First, Right Size Newton withdrew from plans to debate its upcoming referendum at a forum sponsored forum. Yesterday, we learned that Right Size also declined to appear along side Yes For Newton’s Future before the Boston University Journalism Class that’s covering Newton for the Boston Globe.
Then last night Right Size announced on Facebook that it is organizing something called a “Conversation about Northland” for this weekend, except it’s not actually a conversation because Right Size had not invited Northland supporters to participate.
This, of course, is the same group that declined to meet with Northland for three years.
Exactly what are these guys so afraid of?
Apparently they are afraid of everything.
– They fear development.
– They fear defending their perspective on development.
– Perhaps they fear developing a means of articulating their fears of development.
It is both sad and frustrating that a group founded on (irrational) fear should be having such an outsized impact on the future of Newton. Hopefully the election will provide a sharp rebuke of this approach to civic engagement.
I’m annoyed and angered that the announcement doesn’t make it clear that only the “No” side will be there. If they want a one-sided presentation, that’s their right, but in that case the event should have a clear label – something like “Why You Should Vote No on Northland” so that people know what they’ll be getting before setting aside time to attend.
I am annoyed and angered that former journalists can weaponize the wild west (social media) to spin only one side of the story.
Case in point, the Gail Spector “inviation” was for 9:30am on a Wednesday (when most people work) and the audience, was just her class, not Newton Voters. Gail Spector has violated the first rule of journalism. She has become the story.
That’s just one example.
Anyone see the movie, “Braveheart”?? Walking into an ambush, on unfavorable terms never helps the outcome. You need to remember that RSN and it’s supporters were NEVER TAKEN SERIOUSLY from day 1. There were silenced in Land Use Meetings, and marginalized every step of the way, until a referendum was forced. One day you may find your self in these same shoes, and find the need for caution.
@Matt – Gail has made it clear that she reached out to several people in the organization’s leadership over a period of at least a month. Are you saying she’s lying, or is it just that the organization is disorganized and you didn’t know other people were reached out to as well?
RE – RSN not being taken seriously, I’m not sure how much more the City Council could’ve bent over backwards to accommodate you. At every land use hearing I’ve ever been to, your members are strategizing with sympathetic council members, speaking during public debate, booing when they hear something they don’t like during council debate, etc.
This is one of the fundamental problems with Right Size Newton’s approach. You say things like “marginalized” or “silenced” or that the City Council “isn’t listening” but what you really mean is that you wish to control the decisions made by the City Council, and you complain about process when you get a result that you don’t like.
Sunday is going to be a great event.
Dennis Murphy, a local land use attorney and an expert on 40b will be there to present information on 40b, and answer your questions.
The Committee for Responsible Development is running a campaign based on factual information. Northlands representatives on the other hand peddling fear and doubt.
Hope to see you there.
@Simon: Sounds more like a “lecture” or a “campaign rally,” than a “conversation.”
That’s fine if that’s what you want to do. But it take chutzpah to call it a “conversation” when Right Size has been avoiding conversations about this project for three years.
@Matt please don’t play the victim here. RSN has been working that tired tactic for a while now, going back to the start when they claimed that the city didn’t listen to their concerns. The city did listen and it reacted.
RSN has established a pattern of behavior in which the “No” campaign has been unwilling to take part in public discourse. It’ll comment on blogs with slogans, but when it comes to going into a debate setting or standing up to answer questions from citizens, participants quickly back away.
The “No” side managed to make it to a 9:00am event on Thursday morning during vacation week. Both Martina Jackson and Randy Block were there. I would suspect that they could have made time for Gail’s class too, or for any of the debate times that Allison Sharma suggested.
It’s an ambush if you don’t know what’s coming and charge in anyway. It’s a lie if you’re welcomed with open arms and stand on the outside screaming “we’re not allowed in!”
@Matt: Speaking of weaponizing social media to present a slanted view…
Gail Spector organized the event specifically for *her class*, to help *her class* get up-to-speed on the issues on both sides, so as to help inform their coverage of the story and present a balanced narrative – exactly what RSN claims it wants. It was supposed to be a teachable moment for a class of prospective journalists who are actually trying to fill a huge gap in local journalism. That’s not exactly “becoming the story”, as you argued. (If someone else wants to turn that into a story, that’s on them, not Gail.)
A quick check of the course listings for BU’s College of Communications shows that her Reporting in Depth (COM JO 210) class meets Wednesday mornings from 8am-10:45am. So 9:30am was a reasonable ask, since it’s when the class meets.
I’ll be there on Sunday and I’m particularly interested in Dennis Murphy’s presentation on 40 B. I’ve heard radically different interpretations about what the likely effects will be. Maybe we can separate the wheat from the chaff without burning the wheat.
@BobBurke . What makes you think you will get an unbiased take on 40B from RightSize Newton?
Furthermore I’m curious as to why someone from the Area Council is not respecting the vote of the City Council [17-7 super majority]and more importantly the Ward 5 councilors. Do you not believe they worked honestly?
BTW It was an unanimous vote in Ward 5. All three Councilors who are active with the constituents and voted on to represent the community, voted Yes and plan to do so on again on Super Tuesday. Are you not on board with respecting the Vote on the council and the wishes of the People?
Can we count on your vote of Yes on Tuesday?
Regarding the conversation, my recollection is the speaker Simon mentioned was also part of a Newton Villages Alliance presentation series a long while back.
I would actually guess that Dennis is a very good speaker and folks will learn a lot, albeit from a perspective of someone NVA would invite to educate its members on 40b.
I think though that there are a lot of folks who are more positive regarding 40b (remember it survived a statewide challenge referendum a few years back) and who would provide a different perspective.
40b has its pluses and minuses and isn’t a perfect program. But it is effective in getting more affordable housing built.
Anyway, I’m sure it will be a good program as I believe NVA folks really liked it the last time. But just a quiet reminder that there are multiple perspective/opinions/voices in 40b and tomorrow’s conversation doesn’t include them.
In a video I just saw, former Alderman Kenny Parker said that throughout the 15 years of his cable access show, he has always had people on both sides of the ballot question on his show. But he made an exception this time to invite 5 supporters of the NO campaign onto his show without any representation from the YES side.
Right Size Newton appears unable or unwilling to debate their position.
This trend in Newton politics is disturbing. As with our last ballot question on the charter, convincing people to vote No is dependent on misinformation.
A real “conversation” would reveal complexity and trade-offs. When voters grasp the complexity of this issue and conclude that they don’t have the time to study it in necessary detail, they tend to give more emphasis to things like the endorsements of Green Newton, Engine 6 the LWV, Ruthanne Fuller, David Cohen and Setti Warren. Or to the fact that after 24 councilors spent 2+ years immersed in traffic studies, enrollment projections, and green Passive House construction, 17 of them wound up voting for this project.
In Councilor Norton’s latest newsletter she argues for the No vote, including this:
“…they are offering no attractive alternatives to car travel in an area far from public transit…”
It’s fine if she thinks that an electric shuttle running every 10-minutes to the Highlands T stop is not an “attractive” form of transportation. But I find it a little dishonest to not even mention it at all. Can’t we let voters decide whether that’s an attractive option? Or does acknowledging the existence of the shuttle create a crack in the “this is black-and-white” premise required to sway voters to the No side?
I would add that this site is not FAR from public transit for many. It is .9 miles from the Eliot T stop, .6 miles of which can be on the lovely Upper Falls Greenway. It is a nice, healthy walk (we need more of that) and is a pretty easy bike ride. The connection to Newton Highlands T will also be upgraded with the extension of the Greenway (in planning phase) and some work on Winchester that is already underway. It is 1.7 miles from the Needham Heights Commuter rail, a little bit further if you take the more scenic route. It could be a super easy ride if we could continue the Upper Falls Greenway into Needham.
I completely agree that the ride or walk to the T is both easy and pleasant. (I’m shocked, in fact, that the shuttle has gotten more play than either of those alternatives.) But none of the Councilors who voted in favor, or other individual or organizational supporters have offered up sourced quantitative estimates of: a) D branch ridership and commute time, b) how much the Northland development might impact those numbers, and c) what a reasonable timetable (and targets) for branch improvements would look like. Without those, I’d agree with Councilor Norton that the train (+ the 59 bus) do not constitute an attractive means of transit.
If anyone is interested in more information about the Northland Newton development, you can visit: https://www.northlandnewtondevelopment.com/
@All: The NO presentation on this coming Sunday is offering an expert on 40B who obviously shares their goals. Lets get serious here and present the real story to voters. I recommend that the NO group talk my former colleague, Councilor/Alderman Ted Hess-Mahan into sharing the Panel on the topic of 40B and Land Use. A disclaimer in that Ted and I didn’t always see eye to eye on issues (common knowledge), but I always knew that he represented his opinion professionally; and with a deep knowledge base of whatever the subject may be in front of the Council.
When it comes to 40B and Land Use, I’m convinced Ted is the most up to date person in the field in the Greater Boston area. His participation would add credibility to the presentation and ensure facts are discussed and explained correctly. This is too important a topic for confusing information at this stage of the project.