Before there was a fight about Northland and before the battle over Riverside, there was Engine 6. The proposal for the old fire station was as a place where people who were homeless could have a way to rebuild their lives. Its proximity to the Green Line, to the hospital, and to the highway offered a great advantage. But the people of Waban fought it and won. Then-Mayor Setti Warren backed down and the proposal was scrapped, allowing it to become just another condo.
But that’s not exactly what happened.
Now it’s an AirBnB, offering the chance for 8 guests to say there for $355 a night. At least, that’s the price I saw.
Each time we say “no” to something that makes sense, we say “yes” to something else that we may not want.
The quoted $355 is for -one- person. Plus there is a three night minimum and additional cleaning and service fees and tax. The -total- for one person for three nights is $1501. For -eight- people it’s $455/night plus tax and fees for a total of $1879 for three nights.
Chuck – You make the people who opposed Engine 6 out as being “senseless”. A lot of people opposed it for a variety of reasons, many with good reasons. If this is your argument for why people should vote yes on the referendum, it’s a poor one and certainly not convincing, even to those who support Northland.
@Jane I never portrayed the arguments as one way or another. I simply say that people fought it and won. End of story. The point I’m making is just that giving up one thing may not result in the future you want. We keep getting told by Right Size that the future will be better with a smaller project. The problem is, they don’t know what the future is if this gets voted down. That’s never been defined. We know what we know, and we don’t know what we don’t know.
This is an example of expecting one result and getting another.
That listing is sorta strange — the host’s name is given as “Airbnb” instead someone’s actual first name.
Anyway I don’t see what’s so bad about this — I know it’s not everybody’s preferred outcome — but as an (albeit expensive) AirBNB, it’s still someone’s primary residence for at least 9 months of the year.
@Jane, can you remind of some of the “good reasons” the project was opposed?
My recollection was that our mayor, at the time Setti Warren, prematurely terminated the process under pressure from some Newton residents. I also remember a letter from Dori Zaleznik, at the time the Newton Commissioner of Health and Human Services, responding that the potential new residents of Engine 6″would not have had access to the services they would need.” In my opinion the the City Hall narrative was a weak attempt to cover up what the HUD complaint contends was discrimination plain and simple.
I was embarrassed for my hometown.
Yes. Pine Street Inn had no plans to ever come to Newton to provide services for the residents. The residents were going to have to walk a mile to the subway, take a 45 minute ride to Boston, then walk to Pine Street for services.
Every other Pine Street residence was either in or close to the Boston line, with easy access to services.
Each unit was on average 300 square feet, with the smallest being 240 square feet. When I suggested enlarging the space per person and having a few less residents, I was told that wasn’t possible because it wasn’t profitable for the developer. That’s when I decided this was not a project I could support.
That’s just from memory. I began as a strong supporter and wrote a strongly worded letter to the mayor based on what I’d heard. My husband who has a much better sense of space questioned me closely about my support. I then looked into the details and the architectural plans and decided I could not support it as planned.
Would someone please call out all the letters in this week’s TAB opposing Northland because it will raise our taxes – and then stating that they also oppose Northland because it doesn’t have enough affordable units? These are crazy, contradictory arguments.
Leaving Northland undeveloped means Northland pays lower property taxes, because property taxes are based on the value of the land and buildings. Increasing the number of affordable units, means someone else is paying more to subsidize the units – either the other renters or the City.
Jane is correct. The lack of proper service delivery was a deal-breaker. To allow people to move in without the appropriate services in place would have been unconscionable. That being said, the administration did a lousy job of communicating that reasoning to the city, and from that failure grew a completely false narrative.
My take-away years later is that it was a total fail from a communications standpoint. But the persistent narrative that the administration backed down, or that there was some other ulterior motive for not moving forward with the project is as utterly and demonstrably false today as it was seven years ago.
Chuck – thanks for the information that this property is offered as an Airbnb – this does not meet our new zoning code. I will be forwarding this to Commissioner Lojek.
@Aaron I’d appreciate your insight here if you can offer additional details. Here are two paragraphs from a Newton TAB story in 2015 around the settlement of the HUD complaint:
“The city has reached a voluntary agreement with the groups that filed a complaint over Mayor Setti Warren’s 2013 decision to reverse course and deny funding to a developer that wanted to renovate the former Fire Station 6 in Waban into housing for the chronically homeless.”
.
.
.
“The original plan to convert the former firehouse into housing for the homeless was met with loud opposition from Waban residents. Later, the mayor came under criticism from affordable housing advocates after the city withdrew funding for the project.”
Those summaries are similar to what I wrote above. Are you saying that the outcry from the neighborhood had no impact whatsoever on the decision to pull funding, and that the funding decision was entirely based on the services proposed at the time?
IMHO it is appalling that Engine 6 was rejected for less fortunate being provided homes. The height of hypocrisy for Newton liberals, compounded by the irony of it ending up as an Airbnb after all is said and done.
I wholly support Council President Albright in shutting this BnB down.
The idea that Pine Street Inn had no plans to provide medical and mental health services on-site for residents of Engine 6 is patently untrue.
In a meeting between Pine Street Inn and city staff on August 29, 2013, Pine Street Inn was directly told by former Commissioner Dori Zaleznik of Newton Health and Human Services that residents of Engine 6 would not be permitted to utilize the city’s social service resources if the project were to move forward. They were also asked to detail their plan for providing any necessary services to residents. Pine Street Inn responded with a detailed explanation of their service model for community-based programs, which included mobile medical services that would be provided on site, plus the live-in 24/7 staff support (in addition to the medical services available to residents at Pine Street offices in Boston). Pine Street Inn also provided a presentation of this service model at a community meeting hosted by Engine 6 on Monday, September 23, 2013. Nonetheless, the City sent a letter to Pine Street Inn in late September 2013 that the project, which according to the letter, was located in a “fairly isolated area with all services available in Boston” could not be supported because it “cannot support spending limited CDBG money on housing that does not provide readily accessible services for those in need and that does not attempt to integrate residents into the fabric of our community.” This would be the same location that 7 years later is described in the Airbnb site as being an “easy commute to the city” and within minutes of amenities.
Furthermore, the idea that the city conveyed to Pine Street in that August 2013 meeting that Newton wouldn’t be able to absorb the medical and/or behavioral health needs of 9 additional residents is unequivocally inaccurate. Even if the services PSI intended to provide were insufficient, there is (and was) an abundance of social and medical services available to Newton residents, especially for those who have MassHealth. I personally did an assessment of the waitlists at the numerous community mental health services in the city in September of 2013, including the Riverside Outpatient at Newton, the Riverside Day Center in Newton, Eliot House Clubhouse, and the 24/7 psychiatric emergency services program, and for individuals with MassHealth insurance there were no waitlists for services – appointments were available immediately for those who needed them. (I documented this in a letter to the Mayor on September 30, 2013.)
In addition, the city also dinged Pine Street for suggesting that the residents utilize the T for transportation to medical appointments and groceries, and implied that this plan was a bad idea. I’d be curious to see how that talking point might play today. But while we’re on the topic, this was a moot point either way, as people with MassHealth insurance can use the MBTA service The Ride for free to obtain transportation to any needed destination (medical appointments, 12 step meetings, grocery shopping) as an alternative to public transportation.
On a personal note, before I moved to Newton 13 years ago, I lived for 4 years in a 270 square foot apartment, and for the record I LOVED it. To each their own.
I must agree with Aaron Goldman that this was a “total fail from a communications standpoint”. And we failed those 9 people the most.
This issue tarnished the previous Mayors reputation … explains why no councilor is shouting from the rooftops to increase affordable housing density in Waban
– walking distance to T stop. Check
– available lots to build high density housing if local zoning modified. Check
– access to brand new elementary school. Check
– lowest density of housing for a neighborhood with T line access. Check
– no parking meters. Check
-white piviledge. Check
Its best to advocate outside of Waban and into other newton villages if you value your political career.
Btw, this is not sarcasm or trolling. Its fact.
This was why I wasn’t super enthusiastic about Setti Warren’s gubernatorial run. I liked him and thought he was a fair mayor, but this left such a foul taste in my mouth. This along with increasing the parking ban fee made his campaign against income inequality seem inauthentic.
As for the AirBnB, that price is outrageous. But nobody has to stay there.
Independent of lost opportunities, I think this kind of retrospective is important. We need to learn from both successes and failures, and sometimes that’s easier with hindsight and the help of cooler heads.
It also informs people who weren’t part of the original discussion.
I have no desire to get into a battle about a seven year old issue. My original point was that a lot of people opposed the project for very good reasons. I spoke to several reasons: inadequate personal space, the distance from the T on a road with no public transportation, and the fact that every other Pine Street residence was clustered around its main location far from Newton. My main point was that there were people who did not support this project (and other developments) for a variety of legitimate reasons and shouldn’t be demonized for that.
I have no idea why Chuck brought up this old issue. It’s completely irrelevant to the current development discussion.
It was divisive to no good end.
@Aaron: Thanks for sharing your insight. I’ve heard so many differing things from all sides, it’s nice to hear your perspective as someone in the inner circle.
Everything Nanci said about the Engine 6 debacle is 100% true. It would have been a great project, something to be really proud of. If you really want to get into it, go here to read all the official documents related to the Engine 6 project, the HUD complaint, and the settlement: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8du8fu2tbj2r4we/HUD%20Complaint%20%26%20Conciliation%20docs.pdf?dl=0. Go here to read the letter Henry Korman wrote to the Mayor in Oct. 2013 signaling his resignation from both the Newton Housing Partnership and the Fair Housing Committee as a direct result of the Mayor’s actions: https://www.dropbox.com/s/oiflaxjskoh8lj7/H%20Korman%20Resignation%2C%20Housing%20Partnership%20%26%20Fair%20Housing%20Committee%20%2810.5….pdf?dl=0. There are many, many lessons to be learned from this sorry chapter in Newton’s history. The primary one for me is: It turns out I live in a gated community. We allow a few people in, and most others we shut out. With all my heart, I want this to change. Engine 6 the group will keep on trying.
Shots fired.
@Jane I disagree. I think it’s entirely relevant. The community opposed something, possibly for good reasons, believing that the result would be simply a few condos.
Related to that, the city has since set in place restrictions around AirBnB, also for good reasons.
A vote of “No” does not necessarily get us where we want to go. We cannot make zoning and planning decisions with a simple yes/ no mentality. This is an example of that, where a “No” had unforseeable consequences.
@Chuck: But it didn’t even get to the Council for discussion. It was a unilateral decision made by the then Mayor. There was no vote.
It comes back to Setti Warren as it did with Webster. The more we learn about him the better we are without him.
So we disagree. No big deal, Chuck.
Jane, again not to re-litigate this now, but I’m not sure why you keep saying it’s a mile away from the Green Line and difficult to walk there. Perhaps you’re thinking of a different location. It’s about a 9 minute walk (at most) from the Woodland T station, accessible in two different directions on foot, including the pedestrian-friendly sidewalk along Washington St for one route. You can practically see the station from the former fire station building. The only thing between this and the T station is a few houses and the hospital complex. (Which would also have been conveniently located.) I’ve heard people make the transportation distance claim before, but it must be due to some confusion about stations since it’s a half mile on foot at the most.
It’s true, we don’t know what will happen with a Northland, “no” vote, but we DO know what will happen with a “yes” vote.
More people and traffic than our roads, classrooms and city services can accommodate!
Yeah, I’m sticking with “no”.
Can’t wait until March 3rd passes. So tired of this.
Bill-I made my statement as to why I changed my mind on this project on this seven year old project. A lot has happened in seven years in Newton – good and bad. Why people of goodwill can’t agree to disagree on any project is a complete conundrum to me. It’s time to move on.
Jane,
Bill was pointing out that your distance quote of 1 mile was factually incorrect. It’s about .5 miles from engine 6 to the t station. The correct response was to acknowledge that he was correct and move on.
I supported Engine 6 and Pine Street’s plans for it. I was appalled that Mayor Warren heard from residents of Waban who brought up inconsequential, nasty and irrelevant reasons to deny the project they plainly just did not in their neighborhood and abruptly denied the project even cancelling already set hearings without communicating even with the city council. Obviously HUD agreed.
Seriously, 300/450 sq ft would be thought too small by someone who has no place to live and no prospects of having one.
I get the relevance of this project not being built ending with unintended consequences to the voters who want to veto the city council’s approval of Northland without considering the unintended consequence Newton may be in for.
I keep reading that a “no vote” will end with everyone getting what they want – although what residents want differs by resident.
Since Northland has not said, the consequences of a “no vote” aren’t clear at all.
@Jane, to your point of there being people “who did not support this project (and other developments) for a variety of legitimate reasons and shouldn’t be demonized for that”, I think the issue becomes how is it decided whether an issue is “legitimate” or not, and also who makes that decision. Arguably, traffic and school population and access to community services could absolutely be considered legitimate reasons to raise concerns about a development project. But, as illustrated here by the case of Engine 6, once one starts to dig beneath the surface of those reasons to look at the evidence, it becomes clear that the thoughts are more often than not influenced by fear, misunderstanding, and/or miscommunication, and sometimes also by prejudice and discrimination (whether conscious or not) as opposed to facts. (And for the record, I am speaking generally here, and not at all intending to imply that these are in any way particular to what opinions Jane or anyone else has shared in this thread.)
So to your later statement about not understanding why sometimes people can’t agree to disagree or to simply move on, whether it’s something that happened 7 years ago or this morning, I think it’s not only justifiable but completely necessary to shine the light on how these underlying influences and subsequent narratives impact our decisions and lead to negative consequences, as part of the broader work of dismantling discrimination and oppression both here in our neighborhoods and in the larger society. I agree that demonizing people for having a particular perspective is generally unproductive, but sitting silently by when inaccuracies are being woven into the public narrative is untenable, at least for me.
Nancy – I never said I couldn’t understand why people couldn’t agree to disagree. I merely told Chuck that it was no big deal that we don’t agree on this one issue. We agree on many others. Sometimes people investigate an issue and come to different conclusions than you.
I support Northland, but if you think you’re winning votes with such comments about your neighbors, I’ve got some sad news for you. You’re not. This project goes before the voters in less than a month. The time to build bridges rather than walls is very short at this point.
Nancy – So much print, so little time… I see where I responded to another poster who objected to my comment to Chuck. To that poster, I merely meant to convey the idea it isn’t a big deal for people to disagree on an issue. Sorry for the confusion.
I put a ten-minute limit on posting time on V14 on any given day (I write fast, don’t edit) and I’m at 9:54 so I guess I’m done with this one, but I wanted to clarify my previous comment (10:00)
@Jane – believe me – I get it implicitly, and winning votes wasn’t the impetus for my comments. Have a great weekend.
The comparison of Engine 6 to Northland is absolutely ridiculous. Engine 6 was a brilliant idea to provide housing for homeless people with disabilities, while Northland is luxury apartments. Ironically, folks who voiced opposition to Engine 6 and ultimately shut it down – Setti Warren and John Rice for example – support Northland.
>The comparison of Engine 6 to Northland is absolutely ridiculous
Agree, “well we can’t have homeless housing, so let’s all support luxury corporate rentals”. Why? Northland is developing the land to generate profits for their investors. This shill narrative that we should all feel guilty for not supporting billionaire corporations is redonkulous.
And what could happen if we vote NO? Well, we might get 40B with MORE affordable housing!
Vote NO.
“Might”. Or…. something else.
I promised myself I would stay off V14 but I have to weigh in on this.
Killing the CDBG funding for the Engine 6 project that would have provided supervised housing for chronically homeless people was one of the most craven examples of NIMBYism and political expedience I have ever seen in my life. It was the antithesis of “Profiles in Courage” and was the sole reason I launched an ill-fated run for Mayor, so that I could take the incumbent to task for it. It was the most miserable year of my life, followed by a two-year term in the wilderness where the Mayor and the President of the Board of Aldermen went out of their way to make my political life a living hell.
And if I had it to do over again, I would not change a goddam thing.
Chuck, thank you for posting this. This is a cautionary tale that deserves to be retold again and again. We could have welcomed 9 chronically homeless individuals into our community with the services and proximity to NWW and the T that would have enriched their lives immeasurably. Instead, that administration engaged in the worst kind of propaganda to justify a decision that was more about fear of privileged neighbors and losing votes than what was just and right.
And with that, Hess-Mahan out.