Councilor Laredo (at-large, Ward 7),
I received your recent (June 6) constituent letter in which you address the essential topic of the day: the continued police violence against black men and women. (I have printed your letter, in full, at the bottom of the post.) You call for us all, but particularly elected city officials, to, in your words: “Listen,” “Self-reflect,” and “Work together.”
I must say, I’m a little skeptical.
Your letter is very short on specifics and long on delay.
Though the letter uses the black background inspired by Black Lives Matter, you don’t mention the movement. You don’t mention George Floyd or Ahmaud Aubery or Breonna Taylor or any of the other black lives lost to police violence. You don’t even mention Tim Duncan, the black man who Newton Police stopped at gunpoint on Washington St. recently. This is the simplest step. Black advocates could not be clearer on this point. Say the words: black lives matter. Say their names: George, Ahmaud, Breonna. Tim. The problem of police violence against black men and women is not an abstraction.
After a week of graphic evidence of the capacity of our nation’s police to inflict brutal violence, you manage to both-sides the matter of police violence, making sure to include a to-be-sure line: “It also means listening to our community’s police officers …” Read the moment.
Do we really need, as you suggest, time to reflect on the position of black people in America? Please read Martin Luther King, Jr.’s, Letter from Birmingham Jail, in which he lamented white moderates for exactly the kind of response to direct action that you propose:
For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”
If, after over 15 years as an elected official, you don’t have enough information about what is happening in our city and in our country to be able to take action, to take a stand, to demand justice, maybe this is not your time to lead.
As for listening to other voices, my skepticism is grounded in your response to the unfortunate incident just about a year ago when you, as then City Council President, refused to have any public discussion about a regrettable and racially insensitive set of comments made by your choice to head the Public Safety & Transportation Committee.
Maybe I’ve got you wrong. Maybe I’m unfairly reading you words and you are committed to immediate, meaningful change. Here’s a challenge. Do a one-eighty and advocate for an end to Newton’s exclusionary zoning. As some of your colleagues and others have been saying for months (years?), our exclusionary zoning, particularly the single-family-only provisions, was intended to segregate and has been successful in its intended purpose.
To connect Newton’s exclusionary zoning to the present crisis across our country, please consider these words from Rachel Heller, CEO of the Citizens’ Housing & Planning Association (CHAPA), who wrote recently about police violence against George Floyd and others:
These murders, harassment, and health disparities are not unfortunate coincidences; they are the direct result of intentional and systemic decisions made for centuries, rooted in racism and classism. Decisions that affect every aspect of life – healthcare, education, economic opportunity, housing, and more. Decisions like redlining, exclusionary zoning, and discriminatory housing policies.
You have been an especially active participant in the recent and ongoing Zoning Reform discussions in the Zoning and Planning Committee of the City Council and an avid proponent of maintaining the status quo, particularly our single-family-only districts. You have even joined colleagues like Lisle Baker (ward councilor, Ward 7) and Chris Markiewicz (ward councilor, Ward 4) explicitly arguing to give up a comprehensive Zoning Reform in favor of small tweaks.
I call on you now to rise to the occasion and acknowledge that exclusionary zoning is wrong and lead your colleagues to eliminate single-family-only zoning from our ordinances.
—
Councilor Laredo’s letter in full:
Statement from City Councilor
Marc Laredo
Friends,
The last few months have brought a tidal wave of hardship – people around the world sick and dying from COVID-19, our economy in upheaval with millions thrown out of work, and the murders of George Floyd and other Black men and women. There is anger – rightly so – from Black men and women about how they are treated by law enforcement and by society as a whole. Collectively, we have a lot of work to do. What does that look like in action? Here are some initial thoughts:
Listen: an easy word to use but a hard term to implement. All over our nation, in our state, and in our own city, countless fellow Americans are demanding that their voices be heard. Now, more than ever, those of us elected to serve in local government need to do that. This means asking people of color to continue to speak about their interactions with law enforcement and their experiences that, as a 60-year-old white male, I simply do not have. It means that those of us in government need to do a better – much better – job of truly listening to those voices. It also means listening to our community’s police officers, understand their jobs and the stresses they face protecting our community, in order to effectively implement long-overdue systemic change.
Self-reflect: we should carefully examine what we are doing so we can do it better. It is tempting in times like this to search for the quick solution or the ready slogan. But the real challenge is ahead of us if we want to achieve meaningful change. That requires everyone, especially those in positions of power, to reflect on our societal privileges in order to understand, and thus better serve, our communities. We must examine how we engage in policing in our community – in every aspect of our department’s work – and we must include Black and other minority voices in our decisions in order to create sustained and fundamental change together. It means, collectively, carefully examining the relationship between our police department and the residents it serves. It’s why I, along with a number of my colleagues, am calling for an in-depth review of our practices regarding recruitment, hiring, screening, training, advancement, and the removal of police officers.
Work together: we cannot take on this effort in silos or from the top-down. We will not let destructive acts of a few distract us from our goal. We will not build a police department based on an “us versus them” mentality – the exact mindset that has led to where we find ourselves at this moment. We will not forget to include in the path forward those who get left behind when we assess the damage to our municipal budgets from COVID-19. Let’s work as a team – as a community – to ensure that our actions, practices, policies, and budgets reflect our values.
This is a moment that is not only important for us but for our children and for theirs. How we act now will be felt by generations in Newton to come. I encourage you to contact me and your other local elected officials with your opinions, concerns, criticisms, and suggestions. We are listening, there is a lot of work to do, and we need your help.
Marc
Thank you for sharing– housing justice has long been an issue I am concerned about in Newton, and it absolutely has implications on racial inequality. I am frustrated that as a city, we talk a lot about the need for inclusion in our city, and yet have failed to effect meaningful reform in our housing policies time and time again. I echo Sean’s sentiment to the rest of the City Council as well.
@Sean: Have you ever requested the City Council to change the zoning district that you reside in from a SR3 to an MR district? Or have you ever thought of taking advantage of renting up to 3 unrelated people in your home? I think that option is currently permitted in your zoning district.
Thank you @Sean for highlighting the ways that Newton talks a big talk on “diversity” and “inclusion” while maintaining structures that perpetuate discrimination and racism. This is just one of the many ways that diverting funding from NPD could serve those progressive goals that many Newton residents talk so much about. More funding for affordable housing, along with zoning reform, would create a much more inclusive community.
@Amy, your comment baffles me. What’s your point? @Courtney, if you haven’t yet, please check out enginesix.org. We advocate for fair, plentiful, and affordable housing in Newton.
@Amy, I am not Sean and don’t speak for him but that comment compares quite closely with the folks that say “oh so you support higher taxes, did you pay the 5.whatever % alternative income tax this year?” That is to say, your comment missed the point 100%. Yes my actions are important, and sure Sean might be able to spend some money and outfit his house with an ADU. But just like my paying the higher income tax percent (Which I did not, but would 100% support if that were the tax rate) so does Sean’s renting out an ADU; it really has littler overall meaning or effect in the greater scheme of things. Sure there are examples of individual actions making a difference, but changing all single family zoning to allow duplex by right would have far more success on improving housing choice and increasing housing options in Newton than waiting for individuals to go through a rigmarole to get an ADU approved.
Oh and changing Sean’s zoning to something different is also 100% the problem, picking and choosing zoning based not on facts or data, but solely on what a single person or a set of individuals wants is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place.
My interpretation of @amy’s point is the comparison of community service to lip service.
There is no shortage of opinions of what OTHER people should do create affordable housing. Many of these opinions coming from people in large single family homes on huge lots in Waban, Highlands, Chestnut Hill, and other villages where density is unlikely (“well that’s not our fault, it just is how it is”), applying their will on villages that to not have the same political capital like Upper Falls, Nonantum, Auburndale, etc.
And on the topic of zoning, I am skeptical that abolishing single family homes alone would have much impact, as most new construction duplexes built in the past few years have been going on the market for nearly $1m, and the one most recently built just a few doors down is nearly $2m (very nicely built, BTW).
This duplex is the most recent of two others, as well an existing 2 family that was updated and re-marketed (4 new multi families in the past 9 years) – all on our little street in Upper Falls. And while all of these new neighbors have been great additions and welcomed with open arms, none are African American or Latinx, nor are they Newton public school teachers/fire fighters/police.
Newton real estate (today) is a result not of systemic, racial segregation, but rather a blend of very desirable qualities (suburban feel, yet close proximity to Boston’s amenities; good schools, etc) and a pretty recession proof Boston job market (knock on wood). It’s high prices are driven by supply and demand, where the only discriminatory practices at play are income based not racial. Developer profits does not discriminate by the color of their buyer’s skin.
Banning single family homes/lots alone will only benefit developers. To undo the wrongs of redlining, we need to work outside of the free market. Use imminent domain to take back land for affordable housing (whatever happened to that Armory project in West Newton?) Invest tax dollars into city funded and built affordable homes. Create city funded rental subsidies targeted to people of color.
Would we support a tax increase to make these things happen? Or is a zoning change just enough to ease our conscience, yet not enough make a substantive dent in racial diversity to Newton?
“And on the topic of zoning, I am skeptical that abolishing single family homes alone would have much impact.”
As I think we’ve discussed in the past, Matt, I am not calling for the abolition of single-family homes. I am calling for the abolition of single-family-[i]only[/i] zoning. If multi-family homes were allowed on every lot in Newton, the owner of a single-family, detached home in Waban could continue to live in it. Could renovate. Could perhaps tear it down and build a new single-family, detached home (subject to whatever changes the Zoning Reform puts on size, to reduce McMansions). Could sell it to someone who intended to live in it as a single-family home. Could sell it to someone who intended to tear it down and build a new single-family, detached home. Or, could sell it to someone who intended to convert it to multi-family housing.
What the homeowner of that lot in Waban could not do is prevent their neighbor down the street from building multi-family housing.
Also, I remain perplexed that you diagnose the problem as market-based — not enough housing in an attractive market — but have no faith in more market-based solutions — remove restrictions on what people can do with their private property.
@ Sean, thank you for your letter.
The Zoning Reform project being undertaken right now is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make exclusionary zoning a thing of the past in Newton.
Zoning is one of the tangible places where we can all make a critical difference. We can support changing historic laws that do not meet the ZAP, (Zoning and Planning Committee), laudable goals of adding ample and affordable housing for all people across our City, designing for the climate change crisis we face, while enhancing the things we love best about our city.
Let the Mayor and Ward Councilors know you support these goals, tune into ZAP meetings, listen and spread the word. Watch and share the gripping and informative 18-minute video Segregated by Design, go to segregatedbydesign.com to see it. As Councilor Laredo says, “This is a moment that is not only important for us but for our children and for theirs. How we act now will be felt by generations in Newton to come.”
How we act now about Zoning Reform will be felt by generations to come, please participate in the Zoning Reform process, we need all voices at the table on this important project now.
@sean, first on a happier note…love that you fixed that lady’s brakes on her bike and even more impressive, that you delivered her bike back to her while riding yours, if I read her post correctly.
Back to the topic at hand…
I am in support of your call to abolish single family only zoning (more specifically the intent behind it), my skepticism though, is that it is not enough. So long as Newton remains where it is geographically; so long as we are able to continue to support and fund education; so long as Boston’s job market remains one of this country’s best; the free market (and those who can afford it) will more likely dictate who lives here rather than good intentions alone. Simply more of whatever we have today, is density for the sake of density.
Should prices fall in Newton due to supply and demand, more likely it will be the result in an economic downturn – like the recession of 2008 (where we were unable to unload our condo in JP until a few years after we moved to Newton); if the results Covid is prolonged, or the potential collapse of the Boston Commercial Real Estate market as employers realize employees can be just as productive working from their own homes, rents and electric/heating costs. Although if any of these things happen, the people we want to move here will have their own struggles, and be challenged to take advantage of the drop in market rates.
To change the game, we need to play it differently, circumventing the free market with targeted, government intervention and injection of resources. It’s more than a zoning change (although it is a start).
Sean, thank you for raising these issues and being direct in your critique. We need to directly challenge our leaders to take real action, now. We need to Say Their Names. We need to say, unequivocally and without qualifier, that Black Lives Matter.
We also need to recognize that we have an all-white 24 member city council in a city that is, believe it or not, 20-25% non-white (depending on source). We should have 6 people of color by population to be representative – we have 0.
It’s not because people of color haven’t run recently. Let’s say their names too: Maria Manning. Nicole Castillo. Carolina Ventura. Tarik Lucas. (If I missed anyone, please correct me)
@Matt Lai – how do you think it came to be that Newton has that ‘suburban feel’ while being so close to the proximity of Boston’s jobs and amenities? Your statement demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the history of housing law and policy and of American suburbanization. To be fair, most of us were never taught that history in school, but if you want to have credibility in this discussion it is incumbent on you to educate yourself. Reading The Color of Law would be a good place to start.
I am not well versed in Newton’s zoning laws and will not try and paint myself as the expert. However, growing up in Newton I would always see lawn signs advertising our resident’s values–diversity, inclusion, peace, etc. It’s clear the residents are open-minded and passionate about living in diverse communities, yet clearly something is lacking because that diverse community is no where to be found. Some change in the zoning law is clearly needed.
@Sean, this repetitive argument for adjustments to zoning while maintaining the state’s inherently racist structure of local government and town borders isn’t progressive at all.
To genuinely eliminate racism and socioeconomic discrimination, we need to go well beyond the ineffectual and patronizing idea that suburbanites need only create a few thousand units of affordable housing (mostly constructed by politically-connected developers) to allow a select group of racial minorities or socioeconomically-disadvantaged families to live in the promised land.
If the goal is to genuinely create an equal and just society for all, we need to dismantle municipal government and eliminate the white privileges that come with it.
Education, public safety, libraries, parks, infrastructure, and public housing need to be uniformly funded and administered at the state level.
Your model of rezoning our way to racial and socioeconomic justice will certainly be great for the handful of racial minorities or economically-disadvantaged families or individuals that might be able and willing to relocate, but it does nothing for the hundreds of thousands of residents in Roxbury, Mattapan, Chelsea, Brockton, Lawrence and Holyoke remaining in place who continue to be robbed of opportunity by the structural inequalities of urban vs. suburban governance in this state.
For everyone in the comments, there will be a public zoom meeting with City Council regarding the budget this WEDNESDAY at 4PM (https://tinyurl.com/newtoncouncil). A strong turnout will be a powerful way to make our legislators support us! You can RSVP here: https://tinyurl.com/newtonrsvp. RSVP is REQUIRED to receive the zoom link.
I’m seeing way too much tone-deafness from our leaders. How about Mayor Fuller who posed for a photo op at Thursday’s protest but only made a passing mention in her newsletter? This would have been an ample opportunity to provide resources to BIPOC in our community but no dice. Or Brenda Noel who hijacked a thread about a black Newton student’s poem about George Floyd to push her pro-development agenda. I even agree with her agenda but it was absolutely the inappropriate time. This was a post about a black teenage boy’s thoughts and it was hijacked by a well-to-do white woman.
I’m proud of our community for the protests we’ve held over the past few weeks, but our Mayor and City Council leave a lot to be desired with the things they’re saying right now.
Here is another great resource of information concerning fair housing, exclusionary zoning and opportunities.
https://www.bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/index.html
They do offer a couple of caveats; first, in their research they do not claim to have any evidence of the use of red lining or restrictive covenants in the Greater Boston area. They also do clearly identify cities and towns which have used zoning in order to keep density low, specifically – towns like Weston which have adopted one acre zoning for single family homes. Newton, as we all know, does not fall into that category.
The other thing I quite like about this website (besides the fact that it is free to everyone) is that they have included color coded maps with an “opportunity index” which identify the degree to which cities and towns are open or not to multifamily zoning. Green is “very high opportunity” and towns marked in gray do not permit any multifamily zoning. They also have mapped areas of opportunity in greater Boston where areas evaluated with the highest opportunity are shaded dark green. Link is here: https://www.bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1970s-present-Local-Land_use-Regulations.html
I strongly suggest everyone on this thread actually spend some time reading through this site. I found it fascinating and informative and readers may draw their own conclusions as to how Newton is doing and compares to other cities and towns in Eastern Massachusetts.
@Lisap – Please let me know if you have a better source, but I believe what they say is: “Although it is unclear how widespread the practice of racial covenants was in Massachusetts specifically, the following presents a national context.” For what it’s worth, a quick google found at least one example: https://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20100725/NEWS/7250327
On redlining, there is no question: https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2019/11/12/how-a-long-ago-map-created-racial-boundaries-that-still-define-boston
Bryan-
This map is specific to Boston. It does not show, nor does it suggest that there was red lining in Newton as has been suggested I believe. Rather, unlike parts of Boston which also pigeonholed Irish and Italian immigrants into ghettos, Newton of the 1920’s and 30’s welcomed those immigrants.
There’s no surprise in this map. We can see to this day the areas of Boston that were and are red-lined whether formally or informally. Gentrification has changed the face of many neighborhoods, but there are still many areas in Boston that show years and years of impoverishment.
@Lisap – Here’s the redlining map for Newton: https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=14/42.377/-71.193
@Bryan-
Fascinating, thank you. Very interesting that the scan indicates at that time population was static. Hard to tell but it looks like the red zones were primarily adjacent to mills.
Not to distract from the seriousness of this issue, but as an aside, I couldn’t help but notice that Silver Lake is marked as an actual lake on this map.
In case there are those among us who feel segregation and discrimination didn’t (and doesn’t) exist in Newton should have heard Hubie Jones’ story he told at Howard Haywood’s memorial service (a blessed man that we lost too soon). It was very hard–nearly impossible–for him to find a home for him, his wife, and his growing family. It wasn’t just redlining that was and is the problem.
Anyone else find it interesting that if someone poses an opinion even slightly deviated from the general consensus, that their intelligence is challenged and they are directed to read something?
Newton prides itself on being a welcoming and progressive community, yet still pins the blame in the lack of African American and Latin residents on redlining?
T0 quote Daniel Kaffe in “a Few Good Men”….”then why the two sets of transfer orders, Col. Jessep??”
Lastly, I challenge anyone to review real estate transactions in the last x-years and show someone who sold their home at a below fair market price to a person or persons of color? That’s not redlining in the modern age, my friends…that’s capitalism.
Sean, as the new Chairperson of the Newton Fair Housing Committee, I say, “you do you.”
The committee will be coming forward with some plans to make Newton a more fair place for housing. Stay tuned.
I’ve found the redlining map very illuminating when I’ve looked at it in the past. Most of Newton doesn’t have text notes, only scans of the pages. When you’re looking at the map, definitely look at the scans.
We learn from the past by understanding its context and identifying specific failures (as well as successes). The map is a product of its time: the depths of the depression following a time of great income disparity and wealth accumulation. The nadir of race relations following the collapse of reconstruction and the second rise of the KKK. Following backlash against immigrants post World War I, Herbert Hoover had just started by-country immigration quotas ( https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/22/hoover-immigration-quotas-1929-1228039 ) , slashing immigration from 200,000 a year to 5,802 in a year. European Jews were also severely limited, which wasn’t changed even with the rise of Nazi Germany.
I’ll leave drawing parallels to the current day to you, the reader.
In Newton specifically, it didn’t specifically call out blacks. It didn’t need to: there weren’t any! “0”. “None”. All just part of the inventory of the “desirables” and “undesirables”. Doesn’t even merit a text narrative in the document. There’s clearly a larger underlying story here that needs telling. This map only hints at it.
Who does the map call out in Newton, especially to the north? The Italians and the poor (“relief: heavy”). It’s very matter of fact, sort of “just saying there are a lot of Italian immigrants living here”. “A whole bunch of people are on relief and live in multi-family houses, just saying”. “Infiltration of high class Jews along Commonwealth Ave”. “Hicks St in West Newton [doesn’t exist anymore?] is very mediocre”. People and buildings. Desirable and undesirable. High class and poor. All to help the reader to make good investment decisions and set policies that perpetuated inequality. An honest, unvarnished document of the times.
My take-home message: this is what happens when we stop seeing people as people. Seeing their current circumstance as the limit of their potential. Conflating the quality of buildings with the quality of character. Seeing solutions (relief programs under the New Deal) as evidence of problems. Seeing solutions as someone else’s responsibility.
These are the failures of stereotypes.