The Newton City Council will meet Wednesday night in a special session to either repeal last month’s 17-7 super-majority Northland vote or to set a date for a special election.
While a repeal is unlikely, as City Clerk David Olson explained in a memo last week, the council has essentially three general choices when it comes to scheduling a date:
On March 3 in conjunction with the Super Tuesday presidential primaries (at a cost of approximately $32,917)
Sometime between mid-March and early May (at a cost of approximately $145,902)
At the next municipal election on Nov. 2, 2021 (where presumably it would be part of the regular ballot at no added expense).
Olson’s memo also contains a lot of historical data on voter turnout, suggesting that turnout on March 3 could be 20 to 30 percent points higher than a standalone spring election where Northland is the only item before voters.
As we saw during a brief debate at Monday’s council meeting (go to the 22:24 mark on the video below), this is going to be contentious. There’s also a very good chance that a minority of four councilors will exercise a parliamentary move known as a “charter privilege” which will postpone the decision until the Jan. 21 meeting, which will likely rule out the chance of the vote happening on Super Tuesday.
Here’s the question for this thread (and let’s try to stay on topic here):
When do you think this vote should take place? March 3; later in the spring: or in 2021? And please tell us why.
Newton City Council from NewTV Government on Vimeo.
As soon as is practical and cost effective, which appears to be March 3rd.
Nobody should be trying to ‘game’ the system to push the result in a particular direction.
I think the standalone one has the best chance of having people who are really informed voting. There seem to be passionate people on both side, but I suspect the majority haven’t paid any attention
March seems to quick for both side to adequately make their respective cases to the people and Fall 2021 is just too far off.
I think the cost shouldn’t be the issue
Donald,
“‘Game’ the system”?
That “game” is apparently merely part of the rules. So, why shouldn’t 4 City Councilors who are opposed to the project/special permit, push the referendum election until after March 3rd Super Tuesday? It would seem that if they fail to do that, they are guilty of legislative malpractice, that is, if they truly believe in the positions.
Am I missing something here?
March 3. And if 4 councilors vote to block that, I’ll be reminding them of that poor decision until the next election, Mike S. Cannabis style.
If these referendums are going to work, they should be voted on by the most people possible. Or we should fix the process to require a minimum amount of voters to weigh in.
If the Right Size folks are worried about March 3 because too many people will vote, what does that tell you about the referendum?
All referendums should be held to maximize voting potential and lower cost. It is just common sense. Good government too.
Fig,
If the “Right Size folks” and the concurring City Councilors who are opposed to the project/special permit want greatly to maximize their chance of winning, as I asked, why in the heck would they not “push the referendum election until after March 3rd Super Tuesday”, that is, if they truly believe in their positions? As I said, anything less would be legislative malpractice.
@Jim
I agree that it is likely within legal bounds to “game” the system in either direction, and I assume that both sides will try (/have tried) to tilt the outcome in their favor. But this shouldn’t be about playing a game, it should be about doing what’s right for the citizens of the City.
I strongly believe that holding the referendum is the right thing to do. But let’s get it over with.
Stated another way, if the City Councilors who voted against the project/special permit do NOT vote to extend the referendum until after March 3 Super Tuesday, their original vote was for show, was a sham, and they didn’t really intend for the project’s special permit to be rejected in the first place.
Donald,
“What’s right for the citizens of the City”?
That obviously depends upon which side of the original vote the City Councilor took. I’m going to assume that ALL City Councilors ALWAYS vote on what they think is “right for the citizens of the City.” If they don’t their vote would be malpractice, a fraud, or made with ulterior motive.
Super Tuesday. The objective is to get a meaningful representative sample of the voters, right?
John,
The case could also be made, as does Claire above, “the standalone one has the best chance of having people who are really informed voting.”
So Jim, this isn’t really about democracy or cost savings or making sure the maximum amount of folks vote, it is about winning in your mind. Got it.
I look forward to reminding folks about this when the next election comes around if it is blocked. City Councilors should be about what is best for the city, not about one project. There was a vote. A super majority passed it. The referendum is legal and valid challenge to that vote. But you lose me when you maneuver the vote to a time when the least amount of folks vote on it.
Common sense appeals to people. The partisans on either side will push what they push, but common sense in government is a scarce commodity. Here is hoping the at-large candidates especially remember that they are being voted on by the entire city. And that some of the long standing members of the city council have more common sense and take the long view here. March 3 is common sense.
Claire, how many people are going to go vote on a standalone issue in the middle of winter? I bet you don’t even break 10% of the city voting on this if you do that.
I’d rather postpone it a year than do that.
It would be unconscionable for 4 city councilors to guarantee a low-turnout election to make that the actual will of the people is not reflected in the vote.
Oh, so it turns out we DON’T have to spend a nickel of taxpayer dollars to vote on this referendum! Let’s do that: have the vote in November FOR FREE.
I don’t see any advantage to doing it sooner. In fact, I’m in no rush to add 2,000 more cars on Needham St.
March 3 gives plenty of time for people to get the word out on pro’s and con’s. There is some value, too, in getting this resolved one way or the other sooner rather than later.
Time is money in the development business. Pushing the vote out 2 years effectively makes the decision for the city and the developer. Northland won’t hang on for 2 years, they will drop this plan and go 40B for certain.
The potential referendum should not be about money. The city should be following processes. This item should have gone to the programs and services committee. The city council should get appropriate notice.
Instead it is being rushed, with at least 2 Councilors unavailable on Wednesday. The original Northland Special Permit vote was postponed due to 2 Councilors not being available!
Is the President of Council going to knowingly cast aside those 2 voices / votes aside – is that good policy?
And what does this say to the to the 5000 people who signed the petition?
After all, this is a legal referendum to overturn the city council’s decision, and yet it already appears the block of city councilors are working against citizens wishes.
This is not a good start for the incoming President of the City Council.
@Fig – how many people are going to go vote on a standalone issue in the middle of winter? I bet you don’t even break 10% of the city voting on this if you do that.
People who are really informed and really care. It may be that 90% of the people don’t know or care. And I’d rather see the 10% who care one way or the other be the deciders
@Claire: To suggest that we should hold elections only at times when well informed or the most motivated people can participate is a really dangerous way to run a democracy.
The irony here is that for months we’ve been hearing from Right Size supporters that they feel the city hasn’t been listening to the people. But now we have Right Sizers arguing that they want to vote to be held at a time when less people will heard. Pick one argument please.
The election should be scheduled for Super Tuesday, March 3rd. This election should be able to drive turnout and it makes sense for a financial savings to combine the two. Both sides should have ample time to get their message out.
Looking at the data in the memo, there really isn’t much difference in voter turnout between primary and city-wide special elections . We do see far lower voter turnout when only a single ward or district can vote, which is not the case with the Northland referendum. Here are the election turnout averages:
Primaries: 37%
Special elections (city-wide voting): 32%
Special elections (only one ward/dist voting): 16%
So the data doesn’t really support the theory that you can significantly bias the vote by picking a primary vs special election for a city-wide vote.
@David: I think you’re looking at the wrong data
2016 Presidential primary turnout (Trump) 51%
2008 Presidential primary (Obama’s first term) 56%
2007 Newton North referendum: 32%
2013: Override: 32%
I think its safe to predict that this year’s presidential primary will draw a similar, if not greater, turnout.
How could anyone who supports letting the people decide be opposed to having more than half of all Newton voters weigh in?
Claire, I disgree. Your argument is the same one that was used years ago to discourage voting by putting in literacy requirements. The argument was that folks who care read in a native tongue would better understand the issues. It was a bad faith argument then, I encourage you to rethink it now. We should be pushing access and doing what gets the most voters out to vote, not the opposite. And if the referendum passes then, it passes. You’ll hear no complaint from me if it does.
There have been many decades of advocacy to get the right to vote to the widest group possible. I’m in support of a national holiday on election day every year, early voting, automatic registration, and pretty much any method we can use to better connect folks to our voting systems. This is a bad look for Newton and for those city councilors who block the common sense approach.
And again, I’d say this if it was a pot ballet question, or a school ballet question or anything else.
David, my argument against Nov 21 is that it is so far away that it basically kills the project by another means. That doesn’t seem fair either. Asking anyone to wait 22 months for a decision wouldn’t stand in a court, it would be deemed justice delayed being justice denied.
As Matt Lai keeps telling us, the RightSize group is angry and wants to make their voices heard. I understand that emotional argument. I hope our at-large city councilors understand that their role is to make the best choice for the city and get the most folks voting on this.
Ok, I’ve said my bit. I am passionate about voting rights and voting in general. Don’t get me started on how a felony still takes away your right to vote in many states. Folks should check out the way Florida used to work, and the questions the voting commission used to ask former felons to regain their rights. Boils the blood.
David M:
Well, if it gets pushed to after March 3, I hope you’ll come back to discuss the turnout model. Those special elections city-wide were on city wide issues. Do you honestly believe there will be no difference? If so, why do you care if it is March 3? If you think it is close in number, why wouldn’t you just let the city save the money?
Once we know the decision, I’d be happy to make a friendly bet on the turnout percentage on any election not held on another date.
Plus, your post doesn’t reflect that this will be THE most attended primary in years. Because 2020 is insane.
Why would a city councilor take an action that would, either by design or intent, suppress the vote?
I would certainly hope that the councilor who lead the effort to oppose the charter reform on the grounds that it would be less “democratic” and “reduce accountability” would not lead an effort to suppress the vote, which is clearly less democratic and accountable.
@Jane
It my experience the Councilors charter when they believe an item needs further consideration before they are able to vote on it. Perhaps a councilor might believe that all councilors should have the ability to partake in a substantiative debate on such an important item.
Seems reasonable to me that when the President of the Council side steps various processes to fulfill their agenda they ought to put in check.
@Greg, lol, you’re cherry picking the data by only presenting the top three primary election values and ignoring the lowest two:
51%, 12%, 56%, 29%, 36% = average of 37%
>How could anyone who supports letting the people decide be opposed to having more than half of all Newton voters weigh in?
Less than 50% turnout is unfortunately quite common. No one is opposing voter turnout–the VOTERS decide whether they vote or not! Pick a date, and let the voters decide.
Greg, your pattern of falsely attributing unfair tactics to Right Size is out of hand. Secondly, you owe people an apology for spinning the data this hard–it’s totally unjustifiable–a new low.
Here’s what you’ve been doing Greg and it needs to stop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
David: I’ll bet you an ice cream cone at Cabots that the Super Tuesday turnout will be very similar to, if not exceed, the turn out from the 2016 and 2008 presidential primaries.
Simon: Actually as far as I recall (and maybe I’ve missed something) the last time the four person charter was used was in 2008. David Cohen was mayor and everyone on all sides admitted that it was a parliamentary procedure designed to win approval of a budget that didn’t have enough votes to pass. People were furious but the trick worked. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.
“Your argument is the same one that was used years ago to discourage voting by putting in literacy requirements. The argument was that folks who care read in a native tongue would better understand the issues. It was a bad faith argument then, I encourage you to rethink it now.”
Wow Fig that is pretty insulting and I will say out of character for you to basically label my point as in bad faith and equivelant to voter suppression. I think you owe me an apology. Nothing I said remotely involves voter suppression. The closest thing I read in this read (and it wasn’t asserted by me) was the suggestion that people would come out to vote on a single issue in the middle of winter. But that would be their choice. You are the one who asserted that only 10% would. I actually don’t believe that number. My point was that we should hold the vote promptly (not wait until 2021) but also make sure that the maximum number of people have the opportunity to become informed on the issue. Not sure how that equates to voter suppression, but whatever!
@Greg “To suggest that we should hold elections only at times when well informed or the most motivated people can participate is a really dangerous way to run a democracy.”
How did I suggest that? That is a gross mis-characterization of what I wrote.
And for the record, I’m not involved in Rightsize and I didn’t even sign the petition, not because I wouldn’t have if asked, but I also didn’t go out of my way to seek it out. I have other issues I am more passionate about.
It should be a stand alone election (Not March 3rd). That way it gives each side ample time to inform the voters of the pros and cons of the project. Not everyone in Newton is fully aware of the Northland development. The City Charter says that the election needs to take place within 120 days when the signatures are certified. So let’s use the 120 days.
I agree with those who think the vote should be held on March 3rd.
This was an easily avoidable situation, brought about as a result of pathetic leadership from City Council members who were driven almost exclusively by a “green” agenda as opposed to the immediate needs of the city they represent.
I very much support changes to building codes that tighten environmental standards. But I also support more affordable housing. Those two things have to be balanced. City “leaders” should have required a higher percentage of affordable housing from Northland.
The Newton School Committee sent a very early message that there was no need to worry about overcrowded classrooms resulting from Northland or any other residential project in Newton. The City Council picked up on that message and did not push Northland to provide adequate school impact mitigation. Onsite educational space at that location would have been extremely valuable to Newton, and would have bulletproofed the permit from a referendum challenge.
I do not support overturning the Special Permit by referendum, because I believe to do so would violate Northland’s rights as a private property taxpayer. They played by the rules and deserve the ability to build the approved project. I believe the right path forward is to better vett our candidates for public office, make sure their priorities are aligned with the community, and that they possess the skills to negotiate more advantageous special permits on our behalf.
The vote should clearly be on March 3rd. A minority of councilors pushing the vote to a later date with lower turnout will be nothing less than voter suppression. At the same time, forcing the vote to a date 2 years away would turn the referendum into a delay tactic that could be used again and again by a small number of people to thwart the work of the City Council.
Sure, you could say that having a lower turnout election will mean there are “more informed” voters as someone above did. That claim has been made before: A poll tax. Or making it a more onerous process to register to vote. These are the tactics of voter suppression.
So here’s what we know: A special election will involve less people, and the people who do vote will tend to be whiter, older, wealthier, and more likely to be homeowners than the Super Tuesday voting population.
In my opinion, Super Tuesday is the only fair and democratic choice.
In the only other experience with a 20-day referendum (the 2007 NNHS referendum) the city council set the election date as soon as possible, during January, and didn’t even deny that they hoped for bad weather and very low turnout.
To ascribe high minded motives to anyone who would try to prevent this election on a date when turnout will be high and will save significant money simply isn’t looking at the situation realistically.
Super Tuesday is the clear choice. It’s an existing election that keeps costs down and reaches the most people. This process has been going on for years, if people are not educated about it then it’s because they’re choosing not to pay =attention. A few more weeks or months isn’t going to move the needle on that education, especially when we lack any real city-wide media.
Having it at another time only serves to reduce turnout and allow for a minority group to bring out their already-engaged (and angry) voters while most of the city continues on in ignorance.
If this is truly about doing what’s right for the city, then Right Size would be in favor of a higher turnout thereby reaching more voters. If it’s about doing what’s right just for their own neighborhood, then they’ll want a lower turnout.
Claire:
I wasn’t trying to insult you. I just don’t agree with your argument. When I asked how many folks would vote in a standalone election on this one issue, you said:
“People who are really informed and really care. It may be that 90% of the people don’t know or care. And I’d rather see the 10% who care one way or the other be the deciders”
So you’d rather have it at a less convenient time, with a much lower number of votes, to maximize the “really informed” and those that “really care”. My point is that by making it harder to vote when there is a better more democratic option, you are in effect trying to boost the effect of those that “really know” and ” really care”.
In my view, that is taking it out of the hands of the wider population. Democracy isn’t about giving those that know more about an issue or really care about an issue any special treatment. Our default should be the widest electorial base possible, done in the most efficient manner. 60 days is long enough for us to have signs on our lawns and mailers for political candidates. If it was 30 days away, maybe I’d buy an argument that you need that time to educate the voters, although I note that this has been one of the major topics in the last election, so I would guess the voting public is well informed already.
But that wasn’t your argument, your argument was maximizing the impact from those that know the most and care the most about this issue. And that’s what I used to hear when I was a kid growing up, that the reason why my parents and others voted the way they did was out of ignorance, and polling stations and access to the polls seemed to get harder in our area, not easier. They “didn’t know how things worked” and they “didn’t care” as much as folks who lived there for multiple generations….
You could certainly make an argument that Tarik does that every day is needed to educate the populace. I disagree that amount of time is needed. Perhaps that is what you were trying to get at. But restricting it to a stand alone election to minimize the voting public to a group that is self-limiting to folks who “really know” and “really care” is a bad result for our wider community, and a bad precedent.
As for David M. argument that proper procedures aren’t being followed, do you really think the city council will have a super majority to reverse the previous decision? I’m confused about the practical nature of the complaint. I’ll note that folks missing the vote isn’t a reason not to hold the vote, that’s why there are quorum requirements. If those missing votes get you to the point where you could reverse the decision, I would agree we should wait. But if they are just 2 votes that add to a vote total that doesn’t get you near a threshold, I disagree that it rises to a level that should a process where Susan Albright has been clear about the schedule in advance.
Seems like this will be decided shortly, and we’ll go on to the next topic. But I think we have a gap in our referendum system if we allow low-turnout elections to make major decision for the wider community.
And to Claire as well:
It is entirely possible I’m viewing this personally and am a bit sensitive to language like you used. You stated you didn’t mean it as voter suppression, and I’m fine taking you at your word as well. I hope we can agree to disagree without you being upset with my comments. They were not meant to be personal to you, and accuse you of anything. I know you are not part of Right Size and just making arguments on the thread.
Any city councilor who is considering a parliamentary move tomorrow night to delay this referendum is contemplating voter suppression.
It would certainly be a shame if any of our freshmen councilors made voter suppression their first legislative action.
@Greg Reibman, I can actually agree with you. Councilors need to support having this election on Super Tuesday, March 3rd.
What Simon said. See you tomorrow!
@Greg
“Any city councilor who is considering a parliamentary move tomorrow night to delay this referendum is contemplating voter suppression.”
That is utter BS.
I went to the Election Commission meeting this evening, and they were struggling to decide what the Ballot wording should be.
Its complicated. The Ballot question is on the re-zoning, but the re-zoning is conditional on the Special Permit.
I guess you may have looked at Board Conditions, but the average person would be lost.
Lets have an informed vote on this matter.
Property owners, like residents, deserve prompt action on special permits/variances. As Mike Striar said, Northland followed the rules, as did RSN, and they both deserve the next step of the process.
The referendum process isn’t meant to cause delay or expense for the property owner or the petitioner. It’s designed to give people a chance to vote.
Yes, the wording of this ballot will be complicated. It’s not going to get less complicated if we continue to ruminate on it after a certain point (measured in hours or days, not weeks or months). I have no doubt people can sit down and get it done, and that no matter what someone won’t be happy with the result.
As for providing “time for education”, I don’t see that as part of the intent of the law. Voting for everything else (primaries, elections) happens on fixed dates, not when we think people are finally ready to make decisions. Why shouldn’t the City minimize expense while providing for a prompt outcome?
Nor do I see how extra time is going to produce more real education. The people who care mostly have their positions. The people who don’t really care will tune in or out at some point, or not tune in at all. This project didn’t just come up as a surprise; not that much has changed lately. There’s been plenty of time for people to find out about it if they wanted to.
Newton: we love fractious debate so much, we drag it out as long as possible!
Pull this tooth. Poking at it longer won’t make it hurt less.
Based on what I’ve heard so far, I don’t see so much hope in having the ballot measure provide objective and clarifying information to the voter, either. I hope I’m proven wrong.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, sincerely: what does Right Size Newton or any appropriate local group want to happen? What will get this project closer to Yes (accepting as reality something will get built)? I wasn’t fond of the private dealing that happened at Riverside because I thought it should be out in the sun, but at least it was clear there was some sort of alternative vision. In the absence of such an alternative here, the property owner and the entire city are left with enormous uncertainty. That’s just not helpful from a civic perspective. For anyone.
@Mike Halle,
We agree on something – The Property owner should get clarification on their property rights, and we should fix that quickly.
We all have to pay the price for Democracy. One would hope what ever that price is, its worth it. When we do not get it right, we get corruption. Isn’t that what we have right not at the national level?
Mike Striar,
When you say that Northland played by the rules, the referendum is part of those rules. Which is precisely why, Northland/Northland’s lawyers/the City of Newton were derelict in not adequately engaging RightSize prior to the referendum process.
David M. & Claire,
I more than agree that Greg is the “straw man” king. It’s his regularly used device on V14.
March is a miserable time to going to the polls. God knows what the weather will be. Turn out could be pathetic.
By the way,.. I tried to put in a Right Size lawn sign a couple of days ago and the best I could do was about a 1/2 inch.
It called ground frost and any advertising ( attention / education ), by either side will be severely diminished.
@BPB – “By the way,.. I tried to put in a Right Size lawn sign a couple of days ago and the best I could do was about a 1/2 inch.
It called ground frost and any advertising ( attention / education ), by either side will be severely diminished.”
I posted many dozens of lawn signs for the 2013 override campaign at about the same time of year. Ground frost is not a problem if you know what you’re doing. Honestly, if we have to go through this, let’s do it when people are actually going to vote!
@ Chris S. I guess I don’t know how to push a sign thru frozen earth. At least in my own front yard. Maybe I should wait for a thaw.
What’s your secret?
But I agree, “let’s do it when people are actually going to vote”, not in the middle of the winter.