In a letter addressed to the Globe, former Ward 6 at-large City Councilor and Land Use Chairman, Greg Schwartz criticizes the Globe on it’s editorial regarding the Northland referendum.
To the editor,
As a subscriber for more than 20 years, I have often looked to the Globe’s editorial board for their insight and guidance. Therefore, I was dismayed to read your editorial on Monday regarding the Northland project in Newton, because it failed so completely to identify the salient issues before the voters in the upcoming referendum next Tuesday
.I was Chairman of the Land Use Committee of the Newton City Council during the last term, which means I chaired over every public hearing and working group session that we had on the project. For two years, the committee spent many hours reviewing and trying to solve the problems raised by the proposal. The issue that we heard from residents about the most, and that we worked so hard to fix, was the expected worsening of traffic on Needham Street, which is already at a standstill on most days at rush hour. We crafted a robust traffic management plan to address this, but had no certainty it would sufficiently reduce the number of extra cars on the road generated by the project’s future residents and businesses.
It is primarily this traffic concern that opponents of the project continue to raise as their main argument against the project. Your editorial completely glosses over this valid concern. Instead, you invoke the housing crisis in the greater Boston area and a presumed suburban opposition to affordable housing as the main issues facing voters next Tuesday. That is so far from the truth that I feel compelled to correct the record.
At no time during our public hearings was the proposal for 140 units of low- and middle-income affordable housing opposed by the public. In fact, many from the Upper Falls community, which is most affected by the project, raised concerns that there was not enough affordable housing in the project. They urged the developer to provide more than the bare minimum required under our zoning ordinance. But did Northland increase the percentage of affordable units, which it could have done by replacing market rate units with affordable ones? No, the developer stuck to the minimum, suggesting the pursuit of profit, not housing justice, was their goal. Your editorial’s suggestion that opponents of the project are against affordable housing, while the developer is motivated by altruism, simply ignores the record.
Greg Schwartz, Chairman Land Use Committee 2018-2020, Newton City Councilor at Large 2012-2020.
Thanks to Councilor Schwartz for his years of service and the courage come out against both the Boston Globe and Northland!!
And Chris Markewiecz (Councilor from Ward 4) follow up note
Neighbors,
I served on Land Use under Greg’s chairmanship and I have to say that he did a fine job as chairman. He listened, took notes for the purposes of followup and clarification and ran a fair series of hearings where all could state their position. I never heard anyone speak against the need for affordable housing in the Northland hearings, quite the contrary. I share Greg’s disappointment in the Globe’s editorial. The Globe also unfortunately choses to make the Northland question about a single issue, it isn’t, but to know that you have had to do some real research. Their approach seems to me to be a reckless one.
I don’t know who the Globe editorial staff interviewed but as someone who was part of every Northland hearing and work session at City Hall I never saw anyone from the Globe. If they were at some of the larger hearings they didn’t identify themselves. It sounds to me like someone looking for a cause. I hope that the Mayor saw that editorial and also choses to respond in a way that states the facts as former Chairman Schwartz presents them. BTW, the Globe has promised more editorials on the subject and Newton.
Chris Markiewicz
I respect Greg Schwartz service to the city and leadership on the Land Use Committee and his desire to want to continue to speak out.
But if anyone was in a position to push for a greater proportion of affordable units, you’d think it would have been the Land Use chair. That tells me he was likely comfortable with the 140 units, focusing instead on getting Northland to invest millions in traffic mitigation to address what he acknowledges were the neighbor’s No. 1 concern.
Either way, here’s a summary of the traffic plan that Schwartz helped negotiate:
Also, the state is making a $30 million investment in enhancements to Needham Street that will improve traffic flow by aligning intersections, eliminating curb-cuts and incorporating the latest traffic signal technology, which will be completed prior to the completion of the project.
As for Councilor Markewiecz’ comment. Perhaps its hard to see who’s in attendance at public hearings from where he sits, but I saw the Globe’s John Hilliard in attendance many, many, times (John tends to sit in a back row, just to the side of the center doors). Also, it’s entirely possible to view every meeting on NewTV
Bravo, gentlemen! And Amy, for the post.
#speaktruthtopower
I agree with Councilor Schwartz when he says concrete concerns, particularly traffic, are the core of this opposition to this project. When concrete concerns are on the table, let’s stick with those. Stereotyping motivations is still stereotyping, with all its hazards.
I also appreciate that Councilor Schwartz worked hard on the Northland negotiation over his years as Chair of the Land Use Committee. On the evening of the vote, even though he voted against the project, he praised it. He said that any other location, the project was a “slam dunk”. In a world where such open thoughtfulness is not always abundant, I found his view informative and refreshing.
So let’s talk about the Councilor’s major concern: traffic. Traffic is probably most people’s biggest concern regarding this project, and for good reason. Traffic’s bad on Needham St. People see it. It doesn’t feel safe. The state knows it. The City agrees, it even says it in the special permit.
(See the special permit here: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/101327 )
The challenge is that *something* will be built at that location, and the city does not have unlimited control to shape any project. Given the current state of the property, building *something* is in the community‘s best interest. According to the special permit, a very large all-commercial development could be build as of right, meaning current zoning without a special permit. (I have also been told this, but I am no expert, so if this point is incorrect please correct me.)
While commercial development might help the city budget, even a “smaller than as of right” commercial project would have more severe traffic impact than the approved plan, peaking at rush hours and possibly at lunch. The special permit specifically says that. That is what City Council was working against all along. The other extreme, max housing, would have similarly increased traffic, but more diffused over the hours. Both worse than the approved plan.
These are the constraints the Council had, and they are the same constraints we will face whatever happens with the referendum. Given what the developer is legally allowed to do, I think the negotiations got traffic impacts down about as far as possible within some margin. How? Mixed use (more internal traffic vs external traffic). Parking restrictions in line with actual usage patterns in the metro Boston to prevent excessive trips being built into the project. Newton’s most aggressive transportation demand management plan (a system used very successfully across the country, and for all large developments in Cambridge). Commitments for public shuttle services (electric, even) that are in the developer’s best interest to succeed. $5 million in traffic mitigation money external to the site, with half up front. Traffic stuff is expensive, but that’s a pretty big check.
On top of that, MassDOT is investing $30 Million to make traffic flow better and improve safety on Needham St. Modernizing the signals, combined with pedestrian and bike safety and improved driveways and intersections, will make a big difference in not just flow but how the street feels, for everyone. Separate greenway improvements are also in the works. Not everyone will walk or bike, but biking or walking to transit will be better and shorter and than the walk to school we ask of many our kids (about a mile).
Will driving through Needham St be fast at rush hour? Not likely. Add capacity to a road often induces more drivers to come there. But Needham St will be less aggravating, feel more safe, and be more safe. With or without Northland. Off peak traffic will almost certainly be better.
The Councilor says, “but [we] had no certainty [the plan] would sufficiently reduce the number of extra cars on the road generated by the project’s future residents and businesses.” I don’t see traffic that way. Northland cars aren’t different other than cars traveling to or from other buildings on Needham St, nor cut through commuters, nor my family making a quick trip to Modell’s or Michael’s. We have to work on them all. What we have to do, and what the City did, is use aggressive best practices to get the parking down well below Newton’s current minimums, and traffic down well below other conventional options open to the developer.
What’s my point in all of this? Not to convince “no” to “yes”, surprisingly.
What I mostly want to dispel is the idea that City Council didn’t understand these issues or try to address them. They did. Whether you can accept the final outcome, they avoided several much worse options, including one available by right. I claim the traffic numbers are about as small as you’ll get for a site of this size. They went beyond what Newton has ever asked a developer to do, setting a new standard of TDM for future development that matches leading communities in the state.
Are there further things I would have liked the developer to do? Sure. Do I hope some will still happen, and that city and the developer will continue to work together to make the site work as well as possible? Sure. Should we do the same with every developer and property owner? Yes!
I just don’t see how going back to square one, which is where we will be independent of some project opponents hope or say, is the correct approach. That would throw out all the other qualities of the Councilor’s “otherwise a slam dunk”.
Councilor Schwartz,
Thank you for highlighting the principal objections to the Northland project – traffic, and an insufficient amount of affordable housing.
Thank for also, for pointing out that the 140 units ARE in fact, low and moderate income affordable housing (it being argued in some circles that they are not affordable housing units).
We also appreciate that you highlighted the robust traffic demand management plan negotiated by the Council. You could have also said, the MOST robust traffic plan ever crafted in the Commonwealth, and congratulated the Council for its successful negotiation in that regard (again, in some circles, it is argued that traffic was completely ignored by the Council and the developer).
However, what we find hard to understand (counterintuitive) about the position of the opponents of the Northland project is that, while on the one hand the consequences of a NO vote WILL produce both a higher percentage and a higher amount of affordable housing (through multiple 40 B filings) satisfying the many neighbors that Councilor Schwartz refers to, on the other hand, that increase in affordable housing has a “cost”. 40 B will eliminate the robust traffic plan negotiated by the Council – the electric last mile shuttle to the T , the $5 m fund, the Mobility Hub, the enclosed 59 bus stops, the lower parking ratios, the subsidized T passes, etc.
Based upon the Councilor Schwartz op-ed, it is our hope that if NO prevails, the community will coalesce around the increase in affordable housing that will result, even though it will not have the robust traffic plan that was negotiated in Land Use.
@Masterplanner,
In other words, if the voters say “no” to the project, Northland will punish the City by building the modern equivalent of tenements. From what you describe, it is not going to be terribly appealing for market rate apartment dwellers so, perhaps spite might not be the best form of planning. Also, given that the city is actually quite close to the safe harbor, it may well turn out that you will be doing it a favor by pushing us into the safe harbor.
Also, with the name “Masterplanner” I have a really, really hard time accepting that you are the official voice of Northland and officially speak for the entity. Thanks.
What Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Markiewicz fail to acknowledge – almost certainly as a result of how they will vote on Tuesday – is that “traffic”, “it’s too big”, etc. are the red herrings deployed to obstruct new construction of affordable housing in Newton and across the region. This includes new construction of market rate housing, of which we need tens of thousands of more units for supply to finally meet surging demand in our region and bring overall costs down. The Globe makes a forceful argument in this regard and they are 100% right.
I must also add that as Land Use Chair, it was in fact Mr. Schwartz’s job to negotiate for a larger share of affordable housing on behalf of his constituents. He failed to do so and now it is someone else’s fault?
This project is not perfect but it is good and, in fact, desperately needed. I hope Newton will vote yes on Tuesday, despite Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Markiewicz’s poorly framed arguments.
Punish? the Chair of the Land Use committee, after years of debate, asserts that:
“many from the Upper Falls community . . . raised concerns that there is not enough affordable housing.”
or is it favor? we hope the community will view it as the latter.
The point of the thread was the misrepresentation by the Globe that Northland opponents are against affordable housing.
Let’s let the Northland site go full throttle on affordable housing, once and for all achieve safe harbor for Newton, and free the city from that state yoke. Vote “no”.
What Greg said
@Lisap,
“Punish”, aka initiate Plan B, aka exercise their rights as private property owners, aka scrap 3 years worth of effort because it was rejected by voters who believe they’re voting No to get a “more modest-size project based on community input” since that’s what the flier says.
The No folks can attach any emotional spin they want to Plan B, but the *fact* is that a No vote win will result in a bigger development WITHOUT the “most robust traffic plan ever constructed in the Commonwealth”. And WITHOUT the Countryside School renovation.
Jim,
Not that you need our approval, but IMO, your position is consistent and rationale. Say NO to the Northland project, and accept a significant increase in its size so that Newton can achieve its 40 B threshold (safe harbor).
Referring to 40 B as tenements, that seems to undermine Councilor Schwartz’s letter and viewpoint.
The core of Greg’s letter to the Globe involved traffic related problems with Northland. Please reread what he actually said if If you still don’t think that’s the case. He referenced issues of “affordable housing” only because many YES proponents on this blog keep inferring that residents on the NO side are trying to prevent certain types of people from living near them.
I wouldn’t have bothered to state this second point until a few weeks back when one of the proponents posted pictures of two front yards with two yard signs. One was a NO sign on the ballot question and the other was one of many signs throughout the City extolling Newton as a welcoming city for every type of ethnic, racial and income group, The inference from this post was that you couldn’t be voting NO and still be for this type of diversity. A more direct and egregious tactic was used a few years back against proponents of a local historic district (LHD) in Newton Highlands. It was falsely and maliciously claimed that the real motivating force was not historic preservation but a regulatory tool to keep working class and ethnic/racial minorities out of the Highlands. Quite ironic because the two principal guardians steering the process were Rodney Barker, a spirited immigration attorney who represented clients rich and poor, and former City Councilor Brian Yates, widely heralded as the friend of the “little guy” in Newton. Both of these dear friends are now gone, but both were shocked and deeply hurt by these unfounded charges.
The point is I don’t question the motives or judgments of people who are opting for YES on Question I. We have too many other things we share in common. I would only hope that those on the YES side would reciprocate.
Plus, Greg Schwartz is a class act.
bob,
our primary concern is that – if NO prevails – residents are going to discover that the result (the unintended consequence) will be a larger development with no traffic mitigation components.
we think residents may feel misled – by letters such as the above, by the inaccuracies in Attorney Murphy’s (“I am not rendering legal advice”) presentation to rsn, and by community members that are framing the NO vote as an opportunity to negotiate a smaller development.
that is our concern. that is why, win or lose, we are trying to be very clear about our intentions.
@Rhanna – I don’t know what the “Plan B” is and really, neither do you (though we can safely assume that their goal is to maximize profits). They are property owners who have sought a special permit in order to develop the property in a manner that is not authorized by right under our current zoning laws. (Hence the “special permit”.) So, you see, they aren’t simply “exercising their rights as private property owners” which would mean an entirely commercial development, at a higher tax rate for the city. They have sought, and obtained, an exception which they wish to maintain. And, as highly sophisticated developers know, when you need to seek permission for something you are not entitled to do by right, there is a risk that you will not receive approval for what you want.
And let’s not forget that even assuming they do proceed under 40B, it isn’t exactly like they can simply file a plan and immediately start building. That too is a process which will take time and which would ultimately result in a far greater number of units with long term affordability restrictions. (Not a laissez-faire answer that allows the property owner to do as it wishes.)
Lastly, let me be clear that I am not and do not speak for the “no side”. While I’ve seen a deluge of threads arguing in favor of this development, this is the first time I have even commented so I would appreciate it if you did not assign group speak “emotional spin” to my comment since I reacted to the so-called “masterplanner” as I saw fit. Thank you.
@masterplanner
I understand that you represent (or at least work for) Northland.
I have been a pretty consistent, albeit a little skeptical, ‘yes’ on this project. But your attitude and threats on this blog over the past few days have helped me understand how committed Northland is to doing what’s best for the city.
And the result is that I’m now sort of a toss up leaning yes. Keep it up for the next couple of days and you can probably get me into the ‘no’ camp!
https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/10/16/handbook-approachtoch40b-designreviewa.pdf
Just posting this link for anyone who is interested or curious about Chapter 40B design reviews.
Donald ross,
For some reason, I actually thought masterplanner was the CEO of Northland. I’m probably wrong.
The CEO is active on nextdoor.com Newton answering residents concerns if you want to reach him directly
@”masterplanner”: Gives me the creeps!
Given the project is on the “Needham side” of Needham Street, why are there no shuttles going to Needham Heights?? #suspect
@Matt from a transportation perspective, shuttles to the Green Line make more sense than the commuter rail. These run every 10 minutes for most of the day NOT JUST DURING RUSH HOUR.
Going to the commuter rail only makes sense during limited times.
Not every decision is a conspiracy.
In which Greg Schwartz completely shuts down the neighbors’ complaint that they were not listened to.
I have to say it hard for me to believe shuttles will run every ten minutes in Needham street….
Rick Frank, it is the difference between frequency and headway. Shuttles can easily run every 10 minutes if you have enough shuttles. How long they take varies.
I use the LMA shuttles in Longwood all the time with frequencies worse than this. It’s great. I can read and not focus on driving, even though I could drive if I really wanted.
Headway is such that walking is a comparable option on nice days or heavy traffic, but if it’s snowing and cold I don’t really care.
Bob,
I’m not interested in trying to plumb people’s internal motivations. But, we now know with crystal clarity that reducing housing options in wealthier communities has a segregating impact. It doesn’t matter if it’s a reduction in the number of units at Northland or tighter historical preservation rules. Restriction == segregation.
If folks want to continue to fight for historical preservation and for less-dense housing, they are free to do so. But, they are tying themselves to positions that indisputably have a racial impact.
I’ll let you decide if a person who supports policies that have a clear racial impact is a racist or not. Like I said, I don’t care about people’s intentions.
Just now read Councilor Markewiecz’s comments. He joins former Councilor Schwartz in torching the Right*Sizers’ allegation that they weren’t heard.
Hmmm.
First, I will never refer to anyone as “Master” anything – pick another name Northland/Northwind. 😉
From this point forward, I will no longer ask anyone to vote No. The various online blogs have been dominated by Northland discussions of late, and everyone can (and probably have) make/made up their own minds. But with 1 day to go, I leave this parting thought…
Northland has spent over $320k just in the the past 45 days supporting the “Yes” vote. They’ve got incognito posts here on Village14 and enough people believe in the CEO himself is posting on NextDoor (I remain amount the disbelievers).
Meanwhile, they’ve got Mayor Fuller; Councilors Crossley, Downs, Albright, Lipof and others, blasting away here on Village14, on NextDoor, Facebook, as well The Tab, the Boston Globe and WBUR; not to mention using the City’s Newsletter and constituent email newsletter all in passionate support of Northland.
If this project is so wonderful; such a slam dunk, then why the need to bring a drone to a knife fight??
I do not even recall President Obama bringing this level of fire power (relatively speaking) to defend to Affordable Care Act… and that was named after him!
Godspeed one and all….see you at the polls.
@bobburke . The unintended consequences of the Newton Highlands Historic district would have disproportionately hurt people of color. Period. Full stop.
We were lucky to have had many leaders within the community step up and shut the plan down. People were overwhelmingly against the Highlands Historic District so let’s move on.
Good for Greg for responding to the Globe’s characterization. I tire of their sanctimonious posturing. What has their owner done for affordable housing?
Sean Roche, Jack
Since you have brought race into this; For the zoning rehaul:
Are you willing to infer that any councilor who does not vote to abolish single family zoning (and historic district) within “1 mile of a T stop or commuter rail” a racist?
I look forward to you calling them out by name.
Bugek,
I have already stated, repeatedly, that any public official who votes to re-implement single-family-only zoning in Newton — anywhere, not just within a mile of a T stop or commuter rail — is freshly implementing a regulatory regime that is known to create racial segregation.
As I wrote above, I’m not interested in people’s thoughts, just their actions. I’ll leave it to others to decide if such a public official is a racist or not. But, they would certainly be creating more racial disparity. And, they should be judged for that.
Yes, I’ll call them out. Even those who suggest that they are just trying to deal with the reality of a population that’s not ready to give up single-family-only zoning across the city. No appeasers, please.
Thanks for asking.
What Matt said.