Much has been said and will be said about the results of the Northland question. I won’t get into the details here. But the fact that we had to have that debate at all was, in my opinion, deeply concerning.
Not because it was a referendum – I do believe people have a right to overturn an unpopular law, that is appropriate. The problem for me, in so many ways, is that we learned that a small minority of voters (5%) can force a ballot question on an individual permit issued to an individual land owner.
We saw in this question some of the issues that can arise: Who is going to pay to fight it? Well, the landowner, obviously. But we don’t want corporate money in politics. Well who else did you think was going to pay to fight it?
However, there are many other ways this could go very wrong. What if the permit was challenged because the landowner was a Republican? Or a socialist? Or a person of color? Or a person of a minority religion? Or LGBTQ+? Or an orthodox Jew? or a labor union? Or an out of state corporation? What if it was an Israeli company and the BDS movement was protesting it? What if the permit was challenged for other reasons but the property owner happened to be one of those things?
Clearly to me, the concept that the individual permit issued to an individual landlowner could be challenged in a citywide vote is deeply, deeply problematic. I hope the City Council deems appropriate to review this problem, and look for an appropriate solution.
@BBarash: absolutely what we need to do is lay back and think of the developer(s). Anything else would be treason, no? Especially after all the crumbs they’ve thrown us? Let’s just cut to the chase and make these pesky referendums illegal, after all.
@Bryan, I don’t agree. I was a strong “yes” supporter; I think the 5% threshold for referenda may be too low; I find the RSN leadership pretty absurd; and I’m definitely not a fan of the councilors who tried to suppress the vote in the referendum. (Feel free to run again!)
All that said, for a project this large, I’m glad that the skeptics had the right to contest it.
I actually find your own statement the most troubling
…”But the fact that we had to have that debate at all was, in my opinion, deeply concerning”
There were many valid concerns debated
– traffic
– school enrollments
Anyway, i hope after the zoning rehaul there will be little need for debates. Its a pretty exhaustive document that covers so much that special permits should be extremely rare.
We are still allowed to debate the zoning rehaul right?
@Bugek – I 100% agree with you. If you wanted to oppose any citywide policy, or even propose a citywide policy, related to traffic, or school enrollments, or building heights, or a moratorium, etc. etc. you are able to do so through the council or, after some signatures, the ballot.
What you should not, in my opinion, be able to do is contest a specific permit. Make a blanket rule that would prevent a specific permit from being issued? Fine. But the whole city ruling on a particular permit is wrong, in my opinion.
You could change the City charter.
It turns out that we have – relatively recently – voted on that topic. If one is to infer that the Northland vote affirms the city’s commitment to development (as many here have suggested over the past 24 hours), should we not also believe that the charter vote demonstrates that the citizens of Newton prefer this as their form of government?
Or do votes only matter when you win?
Well this is rich!
I thought every vote matters
Every voter should be heard
What about the Democrat obsession
with voter suppression???
What is really concerning to me is that you are okay Disenfranchising voters because you might not like their votes or the outcome of a Democratic process.
Preventing this from ever happening again is unDemocratic.
Democracy is messy but it works.
Let’s be real honest here Bryan, the only group that this is likely to happen to here in Newton is a Republican developer, and that would be just fine with city Democrats who have an irrational hatred for all things Republican unless they are Charlie Baker with state money to dump on a local project.
If what happened to Northland ever happened to any of the other groups you mentioned, dozens of pro bono lawyers, ACLU & Southern Poverty Law group lawyers would mobilize so quickly in Newton that it would make your head
spin. Let’s say we disenfranchise the “small” group of voters representing all
of the groups you mentioned…
You would be okay with that, yes?
Bryan, I could not more strongly disagree with you. A referendum petition is the quintessential act of petitioning one’s government for redress of a grievance, and allows the citizenry to act as a check and balance upon local elected officials. The process of the referendum petition provides a thoughtful, organized way for individuals to challenge or express disapproval of governmental action – which is precisely what happened here. I am sure that you have heard the saying – bad facts make bad law. Nothing about the referendum process warrants carving out an exception for a particular type of governmental action in my opinion.
Lest there be any confusion from my comment, I am not arguing that the electorate expressed disapproval of the government action as the result was precisely the opposite. Rather, that my point is that the process worked as designed – by allowing the voters to express whether they approved or disapproved of this action.
@Lisap – Referenda exist to allow citizens to overturn laws. A special permit or zoning change to a specific piece of property is not a law. It just happens that because the City Council in Newton is the SPGA (special permit granting authority), and responsible for zone changes, the referendum provision as currently written applies to them.
My understanding is that in other cities and towns, where those powers might be vested in a Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals, referenda would not apply. But because it is a power of the City Council, the referendum applies.
I would agree the threshhold of 5% is too low for referendum, that should be raised in addition to a minimum turnout % if the vote is held as a special election to discourage trying to game the date. I view a referendum like this as an option of last resort (think recall election or impeachment) where there’s an egregious oversight or outright malice – it should have a high bar to force and also a high bar to pass like how we require a super majority to change zoning. Don’t think either Northland or the original Riverside proposal would rise to that level.
Don’t agree with the characterization of Northland as a poor land owner being bullied around though – this is certainly not in the same vein as a homeowner getting a special permit to add an addition to their house. The bar should be set high but a special permit the size of Northland has significant impacts that sets it apart from what we normally see for things like waiving a parking requirement or allowing FAR to exceed what’s legal for an individual lot. Something that size should be in the scope of a referendum but with a higher bar to meet. It’s also a bit of a jump to go from Northland to anti-Republican/LGBTQ+/Socialist/etc… as the logical conclusion to where these are going to go.
@Bryan
A zoning change to a specific parcel is actually an even better use of a citizens petition. You’re right, it’s not a law, it’s the decision by a small group of people that the law (zoning) should not or does not apply.
Imagine if a few well placed campaign (or other) contributions empowered the rich to run roughshod over the city with 2/3rds of the council in its pocket.
I’m not saying that is what is happening here, only that we must defend democracy against potentially corrupting influences.
What’s missing in the criticism of Bryan’s position is that all the concerns that came up in the referendum fight had a place to come up before then: in the various public hearings, meetings and votes that took place over the previous two + years.
There wasn’t a lack of public input here. This wasn’t a case of paid-off city councilors acting as a puppet government. This was a process that we, as the people of Newton, put in place, and then defended by voting down changes to the charter. This is the process.
If you want to change the process itself, then let’s do that. But trying to force an up/down vote on every decision that goes against the stated position of a minority of the population is going to grind the government to a halt.
This referendum did massive damage to our ability to court developers to help rebuild the physical infrastructure of our city. We’re not going to have a competitive marketplace. It was not a good thing.
@Bryan,
I disagree with the assertion that referenda exist solely to permit voters to overturn laws. Sec. 10-9 of the Charter of the City of Newton provides, in relevant part: “Except as otherwise provided by law or this charter, any measure passed by the city council or the school committee, including a measure proposed by initiative procedures and passed by the city council or the school committee, may be protested and referred to the voters in accordance with this article.”
The term “measure” used in section 10-9 is inclusive of, but not limited to laws or ordinances passed by the Council. Rather, under the definitions contained in Sec. 11-13, a measure is defined as follows: “’Measure’, an ordinance passed or which could be passed by the city council or an order, resolution, vote or other proceeding passed or which could be passed by the city council or the school committee.” The relevant language here is preceded by the disjunctive “or” so that it includes an order, resolution, vote or other proceeding”.
Thanks.
PS – someday I need to learn how to underline and italicize here!
@Chuck Tanowitz-
I’m confused. Are you speaking as representative of the Newton Needham chamber of commerce or as a Newton resident. I’m having trouble keeping track of all of the chamber reps; Greg Reibman,
Don Seifert, yourself….
“This was a process that we, as the people of Newton, put in place, and then defended by voting down changes to the charter.”
@Chuck – your statement also applies to the referendum process – it is a process that the people of Newton put in place and chose to preserve. And, at the end of the day, some 42 percent of the voters did not approve of what the council did with respect to this project. A minority for sure, but hardly a pittance.
Are we really concerned that the floodgates are going to open with a deluge of petitions grinding government to a halt? As I understand it, they had to get 5,000 certified voter signatures in something like twenty days. I have to think that took a lot of effort.
@Chuck – On the bright side the pot referendum and the Northland vote kept it pretty busy around here on Village 14. In the meantime there’s only so many “mail fishing” stories we can come up with.
@Chuck, re: “This referendum did massive damage to our ability to court developers to help rebuild the physical infrastructure of our city. We’re not going to have a competitive marketplace. It was not a good thing.” Not necessarily disagreeing, but questioning whether we yet know that to be true. Perhaps the positive vote on the referendum actually sent a good signal to developers, in that the Council’s vote was affirmed notwithstanding pretty well organized opposition. As always, welcome your further thoughts.
In general, hyper-local control of land use leads to bad outcomes. The legal threshold for development and for changes to zoning is already too high: 2/3 majority of the council. Local control of land use leads to housing scarcity — the real reason that the median home price in Newton is so high. Housing scarcity is both a problem in and of itself and a significant factor in land-use patterns — suburban sprawl — that contribute to the global climate crisis. In Newton’s case, local control of land use also leads to social injustice.
And, the threat of referendum gives an active minority even more leverage to keep things exclusionary in Newton. I’m less concerned about the cost — financial and otherwise — of a referendum. But, the threat of referendum has already given us the R*SN/LFI*A-driven “compromise” at Riverside. It was the gun to Robert Korff’s head.
In a way, I’m glad that we had this referendum. The city decisively declared that it is not hostile to significant development that expands our housing choices and provides deeded affordable housing. The margin of victory was more than even the most optimistic housing advocate expected. Unfortunately, that only mitigates the threat of referenda in the future. There is no disincentive for the same crew to put sand in the gears the next time around.
So, yes, we need to figure out how to make it easier to approve new homes in our city and reduce the leverage of folks whose concerns were thoroughly vetted in an exhaustive public process. The referendum is one important piece.
It’s all about the levers to effectuate one’s policy preferences. And, the development-skeptical have too many.
@Bryan — More Newton residents voted against Northland than have voted FOR any candidate or issue in Newton save the opt-out election in recent Newton election history. I wouldn’t call that a small minority of residents.
My response to this thread is one of disappointment. I see from the vote that this huge game changer of a development is so significant that people needed a referendum to gage public commitment. As I view the results I see a very divided city. How do we move forward? In the middle city wards which are the most affluent wards voters supported development 2 to 1. In the denser parts of Newton where incomes are lower and where most of the development exists the vote was 1 to 1. So what happens in these communities where there is less consensus?I believe this leads to many future problems. We have a government which does not reflect the needs of a significant number of its constituency.
In my mind with rezoning reform on the immediate horizon this poses real dilemmas for the future of Newton and the well being of its constituents.
Ability to bring issues to vote via referendum – good
Corporate dollars influencing the election – no
Wonder how may trees would be saved if “Yes” had to do their own fundraising?
The composition of the city council does not look like the composition of voters. This is yet another example. If the council voted in the same proportions as the voters, over 10 council members would have voted “no.”
@Paul Green I do not currently work for the Chamber. I’m a Newton resident and speak as such.
I happen to also serve on the Economic Development Commission and while my comments are often informed by what I learn in that capacity, I do not speak for that body, nor in any official capacity.
@Paul The problem is that the city already has a bad reputation and the referendum just made it worse. You are correct that on the bright side, the city made its intentions known, on some level. But as @sean points out, the threat of the referendum remains and there is little cost to detractors in pulling that pin out of the grenade. The financial costs are entirely borne by the developers and the community costs are relatively hidden.
@Jeffrey highlights one of the issues with a referendum provision (which generally I think is an important safeguard for voters). Their point is that voters did not vote in the exact proportion as the city council.
The city went through a 2-year process with Northland including endless meetings, public input, and an excruciating level of detail on traffic, school enrollment, green construction, and best-practice models for mixed-use development.
The large majority of voters don’t have the time to study all of this detail while also holding down a job, raising a family, etc. so they’re trying to make a decision without complete information. And they were subject to abject fear-mongering and disinformation from the No side. No surprise that the votes were not aligned exactly since they were based on different information.
A referendum places a huge burden on voters. While it’s an important safeguard it has flaws.
A friend who lives in California, where government-by-referendum is big, told me their ballot can run to 7 pages long, millions are spent courting voters, disinformation can play a big role and the outcome often comes down to which side spends the most money (think Mass. bottle bill).
For perspective on the voting margin, YES got 58% of the vote, nearly matching Ronald Reagan’s 1984 percentage (58.8%) in an all-time record landslide and blowing away the margins for Nixon in 1972 and Johnson in 1964. Close it was not.
I think that the Council might consider if the permit process belongs in another city body, or raising the percentage of signatures necessary to get on the ballot. While I think that your point is valid about the underlying reasons that a permit might be opposed (LGBTQ landowner, for example) I think that we need the referendum process at some level, and the voters of Newton could understand when the issue is bias. A lot of people voted against Northland, and their voices need to be heard.
I voted in favor of Northland for many reasons. I might not make the same choice for another development project, and I think tha the City needs to evaluate each one on its merits. I do not think that this vote makes Newton pro-development. It may signal that Newton is not a “no development” environment. If the referendum had gone to the no votes, I really think that developers would have thought twice before even trying in Newton, and it would have effectively eliminated the City’s credibility in negotiating deals. That may have been what some folks wanted- a chilling effect on future development. For me, the great need for affordable and accessible housing in our city makes the no-development position something that we can’t afford to take.
People (some?) seem not to be getting that ref to housing, there’s apples and oranges. LUXURY housing is what the developers (and their sycophants) are screaming for. AFFORDABLE housing is what we really need. It’s a MYTH that we can’t have affordable without luxury. Where there is POLITICAL WILL, we can. Sadly, it is lacking. Put the blame where it’s due.
There was no referendum for Riverside. No referendum for Washington Place. No referendum for Chestnut Hill Square. None for Austin Street either. If my memory is correct going back to the early 1970’s, there was no referendum for the Chestnut Hill Mall or the Gateway Centre in Newton Corner…
What made Northland so different and prompted this latest referendum, was the very poor Special Permit deal negotiated by Newton’s elected “leaders.” Affordable housing and school impact mitigation should have been higher priorities at Northland. The way to avoid these types of things in the future is to make sure elected officials share the same priorities as their constituents, and that they possess the skill set required to negotiate with developers.
Mike, I agree with you to some extent – “Affordable housing and school impact mitigation should have been higher priorities at Northland,” but disagree that “The way to avoid these types of things in the future is to make sure elected officials share the same priorities as their constituents.” The City councilors are elected so they must share some priorities of their constituents, but when negotiating a special permit the councilors’ are not representing their constituents, they are required to be objective. This is where electing officials that “possess the skill set required to negotiate with developers” comes in.
For the reasons stated above, I think the special permitting authority should be moved from the city council to a non-elected objective group.
Well said by all.
Now let’s see what happens next as we look at zoning reform. Will the density supporters agree to eliminate single family districts and will they agree to eliminate discriminatory zoning districts? If I have the land, why can’t I build a larges house in any part of Newton
How much commercial enterprise will be allowed in residential neighborhoods. will everyone be allowed to run a business from their home and if so, how large a business?
Should every neighborhood be required to have some low and moderate income housing and if not, why not?
Will voters be allowed to speak or will their voice be limited to election day voting?
Interesting time may be coming.
Peter,
Politically connected neighborhoods will be able to use histric districts as a carve out… be interesting if we see a wave of historical designations in wealthier areas as result..
I can’t think of any other excuse they could possibly use to prevent low income density in waban, newton centre…
Peter,
You’re a well-respected voice in the community. I hope you’ll join me in calling for zoning that makes it legal to build duplexes and triplexes on every lot in Newton. Note: this wouldn’t require multi-family housing on ever lot, just make it a legal option by-right.
You with me?
How about a moratorium on historical designation?
Perhaps the key word here is individual. Citizens United may apply or not, but this was not an individual.
What if the “individual” wants to build a coal fired power plant? And, there’s nothing in the law to prevent it? The hypotheticals are endless, and not worth enumerating. The matter is that courts have ruled corporations “individuals “ and if that applies to zoning you can’t make that distinction even if you want to.
How do you prevent this? You don’t.
It’s part of the process and you only need 5% to start your own referendum to change the charter, as was tried when there was an attempt to eliminate ward representation.
EliminatIng all single family housing zoning is the only equitable solution.
The plan that is in process does not do this. I would expect everyone on this site to support that change and fight for it.
There’s prime green line stops in Chestnut Hill and Waban. Bryan, I hope you will join up with Sean to push for the complete eliminate of single family zoning. It’s the only way to parent this from happening again, as well. When all areas of town have equal opportunities to increase density, the playing field will be more level. Until then, you’re going to have these “battles”.
Pardon the typos caused by advanced artificial intelligence
Sean,
All single family is unlikely to get support ‘realistically’, but its very hard to argue against 0.5 to 1 mile from T station .. if your block is within that radius then all houses on the block are affected with the new height maximums
One point that I have not seen in the above discussion is the distinction between having one’s opinion heard and having it incorporated into the final outcome of a process. I repeatedly read on Village14 and elsewhere that opponents of Northland felt they were not heard.
On the contrary, I am sure they were heard — just as transit advocates who wanted a new Green Line branch down the Greenway past Northland were heard. It’s just that neither a substantially different project nor expensive transit expansion ultimately made it into the final agreement.
So ultimately, it may come down to better communication of “we heard your feedback, but we’re not doing that, for these reasons” for a wide range of feedback. Of course, this will still be disappointing to hear and will not satisfy everyone, but maybe it’s enough that it could help “prevent that from ever happening” .
@Bryan, I think you’re underselling the point just a little bit here.
This wasn’t just “an individual permit issued to an individual land owner”; it was an individual permit issued to an individual landowner for a project that is going to massively remake Upper Falls in the process.
Most of Newton wouldn’t notice if I put up a garage on my lot, or if a developer wants to build a two-family on a lot zoned single-family, but Newton is going to collectively feel the changes from increased traffic and school enrollments. We can debate all day long whether the Council did a good enough job mitigating their effect as part of the permit (and we’ll be doing just that for years), but the scale of the project is orders of magnitude greater.
Building in some sort of automatic permit review for a project of that scope wouldn’t be the end of the world – provided the goals and limits are clearly defined to avoid frivolous complaints and delaying tactics.
I’ll echo what others have already said: maybe the solution is to move the permitting process another group – the ZBA would be a prime candidate. That would allow the council to serve as a review board when the project is large enough. At the very least, it would keep the council out of the situation where they negotiate a deal and then have to objectively critique it based on constituent feedback.
@Marti–
We both agree that the Northland Special Permit fell short on affordable housing and school impact mitigation. So who do we hold responsible for that? Certainly Northland was not going to offer an affordable rate of 30%. Someone within the city’s power structure would have had to press the developer hard for that kind of concession. We have a Mayor and 24 City Councilors. Can you name one who really pushed for affordable housing at Northland?
City “leaders” granted an extremely valuable Special Permit to Northland without even getting the same level of affordable housing that would have been required of a far less valuable 40B project at the same location. They got roughly half the percentage of affordable housing that Amy Sangiolo got for the city at Austin St.
In my opinion affordable housing should be a priority for Newton’s government. I don’t think it’s a priority for the Mayor or City Council. That’s one of the things I’m referring to when I suggest City Hall’s priorities are misaligned with their constituents.
I’ve also suggested the City fell far short on mitigating the long term impact of Northland on Newton’s schools. I was a very lonely voice for many months on V-14 with my oft repeated call for Northland to provide onsite educational space. But what message did the City choose to send to the developer regarding school impact mitigation? Well, the School Committee reported that student population was trending down, and the City Council decided to not push the mitigation issue. Marti, can you identify one member of the School Committee or City Council who pushed for more school impact mitigation?
I believe the future of Newton’s schools is of paramount importance. Many parents would say it’s our top priority. No one wants to return to the days of overcrowded classrooms and “deferred maintenance” of school buildings. So I think the failure of Newton’s elected officials to view mitigation as a long term issue was a serious mistake that again underscores my point about misaligned priorities.
I am not in favor of removing the City Council as the governing body for Special Permits, although it’s something Newton could certainly consider in the future. I think the role of Councilor does afford the ability to both represent constituents and negotiate fairly with developers at the same time. Of course that requires Councilors who are in touch with their constituents priorities, and in possession of negotiating skills.
What Mike and Steve said.
A few parting thoughts,
I much appreciated the referendum and the ensuing dialogue, which moved me from a NO to a YES vote. And although I also think 5% is too low a bar – The purpose of the referendum was (for me) to have a larger conversation. A referendum says, hey this is a particularly important issue that residents should take a closer look at.
For the Yes/No “activists” this was an activist vs activist battle, and not an opportunity to have the community as whole focus attention on a keystone project.
@brian If your takeaway to the process was: “How can this never happen again”, you’re likely an activist.
@Chuck, Yes, there was ample opportunity for public input over two+ years. – But the truth is unless you have a pony in the race, you’re a cog in the local political machine, or your hobby is to champion select social issues, some of these larger projects are just too big for the average resident to fully absorb. My initial “NO” position had more to do with my being uneducated on the topic and fear of the unknown.
I’ll be straight up honest, I have zero interest in spending my time in public meetings. That doesn’t make me a bad person, an irresponsible resident, or morally challenged.
You say: “This referendum did massive damage to our ability to court developers to help rebuild the physical infrastructure of our city.”
Seems to me that you’re being a bit of a drama queen. One of my primary work responsibilities these days is advising a builder in another part of the state on getting their larger developments approved. I know first hand that opposition and curveballs are par for the course – A calculated risk.
Frankly, If a developer doesn’t want to develop in Newton because we are demanding and thorough on larger projects – I’d prefer not to have them because it means their pockets likely aren’t deep enough.
I’m all for making the process better for developers, but not at the expense of the democratic process. Moving the permitting process to the ZBA is def worth investigating.
I think this YES-NO referendum was a WIN for residents of Newton, in the same way, I think Trump’s impeachment trial was a win for Democrats. They were both a process of the people. They both allowed the general public to focus on the fine details of a larger and important issue. And in both, the outcome was far less important than the process.
I’m absolutely pro-development, but I’m growing tired of the “We must develop and develop now and develop fast or we’re doomed” drama. And to be clear, my disdain runs on both sides. I assert that many on the “RightSide” are NIMBY objectionists with an overactive fear of any change.
If you disagree, you’re likely an activist.
Mike Ciolino, I agree completely.
“How do we prevent “that” from ever happening again” is an excellent but complicated question. An established process, albeit a convoluted one, was followed precisely by both parties until a successful compromise was negotiated. As usual after negotiations are over and a project is settled upon, not every resident of Newton was happy with the result. There is no perfect solution that will please everyone and at some point decisions have to be made.
During this process, a group of nearby residents expressed some valid questions about the project being too large, creating too much traffic and overcrowding the schools which were considered by the city and Northland with the result being a traffic management plan with fines attached, a million dollars toward Countryside School and a reduction from over 900 apartments to 800.
After almost 2 years of presentations, community meetings and Land Use hearings, a group made up of the usual suspects with some additions, and chaired this time by Randy Block, intervened saying they were “representatives” of the community closest to the project when actually their group, RightSize, has their own development agenda and just use the neighboring community to protest all developments. They do a good job of persuading each community that the group is representing the community’s best interests
They have evolved over the years and their tactics change from one development to the other although secrecy behind the scenes is always present.
The first time it was a relatively small group led by Emily Norton and Beautiful Newtonville/the Newtonville Area Council/Neighbors for a Better Newtonville that included Julia Malakie and the Newton Village Alliance, Kathleen Kouril Glaser and Lynne LeBlanc who fought hard to prevent 28 Austin Street from being built by making up and spreading all sorts of scary things that would happen if it was – including losing the municipal parking lot. Many residents of Newtonville were convinced by these tactics and some will still tell you that Newtonville gave up its parking lot – even though it’s still there. If not for Amy Sangiolo’s effort to get 6 more affordable units so she would be a yes vote, it probably wouldn’t have passed the city council.
These same folks, with additional members, leaders and group names pop up every time any special permit comes up proposing more housing. Northland was just their latest target. They have expanded their tactics of spreading lies about the project to include attempts at voter suppression, accusations that councilors were paid off, filing multiple specious complaints and more.
The power to garner supporters through lies and attacks – “that” is what needs to be prevented.
“. I assert that many on the “RightSide” are NIMBY objectionists with an overactive fear of any change.
If you disagree, you’re likely an activist”
I assert that everyone on V14 who doesn’t align with Sean Roche on elimination of single family zoning is NIMBY.
I mean, by definition it’s a fact. What those people are saying is “density, but, uh somewhere else…”.
I would like to ask everyone on V14 including Greg-
1)Are you in favor of eliminating all single family zoning in Newton?
2) If not, give reasons why not.
I believe either Washington State or Oregon has eliminated it statewide – not sure which.
So it can be done.
Please answer the above 2 questions.
It will be very interesting to see how single family zoning can be defended.
Rick,
Pros and cons
Pro
– fairness, but would require abolishment of historic district too. Highly highly unlikely as thats way up there with old tree removals
– each land owner gets to decide if they want to sell or develop their own multi family. So we’re new units will go up naturally over looking periods of time
Cons
-Most lots probably average 7000sqft, most new multi units would likely have to wait for the neighbor to sell too
– over time, the quaintness of waban will be no more. They no longer get to enjoy their T stop with the select weathly few…
Anyway, never gonna pass… too many politically connected enjoy their non leaf blowing neighborhoods, they would never allow their neighbor to cast a shadow over their home…
@Bugek I’m not talking about apartment buildings – I’m talking about converting single family homes to 2 family on the same footprint.
In my zoning, I’m not allowed to do the opposite – to purchase a 2 family and create a single family.
And my question stands – to those who are “chicken” to answer it. Greg, what’ s V14 position? Would you allow me a guest editorial to pose the question?
Jack Leader?
Susan Albright?
Bryan Barash?
Anyone care to answer my questions?
Alison Leary?
Should Newton go to all no single family zoning, and if not why not? If housing is so important, it would seem completely logical and consistent to make that change.
The whole state of Oregon has:
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/07/oregon-single-family-zoning-reform-yimby-affordable-housing/593137/
Why not the city of Newton.
This question deserves and answer on this forum. As a matter of fact, it cries out for it.
I might add, if you’re NOT in favor of converting Newton to no single family zoning, the it’s not a crisis to you. And those using the term “crisis” are using the same fear tactics that RSN is being accused of.
It’s either a crisis- which means drastic measures are needed – or it isn’t.
What Rick said. We’re waiting.. . In 5 words or less, please….
Rick,
I can’t imagine the people you mention would object to abolishing single family zoning city wide. I would press the councilors of waban, newton centre and chestnut hill.. and in particular the mayor. This would be real leadership
I imagine the argument of having the accessory unit ordinance will be used…
@marti Ive often found Newton politics like peeling back layers of a roting onion. Maybe what you say is true. Maybe not. Either way, I’m thinking this is a colossal waste of my time.
Crickets….
@Bugek, well it would be nice to hear them state it for the record.
And, I think it would be a way to decrease the animosity and division over the increased density if there was a more equitable- socially just, if you will – solution to the problem of housing costs.
@Bugek, well it would be nice to hear them state it for the record.
And, I think it would be a way to decrease the animosity and division over the increased density if there was a more equitable- socially just, if you will – solution to the problem of housing costs.
This time with current year. Spambot field gets cut off in iPad….
@Bugek, well it would be nice to hear them state it for the record.
And, I think it would be a way to decrease the animosity and division over the increased density if there was a more equitable- socially just, if you will – solution to the problem of housing costs.
This time with current year. Spambot field gets cut off in iPad……..
@Bugek, well it would be nice to hear them state it for the record.
And, I think it would be a way to decrease the animosity and division over the increased density if there was a more equitable- socially just, if you will – solution to the problem of housing costs.
This time with current year. Spambot field gets cut off in iPad………