On Jan. 2, one day after she was sworn in to the Newton City Council, the newly elected Ward 3 Councilor Julia Malakie filed an “urgent” request with the Newton Historical Commission to landmark the Washington Street used car dealership pictured above and six other West Newton Buildings for landmark status.
Also on Malakie’s list is this property at 978 Watertown Street
…also on Councilor Malakie’s urgent landmark list is the Bank of America Building on Chestnut Street.
Do these buildings look “historic” to you? They don’t to me.
Nonetheless, it appears that a city councilors have the unique power to request landmark status, without even notifying the property owners in advance. And under current regulations, property owners must only be given two weeks notice when their property is about to be given landmark status. That’s what happened in this case: Councilor Malakie tells me she did not speak with any of the propriety owners in advance and the owners were only notified about a week and a half ago about a hearing on the request that’s happening Thursday, Jan. 23 at 7 p.m. in Room 205 at City Hall.
Here’s the full list of sites Malkie is seeking to protect.
- 1253 Washington Street,
- 1173 Washington Street
- 978 Watertown Street,
- 1239-1247 Washington Street
- 1235 Washington Street
- 1 Chestnut Street
Greg, actually some of those do. The Bank of America one in particular.
Not seeing the car dealership as historic. And I’d hope for a better use for that land than a parking lot for used cars.
But that corner with the police annex and the boa building isn’t a stretch.
As for not informing the owners, that was a mistake even if possible due to city councilor power.
Folks can be partially right you know…
I paused for a little about the Bank of America building too Fig. But it was built in 1932 to be a bank by the Newton Trust Company. As best as I could research there’s nothing historic about the Newton Trust Company or the Colonial Revival Style architecture (certainly we have many more buildings and homes in Newton that are better examples). Yes it looks nice but is that enough of a reason to landmark it?
How does one decide if something is “historic”? Are there defined parameters that must be met or is this just one person making a decision on her own?
What does landmark status mean in terms of property rights? I thought it only meant that you’d have to provide notice if you were planning to demolish a building or make other substantial changes; but that notice did not prohibit any changed uses. Thus, my understanding is that it provides others with a chance to comment and make objections or suggestions but not otherwise limit what you can do.
In contrast, if a property has a Preservation Restriction, then the city has a right to limit changes. But I don’t think the city can impose a PR on a property without the owner’s agreement.
Am I wrong about any of the above?
The building housing Sweet Tomatoes and also the one housing the CVS are certainly historic, though IMHO the CVS building was drastically harmed by its most recent renovation.
Coincidentally, Universal Hub posted a link today to BPL’s new historic-map tool (Atlascope), and here’s West Newton Square in 1917: https://atlascope.leventhalmap.org/#view:share$base:000$overlay:39999059015824$zoom:17.89$center:-7928803.921169123,5213430.082241334$mode:glass$pos:391
I’d argue that those two (and the BofA building and ex branch library / now police annex) are worth preserving. Some of the others on that list, maybe not so much. Some seem selected specifically to throw a wrench into the Dunstan East 40B.
This is from Councilor Malakie’s letter to the Newton Historical Commission sent back in May of 2019 when she submitted to put three Washington Street properties on the list for an 18 month demolition delay.
If I remember my business history correctly, in the 1930s property owners around the country removed the top few floors of commercial properties to reduce costs, but to create something that could cover the taxes. These “taxpayer” properities were one-story in places like W. Newton and Newtonville, but 2 stories in places like New York City. Some were well dessigned and remain somewhat signficant, some had the bare minimum put on them to keep them alive.
My question: is this an architectural movement worth preserving? The W. Newton street-front properties, of which many of them are taxpayers that simply survived, worth saving as-is?
Related: do we want to preserve Newton’s car culture relics, like an old gas station? If this one gets saved, why not others, as each one could lay claim to a particular point in time? The Newtonville Service Station comes to mind as an example from one era. Should that also have landmark status? Is that a best use of streetfront?
I think the B of A building is kinda neat and historic. I would like it to stay.
The car dealership should go. That’s an example of something that drags down Washington Street. It strikes me as odd that anyone would try to say it’s historic and worth saving. This kind of nonsense is why I was so disappointed in Makakie’s victory.
Without first speaking with property owners? I’m not surprised. It’s not only a lazy approach to an important issue, but also another example of the lack of respect Newton’s elected “leaders” have for the people they represent.
I would actually agree with Councilor Malakie’s contention that neglect does not justify demotion. By the same token “old” does not equate to “historic” and neither does “pretty.” What does it signify? Why is this the best use of the property? What makes this unique to the city? What can our future generations learn from this? Just as with the relics that our parents and grandparents want us to keep in our homes… we can’t save everything.
Any building built before 1950 can be considered “historic.” To “landmark” a building is something altogether different, with a different set of criteria. From city’s website: “Landmark designation offers the highest level of protection for properties determined to be the most historically significant in the city.” This comes from 20-60 of Newton’s ordinances. To be clear, the intent here was to say that there are properties which are deemed historic and preferentially preserved, there are historic properties in a historic district, there are historic buildings eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, there are properties which are actually listed on the National Register of Historic Places (some of which are landmarked as well), and then after all of those designations there are buildings which are so amazingly historic and significant to Newton that they are locally landmarked.
I sent an email to Councilor Malakie on Jan. 9 in my capacity as president of the Newton-Needham Regional Chamber, writing:
Councilor Malakie has yet to respond.
Does this mean someone could target my private residence for lanmark status (against my wishes) simply because its old or was onced owned by someone locally famous or was designed by an architect which have other land marked homes?
Maybe i should prempt the possibility and start adding additions to it now…
Rubbish and exactly what I expected from this councilor … and why I did not vote for her
Julia has been trying to land mark buildings ever since there was a hint of development in the air as a member of the Newton Village Alliance and other groups and now on a blog of her own. So of course this action was the first thing she would do as a council member – her profound dislike of any change on Washington Street is why people voted for her.
On her blog list, the only property I see that is worth taking a look at is the Brezniak-Rodman funeral home at 1251 Washington Street.
From her blog:
On the city’s landmark page
This was a nasty move to try to get her way without consulting the property owners.
Brezniak FH is the only property worth taking a look at? What about the Davis Hotel building (Sweet Tomatoes at ground level?) built in 1831? And what about the West Newton Historic District? I don’t know that each individual building deserves landmark status, but if all – or even most – of the buildings, which are elements of the historic district, are replaced, then there’s no historic district.
Tricia, I was talking about the three listed on her blog not the whole West Newton Historic District.
Devra First had a great article in the Globe about the closing of old historical restaurants in Boston. She touched on the theme of false nostalgia, which I think is appropriate to this discussion of landmark status. She closed with this:” But change itself isn’t inherently bad, or inherently good. Sometimes it burns what we love to the ground. And sometimes it makes way for something new, and maybe something better.”
We need something better in our village centers, and not a false memory of Newton before the turnpike. These are structures that have outlived their useful life.
If you genuinely care about preserving a building, you ought to speak with its owner. Why on Earth would she not reach out to them? It makes the whole exercise look like a political machination rather than public service.
Washington Street is an epic urban failure. Why anyone would want to preserve it in its current state (which is obviously Malakie’s purpose) is beyond my comprehension.
Thank you, guys, for finding my some of my past writing on historic preservation. This is not a new concern, and if you watched the W3 NewTV/LWV debate I brought it up then, too. And I’m glad at least some of you appreciate at least some of the buildings.
For anyone wondering why I nominated the buildings I did now, you can read the full letter I sent to the Historical Commission below. Essentially it’s a combination of some that I can’t believe haven’t been landmarked already, and some that are in most imminent danger of demolition, so that the Historical Commission will weigh in before they are gone. I agree that some buildings in the National Register-listed West Newton Village Center Historic District seem more important than others. But from reading the Mass Historical Commission writeup for that district, it was clear that historic value goes beyond appearances, so I chose to include all three of the buildings in that district that are currently on demolition delay, and let the Historical Commission do their job of evaluating. It is a multi-meeting process, as described in this memo, which you can find in the Friday Packet: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/101121
People may want to think about what buildings in their own villages they value and don’t want to lose, and whether they want to speak up for them now to their city councilors, or wait until demolition is more imminent.
Here is my letter to the NHC:
@Greg, I’m surprised you feel Councilor Malakie’s nominations are ‘irresponsible’. She followed the current process allowed under our City Ordinances. Moreover, it’s hard to believe a smart developer like Mr. Korff didn’t understand the potential for landmark designation when he purchased his properties or approached potential partners like those mentioned by @Marti. One document cited in your post notes that several already appear on the National Register of Historic Places. If he didn’t, I’m not sure that’s the City’s problem.
Interestingly, Ward 3 At Large Councilor Andrea Kelley together with several colleagues is attempting to alter the process by passing a moratorium on the landmarking of historic buildings. http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/100946/01-10-20%20Planning%20Memo.pdf
This measure which didn’t pass last year was discussed at the 1/13/20 Zoning Committee hearing. It contains two interesting provisions…
1) The moratorium as written can extend to December 31, 2020 – one month after the 18 month demolition delay passed in May 2019 for 1253 Washington Street and 1239-1247 Washington Street expires. This may be an uncanny coincidence, but it definitely is a benefit to Mark Development.
2) While City Councilors will be temporarily barred from making Landmark nominations the Mayor, the Director of Planning and Development and the Commissioner of Inspectional Services – both of whom answer to the Mayor – won’t be affected. Only one branch of our City Government is being restricted.
If Mr. Korff or other owners don’t agree with Councilor Malakie’s nominations, they’re free contact her and other City officials to share their concerns. And, an individual owner can seek relief in Superior Court.
Development on Washington Street is going to happen and it should. It also should happen with the same urgency in villages like Waban and Newton Centre where the Green Line provides better access to rail transit – a topic covered in a recent post from @Chuck. I applaud Councilor Malakie’s efforts to ensure that buildings the Newton Historic Commission deems worthy of Landmark status have every opportunity to receive it. Let the City’s experts decide.
In closing, two more considerations that other V14 posters are better equipped to discuss knowledgeably than me are…
1) Can development done in tandem with historic preservation help foster even more vibrant communities and economic growth?
2) Will the demolition of historic landmarks have adverse environmental impacts as carbon stored in those structures gets released into the atmosphere and the need for energy & resources increases as more new building materials are needed?
One wonders if there might be some tax mechanism conferred on Landmarked properties that would offer financial advantage to an owner whose property could be so named. A win for all, the historic character and fabric of the city, as well as for the owner. ???
Greg,
The LAST thing I want to do is get into a debate with you, however your statement about the BofA building:
As best as I could research there’s nothing historic about the Newton Trust Company or the Colonial Revival Style architecture (certainly we have many more buildings and homes in Newton that are better examples). Yes it looks nice but is that enough of a reason to landmark it?
I actually like that building. It was built in 1932, and to me is a throw back to how my grandparents banked. My kids expect glass and modern, but to me the BofA building is classic bank. Should we mark EVERY bank building historic? No, but I also don’t like the idea of bull dozing all old buildings to make room for new and modern buildings because that is the phase we are in currently.
I grew up in a small town in the north shore, and there were MANY historic houses in the historic district. And from all the construction BOOMS and BUSTS, this area of the town is historic, and there are a few other places within that town that have old buildings with new businesses in them.
Historic is not black or white. It is an opinion often.
And both the funeral home and the bank to me are historic, but that doesn’t make it the truth. It is an opinion. My opinion, but every resident is allowed an opinion.
The only part of this that’s disturbing is legal: that a property can be landmarked without even informing the owner. That’s an issue the city council should address.
There is a much bigger question here about what the community wants. Should we freeze things in time just because we like them? Are there buildings truly worth saving for their larger significance?
1173 Washington Street is an interesting case. It’s on the National Register of Historic places, though I’m not entirely sure why. It’s not a significant architectural work and I’m not entirely sure it’s a particularly good example of a given style. The business history is certainly interesting from a local perspective, but I’m not understanding its national significance.
As for the bank, it’s really up to the bank to determine what’s important there. We have similar style banks in nearly every village (all are Bank of America branches) which serve the purpose of noting this time in banking history, are they all worth landmarking?
An interesting case lies just over the Waltham line on Rumford Ave. Waltham tried to save an old watch factory that had a ton of environmental problems. Several developers tried, and failed, to turn it around. It’s now a hazard and being taken down (it may already be gone, I haven’t been down that street in a while).
Is that neighborhood better served by, potentially, new development or should that building have been “saved” even though it wasn’t financially feasible to do so?
These aren’t easy questions to answer.
Landmark status is something that should be dealt with very carefully and thoughtfully and only with the cooperation of the property owner since it imposes significant and potentially costly restrictions on someone else’s private property.
According to the city
At the moment there are only 22 designated landmark properties in the City of Newton and if you go through that list you’ll see that they are truly unique, historic and important properties.
In this case proponents are attempting to add 7 more properties to that list, all on the same small strip where a new development is planned. This is clearly not an effort to preserve the most important historic buildings in Newton but an attempt to use the Historic Commission to insert itself in an effort to block an unwanted new development project.
If you plan to sell your 1930’s otherwise non-descript house, should your neighbor be able to go behind your back, have it declared a landmark, and thwart the sale?
I do hope the Historic Commission resists this transparent effort to hijack their authority into a fight that is not primarily about history.
Councilor Malakie has made a convincing case for the time constraints that led her to do what she did and why she did it. This is a far stretch from saying that all these sites will ultimately be preserved.
@Richard Herald, To your question: “Can development done in tandem with historic preservation help foster more vibrant communities and economic growth”. I’m almost certain it can do so in terms of the Newton Highlands village center on Lincoln Street and I base this on visualizing the possibilities for 8 years as a member of the Newton Highlands Neighborhood Area Council during which I was also co-chair of a subcommittee that examined the possibility of a local historic district (LHD) in parts of our village including the Lincoln Street corridor.
Nobody I know wants to turn our village centers into static museum pieces, but there should also be an aversion to fast tracking them for destruction before their full historic value and potential for enhancing diversified economic growth can be dispassionately determined.
I think what’s getting lost in the shuffle is that Councilor Malakie filed a REQUEST. It’s not an edict.
This request lets NHC consider whether any of these six parcels have merit. If there’s lack of significant historic/cultural value, plus taking the views of the property owners into account, the NHC should be able to sort it out.
Disclaimer: I haven’t sat in on NHC meetings. But it seems reasonable to me to request a review of a handful of parcels, seems like that should be part of the process. If NHC rejects every single suggestion, fine. But you can’t un-tear down a building once it’s gone.
Chuck, there is another example in Waltham of a huge watch factory that was preserved and made into a great project. It can be done.
More than one thing can be true folks. Some of this can be a delay tactic to prevent new development. But I’m not ready to just say all of these buildings aren’t worth keeping. And many of them give West Newton its charm.
I’ll stop by each this weekend and give some further thoughts. The one I don’t understand is the gas station. I don’t see it as especially historic, and having a gas station removed and the land beneath it remediated (I’m assuming the tanks would be removed) is usually a good thing. Happy to hear more about that one.
This is clearly a balancing act, but I’d ask us all not to fall into our typical patterns of advocacy and dissent. This isn’t as clear cut to me as Greg and others are making it, and there is a reason why we have a historic commission.
@fig yes, that’s an example of when it made complete sense to do so. Like I said, a balancing act. Nonantum has a couple of great examples of mills that have been updated into beautiful spaces that attracted business. Watertown has as well. And Northland is doing that too.
But not everything can be saved, nor should it.
@Dulles. You are correct and I should have included it in my earlier statement. Yes, this is only a request for examination and not any kind of edict or “done deal”. I’m certain the owners will be fully engaged once a serious deliberative process is underway., but again Councilor Malakie makes a convincing argument that a truly serious deliberation may never have taken place without her preemptive action.
It’s entirely possible that some of these properties are worthy of land marking. But that’s secondary.
My problem with Councilor Malakie’s “urgent request” to the Historical Commission is that she did not meet, discuss or even advise the owners of these properties in advance. Most of these buildings, like many of the small office/commercial/retail buildings in our village centers and across Newton, are owned by independent business owners and family trusts. The owners of these properties pay taxes and depend on these properties for their livelihood. They deserve respect from their elected officials and should not have first learned about it when they received two weeks notice prior to this Thursday’s meeting.
Councilor Malakie did not represent Ward 3 when she started this process. Now that she does I hope she will be sensitive to the both the residents and businesses in her ward.
And Councilor Malakie’s action has prompted the start of a serious discussion of historic preservation that would probably never have happened without this action.
@Bob I think this city has been pretty engaged with historic preservation over the years. I think what Councilor Malakie has done is to weaponize a city process that was designed for true historic preservation. I suspect that one outcome of this could be to reconsider the process itself, which may not be a positive for anyone involved.
This is part of what Amy Dain describes as the “paper wall” that inhibits development and has resulted in our current housing crisis.
@Chuck, you’re right that Councilor Malakie has weaponized the landmarks process, but she is not alone in using landmarks and historic review as a proxy for NIMBYism and anti-development. This is not a problem exclusive to Newton, but we really ought to take a look at how the process is being used.
It’s probably time to take some power away from the historic commission, based on their propensity to impose 1-year delays on virtually all demolitions, as well as increase the threshold for landmarking a property.
The criteria for finding a property to be preferably preserved are applied on a patchwork basis, and the review board does not take into account the costs of letting properties sit for a 1 year delay. Landmarking goes above and beyond, but even for demolition delays, there is no penalty felt by the historic commission for erring on the side of preservation. The financial hardship rests solely on the property owner.
Ms. Malakie’s abuse of the city process is an unfortunate but in her case unsurprising example about how the violation of established norms in politics is a problem that has infected people of all political persuasions.
Her actions serve to make it more difficult to find compromise solutions between those who favor development and the close minded NIMBY activists concerned with imposing their narrow and painfully outdated vision of what Newton can and should be on the rest of the city. 🙂
You chose the most unflattering of pictures but, for those familiar with West Newton, those buildings are old enough and have history enough to warrant discussion for preservation. I am sort of surprised the Chamber is opposing discussion of the preservation of West Newton Square. Has it changed so much that it is now in favor of some type of commercial gentrification to bring in the new, upscale, regional and national businesses and let the traditional businesses serving the local population be relocated elsewhere when leases expire?
Huh? @Peter: There is no flattering side to some of these buildings! But I didn’t “choose” them, I used the Google maps images so readers could explore the context of what’s next to these properties because context matters. And if you’ve read my prior comments, you’d know I don’t oppose discussing West Newton but I strongly oppose efforts that exclude engaging West Newton businesses in the process of deciding West Newton’s future.
How is that wrong?
Also, and this is more of an aside point, but has anyone else noticed that every application goes into great details about relatively mundane people who used or built the buildings in question?
1173 Washington St:
“The small free-standing commercial building was designed to house a dry cleaning and fur storage facility, and was also designed to blend into what was, in the 1920s, a largely residential area. Doris Curley, founder of Carley Realty Company, obtained the building in 1937 and worked from here for over 50 years. Ms. Curley was one of the first female realtors in the City and worked to create the first MLS listing service.”
Is that really history worth preserving? Should we be dedicating this building to a realtor? No offense to Ms. Curley, but she’s not a historical figure as far as I’m concerned. I’m sure she was a nice person.
And 1253 Washington St:
“By 1871 there were two stables, an office and three sheds at this location owned by Stephen Francis Cate (1837-1896), but business ads in Newton Directories show the Cate family running this business as early as 1861. Born in Massachusetts,
Cate worked in stables located in Lower Falls before becoming owner of this property. Cate continued to operate his livery and undertaker businesses until at least 1893, likely until his death in 1896. In the late 1890s it was Henry F. Cate who ran the two businesses. A 1903 advertisement also showed embalming as an added service. Repairs to a building on this site after a fire were permitted in 1915.”
This isn’t exactly the site of the signing of the declaration of independence. It was a mundane building owned by a mundane person who ran a mundane business. Nothing historically significant happened here, and nothing about these people is historically significant. They’re just old, and not even that old by most standards.
How about 1239-1247 Washington St. The report describes the following:
“At the May 2019 hearing, staff reported that formerly known as 966 Watertown Street, water records for this building show that it first received water in 1926. Built in the Classical Revival Style, this building had bricked-in openings when it was found to be a contributing building to the West Newton National Register historic district in 1988. Windows were cut into the bricked-in space in 1989 when the building was converted from storage to commercial space.
First owned by Fuller Realty Trust, in 1929 this building housed the Heffron Motor Car Company and the West Newton Auto Body & Welding Company.”
So it’s a car dealership and repair shop? Unless they sold a car to the Pope, I don’t see why that’s an integral part of our city’s historical fabric.
I think the only building on this list that could credibly be found to be historical is the Sweet Tomatoes building. But even then, it is really just an old building. Nothing significant happened there. The Archduke Fran Ferdinand wasn’t shot while eating a sandwich. It really is just an old building that happens to be pretty nice to look at. If someone wants to replace it with a new building that happens to be attractive, I see no real issue.
+1 on @butch. The significance of these properties from a historical perspective is questionable at best.
That said, can we please stop using the word “gentrification” to describe what is happening in Newton? The word implies a changing the economic and ethnic character of a neighborhood, but that’s not what is happening here. W. Newton is not a minority or poor neighborhood in which a large group of people will be pushed out by changing home values. The city has already changed and gone through that process. This is about modifying old, out dated properties to exist in a much more modern context.
Will there be properties worth saving? Sure. Will be there be properties lost to the wrecking ball? Yes. But the fact is that we have not built here in a half century (or more). The buildings there, even then, weren’t all that great and weren’t really built to last. Some were taxpayers that just managed to live on. That doesn’t mean they’re worth saving, nor are they the best use of the land.
As Fig is wont to say and I have adopted, “More than one thing can be true.” Some buildings on Julia’s list might need more review by the NHS, some absolutely do not and Julia’s known to be a preservationist. Many residents of Newton are preservationists, including me, and would prefer to save or incorporate any building with historical significance into a new development.
I also agree with Chuck. Over the years watching Julia challenge every proposed development in and around Newtonville, West Newton, Auburndale and Lower Falls using tactics that were not necessarily always ethical, in my view, I’m convinced there’s more here than just a desire to protect Newton’s historic buildings by wanting them to have landmark status.
The guidelines for establishing a building as a landmark are vague at best and the restrictions governing them are excessive for most owners. Most of the landmarked buildings now are much older than these. http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/86093
In addition, if a building owner has recently gone through the complicated process with the NHC and the city and subsequently obtained a demolition delay, why should the owner be required to go through another process? If the NHC thought the building was significantly historic why issue a demolition delay rather than deny one?
The ordinances governing these processes are quite different in places. One says the NHC acts only in an advisory role to the Planning Department. Another says NHC can determine a building’s status by a 2/3 vote of the members, which I assume means a quorum must be present and another by a vote of 2/3 of the members attending the meeting.
I need to correct a mistake in my previous comment. I stated that the Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand wasn’t killed while eating a sandwich. While that is true, his assassin WAS eating a sandwich after a failed first attempt to assassinate Ferdinand, so a sandwich was, indeed, involved. Also to further clarify, the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand was not carried out in West Newton.
Sorry for the confusion this must have caused everyone.
@Bob Burke thank you for your wisdom.
@Fig and @Chuck thanks for 2 Waltham watch factory examples!
@Mr Butch, grabbing a coffee at Judith’s Kitchen in West Newton this AM, I was
treated to a great view of the Davis Hotel. The winter AM sun shined brightest on the only
original building in the West Newton historical district still fully in tact.
As @Chuck said old doesn’t mean historic. And, I’m no expert but my limited understanding is Seth Davis who built the hotel in 1831 was the pre-eminent investor in early West Newton. Legend has it he arrived in town with 15 cents in his pocket ($4.43 in 2020 dollars!) Mr. Davis went on to have a successful career as developer and educator among other things. Professions that remain timely and critical to us today.
This may not have archduke level historical significance, but it is our history. The history of the village I hope to raise my kids and grow old in. It may ultimately not be worthy of landmark designation but it seems worthy of consideration as do others receiving interest on this post.
@Greg, I’d like to offer a counter opinion on Councilor Malakie’s urgent landmark request. I don’t claim to speak for her. She can do that much better than me.
Last year, when others raised the possibility of landmark status for West Newton properties, they were met with the moratorium I shared earlier in this post. This year, as soon as Councilor Malakie’s nominations were made the same moratorium was brought up. The link is reposted here for reference http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/100946/01-10-20%20Planning%20Memo.pdf
Based on these events, it feels safe to assume efforts to preview the nominations would have
resulted in a rush to enact the moratorium, eliminating any chance of landmark consideration. To follow @Chuck’s weapons analogy, Councilors in favor of the moratorium would have exercised the ‘Nuclear Option’.
Councilor Malakie and a number of Ward 3 residents want to see properties slated for demolition get landmark consideration. Others don’t. That’s the nature of public policy debates. However, to say a duly elected City Councilor is not representing her constituents because she is doing what she believes is best and said she would address during the campaign while following the City’s Landmark ordinance to the letter of the law feels a little unfair.
Is Ward 3 At Large Councilor Kelley not representing her constituents because, I don’t agree with the Landmark moratorium she supports?
We are luck in Newton. Our City Councilors are second to none. They’re honest, hardworking, generous with their time and care deeply about the City and the citizens they represent – even those they don’t agree with. Councilor Malakie is no exception. Her record before getting elected is stellar. She led the efforts for transparency on NEWCAL and fought to have the meeting minutes released. She worked tirelessly on tree planting to build up our first line of defense for climate change. I’m proud to be among the 55% of Ward 3 voters who voted for her in 2019 and pleased to see her work to balance the interests of Developers, Property Owners and Residents. No easy task, but she will do great.
While I disagree with your comment that Councilor Malakie is not representing Ward 3 residents and businesses, I appreciate your hard work managing V14. Also, no easy task. Thank you.