rarely do we see city councilors directly communicate on this forum, and rarer still when they deliberate directly on an issue.
I’ll also note, again, that many city councilors manage to brave the wilderness that is Village14 when it suits their purposes. Funny how that works… 😉
Out of curiosity are Newton residents aware of the 600 units going in at the Wellesley Office Park? The office park is located on the east side of the 128/9 cloverleaf abutting the Charles River. The first stage is set to be occupied by 2022 with 350 units. This 40R will bring Wellesley closer to their 10% and has been welcomed with open arms.
My guess is the residents at these new units will utilized the area of the Northland project quite a bit or the Chestnut Hill stores. It will probably take the same amount of time to go to Wegmans as it would Roche Bros in Wellesley.
@lmf6599 – Yes I am. You can almost throw a rock, not that I would ;-), from my house.
That project is sort of similar to all the Needham commercial development on 2nd, 3rd Ave off Needham St/Highland Ave.
Both of those big projects are on islands of land on the far (Newton) side of Rt 95 for Needham and Wellesley. Because of that, both Neeedham and Wellesley can build big projects with very little pushback from their residents. They all figure it’s over in Newton.
It seems like a very odd location for a big housing development with only one way in/out onto Rt 9 West. That said they’ve been getting all the workers in/out of there at rush hour for years with the help of a cop directing traffic.
I think its time for Newton to annex some land on the far side of Rt 95 …. or maybe a piece of Waltham on the other side of the river
From my previous Northland comments here and on previous thread(s) and what if anything followed, there’s been an interesting lesson (for me) that in the case of the two opposing sides over the City Council approved Northland plan and the two opposing sides over the referendum which undoubtedly will overturn that approval, in both cases there is no interest in seeking avenues for resolution which in both cases will result in a better on-the-ground substantive resolution than letting the process play out.
Interesting, verrrry interesting (as Laugh In’s Arte Johnson used to say)
The issue of the housing proposal came up at the last Newton Highlands Area Council Meeting and Serge Nedelkovic came up with a brilliant idea for Wellesley to pursue. Mandate that the developer build a pedestrian/ bicycle bridge over the Charles to promote short distance pathway linking the development with the Waban T station. Check a google map.
It might help in the reduction of auto traffic on/ off route 9.