Residents at two different Newton homes appear to have chosen to display the same pair of signs in their yards (go to “read more” to view). Discuss.
Signs of our times?
by village14 | Feb 10, 2020 | Newton | 32 comments
Categories
[youtube-feed feed=1]
Archives
Tags
40B (20)
alien abductions (61)
Alison Leary (19)
Amy Sangiolo (21)
april fools (40)
Austin Street (48)
Barney Frank (76)
Bob Kraft (36)
Brooke Lipsitt (102)
Charter Commission (27)
Chestnut Hill (25)
Chestnut Hill Square (76)
David Fleishman (30)
Donald Trump (25)
Emily Norton (28)
Frank Santo (20)
Gail Spector (18)
history (2269)
jacobson (20)
Jake Auchincloss (38)
Joe Kennedy III (30)
MBTA (25)
NewCAL (23)
Newton (45)
Newton Centre (36)
Newton Highlands (74)
Newton Nomadic Theater (28)
Newton people (19)
Newton Public Schools (19)
Newtonville (60)
NewTV (48)
Northland (34)
politics (83)
recreational marijuana (35)
Ruthanne Fuller (77)
Scott Lennon (44)
Senate (65)
Setti Warren (38)
Susan Albright (26)
trees (39)
Upper Falls (81)
video (23)
Village 14 blog (144)
Washington Place (22)
Webster Woods (21)
So what is your point? Do you think voting no on adding 660 high priced luxury apartments on an already crowded street means a person isn’t welcoming? It is really insulting to try to make this seem to be about people not wanting the small number of affordable units. There are real issues with 800 apartments with 800 cars on an always congested street . There are real issues with a couple of hundred children added to the schools. New neighbors are great. There wouldn’t be a protest if the project was just the 140 affordable units. This project has many flaws. I don’t live near it, but I’m voting no.
What I find conflicting is people will claim they’re voting yes for affordable housing but Northland Investment Corp is only building the bare minimum amount of affordable housing required by City code. The project literally couldn’t be built with less affordable housing! How on earth did the City “negotiate hard” and end up with only what’s required by code for any development?
If you want MORE AFFORDABLE housing than the bare minimum then vote NO.
Love our country where we can display our opinion via lawn signs and be proud. I love this! Our veterans and soldiers keep our democracy safe. Every vote counts.
They are indeed signs of the times, and unfortunately reflective of what Newton is at this moment: a limousine liberal neverland, where comfortably smug “progressives” and “social justice warriors” brag about living in a “welcoming” place where “hate has no home here” (at least as long as it doesn’t disrupt their relatively affluent lifestyles) and and where the real problems of people who don’t fit in are offloaded elsewhere.
Absolutely right Ted. Whether it is blatant hypocrisy, an unfounded and irrational fear of a worst case scenario, an inability to understand and accept the difference between the perfect and the doable, or some combination of the three, Newton is a perpetual, frustrating disappointment.
I look forward to March 3 as it provides an opportunity to simultaneously vote FOR something that is an overwhelmingly net positive and AGAINST something both insidious and selfish. A true Two for Tuesday!
My limousine is the green line and my level of comfort requires me to spend 60% of my income on housing.
If you want to follow the money trail, consider the Yes campaign offices are actually running from Northland Investment Corp’s own property. The trail goes dark though when you try to find who actually owns the land as the holding trust last named it’s owners in the 90s and even then most partners were other incognito trusts.
Ask yourself, who are we even granting this waiver to? For all we know someone in City government could be a benefactor of the land trust.
Are we really that gullible?
@David, you may not be comfortable in one sense, but your position is the same as those who are.
@David M – I know that everyone lives busy lives so let me catch you up. For over 2 years the City Council studied our inclusionary zoning formula. . We hired a housing economics consultant, we studied the field and national studies on the topic. The consultant’s plan basically proposed reducing the 50% AMI housing and leaving the total number at 15%. The Council took a leap of faith saying we can push this further and required keeping strong 50% and 80% – half the housing at 50% AMI and half at 80% AMI against the judgment of the consultant. In addition we added 2.5% immediately at the 80-110% AMI going to 5% at the end of a waiting period which will soon end. At 20% inclusionary zoning we along with Somerville are at the top of the cities who require inclusionary zoning. The Zoning and Planning Committee recommended strongly to the Council that we not push the economics beyond what is now required by ordinance.
I don’t think i need to reiterate all the things the developer is doing for Newton including the underground parking, the Traffic Demand Management Program, the undergrounding of wires, the 16 hours of shuttle every 10 minutes in perpeturity, the I&I funds, additional millions for local transportation initiatives, the donation to the reconstruction of Countryside – and I know I’ve missed some things.
I can hear some folks saying right now – but Austin St was 30% IZ – ONLY at the 80% level by the way. True – a councilor traded a vote for more inclusionary zoning but it nearly killed that project. If it weren’t for the new Work Force Housing Grant program that the state started at just the right moment to support the short fall on that project we would have lost that project.
Newton passed the inclusionary zoning ordinance more than 20 years ago. The percent was set at 15% – in all those years we got a whopping 10 or so units of inclusionary zoning. The housing economics finally caught up to our required percentages. If you push the percent to a level that makes it uneconomic for developers to subsidize the required units you get a big fat nothing.
If you want to know more about inclusionary zoning have a read here https://www.lincolninst.edu/news/press-releases/lincoln-institute-releases-largest-national-study-inclusionary-housing
If you disagree with the decision of the Council – explain your reasons and we will discuss.
As with all things in politics these days, this combination of signs seems to be something of a Rorschach Test. I don’t see it as symbolic of a liberal hypocrisy in Newton because I’m seeing a ground swell of support for more mixed used housing in Newton from all across the city, including in Upper Falls where I’m seeing a lot of “YES for Newton’s Future” signs. (Although I’m sure I’ll feel differently if no prevails on Super Tuesday.)
But would like to hear from those folks who can explain why they don’t feel these two signs don’t reflect NIMBYism. Not only will Northland be adding more affordable units to our housing stock than any project I can recall, but their market rate units provide an opportunity for individuals and families who can’t afford $200,000 or more down payments on a house or condo.
Susan, thank you for confirming Northland is only building the minimum percentage of affordable housing required by code.
It is grossly misleading for the yes campaign to claim a yes vote wins us a high percent of affordable housing when we know affordable housing is guaranteed by code and not something won in negotiations!
There have been some great pieces written about this topic in the last year or so.
Liberal America’s Single-Family Hypocrisy
America’s Cities Unlivable. Blame Wealthy Liberals
The Hoarding of the American Dream
The other day I read a stat that the most liberal cities in the Northeast – where those “No matter where you’re from, we’re glad you’re our neighbor” signs are prevalent – are also the most racially and socioeconomically segregated cities in the country. We’re not living our values when we deny others the opportunity to live here and take advantage of all the opportunity Newton provides.
Those lawn signs, “No matter where you’re from…” in Spanish and Arabic are IMO code words for open border globalist liberals live here and we hate Trump/Trump supporters. Nothing really to do with housing.
David M – If there is no development there is no affordable housing. That statement feels self-evident but perhaps not to some. Guarantees don’t provide housing developers do.
A 40B project guarantees 25% of the housing at 80% AMI. (when is the floor a ceiling?) So under 40B we lose the 50% housing and the middle income housing.
And btw – I’m very pleased that I could help you and others understand that we will get 140 units of affordable housing through this project which is more affordable housing than we have created in the last 10 years.
Susan, a no vote does not mean “no development”, it merely rejects the proposed design.
A yes vote does NOT guarantee “we will get 140 units of affordable housing” either because that’s merely the limit they can build. In fact, Northland is under no obligation to build anything. They don’t even own the land.
Btw, do you even know who owns this land? How can you be certain that no elected officials are benefactors or investors in this project if we don’t even know who owns the land?
@David M: Always preferable to only state facts when they are facts. Of course they are legally obligated to build 140 permanently affordable units if they build the project.
As for your conspiracy theories about our elected officials, well that’s not even worth a dignified response. But if you persist, we will revoke your participation on Village 14 in accordance with our commenting rules. This will be your only warning.
David M,
Not sure what you are on about. Go to the assessor’s database – you can clearly see that Northland owns the parcel.
David M,
I generally do not post here, because, YES, I work for Northland.
Northland has owned the Marshall’s Plaza for 41 years, the Saco Pettee Mill for 17 years, and the Ivex Industrial site for 16 years. Finally, I don’t know if it needs mentioning, but no elected officials are benefactors or investors in the Northland development or these three parcels. thank you.
“Open border globalist liberals” ! Beautiful , cliched , Fox News regurgitation. Jim, you do make me laugh- seriously you do. Thanks for your post!
Thank you @PresidentAlbright. You willingness to engage the community and share a 60+ page report on the topic is much appreciated.
I believe the 80% AMI affordable housing share at Austin Street is actually 33.8% (23 of 69 units) per Mayor Fuller’s 4/12/19 Housing Choice Initiative Application memo.
As you know, from my 12/9/20 letter to the City Council, this topic is of interest to me.
One concern is our current inclusion rate is keeping 40B Sword of Damocles you and others have raised on V14 above our heads. If the affordable unit share in the Riverside and Washington Place special permits was 25%, Newton would reach our 40B 10% Safe Harbor threshold. The City would be in a stronger position to negotiate solutions to address the issues thoughtfully raised by https://rightsize2020.org.
To your point about balancing ‘economics’ with the community need to address our affordable housing crisis, a few open questions in from letter may be of interest to other V14 readers:
1. Who is defining financial (or economic) viability for project developers? What are those
terms?
2. Who is providing verification of the criteria and conclusions?
3. Is the City of Newton receiving financial data form Northland and other developers to
support any claims they’re making around economic/financial viability?
I appreciate the considerable work required to examine our inclusionary zoning ordinance. Given the uptick in development (approved and proposed) in our city – Washington Place (140 units), Riverside (600), Northland (800), Residences on the Charles (204), Dunstan East (243)
it appears Newton is an attractive & profitable area for development.
I hope the City isn’t missing an opportunity to ask developers do more to address our affordable housing shortage by relying on an affordable hosing % that may not reflect the current economic reality of our market.
I like the proposed Northland project a lot, because I walk past the site almost every day and I believe that it will make the entire area a significantly more pleasant place.
But it’s absurd to equate the construction of a single, mixed-use development project with the welcoming of immigrants.
Northland is a private corporation seeking to enrich their millionaire shareholders. They’re not doing this to make the world a better or safer place, or to save the environment, or to rectify injustice, or to promote equality, or to house Latin American or Arab-speaking immigrants and refugees.
Northland proponents might want to consider toning down the hyperbolic Kool Aid rhetoric that this project is somehow the deciding battle between good and evil.
PS Vote yes
^ Arabic-speaking, not Arab-speaking
I know folks who have both signs up. They are terrific members of the Newton community. Lots of reasons to support or not support a project. Traffic/Green line sardine feeling/desire for phasing being 3 obvious ones.
Most folks are complex. And I do not presume to place hypocrisy or bias when none may exist. You can support Newton as a welcoming community and not support any particular project.
If anything, all these two signs signal to me is someone I’d like to go have coffee and a conversation with. Complex people are far more interesting to talk to. And they always know where to find good coffee and sweets in my experience. Folks should give it a try (not all at once though, that would a bit freaky for the person with multiple signs)
@Fig: Always appreciate your open mindedness. But can’t, as you say, more than one thing be true?
Might some people genuinely have nuanced reasons for displaying these two signs while others really are textbook examples of nimbyism?
Greg:
Yep. Could be. But I’d still be happier talking to the folks who at least put out the welcome sign as well as the vote no.
Life will go on after this vote. If the project is built, I hope we visit the outcomes in a few years.
Thank you Michael and Fig for your thoughtful comments. Greg give me a break.
I agree that we’re far better off arguing the merits of the project rather than trying to ascertain motives to either groups or random individuals.
That includes “NIMBY”, “rich and greedy”, and the whole spectrum of stereotypes and aspersions.
Northland has many anonymous financial partners, some of which probably live in Newton. Yet the land parcels being developed aren’t even deeded to the same company. Northland sets up shell corporations to control the land so they can walk away with their money in case the project goes bankrupt, as Northland did in Connecticut:
https://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/church_street_south12/
I am hardly an expert in real estate, but I thought almost every developer wraps projects and assets in LLCs to protect themselves. We bought our single family house from one.
Not making a statement on the practice beyond than saying it seems extremely common.
I put this in the same category as name-calling, probably worse.
Mike, I’m advocating for transparency:
“a lack of transparency results in distrust and a deep sense of insecurity” – His Holiness the Dalai Lama
@David M – “I’m advocating for transparency” said the anonymous poster who regularly spreads innuendo.
Our elected officials and municipal officials undergo training and must abide by pretty strict conflict of interest policies and laws. It’s outrageous to be casting these aspersions without a shred of evidence. Please stop.
Honestly. I think its likely there is nothing to see here … there is no correlation, no hidden message, hypocacy or conspiracy.
This may be hard for those emotionally invested in one side or another to fathom, but not all of us are so invested.
I’ll be voting yes, but if it fails it won’t matter to me one bit.
Call me out for being deplorable, irresponsible, apathetic, NIMBYish, immoral, uneducated, uninformed, a fool.
Truth is, in the context of your actual life it’s just not that important.
( Unless of course you’re the developer, or work for the developer)