The Boston Globe Editorial Board has endorsed a vote of Yes on the Northland ballot question that will be put before Newton voters on March 3rd, under the headline With a ‘yes’ vote on March 3, Newton can pave the way to fairer future.
America’s wealthy suburbs need to change. They need to allow more affordable housing, so that low-income families can access top-notch public schools and the lifetime opportunities they create. They need more housing, period, to cool the real estate market that’s crushing middle-class families. And they need denser housing as a way to address climate change.
In other words, they need more housing like the Northland project, a proposed 800-unit development at an old factory site in Newton Upper Falls, whose fate Newton voters will decide in a hotly contested March 3 referendum. The Globe strongly endorses a “yes” vote to approve the project — and not just for its many practical benefits for Newton and for the region, from new parks to set-asides for mom-and-pop businesses.
But wait there’s more! A second editorial on Newton’s housing starts this way:
“If the city of Newton becomes a trailblazer at tackling inequality this year, it will be because, in 2013, the wealthy, mostly white suburb looked at itself in the mirror — and recoiled.
“That was when the city’s former mayor, Setti Warren, bowing to heavy neighborhood opposition, yanked funding for a plan to provide apartments for nine formerly homeless people at an old brick fire station in Waban called Engine 6.”
“The local elementary school, Countryside, has an unused classroom”
Surely this is a joke. Countryside has had a modular trailer attached to it for over 10 years. I’m all for endorsements, but at least have someone who knows what they’re talking about write it.
@Jim: The point is that Countryside needed only 19 of its 20 classrooms this year and expects to need only 18 of its 20 classrooms next year because the elementary school enrollment is declining.
Too bad the Globe editorial board had no idea what the referendum was about. This has nothing to do with affordable housing and the poor people hypothesized by the Globe wouldn’t be able to afford to live there. The Globe gets an F on intelligence.
@Greg, we all know there is always swings in classroom size and space. Back in the 1980’s, the City of Newton sold off valuable school buildings or allowed them to be converted to housing believing they would not be needed in the future. As a consequence, Newton has two middle schools that sit side by side (Oak Hill and Brown). Needs and population change over time.
@Peter: You work in real estate, right? How’s the market? In particular, how much inventory is there out there for young families or young couples who want to live in Newton? Would you say it’s easy, moderately easy, difficult or very difficult for families with school age, or younger, children to find housing here?
I look forward to hearing your answer.
Thanks @Chuck.
Curious the 2nd Globe Editorial used 2017 affordable housing data and didn’t cite the latest Newton figures provided in the 40B Safe Harbor Memo drafted by the City Solicitor and Planning Department in Dec 2019. http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/100653
The Globe article also neglects to mention two large 40B projects now before the Newton Zoning Board – Dunstan East (243 units) and Riverside on the Charles (204). These projects alone almost get us to the 461 additional affordable housing unites the Memo says we need to reach out 10% Safe Harbor target.
@Greg – The point is that number is inflated because some of those classrooms again, are in a glorified trailer, or as a January 27th NPS report puts it – a “9-classroom annex/modular wing built with temporary construction methods”
Further from that report:
– “The MSBA’s 2016 School Survey determined that Countryside is “overcapacity” in utilization of general space”
– “the library, gym, and auditorium are all sized for a school population approximately half the size of the current enrollment. Overall, the entire school is about half the square footage it should be based on the enrollment.”
– “Twenty-five percent of the classrooms, the library and music classroom are undersized when compared to MSBA guidelines for elementary schools.”
– “The MSBA capacity rating for the Countryside School is noted as “overcapacity” in the 2016 MSBA School Survey Report. Without reliance on the outdated aging temporary classrooms, Countryside would be overcrowded.”
Enrollment could go down and Countryside could still be ill-suited for its enrollment numbers. I know Northland would be donating about a million to Countryside, but that’s pennies for what needs to change there.
I’m still undecided about the referendum, but using Countryside is just a silly example and should be called out as such.
Sorry, forgot to link the report -> https://patch.com/massachusetts/newton/newton-eyes-countryside-franklin-schools-renovation
Jim,
Countryside IS in poor condition. Its core facilities,gym library, etc., are inadequate in addition to the aging modular classrooms on the site. It is deservedly on the top of the list for renovation. That is separate from the number of classrooms needed annually for enrollment. The NPS Long Range Facilities Plan seeks to replace/renovate outdated buildings as well as build in excess capacity to deal with the fluctuations in enrollment over time. Peter is right that we are living with some unfortunate school closing decsions in the past.
@Susie, the overarching point that the report makes is that the number of classrooms available can be misleading.
Technically, yes, there is a sufficient number of classrooms for the student population. That said, when you account for appropriately sized, non-trailer, classrooms, there’s clear, as the report put it, “overcrowded”-ness at Countryside.
Because of this, we could theoretically add students to Countryside, but in its current state Countryside shouldn’t even hold the number of students it does today. Adding students will only further exacerbate the issue, and I’m almost 100% certain that Northland will be up and running before we see a new Countryside.
If there’s a way to build quickly around Countryside’s wetlands or a plan I haven’t seen, I’m all ears. Northland has a lot of perks, but this is a clear negative unless there’s such a plan.
@Jim . Our elected city councilors negotiated with Northland on the proposal for 2+ years. The council voted 17-7 to approve the measure. In that 17 were all three of the Ward 5 councilors. We should respect the process and the city council vote.
Greg, we are finding that the rental market is becoming saturated. Inventory has been exceeding demand.
Bear in mind that we have two Avalons, a nearby Kendrick and Charles River Landing, Austin Street, Walnut and Washington, Riverside and soon to be added Chestnut Hill Square and the new CHR building on Lagrange St. Plus 15% of the condo’s at the Chestnut Hill Towers are leased (about 62 units). These are all desirable elevator buildings. Lots of competition.
Great to hear Peter! And what percentage of those who are moving in families with school age or younger kids?
@Jack, as I’ve noted throughout, I’m still very up in the air about Northland – in large part because I’m not hearing anything concrete other than “respect the vote” in regards to NPS, and Rightsize is, well, Rightsize.
@Jim: Have you read the two Globe editorials? Because they certainly lay out a case that goes far deeper than simply Respecting the Vote and thoughtfully challenges many of Right Size’s core assertions.
@Greg, most families that I’m helping look to lease or buy multi families or single family homes. First time home purchasers prefer if possible, to buy condo’s in Newton over leasing.
@Peter: You didn’t directly answer my question. But you seem to be saying that families with school age or younger children aren’t moving into apartments. If so, how do you justify worrying that Northland is going to create an enrollment increase?
I do not support creating a problem to solve a problem.
Today I attended a meeting in Upper Falls to hear once again the pros and cons. Those who spoke for and against arguments on the areas of concern convinced me that this was a bad decision by our counselors. It is bad for rent rates, traffic congestion, climate change mitigation, community diversity, tax rates, and builds its case on a lot of very tenuous assumptions. I especially view the idea of a 40B alternative as a threat that, although not explicit, makes itself implicit in some of the yes vote literature.
I will vote no on this project and support current and future affordable housing projects that are smaller scale and distributed over less congested spaces.
@John Brennan – I was at the Upper Falls meeting today to. There was useful information presented there, but by no means were the pros and cons presented.
The meeting was organized and presented entirely by the No side. That’s perfectly fine and they have every right to organize this kind of meeting but it should not be mistaken for an even handed presentation of the Yes and No’s cases.
I was at today’s event too. Organizers made it clear from the very first audience question that they weren’t going to allow the yes side to speak, even though that’s exactly what the guy asking the question (who said he was an undecided voter) requested!
In fact it wasn’t until some guy in the audience stated heckling (um, okay, I was that guy) that Right Size decided to allow City Councilor Deb Crossley (who represents Ward 5 for heavens sake) to answer that gentleman’s question.
It’s unfortunate that there has not yet been and does not look like there will be a single event where representatives of both side will be given equal time to present.
Thanks Peter Karg for the real estate update. If this project is approved, I doubt it will be built as planned. Lots more rental properties are coming on the market and this is not an ideal location.
@Arthur Jackson: Your gut feelings aside, under the 45 conditions board order, Northland is required by law to “build as planned.”
Jerry Reilly – Point well taken and I stand corrected. However, Crossley did have a chance to respond as a courtesy, and people listened to her without interruption and without heckling her. She contested comments on percent of affordable housing and commercial use of space and so a couple of pros and cons were discussed. That in no way excuses my mischaracterization of this meeting as discussion of pros and cons.
The NO meeting was intentionally (and rightly I think) set up as a forum for people who are on the same side of this issue and I learned a great deal from it. We have been avalanched with supporters of this project, in the newspapers, via email and flyers in the mail. It was heartening to be able to hear the voices of folks who feel very strongly on the other side, among those who share their deep misgivings about this project. Thanks.