By any measure, the editorial in the Sunday Boston Globe (headlined: “Newton wakes up to the dark side of America’s housing laws“) was extraordinary.
In no uncertain terms, the Globe’s Editorial Board painted an unflattering portrait of Newton’s past; indicting our city as a prime example of “an archetypal rich suburb,” that has “deliberately” used zoning and other rules to keep out the poor and people of color by “following the time-tested suburban playbook, honed over a thousand fights against developers.”
The grass-roots uprising against new housing is not only the oldest story in America’s suburbs, it’s part of what has made them the pricey enclaves they are, ensuring that property values stay high while deepening income segregation and, in Massachusetts, leaving a handful of cities like Boston to shoulder the burden of housing the state’s growing population.
Then — in equally strong terms — the editors suggested that Newton may be on the cusp of an “awakening. ”
With more optimism than I can muster on some days, the editorial suggest Newton could become a national “trailblazer at tackling inequality this year,” depending on how voters here respond to the March 3 Northland referendum, followed later this year by zoning reform.
That’s a lot of pressure. And it’s exciting too,
Appropriately, the editorial notes, if Newton does “reverse course,” credit should go to the movement started in 2013 with the activists who became Engine 6. It was that group’s emergence, along with a coalition of others who began changing the debate with the subsequent battles over Austin Street, Washington Place and accessory apartments, among others. (Credit, I would add, go to several of our City Councilors who also risked leading on these issues).
Antidevelopment neighborhood groups, which have long dominated local activism with a familiar litany of worries about traffic and schools, suddenly no longer have the only megaphone in Newton. Researchers at Boston University have studied the way the local construction-approval process in Massachusetts often empowers an older, whiter, and wealthier minority of residents to thwart new housing projects. Their 2018 study found that Greater Boston, only 15 percent of comments at public meetings between 2015 and 2017 were supportive of multifamily housing. In Newton, however, the figure was 43 percent, according to statistics provided to the Globe.
But the silver lining was that the Engine 6 controversy shook the city’s faith in suburban orthodoxy. The ugliness of the fight came as a painful epiphany, exposing how the quality-of-life, traffic, and environmental concerns so often cited in American suburbs to rationalize housing obstruction can serve as smokescreens for darker motives — like keeping certain kinds of people out.
And the editorial concludes…
The ongoing harm of segregation in America is too grave to ignore. More communities — and, ultimately, the statehouses that dictate the limits of local land control — are going to need to come to terms with the way long-cherished land-use traditions are exacerbating some of America’s worst racial and economic disparities. One community won’t change that on its own — but this year Newton has the chance to show the way.
There’s a lot to unpack here – and there’s a lot in the followup editorial (scheduled to be in Monday’s print edition) endorsing Northland titled “With a ‘yes’ vote on March 3, Newton can pave the way to fairer future” too.
Please take the time to read both editorials before commenting or find a different thread to make general comments about Northland. i reserve the right to moderate comments that seek to take this thread off topic.
As someone who grew up with the Globe, it’s very tough to watch a dying medium struggle to desperately create relevancy.
Newton is RENOUNED for being one of the most progressive cities in the State if not nationally.
As a person of color, and someone who did not grow up with money, I have never felt like opportunities were withheld from me or my family here in Newton, or that somehow were have been treated “unfairly” – the word used in the article (except when it comes to opposing Northland). :-)
Congratulations to the Globe for telling it like it is. This is some remarkable writing. The ugly truth is that Newton’s exclusionary zoning has a segregating effect. There are some wonderful people, unsurprisingly mostly women, doing some great things to make a better Newton. It starts with Northland and continues with the zoning rewrite.
We are at a historical moment. More and more people are recognizing the social, environmental, and economic injustice of exclusionary zoning. Cities and states are rejecting single-family-only zoning. Presidential candidates are calling for land-use reform. Like the Globe says, Newton could be a leader.
Let’s do it!
The people of Newton have discovered how to “have their cake, and eat it too”
simply advocate and push for housing in someone else’s village.
Until we see large density, affordable housing in Waban & Newton Centre, inequality still very much exists in Newton
@Bugek: instead of being so negative about everything why not join the other housing activists in Newton and advocate for housing city wide? Be part of the change you want to see.
Greg,
At this point, if i see abolishment of single family zoning for all of Newton (including historic district)… i’ll finally shut up
I can say this confidently because of the hypocrisy of limosuine liberals..
There is very little the poor folks north of the pike can do to stop development..(more of them than us) so why not just make it fair across all
“Limousine liberals”. Never heard that before. Love it!
Having spoken to many, many people during these past two years, NOT ONE person has ever said or implied, “Northland should be less dense….so we can keep Newton whiter.”
Even more ridiculous is that it’s being implied of Newton…where the political correctness police ♀️ is an official section of the Newton PD like SWAT. :-)
@Greg thanks for reposting the Globe Editorial @Chuck posted Friday.
From my humble perspective, the Vote NO supporters led by RightSize2020.org are the far more ‘positive’ side of this debate.
They are working to make the current special permit for Northland better. Here are just a few examples,
1) Increase the share of affordable housing above the bare minimum required by our City ordinances.
2) Put more realistic traffic mitigation measures like the original Northland proposal with shuttle busses to Boston in place.
3) Bring real open space to the project. RSN has noted a large about of the acreage being touted by Northland as open space is hardscape between buildings AND area around the brook at the north end of the property which has a grade too steep to traverse easily by foot (or build).
4) Ensure a fiscally positive outcome for the City by strengthening the financial package to address mounting evidence that the 138 student impact is low and the project will likely end up costing the city money. This fiscal impact is not what Mayor Fuller promised when she recently praised the half billion dollar development as a way to safeguard Newton’s long-term fiscal health.
The YES supporters several of whom spoke at yesterday’s RSN conversation in Upper Falls continued to threaten that a NO vote will result in 3 large 40B projects even as 40B Attorney David Murphy said this potential outcome was ‘unlikely’ and ‘unprecedented’ in Massachusetts. Further, two 40B projects now before the Newton Zoning Board by themselves will almost get us the additional 461 affordable housing units the City says we need to reach our 10% safe harbor and take 40B off the table.
Why is the YES side so afraid of re-opening negotiations to address these issues if the NO vote prevails on March 3rd?
If the majority of residents vote NO, I believe our neighbors at Northland who stand to profit mightily from the more than $1 Billion in rent income the proposed project should generate over the next 20 years, will come back to the table.
I also am hopeful our City Councilors who support the current special permit will too if NO wins.
We can and should do better with this once in a life time development opportunity for our great city.
Richard states that “are working to make the current special permit for Northland better.”
Richard, RSN2020 has only offered criticisms of the approved plan. From what I have seen, they have not publicly offered any hint of what in total would move them to “yes”.
I read through all the RSN comments to Council, and while there is detailed and researched analysis, there appears to be only one somewhat concrete proposal: reduce housing to 400 units, move to surface parking, and cut out public amenities such as undergrounding utilities and daylighting the brook. This proposal would retract elements that others fought hard for.
Even then, RSN hasn’t said they would support such a proposal.
All this doesn’t sound like “working together to make the plan better” at this late stage. Without something concrete that would move “no” to “yes”, the developer has no guidance and no certainty that changes to the plan wouldn’t meet the same rate.
In my opinion, the referendum provided opponents leverage to get to a late compromise (before and after the Council vote) they have failed to use to “make the plan better”.
Outside of the current plan approved by City Council, I don’t see consensus, nor have opponents raised a viable one.
I don’t understand how Northland is being promoted as a model for inclusive housing if just 15% of housing units are affordable, and the minimum requirement of a 40B is 25% affordable housing. Despite its faults, 1/3 of the Austin Street development is affordable housing. If Northland was at 33% affordable housing I’d vote for it in a heartbeat.
I wish there were an edit function — to add: The reason I’m posting the above is that I’m hoping people who follow this issue more closely can let me know whether the 15% affordable housing statement for Northland is incorrect.
It seems somewhat unfair to imply that the opponents of Northland are motivated primarily as bigots. Certainly, this is one of the (I am hoping) side effects of their hypocrisy and voting for the development would have the benefits identified by the Globe.
Really though, there is little to suggest that anything more than rampant selfishness is at the heart of the NO position.
Thanks @Mike for your thoughtful comments.
I would offer that residents are aware of the opportunities I raised & others because of the work of RSN in areas like the conversation they hosted for YES and NO supporters to attend yesterday.
Mentioning that because I didn’t see you there and lots of valuable information was put forward to help residents make an informed decision on March 3rd. Sorry if you were in the audience and I missed you.
Residents who agree with RSN that the City Council should strike an even better project agreement are able to do so because of the referendum RSN worked very hard to secure.
I agree the City is divided. That said face to face conversations I’ve had with supporters including City Council leadership have been incredibly professional and respectful. We are lucky in that regard.
If the NO vote prevails and a majority sends a message that this great City can do better, I believe our highly skilled, dedicated elected officials will work with Northland on our behalf to find solutions to the issues and opportunities RSN has given a voice to.
Stereotyping opponents of this or any project has the same hazards as any stereotyping. Please don’t.
Each idea, and project, on its own merits.
Forgot to mention Undecided voters attended yesterday’s RSN conversation too.
@Dulles, The Northland project has 17.5% affordable housing.
Thanks for the clarification Councilor Kelley!
Ok, I went to the site and did the math — 140 out of 800 units (17.5%) vs. the 25% requirement for 40B.
So, City of Newton negotiated 60 fewer units than required by 40B for equivalent housing density. I’d guess a 40B would try to maximize the number of units, which would also bring up the affordable housing count.
Curious how many people arguing the for the no side keep pointing to inadequate affordable housing while our city’s housing advocates — including Engine 6, Citizen for Affordable Housing, Citizens United for Affordable Housing and so many private citizens who’ve long advocated for affordable housing universally support a Yes vote on March 3.
Enough demonizing already! Newton residents have the right to disagree on the merits and the details of the Northland project without being called names. I’d have preferred a smaller project with a higher percentage of affordable units, e.g 400 units, half of which were affordable. That would have allowed 200 hundred families of low and moderate income to join the Newton community, more than the current proposal, and fewer wealthy people, of which we already have a surplus!
But no developer would build it, and everyone tells me that we must rely on private developers to solve our housing problems.
So I will hold my peace rather than casting calumnies on anyone who dares to disagree with me.
@Bob: I’d urge you to take a deeper look into the historical references in the Globe’ editorial. The uncomfortable truth is that communities like ours have a long history of using zoning to keep people of color and poor people from living here. I’m not sure what to do if people infer that as being called names. It’s what happened and continues to happen.
@MattLai . Not one person? How about the leader of RSN? Randall Block is on record saying he is concerned about the “urbanization” of Newton.
What do you think Randall meant by that?
How about an area council member stating that RSN is concerned that all this development is “Ghettoizing” Newton.
And let’s not forget the survey from Newtonville where I person said
“I think people work very hard to afford newton and we already support Metco with education so I do not think we are obligated to add more affordable housing as it will change the entire
community and make newton less desirable
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/91118
RESULTS – The unintended consequences of voting NO will disproportionately hurt people of color.
@Greg – Have any of the housing advocates addressed **why** 15% ought to be seen as a win? Can you share a link, if so? It certainly doesn’t seem intuitive.
@Dulles – It’s 15%. There’s a marginal 2.5% that is constrained from moving with the market, but it’s higher (relative to area median income) than meets the definition of affordable.
@DW: There are a lot of housing advocates who read V14, hopefully some of them will answer you directly but also Engine 6 has posted many, many links that talk about the issue on their website.
There is indeed a history of using zoning and other techniques to shut out.
However, the existence of that history does not make every development a good one.
Fear of increased traffic, overcrowded/underfunded schools, or the loss of commercial revenue are concrete, even if we may disagree about them.
Attributing motive to sentiment for a group risks repeating the mistakes of the past.
Mike Halle: As Fignewtonville wisely reminds us, more than one thing can be true. But ignoring the history or the potential to change history aren’t topics we should shy away from just because someone will interpret that as name calling. As Pastor Scott said at Newton’s MLK event earlier last month, it’s time to make room.
Thank you @Mike and @Bob for so eloquently inspiring all of us to have a debate that reflects our community’s shared values of respect, inclusiveness and diversity.
By staying true to them even when our opinions on how housing development can best advance these shared values differs, Newton will be a stronger, better model to lead the way for others.
There are many ways to make room.
I like to start with trying to see the best in people, listening to their hopes and fears, treating them with respect as individuals (flaws and all), and passing on things I might have learned from others along the way.
It is a never ending task, making room for all of us, new neighbors and existing ones.
@Richard Heald
No. That is not correct. Rightsize indeed did have that opportunity over the last two years to work to make the project better but that opportunity ended in December with the City Council vote.
What we are voting on next week has nothing to do with improving the special permit conditions. We are voting up/down on the already issued Special Permit. If the No side prevails, the city is not allowed to reconsider a Special Permit for those zoning changes for the next two years. In theory, Northland could wait two years, negotiate some different scale project that met with Right Size’s still not clearly articulated acceptable conditions, and then re-file for the zoning change. Of all possible outcomes of a No vote, I think that one may be the least likely of all.
If the No vote prevails, regardless of what happens next, it looks like we’d be looking at this for quite a bit longer
I’ve come to enjoy @Mike Halle’s comments here so much. A consistent voice of perspective, reason, moderation, plus always politely welcoming other views. Thank you!
Rich, in your conversation yesterday, was there anyone there to speak in favor of the project?
Dulles, I think a lot of us would want more affordable housing. But the 40b route would require no other community benefits. None of the parks, the shuttle, etc. there are trade offs for negotiated projects while 40b is focused on the affordable percentage.
Hard to get a perfect project in our system. I’m sure Northland isn’t perfect just like Austin street isn’t perfect (although in different ways)
Opponents always hold up the perfect project as attainable. But most of the time it isn’t. Timing, politics, interest rates, market, nimbyisn, random fears all mix together to defeat the perfect. And my idea of perfect (a pie shop on every corner) doesn’t match RSN’s, or even my spouse (who would prefer a donut shop).
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good folks. Complicated problems just don’t allow for it.
Also, I think folks can like or dislike these types of projects for different reasons. Some folks for quite negative reasons. But some folks because traffic. Or size. Or hatred of splash parks. I don’t think it is fair to denigrate opponents with a broad brush, just like I don’t think it is fair when folks ask if I’m on the take from a developer or if I invested in a project.
As I said after Austin Street, we all got to live near each other after this, and life will go on. In the case of Austin Street, it went on and none of the big scary issues folks were upset about became a big deal. But even if the worst had happened, we would have had to work through it together.
@fignewtonville – There were five ( I believe) speakers at the start of the meeting. They all represented the No side and spoke about specific issues – open space, 40B, finances, traffic, ???
The second part of the meetings were questions from the audience. During that half there were some voices from the Yes side .. primarily (*from memory) City Councilors – Jake Auchincloss, Deb Crossley, Alison Leary
Hi @Fig several City Councilors for and against Northland spoke at the RSN 2020 conversation I attended with other residents.
I am grouping them based on their special permit votes last Dec
FOR – City Councilors Crossley (who presented facts for the YES side at the recent League of Women Voters event), Auchincloss and Leary.
OPPOSED – Councilors Kalis and Markiewicz
NEW TO COUNCIL (Didn’t vote) – Pam Wright
Others elected officials who listened include President Albright, Councilors Malakie, Greenberg and Kelly
Apologies if I missed naming anyone. Turnout of elected officials making time to offer their views and hear residents was impressive.
V14’s own Jerry Reilly even took the mic to share closing thoughts at the end of the meeting.
I’m not exactly a fan of RSN. There is no “small development” alternative. If Northland gets 40B treatment, I expect the 40B application will lead with City of Newton’s prior approval of 800 units and aim higher. I don’t see how the state would possibly force a lower number of units than the city already allowed.
I do like the ideas of restoring the brook and preserving the old mill factory. I don’t know whether that pretty building is already covered under historic preservation, but it seems like it should be.
So I keep coming back to — are the benefits that have been negotiated by City of Newton worth more, or worth less, than 60+ additional affordable housing units? Is it better to sign off on 140 units sooner — or wait another year or more for a 40B that will build 200+ affordable units?
I don’t have any good answers for any of this. But in my weird upside-down world it seems to me that people are each arguing from the wrong side (except for people with interests clearly on the side of the present developer – which is fine by me, too). I think RSN should be pushing to take this deal, and affordable housing advocates should be squaring off for a 40B instead. Just my weird take.
@Jerry appreciate your thoughts on timing.
Either way this project definitely will be in process for a while. Yesterday we heard full buildout is scheduled to take 5 years and I believe demolition will start at the end of this year.
For me, the important timeframe is the decades that this project will stand with us after completion.
I know we disagree on this, but I believe the collective talent on our City Council and at Northland can and will address opportunities to make the project far better for both residents and our City Govt if NO wins.
Forgot to mention the point Councilor Wright made that Boston took 4 years to approve a comparably sized mixed used development in Brighton vs. 2 years for the Nortland Special permit.
Also, I was surprised to learn Northland has owned the property for 15+ years (Someone may need to correct me on this data point)
Rich,
we, at Northland, are trying to be very clear so that the residents of Newton can make an informed decision. we wrote an Open Letter in the Tab, and our CEO posted our thoughts on next-door.
the goal is to try to make sure that the residents understand the potential consequences, and unintended consequences, of NO.
In summary, after four years and $10 + million dollars of architectural and other fees (it had to be designed completely twice due to the significant changes in Land Use), we will not go back to Land Use to make this project smaller or “better”. those who say otherwise are uninformed or misinformed.
further, according to Jerry, we can not go back to Land Use for two years anyways (which we did not know, but is irrelevant, given the above).
Northland will increase affordable housing by lowering the cost of older rental units in and near Newton. I’ve seen this first hand in Brooklyn, NY. A relative owns 2 rental units, over the past 5 years the amount of rent they can change has gone down by more than 30% because new apartments have been built in their area.
@Dulles – I think I’ve been spending time in your upside-down world too.
When I heard someone at yesterdays meeting arguing that
* we should vote NO
* so that a 40B would be built
* so that the city would meet its 40B threshold
* so that could get out from under the yoke of 40B affordable houing requirements
*so that developers would build more affordable housing
I definitely felt like I was standing on my head.
@MasterPlanner thank you for personally informing a resident that there is no way Northland will work to address the opportunities I mentioned above should those of us Voting NO on March 3rd prevail.
If the 10% 40B safe harbor is reached in Newton and that path is not available, will Northland choose to let the property sit idle? Will Northland try to sell the property?
Separate have you shared any timing on plans with the City for developing the other parcel that Northland owns across Needham street from the proposed development.
Thanks again for your guidance.
Going back to the original post that kicked this all off I would like to point out, as a neighbor in Upper Falls …
I have seen nothing to indicate that the deep opposition and concerns about this project revolve around affordable units, racial or economic NIMBYism. The opposition is almost entirely about the shear scale of the project. The 17.5% affordable units is a non-issue from anyone I’ve talked to.
While I do plan to vote Yes myself next Tuesday, I’d ask others who are voting Yes to please refrain from ascribing nefarious motives to those on the No side. You may disagree with them but their opposition is pretty simple. If you have a hard time seeing that then try this thought experiment.
Imagine that next year, 2 blocks from your house, 800 units of housing, 180,000 sq ft of office space, and 115,000 sq ft of retail space were going to be built. You would likely be very nervous. You would likely have serious concerns and reservations. There is nothing nefarious about that.
The feeling that we are not personally racist or classist does not negate the fact that we are the beneficiaries of decades of racist And classist policies. Communities around the country, some actively, some less so, put in place exclusionary policies that created the wealthy liberal enclaves, like Newton, that are so expensive today.
The debt we owe is not a personal debt, but a collective one, if we want Newton to be the welcoming city that it is so often proud to be.
Thank you, Jerry, for making that point. My energies are going into another campaign at this point but IMO, March 4th can’t come fast enough, for the sake of the city and the nation.
Talking inequality,
The Committee for Responsible Development have Raised just under $29,000 and spent about $24,000
Yes for Newtons Future have raised $319,000 and spent $273,000
Thats a little unequal, and I would argue not so democratic. But that is what Newton Politics is all about – Developer Driven politics.
Special Thanks to the Councilors who argued for the 3rd March Election Date.
@Jerry, while our votes will ultimately cancel each other out…. :-)
Thank you for recognizing WHY us on the “No” side feel the we do. If you ever decide to run for Council…. :-)
@Matt. nothing much is ever certain in this uncertain world but one thing you can absolutely count on. I definitely will never run public office. It’s too much like work :-)
… but thanks
Thank you Jerry for your comments. It was mentioned at the meeting that Upper Falls is the village with the lowest avg income and one of the most diverse villages. It came across that the people in the village value the economic and racial diversity so it seems unfair to paint them in any other light. UF is a unique village.
Someone is going to have to show me where the Globe editors, or even anyone on this thread, says anything derogatory about — or name calls — Upper Falls residents. Because I can’t find it and I’ve read it a half dozen times.
@Jerry . I would whole heartedly agree with your analogy if anyone from RSN lived two blocks away from the project. How about even a mile from the project? Instead we have Randall Block and Leon Schwartz from RSN and Martina Jackson and Tarik Lucas from the Committee for Responsible Development leading the charge. Do you know what they all have in common? They don’t live near the development.
I do… I live in Ward 5 and my family lives just over the border in Ward 6. We have had concerns but understand that no project is perfect. Furthermore we respect the voting process and trust that the councilors are representative of the constituents.
Voices being heard? RSN ran candidates in the last go ’round. Rena Getz lost, Greg Schwartz lost and so did Lisa Gordon which were all Anti-Northland candidates.
Lastly, we still want to know what Randall Block meant by “urbanization” while describing the negative aspects of Density and Affordable housing. Sure sounded like a dog whistle to me.
@Jack and @Greg Reibman – There’s plenty of aspersions being cast in the comments above about “RightSize” and the No side.
Since my neighborhood and neighbors are the foot soldiers if not the public leaders of the No referendum you might understand why it sounds like those comments are aimed at them.
Only in the last few days I’ve heard a few Yes people that I otherwise like and respect make similar broad-brush comments about the “Right-Sizers”.
If you see or hear an individual make an offensive or loaded statement, by all means call it out, but let’s all put the broad brushes away … and let’s all count down the days to March 4, together
Without question, this is a giant NO. Money always wins. Like a famous hip-hop band put so aptly, “CREAM.”