One of the common arguments we’re heard signature gatherers are using as they look to overturn the Newton City’s Council’s 17-10 Northland vote is that the city has rushed this project without hearing from the public.
Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. Even before the Land Use committee held 15 public meetings, there were dozens and dozens and dozens of community meetings, not to mention the months-long Needham Street Vision process, which included a wide cross section of community members.
In fact this project has been in front of the city for so long that Barack Obama was president, the Brits has just approved Brexit and David Price was pitching in his first season as a member of the Red Sox when then Mayor Setti Warren introduced this project back in 2016
Of course, since that 2016 community kick off event, this project has been substantially reduced in scope from 2 million to 1.1 million square feet, thanks to some tough negotiations by our “listening to the public” city leaders. The number of housing units was decreased from 950 to 800, while the ratio of affordable units was increased. Also changed: A massive garage was removed in favor of underground parking; more open space was added; ground breaking sustainability measures (that have been praised by environmentalists) were introduced; as was a free to all electric shuttle bus system, millions in mitigation, a splash park that neighbors asked for, and on and on.
So please, dislike the project if you will, but stop standing in front of grocery stores saying that Norhland or the City Council hasn’t listened or that the city didn’t achieve significant concessions and improvements over three years of listening and negotiating.
Because that’s just not true.
Greg,
Even though, as you say, there was a lot of back-and-forth as well as modification to arrive at the project as approved by City Council, the fact remains that the imminent referendum may very well, if not likely, overturn that approval leaving both the pro- and con/Right Size- Northland sides with a project neither wants, or worse (in terms of desirability) than as approved by City Council.
So, my question, in spite of what you say, should the parties nevertheless endeavor now to get together to see if something at least better and more mutually acceptable can be worked out, or should everybody just let the current process run its course (as you seem to suggest) even if the successful referendum would net something neither side likes or wants. As I’ve said before, the fact of the City Council vote having taken place does not foreclose the sides from getting together in further negotiation. It can always go back to City Council for revision if that’s what all sides want.
I get it @greg….you and 17 Councilors who voted “yes” worked very hard over the past 2 years, and you’re all freaking out that enough signatures may be gathered for a referendum.
Speaking from my personal experience, for the many times I have written to the Council, I received little % wise in terms of a response (but thanks to the few Councilors who did). An even lower percentage, is the empathy I received as an Upper Falls resident.
Zero %
And in speaking friends, I’m not alone on this experience. Many felt the same.
This goes for the Land Use Committee meetings well. Many spoke, but one could argue they didn’t feel as though they were heard or taken seriously.
We can agree to disagree on this point, and I was debating if I should even comment, but I can assume why you made this post and in fairness, if anyone is on the fence about signing the petition, you can see for yourself.
https://vimeo.com/newtvgov
NewTv has posted most if not all of the recent Land Use Committee meetings (since May 2019, believe).
It is my personal opinion (and feel free to disagree) many of our Councilors, with I do believe is with the best of intentions, felt their view of the “greater good” outweigh the needs and concern of NND’s nearest neighbors, as well as those who fear their neighborhood will be next.
Respectfully, I disagree but you can all see for yourselves.
Matt, the last paragraph in your earlier comment, is asking councilors to break the law.
Personal opinions are just that, opinions. But it a fact that City Councilors are legally not allowed to base their final special permit votes on anything except what they have learned from the process, which included many community meetings and land use hearings, and their own deliberations as they decide what is best for the city of Newton. When voting on Special Permits they are not acting as a constituent representative, they are acting as a judicial body which requires them to be objective, like any other judge, and follow the legal requirements about community intervention.
All that sentence says is that the councilors on Land Use made decisions that the people you speak of did not agree with. The only way these attendees would feel heard and taken seriously is for the committee to give them what they want – whatever that is. Still not clear on that point.
@Greg. It’s a simple fact of life that the overwhelming majority of people don’t take notice of a proposed development project or any other major public policy issue until it is imminent and affects them personally or their immediate neighborhood. I’ve seen this time and time again as a member of the Newton Highlands Neighborhood Area Council and I had pretty much the same detached feeling about local issues and events before taking that plunge.
@Bob. Agreed. And all I’m asking is for Right Size to stop saying this project was rushed or that the public didn’t have a chance to be heard. It’s been years with many, many meetings.
@Matt: You may be surprised to hear that we’re on the same page. I respect that you feel that abutters’ views weren’t given enough weight in the final decision, although I also know many abutters who support it. Still, you present a fair argument. What’s not fair is when petitioners mislead those folks who haven’t been following this as closely as we have by saying this was a rush job.
It’s been thoroughly and thoughtfully vetted and modified based on years of community input.
From the two comments which came right after mine and the series of comments which came after a similar proposal of mine on a previous Northland thread, completely ignoring my inquiry while essentially continuing to complaining about the other side, I’m going to again assume that in the case of the two opposing sides over the City Council approved Northland plan which are essentially 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 would result in a better on-the-ground substantive resolution than letting the process play out. That is, referendum overturns the Northland plan under the City Council permit
I think this is a bureaucratic fact of life, where there’s more interest by each side in preserving their process, than admitting that their process is not getting the job done as well as it would in moving outside the process.
@jim, fully appreciate your comments.
V14 is a public forum. There is no way get in touch. But FWIW, I do agree with you. (Urinating) matches do not deliver win/win.
Win win by eliminating silly unproven shuttle buses where developer saves money and then shrinks project losing revenue and profit equal to his savings on ditching the shuttle buses.
@Jim: I ❤️ the shuttles. Please don’t try and take them away. I work on Needham Street and look forward to leaving my car home and taking them almost every day.
Jim, eliminating the shuttles would limit access to and from the site which would affect the entire project – which I’m thinking would be fine with you. This scenario most definitely would not be a win win.
Greg,
The shuttles’ sole route and destinations are along Needham and Winchester Streets from the Northland Project to the Newton Highlands T. Seems that would accommodate a very limited number of travelers, assuming many would even opt to sit in the shuttle buses congested in the same one lane Needham Street traffic as all the other vehicles.
But don’t blame me for elimination of the shuttles. That will occur be virtue of the referendum overturning the current project. It would seem that if you’re that in love with the shuttles, you’d at least favor endeavor to work out a deal with Right Size etc. to avert the referendum.
@greg, I can agree that not all abutters are not universally against NND as well. Actually the divide is not a wide as one would think. Phasing (which Councilor Laredo brought up as well) would have gone a long way to quell the anxiety. Unfortunately, that page was quickly turned too quickly.
And despite what that Northland Employee Poster said in the other post, no one from Northland has reached out to the RSN crew since very early in the process – “come in to find our more about our project.” The was truth us that they never too RSN and the neighbors behind it seriously…until the threat of a referendum.
Bridge the gap, Greg. Make the peace. ☮️
You’ve got the pull to do it.
Side note…what happened to my gravatar?
Greg, for the purpose of full disclosure is Northland currently a dues paying member of the Newton/Needham Chamber of Commerce? I have no issue with your strong advocacy of the project but it should be disclosed.
@Peter Karg: Northland has been a Newton-based employer and property owner for some 50 years. Like most businesses (including your employer) and nonprofits in Newton, they are a long time chamber member. I’d argue that you should be worried if they weren’t, not that they are.
The special permit process is very curious indeed and seems somewhat of an elaborate charade.
From a legal point of view the councilors come together and analyze the project in an impartial way, from the point of views of the applicable law, and render an objective legal judgement, without being swayed by their own or other’s personal preferences.
On the face of it, the reality is entirely different, and virtually everyone involved in the process is entirely aware of that.
On the face of it, the council only decides on the project presented to it. In reality, there is a lengthy process of horse trading before the final vote. All the various concessions listed for the Northland and/or virtually every other special permit project makes that clear.
The process involves lengthy public hearings. The majority of people speaking aren’t presenting factual testimony like in a trial. They are voicing their personal opinions on the project …. which officially, those on the committee aren’t supposed to be basing their decisions on.
From top to bottom the Special Permit process is a political process but dressed up as an objective legal process. I don’t say this as a criticism of anyone involved or their actions – it’s just the nature of the beast.
I was struck when the final Northland vote was taken for the Special Permit. A few councilors articulated the basis of their No vote on a very clear reading of the applicable law – exactly what you should expect of a process
like this. I don’t have the exact wording in front of me but it was something like “the special permit should be denied if it would have a significant negative impact on the surrounding properties”.
While that sounds perfectly sensible, that same sentence could reasonably be used to justify a No vote on virtually any Special Permit that has ever come before the City Council. There isn’t any kind of construction project any where that doesn’t have various negative impacts on surrounding properties.
The downside of this charade aspect of the process, is at various points in what is clearly a normal political process (hearing from all parties, trying to reach a consensus, and then making a decision) the participants can fall back on these mostly mythical legal fictions – “I can’t voice an opinion” “I can’t advocate for a specific tradeoff” because its a ‘quasi-judicial’ process.
Its all very curious indeed. I think it would be a far healthier process if the ‘quasi-judicial’ trappings were stripped away and it was treated like a normal political decision like all other matters that come before the Council.
Maybe that’s not possible because of State law, etc, but the current process, full of these somewhat imaginary elements, is exactly the kind of process that can strike cynicism in the public when they encounter it first hand – i.e. they can see with their eyes that it is inherently a political process, but at each step people tell them that things can or can’t be done because its a legal process.
I literally laughed out loud when Greg referred to the “tough negotiations” from our “city leaders.” The Newton City Council couldn’t negotiate their way out of a paper bag, and they failed miserably at Northland. Less affordable housing than a 40B. Nothing more than a token amount of money for our schools. As a developer and commercial landlord myself, Northland was the most pathetic Special Permit “deal” I have seen anywhere, not just Newton.
BUT… Northland followed the process. Played by the rules. They deserve to be able to move forward. Any blame here falls squarely on the shoulders of those elected to represent the interests of the people of Newton. Vote for people who know how to negotiate with developers/get better results.
@ JerryR.
So you think things should become even more political !?? We are supposed to be governed by rule of law, not personal agenda .
To every one else,.. SIGN THE PETITION !!!
Marti,
Looks like there will be no shuttle anyway since the referendum will likely reject the City Council Special Permit. And more than that, both sides will be ending up with a project even less desirable to each side. (As I’ve reiterated elsewhere on V14, this situation can be averted, but there are apparently no takers.)
@marti, if elected officials are elected for one primary reason- to represent their constituents. To say that is in conflict with the special permit process means….THEY SHOULD NOT BE IN THE SPECIAL PERMIT PROCCESS!
And you wonder why people are upset enough to go the referendum route.
Jim, there are no takers because you don’t represent either side.
And Matt, the solution to that in many communities is to have city employees in the planning department take over the special permit process.
I don’t doubt that some percentage of the population is upset. But as evidenced by the last few elections, it is not a majority. The referendum would only work because the election would not be at a typical time, and such special elections tend to attract a much lower voting percentage. In those special elections, a vocal minority can become a majority.
Very good strategy for the vocal minority, very bad outcome for the rest of us.
But in the end this is just poor planning by the city council. The referendum is always an option. If they had voted on it 2 months earlier, we’d have voted in November on this referendum.
@Peter Karg – Greg Reibman doesn’t seem to embrace the concept of “conflict of interest. ”
And I will bet you dollars to donuts that he commutes to work on the shuttle as many times as Bryan Baraah biked to the State House.
Greg, the point I want to make is sometimes it is very difficult to distinguish if you are speaking for yourself as an individual or if the positions you are advocating on Village 14 are the positions of the Newton/Needham Chamber.