The Campaign for Responsible Development just released the following press release:
Newton’s Voters Swayed by Northland’s Campaign Money Blitz
Newton, Mass.
Today Newton’s voters approved the zoning change that is required for Northland’s 1.4 million square foot development on Needham Street. In doing so, the voters chose to allow a developer to reap huge profits from a massive development that could result in a traffic and parking nightmare, overwhelm local schools and cost the city millions of dollars a year more than new tax revenues. The result of the vote, while disappointing, is understandable. Northland and its PR machine spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars spreading misinformation about the proposed development and instilling fear about potential alternatives. Many City Councilors and the Mayor aided in this spread of misinformation and fear. Many voters chose a bad project over the uncertainty of the alternative; and this was a difficult choice to make.
However, voters should not have been forced into such a dilemma! Had the City Council instead forced Northland to meaningfully address adjacent neighborhood concerns about this project during the Land Use process, we would all be looking forward to the day construction begins.
Instead, we worry about the potential impact on traffic, parking, schools, and the city’s finances from this development and we worry about the precedent it sets: a developer that refuses to address concerns gets to maximize profits, while our City takes on all the risks.
The Right Size Newton organization will continue to monitor the Northland project and make our concerns known to our elected and appointed officials to try to mitigate the damage to our community from this project.
Let’s take the high road Greg. Be gracious, humble, and kind in victory. RSN/CRD used a process allowed for by our charter to try and stop something they didn’t agree with. They fought hard and lost, and they probably thought their biggest foe was a political machine and lobbying developer, but I would opine that what they were really fighting was a city who’s silent majority of residents are actually pro-development and pro-housing. The vote is done, the voters have spoken, and it’s time to move on as one community made up of people with differing opinions, but who care deeply.
Many good decent people — friends and neighbors from across our city — had sincere concerns about this project and its impact. I respect and appreciate their passion and commitment and commend them for being part of this process and part of this debate. I also appreciate those city councilors who stood beside them and gave those folks a voice through the Land Use process. And I look forward to standing on the same side with my fellow Newton neighbors on other issues in the future.
But the leaders of Right Size Newton did a terrible job representing those folks’ interests throughout this process and this bitter statement reflects that. Our city deserves better. We are better.
@Randy . Your quote is key. “silent majority of residents are actually pro-development and pro-housing”
The proof is in the pudding so to speak with the results
http://apps.newtonma.gov/apps/elections/unofficial.htm
Next step is to see how the Area Councils respond. Will the area councils represent the residents or will they continue to thwart develop at all turns. Many V14 folks have been very critical of the “club like” mentality of the Highlands, Waban and Newtonville councils for being a platform for the vocal anti-development minority.
The Highlands has a project @1149-1151 Walnut Street and we will be watching to see if Nathaniel, Bob Burke and crew go balls to the wall to support the density in the project to make it a perfect ten strike for the community.
Area councils – Representative of the community or anti-development social clubs?
Time will tell.
Where to begin:
1. RSN thinks that voters were stupid and duped by big money last evening (never a winning strategy). Didn’t we learn from 2016 how that works out?
2. Did RSN ever have an alternative? Apparently not. If they had, we could have seen a different result.
3.Ouside of personal belief, did they have any data to support their arguments about schools and traffic?
4. Saying Northland promotes fear and misrepresentation is a bit rich given the histrionics RSN itself used to oppose it.
5. After three years of negotiation, voters apparently decided that the City Council made a reasonable deal to address traffic, open space, and affordable housing than would be possible otherwise. What does RSN think the CC should have done differently?
6. Bashing greedy developers without offering a meaningful alternatives no longer enough in today’s Newton.
The voters have spoken. Time to move forward.
Randy, I absolutely agree.
Greg, I agree with you about the poor job done by RSN leadership, but I struggle to forgive the pro-RSN councilors for what I believe was an attempt to suppress the vote in order to beat Randy’s silent majority.
@Randy — “high road”: Yes and let’s take a moment to see another result in the votes cast and act on it. In the eyes of the citizens they represent, Newton’s elected officials and particularly Council members are doing a good job at the job to which they were elected.
During the run-up, defamatory comments, quips, broadsides, and legal complaints alleged a variety of ulterior motives, underhandedness, and general violation of the public trust.
The first stop on the high road is to acknowledge that voters — both Sidney Verba’s “apathetic” and the majority or the 53% majority that cast ballots, yesterday — overwhelmingly agree that Newton’s public officials are following our rules for our way of life. As such, those who impelled excrement with motion in the general direction of one or more rotating propellers ought to be honorable enough to give a word of encouragement, if not an apology, to each Councilor, in person.
The high road includes high-minded personal action, not merely a collective turning of a cheek.
I think it is important to take note of and discuss how to protect our community from the ugly tactics of CRD / RSN and other right-wing groups.
This group has now lost TWO elections (4 of their 5 anti-housing slate of candidates were defeated for city council in November). But following the playbook of anti-choicers and other such groups, they use tactics that cost the city and individuals who disagree with them: frivolous law suits, weaponizing historic landmark status, costly elections (where they pushed for a higher-cost date that would have low voter turnout).
This statement puts us on notice that they are going to continue these ugly, costly tactics.
Their actions constitute a real problem for the community and there should be a discussion about what kind of organized community response is appropriate to protect ourselves, both as a community and as individuals, from their tactics.
Let me be gracious and forward looking. Newton is at a very early stage at trying to control transportation and other site impacts. While the City went farther than it has ever done in negotiating transportation damand management (TDM), for example, we doubtless left some things on the negotiating table. We must continue to get more sophisticated and comprehensive about our standards. That only comes with experience.
Developers can deal with significant requirements. What the want and need is certainty. Similarly, the City will waste a lot of effort handling this stuff entirely case by case with special permits.
Cambridge handles all of these issues with its long-standing Parking and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. It codifies the specific standards that all developers need to follow (broken into two classes, small and large development). It also provides a source of revenue that goes specifically to pedestrian and bicycle oriented improvements.
Newton should look to see if we can codify the new requirements it made of Northland in a way that consistently applies to all new development. Such a step will provide the predictably developers need with high standards that the City can refine.
We can potentially apply the same logic to revising our affordable housing expectations or our school improvement efforts.
I can see why RSN has no plan to concede, if it’s fueled by the precedent of post-loss Opt Out. If you can’t win at the polls, kill your opposition through a thousand paper cuts. It’s been such a successful strategy, why not copy it?
Pot shops were approved in Newton 16 months ago. Today, ‘concerned citizens’ are still dragging out any debatable wrinkle — whether an 18-foot curb cut and the number of parking spaces is sufficient; the accessibility of toilets for customers; the number and placement of bike racks. They’re dragging out openings of sub-5,000 foot retail stores indefinitely through this tactic. Now multiply that by 1,000 for the logistics of a major new building project.
Given the opportunity, they’ll stall breaking ground on Northland until end times.
I think this thread misinterprets last night’s results. It was not necessarily pro-development. I voted “yes” out of concerns of what a loss would lead to under 40b, and that a yes vote was less bad than a no vote, but not exactly satisfying.
There’s huge concern in Newton about all the issues raised by the “no” side. These issues remain and nothing has changed. They’ll surface again with the next big project, and in our next Mayoral election. We’re a closely divided city with a lot of “nimby”. It’s easy to vote yes for Northland from Chestnut Hill /Ward 7. If you live in other busier Wards things look different. I’d personally like to see an overall development plan for the entire City led by our Mayor, vs the project by project (or even corridor) approach we seem to have now. It seems we can do better.
Micheal,
We wont need to wait for long for these issues to resurface. The upcoming zoning rehaul will bring all these to light for all villages. We’ll get to see which politically connected neighborhoods get carve outs for histrionic/height restrictions…
Whoa. I’m seeing comments here that are way too sweeping. There is huge risk in reading the tea leaves of this referendum. That would have been true whoever won, and it was going to inevitably result in overreach.
For me, ideally, this was a vote on one plan for one project. There was always great risk in either side using the vote to “send a message”, because it would never be clear what that message was. All support and all opposition are conflated into two words: “yes” or “no”.
RSN did provide detailed and well-researched comments on traffic. That doesn’t mean they were necessarily on the money or not, but a lot of work went into them compared to most average public comment. They certainly didn’t make it up out of the blue. To the larger point, of course neighborhood traffic concerns are a valid issue for a project of this scale. I have my own concerns about the retail component of the development generating regional traffic, which RSN pointed out. I just would handle addressing them in a different way.
However, those critiques of project details were swamped when the decision was made to go to referendum, which turned potentially tweakable details into an existential fight. At that point, opponents of the project had to enlist every possible negative about the project to get to “no”, and that means that thoughtfulness and consistency and reasoned arguments were going to suffer. That was, I believe, RSN’s biggest loss in their high stakes referendum gamble.
And I strongly take issue with the opposition being called “right wing”. I can’t even describe how many ways that’s inaccurate and counterproductive. It’s multiple levels of stereotyping that we simply must get away from.
I have pretty strong beliefs about the roles of fairness, accuracy, empathy, facts, and consistency in public discourse. I think opponents (specifically, official statements) stepped over those lines more often than supporters of the project. However, we all must strive to do better. We all have to educate, include, and listen better, realizing the quality of our discourse shapes how people view us and our community. Even when it’s hard. Behind every partisan opponent is a bunch of ordinary people with thoughts, questions, and fears.
I just want to tip my hat to the people holding Vote No signs next to me at the Emerson (Ward 5/Precinct 1) in Upper Falls. Our conversations were always cordial.
No surprise. The anti-housing activists always have a reason why they’re actually the silent majority, or the oppressed minority voice, or something.
Perhaps they should do some soul searching as to why their anti-housing agenda is rejected by the people of Newton again, and again, and again.
Plain and simple,.. it was a “BLOOMBERG REFERENDUM “, bought and paid for by yet another Trumpian developer.
RSN was funded by grass roots donations city wide. Northland outspent 15 to 1, their opposition and the results we will now be living with will be physical bricks and mortar record of this entire enterprise and a sign of our times.
Enjoy !
@Blueprintbill – I get your point but this morning that’s a poor choice of name for your analogy.
Bloomberg, despite his massive spending, was a washout in yesterday’s Super Tuesday voting
@Mike Halle: You claim that CRD/RSN is not right wing, but you don’t respond to the thousand-cuts approach the group is using, or that it’s the playbook of right-wing groups. In fact, on the thread about voters approving Northland, last night you wrote, “Back to work, everyone.” Given Malakie’s weaponization of historic landmark designations, how is your comment not a threat?
I think it is important for people to see the real threat to civil society by these tactics and to call out the types of groups promoting them: right-wing and alt-right groups. If your group aligns itself with such groups, you need to be called out for it.
A conversation among concerned citizens about traffic or schools or any other topic is different when one group threatens the right-wing thousand-cuts approach unless they get their way.
Newton Upper Falls Resident, “Back to work everyone” means “let’s all go back to our normal lives that we put aside to deal with this referendum.”
I apologize if my statement was too brief for its meaning to be clear.
Before construing such a statement as a “threat”, however, perhaps a little more reading of what I have written here and in other forums might be useful.
Newton Upper Falls Resident, and as for me not responding to the thousand cuts, I feel like I posted at least one comment or email per cut. But I tried to do it consistently and fairly. Because that’s more important to me than any one project.
That’s me. You do you.
@NUF Resident: I, too, think it’s wrong to characterize RSN/CRD as a right-wing organization. If anything, it tells you that grass-roots activism is something can be used by any organization with an agenda.
@Mike Halle: Yes, ideally it was a vote about one project. However, it is notable that the leadership of RSN almost all live in parts of the city that are not directly affected by the Needham St development, and appear to be aligned the Newton Villages Alliance. There is definitely an anti-development cabal in the city, and they are not going away.
To me, this quote is the most telling “However, voters should not have been forced into such a dilemma!”
“Voters” weren’t “forced” into this dilemma, RSN CREATED the vote! Honestly, this is the “don’t make me hit you” tactic of abuse. The voters aren’t to blame, city council isn’t to blame, the developer isn’t to blame…. No one forced RSN to bring this project to a referendum. That was their choice. They did, we voted, they lost.
Randy, the “high road” would be if RSN just took the loss and moved on, but clearly that’s the preferred path.
I expect an ugly election next time around.
@ Newton Upper Falls Resident
To be calling Right Size Newton “ right wing “ is ridiculous!
It’s Northland and their cohorts of real estate developers ( including Donald Trump), who are genuinely “Right Wing”.
RSN is a grass roots organization much more closely in alignment with the small donation supported candidates Sanders and Warren,.. who will ultimately be ”BLOOMBERGED”, by billionaire supporters In the general nation election.
Set your generalizations into some kind of rational order.
There was a great turn out for the local vote. People cast their vote. The vote stands. Time to move on, and wait to see how it all turns out.
@DENSITYBill
Right wing? Perhaps conservative would better apply hear to RSN. The tactics of RSN used to confuse and mislead the public was rather Trumpian in nature. But we can agree to disagree on the label to your group of RightSizers.
How about if we look at this another way. People heard your point of you but didn’t agree with you. Can we agree on that point?
It will be interesting to see which losing side ultimately accepts defeat with more acceptance of the results: The Northland vote…or the Charter vote.
I hope our State representatives take a look at the #1 stated reason for opposing Northland – traffic. Traffic is not something Newton can solve on it’s own, especially in places like Needham St where 70% of the traffic is cut through traffic.
We are fortunate that we have a regional public transportation system – unlike California. But it is vastly under funded and has management issues (such as full benefits for bus drivers with the last name of Bulger who retire at age 43 https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/04/20/mbta-pensions-on-fast-track-to-hack-heaven/)
California has also shown that private shuttles (ie the Google bus) are not the solution. They are uncoordinated, duplicative, and inequitable. “Hernandez works a 40-plus-hour week as a contracted janitor at Facebook. As such, he doesn’t have access to the company’s shuttles. … Like 96% of full-time Silicon Valley janitors surveyed by Goldman in 2015, he would ride the shuttles if allowed, but they’re accessible only to full-time employees.” https://onezero.medium.com/only-the-elite-have-nice-commutes-in-silicon-valley-8b2761863925
Let’s start putting our energies into solving the traffic problem.
Of course this was a referendum. It’s in the name.
Right*Size Newton had one objective: less housing. Traffic was a proxy. School impact was a proxy. The demand for a higher percentage of affordable housing was a distraction.
We should all be cheered and re-energized that the good folks of this city overwhelmingly support more and more varied and some more affordable housing. Overwhelmingly.
Also, can we finally retire the notion that the neighbors weren’t heard? Two of the seven councilors who voted no on the special permit wrote that the neighbors were given ample opportunity to be heard and that the council took their concerns seriously.
The neighbors didn’t have the leverage to enforce their preferences.
I think the traffic concern was real. The streets I saw with the highest # of no signs were also streets with current cut-through traffic problems, like Wincester, Rachel, and Everett.
I don’t think we should assume motives or hunt for villains. I hope we start focusing on equitable solutions to the regional traffic problem.
@Newton Upper Falls Resident; I voted no, as did several friends and acquaintances. None of us are right wing…all lefties, in fact. Your stereotyping is naive and a cheap shot.
@Lucia It would be great if the city could get behind finding true transportation solutions (like the proposed road diet on Washington Street that could increase bus and bike throughput), but the statement above doesn’t talk about working together and doesn’t talk about looking for solutions. It’s a veiled threat to keep finding new legal means to slow down the project and get impede progress.
“The Right Size Newton organization will continue to monitor the Northland project and make our concerns known to our elected and appointed officials to try to mitigate the damage to our community from this project.”
This is a group that has already filed multiple legal complaints and is likely to weaponize any city mechanism possible, they’ve already shown how to do this elsewhere. I would love for them to come to the table and be part of the solution, but so far, I’ve seen nothing to suggest that such an idea is possible.
Glad Yes prevailed. I supported Yes and voted Yes. But my concern from this outcome is that the City Council will walk away from the vote thinking they actually did a good job negotiating with Northland.
In reality, the Council left millions in value on the negotiating table. They prioritized poorly, fell far short on affordable housing, and accepted pennies on the dollar in school mitigation funds. It was the City Council that put the people of Newton in the unfortunate position of having to vote in favor of a poorly negotiated Special Permit, because the alternative was clearly a massive 40B.
This City Council couldn’t negotiate their way out of a paper bag. They are desperately missing someone like Amy Sangiolo who understands how to negotiate with developers and extract the maximum benefit for Newton out of larger development projects. That’s my takeaway from this unfortunate experience.
@Robert Welbourn: I disagree. There’s a big difference between grassroots activism and the punitive thousand-cuts approach used by right-wing groups. The latter is a real danger to civil society.
@Blueprintbill: CRD/RSN actions follow a right-wing playbook, not a grassroots activism playbook. And your offensive suggestions that I personally am ridiculous or irrational is a prime example of a Trumpian response.
@Ann: Please note that I characterized the group CRD/ RSN as right-wing, based on the similarity of this group’s public actions to the actions of other right-wing groups. I never said, nor do I believe, that every individual who voted no is right-wing. That stereotyped assumption was your’s, so your disparaging remarks about stereotyping applies more to yourself than to me.
@Lucia – unlike the private shuttles you mentioned, the Northland one will be open to everyone.
I’m very glad this vote is over and relieved at how it turned out.
Just for clarification – Randy, who first posted on this thread, is not Randy Block!
Simon: Are you Randy Block’s spokesperson? If so, would you care to comment on (a) why he can’t seem to speak for himself and (b) why Right Size felt the need to issue this sour grapes statement the morning after an election where, if not humility, then certainly a desire for healing or collaboration might have been a more responsible response?
And if you’re not his spokesman, can you say if you agree with his decision to issue this combative statement the morning after your 16 point loss?
As I wrote earlier today, decent people had legitimate concerns about this project. But I feel Right Size did — and continues to do — a bad job representing these folks.
Of course it wasn’t. Mr. Block isn’t capable of sounding so reasonable.
@Greg
Randy Block does not do Village14. Given what the other Randy said I thought it was important people should know it was not Randy Block commenting. As for the press release, I have just taken a look at the press release and it looks reasonable and accurate to me. Our campaign was always based on facts, and not scare tactics. We have not had the opportunity to debrief, but when we do more will follow.
One fun fact I noted from the referendum. To pass a zoning change it takes 2/3 rds of the city council to approve. The Yes campaign did not get 2/3rds.
@Simon I’m sorry, but that’s not a reasonable statement. I can guarantee you that had No prevailed, the Yes campaign would have issued something conciliatory and gracious. That statement above is neither. It’s divisive and threatening.
“Our campaign was always based on facts, and not scare tactics.”
As far as I can tell, the only unifying theory behind the anti-housing Right Size movement IS scare tactics.
Too big! Too much traffic! Too little affordable housing! Too much affordable housing! Schools will explode! Northland is evil! Godzilla will totally move to Newton because those big buildings will be really attractive to him!
Being outspent alone can’t account for a 16 point loss, Mr. French. Whether you chose to believe it or not, the voters have spoken
When you think about it, taking the time to explain the benefits, scope, and size of the Northland project was a gamble for Northland. If voters were truly worried about these issues, then all of that information could have leaned voters to say no. Explaining the benefits was important as that opened everyone’s eyes to the fact that yes, this is a big project, but based on the land size and benefits voters found the reasons to vote Yes. In my opinion, there was actually no additional marketing that RSN could have done that wasn’t already presented that could sway voters against the project. RSN’s only message was one of “no”as @Bryan previously listed, and an informed electorate needed more.
Great to see everyone engaged as this exercise in government emphasizes that the City Council did what they are chartered to do, represent the people.
@JamesCote: I beg to differ. The CC quite obviously, especially with this outcome, represents the developer(s). Now I know how the residents of Everett feel.
@Ryan,
Your are correct. I shall add another – The city council made it biased by setting the referendum date to the 3rd of March. Northland immediately threw money and resources at it. We had to fund raise, like normal political campaigns. I’m not go going to get into right now. As I mentioned earlier, our campaign needs to debrief.
I voted yes, but I appreciate that Right Size Newton did the work to bring this to a referendum – because it forced me to learn far more than I would have otherwise.
Unless you’ve got a pony in the race, a passion for town politics, development or champion a special interest these big projects are just too intensive to digest for the average citizens living life.
Right-sizers shouldn’t worry about the amount of money the yes campaign spent, and YES-ers shouldn’t sweat misinformation. Most of us are pretty good at stepping over the BS. These are nonissues. Asking voters to have an opinion on these issues is a tough ask.
@Greg I don’t think you can say our vote means we think Northland is the right size. But we did vote to take a chance that it will work out. (I’m sure the word twist was too good to pass up – I would have used it)
@BrianB ‘Anti-housing activists’? Are you kidding me? Your post-election rhetoric is so unnecessary, unfair and divisive. 13,449 residents voted no. People voted NO for a myriad of valid reasons. All people who don’t hold your world view are not necessarily anti-housing NIMBYers. This is exactly what people mean when they say progressives are condescending.
@Mike: I actually believe voters did odverwheminly say “Northland is the right size.” Every Right Size argument was based on either it was too big or too tall or, in a last minute Hail Mary, that it’s should have been a much bigger 40B. Voters resoundingly said the size approved by the city council 17-7 was the right size.
Also, you’re right not all no voters are anti-housing. But Right Size is very much lead by folks who are. Residents who had understandable concerns about this project were not well served by the campaign’s leaders.
@Simon: and what would your marketing materials have looked like? What could have been different that wasn’t public record and promoted already? The project was explained in great depth and in the end was supported by the voters. You worked hard for your beliefs, but in the end the people want the project.
RSN is alt-right? OMG.
Yea they hang out on 4chan all the time.
You’re lucky they didn’t hack V14!
Lololol
Puh-lease!
And the anti-anti-housing ( I will not be out anti-d, Bryan) want to build Communist worker dormitories because they’re so far left. To each according to their needs, the Commies!
( I kid, I kid)
I have to say this thread was entertaining
@Mike: RSN are anti-housing activists, they were organized to stop or slow housing throughout the city, and the people involved in it have been doing that for years.
There were plenty of reasons to have voted no, none of which are the purpose behind forming RSN. Just as Green Newton exists to advocate for the environment, and progressive newton exists to advocate for progressive values, RSN exists to advocate to stop or slow housing.
Simon, according to the City Clerk, a later election would have cost $112,000 more than the $33,000 it already cost.
Taxpayer money.
That would have been simply irresponsible. RSN were threatening a referendum for months the City Council vote. You knew it was likely coming. You knew Northland would spend freely to defend its victory. You never had a hope of out-resourcing them. That’s on top of the fact that recent City Council elections showed you’d have at least a relatively hard time making the case. More time would only have burned more money and gotten people more sick and alienated regarding this process, which simply isn’t in the best interest of our civic well-being.
Your disadvantage in taking the referendum route was clear from the beginning.
As Chair of TAG I would have been happy to have provided a respectful and knowledgeable forum to discuss traffic issues. Randy Block came twice to discuss Riverside (though one meeting was actually a staff presentation on Northland). I told him he was welcome to come back. For whatever reason, those discussions about traffic didn’t seem to have happened with RSN-Northland people, while the referendum did.
Next development, you’re welcome to come and present your concerns and discuss the specifics thoughtfully and constructively. We don’t have real power, but we can listen.
It is easy to understand why RSN would have preferred some other date for the vote. Their best bet would have been some extremely low turnout affair in which their loud minority could have prevailed. But I hope they will not further insult our intelligence by suggesting that such an outcome would have been more fair than yesterday’s vote.
There were nearly 32,000 votes cast yesterday, which was 7, 000 more than in the highly-competitive mayoral election of 2017. It takes a special kind of chutzpah to argue that it’s a bad thing for the maximum number of voters to be heard.
Honestly, I don’t need or want a press release or a congratulations from Right Size folks. They had the right to ask for referendum, they gathered the signatures and did the work. City Council had the right to set the election, and elections have consequences, and they had the votes last year and this year. And Northland had the right to defend the special permit, and throw money at the referendum. No one owes us graciousness in defeat. We can all just choose to move on too.
I talk to lots of folks as I wander (not all who wander are lost). No one I talked to didn’t have an opinion, and everyone was planning to vote. Turn out was incredibly high.
Simon, I thought the election would be a lot closer. With the 16 point win, I don’t think it was the lack of money or lack of time that swayed the election. March 3 hurt your cause because it brought the issue to a much wider audience, especially an audience that doesn’t live right next to the site in question. But if we are going to vote as a community, I strongly think the wider the audience the better. There was no perfect date to hold the election, and both sides had equal time to prepare and get their message out. I think Northland wasted a huge sum of money to be honest due to their margin of victory, but I can understand their angst.
For folks looking for a larger message, I think a similar referendum about zoning as a whole would have been a lot closer. NIMBY works both ways…for many of us, this wasn’t in our backyard and it is easier to vote without self-interest being part of the equation. Zoning would impact more of the city…
While I appreciate there was some heat generated in this special election as there always seems to be, now that it has been approved, I hope we can move on, learn from the process, and hold the developer and the city to their promises. Life goes on. I hope folks living near the project who opposed it have an easy construction process and grow to appreciate the project over time, in a similar fashion to some of the Austin Street opponents I’ve talked to over the past few months. Sometimes things work out ok and I hope Northland is a success, for everyone.
I think it is disingenuous to blame the lack of time to get ready for a referendum that RSN itself put on the ballot, by collecting thousands of signatures within 20 days. RSN’s allies on the City Council made a transparent attempt to schedule the election for a date that would virtually guarantee a low turnout. Fortunately, a majority of the CC saw throught that and made sure that as many voters as possible would come to the polls and have an opportunity to weigh in. They did, and the margin was basically a landslide.
I spoke with the folks from Northland today, and they were very concerned about the outcome of this election, fearing that supporters would not turn out. Fortunately, the turnout was almost unprecedented, so our community had the benefit of a high percentage of the electorate weighing in. The fact that solid majority of voters rejected RSN’s argument speaks more to the weakness of its position than to a lack of opportunity for sophisticated Newton voters to educate themselves about the merits. They did. They weighed in. And the result is history. Looking for a scapegoat is so, so not classy.
Mr. French, just so I understand, you wanted the voters to decide this issue via referendum – but you also wanted fewer voters to weigh in?
Bravo, @Mike Halle for saying this: “And I strongly take issue with the opposition being called ‘right wing’. I can’t even describe how many ways that’s inaccurate and counterproductive. It’s multiple levels of stereotyping that we simply must get away from.” This kind of simplistic stereotyping is so incredibly disrespectful and divisive. We’re neighbors who agree on some things and not others.
Paul and Mike,
I would encourage you both to read the Color of Law and the many articles that have been written in the past year or so about the clear racist intent and discriminatory impact of exclusionary zoning. The tide is turning. As folks understand the impact of anti-development policies, pro-development is becoming the progressive position. The more you know, the less savory development-skepticism becomes.
I would encourage you to turn your concern about the words people use on this blog to the words that really matter: the laws of our city that promote social, environmental, and economic injustice. It’s not a case of good people on both sides.
There’s a case that development-skepticism is more right-wing than not. Plus, the demographics are aligned.
Also, please read Newton Upper Falls Residents words very carefully. They said “the ugly tactics of CRD / RSN and other right-wing groups.” If you have evidence that the R*SN communications are not consistent with strategies recently employed by right-wing groups or that those tactics are used by the left and the right in equal measure, please make that case before accusing people of sowing division.
Have a pleasant day.
@Sean Roche – I’ll take you up on that.
I have indeed been disturbed by some, not all, of the communication of RSN during this campaign. The stuff that really bothered me was when RSN folks ascribed all sorts of nasty motivations to the people who were on the opposite side of the issue. Rather then make the case of why their fellow citizens should vote NO, some, only some, of the RSN folks spent most of their energies trying to convince voters that the Yes supporters were motivated by corruption, greed, and graft; that they didn’t have good faith reasons for their positions.
I see you doing that exact same thing here. Rather than talking about the issue at hand (which has already been decided) you’re tarring the RSN folks in the same way. If one is “right-wing” tactics then I have a hard time seeing how the other isn’t.
Let’s take a step back from this. This was vote about a specific housing and commercial development. It was not a vote to end slavery. It was not a vote on the equal rights amendment. People can have different good-faith opinions about how and whether this specific housing/commercial development will be good/bad for then city. I don’t believe it is in any way helpful or constructive to try to cast this as battle between good and evil, righteousness or wickedness any more than I think we should cast a decision about putting in a crosswalk on those terms.
@Simon, your “fun fact” that measures requiring a supermajority of elected city government can’t be undone by a minority in referendum sounds intuitively obvious to me. Newton already has a high bar for these special permits; many other cities in Massachusetts require just a simple city government majority vote.
Are there any examples of a city with rules for both a required supermajority elected representative vote, and referendum vote that can supersede it with a minority vote, anywhere in Massachusetts? What about the country?
I don’t know for sure, but I’d be shocked if there is even one example.
“Using the tactics used by right wing groups”, does not make a group a right wing group (I bike on streets used by cars, but I am not a car).
It also paints all “right wing groups” as the same, which is similar to the fallacy of saying all “liberal groups” are the same, coordinating with other constantly over oat milk lattes and vegan sandwiches. (And they always agree, see: Newton solar power advocates and tree advocates.)
Let’s just cut out the middle-person and call out unacceptable behavior and tactics specifically and forcefully. Start with outright falsehoods, intentionally misleading claims, and “everyone does it” normalization. Factual relativism as well. It’s really much clearer and more consistent. It minimizes the social crossfire that inevitably comes with stereotyping.
I am very pleased that most voters showed their support for the City Council’s well informed decision and even though I think the special permit process could use some tweaking, for the process itself. I’m also pleased that Northland, a Newton developer, is building a project that evolved through negotiations with the community and the Land Use committee’s public hearings before being approved by a supermajority of the city council.
I’m excited about the new community coming to Upper Falls that includes 10 acres of parks and playgrounds everyone can use, saving and refurbishing Pettee Mill, etc. I’m glad most voters, including those in Ward 5, except for precinct 1, saw it as a positive for Newton.
Thanks go to many people who tried to counteract the lies: Susan Albright, Ted Hess-Mahon, Allison Sharma, chair of Vote Yes, Mike Halle, Chuck Tanowitz, former councilor Jim Cote, along with myself and other policy wonks who have read and understand the truth about the Northland development worked hard trying to counteract the lies with truth – and Greg of course.
I couldn’t be more disappointed that Right Size and it’s ballot committee, even after they lost, is still bitterly spouting their nonsense and lies.
It wasn’t, as they say in their PR release, that voters were duped by “Northland and its PR machine [that] spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars spreading misinformation,” it was Randy Block, chair of Right Size, it’s ballot committee, it’s members, Dennis Murphy, the lawyer who spoke about 40B, the Neighbors for a Better Newtonville newsletter Q&A and it’s huge glassy mailers that spread lies about the process and the project and spewed accusations of councilors being paid off to gain supporters.
Martina Jackson, chair of The Committee for Responsible Development said, “Voting no will not stop the Northland project; it will make it better.” They continued to use the tactic that Northland would listen to them and create a much smaller project if they voted no even though Northland had said it would not.
Again today, the Patch says “Opponents of the mixed-use Northland project in Upper Falls, which voters approved Tuesday by a 5,000-vote margin, accused the mayor and city councilors of stoking fear to get the project passed. They also vowed to keep speaking up about the project.”
And quotes Martina Jackson, chair of RightSize2020 as saying “”Northland and its PR machine spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars spreading misinformation about the proposed development and instilling fear about potential alternatives.”
@Mike Ciolino, I concur with most of your thoughtful post but I really reject the idea that “YES-ers shouldn’t sweat misinformation”. As the Washington Post tagline succinctly puts it, “Democracy dies in darkness.” We should all be alarmed by the spreading of darkness / disinformation in our community. You are able to see through b/c you are more informed than average on local issues. Trust me, enough voters to swing any election don’t see through. Marty Bowen gets right to the heart of it in her post.
Disinformation and fearmongering have played an alarming and unfortunately effective role in Newton in recent years…the Austin Street project, the charter vote, the 2019 citywide election, and now the Northland campaign. As a community we need to be vigilant about it, call it out, and discredit the individuals and groups who continuously engage in it.
Yes, to Marti Bowen, yes to Greg, yes to Rhanna, and all the others who spoke with facts, not opinion, and challenged and pushed back against the lies of Committee for Responsible Development in a much more civilized way than I could. Democracy can be exhausting.
I’ve got to smile. I thought the idea was to move on.
Instead people Continue to be hostile to the No side on this particular thread. We are going to keep taking past one another. As far as I am concerned the No side kept to the facts, and the Yes side spread mis-information!
I wonder whether a few beers on Tuesday will help, or set us further apart!
@Jerry and @Paul Levy: Thank you.