John Hilliard from the Globe has just published this update on all things Northland, including last night’s council meeting.
Globe: ‘Development community watches as Newton referendum could upend Northland project’
by Village 14 | Jan 9, 2020 | Northland | 88 comments
Is Emily Norton purposely trying to be ironical here?
Michael,
Councilor Norton is correct in that the City Council should first fully consider and decide on the merits and substance of the petition before summarily sending it for City-wide election.
That may or may not be a fatal and legally challengeable flaw.
This is the more important quote:
Greg Vasil, CEO of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board:
“People will have great pause about doing business in Newton,” Vasil said. “To spend the time and money a developer does, [only] to be submarined by a local citizens group, that is too much of a risk.”
Maybe Newton’s new slogan should be: Did you love 1977? Then have we got the place for you!
What an embarrassment for Newton
The veneer of the narrative that “if you’re not gung-ho on high-density development, you’ve got your head in the sand” has faded. (Hey Greg, did you catch the reference?!)
Chuck & Ryan,
“Submarined” and “embarrassment for Newton”, yes, but NOT the fault of RightSize etc. It’s the fault of the complete lack of City elected leaders’ savvy in administering and skill in shepherding the process in recognition of the concerns and realities of a RightSize. We needed a hero like Councilor Gentile — and THAT’s the difference between Riverside success and Northland failure.
Jim: Repeating over and over and over that there was something wrong with the process or a lack of negotiations, modifications, compromises, etc. is a flat out lie. I repeat: It’s a lie.
Please stop lying.
What happened is that all of those things happened and some people didn’t like the outcome and are trying to overturn it, as is their right. Meanwhile A LOT of people (including a super majority of our elected city councilors) really like this project So Newton will likely vote on March 3 and then we will have an outcome.
@Pat – Hardly high density development. But certainly more dense than what exists today in much of the city.
@Jim
I’m sorry. I agree with you that City Council takes a good portion of the blame here for not making this process smoother. However, you’re wrong about everything else.
I don’t remember electing Randy Block to anything. So why he is telling the Globe “It’s fine that [developers] followed the rules, but maybe they have to do more than just follow the rules. Maybe they have to be smarter about how they work with a city,” Block said. “That would be taking more time working with neighborhood groups, and not trying to short circuit that.”
He wants developers to do more than follow the rules? Do you realize how that sounds?
Let me repeat: no one voted or elected Right Size Newton, or Randy Block, to anything. Yes, the neighbors get to voice their concerns, and they did. In meeting after meeting after meeting. Even with that City Council made a decision that was right FOR THE CITY OF NEWTON. Just because they managed to get a MINORITY of the city (3000 out of 88,000 isn’t a huge number) to sign a piece of paper, doesn’t mean that they represent anything. If that were the case, then we can make every municipal decision contingent upon getting signatures in front of Whole Foods. That’s an absolutely insane way to run a city.
We need a process that is consistent and repeatable. Right Size has taken a bad process and managed, somehow, to make it worse.
Also, while Newton gets this bit of PR showing what horrible, selfish people we are, Watertown is reaping the benefits. Tonight on WCVB’s Chronicle is a piece touting how amazing the community is, how it’s growing and how businesses are moving in.
Nice job Right Size. I’m sure Watertown appreciates all your hard work.
Greg “doth protest too much, methinks.”
Chuck,
I’m not saying the City’s process should have been “smoother” (strawman argument).
I’m saying, right or wrong, RightSize exists and the views of RightSize represent a sizable portion of the residents. There was a way for an executed City process to succeed in getting the job done (e.g. Riverside). The City Council — and the Mayor on her part — failed to get the job done. I say again, there were clear avenues for success over stubbornness — and, in fact, the City of Newton let down a developer with misplaced trust in that competency.
Greg,
I’m not entirely certain about the March 3 election date since the City Council should first fully consider and decide on the merits and substance of the petition before summarily sending it for City-wide election.
As I said, “that may or may not be a fatal and legally challengeable flaw.”
I still don’t know how many people Right Size represents. As far as I understand, the negotiation for Riverside was with LFIA, with Right Size overlapping as, essentially, the same group. That’s a tiny portion of the city, which is essentially Ward 4, precinct 1. That Ward/ precinct represented just 396 votes in the last election.
So as far as I can tell, you’ve got a group that, at best, represents maybe 400 voters telling the city what should be developed on a property that is not adjacent to their land and is of both city-wide and regional importance. How does this make any sense to you?
Sorry, got my precincts wrong. It’s 2, which is about 450 votes… so let’s call the number 500 to be generous.
Chuck,
I’d say that the views of RightSize, again whether right or wrong, are the views of wayyyyyy more than 400 Newton voters.
Can you even question that?
@Jim Epstein – the Council already voted unanimously (last night) to support their earlier decision. The only remaining decision is on what date to schedule the referendum.
@Jim I’m saying that for Riverside, that small number made the decision for the rest of us. And it’s assuming that every voter in Lower Falls supports that decision.
Right size Riverside was carful to tell the EDC that it’s separate and apart from Right Size Needham st. So who does “Right Size” represent?
I believe that if you’re not gung-ho on high-density development, you’ve got your head in the sand.
I like the message the referendum sends to our Corporate landlords: even if you can buy the council off by funding their pet projects, the citizens of Newton are not willing to sell the Garden City to private equity real estate investment corporations.
Next time, to avoid this mess, propose a project that actually complies with code rather than ask taxpayers to subsidize corporations with rezoning and outright waivers.
The bias in Hilliard’s Globe piece is palpable (as is the Globe’s coverage of development in Newton generally). This, for example: “Local advocates for affordable housing, environmental protection, and business favor Northland’s project, as does Mayor Ruthanne Fuller.” I and many like me support affordable housing, environmental protection, and legitimate business development, but strongly oppose the behemoth Northland has proposed for this site. I am opposed because the project is simply TOO BIG and will further clog Newton’s already traffic-clogged and decaying streets with air- and noise-polluting vehicular traffic while doing absolutely as little as possible in the way of affordable housing. I take offense at having my motives impugned, as they regularly are by pro-development rhetoric, which also frequently insinuates that opposition to the mega-developments springing up all over Newton is based on racial or ethnic bigotry. Nonsense. I am not opposed to development and actively welcome human diversity. What I and others like me oppose is the *kind* of development we’re seeing, with big, blocky look-alike buildings. mostly filled with pricey units, towering over our streets. It’s about density, not demographics.
Suggesting that the referendum on Northland is an attempt to thwart the will of the voters and the democratic workings of government is like suggesting that the impeachment of Donald Trump is a “coup” intended to undo the results of a valid election. Even if the 2016 presidential election *was* valid (something we may never know), impeachment is a legal, constitutionally mandated process designed to ensure a more rigorous level of accountability than elections alone can do. Referenda are also fully legal and serve a similar purpose. Newton voters like me know that our city is currently governed by a small and privileged elite who largely share the mind set of the developers. This is not to say they’re corrupt or necessarily ill-motivated. They are, however, limited in outlook, lacking in imagination, and conditioned to see things a certain way. Furthermore, results of the recent municipal election may reflect the power of incumbency and money, and the relative inexperience of challengers, more than anything else.
THE HOUSING CRISIS IS A TRANSPORTATION CRISIS. The State’s and the city of Boston’s abject failure to address this crisis means that Newton is being coerced into doing more than is reasonable to provide new housing for the Boston area, while more affluent communities further to the west do little. If there were a reliable, affordable, efficient system of rapid public transit reaching out from Boston (to the north and south as well as the west) it would be possible to build smaller, more human-scaled and neighborly housing that would change but not destroy the character of existing communities.
^^^ This!
Jerry,
Yes you are correct that a vote was taken, but there was absolutely no consideration, discussion, debate, addressing and/or decision on the merits and substance of the petition submitted over the City Council vote to grant the special permit/zoning. Any discussion on Wednesday evening (1/8/20) prior to City Council addressing the referendum election date was essentially that the Council would simply NOT even look at the petition, the only reason given, the existence of all the consideration PRIOR to the earlier City Council vote which, of course, predated the petition. So the City Council summarily dismissed the petition in advance of any actual consideration of the substance therein.
…and someone please fill me in on this: What’s so bad about 40B at Northland if it would thereafter grant the City of Newton safe harbor status preventing future 40B’s. At least the City of Newton would be getting something in return for the housing density there (along with providing more affordability). And as RightSize has pointed out, 40B still comes with protective restrictions.
I agree with Elizabeth: I am pro environmental, pro affordable housing and want commercial tax revenue.
What I want is a greater proportion of affordable housing instead of using the available space to build more luxury housing. Maybe most of the 5,500 signers want that too, or, as one poster said above, maybe they just signed to get the issue on the ballot. Let’s get this project renegotiated!
..or they were confused by what they were signing. Guess we’ll know more after March 3.
@GregReibman . Perusing another site it looks like @MattLai didn’t understand what he was signing either. “Kwok Matthew Lai: not claiming to be an expert, but if the Council has reversed their vote and were willing to renegotiate with Northland, there would be no need for ballot, right? If not the bad is mine, but not speaking for anyone else, that was my hope when I signed the petition.”
I wonder where Matt received his (mis) information… Seemed pretty clear that the Developer was not willing to re-negotiate after the council voted in favor.
The signatures were a vehicle to a ballot measure.
@isabella – The city council negotiated this for 2 years and there is no longer an opportunity to re-negotiate here after the council overwhelmingly voted for the project.
If RSN loses, then the project goes through and it would have cost the citizens of Newton time, money and energy. On the other hand if RS wins, Northland will go 40B and Isabelle, you will get lots and lots and lots and lots of affordable housing on Needham street.
As someone who views this as a glass half full… The ballot seems like a Win-Win for Newton.
Isabelle and Elizabeth, if we want to have significant amounts of new housing to be truly affordable, we’ve got to find another way. That means community development corporations, or transferring and building on surplus city land (which I suspect is very limited in Newton), or similar active actions.
Developer-driven affordable housing like at Northland means subsidizing market rate units. Market rate new construction such as this is inherently fairly expensive. It meets modern fire codes, building codes, is in move-in condition, and is laid out in a modern way. It’s great we can get some units this way, but this kind of development isn’t bringing the affordability we want strictly within the project boundary.
That’s not the whole story, though.
Studies I’ve seen say that this kind of private for-profit development *can* help drive down housing costs, but it does by relieving pressure on the market as a whole. People who really want to live in Newton and have the means will have the option to buy new and fancy, and they won’t be (for instance) buying up existing housing stock and renovating.
That takes pressure off both existing residents, new buyers of more modest means, and families looking to upgrade within Newton. Relieving market pressure helps everyone, except the people who want to cash out.
The ramifications can be quite far ranging. For instance, if families are able to upgrade to a larger house in Newton as their family grows, they will think less about adding an addition to their existing property. That means preserving our most affordable existing housing stock. I have two immediate neighbors who chose the house addition route simply because they couldn’t move within Newton.
I’m no expert in this field, and I’m not claiming to be. I’m just passing on what I’ve learned in trying to educate myself about this complex and important issue.
See here:
https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/new-construction-makes-homes-more-affordable-even-those-who-cant-afford-new-units
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/7/25/why-are-developers-only-building-luxury-housing
Jim, what petition? What legal document requires the city to reconsider the special permit? Not being snarky, I really don’t know and I can’t follow your legal argument.
I’d like the city council to consider lots of things. I could even petition them to do so. Doesn’t mean the vote is illegal if done on March 3. Help me figure out the ? in your Underwear Gnome chart.
[City council doesn’t do something — ? —-ILLEGAL ACTION]
Also, there is nothing wrong with 40Bs. They can be great. Really. Some are really good. But the local community around them tends to dislike them. For the wider city, a 40B might be an ok outcome. But I doubt the folks on Rightsize actually agree. It would neither be small nor negotiated.
In other words Jim, the City Council did exactly as they were supposed to do. No more. No less. They rejected the petition to reconsider the special permit. They don’t have to go back and reconsider the project to do so. They now need to set a date for the vote. Seems clear cut to me. Where is the action that subjects this to challenge?
What Elizabeth and Jim said. The noise is deafening, just as predicted 😉
Pat, most of the noise seems to be coming from folks upset they didn’t get their way. That happens. But we can’t get what we want all of the time. 😉
Let’s get this project renegotiated!
Some questions:
1) Having negotiated with the elected officials of the town, considering and the Needham Street development/visioning, and solicited (if not – as some say – listened, heard, or incorporated) public feedback through meetings … who will Northland be negotiating with?
2) presuming that this entity is RightSize, how will completing negotiations ensure that a permit for the negotiated project? Because…
3) have all of the opponents of the project caucused, elected a leader, and agreed to abide by the negotiations? OR…
4) have we discovered that it only takes a few dozen signature collectors with photo copied handouts and misinformation (the one I met said that 40B development requires local support.)
If we get down to #4, how many determined opponents willing to file papers and collect signatures does it take to reverse the decision of our elected officials? 12? 24? 60?
If this passes, and I were Northland, I wouldn’t be negotiating. I’d build by right or sell the whole thing off and be done with it.
By right – and I’m open to correction – would be limited to either 10,000 SF of commercial per parcel, or re-habbing the existing non-conforming buildings per Newton zoning, or to 638 units (1% of Newton housing units per the 2010 census is 319 units, a single 40B development cannot add more than 2% new units) per parcel – assuming each parcel is developed under a separate 40B application.
So, my guess is if this passes, say goodbye to the piano mill – it covers almost the entire footprint of it’s parcel – and say hello to 2,000 to 6,000 new neighbors in 1,800+ new units.
As always, this is my personal opinion, and has nothing to do with my employer.
Folks would do well to listen to the Vox Weeds podcast featuring guest Katherine Levine Einstein, BU Professor: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/voxs-the-weeds/e/66321406
Or read: https://www.politicsofhousing.com/research/neighborhood_defenders_handout.pdf
She has written a book called Neighborhood Defenders: Participatory Politics and America’s Housing Crisis. She studied 97 communities in eastern Mass.
From that one page summary:
“Public meetings offer opportunities for neighborhood defenders to obstruct or delay unwanted projects by voicing concerns they might have about a development. Largely motivated by the concentrated costs of proposed housing development, these individuals are unrepresentative of their broader communities. ”
* Compared with voters, commenters were disproportionately white, male, older, and homeowners.
* These trends persist in high-and low-cost cities, and contribute to an inadequate housing supply in highly desirable neighborhoods.
* Neighborhood defense in advantaged neighborhoods pushes development into less affluent communities, leading to gentrification and displacement.”
Folks that oppose development are more vocal than folks that support or are neutral (I’d say the latter, especially).
This won’t really be solved at the local level, unfortunately, so I’d urge folks to support Gov Baker’s Housing Choice Initiative which allows for towns to adopt zoning changes with a simple majority than a 2/3rd supermajority.
@Nelson: #followthemoney
The vitriol here from folks who just got the referendum they wanted is bizzare.
You just reached a major milestone towards your goal. Mazel tov!
Couldn’t you be just a little bit happy for a couple days?
We could save some time and money if we used this voting day to put a ballot question regarding the override. Like give the voters, informed or not, educated on the issues or not, how much extra are you willing to pay to live in Newton? $500 a year? $1000 a year? $2000 a year? Or are you willing to trade some density on outlying areas for stable taxes? If the $2000 a year override wins, then maybe we don’t need any more development.
Thank you Elizabeth and Isabelle for your well written arguments. I completely agree. I think everyone agrees that the Northland property could be improved. What would be wrong with 400 units instead of 800?
If the State really wants more housing, why doesn’t the State contribute to this project so the developer could still make money, but with less units.
A smaller development would contribute to less traffic which is better for the environment. And with less units we could get more green space. Again better for the environment.
What’s wrong with that scenario? Come on all of you true environmentalists-let’s support the project, but with a reduced foot print.
I love all the responses about what Northland should do with the property that it owns. I’ll tell you what, let me decide what color your house should be and then you can tell them exactly what they can do with their property.
As a city, we don’t have the power here. We think we do, we think we can set rules and people will live by them, but rules are funny things. When done well, they set a tone and allow something to get built that makes our city more interesting. Too restrictive and they chase builders away.
Let’s say you put in a rule that says no building can be taller than 2 stories. Sure, go ahead. Then nothing will get built. The current buildings will grow old, they won’t be renovated (it costs too much for what they can get in rent) and we’ll have empty storefronts.
Put in a rule that allows a 40 story building and…well…. you still may not get a 30 story building. It would cost too much to build here and won’t get filled, so why build it?
This is about balance. We need to balance what makes sense for the business of the developers with what we need as a city. It’s not an easy thing. If you think you can make money by making it smaller then by all means, raise the money, buy the property and develop the land.
@ Arthur Jackson, My sentiments exactly. Nothing wrong with a smaller project. Why not 400 housing units instead of 800?
The current project of 800 housing units is too large. The development needs to be scaled back.
I am truly shocked at some of the arguments from RightSize supporters here, especially on the topic of the environment.
Increased urban/suburban density is one of the best ways to combat the climate crisis ,as it reduces the mass pollution from commuters driving long distances to urban areas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/opinion/california-home-prices-climate.html
@Elizabeth, you state “I and many like me support … environmental protection” but oppose Northland because “it’s about density”.
It has been shown that increased density close to urban areas has dramatic positive benefits on the environment. So if you truly support the environment, density is in fact the right answer.
@Arthur further perpetuates this false narrative by saying “A smaller development would contribute to less traffic which is better for the environment”. In reality, a smaller development means that less people would have the opportunity to live closer to the city, and thus more people would be driving further distances to work.
More dense housing is good for the environment. If you oppose the project for other reasons, fine. But please stop peddling lies.
More dense housing may be good for the environment only when it does not further way overly congest the existing transportation modes.
Massive new housing recently and currently going up in Allston, great.
Massive new housing to go up on Needham Street at Northland — with nothing but new mostly empty during the day shuttle buses further congesting the massively already congested one lane Needham Street taking the idling riders to the standing room only Highlands T Stop — a joke (insofar as helping the environment)!
@Jim, just so I summarize your comments correctly: Housing there is good; housing here is bad.
I’m no longer shocked by lies, half-truths, misrepresentation of facts, name calling or anything else that residents will use to attempt to keep housing developments from being built in Newton but I am still saddened that these tactics are the norm here. I’m truly not sure why residents and certain councilors get angry enough to spread lies about their cause. Newton will not be doomed either way.
If someone, or a group of someones, feels strongly about a cause and believes that a certain course of action is the one that should be followed, then s/he should definitely explain why to others – particularly to the voting body responsible for making decisions. There are many ways to do the above – attending meetings to comment, writing to the governing body and speaking to individual councilors. There are also remedies included in the charter if the vote doesn’t go the way that someone wanted called a veto referendum.
Now that these procedures have been exhausted, the only thing left is for the voters to decide whether to vote for the decision made by the governing body or to vote to veto that vote. That’s all there is too it. Voting yes or no depending on how the ballot question is written.
If increased density was really about “saving the environment” then the developers & city would allow ZERO parking (disability except) or at least only allows electric cars (hybrids or plugins). Literally removing 1000 cars off the road would be a great achievement… but no, its not about the environment but developer profits..
Chuck T,
Uh, no, that is not what I said nor is it a summary of what I said.
But what you said is what we call a strawman.
Marti,
You say “spread lies” — but you don’t say what those lies are. Are we missing something here?
@bugek We tried. We asked for less parking than they wanted. They balked several times at the lower parking we asked for. The folks who finance real estate developments aren’t ready yet to risk apartments with less than 1 space per, unless right on top of a T stop. We will keep trying on future developments. But a 40B can put it as many parking spaces as they want. No review.
Andrea,
Won’t that simply encourage use of Uber — further clogging the roads?
And won’t that discourage Newton moms and dads from taking their kids to the new city subsidized splash park?
@Jim, you quite literally said that housing in Allston is “great”, but housing on Needham Street is “a joke.”
No straw man. Just NIMBYism at its finest.
Wellesley just voted to have new buildings (rentals and some retail) to have electricity only: no gas, no fossile fuel, with roofs solar ready.
I would be happy with the same.
Andreae
In order to get real green development we should just tell the developer to go 40b to meet the threshold to stop this blackmail. Going forward, new development can really help the environment
– zero parking spaces
– zero fossil fuel
This would not be virtue signalling and have real immediate positive affect on the environment
Chuck T,
I said more than that. This is getting quite tedious on your part, or perhaps you are playing.
In any event, I said that the more dense housing in Alston was great because it does not “further way overly congest the existing transportation modes.”
Whereas, the “massive new housing to go up on Needham Street at Northland…does further way overly congest the existing transportation modes…with nothing but new mostly empty during the day shuttle buses further congesting the massively already congested one lane Needham Street taking the idling riders to the standing room only Highlands T — a joke (insofar as helping the environment)!”
I wonder if Newton has gone ” development crazy “.
There is no housing crisis in Newton.
Boston has a housing problem. Boston wants to add new commercial growth to secure its financial structure. It needs places for the workers to live.
Adding commercial space is advantageous for a city. Adding housing is not. New housing brings new costs that burden the municipal budget.
Using commercial land for housing is ill conceived.
If we want to provide low and moderate income housing why not do just that. Lets avoid building housing with a $50,000.00 a year rent. Let’s use that space to increase our commercial tax base.
It can be done if we really want to do it.
Peter: Please watch this.
@ Peter. My understanding is that they wanted more commercial space, but as part of to ongoing dialogue over the past two years they negotiated less commercial space due to traffic concerns. (The standard view is commercial is 10x more trips than residential).
More broadly, it seems like every one of the RSN discussion points is viewed in a vacuum. ‘Why don’t they build 400 units, Why don’t they phase it, Why not eliminate all parking, etc.’
They are a for profit entity owning private land. Something will get built there and will be worse than what has been negotiated and reviewed over the last two years.
It almost appears as if RSN has a bit of a bone to pick as they were not front and center to the negotiations. yet Northland had over 100 community forums and if one reviews the design changes and benefits over the course of the project reviews, they certainly have given a significant boost to the requirements of the residents.
Attorney Harrington,
Exactly!
Either enable Northland to go full commercial or let it go full 4oB (and Newton will “safe harbor” out of future 40B’s in one fell swoop).
Newton is about to more than double down on the huge mistake it already made on Needham Street more than 20 years ago supplanting a needed Super Stop-N-Shop with the Newton tax burdening Avalon Apartments — and now with vastly more expensive luxury apartments.
Unfortunately, going forward, the Northland Developer has teamed up with misguided global warming enthusiasts who claim Northland being maximum residential, as opposed to commercial, is required for Newton to do its part to combat climate change.
I guess we’ll have to wait until the outcome of the referendum vote to see if there are enough Newton voters with sanity on this.
Attorney Harrington,
Yes take a look at Greg’s fallacious Chamber of Commerce video which says that developing maximum housing such as at Northland will actually enable and is prerequisite to the more needed Newton commercial development (as if there are better spots for available commercial than Northland). And beyond that it claims that these expensive luxury apartments will bring Newton aimed diversity in terms of race and less wealthy residents moving to Northland.
So Jim are you saying that Seana Gaharin, David Sellers and the other business people in the video are lying about the need for more housing?
Greg,
I didn’t say that, or necessarily say that.
I simply stated what is said in the video.
The video speaks for itself.
(If you want me to cite exactly where in the video there is stated what I said is stated in the video, feel free to let me know — and I will also give you the exact quotations.)
@Jim: I believe you are referring to the quote from Jim Damicis, a well-respected economic development expert who was hired by the city (not the chamber) to create an economic development strategy for the city. Damicis, not the chamber, drew the direct link between housing and growing our commercial tax base.
Rather than spending the afternoon, repeating the same talking points that you’ve been repeating for months, why not read Damicis’ report and come back with a fresh new perspective?
Greg,
In view of my use of the word “fallacious”, let me clarify/revise the first part of my suggestion to Attorney Harrington from, “Yes take a look at Greg’s fallacious Chamber of Commerce video which says that…” to “Yes take a look at Greg’s fallaciously represented Chamber of Commerce video which says that…”
Does that satisfy the point you are making?
Peter Harrington,
Newton absolutely has a housing crisis, even forgetting about new Boston workers.
Teardowns, McMansions, “buy cash with no inspection”, families priced out of Newton, older residents unable to find places to move to smaller places that have the accessibility they need. Neighbors see this stuff all the time.
All are pieces of a housing crisis that ordinary Newton residents face constantly.
All symptoms of undersupply. Undersupply puts pressure on all aspects of the housing market, not just new units. This isn’t complicated. Most people in Newton can look outside their front doors and see evidence of it.
You can tinker with fixing some of the symptoms, and thoughtful people can agree with how
much we change. At some point you have to at least acknowledge that the root cause exists.
And unaddressed, it will continue to change the character of Newton. People of more means always have more housing choices than those that don’t. They can rent the new apartment. They can raise their offer. They can forgo the inspection. They can win the bid. They can add an addition. People with lesser means can’t. This isn’t rich versus poor. It’s neighbor versus neighbor. If we do nothing to ease the local market, that’s the reality we accept. It’s a choice.
We can, as some people here do, lament that Boston keeps expanding commercially and providing new job opportunities. I say that’s short-sighted. Good job opportunities for Newton residents supports our local businesses and our local economy. It provides social stability in an increasingly fractious world. If our biggest problem is that people are finding jobs and want to live in Newton, I’ll take it over many of the alternatives. Detroit, say.
Of course we can’t fix our housing problem alone, or completely, and yes, we are at the mercy of demands of Boston’s economic engine. But housing isn’t so fluid that gains we make will immediately be filled in with new residents. We can be smart about things and at least make incremental improvements in our situation. Not for “others”, if that matters. For people who live in Newton right now.
You may rightly wonder if Newton’s gone “development crazy “. Speculation is something we should be concerned about, since inflated land prices make many of our shared goals more difficult to attain. On the other hand, we’ve hardly been growing organically, or at all, over the last twenty years either. Perhaps we’d be better able to handle this increased development pressure if we’d actually planned better for growth over the last thirty years.
For instance, we’re far from agreeing on the future of zoning in the city. We’re literally living in the 1950’s from a zoning perspective. That directly impacts the many who need a variance or special permit. We seemingly have no civic ability to make changes to even completely broken things.
Finally, yes, transportation and transit. Again, we don’t control our own destiny in transit. There still has to be a sea change in transit. That has to happen to support our lives and our planet now. Housing needs don’t stop as a result. We have to address both. Constantly.
Has anyone asked Northland will they do if the referendum swings agains it? 40b? All commercial? I want to know what I’m voting for/against.
ANP, your comment about what voters will be voting for or against brings up a pertinent point. No one knows what will happen if the veto referendum prevails.
There is no plan, nothing, nada. Northland will be hoping that the city council vote will be upheld not sharing its plans for losing – if it does. The city councilors who voted for the special permit will also be hoping for a win.
As for those who want this veto referendum, they just want to stop Northland without any alternative plan. So you will be voting between accepting the city council’s decision and vetoing it. That’s all there is.
Thanks Greg. From that report Executive Summary:
* The City is essentially fully built out and there are limited parcels available for new development.
* Almost all projects will have to be renovations or redevelopment projects. * In order to grow the commercial tax base, it will be essential to look for opportunities in the villages and
commercial corridors.
– To support commercial development, it will be necessary to make transportation improvements and to increase both the number and types of residential units to attract and retain a more diverse population.
– Improvements in the development review process to make it more predictable and efficient will be critical to attracting more development to the key areas where the City would like to see increased economic activity.
Folks don’t seem to understand that less dense housing leads to sprawl which leads to more driving which means more traffic, rinse and repeat. If you have high enough density, you don’t have to offer parking. Newton doesn’t meet this criteria.
Sharing a completely Newton moment. Thursday while visiting a favorite local business, the owner thanked me for voting to move forward on Northland. I laughed about how well informed he was. He said one of his prior customers spent several minutes “complaining about all these people who want to build more housing in Newton instead of telling people who can’t afford to live in Newton to move elsewhere.” This business owner does not live in Newton. He can’t afford it. Instead he lives 30 miles away, a drive that can take well over an hour. If he could live in Newton or nearby he would. Think of all the extra time he could spend with his young children and or the additional business he could do if he didn’t spend 2 hours a day in a car or the impact of forcing him to drive so far to get to work.
Alicia,
Does this man have any idea of how high the rents are to be in any if not most of the currently projected Northalnd aparments??? (which he feels he can afford as opposed to any other current housing in Newton).
Would seem preferable from that perspective for you to join those opposing Northland and supporting the referendum, so the alternative of full 40B is a real possibility at Northland. Which would also serve in one fell swoop to achieve Newton’s 40B safe harbor.
Makes sense. Doesn’t it?
Jim, as I said to ANP, the veto referendum vote will be to accept the city council’s vote or not with no other plan in sight. You, along with the rest of us, have no idea what will happen if the city council’s vote to give Northland a special permit is vetoed.
Your argument that a 40B will be built is purely speculation like the smaller project many of the petition signers were told they would get if enough signatures were collected.
From your speculation that “a full 40B” will be built instead, it seems you don’t actually know what a 40B development entails or even what it is. Some of the signature gatherers told folks that a 40B was affordable housing – one was the same as the other. It’s not.
Echoing your sentiments Alice: I follow Mr. Money Mustache who is an advocate of Financial Independence, Retire Early (FIRE) (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com).
One of things he pushes for is movement AWAY from vehicular or even public transportation and walking/running/biking from your home to your workplace. You get exercise (it’s a requirement to get to work) so there’s no excuses. It makes no sense, and I tend to agree, to live far from where you work. Perhaps that’s privilege speaking, but at the same time the housing prices are ridiculous in Newton and I argue it would be better for everyone if they stabilized or actually decreased.
With this in mind, we should be considering more mixed use. There should be commercial/office buildings in residential areas, and if there are larger developments, there should be larger commercial buildings within walking/biking distance.
Nelson,
You are welcome to sell your home below market value to a deserving family.
To ask retirees and folks who have sacrificed financially to live in Newton all these decades to give money away from their nest egg… thats your privilege speaking
@Peter Harrington
Boston isn’t across a vast ocean and located on a separate continent. Like it or not, we share a state, a border, and an economy with Boston.
The cost of housing has reached crisis proportions exactly because of your line of thinking. It is not the only crisis caused or made worse by those who feel no sense of obligation to those they share a community with (or country, for that matter)
Greg,
Since the report you want me to read regarding the two items I reported from the Chamber of Commerce video you wanted me to view (commercial is needed for and prerequisite to housing and Northland type housing should be aimed for racial and economic (less affluent) diversity) is 127 pages, can you summarize it as it pertains to these two item. I wasn’t aware or focusing on what specific individual was saying what — rather what the video was reporting.
In any event, are you really saying we taxpayers paid for this as a contracted report???
@Bugek, I’ll address the merits of your comment, even though it doesn’t deserve it because you didn’t say anything of substance. Selling my house – or others’ houses – below market is dumb and doesn’t accomplish anything. People are neither deserving or undeserving of whatever price the market sets for the house.
Should I feel bad for folks like Randy Block whose home was purchased for $293,000 in 1990 and now is worth an estimated $1.3 million? Or should I feel bad that if he sells he’s only getting $1.2 million?
It’s not a net good for society for housing and rents to continue increasing as they are, consuming a larger and larger percentage of people’s incomes. The same can be said for college tuition.
Nelson,
If prices are truely too high, they wont sell… the prices will be reduced until they sell.. its called the market (as opposed to communism)
Until sales stop abruptly, the prices are not too high as there are people buying. Sorry if the current buyers are somehow evil or undeserving because they worked hard in life to afford what they can.
Until living in a good school district,low crime and 8 miles to a major job center is a god given right regardless of education and income…
I would love to work as an overpaid employee of hot tech startup… but the reality is I cannot due to my low intelligence..
Do i bang on their doors insisting they hire me? or do i try to improve my situation by going back to school. Do i demand that more companies start in Boston until they lower the bar for me?
We have an education and transportation crisis. There would be a HUGE amount of affordable houses within 1 hr commute of Boston if the commuter rail was run correctly..
Until i see historic districts in Boston torn down for high rise housing, newton has zero responsibility to create housing for Bostons own mismanagment of housing… unless of course they want to share the commercial revenue.
However, if Massachusetts were to promise transportation improvements in exchange for density… we should. Waban having low density and T stop is quite shameful. Their councilor should be screaming to fix this injustice..
Nelson – Publicly reporting on the personal possessions/property of a neighbor is really bad form. No need to go there to make a point.
@Jane, it’s all public record, took only one minute of googling. Don’t cook in the kitchen if you can’t take the heat. RSN leaves a bad, negative taste in my mouth which is too bad as I think communities should definitely have a say in developments that affect them. The negative, icky way that they’ve conducted themselves is not behavior I would want to emulate.
@Bugek, constrained housing supply (from zoning to neighborhood defenders to lots of other factors) leads to higher prices. No big deal except that it increases inequality, the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Usually we’re OK if the rich get richer but not at the expense of the poor getting poorer. Bezos can make his billion but not if he’s screwing over hundreds of thousands of entry level employees. If Bezos makes his billion and his workers are doing all right – folks are OK with this.
Appalled to think that MY TAX DOLLARS paid for a bogus piece of
self-serving propaganda skewed toward a goal these developers desire. When did this happen!? #followthemoney
Too many times, people are accused of spreading “lies”. Guess what….
LIES ARE SOMEONE ELSE’S TRUTH, THAT YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH
No matter how you slice it, there is a population of Newton who supports big development and a population who does not. The difference is those who support, controls the majority of the Council and online posts like this. While those opposed get shut down for applauding during a Land Use meeting (while the Council applauds Bill Humphrey and his Northland tilted speech ) and fight twice as hard to scrap together signatures for a referendum.
Matt, the statement yelled that, “lies are someone else’s truth, that you do not agree with” is a lie. Unless I missed the news that the national administration has passed a new federal law saying citizens must believe that lies and truth are the same, they are not.
Marti,
There IS known alternative to Northland: 40B developments which can provide much truer affordable housing there and achieve safe harbor for all of Newton from future 40B’s, or, much needed, revenue-wise, fuller commercial development.
The above is the truth, not a lie.
Jim, unless you have some one to back your statement up from Northland or any other developer working with Northland, then you, as well as the rest us, have no idea what will happen to that property if the special permit is vetoed.
Yes, alternatives exist – that’s a fact – but there are many of them and leading residents to think you know which ones will be chosen is a misrepresentation of that fact.
I still don’t believe you know what a 40B entails or what the statute actually says because your statement that
makes no sense.
What is “much truer affordable housing?”
Northland has already explored the alternative of building more commercial and studies reflected that there isn’t enough access to support that much commercial at that space. I don’t really think you would support that either because it generates more traffic than residential. Of course studies showed that Riverside would support even more commercial but Right Size along with some residents of Lower Falls maneuvered to get less. Why not question that?
Marti,
I don’t question Riverside because there — thanks to Councilor Gentile — the City got the job done (without the protracted dissension we now face at Northland).
And if Northland is rejected at the polls, of course it will go, at least in part, 40B and/or commercial. Unfortunately, due to the collective lack of “sechel” on the part of our city leaders, a somewhat scaled-back “Northland”, the best option of all, has been foreclosed (because it would require a whole new special permit process).
What Jim and Matt said. Developers don’t want to go 40B, as I’ve said before on other threads. The $$ they want isn’t there. But it WOULD bring us to safe harbor. Isn’t that what everybody wants?! Like hello….. this is what we get for the CC not growing a pair. 🙁
How wonderful to have experts like Pat, Jim and Matt who know what developers want and don’t want to do.
Greg,
I didn’t say what developers want. I said what the Northland site developer(s) will do.
Again, that is, “if Northland is rejected at the polls, of course it will go, at least in part, 40B and/or commercial. Unfortunately, due to the collective lack of “sechel” on the part of our city leaders, a somewhat scaled-back “Northland”, the best option of all, has been foreclosed (because it would require a whole new special permit process).”
You think I’m off on this? How so?
Perhaps you feel uncomfortable to address this because, as I feel, you and the Chamber of Commerce steadfastly rejected and refused any “real” negotiation with RightSize/its supporters and community allies (in contrast to Councilor Gentile’s mode to success at Riverside) — thereby joining with our lack of savvy local political leaders, in being wholly responsible for preventing that best option.
https://village14.com/2019/07/30/is-the-city-of-newton-lacking-transparency-and-rushing-decisions/