There’s a lot of discussion leading up to next week’s Northland’s vote suggesting that a ‘No’ vote might actually be better for Newton because it could lead to the creation of more affordable housing.
But Newton’s affordable housing advocates feel this is a risk not worth taking, which is why Engine 6 and more than one dozen other civic groups (including CAN-DO, U-CHAN, Newton Interfaith Clergy Association, Newton Housing Partnership, Newton Urban Design Commission, Newton Economic Development Commission, Newton Citizens Commission on Energy) all supported the project throughout an 18-month long public approval process.
Here’s why:
First if the ‘Yes’ vote wins, we know we will have 140 affordable units added to our housing stock. A “No’ vote, premised on the possibility of a larger 40B project later is a much riskier proposition.
Nobody can say definitively what will happen on the site. We don’t know how many units would be built or even if the developer would build out the site with housing. What is certain, it would delay the construction of these units for years. A Yes vote will provide the largest influx of affordable units into Newton in at least a decade, sooner rather than later.
Second, the Northland project will provide 140 affordable units with the substantial amenities the Council negotiated for the city. These include traffic mitigation, underground parking, infrastructure improvements, open space, age friendly buildings and contributions to our schools.
The Northland project will also be built to the highest environmental standards. A 40B project will have none of that.
As a result, Engine 6 and other housing activists across the city support the Northland project and a Yes vote on March 3.
Jay Walter is a member of Engine 6
This strikes me as the definitive answer to anyone who is sincerely wondering if we’re better off hoping Northland becomes a 40B project in the name of growing our affordable housing stock. If the men and women who’ve been advocating for more afforadable housing in Newton for several years now support Yes, I believe we should trust their judgement
Engine 6. Is there a disclosure on where the majority of members live?
I only assume Waban as their meeting are in Waban.
A group of rich liberals living in one of the wealthiest zip codes support affordable density in someone else’s neighborhood. Who would have thought.
Wow @Bugek you are really are an angry person. And pretty silly as well to jump to the conclusion you made. Lighten up.
Peter,
Yes, angry when limousine liberals push their agenda on the little folks…
Is this not a factual statement?: rich liberals living in one of the wealthiest zipcodes support affordable density in someone else’s neighborhood. What is false about this statement?
So an anonymous commenter is demanding that a citizen group disclose where its members live? Pretty pathetic even for you Bugek.
@Greg: So why are they so down on a 40B project? Doesn’t that bring in much more needed affordable housing?
@Amy: I really admire what Engine 6 has done but I don’t speak for them. Lucky for you, Jay Walter does and he answered your question above.
@Amy and Bugek,
If no prevails, I can’t wait to see you among the first community leaders to support a high density 40B project here with little to no input from the community.
If you truly care about affordable housing, “yes” is strategically the correct vote.
Why?
A yes vote creates 140 new units that don’t exist today AND has the added benefit of not materially helping the city reach the 40(b) safe harbor.
So you’ve created a net increase of 140 affordable units and retained the ability for developers to use the threat of 40(b) to ‘negotiate’ a better deal that involves ‘only’ 15% to 20% affordable units, which, again, won’t do much for the safe harbor calculation and the cycle starts all over again but with net gains in affordable units at every step along the way.
Ironically, if you can keep projects individually UNDER the 25% affordable threshold, you can actually get many more affordable units built on an absolute basis.
The worst thing for affordable housing in Newton would be a 22 acre 40(b) development at Northland, which would get you close to 500 affordable units…but they would be the last affordable units ever built in the Garden City.
Greg,
As a journalist, i thought you would support full disclosure. If you dont want anonymous posters, just turn off the feature for a great echo chamber.
Fully support development in ALL transit oriented villages, especially those walking distance to the T. Strange that not a single councilor is pushing(in writing) for affordable density in Waban or Newton Centre.
Engine 6 is a citizen group. These men and women speak up frequently at public meetings and write letters to the editor and give their address. It’s not a secret. But it’s smarmy of you to toss aspersions on anyone while you hide under your troll bridge in anonymity. Shameful.
@Bugek,
I’m not aware of any 23 acre (or even 10 acre) lot in Newton Centre or Waban that would be sufficient for the type of development you claim to support. Are you?
@Ryan: Have you never participated in a 40B ZBA hearing? You should. Lots of community input. Try it. There are two before the ZBA now.
@Greg: Are you suggesting that a 40B project at the Northland site – or the threatened “3” won’t produce even more affordable units than the current project? Are these groups more interested in the amenities to the project than they are to creating more affordable and family-oriented (more three bedroom units) than is required under the current project?
@Amy: once again, I admire Engine 6 but it’s not appropriate for me to speak for them. Not sure why you keep asking me to do so?
The only thing I can tell you is that they’re overwhelmingly unanimous in their support. I’m confident they gave their endorsements considerable thought.
Ryan,
Remove single family zoning in waban centre and lots will naturally become available over time.
Why do you need muliple acres? An 8 story building can fit in 0.5 acres.
Sure lots of input Amy. But not much room for negotiations.
The Nothland project is worthy of support because of the many amenities and givebacks that came from three years of input and 18 months of negotiations.
Hi @Donald, even if 40B is off the table due to Safe Harbor the inclusionary zone in our current zoning ordinances still requires a minimum affordability unit %.
That is going up to 20% which will likely apply if 40B is not a path.
So a NO vote should lead to a higher % of affordable units either way – 40B or special permit.
@Ryan: I guess you were not around during the Andover – Newton – Langley Road project where I was the sole vote willing to roll the dice with a 40B project rather than taking down one of our last remaining City forests for luxury housing.
@Ryan
I believe the former Andover Newton and Hebrew campuses are EACH ballpark the same size as Northland.
Right in the heart of Newton Centre. Could not have better access to the T.
Donald: And I suspect there are plenty of housing advocates and city councilors who would support housing there too. So would I. This myth that Bugek is perpetuating doesn’t reflect where a lot of people are in 2020. We have a substantial housing inventory shortage.
Thanks, this position by affordable housing advocates is significant to know.
It sounds like there is real concern that if Northland’s special permit is rescinded by popular vote, investors may fail to secure a 40B and they’ll have to figure out plan B: How about an Amazon fulfillment center? Anyway, this assessment of risk is very different from the up to 1,938 units that were brought up the other day.
Donald Ross brings up an interesting viewpoint, but I can’t get on board with the idea that there is such a thing as building too much affordable housing in the city.
@Greg: I ask you because you seem to be one of their cheerleaders. So maybe you can get the answers.
Hey – how long has the Chamber been at 281 Needham Street? I wonder how long has the site been left to deteriorate by its owners.
Amy: The chamber has been in what was known as Marshalls Plaza for at least a decade, maybe longer. We’re located right above the old AAA. Everyone in my building and everyone who used to be or still are in the strip mall will very likely say they’ve been a really good responsibile landlord. Great snow removal. Totally respectful of security concerns. Always quick to change a lightbulb, replace flowers after an unexpected frost. Their guys are in the parking lot daily picking up trash and cleaning bathrooms. Super quick at responding to a maintenance request. Its not modern. But it’s always been well cared for. From all I can tell, the same is true for the wonderful Sacco Pettee building.
What is run down are the acres of broken parking lots and older warehouses that are fenced off from the public and waiting a really wonderful plan that the city council approved 17-7.
@Greg: I guess just like the Austin Street proposal was worthy of support even without the additional 6 units of affordable housing.
@Greg
Agree. I think the Andover Newton / Hebrew site is among the best opportunities to create a dense, transit oriented development in all of Newton. It’s a much better site than Northland and I would fully support its redevelopment.
I was merely reacting to the idea that there were no suitable parcels in Newton Centre for development. The only parcel that might be better is the iconic triangular parking lot that is the dominant feature of the village.
@Amy,
For the record: you will be supporting a large 40B – or multiple large 40Bs – at the Northland property if no prevails on Tuesday?
Bugek,
Bone up on your history. Yes, the good folks at Engine 6 originated as a group of mostly Waban neighbors. But, they organized specifically to support the building of multi-family in Waban. Quite literally, in their backyards. The group now has members from all over the city, including your humble commenter, who lives in Newton Centre.
I would add two points to the housing advocates’ arguments for the Northland project:
* The quality of housing matters. Not only will this be a big infusion of desperately needed housing — we need both affordable and market — it will be in the context of high-quality placemaking. This is going to be good housing and a good neighborhood.
* The process matters. Engine 6 is not a burn-it-all-down-in-pursuit-of-our-aims group. Over the many months of input and deliberation, Engine 6 and other housing advocates weighed in on the need for housing at the site. The City Council clearly put an emphasis on affordable and other housing in the balance of factors. We housing advocates didn’t get everything we wanted, but housing is obviously a core benefit. The process worked.
Amy,
I don’t think you’re painting an accurate picture of the 40B process. I participated in the Avalon Boylston St. hearings and to a lesser degree with the Avalon Needham St. project. The Avalon Boylston St. project is terrible placemaking, despite mine and others’ efforts to get it to align better with the neighborhood, particularly the soon-to-come Chestnut Hill Square development. And, neither project has remotely useful open space. It’s not that we weren’t able to express ourselves, the ZBA just had no levers to pull to compel necessary changes.
Also, the comparison of the Terraces on Langley and Northland is amusing, but misleading. The Terraces has no redeeming value. (Sadly, I was not really active at the time.) Should have been a nice apartment building, some open space, and connection with the neighborhoods and Bowen School.
Bugek and Donald,
We cannot upzone Newton Centre soon enough.
I miss the “LIKE” function on this blog. Would have given @Amy a ton of them.
After two years of hypocrisy and “limousine liberals” (love that phrase), win or not, I cannot wait until after the vote on Tue.
Speaking of hypocrisy and “limousine liberals”, we are still awaiting Amy’s commitment to support 40B projects in the Upper Falls if no prevails on Tuesday.
One of the key points that’s often missed in this discussion is that fact that via our inclusionary zoning requirements, the affordable units in the Northland project are more deeply affordable than those that are offered via a 40B. 120 of the 140 affordable units will be available for households with average earnings at the 65% AMI level (or 60 households at the 50% AMI level and 60 households at the 80% AMI level). A 40B will likely provide affordable units only at the 80% AMI level.
There’s a big difference in affordability between 50% and 80% AMI. For example:
A 2-person household at the 50% AMI level currently can earn up to $47,400 per year and pays $1,185 in monthly rent
A 2-person household at the 80% AMI level currently can earn up to $71,400 per year and pays $1,785 in monthly rent
See these FAQs for a complete chart outlining the income limits and rents for the affordable units at Northland.
The addition of more deeply affordable housing is one of the many reasons I’m in favor of the Northland project over 40B projects.
Hi Alison, this is something that I’ve not seen and it is very important to the discussion. A 40B agreement typically builds units at 80% of market rate. It would have to build a minimum of 210 units to produce the same overall value as the Northland plan. To get 210 affordable units at 80%, assuming a 25% affordable ratio, the projects would have to build at least 840 units to generate the same total value. A 40B may not give a better affordable housing result.
That’s just strictly speaking by doing the math (hopefully I’ve done it right). There’s intangible additional value in having lower-cost units well below 80%. Thanks for this, it hasn’t been said, and it’s what I needed to go from ‘lean against’ to ‘lean in favor’.
…and as with all things, the reality is more complicated than a math formula. The 20 extra units are 110% AMI not 80%. That’s not great. But there is an argument to be made that 120 of the 140 units are to be more affordable than the minimum bar. That’s better.
@Allison
Interesting point RE the AMI limits.
Has Northland supplied (/agreed to) a specific split by AMI? All I can find (and admittedly I have not searched very hard) is that of the 140 ‘affordable’ units, 20 will be at 110% of AMI (which I would be inclined to describe as rent controlled, rather than ‘affordable’ per se, but whatever); and then 120 will be at an AVERAGE of 65% AMI.
Obviously the easiest way to get to the average is to make 60 at 50% and 60 at 80%…but has Northland been explicit about what the numbers will be?
It’s an interesting nuance that I hadn’t really considered until now.
Thanks @Allison!
Also worth noting that 50% of the 70K housing units built under the Commonwealth’s 40B program are restricted to households making less than 80% AMI.
https://www.masshousing.com/portal/server.pt/community/planning___programs/207/masshousing%27s_planning___programs_department
@Donald Ross – the administration of the affordable units will be handled by a third-party, SEB. SEB are the local experts in this area and are responsible for ensuring that the 120 units are awarded at an average AMI of 65%.
Sixty units at 50%AMI and sixty at 80%AMI seems like the most logical way to look at it. And those 60 units at 50% AMI are a really big deal. It’ll be a great loss to both the city and the many families that Northland will be housing at that income level if this project is overturned.
I believe the designated financing program is what determines the %AMI in a 40B Development. There are two levels of subsidy – 50% and 80%. For 50% AMI – 20% of the development must be affordable. For 80% AMI – 25% of the units must be affordable. The Developer determines which subsidy program to apply for.
Under a Chapter 40B -10% of the units shall have 3 or more bedrooms and to the extent practicable – shall be evenly distributed between the affordable and market rate units.
To learn more about the now approved Northland Newton development, please visit: https://www.northlandnewtondevelopment.com/