On Thursday, February 6, Newton convened a rather remarkable gathering of community activists to discuss the upcoming creation of a new seven-year open space and recreation plan. The advocates or “Friends” of various parks and playgrounds, from Nahanton Park to Cold Spring, were there. The Newton Conservators, the spiritual leader of these local groups, was represented as well, as was the Newton Tree Conservancy. Members of Bike Newton, Preserve Newton Parks, Friends of Newton Tennis, and a newly formed committee to advocate for the playing fields of Newton all participated in the two-hour meeting.
The ostensible goal of the organizers in city government was to solicit our input to aid the commission designated to draw up the plan, due in draft form by April 30. The meeting followed a familiar format: we broke into smaller groups and drew up lists of priorities for the city to tackle. It quickly became apparent that all of the lists were nearly identical:
- The playing fields and courts and swimming areas need better maintenance; they are worn out from age, heavy use, or neglect.
- The parks and green spaces need attention as well, from protection from invasive species to maintenance of trails.
- Newton needs to provide safer lanes to encourage cycling across the Garden City.
- The parks and green spaces need to be more accessible by foot or bike and more interconnected.
The participants acknowledged the city’s recent efforts on behalf of open space and recreation, particularly the acquisition of Webster Woods and the Upper Falls Greenway; the trail improvements and habitat restoration at Kennard and Noriega Parks, and the power washing of Newton North’s tennis courts. At the same time, we all observed how much more work needs to be done. Some observed that the parks and fields in neighboring communities seem to be in much better shape.
Remarkably, those in attendance were of like mind: all of these priorities, from restoring Gath Pool to repairing the trails of Cold Spring Park, deserved Newton’s attention. As several speakers noted, however, these dreams come with high costs. The Department of Parks and Recreation is grossly underfunded and understaffed, especially given all that we hope to accomplish.
How can we fund these projects and then maintain them properly going forward? Sometimes the city funds these efforts with bonds; sometimes it forms partnerships with the Friends groups to share expenses; sometimes it solicits grants from the Commonwealth or charitable foundations; frequently the city pays through tax revenues. With all of the fixed expenses in the city budget, discretionary funds to improve our open spaces and recreational facilities are inevitably constrained.
There’s the rub. Whatever plan for open spaces and recreation emerges must include proposals for funding the efforts envisioned, especially ongoing maintenance. That might involve more partnerships between the public and private sector; selling naming rights, something the city has always resisted; and other creative means for generating the funds. It would be vain to expect that our taxes alone will suffice to sustain the parks and fields and open space at levels we all desire.
“It would be vain to expect that our taxes alone will suffice to sustain the parks and fields and open space at levels we all desire.”
Why? That’s how other municipalities do it. Let’s look at some other towns – bordering Newton, within 128 & have good schools, etc:
Arlington 11.26
Belmont 11.67
Brookline 9.37
Concord 14.19
Lexington 14.12
Needham 12.39
Somerville 10.76
Waltham 12.66
Watertown 12.88
Wellesley 11.57
Weston 12.59
Winchester 12.11
Newton 10.45
Now remember, because of Prop 2.5 the year to year delta is fixed (sans overide) so we would expect places with higher real estate prices to have a Lowe tax rate.
That said, I think that Newton is running at least 10% low compared to our peer communities.
And so while I have about $600 more in my bank account at the end of every year, I pay for it in the condition of the parks and roads, public buildings and services.
So why would it be vain to expect residents of Newton to pay the same taxes we’d pay if we lived anywhere else?
(As always, this is a personal statement and does not reflect the policies or positions of my employer)
I actually agree with you, having argued for many years that our tax rate should be higher, especially in light of the influx of wealthy people into McMansions and new developments. Others have responded privately to this article with the same contention: Newton should tax its citizens at a level commensurate with its needs, including the maintenance of public space. Yet every time I propose as much in print or in conversation, the almost universal response is that Newton residents are overtaxed. One friend even suggested that if I am feeling that virtuous, why don’t I just make donations to the tax coffers myself?
Go figure….
I think you are right, but I don’t have figure to prove it. Cambridge is relatively low because we have a strong income from the business/financial sector ( not the Universities, as I understand it.)
Thank you for this post Bob. I thought the meeting was excellent. I did provide one piece of feedback to the Planning Department, that there did not seem to be an explicit connection made between the next open space plan, and climate resilience, in terms of the instructions given to attendees, or the criteria they should use for prioritization. However the December 2018 Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and Action Plan recommended on p.66, “Incorporate climate resilience in open space planning.”
Thank Bob!
How much of a carbon sink is a grass field ( minus any petroleum based fertilizer if used) vs artificial turf? I’d like to see our fields remain grass, especially if the carbon sink is positive.
That’s a hot issue. The artificial fields drain better than natural in most places because most of Newton is naturally swampy. They also are cheaper to maintain. But they come at an environmental cost, both in the production of the materials, the possible health risks of playing on them, especially in hot weather, and so forth. Obviously, artificial turf doesn’t sequester carbon.
I am not wading into this debate!
Thanks, Bob. I was an eager attendee at that meeting and came away a little concerned that your description here, with which I agree, wasn’t the perception held by the facilitators from the Conway School of Design, who are tasked with thinking through the themes and developing a plan for the next meeting. They seemed as though they had a pre-existing agenda that didn’t include improved maintenance or replacing Gath pool – or any focus on Albemarle, even though it was voiced by multiple participants. It’s important to me, as I’m sure it is to all of us, that residents are clearly heard. We’ve got to increase our focus on equity as we increase green space on the south side, instead of reducing it or ignoring it on the north side.
To that end, if you’re reading this, come to the next meeting of this group, and join us all in advocating, city-wide, for healthier parks, trails, fields and outdoor recreation options:
Public meeting #2. The second meeting, to be held on Wednesday, March 4th from 7:00-9:00pm at The Price Center*, 27 Christina Street, Newton Upper Falls, MA 02461. The Price Center is a fully accessible location. For ADA accommodations, contact Jini Fairley, at least two business days in advance: [email protected] or 617.796.1253. For City’s TTY/TDD: 617.796.1089. For TRS, dial 711.
This meeting will serve as an opportunity for the Conway School students to present the work that they have done so far and residents to provide feedback and comments.