Jason Harburger is a Newton resident & Engine 6 member
As the Newton City Council pursues its two-year process to revise our zoning ordinance, I’ve heard some residents make the statement “single-family zoning is not classist nor racist.” I’d like to share some facts that tell a different story — a story that says “living in a single-family home is A-OK, but mandating that only single-family homes may be built on a lot can be problematic.”
Why? You have to go back in time to connect the dots. There is a long history in the US of discriminating against Black families when it comes to housing; for example, in federal housing programs, mortgage lending, highway planning, and home assessments. This discrimination had devastating, multi-generational impacts on wealth and health. Black families paid higher loan rates, were segregated into neighborhoods with lower per capita school funding, and experienced longer commutes to employment hubs. As a result of these racist policies and practices, the average net worth of Black households in greater Boston is just $8 – for white households, it’s $250K – and there is a 30 year difference in life expectancy between Roxbury and Newton. On top of these hurdles, laws regulating land use introduced barriers to neighborhood access via exclusionary zoning codes mandating (expensive) single-family homes and in many cases larger lot sizes.
By contrast, for affluent, suburban, predominantly white families, exclusionary zoning increased wealth:
– single family zoning limited the supply of housing in sought after school districts
– shortages from heavy homebuyer demand increased property values
– fear of lower property values and sharing city services led residents to defend exclusionary zoning
If we understand that our current zoning and schools are products of a century of discriminatory policy interventions, then the answer to the question “should we permit more smaller, affordable, multi-family homes in Newton?” is “Yes, let’s welcome new neighbors!”
Everything you say is true and shameful.
That said, can you point to a community that is a model that we should be pursuing? One with similar educational and public safety outcomes but more density and equality?
Brookline? Cambridge? Somerville?
Just trying to understand if we can get to the desired place without sacrificing our services.
The real cause of classism and racism in Greater Boston is, and always has been, the existence of fiscally-autonomous suburban governments that are allowed to fund and administer their own separate school systems, police forces, and public services.
Yet I’ve never heard anyone in this forum support an agglomerated metropolitan government or any other form of redistributive governance any of the times that I’ve brought it up. So I interpret these calls for rezoning as nothing more than meaningless tokenism that will have no material impact on racial or social inequality – not in Newtonville and not in Nubian Square.
There are zero serious individuals who believe that rezoning the City of Newton is going to in any way impact the average net worth or life expectancy of Black households in Boston. So why even bring that into this discussion? Are you claiming that revised zoning policies will eventually allow a few hundred (or in all likelihood, a few dozen) people in Roxbury or Chelsea to abandon their hometowns, families, and friends so that they can come integrate with whites and Asians out here in the promised land (while suburbanites mumble under their breath: Just please don’t become so successful that you end up stealing Junior’s freshman spot at Dartmouth)?
Unfortunately this meaningless virtue-signalling has now become the dominant brand of white suburbanites’ feel-good progressivism – support for initiatives which don’t in any way crimp the entitled suburban lifestyle with its low crime rates and top-ten-high schools, but which oh-so-conveniently create a significant revenue and investment opportunities – in this case, for the real estate and construction industry.
Go ahead and do it – the abolishment of zoning restrictions is long overdue – but please don’t pretend that this will have any measurable impact on racial, social, or economic justice, any more than our lawn signs do.
Michael, thank you for that comment. It is 100% accurate.
Thanks Donald. A few thoughts based on comments above:
– Newton has a track record for expanding city services in the face of growth while maintaining quality. For example, Newton’s population doubled over last 100 years and the city high schools are consistently in the top 30 in the state.
– New neighbors bring with them tax payments and talents. In other words, it’s not a zero-sum game when it comes to city services.
– I don’t think upzoning alone will deliver affordable, subsidized housing, though zoning changes done well increase the stock of smaller, less expensive homes (aka “missing middle”). And, I expect site specific affordable housing decisions will continue to be explored (and delivered) as a complement to zoning redesign.
– Bloomberg City Labs has a lot of coverage on cities that have changed their zoning in spirit of inclusion and equity.
@Michael I keep saying this and I keep hoping that someone is listening: There is no one thing that will solve this problem. We can, however, take steps. This is a step. It’s not the only step, it may not even be a major step in the eventual overall solution (even as it’s a major step for the city). But it IS a necessary step. We also need to focus on what comes next, such as relevant city services, housing assistance, training programs, etc.
I also agree that Massachusetts leans too much on home rule and that we have too many small municipalities making myopic decisions. I would love to see many of these cities and towns give up control on issues around transportation, housing and education so we can solve problems regionally.
Michael, you said
“they can come integrate with whites and Asians out here in the promised land”
So, this comment is going to stay up and not flagged as racist?
Strong reading comprehension, Bugek!
Without any rezoning so far Newton is in the process of building significant new rental housing. Some of it is affordable. I do not understand the need for a complete zoning overhaul. The present special permit process and 40b pathway has yielded worthwhile results. Homeowners provided needed input and the city council voted favorably for more housing.
The existing process is working.
From what I have learned so far about zoning reform the emphasis rests on curbing large homes and building cluster housing. On the north side there is a huge diversity of dwelling types. Not so in the center of Newton. But if the city allowed the big homes to sub divide I see opportunity for the less affluent.
Simply modify some of the existing regulations in favor of more housing in the single district areas of Chestnut Hill, Newton Centre and West Newton Hill.
“should we permit more smaller, affordable, multi-family homes in Newton?Yes, let’s welcome new neighbors!”
When you pose the question this way, who in good conscience could oppose it? But what’s to prevent the proliferation not of smaller, affordable units but smaller but equally expensive units?
That is where local government must step in to control the process. Otherwise, the developers will make hay and Newton will remain the bastion of wealth and privilege.
Michael hit it on the nose with the term, “tokenism”. What’s even more egregious is that those most vocal about the lack of housing due to historical racial injustices, also happen to live in large, single family homes in areas of Newton that would be exempt from this rezoning.
Meanwhile, the ones benefiting most from this wave of misdirected goodwill, are Developers.
@Bob Jampol,
So, under the new zoning I am permitted to turn my single family home into a multi-family, but I can’t sell it at market? Or, if I want to sell one of my units, I have to sell it at below market? I don’t know for sure if that is what you are suggesting, but it certainly sounds like that. Please explain what you mean by suggesting that local government must step in and control the process. If I am permitted to modify my property to convert it into multiple units by right, how is the City of Newton entitled to dictate at what cost I may sell my property?
I see a lot of development going on in this city, but I really don’t see much at all that is considered to be affordable. I actually agree with the result Bob predicts; the net effect of this will be that developers will purchase single family homes and add more luxury units. There is NO cheap land in Newton. If this zoning change is adopted, I would anticipate that single family home buyers will be competing with developers – and in the game of real estate the developers will win.
Hi Matt,
Thanks for your comments. A few reactions:
First, I think I understand your skepticism. Many left-leaning cities have failed at reducing housing costs. I find the cognitive dissonance of well-intentioned folks who do not bring affordability (and density) to their city summarized with shocking clarity & data in this article:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/why-are-liberal-cities-so-unaffordable/382045/
Speaking on behalf of myself only here: I’m not interested in exempting affluent areas or old homes from the zoning redesign process. I am very OK with, for example, permitting multi-family conversions by-right, city-wide. In fact, conversions can be used as a path to avoid teardowns for old, large homes AND bring less costly housing to the market. I understand the ZAP Committee may be devoting time to dimensional requirements to reduce barriers in creating smaller (and less expensive) multi-fam buildings by-right; that review could be a key difference between outcomes of the zoning ordinance today vs. a path towards adding diversity to our housing stock in the future.
I don’t see a choice between focusing on zoning reform or affordable housing – these outcomes must be pursued in parallel. My rationale is that I understand that zoning changes will allow for density that mitigates shortages and lowers housing costs while affordable housing relies on market interventions to deliver units at price points below market levels. I worry that a myopic focus on affordable housing alone, without zoning reform, can lead to classist neighborhood targeting; as in, the mindset of “let’s build affordable units, just please keep it away from my affluent neighborhood for fear of changes in home values, demographics, and density.” This theme is summarized in pages 10-14 of the 1968 Newton Low-Moderation Income Housing Study:
https://e41e1075-3381-440d-9251-d60ce7113875.usrfiles.com/ugd/e41e10_dba596b467ff45388990e84a0d23e640.pdf
Finally, I agree with you that residents need to exercise caution if impacts from proposals they champion are disruptive in neighborhoods where they don’t live. I am enormously appreciative of your raising this point. Along those lines, I am relieved there is healthy debate taking place within the ZAP committee, with voices reflecting your comments and mine, across many villages.
Thanks,
Jason
Interesting perspective. My point: supporters are justifying this shift in zoning from single-unit to multi-unit as a means of creating smaller, more modestly priced dwellings. Less expensive housing then creates the opportunity for minority and low-income households to move in, thus diversifying the city and diminishing its wealthy, privileged status. Or so the argument goes.
I support greater availability of affordable housing and would love to see the city’s population become more multicultural. But these zoning manipulations absent forceful zoning regulation, may instead create, as you suggest, more luxury units, contradicting the rationale offered for the change in the first place.
It’s not enough to express noble intentions. If the city wants more socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic diversity, it has to enact zoning regulations that make this change possible. It won’t be easy. As you imply, such requirements might meet resistance from developers and homeowners looking to make the conversion on their terms, i.e. for maximum profit and at market rates.
It seems absurd to rely almost exclusively on private enterprise and the free market to create affordable housing. But that seems the only route considered these days. Forgive me for being skeptical.
@Bob, you are 100% spot on. And please indulge me on taking some liberty on your last paragraph…
“It seems absurd to rely almost exclusively on private enterprise and the free market to create affordable housing…sounds about as Republican as Regan’s trickle down economics.”
Hi Matt,
Thanks for your comments. A few reactions:
First, I think I understand your skepticism. Many left-leaning cities have failed at reducing housing costs. I find the cognitive dissonance of well-intentioned folks who do not bring affordability (and density) to their city summarized with shocking clarity & data in this article:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/why-are-liberal-cities-so-unaffordable/382045/
Speaking on behalf of myself only here: I’m not interested in exempting affluent areas or old homes from the zoning redesign process. I am very OK with, for example, permitting multi-family conversions by-right, city-wide. In fact, conversions can be used as a path to avoid teardowns for old, large homes AND bring less costly housing to the market. I understand the ZAP Committee may be devoting time to dimensional requirements to reduce barriers in creating smaller (and less expensive) multi-fam buildings by-right; that review could be a key difference between outcomes of the zoning ordinance today vs. a path towards adding diversity to our housing stock in the future.
I don’t see a choice between focusing on zoning reform or affordable housing – these outcomes must be pursued in parallel. My rationale is that I understand that zoning changes will allow for density that mitigates shortages and lowers housing costs while affordable housing relies on market interventions to deliver units at price points below market levels. I worry that a myopic focus on affordable housing alone, without zoning reform, can lead to classist neighborhood targeting; as in, the mindset of “let’s build affordable units, just please keep it away from my affluent neighborhood for fear of changes in home values, demographics, and density.” This theme is summarized in pages 10-14 of the 1968 Newton Low-Moderate Income Housing Study:
https://e41e1075-3381-440d-9251-d60ce7113875.usrfiles.com/ugd/e41e10_dba596b467ff45388990e84a0d23e640.pdf
Finally, I agree with you that residents need to exercise caution if impacts from proposals they champion are disruptive in neighborhoods where they don’t live. I am enormously appreciative of your raising this point. Along those lines, I am relieved there is healthy debate taking place within the ZAP committee, with voices reflecting your comments and mine, across many villages.
Thanks,
Jason
Has increased density in Boston’s South End resulted in decreased housing costs? Since the early 1990’s the area has undergone tremendous growth. Then you could buy an entire building on Shawmut Ave for under $500,000. Now a single unit in the same 4 story row house sells for over $1.5 million.
Turning a single family into a multi family – to state the obvious- requires significant capital. Likewise, tearing down an existing structure and replacing it with multiple units requires a hefty infusion of cash. What isn’t going to change is the cost of the land. We may increase the units per lot, but we can’t increase the amount of land in the city. That is a fixed number. Who is going to buy land which is expensive here and sell the units at cost or for a loss? I suspect the answer is non profits but, again, in the open market where the highest bidder wins, they too are second fiddle to developers with cash.
Correction- meant to say late 1990’s in Boston’s South End above. Not enough coffee yet.
What if only Asians or eastern europeans buy/rent the less expensive smaller homes?
Do we institute a skin color test for new residents?
This is a slippery slope. To claim it will improve economic diversity is one thing but to claim it will improve racial diversity canot be done without a racial quota (which is illegal)
@Bugek: One better –> a claim that it would increase economic diversity needs a hair splitting to be true.
All things being equal, the number of properties owned by non-resident owners will increase and the associated proportion of owners that are either non-residents of Newton plus the proportion that are corporations will increase above current levels.
The hair split is that “economic diversity” would only be measurable in the City Census or in the K-12 enrollments and not measured in the Assessor’s Database. With today’s higher resident-owner percentages, there is less light between those numbers or constituencies.
Want to take a guess what the effect on political decision making will be and or what effect the total debt load carried by those who pay (property taxes, mostly) into the City’s budget will be? Whose voices should be heard and how will we govern ourselves then? “Better?” “Wiser?” Other?
Bugek & Mary – you are putting words in my mouth, or may be responding to a conversation you had with someone else.
I provided context on the documented history of class and racial discrimination when it comes to housing in the US; however, my comments regarding what progress may look like focused on addressing supply shortages & rising home prices — as single family homes prices in Newton were up 24% from 2018 to 2019 per Boston Magazine. In other words, mitigating discriminatory policies would deliver benefits to homeowners of all ethnicities (which is kind of the point). There is no secret agenda in my advocating zoning reform beyond suggesting that thoughtful deregulation in the discretionary special permit process could alleviate supply shortages.
Thanks,
Jason
Jason,
Your post referenced zoning in terms of racism several times, in that context it would be fair to propose a solution to address your concerns.
Without a race based quota system, “anyone of any race” can bid up properties as they wish.
Btw, by helping one group you are hurting another. Seniors on fixed income will see their nest egg sharply decline by forcing home prices down.
Btw, what median new construction 1200 sqft 2br condo price would you like to see in Newton to claim success?
I’m curious if any of the critics here have either developed affordable housing or spent time speaking with those who do.
I ask because when I speak with people who do this, I get very different answers as to what works and what doesn’t. We keep looking for a simple answer to the issues of diversity (racial and economic being just two) but the true answers are far more complex. Many of them come down to how we view property rights as well as how we view each other. It’s also about major problems like transportation and city services that would help people who are on the lower end of the economic spectrum.
The truth is, owners don’t like to rent to people who make just 30% of the area median income (how we calculate AMI is another sticking point) because when problems arise, rent is often the first thing that doesn’t paid (Massachusetts law is tenant-friendly). Of course, you can’t SAY you don’t want to rent to this group…. so you just make your place more expensive. So yes, we need more housing, but we also need additional services and incentives on the part of the city in order to make truly affordable housing possible.
There are solutions, they take time and desire to implement. But first, we need the space to do it. So zoning is a part of the solution.
@Chuck,
I honestly have no idea what you are suggesting. As a property owner, I know that the government cannot seize my property without just compensation under the due process clause of the 5th amendment, as incorporated by the 14th amendment of the Bill of Rights, U.S. Const. Amend V, XIV. I also know that the government may not seize my property via eminent domain unless it is for a public purpose
(meaning a public and not a private benefit) in which case it must still pay me the fair value for my property. See, Higgins v. City of Newton – (a seminal case in which the City was forced to pay the owner of land the fair business value of real estate farmed for peat). I don’t follow the “what about-ism” here. If the City chooses to turn city owned property into affordable housing that is an Apple. If I choose to pay fair market value for a home in disrepair for $1 million, invest another $1 million in development of 2 units on the property which I sell for $3 million, that’s an orange. What law or regulation requires me to develop the property and sell it for a loss?
That’s is what we have seen, and will continue to see unless and until a non-profit can outbid a developer in a free market. What am I missing here?
I would urge those who are just tuning in to this discussion to watch the 6/29 meeting of the Zoning and Planning Committee.
It is long but break it into manageable chunks. Highlights are comments by Laredo and Malakie.
The most illuminating comment came from Brenda Noel (fast forward to 2:13)
” The only way to meet the goals is to reduce the price of land. The only way to reduce the price of land is to increase density”
https://newtv.org/recent-video/107-committee-meetings-and-public-hearings/6278-zoning-and-planning-committee-june-29-2020
Councilor Noel is absolutely correct. She just omits that it would require several tens of thousands of new units before supply outstrips demand.
This artificial increase in supply to force prices down would be a death blow during a recession.
Can you imagine the blight caused by tens of thousands of vacant units because the government forced supply to exceed demand.
Some want to use Newton as their social engineering playground. Noble cause, but not grounded in practical reality.
Simply compare to watertown or waltham which had been on a building boom… have prices come down? No…. quite the opposite
Noel also recently said that her home had increased in value 100% since she bought it and that she doesn’t need it.
Well mine hasn’t increased that much but since it is my only real asset, I do need it. So forgive me if I don’t support driving down the value of that asset
Adding some facts to the thread.
I am seeing the price increase from 2018-2019 for single family homes in Newton at 24% year over year (gulp), 2X what Watertown and Waltham experienced (12% and 9%)
https://www.bostonmagazine.com/property/single-family-home-prices/
Jason,
What would be interesting would be a chart for watertown/waltham of increase of price vs increase in units for last 15 years
This would help visual a trend of more units = lower prices and how far from the “inflection point” it is….
I wonder if the data will just point to “jobs”, housing near jobs centers simply just keep increasing. It will be interesting how the “remote” work trend affects prices of suburbs vs cities. All the major tech players (who have also driving job growth) are moving to remote work or suburban satellite offices…
Certainly agree that more supply = less prices AFTER supply exceeds demand. But how many units are talking here? double? triple the number of housing units?
The best way to have lower prices is to just wait for the next recession… comes around every 10 years or so. I guess this is the “old fashioned” way of buying cheaper housing (save, save, save and wait for the next dip)
I’m not convinced NPS would be able to handle the increased number of students that densification would bring. And to be clear, when I say handle, I mean continue to offer a high quality education to all students, not just increase class sizes and hope for the best.
This pandemic has laid bare the lack of management ability at NPS. Neighboring districts are up and running while many of our kids are remote and we are still in the committee discussion phase. So I have low confidence in their ability to manage a higher number of students.
Perhaps the proponents of densification can convince me otherwise.
Overall I’m a proponent of density, but one thing I’ve felt throughout this pandemic is that Newton sorely needs new leadership. I’ve long been disappointed in Fleishman, but he botched the school reopening in a big way. Fuller seems completely checked out – she poses for photo ops galore, but when it comes down to it I don’t feel that she supports the community. She’s woefully out of place on the school committee. I don’t trust our superintendent or mayor as we continue to make Newton dense. Sadly Fleishman’s contract was renewed, but I look forward to a good contender coming up to run against Fuller.
I agree MMQC. I would love to see Scott Lennon run again. I have also developed a great respect for Marc Laredo to speak bluntly and to the point
Folks keep saying that neighboring districts are up and running, but at most I’m seeing is hybrid for all grades. I think there will be lots of folks running for Mayor. Paul Levy and Amy Sangiolo would be my guess (just a guess, I’ve got no inside knowledge). Claire and MMQC, you weren’t exactly supporters of Mayor Fuller in the previous election (and MMQC you certainly hate her photo ops!) so can’t say I’m surprised. ;-)
To be honest, I’m not going to judge the mayor, the city council, Baker, or anyone else until closer to their respective elections. So much is going on at once right now, and the pandemic has caused such an upheaval, I just think I’d need time to fairly process their performance. That doesn’t mean Mayor Fuller would have my vote, far from it. It just means I’m sympathetic to both: (i) the idea that the folks in political power currently are doing the best they can and (ii) other folks may be better to lead us in the future, but I don’t know what that future or leadership needs looks like.
Mayor Fuller has been far from a leader with the School, Her claims that she is only one member of the School. That my be factually correct however I would say that as Mayor she should be applying pressure to get a plan in place for our high school students. I’ve seen more urgency from Marc Laredo and the City Councilors than the Mayor herself. They were more forthright in holding the School Committee accountable than the Mayor. Look at the building ventilation situation. It was clear that no real thorough review of the systems were done. I kept wondering why the city had not released a document showing the review of each individual school building and including any adjustments to make them safe. The reason this was not done was because they had not been reviewed. Talk about one of the first things that they should have been doing. I applaud Josh Morse’s efforts. I think he will get the job done however what happened with NPS from the building perspective was complete failure. For the Mayor to talk about how nice these people are and how hard they are working is a slap in the face.
People in other districts have commented to me that it is embarrassing that Newton which is supposed to have such strong schools does not have kids in school.
Already in Hybrid- Acton-Boxboro, Concord-Carlisle, Lexington, Lincoln-Sudbury, Natick, Needham, Wellesley, Weston
Brookline starting implementation 10/20 with all grades returning in hybrid by 11/9
NEWTON – WAITING ON A PLAN. Implementation???
FYI i voted for Mayor Fuller. Wish I hadn’t.
@Jason Harburger: Thanks for reading my comment so specifically and taking it to heart. Thing is: I didn’t address you or your prior cites and assertions.
But since you reached-out and we are in touch, there is a thing about an inference, in your writing here, which is subject of general disagreement in America, not just Newton: Mens rea.
Over-generalizing and allowing the benefit of the doubt on an unproven in each instance, …
Few arriving as property owners in Newton had specific intent to deny, by means of race-based discrimination, household wealth to those who have accumulated less household wealth, whether or not they are descendant from slaves. Oh, you might find a chain-gang foreman or two living the high hog here, but I’d bet they’d be the exception not the rule. The point being that most folk with more cannot be convicted of specific intent for something observed circumstantially and demonstrable in general.
Some with less might want to claim that the haves ought be judged adversely not merely on the basis of general intent, but merely on the fact of an outcome recognizable after the fact as having occurred in other instances to other victims at the hand of other perpetrators who did (as the logic goes) have specific intent.
There is enough diversity here in Newton for you to have fathomed that many either do not believe in original sin or believe that the sins of the father(/mother) shall not be visited upon the son(/daughter).
Ken Chenault is not a singularity. He and others like him are just more accomplished (certainly than am I) for reasons unrelated to how many try to explain things. For me it is simple: he was just better than was I in the times and places that made a difference in “financial success”. Good on him.
The land of equal opportunity vs. the land of equal outcomes. It can be a tough question for have mores and have lesses alike. Still, there are lots of Alabamans who never got even one degree from a private university, no less two.
As a side note, I find it interesting that race is often brought up in matters of Newton housing. Simply walking around my neighborhood, I can see that many of our newest neighbors are of color, especially Asians (myself included ♂️). Statistically, Newton and it’s neighboring towns has see a steady decline in the “White (Non-Hispanic)” category, and a reciprocal rate of increase in diversity.
https://datausa.io/profile/geo/newton-ma#ethnicity
https://datausa.io/profile/geo/needham-ma#ethnicity
https://datausa.io/profile/geo/wellesley-ma#ethnicity
The sad thing is, despite an increase in the Asian population in Newton, we apparently do not count as ppl of color. At present there is one Asian person in the SC, none in City Council nor the Policing Task Force. Newton demands social use in one breath, while continuing the marginalization of Asians in the other.
So back to the topic of desification, while weaving in this theme of contradiction…
@Jason, I truly applaud your passion and your approach on this whole debate. You are not mean, not condescending, and not accusing the other side of NIMBY and other negative connotations. Thank you, sir.
But as many have stated, history has proven the supply and demand theory has yet to pan out in sustainable way. ANY/EVERY property in Newton is worth substantially more today at 20, 30 or 40 years ago. And as another commenter noted, we are robbing Peter to pay Paul by toying with zoning; dipping into people’s retirements by attempting to artificially decrease property value. And lastly if someone claims they would be willing to sell their home for 20 30 or 40% less than market value so a person of color can move into Newton, I’d ask, “what were they smoking?” This is not to say they are bad ppl, but most are not able to afford such generosity even with the best of intention. So what is the answer?
The answer is NOT a manipulation of the free market. Like Darwinism, Capitalism just doesn’t work that way. When it comes to personal decisions, survival instincts vs good intentions, survival wins every time.
If Newton is serious about providing affordable housing, it must come from the public sector, not private. Rental vouchers, first time buyer’s assistance, City/State/Federally funded developments, and other such programs. Just as most progressives favor either a public option for healthcare or healthcare for all, affordable housing should be treated the same. Will it cost us all more in taxes? Sure. But the way we are currently doing it, allows private (and often wealth) developers to weaponize progressive philosophies, where the end results deepens only their pockets and bottom lines.
Coincidentally, this just came out last night.
Poverty, Politics and Profit (full film) | FRONTLINE (53 mins)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iei3HtdBbQ&t=963s
Spoiler alert: nothing on mass zoning reform
Matt,
Its pointless discussing this issue.. Many on the council have this on their agenda. They are going to vote yes regardless what residents think. Inside Newton’s affluent bubble, this is their “civil rights” issue and they will die on this hill
For residents who object, the only hope is to support the next set of councilors to overturn this progressive overreach.
Its going to happen.
@bugek, believe me, I’ve felt this state of hopelessness many times in the past couple of years, but not giving up.
The Frontline piece is a good one and hopefully that will give folks some pause that this current Coucil may not be leading us down the right path. And by all accounts, if the Mayoral election were to be held today, Mayor Fuller would be in serious trouble.
Can’t win a fight if you’re not willing to take a swing. Cheers!
@Matt thanks for posting that Frontline piece. I’ve seen some of it but had not watched the whole thing.
This keeps coming up, but there are many ways to use the word “affordable.” A lot of this Frontline piece deals with section 8 housing, which is a very specific classification. There are other levels as well based on AMI, and there is a good argument to be made that 40B doesn’t go far enough.
I highly recommend watching from this point until about the 13-minute point. Note the objections raised by opponents and try not to look away: https://youtu.be/8iei3HtdBbQ?t=575