City Clerk David Olson sent this via email to the city council today..
We are still certifying signatures on the Northland Petition, but the petitioners have the minimum number of certified signatures needed for a successful petition (3,032). We will stop certifying at 40% more than needed, or we run out of signatures, but there are enough sheets left that it looks like we will get up to the 40% over (4,245)
A friend who is very active in Right Size Newton told me the volunteers collected approximately 5, 700 signatures. They are in the process of doing their own count and matching the signatures with the City’s voting list. She told me that for those already counted, way more than 90 percent of the signatures are matching the City’s voting list. At the outset, I bet her a lunch at O’Hara’s that Right Size wouldn’t clear the number needed because of holiday diversions, cold and wet weather conditions, seasonal darkness and the relatively short time period for collecting signatures, Looks like she will be calling my bet in with a few Guinness on top.
V14 Northland Referendum Contest:
Predict the winning side with percentage (to tenth of a percent). Closest to the actual vote wins bragging rights unless V14 Management also will award free dinner at Paddy’s in West Newton.
I’ll start it off saying City Council Permit of Northland is rejected by Newton voters, 57.6%-42.4%
… don’t vote on what you necessarily desire as the outcome, but what you think will be the outcome.
Depends on the scheduling.. I don’t think it would pass on Super Tuesday but if it gets pushed out to be a stand alone vote that would significantly improve the chances due to the probable low turnout.
Also don’t forget that opt-out gathered in excess of 6k signatures only to see their measure defeated in a city wide vote, so while it’s impressive given the holiday timing it’s far from a guarantee.
I support Northland as approved by the city council.
But, in talking with the Right Size folks collecting and reading what they’ve written here, they seem convinced that we’ll get all the benefits of what was approved plus less units/less commercial/less parking/more parking/etc.
I’m actually leaning towards voting with them just to drive the developer (Northland) to build the commercial space or up to 1,800 units under 40B they can have by right. It’s spite! It’s bad for Newton! But I think getting what they want and seeing the consequences might finally knock some sense into Right Size’s heads.
Is this reasonable?
How, If you support Northland, then vote for Northland. Voting out of spite to provoke RS by the outcome is not reasonable because it will affect us all.
There is no way to know anything that will happen to that property if the super-majority vote of the city council is overturned – whether RS says they are confidant of keeping the benefits or not. It’s all supposition or worse, misrepresentation. Nothing will drive the developer to build anything at all, much less anything that will benefit Newton.
Focusing on the vote itself is an extreme bit of myopia. I believe the Northland project will move forward, but that’s not the point. The point here is that the people of Newton have, once again, showcased how resistant we are to change and development. The few developers who are willing to brave our notoriously unpredictable process and willing to survive our 24-member city council won’t be willing to go through this. It’s just not worth it.
This means we’re going to get small, lousy developments that will just add cars to the streets without bringing with them any kind of commercial tax relief. We’ll get builders who are just going to flip their projects, not those who are committed to the long term. We’ll get junk. Our neighbors will get interesting places, designed with the future in mind. They’ll get the housing, retail and commercial that we want. We’ll watch it happen from our private yards and say “why does the tax burden fall on the residents? And why can’t I get that pothole fixed? Why is our traffic so bad?”
When you wonder why we can’t have nice things… this is your answer.
Chuck,
How will the existing Northland permitted project move forward if the referendum vote reverses the City Council vote? Nobody is saying no development will go there, just this Northland development. Having said that, how is focusing on the Northland referendum vote “an extreme bit of myopia”?
D
Chuck,
Does the average Newton resident often wish that we had 25-50% more people living here?
I think they are mostly concerned about low crime, excellent schools, stable property taxes and an efficiently run city.
Judging by the current desirability of Newton (as judged by home prices) it looks like everything has been pretty NICE so far without massive development and density.
Anyway, the vote will put to rest “what” most residents want.. and we should all live with the outcome
It only puts to rest anything if the vote is on Super Tuesday. Otherwise, doesn’t mean much. How many folks will vote on a non city wide issue on a random Tuesday?
I hope the city is smart enough to make it work for Super Tuesday. Otherwise it is political and monetary malpractice…
It’s financially prudent for the City to schedule this election on Super Tuesday. It will certainly drive turnout.
Chuck- “we” want.
You don’t speak for me. I don’t get the “we” business the anti anti development people always use, as if those who favor more modest development don’t live in Newton.
Why don’t you move?
Let me make my point more clearly. My sister lives in Hubbardston. Where’s that? Near Gardner.
Anyways, why does she live way out there? Beats me. But the real answer is that she has 10 acres: 2 horses, 2 goats, chickens, rabbits, a huge garden, a butterfly garden. You get the picture.
She’s not in Newton lobbying for the right to have horses, goats, chickens, etc. She’s not trying to transform the Garden City into – wait, a “Garden City” ? She lives where that’s appropriate.
Why don’t those who want to urbanize Newton live somewhere where it’s already appropriate, Cambridge or Boston – rather than feel that they have to transform Newton into Cambridge? For climate change? Give me a break. You’ll do more to shrink your carbon footprint by never flying anywhere – ever – again. Flying across the country is something like 3 months of driving, I read recently. You’ll do even more by having fewer children, if you’re young enough for that.
Who really gains from all this urbanization? Developers. And especially Boston, because they’re building the office buildings where the real tax money is and we get to provide them with “workforce housing”.
Impact on climate change? so close to zero you can’t measure it. Flooding in Boston around all these new office buildings? We’ll let the taxpayers pay for the damage to the infrastructure.
Lovely. Such a deal.
As a 35-year neighbor of the Northland-owned parcel on Needham Street, I have watched and studied how the city-wide leadership of the RightSize group has raised awareness around issues of urbanization. Kudoos to Rightsize! On the other hand, I am wondering what positive, creative and economically viable alternatives is Rightsize proposing to improve my (often forgotten) neighborhood. The Rightsize campaign appears more about saying “no” than pitching in and offering constructive ideas. At the end of the day, Northland Investments has all the rights in the world to sit on this deserted, ugly (perhaps vermin-invested) property for 30-50 more years or sell it to another real estate company for a far less compelling purpose. Is this what Rightsize Newton wants?
@Chuck’s comment, I believe, is right on target. While you can’t necessarily make the one-for-one case that a referendum vote against Northland will be the the straw that breaks the camel’s back for future developments in Newton, there does come a point where the limited number of people who are capable of investing in larger real estate projects will focus on easier jurisdictions. Maybe that’s good if we are interested in preserving the current state of things or only allowing by-right projects. But where it’s troubling is the likelihood of reduced growth in tax revenues. In the Prop 2-1/2 world, that trajectory leads to structural deficits if you want to pay competitive wages to teachers, police, and firefighters, draw down future pension liabilities, rebuild old city buildings, and create a new senior center.
Paul
Newton is holding all the cards for attracting developers. They simply need to abide by the existing rules instead of “buying first” and expecting special treatment
– close to boston
– t and commuter rail access to boston
– low crime
– good schools
– highly educated population
– close to good colleges
– very attractive to experienced workers who want good schools for their children
Newton holds all the cards. If developers want special treatment on zoning, its should cost them.
Can someone very succinctly explain why Newton needs or it is important that it gets new dense housing.
The question came up last night at a New Years Eve party I attended by someone claiming that important individual(s) in Newton government must be on the take from developers.
When I answered that I am a regular reader of Village 14 and that from what I read, some do actually feel that the added dense housing is critical to combat global warming because it would mean adding residents having closer commutes to work (in Boston), they laughed and voiced incredulity.
And when I answered that this would provide more affordable, or at least more, housing, they again laughed saying housing seekers could simply look to adjacent or other communities where such housing exists, is planned or more amenable or welcomed — especially where rents could be cheaper and especially that there is vast new or planned apartment construction in Boston and Watertown, for example.
Looking back at my explanations, they did seem a bit tenuous, to say the least, which is why the party goer claimed some important person or people in city government MUST be on the take from developers. I replied that while I’m normally the first to be a cynic, I really didn’t see that any such Newton official was on the take, other than perhaps campaign contributions — but how much money could that really be?
So, can anyone help me out here.
(BTW, I’ll particularly direct this to Marti in the event she feels this comment should be banned or removed as derailing this thread, since I really do feel this is on topic as the thread does address the issue of Northland approval.)
Not quite, @Bugek. All those attributes you list are available in a number of surrounding communities, plus several on the north shore and south shore. Developers have access to capital, and they have choice as to where to place it. Yes, Newton has a lot to offer and can conduct a good negotiation if the powers that be are adept and persuasive, including items that will “cost.” But if the negotiated agreement is then overturned in a referendum, the subsequent negotiations will be that much harder for the city. If you’re a developer, why would you have confidence in the process laid out by the city?
I attended the City Council inauguration and understand there will be an active push to get this election to by the same day as the state Primary. This needs a couple of City Council votes to occur over the next few weeks.
@Paul Levy – Northland has the by-right ability to build a compelling commercial complex, which would be a meaningful and significant and ongoing and LONG TERM tax benefit to Newton city government. The question is, would Northland go for that option or for 40-B. (Or some combination of both?) HAS ANYONE ASKED THEM THIS QUESTION?
ANP, no but they have been asked to reduce the commercial to a viable amount.
Many folks who asked for signatures, signed the referendum, are asking questions and commenting here have a general lack of knowledge about Northland and the process it went through to get to where it could be granted a special permit by a super majority of our city council.
One change recently brought up by ANP and Matt Lai has been to build a commercial development. This part of the plan has been reviewed and evaluated several times by our committees, the community, including several outside site plan, programming and placemaking/retail consultants. Anyone can read the about the entire process Northland went through from both the minutes, meeting reports and the lengthy documents listed on Newton’s Northland Special Permit page.
From the February 6, 2019 Petitioner’s letter to Greg Swartz, then president of the Land Use Committee, Northland addresses commercial and site plan changes made because of studies requested by land use committee members, peer reviewers and the community at its various presentations during the latter part of 2018 – September 25, November 13, December 11 and January 15.
In summary, in 2018, Northland was told that after review the Planning Department’s consultant RKG “believes that the amount of retail/commercial proposed exceeds the spending within a reasonable drive time of the site” and that the “staff recommends the petitioner explore diversifying the proposed commercial space … “ among other things, which they did. The retail space was reduced from 185,200 net to 115,000 net.
Anyone who thinks this was pushed through too fast or is making suggestions of how this plan could be different should take a look at Newton’s Northland Special permit page and perhaps note both the time line and even read a few of the pertinent documents, letters, memos and reports available.
Why would they answer it, @ANP? They’ve spent months negotiating the special permit with the City and getting it approved by the Council. If they were now to say that other things are possible, they play into the hands of those pursuing the referendum, and all that effort goes out the window.
@Jim – Campaign and Finance Reports should be available for inspection at the City Clerk’s Office.
Paul,
Really have no sympathy for the developer. They purchased the parcel knowing the zoning rules and build by right. No one is preventing them from building whatever they can by right as of current zoning rules.
.. The only reason they haven’t is simply $$$. Their investment is likely a small portion of their portfolio and as such, they can ‘afford’ to sit on it and try to alter the zoning so their profits are multiplied. eg without special permit, perhaps they make only 5M, with special permit they make $1M profit each year in perpetuity from rentals. My point is, the special permit must be allowing them to make mouth watering profits that its worth the effort for them to roll the dice on it..
The special permit is all about greed and nothing else. If they want special permit, they are going to have to give up real concessions such as space for a school.
If the only choice is 40b, let them go ahead so that all of Newton can stopped being blackmailed once and for all by developers.
Peter K,
Perhaps I wasn’t clear, I don’t need help verifying no Newton officials were on the take. I need help explaining why the added dense housing is good for Newton (please refer to my above comment).
Emailed Jerry moments ago, asking for a guest post but it appears appropriate to drop the thought here as well….
Why does it have to be Northland’s current proposal, vs an 1,800 unit 40b-ageddon (still don’t think that would happen) vs doing nothing?
Here’s a interesting (more ideal?) option:
https://boston.curbed.com/boston-development/2019/10/25/20931833/dorchester-the-beat-globe
> Similar in size (acreage)
> 3-4 stories (not 8) with green space a plenty
> Robots and beer
> 100% commercial (no zoning change needed)
> Reverse MBTA commute
Newton does not need to settle for scraps of providing Workforce housing for Boston when we can have our own oasis of commercial tax revenue in a forward thinking commercial development.
@Jim it’s my understanding that MAPC and / or Boston had a meeting with mayors of adjacent towns and asked them to prioritize housing development for companies moving into Boston. It’s to supply housing for office space in Boston.
Seems pretty quid pro quo, LOL.
@Rick: What exactly is wrong with elected leaders agreeing to build more housing, given that we have a well-documented housing shortage? Isn’t the basic right to have a roof over one’s head the kind of problem we would want our leaders to be concerned with?
Rick Frank,
You claim Newton’s Northland is needed “to supply housing for office space in Boston”??? — and that’s the reason to congest the already congested Needham Street???
… when, as stated above, those housing “seekers could simply look to adjacent or other communities where such housing exists, is planned or more amenable or welcomed — especially where rents could be cheaper and especially that there is vast new or planned apartment construction in Boston and Watertown, for example.”!!!
ROFL
Marti,
You cite Northland’s long and detailed review and decision process!!!???!!!
What good is it, or was it…when the end result is a referendum on autopilot to overturn it, resulting in more years of unknowns and delays?
Seems to me some critical foresight was sorely lacking.
(Please allow my comment to remain in the thread. Thanks.)
RSN wears the “not willing to compromise” label on V14 like a scarlet letter. Frankly that is neither fair nor accurate.
A number of suggestions throughout the process would have brought all sides closer than they are today.
1. Phasing
2. Even less parking
3. Less height
4. Including retail traffic in TDM counts
All were brought up but certain members of the Council at various stages. All were quickly shut down by Northland.
IMO, the scarlet letter applied just as equally to Northland, the Mayor, and the so called “super majority” as some of you like to refer on the Council.
What I’m not seeing a lot of, is the “reaching across the aisle” that so many politicians like to champion while campaigning, yet quickly forget once the ballots close.
@Matt: Saying you want less of something is not a proposal.
@ Bob Burke,
It’s a solid 95% of signatures verifiable.
5,700 x .95 = 5,415 unhappy voting constituents.
@Greg: why do you continue to attempt to hide the need for REAL affordable housing (NOT the formulaic relative kind) behind the Trojan horse of the developers/property speculators narrative? Read my lips: WE. DO. NOT. NEED. LUXURY. HOUSING.
Full stop.
@Pat: It’s commendable that you’re concerned about affordable housing and likely shocked by the price of renting an apartment these days. So am I.
Here’s the problem: From 2010 to 2017, Massachusetts gained over 350,000 new jobs, primarily in Greater Boston. By 2040 Massachusetts is anticipated to grow by 600,000 (that’s equal to another Boston).
Housing is going to be astronomically unaffordable until we add a lot more housing to the mix (that’s simple supply and demand economics) or the economy tanks and hundreds of thousands of families move elsewhere. I prefer the former and imagine you do too.
But Pat, given your specific concern about affordability I suggest you become a member of Engine 6 or any of a number of citizen groups who are working every day to advocate for housing affordability in Newton.
Matt Lai,
Exactly! Reaching out and working together with some mutual accommodation, and we would not now be facing the upcoming referendum defeat of the entire project with the ensuing years of continuing (costly) delay and uncertainty. For that reason, blame falls squarely on City of Newton officials with its civic cheerleaders, for malpractice and arrogance in failing to shepherd a process leading to success.
The job of the local community is to protect its interests. The job of city council is to look beyond those specific interests and see what’s right for the whole of the municipality while taking account of those interests. I would argue that we need a larger, regional player that takes a slightly larger view (most other states have this) but that’s not going to happen any time soon.
To argue that you weren’t heard just because you didn’t get your way isn’t fair to everyone else. You were heard, City Council just decided that the benefits to the city balanced out your concerns. That’s life.
You still may get what you want, but you may end up not wanting what you get.
I don’t know if this is the right place for this – but somewhere is; I just read in Emily Norton’s email newletter:
“As you may recall the original $500K no-bid contract for this work was supposed to include a fiscal analysis, which as Councilor Gentile points out after my comments starting at 2:41:48, the City never received. We paid the consultant even after Councilor Gentile had requested that they not be paid until they delivered. (This March 2, 2018 Planning Dept. memo says the consultant will provide, among other things, a “fiscal impact analysis” for $40K and an “economic analysis” for $12K, “all of which are critical components.”
So, the city paid 52,000 more than they should have. This is outrageous. Is anyone going to investigate this? Sue them? Other councilors reading this?
I will email this to the TAB. They are looking for stuff to write about. A few hundred dollars, well not to quibble. But 52,000.00? That’s worth fighting for.
BTW what I’m referring to is the Principle Group’s contract.