“On June 2, 2017, the full membership of the Newton Democratic City Committee endorsed a strong statement in support of affordable housing.”
“More recently, on Thursday, February 6th, the Newton Dems Executive Committee, a subset of the full NDCC membership which includes the organization’s leadership (exec. committee members are listed here), voted overwhelmingly to recommend a “yes” vote on the upcoming March 3rd municipal ballot question focused on the Northland Development. The vote of the Executive Committee does not represent the full vote of the Newton Dems membership.”
Northland Real Estate Investment Corp. will have 15% affordable housing whereas the statewide 40B statue requires 20 to 25%–a law enacted in 1969!
I find it a bit comical these Democrats are actually advocating for less affordable housing than the 1969 requirement. We can do better Newton. Let’s try to push harder for these 1969 standards.
Voting No.
David M, a permit granted by the state to build using MA Statute 40B does require 20 to 25% deed restricted affordable units but it also allows the builder to build whatever s/he wants, limit negotiations, refuse mitigations and to disregard a municipality’s zoning laws. There is no design review, community discussion about the number and type of units, traffic or anything else. In that case the builder is in control of most everything.
A developer who is applying for a special permit in Newton has to jump through many hoops, taking years as the developer holds meetings with the community to present their proposal and listen to their ideas, negotiates with the many committees of city councilors and at public hearings so they can decide what’s best for Newton, including mitigations in the form of either funds toward a certain issue in Newton or in kind such as undergrounding parking and utility lines. The list goes on and on until years have passed and the builder’s profit goes down because participating in all of this takes funding and changes their chances for a decent loan percentage.
Do the “no Northland” voters see the vast difference between the two types of permits and are spewing misrepresentations to get more “no” votes or are they ignorant of the laws governing development in MA?
From your comment David M, it seems to be the latter since you are comparing the requirements of a 1969 MA Affordable Housing law that allows builders almost complete control over municipalities if they include 20-25% deed restricted affordable housing and 80-75% market rate housing to the special permit process in Newton.
This is a great project if you care deeply about affordable housing. Not because it includes so much…but because it includes so little. By keeping the number of affordable units well under the 40B threshold, the project does little to help Newton comply with the 40B safe harbors – meaning there will be more 40B developments (and as a result, on a gross basis, more affordable units) in the city.
If the Dems want to support Northland, fine.
But to claim it is to support “affordable housing”, pleeease!
This is too bad for the Democratic Party of Newton. I am a strong democrat who greatly supports affordable housing, green initiatives, and many of the things this project represents. But, I think this project is too big amongst other things. By the Exec committee taking a stand, I’m kind of feeling unwelcome. 5000+ other people, probably mostly Dems, asked for the referendum. That’s over 5000 people that the executive committee just said – heck, we don’t care about you. Is that what’s best for the Dems? Split them up? The Dem party should not get involved or should be involved in a way that unifies, not divides.
@DavidKalis . You state “I think this project is too big amongst other things.”
What is your interpretation of what is going to happen if we vote No? It has been stated that the Developer will invoke 40B and the project will expand to 1800 units without any of the added benefits that were negotiated by the city council.
Are you saying this is not true? And furthermore, what do you think will happen?
Secondly you state that you are for Green Initiative. Did you vote for or against the Solar Panels on the schools and the library?
appreciate your thoughts on these matters.
-jack
David – people signing a petition to put something on the ballot does not equal their support for the specific initiative. People are indicating their view that voters can weigh in on the issue. Kind of a pro-democracy signature. That’s it, and you know that.
Insofar as our meeting goes, it was not controversial at all. People supported the project.
And the argument that “I support affordable housing, just not this project” is bogus, frankly. This project has affordable housing with it.
Also – here’s my view – the Democratic Party should actually stand for something. That’s how you win elections.
I voted for all the solar panels and also worked to improve locations of some. Regarding 40b, I have not heard they will pursue a 40b. That option exists but as I said on the floor of the council, Northland is an investment corporation and their profits support funds that require a rate of return. Can they achieve the required ROR based on 40b projects? I don’t know. Will 1800 units ever go there? I doubt it. Any 40b does have to go through the zba which looks at public safety as well as traffic impacts. So, there is no crystal ball. Look, I want development – I know it’s critical for our tax base and to provide the housing we need. But, I try to support it where I think the size works and the community benefits are
Greater than the potential negative impacts.
Shawn,
A true Democrat would have insisted on no parking spaces and carbon neutral building. Over 1000 cars off the road and 1000 residents with absolute minimal carbon footprint..
These are not controversial demands in 2020..
@bugek – agree. We were voting on the project that is on the ballot in March.
Also, the other night, I met a new resident of the Austin Street building. A young person who works for the city, who was THRILLED to get a unit and thrilled to be able to live in the city where she works. Exactly what advocates were hoping the project would accomplish. And I remember the doomsday scenarios opponents of the project described. People were going bonkers. When actually it is a great addition to the N’Ville neighborhood. Same will happen for Northland.
The Yes on Northland are propagating this idea or fear that 3 40B buildings will be built there if the current proposal is turned down but there is no evidence that that will happen. It’s all supposition based on fears.
>“I support affordable housing, just not this project” is bogus, frankly
As of Aug 1, 2019, Newton REQUIRES affordable housing for all developments with 7 or more units, therefore Northland Real Estate Investment Corp. is building the MINIMUM affordable housing required by LAW. By your logic we can never oppose any 7+ unit development, even when investment corporations demand waivers and zoning changes to maximize profits for their billion dollar private equity fund–at taxpayer expense!
You should rethink the logic of your statement because mere compliance of one code requirement is a pretty low standard for NDCC endorsement. Or, at least give specific reasons why this Corporation deserves City waivers that will seriously impact residents.
Inclusionary zoning: http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/planning/lrplan/inclusionary_zoning.asp
@Shawn
Great.
And now, how about some equity in this time of inequality unmatched since the early 20th century?.
We Democrats on the North side of the pike are sick and tired of the limousine Democrats in the wealthi(er) parts of Newton sticking all the development- including the senior center on Albemarle ( nice try ) on our side.
If you are REALLY interested in affordable housing, push for it in Waban and chestnut hill.
You are making the same mistake that Hillary/Wasserman Shultz made- and you’re diving Newton just like the Democrats are divided nationally.
The hypocrisy is right out in the open, and we see it.
I strongly supported the Engine 6 project and also certainly would have supported a housing project at the corner of Beacon and Chestnut where now there are large garage doors located. I also support the project that is proposed at Four Corners, near my house, on Beacon near Walnut.
@Shawn so you do personally, but when are Dems of Newton going to do something truly concrete about the blatant inequities that exist right now between the amount of development on the North side of town, and obvious development sites such as the green line stops in waban and chestnut hill? Instead, your group ignores a large portion of voters on the north side, so you can get large donations from the wealthy side of Newton.
It’s completely transparent. Single family zoning is good for that side of town but not for ours.
“A developer who is applying for a special permit in Newton has to jump through many hoops”
Oh boo hoo hoo.
We all jump through a lot of hoops every day. No love from me over their hoops. Tough.
@Shawn, oh and whatever you do, …don’t try to make an app. Without real software developers.
;>)
#incompetenceiniowa
Shawn,
I would love to see councilors propose zoning change for waban & newton (ie REAL transit development next to T) for multistory high density affordable housing … to allow developers to start projects
Its been pretty silent on that front. Maybe its the Setti curse..
Even the upcoming zoning rehaul does not address this. It only allows for lot splitting in very few cases so low density areas (ie wealthy) remain the same .
I don’t recall if there was a clause that stated that 0.5 mile radius around T/rail becomes multi residence with minimum heights? This would be fair…
Marti, I am keenly aware the City has the right to decline this project, which is why I am voting NO.
Under 40B the state would approve the specific requirements according to that statue–which is far from limitless. Primarily, it would require 20-25% affordable–a lot more than Newton requires. Apparently I’m considered “left of Newton Democrats” for supporting 40B, a law enacted 1969!
Northland is asking for exemptions to build beyond its zoning limits–now the question is WHY? Why can’t they build 400 apartments instead of 800? Answer: so they can make more money. It’s that simple.
Every development over 6 units is required to build affordable housing. Northland isn’t doing anything special to warrant exemptions.
@budek – agree!
Interesting to note that Martina Jackson who has served the local Newton Democratic party for years and is someone highly respected is Chairing the No campaign. Plenty of Newton Democrats and Independents voting No.
@Rick Frank – Neither of the two proposed biggest developments (Northland and Riverside) are on the north side of the city. By all means fight the proposed north side development projects if you wish but saying that the city is “sticking all the developments” on the north side is just plain silly …. especially in a thread devoted to the Northland referendum.
Jerry, I think Rick does have a point, even if I am in support of the project, the more expensive parts of Newton rarely if ever see any type of development. And when there is an opportunity (Beacon and Chestnut/P.Neri), the city squashes it.
As always, more than one thing can be true. I’m old enough to remember folks living near Beacon and Chestnut telling me they didn’t want a larger development because renters were bad for property values, and wouldn’t care as much about the schools and communities, because they weren’t permanent residents.
It was with some sadness that I now see the rows of ugly garage doors from that development. Even when it is rarely possible, certain areas of Newton are listened to a bit more when they run scared to City Hall.
Now, you are also correct that Riverside and Northland aren’t on the Northside, but from an economic standpoint, Rick has a point.
Frankly, give it time though Rick. Newton Centre will have taller buildings within the next 20 years.
As for this particular project, I’ll be voting yes. Partly because I think the negotiated agreement is better than the 40B route, even if the 40B route will get us more affordable housing. Partly because I don’t want to encourage these types of referendums even if legal. Bad way to run a city in my opinion. I recognize the frustration of the No folks though, even if I don’t agree with them. As Matt keeps saying, it is emotional at this point.
I’ll also note that the fuss about March 3 didn’t help convince me about the process. Didn’t change my vote, but it wasn’t a good look. Just my 2 cents.
I spoke out against an endorsement. I never like when we take sides on something controversial. This was a vote on something project specific. This was not a generalized vote to support more affordable housing. How absurd it is to me, to have housing advocates speak out against 40Bs when 40Bs would provide a greater amount of affordable family housing units which is greatly in need in this City. A 40B project would yield at a minimum 20 percent affordable units vs. the Northland project which will yield 17 percent and a 40B project would yield a greater number of 3 bedroom units – which is more “welcoming” for families! We might not get the fancy stores, coffee shops or splash park – but we would get what we need – more affordable family housing.
Really? That doesn’t sound like the Amy Sangiolo that I know.
Amy, please refresh my memory. How many developments, including built under 40B, have you supported or voted for? Development has already split this city. I have supported a lot of the development in Newton and would definitely prefer a negotiated special permit to a 40 B any day.
Lisa, you’ve got that backwards. It’s the “no voters” who are inserting, for no good reason, 40b into the conversation as if a no vote would mean there would be a 40 B built on the land – telling their “no vote” supporters that if they vote no then the project would smaller and have more affordable housing. Northland will do one of many things none of which will be better that the special permit that the city council approved.
I strongly suspect that these “no voters” would vote no on any project put before them. All the rest is smoke screen and distraction.
As for the Dems endorsing a development, being a democrat myself, I don’t think development should be a partisan issue.
I thought that the like button was going to be gone until it worked for everyone. It acknowledges that I liked something, but doesn’t add to the numbers
@Marti – FWIW, I cant give you the full list, but Amy was one of the final votes for Austin Street.
In days gone by, the political parties did not get involved in our nonpartisan elections. The people did but not the party. Why the change? Will we soon be discussing changing our charter to allow partisan elections? My concern is the participation leads to seeking power and I am against it.
This is a referendum, not a nonpartisan election. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with “seeking power,” only “abusing power.”
@Rich Frank I think there is a point in the msg that you are trying to convey however by pushing this North side/South side you are creating a divide. The Northland and Riverside developments will affect Newton Upper Falls/The Highlands and Lower Falls respectively. Those areas are not necessarily areas of wealth just as West Newton Hill is not necessarily reflective of all of the North side. The schools associated with those geographic areas of Northland and Riverside all currently feed into South side middle schools and Newton South. Upper Falls and Newton Highlands include 2 families and apartment building/condos in their housing stock. Newton Center proper does as well (the zip code itself covers a very large area so it does include areas where single family homes are the norm …like near Newton South). Bowen used to have a hard time managing enrollment because so many of the properties in their district are rentals so there are shifts year to year in the child population because of people moving in and out. I think what you are really trying to convey that those advocating for all this development should experience the side effects too.
Why weren’t the Democratic leaders pushing for negotiations for more affordable housing in the plan that was passed for Northland? Why are they speaking up now?
In one of the Mayor’s recent emails she mentioned that it is expected that the 2020 census will show an increase in units which will make it “mathematically more difficult to reach the 40b threshold.” By not negotiating a higher rate of affordable unit Northland won’t that make us even further away from achieving 40b? If we are able to achieve 40b the City will be able to negotiate better developments (ie more affordable units and other favorable aspects) because the developers won’t have the 40b card to play but when special permit projects don’t help us narrow the gap we made no headway.
@Bryan . You wrote “Amy was one of the final votes for Austin Street.” Please, let’s not view this as a badge of honor and praise those who took a Susan Collin’s role on the city council.
@Marti is correct. Amy’s late vote should not be confused for leadership on 40B or Development. She took an obstructionist, anti development stance throughout the project development and was late to the table to join. Period. Full Stop.
Leadership takes courage to inspire others. Those with courage were the first ones to vote for the project… not the last.
@Bryan you are praising Amy for essentially kicking the ball into the net after the goal was scored by the team.
To imply that, someone who does not support this projet is not a Dem is horse (poop). Issues should be judged on its individual merits, not because of party affiliation.
This is exactly what’s what wrong our political system – on both sides.
I will be voting NO on March 3rd, and I’ve never voted Red. Lifetime.
@David M. Northland project is 17.5% affordable at a rate that is lower than a typical 40b. I believe anything that comes to Newton going forward has to be 20% affordable units but someone else can fact check me on that. Lastly, only 40 units as proposed are greater than 3BR, compared with 97 at Avalon.
@ Jack – Amy and her voting record is nothing like Susan Collins. Susan Collins seems to vote and then apologize for her votes or votes and then rationalizes. Amy was a leader because she was detail oriented, balanced the needs of constituents with those of the City at large, considered each project on its merits – not to adhere to any voting block or any grand plan – but to do what she thought was best based on the situation. If you can’t see that in her even when you disagree with her judgments, that’s too bad. I didn’t and still don’t always agree with her and I still respect her process and her contributions. Your comparison to Collins, IMO, is out of line and disrespectful of a woman who put her heart into serving our community.
Wow. I take a break over the weekend to run 15.2 miles and what did I miss?
@David K: Thanks for your support and your friendship throughout the years.
@ Marti: I’m surprised. You sent me such a nice email earlier today but then you go after me here? Okay – let me see if I can get the info you want on my 20 years on the Council. I know I was the only vote against the Terraces proposal – the one that took down that wonderful forest up by Andover Newton. I was opposed building a gated luxury enclave and was in favor of rolling the dice and having a 40B there. I’ve supported every single CAN-DO project that was 40B. I don’t remember about the Woodland T Station – I do recall I was upset that they located the parking garage in the back and would have preferred it in the front portion of the development. I voted in favor of the Sunrise Development on Washington Street, voted in favor of Chestnut Hill Square. I don’t recall speaking out against the Avalon Development in Chestnut Hill or the one on Needham Street. I’ll see if I can find more detailed info for you Marti.
@Jack: Susan Collins? Really? I think maybe you should go ask the Developer and his attorney about what I told them I needed in order to vote in favor of the project and you’ll find it is pretty darn close to what I asked for.
Have a nice day!
Amy, I meant every word I said in my email to you. I applaud your volunteer work, a voter registration party sending out 330 letters, your pro bono work and your receipt of Volunteer of the Month at Project Citizenship – and your run.
I didn’t intend to “go after you” when I asked what Development projects you have voted for, I truly couldn’t remember. Now that I realize my comment came across as being snarky, I apologize. I was definitely thinking of someone else. I of course remember now the negotiating you did to get additional affordable units at Austin Street before you voted for it.
That said, I don’t really understand your reasons for not supporting Northland and your statement of not taking sides on anything controversial doesn’t resonate with me – unless you mean political sides.