The ballot campaign Right Size Newton has launched to reverse the City Council’s 17-7 super majority vote in support of the Northland project, could cost taxpayers $145,902 to hold a special election, City Clerk David Olson told the council in a memo released Friday.
Olson added that if it could be arranged to hold the referendum on Super Tuesday (March 3) the cost to taxpayers would only be about $32,917.
But holding the vote on Super Tuesday will require several timely actions by the council, as Council President Susan Albright outlines in a separate memo.
Olson’s memo also includes some interesting historical turn out data.
@Greg–Even though I support Northland, this is a questionable headline in my opinion.
Agree with them or not, RightSize Newton is taking advantage of the referendum process described in the City Charter. It definitely makes sense to look at costs/turnout when scheduling (which is exactly the point of this report)–but I hope no one argues against holding the election because of “what it will cost taxpayers.” In my opinion, there are plenty of reasons to oppose what RightSize Newton is arguing for. The expected cost of their desired special election shouldn’t be one of those.
What are you afraid of, Greg? This is a stretch.
I don’t think it is a stretch Pat. It is just the facts. If these referendums become more common, they cost either 30,000 or so if done in conjunction with another election, or $146,000 if done alone. I’ve argued previously that Rightsize is within its rights to gather the signatures and push it forward, but I think it is a pertinent and frustrating fact that these votes costs so much money.
I hope Rightside Newton can get behind having the vote be March 3, and save the city $110,000. There is no good reason not to do it that day, and any amount of gamesmanship by either side to push it off will effectively just burn up $110,000.
I’m not arguing against the election/vote. Far from it. But let’s do it cost effectively. March 3 is the only date that makes sense.
For the record, $110,000 buys us a lot of trees, some updated soccer fields, etc. It ain’t peanuts folks.
Northland should pay for it–they’re the ones that asked for the rezoning and special waivers since they couldn’t even comply with the new zoning they requested.
We’re still saving money though: $146k is far less than Northland will cost the City.
@David
How do you figure? My understanding is that the builder has committed millions to Newton as part of mitigation funds included in the special permit. Not to mention the $1 million+ in new tax revenue each year.
I will note that Right Size also cost us a commercial property at Riverside that would have been worth, at least, $2 million a year (likely more), in tax revenue, as well as 44 hotel rooms, all of which brought in revenue.
Also, if they “win” this we’re likely to lose a bus (possibly a system, since 128 Business Council operates several buses along 128 and has talked of linking them), underground parking, trees, open space, a splash park, undergrounding of utilities along Needham Street, and $1.5 million in funds to Countryside School.
You can argue that Northland isn’t paying enough, but what happens if they end up paying less?
I would also throw in the attack on the Mayor. Without getting into whether she was in the right or wrong, was the legal route the best course of action?
There is what you could do and what you should do, they don’t always align.
>the attack on the Mayor.
Attack? The drama of this is really out of hand here on V14.
The committee filed a COMPLAINT with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and it’s a legitimate concern since OCPF clearly states local governments should NOT lobby voters with unsolicited communications (e.g. mail, phone calls, emails) regarding a ballot question, including “an anticipated ballot question”.
How would you even suggest the Mayor “work this out”? The damage is done. The City needs to be educated on the limits of the executive office and strictly adhere to the applicable standards.
See “Public Resources and Ballot Questions”, specifically the two bulletins:
https://www.ocpf.us/Legal/IssuesOfInterest#undefined
(And let’s not pretend we’re so dumb we’ll ogle “tax revenue” without considering financial liabilities to provide services for the new residents! To quote one member here, “we’re better than that”.)
@Chuck – You know, for all the shade you’ve been throwing at the LFIA and councilor Gentile around the “Lenny tax” and all the tax revenue Newton is loosing Riverside isn’t the development going to a public referendum. Riverside (begrudgingly) has local support, and both sides had to make concessions (it’s still overall larger than LFIA would have wanted while they did get the reduced height and increased residential % to mitigate traffic).
Want a larger development at Riverside? Build in actual improvements to the Green Line and CR instead of just a connection from the site to I-95 (already congested daily) and Comm Ave (already backed up daily from Lexington). The opportunity was there to tie in Riverside and Washington St to a broader transportation effort that would have enabled Brookline level density but it’s going to take more than a ramp.
So perhaps instead of the constant moaning about lost tax revenue look at it as preventing a potential second referendum. And if the tax revenue is such an issue we have gigantic swaths of under developed areas along the green line stops and comm ave that could spread around the burden. Newton is more than just Lower/Upper Falls, Auburndale, West Newton & Newtonville.
This narrative that I’ve seen here and on other threads suggesting that Northland broke some rules by seeking a special permit and rezoning is ludicrous.
Special permit/zoning requests are a legal, heavily-used, necessary process, used not just by big developers but too often even by home owners looking to add a dormer or porch to their home.
We will always need to allow for zoning changes and special permits but they are especially necessary in a community where the zoning code hasn’t been updated this century.
@Greg
Agree, the special permit process is a well established process that nobody should look askance on.
The narrative that a group of citizens exercising their democratic rights in EXACTLY the same legal process are somehow “costing” the taxpayers money is equally ill informed and repugnant.
But it is costing taxpayers! That’s just a fact. Good people can disagree about whether it’s a worthy expenditure. But it’s an expenditure.
I seem to recall that referendum questions specific to Newton have always been held as stand alone questions or at citywide general elections in November, be they municipal, or state and national contests.
There may be exceptions, but I have general concerns about holding local referendum in conjunction with partisan primary elections, and especially alongside the upcoming March Presidential nominating primaries which will be the most hotly contested on the Democratic side since 2008. This is also the only time in a four year process where members of the two parties come to the ballot box to organize and pick a full range of national, state and local party officials.
All of this is further complicated by the fact that supporters of the Presidential candidate I’m backing are on both sides of Northland and some other development issues and I also know the same is true for those supporting every other candidates in the March primary. This is the day for deeply partisan gatherings and celebrations– the one day set aside every four years exclusively for all political partisans be they Democratic, Republican, Green , Libertarian or Yellow Dog Democrats like myself. Let’s keep it that way.
Unfortunately November isn’t an option – the referendum can either be held during the next city election in 2021 or within 120 days of the council voting not to rescind via a special election, Super Tuesday only works because it would fall within the 120 day window assuming the council can get through all the procedures in time. The specific section from the charter:
“Whenever an initiative measure is to be submitted to the voters or a referendum measure is to be referred to the voters, the city council shall provide for the submission or referral at the next regular city election; but in the case of a referendum measure the city council may (i) within 30 days after a decision by the city council or the school committee not to repeal or rescind a measure or (ii) in the case of inaction by the city council or the school committee on the repeal or rescission of a measure within 30 days following the 30-day period referred to in section 10-11, call a special election to be held within 120 days of the vote.”
November would be ideal but between Super Tuesday, a stand alone special election or the 2021 city election there’s almost no doubt Super Tuesday would have the largest turnout (especially as contested as the Democrat primary is looking).
RightSize has the legal right to demand this referendum, but it shouldn’t, at least not without more community support. A few years ago the charter reform recommended that more than 5% of the population be required to sign to get a referendum BECAUSE of the enormous cost of a stand-alone municipal referendum. Such ballot-box policy decisions are notoriously disastrous (see California prop 13 and its longterm tax implications and Brexit’s economic impacts on the UK). Even more frustratingly, this referendum is another example of the ugly tactics of forcing people to constantly re-fight decisions that were already made. Newton voters already spoke during the Nov 2019 election of the city council by putting into office councilors who supported this agreement with Northland as the best possible deal for Newton.
Given that nationally, the same groups who use the constant re-fighting tactics also support policies disenfranchising voters, I find any proposal for a stand-alone election for this referendum as highly suspect because stand-alone elections are documented as having much smaller voter turnout. In any election, we–and any responsible government official–should be making every effort to increase citizen participation. That reason, not “merely” fiscal prudence, says that attaching the referendum to the March presidential primary is the right thing to do.
A few quick things:
First to Donald: I understand your position that the referendum is allowed for under the City Charter, and the folks who organized it are well within their rights to do so. On this, we agree. But it is neither ill-informed or repugnant to mention how much that costs. The facts are what they are. Referendums cost money. And time. Time for Right Size to spend a lot of hours gathering signatures, time for the city to process, time for all of us to vote. It is an inefficient and expensive way to govern. For all parties. Pointing that out is just pointing out the facts. You can say, well the city should have in its budget the costs for one referendum each year, and hey, it’s our right to spend this money, just like it is Northland’s right to get a special permit. And perhaps the budget process should allow for that. But it clearly does not, this is in the category of an extraordinary expense. The city (and us) clearly have to spend the money, since it is right of citizens to petition for a referendum. But we should all work to make it as efficient and low cost as possible. It is what it is. The amounts came from the city. We’ll just need to spend it. And I think it is important in the long term for all of us to understand the costs, both in person hours to gather signatures and in time and in money.
As for Bob, Super Tuesday is exactly when we should do it. Super Tuesday might have special meaning for someone as connected politically as you (I mean that as a compliment, I remember your posts from previous national elections on Bernie), but for most of us it is just a reminder to go vote. It is very difficult to get folks to vote, and having small voting pools determine decisions is bad practice. And it is an extra $110,000 for a special election for just this referendum. I can think of no good reason, either public policy wise or cash wise, to push it to sometime in April (or next November 21).
My point here is that the special permit process – which has taken a huge amount of government time over a period of several years – is expensive. The cost of the referendum is just the latest cost, and it won’t be the last. Running a democracy is not free, but it’s important to get it right.
For the record, I like the Northland project and look forward to showing that support at the ballot box. But I will ALWAYS support my neighbor’s rights to participate in the process as they are legally entitled to do.
Donald, how about both points are fair. Special permit process is an expensive time suck on the planning department. And the referendum is an expensive monetary cost. The only difference is, we expect the special permit process, and we’ve set up our system to require it. It is literally budgeted for within the city budget. That’s why we have a planning department. Why we have city councilors, who, in our wisdom we have graced with the power to decide such things.
Fine with getting it right too. Just don’t love the costs, and I seek to lower those costs as much as possible.
And if you are eager to support your neighbor’s right to participate, encourage the city and Right Side to support a vote on Super Tuesday, where we save $110,000 and MORE FOLKS WILL VOTE. More participation!
Seriously, we are more agreeing that disagreeing. I don’t slam Right Side for the cost. But I will if they play games and force it to be a separate vote. Because that’s just throwing $110,000 down a toilet.
The vote is their right. But the timing of the vote should be all of our right to maximize efficiency and cost. And I’d say that even if was part of Rightside’s board.
This seems very targeted. The group is following the laws and the group is allowed to do this. I seem to recall a very recent special election in Ward 5 that “cost” the tax payers money to have this “special” election, and then the third place candidate did a write in campaign.
While I don’t want Greg calling out every one that does something against his opinion, I think this headline is harsh.
Snow costs taxpayers money.
Firefighters cost taxpayers money.
Basically, EVERYTHING costs money, and this is part of running a city.
@NewtonMom: Perhaps you missed it, but there have been discussions on this blog (and before that on the old TAB blog) about the cost of special elections for years, including last year’s Ward 5 preliminary and before that the marijuana referendum. And it was one of the things the Charter Commission discussed too. In the case of the Ward 5 preliminary (and as I recall a Ward 1 and Ward 2 preliminaries in prior years), folks here discussed whether or not it makes sense to hold a special election just to eliminate one of three contenders or whether all three should contend in the finals or how rank choice voting would solve these issues, etc. Turns out Rena Getz, the third place contender in Ward 5 ran as a write in after losing the preliminary, so that just added fuel to those discussions. All of these discussions have included the cost to taxpayers as a talking point.
As for this thread, I think Fig has focused on the real issue before the council this week, which is the $110,000 difference in cost to taxpayers between holding the referendum on March 3 and another date.
That is exactly what Fig is focused on. I hope the council does the right thing and makes March 3 happen. Susan Albright is on board, and if one or more the the city councilors block it, I’m going to make sure folks know about the waste. And name names as to who is responsible.
$110,000 is a lot of money to drop down a hole, at least it is to me.
The likely cost isn’t $146K, it is closer to $50Million.
The Globe suggests the current construction economy is nearing a cyclical end. Supposing they are right and supposing that Governor Baker’s housing bill again stalls, that implies that should Northland and/or the Riverside projects fail to progress, that Newton homeowners will be the sole source for the $50Million per year the City has to come-up with before 2031 to paydown the OPEB obligation.
Might we better serve each other were we to focus on avoiding generational transfers of wealth implied by current (pro-/con-)decisions rather than maximizing what the taxman will take at the probate checkout line (and leaving problems created by yesterers’ to whoever else will be left holding the bag)?
@Fig
In 2015, the city spent $7 million on snow. At the time the budget was $3.5 million
If you feel so strongly about this, perhaps its about time to let people know your true name, and your special interests?
Having less than 2 months to get a campaign together is hardly democratic.
I think you’re all missing the obvious which is the existing land is now taxed as commercial and the proposal is to covert some commercial to residential (a lower tax rate) and residences generally use more in services than they pay in taxes (are a NET loss).
So replacing existing commercial tax revenue with this 800 unit residence is going to be a net LOSS for Newton, not a windfall.
To put this into perspective, $110k is the cost to educate 6 children in Newton and this development has potential to add about 800 new students, at a annual cost of $16 million, and that’s not including the capital costs to build the new schools we’re going to need–maybe another $250 million!
So don’t think of it as “wasting” $110k, but rather we’re saving at least $15,890,000 by delaying a year.
David: That’s an oversimplification. You need to consider not just the land but the accessed value of the buildings that will be there, compared to empty parking lots. A really successful development will not only enhance the value of these 23 acres but commercial properties along Needham Street. If tax revenue is the only consideration, allow every building to be 20 stories and eliminate the 10 acres of open space.
Simon and David:
As I read the rules, the default date is November 2021, but the Council has the right to select another date, and that date has to be within 120 days of when they call the special election. March 3 is in that window. And it saves money.
I didn’t really consider the need for a large election season for it. The city council and mayor elections don’t really get started until labor day (at least that’s when I start to really pay attention), and we are around that amount of time away now. David seems to imply he wants to wait a year until 2021, and Simon, I’m not sure what date you want. What amount of time is adequate to prepare for the election?
And I feel strongly about it mostly because I’m not a fan of referendums, but if we are going to have them we might as well do it as efficiently as possible. Until your post about the time to campaign, no one really presented an argument about why March 3 wouldn’t work. And I still happen to think it will work fine. Also, I’m much more likely to vote March 3, since I’ll be going to the polls anyway…
And for the record, if I was somehow connected to this project, wouldn’t I be posting more in favor of it overall? Not everything has to be a conspiracy or conflict…we’ve both posted here for years, that’s a long time to wait to exercise my hidden secret agenda… ;)
And the Principle Group’s no bid 500,000.00 contact for which I have recently learned we got no fiscal analysis ( councilor Albright told me it was outdated because it was done too early) – 40,000 dollars of it down the tubes- was also a big waste of taxpayer dollars. 146,000 is much less than that charade….
If you want to look for wasted taxpayer dollars I think you can find a lot more in Newton under our current mayor.
So Rick, we should put you down in the category of “government waste is OK when its fits my agenda, but not when it doesn’t?” (And remember “waste” and “also” were your word choices, not mine.)