As anyone who follows Newton politics knows, former City Council President Marc Laredo lasted just a single term before being ousted in favor of current President Susan Albright.
Earlier this week, Councilor Laredo sent out an email purporting to seek community input on the possibility of allowing multifamily housing across the entire city.
But current City Council President Susan Albright is calling foul. She took to Twitter to say:
Zoning and planning committee is looking for ways to diversify our housing stock by adding multi-family houses in single fam districts near transit. One councilor is using scare tactics to prevent this. Don’t be fooled by fear. Let’s welcome new neighbors to newton.
…
Read Councilor Laredo’s July Newsletter. It distorts the questions raised and the discussion. He creates his own map of affected areas. It is written in a way to scare folks on dire consequences.
Two very different approaches, it would seem, from the current and former President. What a difference a President makes.
In President Albright we trust. Mad props for her leadership. Newton resists change at our own peril. Let’s be on the right side of history.
I admire them both for different reason. Ms Noel and Mr. Barash, not so much!
@Claire-
Agreed.
Bryan – perhaps you didn’t take the time to read Counselor Laredo’s email, or perhaps you are just looking to score points with cheap pot shots “ousted” after a single term. Notably the City Council has a very different make-up.
Very disappointed by the tone of this, especially after reading comments on another thread by a member of Engine 6 who I trust far more regarding Counselor Laredo’s intentions.
@Lisap – I think you should re-read the post. Those aren’t my words, they’re Councilor Albright’s.
@Bryan – failed candidate for Ward 2, member of failed Charter Commission – wrong. I called you out for your cheap pot shot re: Marc and quoted you. That was the reason for my reply.
I didn’t read Mr. Laredo’s Village 14 post as engaging in scare tactics. (I didn’t get his email.) I took it at face value, with no reason to believe that he had any other purpose than what he said, i.e., soliciting comments and discussion. It achieved that, as the comments people posted were thoughtful and helpful in elucidating the issue.
I’m hoping this zoning change is approved. I don’t know how much it will do to bring about more affordable housing, given underlying land values and the cost of construction and the demand for housing here, but it should create some useful options for thoughtful growth in the city. I hope, however, that it would be accompanied by reasonable rules concerning setbacks, streetscapes, and the like, to preserve the feel of the neighborhoods. (I’d like those rules to apply to the current spate of single family teardowns, too, by the way.)
@Lisap – I’m not sure what else you would call it – he was elected for a term and then ousted. It’s literally the definition of ousted. The dictionary definition is: “drive out or expel (someone) from a position or place. ex. he ousted a long-term incumbent by only 500 votes”.
Actually what you said was that I didn’t read his email. Which I did. And which Susan (not me) makes clear was problematic.
And as for me, don’t worry, I’m good. If at first you don’t succeed…
@Bryan –
Yes, a long term incumbent who is still… wait for it… a member of the City Council. He wasn’t re-elected as president of the city council after one term – a point you somehow thought (and still think) was of some major significance . So what. The face of the city council changed dramatically (except in Ward 2). Hardly a surprise that there was also a charging of the guard for leadership.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Laredo vote yes on all the big developments? I believe he and Albright are on the same side here.
And yes, this post does not make me want to vote for Mr. Barash next time around.
I can’t wait for Laredo to challenge Mr and Mrs Fuller
This topic really make this blog appear “petty”. Its really unnecessary. Its better to focus on the discussion to allow ppl to give their views on the matter..
I read Councilor Laredo’s emailed letter, and it seems to me accurate in terms of what is being proposed, and the map provided is a composite of the maps the Planning Department provided which are attached to the most recent Zoning and Planning Committee report. The letter also summarizes arguments for and against the change, and points out that it should be done after careful analysis and the affected community is informed. Councilor Laredo has provided residents receiving his email information about the ongoing work of the City Council, and invited them to offer him their feedback. So far, I have heard no disagreement about the facts of what he reported, only agreement or disagreement about what to do in light of them, which I am sure will continue as the Council deliberates on these proposed changes.
Councilor Baker, while we have your attention I have a question. During the meeting in which this was discussed, you spoke out in favor of using the Special Permit process as a way to focus on issues such as site analysis and the impact on neighbors, etc. Am I understanding your position properly in that, given what you said about the things that are “unmeasurable,” are you suggesting that nearly everything built under a new zoning ordinance should go back to city council for approval on its site-plan, etc? Are you also suggesting that neighbors should have a vote (through a public hearing along with the special permit process) on something built nearby?
Not seeing the foul – I was watching the ZAP discussion and the planning dept. had maps for the bus/express bus/green line that combined look like they align to Councilor Laredo’s map. During the discussion itself Councilor Markiewicz (among others, but IIRC he was the first) commented that with the .5 mile radius there would be so little SF zoning left that it may be more simple to just remove SF completely which branched off into that direction. Was the discussion not around a .5 mile radius that veered into just removing SF zoning completely?
As for the newsletter itself the wording looked dry (not in a bad way) and factual, aside from one comment alluding to the zoning discussions slipping under the radar of other more immediate issues like COVID and racism I’d say it’s a good summary of the current scenario. He’s not wrong when he says the original intent around zoning redesign was to reflect the current built environment and that this would be change to that intent. I’m inclined to agree with that change in direction to expand MF zoning far beyond it’s current state but that’s doesn’t change the fact that it’s a pretty significant change.
I just read Councilor Laredo’s newsletter. I think he’s right to urge people to pay attention to what could be very significant changes to local zoning in the year or two ahead.
That said, considering that there is not yet a definite proposal on the table, his newsletter does seem to be aimed at riling people up at what could be, rather than what is. In particular, the map he included seems to be presented as a proposal before the Council right now rather than one of a number of ideas being discussed.
Jerry just said it clearly. Dead on and factual Jerry. I endorse your opinion.
This feels like a strange diversion from what had been an interesting and complex conversation about zoning that emerged from Laredo’s original email. Then this post comes along and brings with it *some* of that conversation and a big feeling of gathering around the high school lockers to exchange gossip. Feels seedy. I agree with @Jerry. Pay attention to what could (will) be significant changes to local real estate zoning in the near term. Take time to consider your opinion on it and share your thoughts. I’m not sure I agree with the idea that the Laredo newsletter is meant to rile people up, but I probably don’t have as much history with this as most. I *have* spent significant time thinking this over (and given civil rights issues, even more time thinking it through than usual. I will say that my feeling are evolving from believing that we should push for more incremental changes to, instead, bigger changes that will allow for faster and more equitable truing up on the social justice side. I think this is good.)
Finally, and I don’t mean this to be petty, but I have also promised to call out micro-aggressions such as these, especially if there’s learning to be gained: @Fred Knowles: Mr. Laredo would or wouldn’t be challenging Mr and Mrs Fuller, if he so decided. He would be solely challenging Ms. Fuller, our duly elected mayor. I do believe she can hold her own, on her own. Be well.
Both Councilor’s Laredo and Markiewicz expressed concern with this proposal coming basically out of left field at a time when most Newtonians aren’t paying attention and seemed concerned with the lack of a vigorous plan to make the
public aware proposal. My guess is that Councilor Laredo’s newletter is make sure it gets on peoples radar screen and I really appreciate that. If that is “riling up” I am happy he did
Bryan, by using the word “purport,” the definition of which is “appear or claim to be or do something, especially falsely,” impugns Laredo as being disingenuous. From all of my experiences with Marc, nothing is further from the truth. Rather than introducing issues, this blog rather focuses on attacking Marc.
The Council makes many rash, haphazard decisions. “knee-jerk” best describes. Poorly thought through zoning liberalization will be irreversibly deleterious. More community attention is deserved. I am glad I received Marc’s email. I am glad he is on the Council.
@anp You obviously don’t know or won’t acknowledge that Mr Fuller is actively involved behind the scenes. Laredo could do the job himself. And @brendanoel what the heck are “mad props”… you sound like a teenager.
@Fred…that was funny. 🙂
Not sure what the issue is… most seem to generally support re-zoning. The debate will hinge on distance from transit spots. Am I missing something here?
I simply can’t fathom why Bryan [edited to correct name] felt compelled to level this misguided broadside at Marc Laredo. I haven’t always agreed with Marc’s position on every major issue before the City Council, but I’m always impressed by the rigorously crisp and factual way he presents his case and the passionate honesty and conviction he displays in presenting it. I remember, in particular, Marc’s solid defense of the work of our ward councilors during the debate over Charter Reform a few years back. His passion, conviction and common sense played a decisive role in beating back the misguided efforts of heavily funded at large proponents to sell the false notion that their proposed remedy would somehow make our electoral system more democratic and representative.
I’ve read Marc’s concerns about where zoning reform may be taking development over the next several decades and how irrevocable these changes will probably be once they are in place. I was impressed by my first reading, but I’m going to revisit what he sent and I’m going to take copious notes because I’m tired of personal attacks here and elsewhere. I want the specifics debated and Marc’s letter is a good starting point for framing a much needed debate governed by principles and not personalities.
I wish the Village14 folks would bring back the LIKE button…because I would be using it on @Bob Burke’s post. Well said, sir.
The tone of the discussion of this topic is troubling. We’ve had a four-month reprieve from the Good Guy/Bad Guy divisions in the city, but here we go again.
It may come as a shock to those in the thick of this issue, but most people are still trying to keep their heads above water as they deal with the pandemic. The number of people who continue to experience a serious impact to their daily lives is far larger than any metric could measure. Everyone in my circle of contacts is exhausted – emotionally and physically. So no disrespect intended, but very few people are paying attention to what the city council is doing unless it relates to COVID-19.
The zoning issues are complex, far-reaching, and deserve the full attention of the community. Unless the city council can figure out a way to engage the larger community, beyond advocacy groups, it needs to proceed very cautiously in making a decision of this magnitude at this point in time.
Typically I’m a fully engaged resident, but for the foreseeable future, a day that I keep my head above water is a successful one. I’m by no means alone. All I’m asking for is information about the zoning changes from an objective source. Not interested – at all – in joining a camp on one side or the other. Just point me in the direction of where to find the information and I’ll convey my thoughts to the council and the mayor.
Jane that was the exact point that Marc Laredo was making in the meeting. That something of this magnitude and so different from the draft zoning plan can’t be adequately evaluated and assessed at this time and definitely not via Zoom meetings
I watched the whole meeting over a multitude of days but most people barely pay attention to what goes on in the City. Councilor Laredo was clearly emphasizing the need to make people aware of the potential changes due to the potentially impact on the City. He was advocating for exploring all different types of channels to get the word out that people need to pay attention. One of my biggest frustrations the last few years with Newton are that people don’t pay attention. Their “friends” sent them emails explaining how they should vote on certain issues. They agree on some philosophical high level but then are surprised at the actual impacts/effects of what they voted on. The devil is in the details which is why I felt conflicted listening to the Zoom. As decisions are made in how these changes could play out the decisions that are made on the details could determine whether this could be a really good thing for the City or not so much. I think it is important that people be aware of how changes will effect them. I live in an MR district and support extending multi residential district but how things are restricted or not restricted could impact me so it’s important to understand that,
Agree with Jane: “The tone of the discussion of this topic is troubling. We’ve had a four-month reprieve from the Good Guy/Bad Guy divisions in the city, but here we go again.”
Perhaps it might not have gone down that path if it hadn’t started with the assertion that Mr. Laredo was “purporting” to seek community input. Why would we want to start by suggesting that his intentions were anything other than what he said? Instead, perhaps we can begin by believing in people’s good intentions. Let’s disagree like crazy over the proposals, for sure, but I prefer to proceed under the assumption that the folks who were elected to the Council are forthright and really want to hear the range of viewpoints in the community.
I wish Bryan would keep his thoughts to himself. This post is not worthy of V14.
^^^ What @Lisa said.
If Northland taught us anything, the majority of residents pay no attention until the week before a vote is to be made….far too late in the game to have any real influence on the meaningful details or even a mediocre grasp of basic facts.
Councilor Laredo has always been a thoughtful, considerate, balanced councilor. At the ZAP meeting, he expressed a sincere concern that the vast majority of residents have no idea what extensive zoning changes lie ahead – regardless of what position they’d take. Sadly, in talking to my neighbors, he’s 100% spot-on. No one I’ve talked to is aware of the zoning reform changes. And in the days of COVID, you can’t expect that will change. Councilor Laredo’s email is his laudable attempt to communicate the current thinking on zoning – radically different than the former, broadly disseminated draft plan, by the way – out to the public.
His description was factual and straightforward – an approach we should all respect at this time in history.
Mr Barash et al: Stop churning up fear and divisiveness where it doesn’t belong. You’re in the majority, your line-up of Councilors have the block of votes required; the ZAP is particularly stacked. Rest easy. Don’t be afraid of some public knowledge and discussion.
I am not sure why questioning an elected official’s views on a particular issue constitutes a personal attack.
In any case, when I read Councilor Laredo’s newsletter about development, I reacted the same way as Susan Albright and Bryan Barash did – that the subtext was resistance to change and reluctance to innovate to bring in more affordable housing.
Maybe or maybe not that’s the way Mr. Laredo feels, Shawn, but that’s no reason to characterize his email “as purporting to seek community input.” When the writer does that, he is questioning Mr. Laredo’s sincerity and integrity as a Councilor, not his views. I don’t see how that helps get to the merits of the issue.
Likewise your conclusion that he is reluctant to innovate to bring in more affordable housing is a loaded comment about Mr. Laredo’s underlying values and vision for the city. While I might not agree with his position on a zoning change, that doesn’t mean I question whether he has a concern about the importance of affordable housing.
In saying all this, I hold no brief for Mr. Laredo. I just don’t see how questioning someone’s motives or values adds to this kind of discussion. Fortunately, most of the comments we’ve seen here have be thoughtful and helpful on the pro’s and con’s of the issue.
I personally appreciate that Marc Laredo is trying to educate the 31,000 households who live in Newton. I do not think that folks have a clue that this huge change is being discussed on Zoom meetings by the Newton City Council.
Here are two quotes from Councilor Laredo’s letter (my emphasis added):
“The City Council has not yet begun discussing whether multi-family units will be limited to two, three or four-family units or some other number, or whether no restrictions at all will be put in place.”
“These discussions about whether to change to “by right” multi-family housing in the city and the limitations, if any, on what that allows, will be taking place over the next several months in the Zoning and Planning Committee of the City Council with a decision of the Committee expected this fall.”
I think that’s what folks are talking about as fear-mongering. There is no universe where Newton City Council adds multi-family housing in currently single-family-only districts with no limitations. There are exactly zero actual human beings who are advocating for unrestricted development.
I don’t want to speculate on Councilor Laredo’s state of mind or intention, but I don’t see how anyone paying even minimal attention to the process would think that unrestricted multi-family development is an even remotely possible outcome. Smells like fear-mongering.
It sounds a lot like this: “They’re going to bring people, eliminate single-family zoning, they want to eliminate single family zoning, bringing who knows into your suburbs, so your communities will be unsafe and your housing values will go down.“
Sean, your emphasis is just your spin.
Susan Albright asked about size and Lemieux mentioned 2 family 3-family. Four and six plexes. Susan’s follow up question was “How large can they be. Is it up to 6 units or is it bigger than that?”
The response from Lemieux was “That is not for tonight’s conversation” He side-stepped rather than scoffed at the question.
Tune in around 37:45 for the exchange
https://newtv.org/recent-video/107-committee-meetings-and-public-hearings/6278-zoning-and-planning-committee-june-29-2020
@Sean Roche – Councilor Laredo’s wording doesn’t sound like fear mongering to me. It sounds like legalese. Which makes sense — he is a lawyer and is used to writing like one.
1) We are in the middle of a pandemic with typical information flow dramatically slowed. 2) The zoning work that the city council had worked on for at least a year and proposed earlier appears to be being dramatically changed.
Citizens of Newton deserve to fully understand all of this information. Robust conversation and understanding are never a bad thing. I appreciate Laredo’s communication and hope that other councilors will provide similar notes to their constituents.
Thank you Claire and ANP for clarifying Councilor Laredo’s remarks. I’ve always known him to be very conscientious, forthright and trust worthy.
Claire. I was on the call. I heard it at the time. And, I re-watched at your suggestion.
Here’s the transcript of the exchange you cite to rebut the notion that Councilor Laredo is setting up a straw person that there might not be any limits:
Albright:
I don’t remember what the rules were, because we wanted more multi-family housing in village centers and this now we’re wort of overlapping our residential with our village centers. Am I right?
LeMel:
So the Village Center lots are removed from this analysis. So, you’re right that there will also be transformation in the village center to allow or the recommendation will be to allow for multi-family or mixed-use buildings within village centers. This is kind of getting at a bit of a smaller scale of housing.
So, we’re talking about two-family homes, three-family homes, four-plexes, six-plexes, and, again just to kind of get back to the that missing middle area. And, so I think what we’re seeing is that we want to promote a diversity of housing opportunity and options, you know, as it relates to those goals that I stated earlier that you now again City Council has brought forward.
Albright:
So, you were sort of answering my next question. I think that. I was wondering how large housing could be in this area — in this quarter- to half-mile area — is it up to six units or is it bigger than that?
LeMel:
That is not for tonight’s conversation. That is something that will need to be debated and discussed in committee. What I think I’m looking for here is more [dropped audio] Generally, you know [two?]-family and three-family and it could look like, you now, eight-unit small buildings. I think that will depend on which village center and which transit stops, but that is going to be something that we’re going to need further clarity and further guidance on as we move forward.
But, I’m just more philosophically looking for guidance at this point.
Albright:
So this is like an opening discussion. Is this worth pursing or not. Is that right? Is that what you’re …?
LeMel:
Correct. I’m just trying to, you know, interpret the goals that have been laid out and make sure that the recommendations staff provide are achieving those goals. Make sure of that before we start changing and updating.
—
Clearly a discussion about what limits there will be, not a suggestion that there won’t be limits.
Also, clearly a staff member deferring the final decision on those limits to the councilors and seeking guidance before proceeding with staff recommendations.
ANP —
Councilor Laredo is suggesting to his constituents — which, as an at-large councilor is everyone in Newton — that there is a real risk that the zoning code will allow multi-family development across the city without limitation.
As a reformed attorney, I’m passing familiar with legalese, and I don’t recognize that as legalese. If I ever made an unfounded suggestion like that in front of a judge, I would be delivered an earful.
Help me understand what you mean by legalese in this situation.
Sean you post that transcript and you actually say
“I don’t want to speculate on Councilor Laredo’s state of mind or intention, but I don’t see how anyone paying even minimal attention to the process would think that unrestricted multi-family development is an even remotely possible outcome. Smells like fear-mongering.”
???
And yes you are speculating on Councilor Laredo’s intentions. Bryan went low and you joined him
Claire,
I take it you concede that the transcript demonstrates the opposite of what you suggest it does.
Councilor Laredo made an unfounded assertion that there is a risk of development without limits in our neighborhoods. Twice. In a written document that he had the opportunity to read and edit. Regarding a process in which he has been an active participant and expressed clearly defined positions.
I’m not speculating on his intentions. I’m just connecting the dots.
Councilor Laredo has a very clear policy preference, regardless of how he tries to frame the discussion in the letter. And, he’s using techniques commonly understood as fear-mongering to win supporters to his side.
He’s not going to get people to tune into a dry set of hearing if he accurately described the situation. “Fire-breathing, leftist, Soros-funded, pro-housing do-gooders are demanding that it be legal to build two- and three-family homes that are not significantly bigger than neighboring homes and that are limited to modestly sized units andand that the prevailing sentiment of the radical wing of the City Council is curious, but cautious, with significant opposition from other councilors.”
Just doesn’t get the blood boiling the way a baseless suggestion that we’re going to have sliver towers hovering over Capes does, does it?