Here’s an excerpt but you really should read the whole thing…
A big reason Greater Boston has stumbled into its housing crisis is that some towns and cities have historically deferred to knee-jerk opposition to development instead of weighing the broader environmental and economic impact of their choices. Newton’s embrace of the Washington Street plan will not alone be enough to pull Greater Boston out of the housing crisis, but it sets an example that other affluent suburbs ought to heed. And it points to the possibility that communities everywhere can become problem solvers instead of bystanders, and to chart their own future.
Sitting here in the trenches, the day after Right Size appears to have submitted the signatures to try and stop our progress, this editorial feels both premature and naive.
But we should also be proud our of community, our mayor and our city councilors who collaborated to create this bold new vision for Washington Street and to appreciate the courage it did take to approve the plan, as well as Northland.
It’s nice to see Newton held up as a model for a change. Here’s hoping we can live up to the accolade.
Kudos to the Upper Falls community for the diligence and hard
work to question the poor leadership of Fuller and the 17
councilors who failed to represent the better interest of both the local community and other south side homeowners.
Some say traffic is the big issue. Much more than just traffic to manage in this poorly conceived housing development.
Time for both sides to really provide a scheme everyone can be proud of and enhance life on Needham St.
Newton is not Brigadoon.
@colleen minaker – what do you think that scheme would look like? What would be the general outline of that from your point of view?
I am in Newtonville. The world has not come to an end. Lots and lots of parking under Austin street and the outside lot as well. Wonders never cease!!!
@Colleen: what’s your response to Jack Leader’s comment. You were one of those people who predicted the worst if Austin Street was approved. Has it harmed Newtonville as you predicted?
Greg,
It’s interesting that you now bemoan the fate of the Northland site, and implicitly complain about the process, now that the inevitable referendum with inevitable result will bar the project for which you have fiercely advocated for so long. While at the same time you scoffed at my legal path to avoid this fate likely entailing only modest modification. Rather than even considering that solution in your unique civic position as head of the local Chamber of Commerce, you continued to scoff and pillory Right Size.
@Jim: Did you read the editorial?
Yah, doesn’t seem to detract from or conflict with my comment (at least IMHO).
If you disagree and care to explain, that would be appreciated.
My favorite opponents of the Northland project are thise who, within the last 3 or 4 years, moved into the neigborhood behind the ezplosion-prone sheet-metal factory (i.e. next to the old railroad spur) and proceeded to tear down the existing housing stock to make room for their own McMansions. When these pillars of the community tell us that Northland would destroy the character of the Needham Street neighborhood, we must all listen closely.
Jerry,
Thank you for this opportunity to offer a viewpoint.
An elementary school and senior center would be on top of a list of places to make this project a success. Next there could be areas for town houses and 3 story condos. Yes there ought to be apartment buildings and commercial space. All could be done but in a more balanced ratio. Double the open space from the existing
plan. Offer outdoor recreational space for tennis, basketball and other amenities. Build a real village similar to other Newton areas.
@Jim: The editorial commends Newton for “summon[ing] the courage to put the broader public good first,” adding..
The courageous Newton the editorial described is the kind of city I want to live in and I believe most Newton residents want to live in.
Greg,
Fine, Newton is courageous, but where does that fetter, negate or respond to my points specifically on your first comment on this thread???
Greg,
If anything, my comment replying to yours, addresses a way forward which would have facilitated success on Newton’s act of courage vis a vis Northland — which you scoffed at.
.. the courage to create 120 affordable units while gouging several hundred families with units at $4000+ for 2Brs with eye popping annual increases..
.. the courage to not build any units for ownership opportunities for families so the developer can keep collecting increasing rents in perpetuity to line their pockets
.. the courage of the city council to allow to developer to fetch top $ for rents as renters will be attracted to the good schools, low crime and short distance to Boston. At the very least, the council could have enforced no ‘luxury’ amenities so that the rental costs could have been lower for EVERYONE. Funny how a gym and granite counter tops can suddenly add $1000 to the rent
Ah I see, Jim. You’re talking about Northland. I’m talking about the editorial which is about the Washington Street Vision Plan and our larger collective (regional) responsibility to address climate and housing.
There’s other threads for Northland.
So pleased these efforts have been recognized, but I’m not sure I would call this “courageous,” @Greg. Have our civic standards fallen so much that to try to do the right and sensible thing is courageous? I’d be content with it being called “thoughtful,” “sensible,” “forward looking,” i.e., the modifiers that we would hope would apply to our municipal officials and the strategies they adopt.
(Maybe it’s viewed as “courageous” in that public officials could face criticism or even the chance of losing elections. Again, that’s a pretty low standard for use of that word.)
Let’s save “courageous” for situations where people face real danger or stand up against the odds without flinching. (https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/courageous)
Greg,
It was YOUR comment and YOU who first discussed (bemoaned) Northland, Right Size and signatures on this this thread (in reply to which I commented). You state in your comment (top of thread):
“Sitting here in the trenches, the day after Right Size appears to have submitted the signatures to try and stop our progress, this editorial feels both premature and naive.
But we should also be proud … to appreciate the courage it did take to approve the plan, as well as Northland. “
Greg,
I was amused by Jack’s comment. Presently, there are 4 tenants
renting at Austin St. No commercial tenants yet as the space is
unfinished. Parking is free until Jan. 1. Very few people enter
the site as yet. I will be surprised to find a quick surge of people
who actually sign a lease at 28 Austin St. This building so far is a big flop.
Colleen,
Thank you for sharing your ideas for what would make the Northland project palatable for the Upper Falls community. They are good ones. Did you share these ideas with a Northland rep, your councilor or the city council as a whole? Some of them may have made it into the final proposal.
A school and senior center there would be great additions but would also generate more traffic several times during the day. I do think some type of school would fit nicely within their plan.
Northland has already offered 10 acres of parkland which is by far the largest public space offered by any developer anywhere as a percentage of its space. The other amenities you suggest, outdoor recreation, would also be good additions to Northland.
It’s a shame that your suggestions weren’t included in the many community meeting and council hearings and are being made after the council has voted and a referendum attempting to overthrow the vote is in the works.
Greg, I agree that it’s good to read an editorial in the Globe that praises rather than denigrates Newton.
I am a neighbor of the Northland site and submitted this statement to the City Council during the Land Use Committee hearings. I feel as if many neighbors, who desire development on the Northland site, were drowned out by noise that the RightSizers are making in our community. I am amazed that Rightsizers feel they were not heard. To the contrary, they had many opportunities as I did. Please read my statement below:
Since 1989, I have lived within five minutes of the Northland site and traveled on Needham Street every day. For 15 years, I owned and operated a 50-person business on Oak Street, which borders the proposed development. Today, I ride my bike, walk or drive down Needham Street to my current workplace in Needham.
I am in favor of the proposed Northland development based on my more than 30 years of home ownership, business and travel.
My rationale: Everything is interconnected.
Here are some things to think about when evaluating a project like this:
City Finances –Newton needs more development to sustain City services. As responsible citizens of Newton, we should be concerned about how the next generation will support the escalating costs of vital public services including our outstanding school system. Taxing new development enables us to live within the constraints of Prop 2½ while not requiring regular operating overrides. What’s more, this proposal includes an extra mitigation payment designated just for Countryside School. That’s on top of any new tax revenue generated by the project.
Vitality – We have an opportunity to enhance the vitality and walkability of the Needham Street area and Newton Upper Falls consistent with the plan for the larger Newton-Needham Business District and the Needham Street Vision Plan. With vitality comes tax revenue. Look at The Street and Chestnut Hill Square on Route 9 as examples of new development increasing Newton’s tax revenue.
Environmental Opportunities – We have an opportunity to take a multi-pronged approach to fight the Climate Crisis including — build state-of-the-art energy-saving buildings, experiment with new modes of transportation, and provide additional green space and open-air waterways. The project takes a major step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing single-occupant car traffic with regular shuttle busses. There’s also an extra $5M mitigation payment designated just for studying transportation in the Upper Falls and Needham Street area.
Social Opportunities – We have an opportunity to add rental housing to attract a diverse group of new residents to the City in addition to affordable housing for our teachers and firefighters and others who work in Newton but cannot afford to live here.
Historic Preservation – We have an opportunity to preserve the landmark Saco-Pette Machine Shops building at the corner of Oak and Needham streets for future generations. While our architectural past is quickly disappearing in our City, Northland promises to reimagine and sustain this landmark building. I believe this responsible preservation practice will provide guidance for future growth. As Confucius said: “Study the past if you would like to define the future.”
Think about future generations. With public and City Council oversight, the Northland project balances commercial and residential in a way that optimizes on tax revenue while minimizing adverse impacts. Possible alternatives are pure commercial development with vast parking lots or a huge unregulated 40B affordable housing project with no height restrictions or economic benefit. Do we really want to miss this opportunity to make Newton a more attractive place to live for generations to come?
I urged all City Councilors to vote ‘yes’ for the special permits for the Northland development.
I am amused back at Colleen’s comments. So far this is a flop? The prediction were that Newtonville commerce would fail, stores would close, people would abandon shopping there, yoga studios and nail salons would close. A shoe store closed, and is currently empty. And sadly, A bank abandoned the village. But the calamity, the terror, the fear of the fall of western civilization did not occur. Two commercial tenants are moving in, and the building will be occupied. Does this happen immediately? No, and that it hasn’t does make this project a failure. This is not HGTV, were everything gets done in one hour.
Thomas Friedman,
Too late now. The referendum is currently on autopilot which undoubtedly will overturn the City Council special permit.
Interesting that you say the following:
“I feel as if many neighbors, who desire development on the Northland site, were drowned out by noise that the RightSizers are making in our community. I am amazed that Rightsizers feel they were not heard. To the contrary, they had many opportunities as I did.”
Apparently, in the end, your neighbors who desired the Northland development were not, as you claim, “drowned out by the noise that the RightSizers are making.” Hence, issuance of the special permit for the current plan.
But regrettably for those favoring Northland, the Land Use Committee and City Council may have heard, but not listen to, Right Size. Had there been a convening with Right Size by the City along with developer — even more critically in the window between City Council vote and signature submission — netting very likely a modest project modification, there’d be no referendum and you and your neighbors favoring Northland would not now be facing, from your and those neighbors’ perspectives, the worst of all outcomes including years of protracted delay.
Most of the community meetings for Washington street were recorded and uploaded online.
They are very interesting to watch as you can clearly see the audience frustration with concerns. Their concerns also don’t appear to be taken seriously or dismissed.
Many will say their concerns are not valid because of their demographic and that people who DIDNT show up and voice concerns actually supported the project.
Its good to see the council had the courage to IGNORE the washington st neighborhood
community concerns
Bugek,
Looks like Washington Street is on track for a Nortland redux.
Where is there any City (Mayoral) leadership or proactivity?
First the NewCAL Community/Athletic Complex in a Park miscalculation.
Next the failed Northland shepherding, leading to referendum.
And coming up, Washington Street.
@Jim Epstein –
Why are you so certain of that?
Results from the last election would seem to indicate that there is not a city-wide ground swell of anti-development sentiment – i.e. RightSize’s endorsements overall didn’t do so well.
On the other hand, RightSize’s recent signature drive seems to indicate that there may be a rising anti-development sentiment.
I think at this point, the results of a citywide referendum vote are anyone’s guess.
Jim
Realistically I think the referendum for northland and the opposition for Washington street could have been avoided altogether if the develop had just promised(contractually) a school space which they would pay for IF local schools become overcrowded by x% in y number of years
Obviously this would have eaten into the CEOs bonus… so
Jerry,
How do I know the referendum will pass?
I’d boil it down to this:
Growth and densification backlash coupled with zeal in recent signature drive.
A zeal for 3,000 signatures in a city of 90,000 does not indicate a groundswell of support. I would think the Rightsize group will get what it wants in the short term – a construction delay at the Northland site – but not what it really wants – no or limited development. The vast majority of voters in Newton want smart development and a growing tax base, and will vote a resounding ‘no’. All the NIMBY Ward 8 noise will be for a naught. Bigger issues are out there for Newton to think about – k-12 public education, care of our seniors, better roads and upgraded public transportation. Now referenda on any of those issue would receive a resounding ‘yes’ from all 90,000 residents, whether they are young or old. Fellow Newtonians, let’s stay focused on larger city-wide issues.
Thomas Friedman,
Neither side is getting what it wants, while both sides could have gotten what each wants, had the City convene Right Size and developer for modest modification, even more critically between the City Council vote and signature submission.
Regarding signature numbers, they got more than needed and quickly and, yes, with zeal.
The city-sanctioned Needham Street area visioning process was an open discussion where everyone (especially neighbors) had an opportunity to form guidelines for development between Dec. 11,2017 and April 30, 2018. The City Council voted 20-1 to adopt the Needham Street Area Vision Plan on August 13, 2018. Much of the visioning process informed both Northland’s extensive modifications and the final permit vote (17-7) of City Councilors. The Needham Street Area Vision Plan process was a very fair, exhaustive and impressive initiative much like the Washington Street visioning process (which the Globe is now hailing as exemplary). Thus, “convening” did take place with community, city planners and developer representatives. I hate to debunk the Rightsize group’s accusation of absence of ‘convening’ or even “city officials listening’ but it happened nine times for more than two hours each time with many side meetings.
See link re: Newton Street Area Visioning Plan
http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/planning/current/devrev/hip/needhamstreet.asp
Thomas Friedman,
Respectfully, I’ll say it again, there was no convening within the critical window between the City Council vote and the referendum’s signature submission. There was a legal path. I fault the Mayor for failing to initiate or facilitate that. There was a repeated reiteration by me here on V14 which I’m advised the Mayor and civic leaders regularly read, for the Mayor to do just that. And with the leverage of the actual referendum looming and the alternatives, surely a modest modification was achievable satisfying all parties.
@ Thomas Friedman, re the Needham Street Visioning process.
I was a member of that Visioning group ( an NVA representative ), and felt ( with many other members) , great frustration with the general direction of events.
The city Planning Department that lead the meetings in a less than impartial direction, became a shadow design consultant for Northland. In fact Northland had an executive installed as a member of the committee. ( A fox in the hen house ?) Those members of the local community, often felt their opinions marginalized in favor of development that the Planning Department was promoting.
Calls for more highly taxed commercial development were ignored, or argued against without a serious consideration.
Discussions on potential loads on the schools ( Countryside ), were pretty much minimized or ignored.
Much the same climate occurred at Washington Street, as evidenced by the Newtonville Area Council Survey, largely ignored at city hall.
In gathering signatures for Right Size a strong anti density sentiment by most signers was almost universally expressed.
The Upper Falls community while welcome to spectate and contribute only at the end of every meeting was sparkly attended. Had they been notified by a mayoral blanket announcement I’m sure many more would have shown up.
Ignore Right Size ? Diminish their impact ?
…sparsely attended …
Jim et al: With all due respect, you are proposing a similar scenario to Councilor Lenny Gentile’s ad-hoc secret meeting between Mark Development and RightSize Newton prior to the Land Use Committee process, which had many other City Councilors shaking their heads about public meeting laws. While this resulted in a downsizing of the Riverside development permit request, it skirted the spirit of the public process that allows everyone to have a voice in land development in Newton. As a result, pro-affordable advocates were left out, among others. In the case of the Northland development, the visioning and public hearing process included all constituencies:pro-development, anti-development, environmental, neighbors and none-Ward residents in addition to transportation and passive energy expert to play equal roles. My suggestion as a 30-year resident of Newton who desires fairness: If Rightsize Newton chooses to leverage its possible referendum threat to force an ad-hoc meeting, please invite all the parties that have engaged publicly in the Northland discussion prior and during the Needham Street Area Vision and Land Use Committee processes. This is singularly fair to all parties.
Thomas Friedman,
Fair or not fair. Skirting or not skirting. At Riverside the job got done, and the project is set to proceed. While Northland ends in referendum reversal and a big zero, with nothing getting done except years of delay ahead. The savvy demonstrated at Riverside was sorely missing at Northland.
Jim said:
“Neither side is getting what it wants, while both sides could have gotten what each wants, had the City convene Right Size and developer for modest modification, even more critically between the City Council vote and signature submission.”
Jim, if there’s any evidence that Right Size Newton desired, sought, and/or was rebuffed from this kind of meeting with Northland (post-City Council vote), I haven’t seen it. If you have any, please post or link. Without such evidence, your repeated statements seem academic.
And that’s not even getting to your repeated statements that “both sides could get what they want”. There aren’t two proposals on which to base a compromise. As far as I know, we have an approved Northland plan and “No”.
Again, if you or anyone else is aware of an actual alternative plan that is confirmed acceptable to – wait, who? that’s kind of the problem – then please post. No supposes. Real positions by actual parties involved.
This isn’t rhetorical. What is a concrete alternative proposal and who are the relevant neighborhood representative stakeholders who stand behind it?
Mike Hill,
In answer to your inquiry, the fact is, as far as I’m aware, the City, the Mayor, made no effort whatsoever or communication to Right Size to convene, along with developer, after the City Council vote and before the referendum signatures were officially submitted to the City, to endeavor through negotiations a modification to the project plans both to avert the referendum and reach consensus on an acceptable plan.
Sorry, Mike Halle
@Jim, I think by now it’s clear that your offer to be a negotiator in this situation has not been viewed as persuasive by the parties. Not saying that your underlying premise is necessarily wrong or right, but I don’t see how repetition is creating an atmosphere that might make that result occur.
I’m with Paul on this Jim. You’ve been posting essentially the same talking points over and over and over and over We get it. Time to come up with something different.
Paul,
1. If you go back through the comments on Northland threads, a number of individuals precisely agree that the City, in fact, should have convened with Right Size, especially in the window between the City Council vote and submission of referendum signatures. That, in fact, the City should have followed this suggestion.
2. The point was that I not be the negotiator, but that the City, the Mayor, or their representative bring together the parties.
3. While you disparagement is noted, the very important aim is that the City not repeat this negligence in future projects.
4. If you review the threads on this critical point, the back-and-forth discussion serves precisely to elucidate both the various pros and cons and avenues to achieve this.
5. This exact approach was taken at Riverside by some savvy representatives, resulting in success, compared to what we are left with at Northland.
6. It might be more helpful if, in the future, you added constructive comment rather than scoff.
I wasn’t disparaging or scoffing, @Jim. Sorry if it was interpreted that way.
BTW, I read it that you did offer yourself on a number of occasions.
Greg,
OK, will do. Sorry.
Paul,
Only offered myself as a last resort. You’d probably be in a better position to help negotiate/mediate anyway — and likely with skill and credibility.
@Thimas Friedman I believe they collected nearly 5000 signature in a rather short time.
I am also fairly certain that, if it could be determined to be a random sample, 5000 signatures is well over the sample size needed for a confidence interval above 95 %. That is to say, the referendum signers statistically will win.
That said, it’s not a “scientific survey”. But, significant evidence imho.
Rick, actually it doesn’t mean that. If they approached 12,000 people and only got 5000 signatures, it doesn’t mean much. And these aren’t likely voters, they are folks signing things at the supermarket.
I got approached at least 4 times.
I give complete kudos to them for collecting so many signatures, but hard to predict anything else.
I will say this, if it can be voted on during the primary election, that would be a far better thing for everyone. Cheaper, more accurate, and fairer. If I was the mayor I’d be moving heaven and earth with the city staff to make that happen. March 3 should be doable.