In this season of reckoning with racial injustice, it seems there’s a growing movement to make our zoning more inclusive … within a short walk of the T.
The good news is that there is a growing awareness among our city councilors that Newton’s exclusionary zoning constitutes systemic racial bias. The bad news is that few of those councilors who recognize the racial injustice of exclusionary zoning are willing to go to the logical next step and call for its simple elimination. (Change the existing zoning code to make two- and three-family homes legal on every lot in the city.)
Instead, councilors have hit on a weird compromise. More density, for sure, because density is necessary for addressing the inequity of our exclusionary zoning. But, let’s not go too far. Let’s limit the density to the immediate neighborhoods around transit. Transit-oriented development, but as a limiting factor on equality.
Exhibit A is from a discussion of zoning reform* in Councilor Jake Auchincloss’s most recent constituent letter. (The full text of the letter follows.)
- We need to build more ‘missing middle’ housing – especially within walking distance of transit. Newton cannot meet its aspirations of environmental sustainability and diversity & inclusion until and unless we make it much easier to build more 2-to-4-unit housing near transit.
Admirably, Councilor Auchincloss understands the need for multi-family homes to address our lack of diversity, but oddly limits the cure to “near transit.” It’s really no different than saying, we need to make places for more people of color to live. But, only certain places.
This is how we got to this point in the first place. Councilor Auchincloss is proposing segregation through land-use regulation. It’s redlining.
If you recognize we need to be more inclusive, we need to be more inclusive in every neighborhood. Any other option is curing segregation with more segregation.
To be fair to Councilor Auchincloss, he’s not alone. Councilor Josh Krintzman has this as his Zoom background for Zoning and Planning meetings. (Councilor Krintzman is a ZAP committee member.) But, he too is only in favor of more density near transit.
Black Lives Matter … but only within .5 miles (or maybe just .25 miles) of a Green Line stop.
* Councilor Auchincloss has a typically crisp analysis of the zoning reform landscape, but curiously doesn’t address the option to eliminate single-family-only zoning across the city. I’ve helped him:
Good morning, I’m one of your city councilors and I write monthly to keep you apprised of local affairs. Here’s what’s important in Newton right now (non-COVID): - Residential zoning under debate: where do you stand?
- Development updates:
- Riverside near a vote
- 40B approved in West Newton Square
- Northland proceeding despite pandemic
- NewCAL likely sited in Newtonville
- Schools looking at hybrid or remote re-opening
- Vote by mail: instructions & link
|
|
Residential zoning under debate: where do you stand?For the last decade, the city council has been reviewing the zoning code. The last complete rewrite was in 1953, when the city added a lot of housing spread out, in a car-centric suburb. The trend now, with broad support as a theory (less support in practice), is towards building smaller housing units near transit. When writing about zoning redesign a year-and-half ago, I said the two most controversial aspects would be whether to expand 2-4-unit development near transit and to what degree the city council should cede authority over its permitting. We are now entering the thick of that debate. Right now, about 70% of the residential lots in Newton are zoned single-family. For the other 30%, owners can build two units, though they do not have to. Zoning codifies what landowners are permitted to do, not what they must do. Both single-family and two-family development often triggers city council review, and 3-4-unit development always does. This review, to issue a ‘special permit‘, is the opposite of by-right development. Zoning and development in Newton sort of looks like this: |
|
|
There’s a saying that all models are wrong, but some are useful. This above model is wrong – it oversimplifies. But I do think it’s useful to understand the dimensions of debate for residential zoning. There are advocates for shifting towards each of the four quadrants. Below is my fairest framing for the argument behind each quadrant: - Don’t fix what’s not broken. Newton is a wonderful city to live in, and increasing density could undermine the infrastructure and services that support that.
- Newton’s zoning code should be streamlined, not overturned. There are too many non-conforming properties and too many tripwires for families trying to make reasonable improvements. So, make the code easier to navigate and more reflective of on-the-ground reality, but don’t turn single-family zones into 2-4-unit zones.
- We need to build more ‘missing middle’ housing – especially within walking distance of transit. Newton cannot meet its aspirations of environmental sustainability and diversity & inclusion until and unless we make it much easier to build more 2-to-4-unit housing near transit.
- Yes, we need to build more missing middle housing near transit. However, City Hall needs leverage over developers to protect neighbors’ interest and secure public goods, like affordable housing and infrastructure improvements. Tougher permitting affords that leverage.
The city council’s Zoning and Planning Committee plans to take a straw vote on residential zoning this fall. They will be informed by a public hearing. Last term, constituents offered input through ward-by-ward meetings, as well, and architects and designers offered technical feedback. |
|
Development updates
Riverside near a vote
The mixed-use project at the Riverside MBTA terminus should be up for a vote early this fall. It would have 524 units of housing, a new hotel to replace the Hotel Indigo, and significant office and retail space. Improvements to the original proposal include reducing congestion, increasing the affordability of housing, and securing a pilot for a shuttle to the Auburndale commuter rail station. 40B approved near West Newton Square
The Riverside developer, Mark Development, is also building outside West Newton Square (near the Barn’s former location). The Zoning Board of Appeals recently approved three buildings with 234 apartments and ground-floor retail. Fifty-nine of the apartments will be permanently affordable; all parking will be underground. The developer will provide $3.3M in funding for infrastructure and for deepening the affordability of eight of the units. Northland proceeding despite pandemic
Though it feels like eons ago, the referendum on Northland was on Super Tuesday in March. It passed. Then, coronavirus. The developer recently stated that they are proceeding with their design phase and do not expect significant disruption or delays. NewCAL likely sited in Newtonville
A new senior center would likely be at the current location in Newtonville, not in the Newton Center triangle lot. The Public Buildings Commissioner reported that both sites could accommodate the project. It would be faster and cheaper in Newtonville, though. The Newton Center parking lot option would also cause disruption to businesses. For these reasons, advisory groups have been tilting heavily towards Newtonville. There are sufficient funds to continue basic design in 2020. The mayor and city council will need to evaluate fully funding the project in light of the city’s post-COVID finances. |
|
Schools looking at hybrid or remote re-opening
The state asked local school districts to prepare three plans for returning to school in the fall: in-person, fully remote, and hybrid. It also asked districts to announce their chosen plan no earlier than August. Newton Public Schools considered the fully in-person scenario, but realized that under local health and human services guidance for six feet of separation, it would not be feasible. So, NPS is focusing on the remote and hybrid models. Here’s its timeline: - June: Establish planning teams for development of return to school scenarios
- July: Survey families on return to school options, concerns, questions. (Survey revealed that 75% of families would send their children to school in a hybrid model)
- Early August: Detailed update on Distance and Hybrid models
- By mid August: Decision on school-opening model
|
|
Vote by mail: instructions & link
If you are a registered voter, you should have received an application to vote by mail in both the primary (Sept 1) and general (Nov 3) elections. If not, you can download one here (don’t forget to sign it) and mail it to City of Newton Clerk’s Office
1000 Commonwealth Avenue
Newton, MA 02459 The city clerk will start mailing out ballots for the primary in early August. You will be able to mail your ballot back to the clerk. There will also be early in-person voting in August for the primary. It begins on Saturday, Aug 22 and continues through Friday, Aug 28 at Drucker Auditorium at the Newton Free Library. The polls will also be open for election-day voting on Tuesday, Sept 1. |
|
We just spent the last 18 months thru Spring debating about Northland and what an extreme housing CRISIS we are in!!!!
Yet, the ZAP and Council stops short at 1/4 mile from transit. I wonder if we mapped out all of the Councilors’ and Mayor’s home; as well as those of other known Newton “housing advocates”, how many would remain in the single family zones. Nothing would be more NIMBY than pushing for multi-family zoning in every neighborhood but you’re own!!
Is it any surprise that all those who spoke out so ferverently about Northland are relatively quite about re-zoning and none have pushed to abolish single family zoning througout the City?
I’m with @Sean on this one…. go big or don’t go at all!
Thank you, @Sean. Yes: If you can admit that single-family-only zoning has racist roots and continues to perpetuate segregation and all manner of racial inequities, and this bothers you, it’s hard for me to see how you can justify keeping even just a little bit of it.
If you believe zoning is racist, then is the following hypocritical:
– continue to enjoy living in a single family home. Why not sell and move to a multifamily zone within Newton? Isn’t this the equivalent of staying in a racist hotel?
– not only living in a single family home but a VERY large one (3000 sqft+) with only 4 or 5 people.
– if you can’t sell/move at this time then rent your home to add many ppl as possible and take that rent to rent in a multifamily zone
Right, because in my neighborhood, I am within walking distance of a Green Line Stop.
Two houses in the last five years have gone on the market for under $1M.
Developers purchased them and converted to 2 town houses each. Each town house retails for over $1M.
Please tell me WHY we are changing the single family zone to multi-family for affordable housing? Affordable housing is not a town house for $1.5M each.
NewtonMom,
I feel ya.
Housing advocates (like me) have a mix of goals when we advocate for more housing in Newton. We want to reduce the environmental impact of housing. Those two luxury homes for one near-luxury home puts an additional family within walking distance of the T. Great, but it doesn’t solve the problem of affordability or adding additional housing types.
We want to make more housing available of different types and across the cost spectrum. Your two-town-home neighbor doesn’t meet that bill. But, a triplex might have. Unfortunately, the zoning code doesn’t limit the size of units in a multi-family building, so developers make as much as they can. There is strong evidence that, if we had multi-family with good dimensional controls (limits on the size of units), that developers would find it attractive to build two- to four-unit buildings with 750 to 1500 sq. ft. units. (I’m guessing that your new neighbors are close to or over 3,500 sq. ft. each unit.) So, we advocate for more multi-family opportunities combined with dimensional controls.
We want to add to the stock of truly affordable housing in Newton, which is, according to federal guidelines, housing whose cost is 30% or less of the income of a family making less than 80% of the area median income. Because of the cost of land in Newton, zoning alone isn’t going to be enough to add that kind of affordable home. So, we advocates argue for government or non-profit subsidy or market cross-subsidy. As with recent larger developments (Northland, Riverside, the Highlands buildings), a portion of the homes are deed-restricted to be affordable, with the subsidy coming from the market-rate units in the same complex.
We also want the stain of racial discrimination scrubbed from the zoning code. Removing single-family-only districts (put another way, allowing multi-family homes across the city) won’t — immediately or alone — meet all our goals, but it’s an important step for social justice.
We can have a variety of housing options in Newton if the City Council takes the right steps.
I should add that the environmental question is not so simple. The new 2 townhomes also have a lot more embedded carbon than converting the existing home to multi-family or probably than new, more modest multi-family.
Sean’s response NewtonMom falls short of the legislative agenda I’d like to see. The City Council, then called the Board of Aldermen, rejected the attempt to halt the tearing down of affordable homes in Newton and their replacement by McMansions. That continuing tragedy has led to the ever-increasing wealth and privilege of the Garden City. Young families and families of modest income cannot afford to purchase those replacement houses.
The desire to create more housing near public transit will, unfortunately, end up having the same effect on Newton’s housing stock: more wealthy people will be moving into those smaller but still expensive condos and rentals that replace the single-family dwellings torn down in the process. Perhaps fewer people will drive to work, but I am skeptical about even that. Both ends of a power couple, one of whom works in Kendall Square and another along 95/128, will want to drive to work once the pandemic abates. Public transit in greater Boston, compared with that available in, say, many European cities, covers less territory.
I can readily believe that those affordable units in the emerging developments might provide minority families and such an opportunity to move to Newton. Would that a higher portion of the apartments in those complexes were affordable! I remain skeptical, however, that rezoning properties near transit will bring in families of moderate income. Only with restrictions on rents and condo prices, local/state/federal rental subsidies, and similar measures will those folks afford to live in Newton. Now who will step forward in government and advocate that? The free market will not get it done.
I don’t know why you put the entirety of Jake’s newsletter on this post when you’re only talking about his stance on redoing the zoning code in Newton. It’s confusing. I also don’t know why you would single out Jake on this issue when it’s just about the entire ZAP committee and several other councilors are saying the same things about the near transit zone changes.
I do think that the new zoning code should be universal across Newton with some limits on numbers of units per square ft. Ours now is not only built from segregation and redlining but with the waivers and additions here and there it is way too confusing and vague. Complex issues can be set out in simple terms without waivers or special permits.
But I also think that these councilors are trying too hard to make everyone happy and will end up with no one liking the result if they end up dividing Newton up again.
Sean- As a quid pro quo for reshaping the available building stock as you want it, would you commit (and submit) to a requirement that all parcels developed under SR1/SR2/SR3 zones or their successors be owner-occupied? Further, that the owner of any dwelling not satisfying the requirement would be surcharged 25% of the property taxes in addition to the property tax otherwise due annually on that property?
To me, it seems the underlying aspirational status you seek to impart unto others is the wealth and wealth accumulation opportunities that come from a household owning their primary residence instead of paying rent. However, the current formulations appear to deliver the preponderance of economic benefits from your proposals to developers and investors, rather than benefiting those less able to afford on-par, while simultaneously guaranteeing that the selling current Newtoneans are guaranteed highest-and-best-use selling prices. …
Please don’t get me wrong, I am not criticizing such capitalistic self-interest. But we shouldn’t we at least call it out as such?
Maybe you intend to “make it up on volume” .. Since the City’s revenues are not unrelated to of the number of households within City limits, query me this: how many households are you intending in each of the year 2040, 2060, 2080, and 2100? What proportion will rent? And will the overall demographic profile fit the one forecast by consultants advising the School Committee and Counsel?
Bryan, do you have views on any of that?
The reality is new construction is expensive,.. one, two, three or more units, and consequently never affordable!
Making them smaller only increases the costs per sq.ft.
Each unit still has a new kitchen, a new bathroom, a complete new electrical system, new heating system, new windows, foundation, excavation, driveways etc etc etc.
None of this is “affordable”. What is affordable is the depreciated older structure and the older the more depreciated they become. Keep what we have and wake up from the new “affordable” pipe dream.
So good to once again see the limousine liberals show their true colors.