The City Council voted 15-7 in committee Thursday to hold a special election on March 3 (Super Tuesday) for the Northland project.
But before that decision could be formally ratified, five councilors, lead by Councilor Emily Norton, used a parliamentary move to postpone an official decision.
Norton along with Councilors Ciccone, Kalis, Markiewicz and Malakie exercised what’s known as a “charter privilege” to postpone the decision to the next regular council meeting on Jan. 21.
The four all spoke earlier in opposition to the March 3 date so it’s reasonable to assume that they exercised the maneuver operating under the belief that delaying the decision until Jan. 21 would make it impossible for the election to be held on March 3 because of the time it takes to print ballots (see memo from the City Clerk David Olson on this here).
But after the charter action, City Council President Susan Albright announced that Olson has determined the ballots can indeed be printed as long as they’re delivered to the printer by Jan. 22. There will be an added $3,000 rush fee, Albright said but that’s still makes holding the vote on March 3, about $107,000 less expensive than if held on any date other than March 3.
So unless Norton and her fellow charterers can convince their colleagues (Laredo and Wright were also no votes, Baker and Gentile were absent) to change their minds (or if there is some other unknown move they can employ) it would appear that the vote will be held on March 3. But, the cost just went up by $3,000 and we won’t know that for sure until Jan. 21.
Special City Council Meeting January 8, 2020 from NewTV Government on Vimeo.
Brava!
By coincidence I was at City Hall for other things and then went up and sat in on this meeting. I came away perplexed and confused.
Councellor Krintzman started that section of the meeting off by going over the two basic options.
1 .Hold the referendum election within 120 days
2. Hold the referendum election with the next regular municipal election on Nov 2021
If they took the first option and subtracted out the time required for the printing of the ballots and for the election to be set up, that would leave a choice of (I think) 8 possible Tuesday’s.
One of those 8 Tuesdays is the already scheduled presidential primary.
I think it was unanimously agreed that Nov 2021 was not a reasonable option so the only discussion was which of those 8 Tuesday’s to hold the election on.
One of those 8 Tuesday’s has a series of very obvious advantages over the other 7 Tuesdays.
* It would be > $100,000 cheaper for the city
* there would inevitably be a higher voter turnout
* There would be early voting available.
I would have thought that there would have been universal agreement that all three of those are very important advantage of that date over the other seven. Instead, there was lengthy discussion on both sides.
I tried, but for the life of me I couldn’t make much sense of the reasons that Councilors Laredo, Norton, Markiewicz and Kalis for holding it on one of the other seven dates. As best as I could make of it, they could be sfmmarized as:
* If there are other things being voted on that day, that would mean this wasn’t a “clean up down vote”.
* It would be too confusing to voters and/or voters would be distracted by the presidential vote
* It was too rushed
In the end, remarkably, seven councilors voted against holding the referendum on Primary Day despite the additional $100K in costs and the inevitable depressed voter turn out.
That was mystifying enough but the final moments of the meeting with the “charter” maneuver were completely baffling. As I understand it, the only effect of this is that rather than the vote being held tonight, it would postpone the vote until the next Council meeting on Jan 21. Since the vote tonight was 15-7 tonight there is absolutely no possibility that they wanted the vote delayed so that could have a few more days to have a majority by the 21st.
Councilor Albright pointed out that if the Primary Day date gets voted on at the Jan 21 meeting, the result will be that the printing cost for the ballots will go up by $3000 since it will then be a rush job.
This all smacks of political gamesmanship on the part of the “charter’ers”.
It appears to me that the resistance to the otherwise obvious choice of Primary Day is precisely that there is likely to be a higher turnout – that’s usually considered a goal when holding elections. In this case though, it appears that opponents of the Northland project think that suppressing the vote will be to their advantage.
Who knows whether it will or it won’t but its a terrible reason for picking a date – especially one that will unnecessarily blow $100K of cash, and have fewer citizens voices be heard.
I for one am thankful the City Council won’t be prevented from scheduling the only logical date for the election, March 3rd.
Shame on the councilors that voted to suppress voter turnout.
@Jerry,
If you was paying so much attention, surely you would also have noticed that Marc Laredo did not join the charter, and commented on that too.
An earlier version of my thread misidentified the charterers. I believe it is correct now.
@Simon French – You’re mixing me up with Greg I think.
Yes, Marc Laredo did start off the proceedings with his reasons that he didn’t want the vote to be held on Primary Day and he did vote against it. You are correct though that he was NOT part of the Charter maneuver after the vote.
Yes Simon. You mixed us up! Jerry is the mean one. I’m the guy everyone likes who comes up with all the wacky fun ideas and pranks.
Coming to the part late (had a work related dinner tonight) but I found the whole meeting disgusting.
https://vimeo.com/383626905
It’s as if no one on the Council is recognizing there is a sizable population is not happen with the Northland project. As an Upper Falls resident, it’s especially saddening that the most dismissive amongst the Council were Crossely and freshman Council Humphrey, who speak as if everyone is fully supportive of the Northland project.
People who signed the petition should be upset and feel ignored!
Why should you feel upset and ignored? You are getting the referendum you wanted. You said you wanted the people to be heard. The people will be heard.
This is what you’ve been asking for for the past six months.
@Greg @Jerry
More like Greg and Jerry’s nescient dream
:-)
@Matt, Wasn’t that the whole point of the election date debate? Those who want to find out exactly *how* sizeable the anti-Northland population is vs. those who want to ensure that only the highly-motivated anti-Northland folks show up.
Gregg,
Maybe the people who signed the petition, at least in part, rightfully feel ignored and are upset that there was no discussion or debate whatsoever on the substance of what the referendum seekers see as the serious problems with Northland. The City Council did, after all, have the option of voting to withdraw issuance of the permit in response to the petition — yet apparently there was not even any consideration, discussion or debate on that in response to the petition or in the face of the looming referendum.
Rhanna,
The City Council debate should have first included and considered the substance of the petition and only after a decision not to withdraw the permit, proceed to debate the date of the referendum election.
If the City Council did not do the first part, the referendum petitioners were, in fact, ignored.
@Rhanna
If the referendum vote is done independent of anything else, I believe we could finally get a consensus of where the citizens of Newton stand regarding development.
I for one would accept it. Not only for that, I would be grateful of it. I would spend a whole bunch more time with my family rather than be at city hall!
Instead, we are potentially going to have people voting on something they have no idea about. Worse, they might even be misinformed about it.
Northland has a lot of money at hand, where as http://RightSize2020.org has very little in comparison.
And yes, in full disclosure, I am the treasurer of the “Committee For Responsible Development”.
@Simon
You wanted to bring this issue to the voters and collected almost 6,000 signatures to do so. Now you’re concerned that this issue will be decided by “people voting on something they have no idea about. Worse, they might even be misinformed about it.”?
I’m confused. Why did Rightsize Newton force a referendum when they seem to have no faith in voters to make this decision in the first place?
@Ryan,.. don’t be confused.
6,000 signers were quite well informed and had very good intentions in signing for a referendum.
It’s the next majority of voters Right Size has faith in, and who will be addressed to change the course of development in the Garden City. Long live it !
Simon wrote:
> If the referendum vote is done independent of anything else, I believe we could finally get a consensus of where the citizens of Newton stand regarding development.
I would think that local residents, especially Right Size Newton supporters, would want this development project evaluated on its specific merits and context. For them, this should be a vote on this Northland project, not on development in general either way (even though it likely will be, regardless).
> Instead, we are potentially going to have people voting on something they have no idea about. Worse, they might even be misinformed about it.
Sounds like the risks of democracy that we face every time we have an election.
If it matters, I’ve been told that the referendum would be on a separate ballot; don’t know if that’s true.
Thanks, also, for the link to the RSN2020 site. It was helpful, and I sincerely appreciate you being part of the conversation here.
I saw this on the FAQ page:
“We hope that Northland listens to the neighbors’ concerns and addresses them by modifying the proposed development so that it can be something that works for everyone, not just their bottom line. We are confident that given how little it would take to modify the current plan, Northland would choose to do so rather than resort to costly and uncertain 40B development. We are also confident that the land is too valuable for Northland to leave undeveloped.”
The site says, “how little it would take”, but doesn’t suggest what those modifications might be. Is there anything like a list? The site includes a list of perceived shortcomings, but not solutions that if solved would get us to yes. There’s no reason for those possible solutions to wait until the referendum to be discussed. Good ideas are good ideas. Let’s hear them. If we by some miracle solved enough differences, RSN could still recommend a “yes” vote on the referendum.
In particular, what traffic proposal would be acceptable, given that some people believe that traffic on Needham Street is already too much without the development? If that’s the premise, what “little will it take” for Northland to remedy the situation? How can they fix a problem completely outside of their control, and not of their doing?
These aren’t rhetorical questions. They are *the* questions. They are the difference between bomb-throwing and being willing to get to a solution. I know that there are people involved in Right Size Newton who have thought deeply and care deeply about these issues, and I’m perplexed and disappointed that they haven’t stood up, backed up their words above, and said, “we feel these are the things we will make this plan both better and good enough”.
Yes, there are a few hints on the site about what RSN said the developer didn’t do. There’s nothing, though, that indicates what might be enough to do.
Some seemingly reasonable suggestions that are hinted at just won’t work if you think about them. Staging the project, for instance. There is simply no civic mechanism for a project like this to be staged, with all the community benefits and infrastructure up front, and then evaluated repeatedly for acceptability. If you don’t trust councilors to vote fairly on the project once, you won’t trust them to vote on it two or three more times. And there will always be doubt about the next phase. And there’s really no certainty for the property owner. Seemingly great idea, totally not workable in practice.
Here’s hoping for a resounding rebuke of Norton, Ciccone, Kalis, Markiewicz, and Malakie and their devious ways in the next election. Theirs is dishonorable behavior, regardless of which side you’re on.
@Greg and Rhanna…what I found upsetting about last night was that the debate in question was about logistics of when the vote would occur, but it has become clear that those who voted for the Northland special permit had no intentions of reconsidering their vote. Despite over 6,000 signatures, these Councilors have dug in their heels and appear to have zero will or desire to renegotiate a modified deal with the developer as @Mike was speaking about.
So basically, ignore be dismissive of the 6,000 and let the battle live solely at the ballot box. Sad.
PS. No one is more tone deaf than Bill Humphrey, who gave a speech as if everyone in Upper Falls are supportive of the current Northland deal. I’m sure there are supports, but a large number of of the 6,000 are Upper Falls residents. Remember that in 2 years, Ward 5 voters!
Matt: Did you miss the first part of the meeting? The councilors unanimously voted 22-0 to uphold the 17-7 vote from December. Yes, that includes the councilors who voted against it in December, as well as new Right Size-endorsed councilors Malakie and Wright. And many spoke quite clearly as to why they were not going to change their vote.
It seems to me when you write they “had no intentions of reconsidering their vote” you mean they had no intention of changing their vote to your preferred outcome. It’s clear they all “reconsidered,” just not the way you wished.
What Simon, Matt, and BlueprintBill said. Also Emily Norton. What people seem to be overlooking as they decry the possibility of a 40B is that it would yield more affordable housing than the current plan, and, just maybe, get our quota satisfied–although it seems to be a moving target :/ That’s what everybody wants, right? More affordable housing?
The data in the City’s memo clearly showed minimal difference between primary and city-wide special elections: 37% and 32% voter turnout, on average, respectively.
Moveover, when there is a primary, only about 95% even vote on the non-primary issues, so the demographic is closer to 35% vs 32% turnout.
This whole purported “voter suppression” scheme is baseless a slander piece by V14.
The memo: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3H5suZWdFDlemFPWm5VUEdyU1hIZzBqV0UyNFFsNWtMT3hF/view
@Pat
For the life of me, I can’t understand why some seem to think a 40B would be a better option.
We get a few more units of affordable housing with 40B but at the cost of all the open space, the climate change initiatives, the commercial tax revenue, the underground parking, the shuttle bus system, the list goes on. More importantly, our local elected officials have no way to advocate for the city in the 40B process to my knowledge. Plus, I believe the developer could do 3 separate 40B projects at this site. I think 40Bs must also have a bunch of 3 bedroom apartments, creating more school students. Would that be the right size?
It seems to me that Rightsize Newton had no real plan with this referendum push. Perhaps they thought it would force the developers back to the table but why would Northland do that after spending years getting this approved? The time for the negotiations has passed.
It seems to me that Rightsize made a major miscalculation and now they’re upset that voters will actually weigh in on this. I can think of no better reason for why they would be opposed to holding this on March 3rd. They are nervous the results will reflect a city that is much more divided on development issues than they believe. Or worse, supportive.
In any event, we will soon know where Newton voters stand on this issue. I, for one, am excited to see the results.
What Ryan said.
Emily Norton is a savvy tactician and politician. But last night Norton was playing checkers while Susan Albright was playing chess.
>at the cost of all the open space
This “open space” people boast about is just the normal amount of setbacks, culverts, and impervious surface required by the state’s new storm water runoff management plan. There’s no “10 acre park” but rather small strips of land here and there. Under 40b, or any other project, it’s required by state code.
In fact, the property has more open space now than the proposed plan.
We need to start the discussion about taking the land by eminent domain for NewCal.
Pat says,
> What people seem to be overlooking as they decry the possibility of a 40B is that it would yield more affordable housing …that’s what everybody wants, right? More affordable housing?
That’s what everybody wants, except for the people who have posted on Village 14 and elsewhere that want all commercial to maximize the city’s tax revenue.
Or the people who believe that residential developments puts undue strain on the school system (including the larger units mandated by 40B).
Or the people who believe that residential development is worse for traffic (which I believe is factually untrue, unlike the other points where we can differ on opinions).
Or the people who believe that traffic is too much on Needham Street now.
Or the people who like mixed use development as a model for efficiency and convenience.
Or the people who believe a public shuttle is a useful augmentation to the neighborhood.
Or the people who like this specific plan. Or love it. Or can live with it. Or don’t want to hear about it any more.
This is the strange trap we fall into somehow. Years crafting a plan, resulting in compromises based on city and community input (and note I’m not saying perfect, or not able to be improved). We’ll pick on it to death and may still say no. But solutions crafted afterward that lack he benefit or even acknowledgement of those compromises? “Isn’t that what everyone wants?”
I don’t know how we make our system and city better so that we bring more people along, both during and after a process, while at the same time creating great plans. But this isn’t it.
@David M. Thank you for posting the link to the memo, but I think you are underestimating the turnout for Super Tuesday this year. We have every reason to expect a tightly contested Democratic primary, with 4 or more candidates very well funded and still in the hunt March 3. The most analogous year from the memo is 2008, when Obama and Clinton were fighting it out, and turnout was 56%. Turnout was nearly as high in 2016 (Clinton-Sanders). Turnout was lower in 2004 (Kerry-Edwards), probably because Kerry had nearly swept the earlier primaries and caucuses.
John White is correct. We also have a contested GOP primary with a former popular Massachusetts governor, giving Newton Republicans who don’t like Trump an opportunity to make a statement and those who like Trump the same opportunity.
In fact there will be four Massachusetts-rooted candidates on the March 3 ballots.
Newton voters are smart and engaged and will do their homework before voting.
@David
I don’t believe that is true. My understanding is that the open space includes several new public parks.
What mostly stands out to me, other than the obvious, is that new Council President Susan Albright is not only well informed but is willing to stand up to both councilors and special interest groups in order to do what is right for the city.
To use a word from above, this council meeting was “disgusting” but not for the reasons stated. It was disgusting because although every proper procedure was followed and the councilors reaffirmed their previous vote, dissidents both among the council and Right Size actively challenged the democratic right of all voters in Newton by attempting to limit voter turnout.
These folks were loudly proclaiming their democratic right to follow Newton’s charter allowed procedure of holding a Veto Referendum as a chance for voters to weigh in on a decision made by a super majority of Newton’s 24 freely elected councilors. In addition, members of Right Size have openly declared that this referendum will pass because it represents a majority of voters in Upper Falls and all over Newton who want to limit development.
Now that they have achieved their goal of holding a veto referendum so the voters can decide, it’s obvious that these same residents were misrepresenting the amount of support they have among Newton voters including their representation of the majority of voters in Newton. If they are confident, as proclaimed, that the referendum vote would easily end in their favor, it wouldn’t matter when it was held.
I have collected lots of signatures for a ballot question–I’ve had over a thousand 1:1 conversations with voters about getting a question on the ballot. 6,000 signers does not equal 6,000 people supporting the Right Size position. The #1 reason people sign is “Well if all this does is put a question on the ballot I’m okay with it. Let the voters decide.” That often comes with a clear acknowledgment that the signer doesn’t really understand it or doesn’t yet have a position on the question.
@Matt & @Jim…the city council spent the last 2 years debating the substance of the Northland development and all the concerns of neighbors, and the vote came out 17-7. Endless debate and it wasn’t close. What was left unsaid that could have swayed any votes last night?
We also know that at least a few voters felt mislead a during the signature drive.
The funny thing about this whole conversation is how unhappy the Right Size supporters are when they just received EXACTLY what they said they wanted: A chance to put this on the ballot.
Why they weren’t high-fiving each other last night is beyond me.
Rhanna hit the nail on the head with her comment that petition signers are not necessarily supportive of the veto referendum!
In addition, all of the signature gatherers that I spoke to, had no idea (or if they did they did not share it with me) what the referendum intended to do, they just wanted a signature. One even became loudly irritated that I wouldn’t “just sign it.” I’m constantly amazed by people who will sign anything they don’t read and understand first – but it happens all of the time.
Simon says in part,
Jim along with others, says,
Right size and it’s supporters seem to have created a situation they had not considered – by misleading petition gatherers and signers while getting ”6000” signatures, they actually got what they asked for – a referendum to be voted on by the residents of Newton – instead of city councilors’ changing their votes which they had deliberated and negotiated for years and was evidently Right Size’s misguided plan.
So now they’re stuck with voters either vetoing Northland’s hard won special permit along with all of its mitigations and with no other plan in sight, nothing, nada or accepting the vote of the city council who represent all of Newton in a higher turnout election. Right Size, have you formed your ballot committee yet following the procedures set out in the charter?
The March 3rd date makes the most sense. Let’s not forget the City Clerk is going to need ample time to print and mail out absentee ballots. The timetable is getting super close.
Barring nothing else, I *really* don’t like efforts to decrease voter turnout for anything, and I’m not a fan of burning $100k+ of city funds for no other valid reason in the process.
That is pretty clearly what was attempted here.
Super Tuesday 2020 in Newton will have turnout in the 40s at least. My guess is 50s and my hope is 60s or more.
John W,
The 2008 primary had 58% turnout because both Republican and Democratic primaries were strongly contested. With Trump as the incumbent, only the Democratic ticket will drive people to the polls in 2020.
So recalculating 2008 based on Dem turnout only, the rate is just 40%.
Then consider not all voting in the Primary will even vote on local issues. So if 95% of that 40% actually vote on Northland, then we can expect 38% of voters to actually vote on the Northland referendum on March 3rd, which is not that different from past city-wide special election turnout average of 32%.
In sum, the election date is not that significant and this straw man narrative that some people are trying to game the vote is a complete fabrication of our pro-corp subsidy friends here.
See complete city election data: http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/elections/information/default.asp
Northland is too big to fail? Congested Needham Street and overstrained classrooms in the area would convince anyone of its impropriety based on location and size alone.
Break up the Big Projects! Renovate rebuild structures where found throughout City. How to needs to be figured out, and Northland doesn’t show how or where Newton begins the necessary scaling of decarbonization challenge here, converting existing housing stock into 21st century habitat.
I look forward to the contest between the corporate media-like machinations of Northland and it’s apologists and the grassroots uprising of voters who will discover (if they haven’t already) just what their City Council has been doing with it’s time. Throw all the money you have at it! The noise from the propaganda machine will not succeed in drowning out the common-sensical truth obvious to any who haven’t drunk the punch. The emperor has no clothes. See you March third. ;D
@Matt says: “No one is more tone deaf than Bill Humphrey, who gave a speech as if everyone in Upper Falls are supportive of the current Northland deal.” Read Bill’s speech: https://www.billhumphrey.org/newsletter/2020/1/8/moving-forward-on-northland-a-message-for-ward-5-constituents (longer version than he gave last night). He actually did not say everyone in Upper Falls was for Northland, quite the opposite.
Checkers and chess, Greg, really? That’s rather gilding the lily. The exercise of a charter privilege was entirely consistent with Counselor Norton’s first statement in which she offered the observation that in the past significant matters were postponed when members could not be present. Given the speed with which this came before the City Council, and the importance of the issue being discussed it’s hardly a sleight of hand to make a parliamentarian move to permit a second still timely discussion which permits all counselors to be present and share their thoughts with their colleagues as to when the vote should be held. I don’t think you will disagree that this is an important matter for the city and the developer. And, I think one of the most cogent points was made by Counselor Laredo – the job of the City Council is to ensure fairness, not to tip the balance in favor of one side or the other.
And to the suggestion that holding it on another date constitutes voter suppression, I find that to be just a sad commentary upon how apathetic we are in general about exercising our franchise – whether it be a “pocketbook” issue, a presidential primary or a local referendum. If I fail to go out and vote or get an absentee ballot, it is no one’s fault but my own.
Lisap, it may be no one’s fault but your own if you don’t vote but a special interest group lobbying for an election to be held when there is normally a lower turnout, not to mention with no convenient early voting days, is the epitome of voter suppression and attempting to influence the vote in their favor.
Pat, I too look forward to the vote on March 3. You can phrase it any way you like, but your grassroots characterization is another’s special interest group trying to overturn a freely elected representative, city council super majority vote after years of communication with Newton’s residents, contracted independent studies and deliberations resulting in mitigations suggested by the surrounding community and more.
Right Size is no more a “grassroots uprising” than any other citizen group who supports the city council vote. There’s no kool aid to drink just differing opinions. At this point, it’s become what the citizens want just like RightSize and it’s supporters said they wanted – although I’m now hearing that many who signed the petition really thought that the city council would change their vote just because some residents wanted them to. That’s not the way a representative democracy is supposed to work. Just think if this vote had been about an issue you had worked on and supported, would you want the council to change their vote just because some special interest group that didn’t agree with you wanted them to? When the rules change, they change for everyone. Unintended consequences work both ways.
@Lisap, I found Marc’s comment to be deeply ironic. He is accusing Northland proponents of pushing for a date that favors the Northland development by ensuring a strong turnout! Meanwhile he and the opponents are pushing for ANY DATE BUT March 3 in order to give an advantage to the petitioners.
Maybe the decision rule should be “Let’s do what’s best for the voters!” If we could have a referendum election on the date for the referendum election, no one outside of Right Size Newton would vote for heading to the polls on a different day.
@David M, you raise an interesting point, but I think that 38-40% represents something of a floor, for two reasons. First, as noted by Greg above, we have a popular ex-governor running a quixotic campaign against Trump, thus raising the GOP participation in MA. Second, and probably more importantly, you haven’t accounted for the extra participation by those driven to vote on the Northland issue, especially from the highly motivated RightSize side.
Anyway, thanks for the data and the conversation. I suspect my prediction of over 50% turnout for the joint primary-Northland vote will be put to the test March 3.
What Lisap said.
@Rhanna,
I do believe that the Charter already has a de facto date set for the election, and it is the next municipal election. One might construe that the framers of the charter viewed that as the “Let’s do what’s best for the voters!” date. Putting that aside and I’m not advocating for that date, the process does permit a special election if that is what the City Council approves. And yes, I agree that the decision should be what is best for making sure that the electorate is fully informed when they go to the polls. There are persuasive arguments both for and against March 3rd when most eyes will be on the national stage. At the moment, I tend to see March 3rd as only favoring those people who have their minds made up already. So, in thinking about doing “what’s best for the voters” let’s perhaps think about those people who need to get up to speed to make an informed and intelligent decision when the vote is held. I strongly suspect the number of voters who are only passingly familiar with the issue greatly outnumbers those who have closely followed this process – you know, the Village14 frequent fliers! :)
@Marti-
I didn’t hear anything about lobbying by Right Size Newton. I did hear Susan Albright say that she spoke with counsel for the developer and that they preferred March 3rd, but I thought she said that she did not communicate with anyone from Right Size Newton.
Interestingly, if you look at the memo submitted by the clerk which is linked above, the historically highest voter turn out was for a special election – for US Senate in 2010. Perhaps the take away is that motivated people will get out and vote when they care enough to?
The Northland supporters, Greg, Rhanna and the others in favor of massive development in Newton are complete hypocrites. First, all we heard from the Northland supporters was that there shouldn’t be a referendum on Northland-NO REFERENDUM!!!
Why? Because it was the duty of the citizens of Newton to follow the wishes of the City Council.
The Northland supporters argued that voters couldn’t understand the complexities of the project and it was undemocratic to have the people vote on project after the City Council had approved it. So basically the Northland supporters were saying to the voters of Newton, we don’t want to give you a chance to vote on the project.
Now however, with a Northland referendum vote coming up, the Northland are all about giving you and their friends a chance to vote. They want a voting date when they think they will get the most people out to vote-hopefully their supporters-and they want the presidential primary date.
But, you can’t be against people voting one day and then trying to manipulate the vote the next!!! The Northland supporters didn’t want to let people vote.
Now there there is a vote, we should consider the wishes of those who supported the referendum process to pick a time and date. If they think a separate vote is appropriate, we should respect their opinion. That’s the cost of being a democracy.
There is no voter suppression going on here folks. People who are eligible to vote can vote on the presidential primary day or any other day on this referendum.
Please-the Northland supporters are just trying to get a voting date that they think is best for their cause. They don’t really care about Newton voters. How do we know that? Because they didn’t want to let you vote in the first place!!!
And a so called “concern” about another date getting a low turnout skewing the results? Yeah, the municipal election in Nov. 2019 got only about a 25 percent turnout. Maybe we should redo that election on the presidential primary day too!!!!
And we thought national politics was nasty! It’s embarrassing the name calling that crops up on this blog! Welcome to 2020 in Newton!!!
Arthur:
I really have to disagree with your post. What name-calling? You are the one shouting (ALL CAPS) and calling folks hypocrites. Opposing the referendum isn’t taking away folks right to vote. It is entirely consistent to ask folks not to sign a referendum petition because the elected city council voted to approve something you agreed with. It was everyone’s choice to sign or not sign. I haven’t read one person on this forum say that once those signature pages were in that a referendum shouldn’t be held.
You have a right to your voice and your vote. So do I. And the city councilors, who were elected by all of us, and the mayor, also duly elected, get to make some decisions as well. You don’t have to like them, nor do I. And we get to vote them out if we wish in a few years. They get to decide the date of the referendum.
As for Northland wanting the best date for their cause, I’m sure they do. March 3 is that date. I’m sure RightSize wanted the best date for their cause. March 3 is not that date. I don’t care what either side wanted. I just want fair and practical and efficient. March 3 is that date.
Why do you think a special election on a random Tuesday in April is more fair than March 3? Besides the fact that it is better for your chosen side? Seems a bit….hypocritical…to be calling out Northland for gaming the system when you were trying to do the same thing. But just a bit. Anything more would be name calling of course.
Look, I actually think Rightsize is likely to win March 3. You still have to request a ballot, and it is always easier to motivate folks to oppose something than to fight for a somewhat sympathetic cause (let’s vote for a validly voted on project that might increase traffic but has some benefits I like…huzzah! And the developer makes a bunch of money…)
But the level of angst and gnashing of teeth over a logical election date makes me wonder. Some of these posts have a level of anger that is about more than just an election schedule, yours included.
What Arthur said. @Marti: “. special interest group”? 5,000 + Newton voters?! Kinda sounds like maybe some might not be so keen on hearing what ‘the electorate’ (remember?!–those people who are PURPORTEDLY represented by the CC?!) want to hear. “… that’s not the way a representative democracy is supposed to work”. Pray tell, how is it then?!
Can someone who opposes holding the vote on March 3rd please give an actual reason for why you oppose that date? The only reasons offered so far are based on very shaky logic at best.
@David M was one of the few to offer numbers for why he opposed March 3rd:
“The data in the City’s memo clearly showed minimal difference between primary and city-wide special elections: 37% and 32% voter turnout, on average, respectively.”
While technically true, this is a misleading conclusion, because it includes 2012, when primary turnout was 12% (a Republican-only primary). Take out 2012, and the average turnout is 43%. And even that is probably an underestimate of the March 3rd turnout, given that 2016 saw 51% of eligible voters show up to the polls.
The data clearly shows that turnout will be highest on March 3rd. Anyone who argues against that data better have a damn good reason for why we shouldn’t go with March 3rd–the most democratic option.
The main reason seems to be “voters won’t be able to devote their full attention to the referendum question.” If you think this, then why aren’t you arguing tooth and nail against the city charter, which creates an insanely complex ballot each municipal election??
I couldn’t believe my ears at the 5 Councilors arguing against March 3rd. It was like watching poop stream out of the mouths of 5 well-dressed, highly-educated people. Go with the democratic option here. What are you afraid of?
I would have preferred a later date. Northland has the advantage of not having to raise money. We will not know until the 21st January if it is going to be 3rd March. I fully expect it will be 3rd March, but we can’t risk getting all the campaign materials printed. So its likely we shall not have any material to hand out until the beginning of February. Thats just a 5 week window of campaigning, where impeachment and primaries will suck all the oxygen out of the room.
We are also going to have to reach a wide audience, which isn’t in itself a bad thing, but it will cost more. Without materials, it will also be harder to raise money. February is probably the worst time of year to going knocking on doors.
Its to be expected. It always seem the odds are stacked against people when going up against Developers.
@Simon thanks for the first frank response to the election date question that I’ve yet to read from Right Size.
Given how frustrating it is to not have a confirmed date for the election you must be as upset as the “Yes on Northland” folks are at Council Norton and her four colleagues for their charter privilege stunt.
Finally common ground!
@Bluefootedbooby’s comment really captures everything well. It is preposterous that councilors argued that the Super Tuesday date isn’t best because things aren’t a “clean vote”. That makes absolutely no sense.
Blue also correctly points out that @David’s averages are on the extreme low end of what we can expect. I think it is a near certainty that turnout would be higher on Super Tuesday than a standalone election.
Even with David’s low predictions, it’s completely irresponsible to say that 37% is nearly equivalent to 32%. That is a difference of about 5,000 voters, which is almost as many people as signed the petition! And even with those low estimates, Super Tuesday still has the higher turnout!
There is a clear choice for the election date, and thankfully it appears that Super Tuesday will be chosen.
@Simon – you could have known now instead of having to wait until Jan. 21 if the 5 CCs hadn’t pushed the vote later. If you’re frustrated about the short notice, complain to them.
Last night reminded me how I thought court cases work. The attorneys keep information up their sleeves and use it at the last minute. I’ve since discovered that when you head to court a period of discovery is set where all the facts come out and are agreed upon before the trial (as much as possible anyhow)!
Perhaps if President Albright had shared the information she had, the Councilors might not have Chartered the item. Appears they were doing so with out all the information.
Instead President Albright smugly informed them of the additional information she had after they chartered the item. Seems dirty politics to me!
Yes, I am frustrated with the outcome. But I am more frustrated with the block voting in the city council right now!
Simon, all of the city councilors have the same information available to them about chartering a vote and how a veto referendums timeline works. President Albright didn’t present anything new and certainly wasn’t smug.
It seems that the councilors who chartered the vote were hoping the postponement would make the March 3 election date too soon to hold the referendum vote so fewer people were likely to vote. Now that’s dirty politics.
Thanks Simon for explaining RightSize’s valid reasons for wanting a later voting date for the referendum. Why are we rushing the date for this election? It seems purely at the desire of the Northland supporters who want to speed the process for this development.
Again, the Northland supporters didn’t want to let us vote on this project. Not letting people vote is equivalent of voter suppression. If you didn’t want to let people vote, you shouldn’t then get to pick a voting date that suits your purpose.
If the RightSize folks think they need more time to effectively campaign, than they should get that opportunity. It seems the Northland supporters are worried that giving RightSize an opportunity for voters to hear their position might result in the project getting voted down.
If that happens, that’s the democratic process. Please, there’s no reason this vote has to be on March 3.
“Northland supporters didn’t want to let us vote on this project. Not letting people vote is equivalent of voter suppression.”
Do we get to vote on Riverside too? How about Dunstan/ W. Newton or the California Street 40b? Oh… wait… we don’t. because that’s not how the system works. We elect people who do the work for us. We go to meetings, we voice our opinions, we write to them, and if we don’t like their decisions then we vote them out of office.
In the case of Riverside, our elected officials were not involved in the negotiations as it was negotiated by PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT ELECTED. If your concern is a lack of voice, you should be furious.
Thanks for explaining your reasoning, Simon and Arthur.
Where is the evidence of the Northland developers having an effect on the Councilors supporting March 3rd? At the meeting, I heard no Councilor mention any reason besides turnout, cost and logistics as for why the vote should be Super Tuesday.
It’s one thing to schedule an election based on needing enough time “for voters to hear [RightSize’s] opinion.” But it is very irresponsible to use that as a reason to support an election date that is all but guaranteed to yield lower turnout.
Removing its thin veil, the argument from the RSN crowd is: ’We know we will lose on 3/3 so let’s claim this isn’t fair because of timing. We deserve the chance to sway public opinion using our vast collection of money and resources, just like the Northland developers. And let’s claim that the later date is better, because voters will be able to understand the Yes or No question more clearly. That should make our intentions seem good and wholesome, and mask over the fact that we are afraid of a high turnout.’
It’s not like the Council moved the Mayoral election up by 2 months. This is a referendum. Let’s get the most people out to the polls as possible, and see where Newton stands on this issue.
The money being spent on delaying the referendum is such a disappointing misappropriation of funds. $107,000 could have been put towards an electric shuttle for NewMo (2019 Star ADA 14-seat shuttle bus, with 2 wheelchair positions costs $192,900) or reducing the costs for public school buses to increase ridership and reduce morning traffic congestion.
Simon – The four councilors had access to the identical information Councilor Albright received.
Assuming the referendum goes up for a vote during the primary, it will be very interesting to see how many voters actually select the referendum ballot. I know there has been a lot of talk that the outcome of the vote will be illustrative of just how pro or anti development Newtonians are and whether the pro development City Council is thus representative of voters perspective. But if there is a significant difference between the “turn out” on the primary vs the referendum. I believe it will suggest that the majority of Newton voters really don’t care or don’t pay attention, until a development project directly impacts them. We shall see.
Claire, I completely agree. I still think RightSize has a huge advantage because folks have to request a referendum ballot.
Simon, I appreciate the honest. There is never a “perfect day” for this type of thing. And if I was deeply involved as you are, I would bet that I would live and die by these decisions and whether they are fair in my view for my cause.
As a side note, while I’ve paid attention, I look forward to learning more about both sides argument. Perhaps we can set up posts for each side to argue its position for the forum. I wonder if a representative from both sides could write something up and send to Jerry.
@Jane
Did they?
From the memo from the clerk http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/100760
In particular
Ballots to printer 14 days before they must be available January 14, 2020
It would appear you know more than I. Perhaps you could let us know what additional information they had?
@Fig
We are trying to setup a debate on the Ken Parker NewTv show, and are also engaged with the local area councils to try and set up debates. On both fronts, timing is the issue.
I hope we can get it done. Our elected leaders are making it difficult.
Setting all of the debate about voting timing aside (while putting out there that I believe this vote should be held on March 3 and that I am disappointed by the “chartering” by some of my most respected councilors) – I would really like to understand what each side is advocating for. What does Right Size ideally want? Put it on paper. And what will Northland do if the referendum swings agains it? 40b? All commercial? I want to know what I’m voting for/against.
Simon – The councilors received a memo from the city clerk and it appears the four who chartered the item didn’t ask follow up questions. Why? I have no idea. You’d have to ask them.
Thanks Simon. Please post whatever public forums there are if you don’t mind. I think further discussions over the next two months will be good for the city, and while I certainly have an opinion on the timing of the vote, I do want to learn more about the project too. I know Washington Street quite well, Needham street…not so much.
Why are Rightsize Newton leaders claiming all 6,000 of their petition signatures represent voters against the Northland development?
I stop and sign most petitions I’m asked to when it comes to getting someone or something on the ballot. I’d bet less than half of the people who signed this petition even have a strong opinion on the matter.