Go to “comments” and make your most persuasive case: Northland yes or no?
Make your best closing argument: Northland yes or no?
by village14 | Mar 2, 2020 | Newton | 40 comments
Categories
[youtube-feed feed=1]
Archives
Tags
40B (20)
alien abductions (61)
Alison Leary (19)
Amy Sangiolo (21)
april fools (40)
Austin Street (48)
Barney Frank (76)
Bob Kraft (36)
Brooke Lipsitt (102)
Charter Commission (27)
Chestnut Hill (25)
Chestnut Hill Square (76)
David Fleishman (30)
Donald Trump (25)
Emily Norton (28)
Frank Santo (20)
Gail Spector (18)
history (2269)
jacobson (20)
Jake Auchincloss (38)
Joe Kennedy III (30)
MBTA (25)
NewCAL (23)
Newton (45)
Newton Centre (36)
Newton Highlands (74)
Newton Nomadic Theater (28)
Newton people (19)
Newton Public Schools (19)
Newtonville (60)
NewTV (48)
Northland (34)
politics (83)
recreational marijuana (35)
Ruthanne Fuller (77)
Scott Lennon (44)
Senate (65)
Setti Warren (38)
Susan Albright (26)
trees (39)
Upper Falls (81)
video (23)
Village 14 blog (144)
Washington Place (22)
Webster Woods (21)
Vote No if you feel the council have put their progressive agenda above the needs of the Newton residents affected… and their poor negotiation skills.
Vote No if you believe the council have put this issue above the current needs of our senior citizens, keeping our schools excellent, keeping crime low and fixing our roads.
Vote No as a check on the rapid pace of development in such a short period of time. All rental units and no opportunity of long term ownership. Washington place (140), Dunstan east (243), Riverdale (204), Riverside (524), Northland (800)
Vote No and work with the council on the zoning re-design to shape the long term future for all of Newton
If you look simply at the facts, read the 128 page document, and consider how alternatives would come about, the only vote is a strong YES.
Let’s consider some of the NO vote concerns.
1) There should be a comprehensive transit plan. In fact, that is exactly what the state and regional governments are responsible for and working on. What is known is that the green line is slated for 100% vehicle replacement that will double capacity over the next 5 years.
2) Newton commuter rail is slated for $46MM in station upgrades. IMHO it is imperfect, as what is required is dual platform and electrification. Those items are on a LT plan that will require significant money and political will.
3) We should have more affordable housing: If we assume the least case situation that is being argued tis that one lot could only have a max of 643 units, then there would be about 160 affordable units at the 25% mandate. That is vs. the 140 on the current 800 unit plan. But a 40b will also require more 3 bedroom apartments and thus more schoolage kids which seems to be a hot button for the No Vote. So do we trade down for just a few more affordable units, lose multiple benefits (I.e. underground parking, electric shuttle, other negotiated items) for 23 more units. I would also assume (though I don’t have the details) that if this was pure 40b even at minimum number of units, we would trade out design and energy type construction as investor still needs to make ROI.
4) Traffic. Fact is that 70% of traffic on Needham street is pass through. Fewer units close in to commuter patterns means more traffic passing through. Traffic is a problem and is not going away. So let’s start to create investment that can change patterns over time. Additionally, the state is embarking on a $30MM redesign of Needham Street. It won’t end traffic, but it will certainly rationalize the needs. We have seen these types of improvements in other areas; Route 9 near the malls, Brighton Ave in Allston, etc. They work.
5) Ruining our Village. This is more qualitative but as a resident of Newtonville, I would argue the opposite, The new developments will support our villages. In Newtonville, we see an independent retailer moving in (toy store) after losing establishments over the years like Newtonviille Books, and the shoe store. Going further back, our villages were places to go to for a a wider range of hours beyond banking and hair and nail styling. Nothing wrong with those establishments, but we need more.
The Northland plan, if you take time to read through the 128 page document, works to connect the development to the village. And create integration to the community, I would say this will enhance the village, just like the Washington St Vision Plan has the potential to support villages on the North side.
8) The City Council is in the back pockets of the developers. This is a highly cynical view of local govt. Whether they voted for or against, our councilors spent more hours than nearly anyone including myself commenting in the various forums reviewing this project over multiple years. They approved twice 17-7, and these were councilors voted on by all of us, and then reelected / elected in Nov. I voted on them to represent me along the complex issues the city faces.
FOR THE ABOVE AND MANY OTHER CONCERNS, I AM A STRONG YES. IF YOU ARE A NO, REALLY ASK YOURSELF TO SEPERATE FACT FROM EMOTION. WE ARE A STRONGER CITY WHEN WE HAVE A VARIED BASE OF RESIDENTS, SOMETHING WE ARE LOSING SINCE i GREW UP HERE IN THE 1970’S.
Vote NO, our Mayor and sections of the city council are the
developers. There is no public mandate for aggressive, rapid
housing development.
Our government should be working closely with the community
stake holders to create a future Newton that reflects the needs of the entire community, not just those who benefit most from
big housing development. Yes our city is changing; but let us not
destroy it in the process.
I’m voting yes – not because the plan is perfect or for any sort of moral obligation to solve the region’s housing shortage but because the SP is realistically the best balance we’re going to get at that location between adding additional housing stock (which we do need) and mitigating the impacts to Upper Falls.
By right the lots are zoned commercial, so Northland could move ahead with a large commercial development without any strings or negotiation. That could arguably be better for the city in terms of revenue but it would also come with none of the mitigations or community give backs in the current plan. They could also go with a larger 40B, again arguably better for the city as it may get us across the safe harbor line but also without any of the mitigations or givebacks. The plan as proposed is hardly perfect but it does have more mitigations built in for traffic and impact than either a by-right commercial or 40B would.
I’m not aware of any concrete counter proposal in terms of what RSN would be looking for in terms of a smaller development outside of general statements around less traffic/more affordable housing/smaller sizes overall. The thought seems to be that a successful No vote would get Northland back to the table but that seems doubtful given their alternatives with a by-right development or 40B along with how long they have spent on the current SP. They have no need to try and negotiate smaller when they hold all the cards. The LFIA had success getting Riverside reduced by roughly 33% but you have to keep in mind Northland has already had significant reductions from the original plan that was proposed compared to Riverside (2m to 1.1m sqft vs 1.5m to 1.025m for Riverside).
Then there’s the impact that this would have on the council’s ability to negotiate on future developments. Regardless on how people feel on specific votes the council is supposed to be empowered between Land Use, ZAP and the chamber as a whole to negotiate on special permits/zoning where there’s a benefit to the community and city. They can’t do that effectively if there’s going to be a threat of a referendum hanging over any potential special permit. If No does pass and Northland goes with a commercial development instead would developers even bother trying for a special permit or just go with the largest they can under 40B until we hit safe harbor?
Overall it’s a high risk, low reward gamble that hinges on Northland not calling our bluff – if they decide to go with a larger 40B or commercial development instead of coming back to the table we have no legal option to stop and it and no way to take back the referendum. And if they do call our bluff then Upper Falls is going to be much worse off in terms of traffic and other impacts. Given the point we’re at in the overall process and how long this has been going on I’m hard pressed to see a scenario where Northland comes back and makes the project significantly smaller. It’s either the SP as approved or a large 40B/commercial development. I also don’t see them just throwing up their hands and leaving it as-is with how much effort has already been spent on the site – something’s getting built there regardless of how the referendum goes. Selfishly I’d say go for the largest 40B possible so we hit safe harbor, but I’m not sure people in Upper Falls would be too keen on being the sacrificial lamb when it comes to shouldering all the impacts that would entail.
@Patrick-
Having spent the last couple of hours reading up on 40B’s, while I agree the process is complex I think it is a mistake to conclude that the City has no power or ability to negotiate with the developer. Indeed, as but one example it appears to me that traffic mitigation would still be on the table as a legitimate area of negotiation and conditions, and the state encourages developers to negotiate with cities to resolve issues. Contrary to what Northland would like people to believe, 40B doesn’t give them a “my way or the highway”position, nor does it strip the City of all bargaining power.
Exactly.
Might the city require some traffic mitigation? Yes. Could they insist on the level of traffic mitigation in the current plan, which is arguably the strictest Traffic Demand Management Plan in the Commonwealth – requiring the developer to monitor trips and pay financial penalties for exceeding the trips cap and provide alternative solutions? Plus the free electric shuttle? No.
So double the # of housing units and a far lower level traffic mitigation. That’s what a No vote will get us. More affordable housing, yes, that’s great. But everyone seems to agree that it’s all about the traffic. Except when it’s not.
Did I mention that we also wouldn’t get $1.5 million to renovate Countryside School, the undergrounding of utilities, underground parking, 6 acres of public parks, 750 new trees planted, Passive House and LEED ND Gold standards for green construction, space reserved specifically for local retailers…?
This project has been endorsed by 12 civic and community groups who studied the details carefully, Newton’s current and last two mayors, and the Boston Globe.
But definitely vote No if you want to “place a check on the rapid pace of development in a short period of time”, because that and $7 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
@Rhanna-
Can you please point to where in the approved plan the developer(s) will incur a penalty for excess vehicle trips? Because I read the plan today and while I see that they will *try* to keep vehicle trips below a stated threshold – without any explanation as to HOW they will do so, I did not see any reference to penalties. I’m really curious because it is hard to foresee how this particular provision would be verified and enforced. And it is true that there will be no funds for Countryside. Likewise there will probably be no splash park (and no city funded life guards to protect it). But there will be far more affordable units which will help to address the housing crisis and huge need for affordable units.
Alternatively, we will see a commercial project which will pay twice the residential tax rate. Given – what is it – a billion in unfunded pension liabilities, that might be good for the city too.
I don’t think I can say it any better than Councilor Jake Auchincloss, who sent these ‘5 reasons why I am voting in favor’ to his constituents yesterday:
Jake is one of the clearest thinkers and communicators on the council and I couldn’t agree more with his assessment. Vote YES tomorrow.
I’ll be voting Yes tomorrow for the same reasons many of my neighbors will be voting No – worries about traffic, concerns about impact on schools, but more generally worries about the unintended consequences such a large (23 acre) development may have on our sleepy village.
This parcel is not Austin St. It is not a city run project. Those 23 acres are private property. In general, private property owners can do whatever they want with their land so long as they comply with local zoning and regulations.
In the case of Northland though, the property owner applied to the city for zoning changes. Because of that request for a “Special Permit” the city had a fair amount of leverage over the details and design of the project than they wouldn’t otherwise have had.
The city, as well an many interest groups within the city, used that leverage over the last few years, at countless meetings of the Council and its committees to extract various commitments and concessions from the developer. There are many folks (RightSize, Mike Striar) who have been vocal that the city should have extracted different or more concessions from the developer. They may be right – but today that’s moot.
The Special Peremit process ended in December with the City Council’s vote. Tomorrow we are only voting on one thing – Yes/No on the negotiated Special Permit for a zoning change.
If you vote No, in effect you are voting that a different development project on those 23 acres, with minimal input from the city, is going to result in a more palatable result than the Special permit project that underwent years of negotiated concessions and improvements.
I worry that many No voters may believe they are voting for No development on the site, what they are really voting for is No (or minimal) input to what’s built there.
Yes! This is an opportunity to do something meaningful about the City’s energy efficiency and affordable housing, it will make Needham Street a better place, and the impacts to Upper Falls (where I live) will be much less than opponents think.
Six reasons I’m voting Yes for Newton’s Future tomorrow.
1. Housing for our workers: Housing supply is critical to our ability to attract companies to locate and grow here. Northland provides 800 units of desperately-needed apartments, including 140 affordable units. Not every worker wants to live in a house with a yard and garage. Northland will provide the housing diversity and flexibility that can bring new workers and employers here, while also serving seniors and others looking to downsize.
2. A new hub for small and midsized companies: The historic Saco-Pettee Mill building will provide 180,000 square feet of Class A brick and beam office space that can become home for the small and mid-sized employers that are driving Massachusetts’ innovation economy but have struggled to find aspirational, amenity-rich space in Newton. Saco-Pettee represents a 10 percent increase in overall Class A office inventory in the N2 Innovation District (including Wells Ave and Needham Crossing); an increase we believe to be the right size for this market.
3. Multi-modal transportation: Northland has created a responsible Transportation Demand Management program and I have confidence in results of peer review of the program as proposed. I’m excited about the robust, modern, free shuttle system that will be available to all workers, residents and shoppers in the region. This proposed public-private system will be a building block to creating more regional shuttles and reducing congestion across the region. We also applaud the commitment of $5 million to explore new transportation initiatives; such as connecting the Greenway to the Green Line or converting the old MBTA rail bridge into a bike path to Needham. This project will be fully integrated into Mass DOT’s Needham Street reconstruction project, making the entire corridor more walkable and safer for all modes of travel.
4. Placemaking: Northland’s Newton project creates public gathering spaces that are too scarce now and that are integral to the success of a vibrant live, work, play community. Ten acres of open space, including a central common where hundreds of people can gather, a splash park, dog park, the historic mill park featuring a restored South Meadow Brook water feature and other public spaces plus 750 new trees are among amenities that will make this project a success, not just for tenants, but for our entire community.
5. Subsidized retail: When Northland stepped up to rescue the New England Mobile Book Fair from moving to another community, we were reminded once again of the challenges facing our cherished, local merchants. This project sets aside 10,000 square feet at a discounted rate for our independent merchants and is sure to enhance the development’s overall shopping experience.
6. Northland’s vision is Newton’s vision: There is no daylight between this project and the goals of the Needham Street Vision Plan, Newton’s Economic Development Strategy and the Chamber’s N2 Innovation District report. This proposal won’t just transform 24 acres into a vibrant, thoughtful, sustainable, amenity-rich community. It will activate and energize Needham Street and beyond; bringing new business, new jobs, new tax revenue and vitality to our city.
A big YES. I was Vice Chair of Land Use during the review of Northland, and I currently serve as Chairman of Land Use and take the stewardship of the Land Use process quite seriously. I will not rehash all the reasons why you should vote yes. I have stated them to the public through various mediums, on social media and in living rooms around the city. And yes, Jake presents a fine summation. I hope that the details and resolutions of this complicated process have resonated with those who were confused or were searching for answers. It’s never been as simple as 800 units are too many. Its so much more than that and I thank those who took the time to listen to the entire history in an effort to make an educated decision.
Yes. A supermajority of duly-elected city councilors approved this project, after a long review process.
Vote No if you are in favor of affordable housing since to say Northland furthers affordable housing is a hoax and to say 40B will result in more intensive site development is a hoax. Moreover 40B at that site will achieve safe harbor for Newton.
Vote yes out of love, spite, hate, cold, cold revenge, or any other emotion that drives you to the polls!
What Jim said.
I’m voting Yes. I think Jake summed it up well. This is not my neighborhood so I have been less involved on the specifics, but I respect the decision of the council and the mayor, I reviewed the endorsements of the Boston Globe and the various community groups supporting it. I also listened to the arguments of Matt and the various RSN supporters.
I don’t think it is a perfect project. No such project ever exists. But it is good enough to have my YES vote.
I will be voting yes. The council, and advocates like Green Newton worked hard to negotiate concessions on traffic, energy sustainability and affordable units. It’s not perfect, but I haven’t seen an alternative vision that is better, and the status quo parking lot for the next decade is unacceptable.
@Jim Epstein, @Pat Irwin – I’m a little confused by that logic.
Vote No to support affordable housing
… So that a 40B affordable housing project will be built
… So that we reach 40B “safe-harbor” threshold
… So that we never have to build any more 40B affordable housing
Yes.
Because there isn’t going to be a better balance of all of the city’s interests in any other package.
85 percent of Newton workers commute outside of Newton to jobs while 89 percent of Newton-based employees commute in. That’s really what’s behind our rush hours traffic. The only way to change that by building more housing next to jobs. Vote @YesforNewton
Jerry,
The City retains the RIGHT after safe harbor to allow affordable housing or 40B at sites and scope the City thinks appropriate, not have it dictated to it at inappropriate site and scale.
Hats off to Sean Roche for boiling this all down into the most succinct argument yet.
Vote YES on March 3.
I am voting YES (Actually, I already voted).
YES because of the senior housing, open space, spray park, money for Countryside School and shuttle buses to the MBTA.
It is NOT perfect, but I am afraid to vote no.
I’m voting yes for all the reasons cited above.
The “Placemaking” point gave me another reason – a central common provides an opportunity for some wonderful community building events. I’ve lived in Newton Highlands for over 2 decades and have seen what a difference it made once we started having Friday night band concerts and movies during the summer plus some outdoor theater there – which would also be good for Upper Falls.
Voting YES and it boils down to 2 things for me:
Affordable housing – 140 units of affordability, some are deeply affordable, mixed in with market rate units in a lovely development where residents will be set up to succeed and have access to green space, transportation, amenities, etc.
Green Design – This project is GROUNDBREAKING from an environmental standpoint. It will become a state and perhaps national model. To lose that would be really disappointing, the climate can’t wait folks.
Meredith:
I wish we had more placemaking in Newtonville. It is really hard to do without a big project. I wish Austin Street had gone up one level higher and had a bigger park. (or you could just close the alley, but thus far no dice).
Folks don’t appreciate it until they have it. It is really awesome.
Northland will ADD a lot while not taking away anything! I see it as a great opportunity to build much-needed housing AWAY from the tree-lined, neighborhoods so many want to protect. To add in a critical amount of green-friendly, senior-friendly, young professional friendly housing in one development, a lot of it horizontal and in return for a ton of benefits. Nothing is being torn down here, it’s a parking lot surrounded by stores and gas stations and this would bring a lot of life and vibrancy, and diversity.
Northland will be perfect for empty nesters and seniors who want maintenance-free living and don’t want to drive around town — walk to the grocery store, restaurants, exercise, the greenway, the T, splash park with the grandkids, 95 close by for visiting family members (I hate driving 2 hours to visit older relatives who had to move to Shrewsbury to find housing). I know many one-car families.
NEWCAL @ NORTHLAND!
(could be in the old Eliot Street maintenance facility)
Fig, the Walnut St enhancements will offer all sorts of space for placemaking. From street art or murals to small community spaces to the allies to temporary street closures, all you need is a dream, a plan, and consensus. As we say to our picky kids, “try it once, what’s the worst that can happen?”
The time to discuss is now, though.
Mike, WWTH is not only what I told my kids, it’s what they say to theirs. It’s a good way to encourage anyone to step out of their comfort zone and take a few risks.
Yes: Let’s not repeat Riverside, which was somewhat of a plan 7 years ago, couldn’t be completed and then has come back bigger than before!!!
Northland is well done as already noted and no sense in starting over!!!!
Yes is a vote for a plan that has been carefully considered with input and direction from countless voices. This a complex issue and we did what we should do as citizens: elected people to learn the details and make the decisions.
A yes is about believing in our process as much as it is about the final decision itself. We cannot ask every individual to learn every detail on ever aspect of a project like this. We shouldn’t be spending hours trying to understand the nuances of 40b or the most efficient way to move people from point A to point B. Experts help us understand that. We need to listen to those experts and admit when others know more than we do.
Vote Yes.
Mr. Tanowitz justification for voting yes is rather insultiung. It seems to imply that the average citizen is incapable of (or maybe should not be responsible for) evaluating the complexities of an issue such as this development. Rather we should leave it to the experts.
Hogwash.
An important part of the job of those we elect to make a case for their decision in as clear a manner as possible to their constituents. It is not like we are talking about quantum physics or pure mathematics here. Anyone should be able to understand the what and why of this development.
I would claim that this communication has been done rather well by those who are in favor of the Northland development both in and out of the government. At this point, it is up to those of us who understood the argument to get out and vote in favor of the project. Those who vote against either are incapable of understanding the cogent arguments favoring this development or are so selfish (“Why should \textit{I} have to wait in traffic) as to ignore them. We cannot do much about such individuals except to ensure that they are the minority.
But Chuck, you never know, Northland *might* be willing to start up another 3-year process with the City to try to find common ground with RSN and they *might* cut out half the housing units while keeping all the traffic mitigation and parks and they *might* just be bluffing about doing a 40B even tho 40Bs are very profitable and it’s delusional to think Northland would start on another special permit after what’s happened. So just maybe people should roll the dice and vote No.
Or a family of pixies may slither out from their underground mud piles and sprinkle their magic dust all over Northland and transform it in a giant sequoia forest!
Vote YES because it is the best of the alternatives by a wide margin and because no amount of magical thinking, however heartfelt, by the NO side will change that.
@elmo I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying… or maybe I’m just not being clear. I’m watching people on Facebook talk about how they’re sitting down with the entire 40b code and trying to understand it in the few days leading up to an election in order to make an “informed” decision. That’s not a fair expectation of a citizen. Yes, be informed, yes, try to understand the issues. But you shouldn’t need to become a 40b attorney in order to make this decision.
You also don’t need to sit down with the raw traffic numbers, nor with the core sample data to understand what’s under the ground on the site. We need to rely on the experts who can interpret that information for us so we can use those messages to make informed decisions.
This won’t end after today. We will still need to rely on experts, and we should.
@fignewtonville and Meredith , I was the Chair of the group that looked at and wrote the recommendation about Austin Street in 2011. We recommended that the height restriction be the same as the Masonic Lodge on Newtonville Ave. we recommended underground parking, and setbacks. The BNai Brith Organization came in with a good proposal, With a larger community area, but was rejected by Mayor Setti Warren as a story too tall. 9 years later I’m glad something was built, even if it wasn’t perfect.