Just days before Tuesday’s Northland referendum there is finally going to be a debate of sorts presenting both the yes and no sides together. It’s happening today (Thursday) from 3:30-4 pm. on WBUR’s “Radio Boston” 90.9 FM.
Finally, there’s going to be a Northland Yes/No debate
by Village 14 | Feb 27, 2020 | Newton | 4 comments
Deb Crosslet and Randy Block. Wish I had a ringside seat! ;D
I didn’t get to listen to the whole thing, but Randy Block finally offered up a number of units that would be acceptable to Right Size: 400. So the desire is to cut the housing in half… at least. He also talked of increasing the percentage of affordable housing.
I’m not sure how cutting it in half and increasing the percentage of affordable housing gets to a larger number of affordable units. Nor do I know how this would be economically feasible, but that was the number he said.
There is a single reference to this 400 units number in all the Right Size Newton comments to city council, dating from August 18, 2019:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/101582#page=38
This isn’t a commitment, proposal, or bargaining position. This is an idea mentioned in one letter to City Council back in August, and not referenced anywhere I can find on the RS2020 web site.
Given the expressed concern about traffic, I don’t see how cutting housing units (which have relatively less impact on traffic and parking than commercial or retail) helps solve it.
Note that this idea also suggests eliminating public emenities, including underground parking, and that it advocates only for increasing the *percentage* of affordable housing:
> In addition, the developer could reduce development costs further by eliminating some of the “nice to have,” but non-crucial, elements of their proposal, such as: the undergrounding of the electrical lines, the daylighting of the brook, the observation decks, the stage at the village green, and the ice rink/skating park. Further, Northland could bring parking back above ground, which not only would be less expensive to build, but also easier to repurpose in the future when, as councilor Auchincloss predicts, cars likely will be used differently than they are today. All these additional savings could be used to provide a higher percentage of affordable units than the bare minimum that Northland is currently proposing, which would make the project more attractive to many.
RSN or the letter’s authors might be happy to cut public amenities, but it isn’t clear if the public is OK with that. That’s the difference between critiquing and governing.
If RSN/RS2020 had made these proposals concrete, voters could decide. But they can’t. The WBUR interview reinforced that RSN has no (public?) plan on how to move forward if “no” prevails.
That provides absolutely no closure to the community, the city, or the developer. Independent of “yes” or “no” leaning, I think most people want this issue solved, and “no” leaves almost all the threads hanging.
The rest of the RSN comments to City Council include a variety of observations, opinions, and analysis, some quite thoughtful and researched. But besides the above idea, I can find no other text that corresponds to something like an alternative proposal.
Audio from the program is here. Closing this thread for comments.