I grew up in Newton. I love this city and came back to raise my family. The next generation, my children, cannot do this because the housing here is just too expensive. There was far more diversity in the city when I grew up here and when I came back here to raise a family.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard seniors say – “I couldn’t afford to buy my own house if I were moving to Newton now”. The only way to stabilize housing prices is to create more housing.
The City Council worked for two years to negotiate a strong sustainable future for Needham St. I’m voting yes for the Northland/Needham St. project because it is at the sweet spot connecting housing and sustainable development; responding to the housing shortage and addressing climate change. Let me explain why and ask you to join me.
If you love Newton you must vote yes. Yes for more homes. Yes for 140 affordable units (more affordable units than we’ve created in over a decade). Yes for “age-friendly” units. Yes to mitigate climate change with efficient use of the land, 10 new acres of open space transformed from a sea of asphalt, and Passive House (energy-efficient European standard) and LEED-ND Gold standards for new sustainable building construction. Yes to an electric shuttle to the T running for 16 hours every 10 minutes in perpetuity allowing people to get out of cars.
A supermajority of the Council (17 out of 24) voted Yes after negotiating with the developer for 18 months. Why?
• It creates a walkable neighborhood,
• The buildings are consistent with and even ahead Newton’s new Climate Action Plan with sustainable buildings,
• Arguably, it has the strictest Traffic Demand Management Plan in the Commonwealth – demanding the developer monitor trips and pay financial penalties for exceeding the trips cap and provide alternative solutions,
• It provides an electric shuttle every 10 minutes for 16 hours/day to get people to the T to mitigate traffic,
• It adds over $1 million in revenue (above expenses) for the Newton,
• It undergrounds the ugly wires on Needham Street (something I’ve wanted for 16 years since I served on the “undergrounding task force” when so many said it would never be done,
• It creates 10 new open space acres (6+ acres of new parks) because they agreed to underground the parking.
Please read the Globe editorial’s strong endorsement of the Northland Project.
What are the consequences of a NO vote? We want these 22.6 acres to be something. The land is zoned commercial, which brings much more traffic. Most likely the Zoning Board of Appeals will hear the project as a Chapter 40B Comprehensive Permit but the ZBA does not have the same power to negotiate the amenities (the bulleted list above) negotiated by the Council. We must not undo all the negotiated benefits we have gained through the Special Permit process.
Vote Yes for the environment. Vote Yes for sustainable development. Vote Yes for an electric shuttle. Vote Yes to underground the ugly wires on Needham St. Vote Yes for 140 affordable units. Vote Yes for age-friendly units Vote Yes on March 3 for our children’s future.
If you need more facts about the Northland project allowed by zoning passed by the City Council, it is described here.
Thank you President Albright.
For the record, I’ve mentioned it before but feel it’s worth reporting. Village 14 has invited Right Size Newton to submit guest blogs posts multiple times, including in the past week. They have consistently declined.
I’ll also be voting Yes on the Northland Special Permit. For all its flaws, it’s far better for the city than a 40B on that site. But I hope the City Council gets the message integral to the referendum challenge. The people of Newton deserve to know that their elected “leaders” negotiate the BEST possible deals with developers in the future. Personally, I want to see tough negotiations that squeeze every possible affordable housing unit out of a developer, and more funds to mitigate the impact of larger developments on our schools.
I agree with Mike. The city leaders failed to negotiate with Northland for the best deal on behalf of city residents.
I shall vote NO. Newton still has firm control over its future via
legal city government. In future this could be lost.
My hometown of Toronto now has no local governments. It is a single mega city. Local control does not exist. Developers are allowed to build every kind of development anywhere.
I most certainly hope Newton retains its small city status and retains economic housing control. Otherwise our mayor and city council will be wiped out. There are few large urban communities that exist as Newton does outside of New England.
So Newtonites be careful how you vote on Tuesday. You may eventually be absorbed into the metropolis of Boston. Certainly the state legislature is moving in that direction under Baker.
Well Colleen, I have to give you credit for coming up with a brand new conspiracy theory at a time when I thought they were all taken.
So vote no folks because Northland is part of Gov. Baker’s plot to eliminate municipalities! Can’t believe Randy Block forgot to mention that while on WBUR yesterday.
Don’t forget, this vote is also a vote on the zoning in general as well as northland. The zoning plan that is being proposed will increase inequality in Newton further than it already is. Single family houses will remain zoned that way. Multi-family zoned areas, already fairly dense, will become the main areas where more density is developed. And, it’s a one way street. If I buy a even a small 2 family home and want to convert it to single family, the zoning does not permit this. There’s no going back.
Lastly, a large part of the impetus for this development is to accommodate increased building of office space, to attract companies to downtown Boston, and to supply “workforce housing” for those workers. The mayor, along with a dozen other mayors, signed a memo of understanding (or something like that) with the MAPC to supply 180,000 new housing units. The long term prognosis for this is not good; many sections of downtown Boston, especially in the desirable waterfront areas, will be subject to increasing flooding due to climate change (change that is already underway, and will not be decreased in the near future). The cost for that flood mitigation will have to be paid for, and it will be paid for by taxpayers. This is an example of privatized profits( by the companies in Boston and the developers) and socialized costs (by the taxpayers). It’s surprising to me that MAPC is encouraging so much development in flood prone areas. But short term money often wins out over long term planning.
Rick: So now you’re going to join the other Right Sizers who just make stuff up too?
Your comment is false and misleading. This is not a vote about zoning in general. This is a vote about zoning a three parcels for a combined 22.3 acres.
Greg – I stand corrected then. I don’t make stuff up. That’s insulting. It was my understanding that it would impact the city wide zoning plan.
If not, then I was wrong.
The city’s zoning plan hasn’t even made it out of committee.
I am worried Rick that if you, who pays attention to things, thought that was true what other, less engaged voters might think is on the ballot on Tuesday.
However, I stand by the rest of my argument. Newton is committing to supply Boston with housing for jobs:
https://housingtaskforce.mapc.org/
“. The Metro Mayors Coalition communities are on track to add 235,000 net new jobs from 2015 to 2030. ”
“we estimate that the Metro Mayors Coalition will need to add 185,000 housing units from 2015 – 2030 in order to meet demand and reduce – or at least stabilize — housing costs.”
Note “at least stabilize”.
They’re certainly not willing to guarantee that the 185000 units will lower prices.
That’s more reasonable – and cautious – than some of the wishful thinking I read on this site.
I don’t for a second believe that prices will come down (except if we get a good recession).
It doesn’t matter how much you build if the high tech jobs come into Boston you’re looking at an East Coast San Francisco situation. Good luck.
“I am worried Rick that if you, who pays attention to things, thought that was true what other, less engaged voters might think is on the ballot on Tuesday.”
You’ve got a forum here, and the Tab (and the Globe) don’t do very much. Is the referendum question available ahead of time? Post it on V14.
@Rick:
No matter what Right Size says, that’s the one and only item on the referendum ballot.
I also got this same column via email as I was added to Susan’s mailing list because we discussed an city issue while she was campaigning. One line that bugged me was “if you love Newton you must vote yes.”
Is there data to support the statement, “There was far more diversity in the city when I grew up here and when I came back here to raise a family,” or is this just speculation?
Everything I have seen from the census tells me that we are much more racially diverse than ever.
It’s interesting to me that Richard Frank brings up the fact that Newton is committed to building housing for people who work in Boston. Before 128 became America’s Technological Highway, Newton’s brand was convenience into Town. And that Town was Boston. The jobs, the money the future was in Boston, and the railroads and what is now the MBTA moved people from Newton to those jobs. Those jobs have moved, first to 128, and now to 495. Our transportation systems did not adapt, and we became car centric. Is it a bad thing that Newton provide housing for people who work in Boston? At the hospitals, the mutual funds, the universities, the research facilities, the software firms. Or if you work in Boston you must live in Boston?Newton’s brand has always been convenience and good schools.
Is there another city in USA with all 3 criteria
– strong job market with high paying jobs
– excellent schools and very low crime
– affordable rent/home prices in a safe location with good schools
Are we describing the impossible because we live in a capitalistic country?
Yes, a select lucky few will get into the affordable units while the unlucky majority get to pay high rents to subsidize those lucky enough.
If you want affordable housing, pray for a recession, poor performing schools and a large increase in crime.
By the way, i dont blame northland one bit. They are Northland INVESTMENT corp. They need to maximize their profits to generate a decent yield on their $ and will raise rents accordingly EVERY SINGLE YEAR in order to do so.
Its a shame we get rentals instead of long tern ownership opportunities in Condos.
.. so where is this mysterious city we are trying to mimick with affordable housing?
Bugek: Oak Park, Illinois
Anne,
Neighborhoodscout shows oak park crime index of 13(unsafe) vs 71(safest) for Newton
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/il/oak-park/crime
Obviously crime has a huge negative impact on prices so i believe this is simply not a good comparison
The fact that our elected officials have a tin cup in their hands asking for Yes votes is exactly why I’m voting NO.
All the talk of, “we were inclusive (of the Public) in this process” is revisionist history. Most of my emails went answered. At no point in the past 2 years have I felt that my concerns at an Upper Falls resident were taken seriously or even considered.
I am voting No, in protest to Councilor Albright and the other 17 who voted in Northland’s favor.
PS @greg, I’d like to grab a beer with you when this is over, but to be frank, you and the other V14 admins have deftly weaponized this blog in favor of Northland. Why should Right Size expect fair treatment posting here?
@Matt: Looking forward to that beer!
As for V14, every headline on this blog is the same point size. If RSN submitted a post it would have enjoyed the same “treatment” as every other post here.
Truth is RSN has done you and any of your neighbors who are opposed to this project a disservice by running a disingenuous campaign. There’s legitimate issues here but their refusal to articulate a vision, refusal to debate anywhere and anytime, refusal to engage in places where they might have reached undecided voters or changed minds, and refusal to sit down with Northland, are a really bad way to run a local campaign.
You keep saying how mad you are at certain city councilors but really you should be mad at your own team’s captains.
@Jack my point is that Boston is going to be flooded in the relatively near future, due to climate change, and that it is bad long range planning to enable more development in Boston by building more housing to accommodate same.
A big vision would be to build a new train along 495, where many of my medical device clients are, and encourage housing along that corridor. There already is some higher density housing out there, but it’s car based. A train along 495 would be an ideal place to encourage long term development. Boston, not so much due to location in flood plain.
@Greg, @Newton Higlands mom
I wasn’t misinformed by Right Size, or anyone/group in particular.
But rhetoric ( on both sides) like “if you love Newton you must vote yes.”
lead me to get to thinking Incorrectly that there’s more on the ballot than just a Northland.
Note it doesn’t say “if you love Newton Upper Falls” nor ” if you love Needham Street”.
And indeed, it would seem that although the ballot question is restricted to Northland, there are larger ramifications about development as a whole being talked about in conjunction with this specific question on Northland. So, I think these issues are what led me ( and perhaps others ) to think about the ballot question as being beyond just Northland.
Which indeed it is.
@Anne home prices is the Chicago suburbs – including affluent suburbs like Glencoe, Ill.have homes at 1/2 the price of equivalent homes in Newton. That’s because there’s so much sprawl and there’s so much land that’s been built out horizontally around Chicago. Chicago suburbs ( where my wife is from) spread out so far you can hardly find a forest for hours as you drive out of Chicago, and the traffic is quite bad, I might add.
The development pattern was wide and low. Here, we seem to want to hug the coast rather than build West. You drive 1/2 hour west here and you’re in Weston, very full of trees and single family homes. Drive west or north of Chicago nothing but mall after mall after mall such that you can’t even tell what town your in.
Very different real estate market when you’re not hugged up along the ocean ( I guess Lake Michigan doesn’t have the same appeal as the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean.
Rick: I think you might want to look at some of the economic studies about Chicago real estate. High property taxes, fewer high paying jobs, and most importantly a high migration rate away from Illinois are huge factors for thei affordability. Supply is just one factor. Some area are super hot but a lot still haven’t recovered from the last crash. Including areas with low crime.
Folks like Boston more…
The point is, there will not be real affordability as long as high paying jobs in Boston are in abundance.
Now, for sure you can create hundreds of income restricted units and will help those lucky few. Absolutely.
But lets not pretend this is going to help the average resident afford to buy a home.
Basically we are building thousands of expensive luxury units in order to gain a few hundred income restricted units. Nothing wrong with this at all, i just feel its being sold dishonestly… this only benefits a small lucky few and the developers
I have largely avoided using bandwith on Northland. Over the past few days I decided to pay more attention and I had conversations about Northland with people. I asked how they plan to vote. More people said “no,” than I expected. I don’t think this vote is just about the details of Northland. Some people think that insiders have their own agenda and they are removed from the Newtonians who are not involved in local government or the League.
Let’s pretend the “no’s” carry the day (which I doubt, but there is some chance). I predict the narrative will be that RightSize misinformed people or that voters did not understand things properly. This reaction, will miss the big picture. If “yes” carries the day, I predict the narrative will be that an anti-development minority tried to hold-up the city, and the vote affirms that the group is noisy but inconsequential. Again, this reaction will miss the big picture.
But Jeffrey, Right Size has been misinforming people. Repeatedly.
Rick, I am in complete agreement with you about building transportation and housing away from the coast. Re building cities like Springfield, Palmer, Athol, where there is abundance of land, and buildings to house workers for light manufacturing and office space. And rail right of ways already exist.That would require a vision, and leadership, and risk takers, which is short supply these days. But this has little to do with Needham Street, which needs to be rebuilt.
@Fignewtonville that’s not what I see when I visit Chicago and my wife’s brother and sister, who still live in the suburbs ( Glenview, and one closer to the city although I forget which one) . I see a large booming downtown with much wider streets and Huge department stores, and a huge massive suburban sprawl coupled with many major companies out in the burbs. Much much bigger than Boston. And my brother and sister in law like Boston, but it’s too small a city for them.
And, as long as I’ve known my wife’s family, and become a tiny bit familiar with Chicago area, I’ve been dumbfounded by the difference in real estate prices between their and here. It’s been a factor of nearly half the cost for over thirty years, so it’s not like it’s changed quickly due to some economic downturn. They just have a LOT of space. In Glenview, where my wife grew up, they have INDOOR public tennis courts that are as nice as the ones I pay money for. And it’s like a few hundred dollars a year for residents. THATS what I call having cheap land.
There ( not their)- stupid artificial intelligence
Greg, I know that is what you would say and I know that is what you will say on Wednesday! What I am saying is that I have talked to people who are voting “no” who don’t know what RightSize is. Equating a “no” votes to RightSize, I think, misses the bigger picture. RightSize did not pop out of nowhere.
What Rick says.
Jeffrey, I get the desire to turn this into a wider movement, especially on the no side. And I’ve sensed some of that since this is a city-wide vote. Some of it from folks who were against changes on the Northside, and some of it from folks who are upset about the referendum process.
But really, this isn’t like an override vote. If yes passes, it gets built as negotiated. If no passes, it doesn’t, and no one really knows what happens next. Folks can claim whatever emotional victories they want. But this isn’t an election for office or for city wide funds. It is its own thing, and I would hesitate to make sweeping judgments either way, absent a truly shocking result (like a spread of 20%).
So, I have a couple concerns about this plan: First, as the mayor of Upper Falls has noted, 800 new housing units is a heck of a lot to squeeze into one small corner of the city. Second, as Mike Striar has mentioned, I think the city could have negotiated for more in return, including a larger percentage of affordable units.
That being said, I will vote yes on Tuesday and look forward to the day the far end of Needham Street has new life.
Trying my beset to maintain composure, but saying that RightSize is intentionally trying to to misinform people is inaccurate.
There is no “secret society of Right Size” plotting to tear down Newton with lies and fear mongering. They are a group of neighbors who sincerely believe Northland is asking to do too much, too quickly, and we have a Mayor and 17 Councilors more interested in progressive headlines, than a pragmatic (safer) execution of density. Everyone is looking at the same “facts” – just a different interpretation and point of view of what happens next. There’s no “evil” intent – on either side!
We all need to remember, after Tuesday, we’re still one Newton; one set of neighbors.
PS. Still voting “No” and leaning towards Pete or Joe (for now).
By the way… Councilor Albright’s passion for the project is appreciated, but to say that, “if you love Newton you must vote yes” is nauseating.
Implying that someone who votes “No” does not love Newton demonstrates how out of touch she is with her voters. No voters who turn up at the Polls on Tue are there because the DO love Newton; the suburban Newton they’ve know for decades. Not the “Blade Runner”-esque city that some want to turn Newton into.
@Greg what has right size said or written that has misinformed people? Can you quote something specifically?
I received a big postcard from the yes vote in the mail yesterday. There was one small mention of Nothland on it. If there’s anything that is leading someone to mistakenly think this vote is about something city wide, it’s the way this is marketed – and platitudes such as ” if you love Newton…”
You could play a kids car trip game with that. Make up wacky stuff
I can hear it now…from the back of the car…
If you love Newton…
You Love chocolate ice cream
If you love Newton…
You loved Billy in 3rd grade!
Do not!
Do to!
Do not!
Dad! Tell him to stop saying that!…..
@Matt Lai..”.Trying my beset to maintain composure, but saying that RightSize is intentionally trying to to misinform people is inaccurate.”
The RightSize mailer says:
“Your ‘NO’ vote means we can build a more modest-size project based on community input…negotiate for more affordable housing units…produce a fiscally positive project for the city…”
The Northland site is PRIVATE PROPERTY. A NO vote win doesn’t allow us to do any of the above. “We” can’t build anything on it. “We” can’t negotiate for anything unless the property owner chooses to renegotiate, which they have said isn’t likely. The city’s projections show this project to be fiscally positive.
So whether these lies are *intentional* or just coming from a place of ignorance doesn’t really matter. The RSN flier contains outright lies and even those who don’t support the project should disavow lying.
The Committee for Responsible Development lied during the stop and shop attempt to develop, and Newton Got Avalon Bay, and Needham Street in shambles for 20 years. The new Committee for Responsible Development, continues what they learned, and continues the lying , and intentional misleading with opinions masquerading as facts. If CORD can raise the money, and get Investors, by all means, buythe 22 acres from Northland and have a go. CORD has had 20 years to organize and help get some responsible development on Needham Street. Nothing, they got nothing.
@Rhanna-
A lie is a knowing and intentional falsehood uttered with the intent to deceive. Ignorance refers to a lack of knowledge and information. Hopefully this won’t be too triggering but … they’re definitionally not the same thing. Enjoy your evening.
What Rick said.