Over at the Boston Globe, Jon Chesto took a deep dive into the Northland referendum and came up with the basic idea that this vote has grand implications for the future of our city.
If you’re like me, you believe that the referendum sends a very strong signal to developers to “stay away” from our community, because it’s just too complicated. I haven’t been shy about pointing this out.
Mayor Fuller backs this up as quoted by Chesto:
Fuller cited an essentially glowing report card that bond ratings agency Moody’s gave the city on Feb. 7. Rather than focus on the positive, she pointed to the warning signs contained therein: a limited ability to raise taxes, looming long-term pension liabilities. We had better lean into having the right kind of commercial tax base here, Fuller told the crowd, or we’ll face a big problem.
On the other side is the voice that says this is the stand that we, the people of Newton need to take to control development here and keep developers from running wild over our land.
Let the comment war begin!
This is a really important part of Jon Chesto’s column..
Not only have the Right Sizers never said what they believe is the right size for this project, they’ve never said how we are going to grow our commercial tax base to meet looming fiscal challenges. If we scare away growth, we’re really backing our city into a precarious financial situation.
Obviously this is not my blog and the posters here can post whatever they want, but this preoccupation with development is making this blog really boring to me. These posts are either preaching to the choir (me) or going to be met with the same comments from the same anti-development people. How many times can we have the same conversation?
MMQC, normally I would agree with you but the March 3 vote on the veto referendum attempting to overturn a zoning decision in the form of a special permit for Northland made by a supermajority of the city council’s 24 member body is coming up fast so I think it deserves all of the attention it can get.
Many more residents read V14 than comment here and a lot of them have no idea what this referendum vote entails. For those folks I’m willing to put up with the same ole negative comments even though they are boring to me too.
Vote No to veto the city council’s vote so ?
Vote Yes to support the city council’s vote so Northland can be built.
It’s the anti-anti-development people that post the same arguments! So there.
I will no be out antied!
Besides, I think on this bulletin board, er blog, er, comment site, or whatever it is, the anti-ant-anti development people are far outnumbered.
Newton’s location, close to Boston, should have developers clamoring to build a diverse housing mix, commercial and retail but because of the hassle and money involved in going through a 2-3 year process, the neighbors and other groups over-involvement and now a referendum attempting to veto all of the negotiations during that time, only wealthy resident developers, like Robert Korf, or large organizations, like Northland, located in Newton are up to the task.
Because of all of this, Newton is missing out on both small developers, creative architecture and a needed increase in housing and commercial.
@Mary: I actually think the economic development debate that Chesto raised in his column is one aspect of this project that hasn’t been discussed much so I appreciate that Chuck started this thread.
Also, it seems that a lot of Newton voters are just beginning to learn about this project, so while it may seem redundant to you, it’s brand new to many others.
@Rick: Maybe its because the opposition to this project realizes that they have no clear arguments that stand up in an open forum like this. We’ve invited Right Size to submit a guest blog post here many times and they’ve declined, just as they declined (and even cancelled) meeting with Northland.
Maybe the mods can simply make a generic anonymous poll on the project. Straw vote two weeks before real vote. Make it happen Greg
Fred, why? Generic anonymous poll – isn’t that an oxymoron. Anytime anonymity is allowed in a poll, the poll has no credibility. Besides, a poll on V14 would garner votes from too small a sample to be meaningful. Kind of like only needing 5% of voters’ signatures to hold a referendum – most other cities require at least 10%.
@MB you are right we should of learned from the polls in ‘16 how far things were off. Boy how people were fooled.
Still voting no.
800 units. Enough said. Vote No.
@greg Exactly. A few months ago I post the question: Why does Newton need to grow? on V14.
Sean Roach took the opportunity to create a new thread with my question touting that Newton has a moral obligation to grow so that we can push the density as high as possible in order to save the planet.
He then extended the moral obligation to include righting the wrongs of previous generations who created the neighborhoods that afford us the lifestyle that we enjoy here.
What I had expected to learn from that question was why does Newton need to grow from a financial perspective.
As I’ve said previously I’m likely going to vote Yes but a No victory won’t rock my world.
For those working so hard to promote this project, your focus at this point should not be on discrediting Rightsize Newton but on making a case for why this is important for Newton.
Moral obligation, saving the planet from climate change, a ‘housing crisis’, lack of affordable housing all have terciery merit, but for those of us not in the neighborhood of the project, hearing more about why Newton’s fiscal health needs projects like this to increase our tax base is an argument that has traction.
It’s taken a long while to get over the fact that we paid so much for a high school that 10 years later it’s still the 4th most expensive in the country. but if we are truly headed for a fiscal crisis, as a resident I want to know more about it … and it will make a difference in the decisions I make at The ballot box.
Preaching to people about your opinion about their their moral responsibility is never a good idea.
@Mike yes, we’re headed for a fiscal crisis. Amy Sangiolo campaigned on this during her mayoral run and I’m sure she’ll be happy to talk about it again. We need an override, the only question is going to be “how much?” This has come up several times in discussion and I’ve mentioned it ad-nauseam.
This has several implications when it comes to development that we can’t ignore and which are outlined in the economic development study. First, we are known in the development community as the city of No, which the city councilors have been told again and again. Most recently in the study but also in public hearings and in conversations. This means most developer are just staying away.
Second, we rely too much on single-family housing which puts the tax burden on families, but it also keeps away younger and less-wealthy workers. This makes it more difficult to open a business here. Third, we have a lack of class-A office infrastructure, which is why the loss of a potential commercial property at Riverside is such a big deal. All of this means that when those developers who are willing to build in Newton go to raise money, they can only get financing for housing. We keep throwing out commercial, so it’s a bad investment.
Also, these issues won’t go away. They’re going to come up again on Washington Street and on other parcels along Needham Street, at the very least.
There is no single decision that will save us and no single answer here, but we need an overall cultural change that is more open and more inviting. Voting Yes can start to turn things around.
If everyone is willing to throw in an extra $2000 or so a year, we should be fine, but are you willing to do that to save the city’s finances? If you are, then by all means vote No, just know that it’s not a free vote.
Quote of the day!
“Preaching to people about your opinion about their their moral responsibility is never a good idea.”
Thanks @mike
What we have is a Mayor and her band of Councilors who all donate to each other’s campaigns, preaching to us on what we are morally obligated to do, armed with fists of our tax dollars.
It’s been said in other treads that Northland will cost Newton more the tax revenue coming in, especially since much of the previously zoned commercial space will become the lower rate residential variety. Yet, the Mayor and her band of Councilors press forward and publicly ask we all vote yes – from their single family homes, comfortably distanced from the chaos that will only get worse on Needham Street.
We can’t vote them all out on March 3rd, but voting “no” is the next best thing.
@Matt I think you missed the most important line in @Mike’s comment “but if we are truly headed for a fiscal crisis, as a resident I want to know more about it … and it will make a difference in the decisions I make at The ballot box.”
It’s difficult to argue that they’re “armed with fists of our tax dollars” when we’re in a fiscal crisis. Not so many of those dollars to go around, and we need more. The answer is more complicated than a Yes/No (which is why we elect representatives)… but that’s what we’ve been forced into.
This project will be NET POSITIVE cash wise and other to the city.
From the 2019 Economic Development Commission Annual Report:
“In general, we believe the Project will be beneficial to the City from the following economic development perspectives. This letter is based on the proposal with 800 units of housing, 115,000 square feet (SF) of retail, and 180,000 (SF) of commercial space, the site plan dated April 12, 2019, and information publicly available as of June 18, 2019. ”
Development of an underutilized 22‐acre site.
Investment of approximately half a billion dollars including an estimated one‐time $7 million in building permit fees to the City.
Generation of a conservative estimate of $1 million in annual net new positive tax revenue. (approximately $4 million in gross tax revenue) and an estimated on‐going direct and indirect annual economic impact of approximately $471 million
Align with Newton with regional development trends.
Aspects of the Project that advance economic development in Newton:
Significant investment in Newton.
Mixed use development in the Needham Street Corridor.
Commitment to 10,000 SF of local retail with a 25% discount on rent. (total retail is 115,000 SF).
Renovation of office space and inclusion of multi‐level atrium in the office building which will include common space/Internet lounges and a café.
Commitment to provide frequent, free, public shuttle services to the Newton Highlands MBTA stop
Crisis = ‘Any event that is expected to lead to an unstable and dangerous situation affecting an individual, group, community, or whole society.’
@Chuck, We live in a time where there are a multitude of crisis issues competing for our attention. I’m probably not alone in approaching with skepticism. What if Newton says NO to an override? What would happen? Is the Mayor talking about an impending financial crisis ‘ad-nauseam’?
I’m voting YES because it’s the right thing to do.
The developer has a right to develop their land, based on zoning, and has jumped through hoops – Negotiating in good faith for 4 years (and at great expense) to develop a project plan to meet the concerns and needs of our community. Just not ethical to string a business along for years only to say, Nah, we changed our mind. You wouldn’t put up with that in your business dealings.
What isn’t right, is that 5% of voters can organize to override the city council. That’s a foul. Disrespectful to our system.
@Matt Don’t get too excited, I generally try to trust and respect our elected officials even if I disagree. At the end of the day, it’s not going to make that much difference in your day to day life what they do.
@Mike many questions at once and I cannot address all of that in a comment, nor would it do the conversation justice. During her run the Mayor talked up her finance experience as it pertained to her work at WGBH. She did, at the time, talk about the many challenges the city will face in the coming years. You can also dig into any of a number of reports that the city has produced over the past few years showing many unfunded liabilities. We have major issues off in the future around both pensions and healthcare that will need our attention. Then there are major infrastructure upgrades, improvements and maintenance that we still need to consider. Not the least of which is our school rebuilding project.
What happens if we vote No? I know what I believe the future to be based on my conversations and research, but others disagree. I believe, as you appear to, that we are sending a clear signal to developers that their time and money aren’t welcome here. I believe that will have major repercussions.
Others think that our area is so desirable that developers will do just about anything to work here and that we can win a game of chicken. I’m not willing to play that game.
@Mike Ciolino
You state that your voting yes, because the developer has the right based on zoning.
This whole referendum is based on Northland get 3 parcels a re-zoned.
Zoning is intended to give people expectations. So when 3 large parcels get rezoned to allow 8 story buildings, I would suggest that is quite a change.
And people in the Neighborhood are not happy about that change.
Some people in the neighborhood are not happy. Other people are enthusiastically supporting it.
And some people in the neighborhood are only now getting to know the full details about what is going on. And alarmingly, some people in the neighborhood are being fed utter BS by the Yes campaign.
@Marti. In fairness, the City may have only required a 5% threshold, but I think the petitioners really got closer to the 10% level you suggested as the minimum.
@MattLai You seem to think that the majority of Newtonians think like you. You should run for city council and prove out your theory. You Ward 5, 6 or 8? should be fascinating to see how you do.
Didn’t the Charter folks have a referendum? Hmmm was good enough for them.
‘I believe, as you appear to, that we are sending a clear signal to developers that their time and money aren’t welcome here. I believe that will have major repercussions.’
@Sean No, I don’t subscribe to your “sending a message” fear-mongering rhetoric. Developers gotta develop. It’s calculated risk.
The developer will find a less ambitious path, the city loses out on benefits negotiated, and the neighborhood gets a pink hotel, a boutique, and a swinging hot spot.
@Rick I think a revision to the charter requires a ballot vote?
Mike’s right.
@CouncilorBowman thanks for sharing that the net positive tax impact from Northland is projected to be $1 million per year.
RightSize2020 reports that a City consultant’s methodology estimates 249 additional students vs. 138 from the peer review. https://rightsize2020.org/
Using the avg. marginal cost range per NPS pupil of $14K to $19K discussed at the Washington Vision Fiscal Impact model presentation to the City Council on 3.19.19, 111 additional students will increase Northland’s yearly cost to the City by $1.6 mil to $2.2 mil. This would vaporize the projected surplus and make the net fiscal impact negative.
The marginal cost range above aligns with the $18.5K Newton per NPS sutdent reported to the MA Dept. of Education in 2019. http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/statereport/ppx.aspx
While Northland hasn’t shared financial projections. Total rent revenue should exceed $500 mil. over the first ten years and $1 billion over the first 20 years. A straight-line avg. monthly residential rent of $4250 (which feels conservative based on Austin Street rents) alone will generate $408 mil. in residential rent revenue over 10 yrs.
This stands in stark contrast to the potential of a breakeven OR negative impact for the City.
A NO vote on Northland will send a signal very much in keeping with Mayor Fuller’s comments – “Newton welcomes development but our residents and the City won’t sacrifice our fiscal health so developers can earn massive profits.”
We can and should reach a better permit agreement with Northland.
To those who believe the “NO = a Massive 40B project” threat I don’t think this is a certain outcome and made comments to that effect in a prior post.
https://village14.com/2020/02/12/fuller-why-i-will-vote-yes-on-northland-on-march-3/#axzz6ES3PA6mX
@Mike I hear what you’re saying with the concerns about fear-mongering, but I really do believe this and it’s based on a lot of research and conversations.
Developers go where the development is most profitable. The more difficult we make it, the less profitable it is. The article above suggests that it’s a very real issue.
It’s worth noting that Ted Tye, who was quoted in that article, has his offices in Newton but won’t develop here. He also sat on the city’s planning board. This isn’t someone who makes that decision lightly.
Will Northland build something? Yes, but it probably won’t be a hotel. We haven’t built one in this city since 1971, despite demand that keeps them popping up in Waltham and Needham. We created regulations that made it unprofitable to build one.
One of the major elements that makes Newton great, also makes it extremely inefficient and expensive to maintain. Villages. We are a community of 13 villages, with neighborhood schools, neighborhood parks, fire stations spread out to cover the pocketed density, village centers with all of their individual infrastructure. We have far more parks, far more schools, far more municipal buildings, and far more sports fields than comparable communities. This has been studied in the past for a variety of comparative analysis initiatives. That’s what we have. What don’t we have? We don’t have state and federal budget aid applied individually to 13 small towns here in Newton. We don’t get state funding for new schools based on being 13 small towns. Each village protects their parks and green space because if you live in Nonantum, you probably don’t visit Oak Hill very often. What makes Newton wonderful, also makes in very inefficient. To sustain all of this infrastructure, we need funding. Taxes go up at 2.5% annually, while the costs of health care, utilities, materials, and labor in Massachusetts rises at more than twice that rate. If we do not take advantage of the limited opportunities for commercial and residential development, our tax base will not grow. If we can’t grown our tax base, and the cost to maintain the Newton we love rises twice as fast as the current tax revenue, then the only way to balance the books is on the backs of the current residents and businesses. I don’t believe it’s realistic to shoulder all of the capital liabilities through tax overrides. Maybe some of you are either fine with overrides every couple years forever, or maybe your fine with stopping the investment in roads, parks, and schools, but I would prefer to maximize our opportunities to expand our tax base, in areas we are comfortable with, with projects that balance a realistic capitalist market with our priorities. If we don’t embrace positive change, we will inevitably succumb to a slow negative change that will result from our inability to invest in what makes Newton a wonderful community.
@Chuck RE: Pink Hotels …
That was just a reference to a Joni Mitchel song (or Counting Crows if you are older ) for levity.
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique
And a swinging hot spot
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got til its gone
Oh, sorry… know the song, but didn’t catch the reference.
Thanks for the economic analysis Richard. Is there any reason a development with 400 units wouldn’t be financially feasible?? I haven’t seen any calculations explaining why 800 is the correct number??? Thanks.
What Matt said. In spades.
Thanks @Aurthur.
Other are better equipped than me to comment on Northland’s profitability. That said, my quick analysis and the steady stream of YES postcards arriving at my home suggests their current permit is lucrative.
To be clear, Northland should earn a profit. My comment focused on the risk that fiscal cost impacts driven by the scale of the current project will exceed property tax gains as Northland does very well.
Recent data suggests that the 138 student increase forecast cited in today’s Boston Globe Editorial is to0 low.
1) Councilor Crossley said the increase was 148 at last week’s League of Women Voters event. (NOTE: In fairness this may be a typo as 138 and 148 are close) https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/newton/2020/02/18/only-one-side-shows-league-women-voters-forum-northland/Xxjc1t2PzYJwtXj6P4DHsO/story.html
2) Former School Committee members Claire Sokoloff & Susie Heyman cite a 165 pupil increase in their Letter to the Tab. This figure aligns with the 160 student impact projection that NPS staff has told me was included in their most recent Enrollment Study. (NOTE: NPS advised that these students are only being counted in the 2023-24 & 2024-25 school years) https://newton.wickedlocal.com/news/20200219/newton-letter-why-we-believe-northland-is-good-for-our-schools
Before one shovel has broken ground at Northland, the student impact projections are moving toward the 249 figure RightSize2020.org cites.
Mayor Fuller’s pledge that this half billion dollar project will help ensure the City’s long-term fiscal health appears in doubt. Using the same avg. net margin cost per student discussed at the 3.19.19 Washington Street Fiscal Impact hearing, 22 additional students will trim the $1 mil. annual tax surplus by $308K to $418K.
I have every confidence that our neighbors at Northland and our elected leaders have the skill to make changes to safeguard Newton’s long-term fiscal health AND to address remaining issues.
If residents send a message that we believe this great City can do better by voting NO on March 3rd, I believe they’ll find the will to do so.