RightSize Newton, the advocacy group that arose over concerns with the development plans of the Riverside and Northland projects issued a statement yesterday. They took issue with City Council candidate Bryan Barash characterizing RightSize as “an anti-housing organization” at a recent candidate’s forum. They are calling on Barash to publicly retract and apologize for his statement about the group.
Say RightSize:
“RightSize Newton consistently supports the creation of affordable housing options in Newton. We continue to demand that the City of Newton strike a better balance between increasing our housing stock and preserving the integrity of our neighborhoods.
RightSize Newton advocates for:
582 housing units at the Riverside development;
190 housing units at the Dunstan East development;
Non-profit developers instead of for-profit developers;
Increasing the number of affordable units developers must provide.”
“
Bryan Barash is not wrong. ‘RightSize Newton’ is an anti-growth, anti-housing group of NIMBYs masquerading as stewards of sensible growth. Although ‘RightSize Newton’ purports to act against the “ad hoc review of each individual proposed development” in Newton, they have yet to articulate a comprehensive methodology for such reviews. Why? Because they don’t have one. And frankly, they don’t need one because their real mission is to maintain the status quo. Notably absent from their board of directors are urban planners, housing policy experts, economic development policy experts, transportation policy experts, tax policy experts, real estate attorneys, architects, landscape architects, etc. By what professional metrics is ‘RightSize Newton’ using to determine whether or not a proposed development is ‘right sized’? Alas, there are no professional metrics being used for these determinations. So the public is left to conclude there must be other metrics guiding ‘RightSize Newton’, such as the “we don’t want anything happening in Newton that might make it different from the place it was in 1987 when I bought my house” metric. Anti-change = anti-housing. Period. Bryan Barash earned my support and vote with his comment.
The issue with Bryan above all else is that he’s polarizing and doesn’t seem to have an ability to bring sides together. This is just another example.
The most important was his chairmanship of the Charter Commission. A politically divisive, abysmal failure. He was unable to forge a compromise on one politically charged issue to save the many good changes that were also part of the proposed changes to the charter. He’s never really taken responsilibity for his poor leadership, and his performance in it should be disqualifying for a future role in public service.
Regardless of the political views we deserve better than this in Newton. Too many good people are available in Newton– generally, and specifically in his race– to settle for poor performance.
@Alec Wilson: Bryan Barash was never chair of the Charter Commission.
@Alec, Bryan was a member of the Charter Commission but not its Chair. That job was held by Josh Krintzman, who is now a City Councilor.
@ Gail @Chuck
My mistake– it just felt that way based on his prolific, one-sided advocacy for his views on V14. A lot of talking, not much listening.
@New Bryan Barash Supporter
We (taxpayers) paid the Principle Group 500000.00 for their expert advice on Washington Street
http://www.principle.us/project-washington-street-vision-code
I spoke at length with them. They recommended “Form Based Codes” (you’ll have to look it up if you don’t know what it is). That was their recommendation.
I then had a one on one conversation with James Freas, then of the Newton Planning Department. He told me they were not going to use Form Based Codes.
So, when the city takes the advice of their own experts, I’ll take you statement into consideration. Until then, well, Developers rule and everyone else kisses their behinds.
Bryan was one of the loudest voices in support of the commission’s proposal here on V14, and as @Alec said, he was a polarizing force.
Barash represents a brand of progressive in Newton that puts ideology before people. They want large-scale fast change. However, the truth is, you CAN support progressive values and take a slower pace. From density to diversity to affordable housing to the environment, I believe Brian will always vote for the largest progressive gain as fast as possible.
We have many complex issues on our plate – And like many residents, I don’t always have the bandwidth to keep up. I want to elect a counselor we can trust to be thoughtful, listen to constituents, and can objectively consider the rights and needs of the neighborhood vs. that of the city.
Especially now, as we begin to make our way out of this pandemic, I want a counselor that I can trust to re-group, re-evaluate and re-prioritize our community’s needs.
In 2017, Barash advocated for doing away with Newton’s ward councilors, saying, “Direct ward representation doesn’t empower people in Newton; it disenfranchises them.” He was surprised that people cared about direct representation, illustrating just how out of touch he is.
https://village14.com/2017/04/28/heres-the-final-version-of-the-new-proposed-newton-charter/
I don’t know anything about Right Sized Newton, but I don’t buy the argument that a slower, more methodical approach is anti-progressive. It just isn’t so.
Well said Mike Ciolino. I agree 100%
“Preserve the integrity of our neighborhoods” = keep the *wrong* people out.
Ted,
“Preserve the integrity of our neighborhoods” does not mean keeping the *wrong* people out, however you define *wrong*. It means don’t build 4+ story buildings everywhere. On the other side, building 7 one million dollar or more townhouses on a single lot or building apartment complexes with $4,500 apartments does not bring in the *right* people in.
I find it extremely disconcerting when people assume that if don’t automatically want to build giant buildings everywhere you are racist.
Ted,
When you can’t argue the facts, the cards come out.
Change only looks “fast” in Newton if you’re looking at it from the most conservative of viewpoints. On the whole, the city has progressed relatively slowly compared with areas nearby.
Bryan was accused of not trying to bring people together “as chair.” When it was pointed out that he wasn’t chair, and therefore wasn’t in a leadership position, and that the person who was in that leadership position is now on city council, the response was “well, he’s still annoying…” Am I to understand the chair was a polarizing person when it was Bryan, but wasn’t if it’s Josh?
Don’t let facts get in the way of the narrative.
And now you’ll can start attacking me for being condescending and polarizing.
@ sean
A. I’m satisfied with the speed of progress thus far, AND I’m progressive AND I’m pro-development.
B. Don’t use snark in place of thoughtful commentary. My thoughts on Mr. Barrash are logical and clear.
C. You’re not running for office, be as condescending or polarizing as you like. It’s not interesting.
Ahh, Sorry I meant @Chuck not @Sean
@Sean, nice job on the UCHAN post.
I took a look at some of the data on what RightSize Newton supports or not. Looks like they support less affordable housing.
Riverside: (source:https://newtonlowerfalls.org/page-18156)
Original proposal for Riverside: 675 units with 15% affordable — 101 units.
RightSize Newton original proposal: 540 units with 15% affordable — 81 units.
That’s 20 fewer units or 20% less.
(At that time the inclusionary ordinance required 15% affordable)
Dunstan East:
Approved project has 244 units. With 25% affordable that is 61 units.
RightSide Newton advocated for 190 units. With 25% affordable that would be 48 units.
That’s 12 fewer units or 20% less.
This would be 32 fewer units for families or seniors or people who work in Newton but can’t afford to live here now.
That’s the equivalent of a building with 100% affordable 32 units. When was that last built in Newton? With the lengthy and contentious process for building in Newton, developers whether for profit or non-profit, can’t afford to take the risk. Time for a change.
I wish we still had thumbs up and thumbs down on here!!
@Kathy – thank you
Does RSN maintain strategic partnerships with orgs in Greater Boston committed to expanding the supply of affordable housing such as CHAPA, Abundant Housing MA, and MAHA?
@Kathy Thanks so much for doing that work. So, RightSize Newton does actually support housing and Bryan Barash does spread misinformation. It’s as simple as that.
Bugek, what are the “facts”? Throwing stones in glass houses isn’t a good look.
@Chuck
The issue is Bryan’s temperament. He is an advocate. He talks, he lobbies for his ideas, and as he made extraordinarily clear in his only elected Newton position on the Charter Commission, he’s not one for listening. He made some pretty obnoxious comments during the charter debates on V14- to be fair, like many do online. But he was an elected official– at the time– on that specific topic. There were only a small set of people on the commission out of our whole city. They were all our leaders. They were supposed to represent us. Bryan’s conduct made clear that he was there to push his views, not listen to his constituents and find common ground.
Bryan is a passionate, hard working guy. But there are better candidates in the race, specifically Tarik Lucas, who while he may not agree with everyone on every issue, is better suited to be our representative. There’s just been far too much drama with Bryan, and no matter where you fall on the recent debate kerfuffle, Bryan’s behavior made the situation worse, not better. Tarik abided by the rules even though there was a similar conflict. Bryan’s track record as a candidate and leader in Newton as part of the Charter Commission shows a termperament that isn’t what Newton needs on our City Council. He should remain the advocate, push for his side of the issues, and let those with a better ability to find common ground and solutions serve on the City Council.
@Chuck
The issue is Bryan’s temperament. He is an advocate. He talks, he lobbies for his ideas, and as he made extraordinarily clear in his only elected Newton position on the Charter Commission, he’s not one for listening. He made some pretty obnoxious comments during the charter debates on V14- to be fair, like many do online. But he was an elected official– at the time– on that specific topic. There were only a small set of people on the commission out of our whole city. They were all our leaders. They were supposed to represent us. Bryan’s conduct made clear that he was there to push his views, not listen to his constituents and find common ground.
Bryan is a passionate, hard working guy. But there are better candidates in the race, specifically Tarik Lucas, who while he may not agree with everyone on every issue, is better suited to be our representative. There’s just been far too much drama with Bryan, and no matter where you fall on the recent debate kerfuffle, Bryan’s behavior made the situation worse, not better. Tarik abided by the rules even though there was a similar conflict. Bryan’s track record as a candidate and leader in Newton as part of the Charter Commission shows a termperament that isn’t what Newton needs on our City Council. He should remain the advocate, push for his side of the issues, and let those with a better ability to find common ground and solutions serve on the City Council.
Ted,
Fact: in order to get a sizable number of affordable units from developers, they can only do so when they build LARGE condo/apartment buildings. To be able to still make a profit, they have to build LUXURY units to offset the subsidy.
result: large monolith luxury buildings mostly occupied by the 1% causing a even wider wealth gap. The middle class (and those not lucky enough to get affordable lottery) are screwed over again. In fact, the unintended consequences will be higher taxes (more ppl so more services) and crowded schools
I believe this is called ‘trickle down’ housing
Excellent point Mike.
Kathy, I find it curious that you chose the starting proposals as data points rather than the special permit passed 24-0 last October that RSN supports based on their email and statements in the website you shared. RSN also met and negotiated with the Riverside developer on behalf of residents – an action this citizen supports.
One reason I’m voting for Tarik Lucas is he is the only Ward 2 candidate with a track record of standing up to special interests for all residents. In recent debates, Tarik has suggested both an affordable housing fee and raising our inclusionary zone percentage for large, mixed use developments to help Newton do more to address our affordable housing shortage.
Tarik understands that democratically elected leaders hold power in trust for everyone they represent – not just those who support their preferred solution. Tarik also knows diversity of opinion will not only make our community stronger it will make our polices for achieving the ideals & goals we prize better.
I forgot to add the final project had 103 affordable units 2 more than Mark Development’s initial proposal per the data from Kathy.
Part of the problem here is that RSN isn’t a monolith. It doesn’t “approve” projects. So it is easy for it to say “we support affordable housing”, just not in these big projects and in the amounts we are comfortable with in terms of size and such. Because unless it actively participates as a negotiating partner with the city and/or the developer, and has the ability to talk with one voice as an organization, it basically acts as a voting block check on development of significant size in the city, without the ability to actually influence real projects in the real world. And many of the RightSize folks who I talk to really don’t want ANY large projects. For the record, it isn’t an affordable housing issue for those that I know, they just hate large projects; too many people, traffic, kids. The extra affordable housing isn’t enough of a “good” to outweigh the “bad”.
But to somehow translate RightSize Newton into an organization that “supports affordable housing” is somewhat Orwellian. I mean, that isn’t really what it focuses on at all. As a poster above said, it certainly COULD. Lots of options for small affordable projects exist. But RightSize is focused on smaller projects or no new projects, period. Projects that are the RIGHT SIZE. It is in the freaking name. Hard to function as a “coalition of the unwilling” for any large project and then declare yourself the champion of affordable housing in Newton…and calling for an apology is just part of the silly election season.
RightSize is what it is. It gives a voice to folks who wanted limited and lesser development in the city. This will mean fewer affordable units as a result. Saying that it isn’t “anti-housing” but instead “anti-housing that is too big, but pro-housing that we like, but we can’t really define what that is in the real world, and mostly we oppose projects” doesn’t roll off the tongue as well as a political statement.
For the record, I tire of all of this. This is basically the Emily Norton/Bryan Barash election fought city wide. Same coalition partners on both sides. The whole development as major issue in the city debate is getting a little tired. I don’t think most people in this city care deeply about this stuff, at least not as much as the folks who post on this forum. Tarik is supported by RightSize Newton. Bryan is not. Bryan will vote with Susan Albright on development issues. Tarik will vote with Emily Norton. All this is known.
Looks like the RSN folks get kind of touchy when they are identified for what they are: DINOs (Development in Name Only). And like their extinction is guaranteed. It’s only a question of when and not if.
@Fig,
The piece of this that interests me is this: Residents who support a more moderate, approach are often characterized by one side as anti-development, NIMBY, no-changers – and that just isn’t true.
Speaking as a northside resident who will be impacted daily by our development choices. I whole-heartedly support development, affordable housing, and progressive values. I’m happy with what we have done thus far.
That said, I feel the ‘Pro-Development’ folks want the highest density, the maximum affordable housing, and all as fast as possible. I feel alienated by this group and framed as anti-development and even conservative.
I don’t know who RSN is, or what they have done – But Bryan’s characterization of RSN – a group that says they support moderate development – as anti-development angers me because moderate, methodical, development is what I support – and I am certainly not anti-development.
Richard,
I went back to the original proposal because that shows that their initial reaction was less housing.
The reason that the number of affordable units is now 103 is that the inclusionary ordinance required 17.5% in 2020 vs. the 15% when it was initially proposed.
@Mike Ciolino – You’re getting at the root of the issue – this isn’t a discussion that can simply be broken down into NIMBY vs YIMBY as people keep trying to pigeon hole everything into. RSN has become seemingly a catch all for anyone who has concerns about the pace of development – so you’ve got a range of opinions from “literally no new significant development” to “we need to better spread development out across the city” all getting clumped together.
Having been following this debate for a while I would say on one hand RSN in general swings too far on the restrictive side while on the other hand I’m not swayed by the argument that Newton needs to solve Boston’s housing problem or that we have some grand moral imperative to maximize Affordable housing at the cost of everything else. We do need more varied housing – but the burden needs to spread across the city rather than just the small portion that already has more dense development (removing SF zoning would have been a great “put your money where your mouth is” statement). So depending on who you ask that makes me either in the pocket of big development (remove SF zoning) or an insufferable NIMBY (stop ramming everything in the same few villages). Although I’d say the YIMBY side is more aggressive in pushing the “if you don’t support all developments all the time you’re a NIMBY and should feel bad” angle.
Mike C:
You say:
“Speaking as a northside resident who will be impacted daily by our development choices. I whole-heartedly support development, affordable housing, and progressive values. I’m happy with what we have done thus far.”
You realize RightSize Newton was against Washington Place/Orr Block? If you like what has been done thus far, all of that doesn’t mesh with what RightSize Newton wants.
I actually think you and I agree on most of this stuff if we were to meet for coffee and discuss. My take is that I’m fine with 4 floors in our Village Center, 5 floors with a setback or on major corridors, and 6 floors if major givebacks/setbacks/open space. I think once Newtonville is finished, and we’ve got the new restaurants in, historic lighting in, paved roads done, and new seating in, folks will appreciate the full value of the improvements to the Village Center and the new developments. And if they don’t, I look forward to trying to convince them sitting outside at Cafe Nero or sitting on the patio at a nice restaurant at the Washington Place complex.
I fully recognize that there is a limit to the size of a development, and that folks disagree. There is a lot of room in the middle. I just don’t believe RightSize Newton really wants to find the middle most of the time.
@Mike Ciolino – enjoyed every word of your commentary. Well said, sir! #slowclap
@ Matt Lai, I agree with you on Mike Ciolino’s comment and would include Patrick Butera’s comment
@fignewtonville if you want to sit outside and and have a patio chat at Washington “Place” ( so ’80s) I’m good with that but we’ll have to shout to be heard over the pike noise. Which I measured to be between 102 and 127 dB one mid morning.
Rick, when Mida opens in a few months, there is going to be an outdoor patio. I predict that outdoor patio is going to be VERY popular. Like packed. I hope they serve brunch.
@fig
Like: “There is a lot of room in the middle”
As I said, I know nothing about RSN besides what it says on their website and Kathy’s research. If they are truly anti-development, I certainly don’t support that.
@Matt @Claire @Patrick
ty
Mike, I too appreciate your comments. My old boss the late Congressman John Dingell (D-MI) used to tell us ‘compromise isn’t a dirty word’.
Two things that concern me about Kathy’s research is she disregarded RSN’s support for the final Riverside special permit. And, she focused on their starting position.
I may be the exception but anytime I’ve purchased a car or house (admittedly a small sample) my initial offer is not my final offer.
As an outsider, the final Riverside permit suggests there was room on both sides to negotiate and get to ‘the middle’ you mentioned to achieve an outcome with wide support.
….And if the negotiations took us to a time where affordable housing inclusionary zones were higher I view that as a win.
Caught this on the Web this morning and this this post came back to mind. Newton Culture has become such that we no longer look at a person, people or groups as extreme ends of black or white, vs the complex shades of grey each represent. Opposing a development project or zoning that affords greater benefit to the few, vs the needs of the many, does not make one “anti-housing”, just like not every white person is a white supremacist.
This is not a knock directed at Bryan but an observation that is persuasive across our society, whether it be about housing, racial equality, the environment, schools… you name it. And I KNOW some will imedidately denounce this interview because it comes from Megyn Kelly, but before you do, just take 5 minutes and 14 seconds to watch it. Listen not because she is a white person or a woman; democrat or republican; but rather observe the content for what it is trying to say.
https://www.thewrap.com/bill-maher-megyn-kelly-normalize-white-supremacy-video/
Matt,
Careful, suggesting another point of view can get you “cancelled”. I prefer a diverse set of opinions on the council for a healthy democracy.
So, that Maher / Kelly interview… Black children across America have “the talk” with their parents as an act of survival (for many families there is no luxury of choice), and in the midst of a pandemic with Black and Brown families disproportionately effected (dying), here we have two, wealthy white commentators complaining about the “burden” for their kids in discussing race…
I do agree with one theme Matt, the sentiment in the video could very well be at the core of some of the tension that connects the new PAC to this election, and I appreciate your highlighting that.
Jason,
curious why you intentionally omit “asian” when referring to minorities. Its creating division and contributing to the rise in violence against asians in the cities (NYC, SF, Oakland)
I’ve noticed many folks have started this omission and find it very strange
Bugek,
I agree with you that people of many backgrounds, certainly including Asian Americans as you point out, have and continue to face discrimination.
I have some bias when I think about the history of “the talk” and how I explain it because of my experience, family, and friends. Thank you.
@Kathy Pilsbury:
Back in 2005, a 9-story, 132-unit complex with 33 affordable units was proposed by B’Nai B’rith. The Aldermen for the Ward (Chestnut Hill) and the Chestnut Hill Neighborhood Association and other residents – SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED the size of the project and with CPA funds – $907,825 and I believe the project resulted in 15 homeownership units with a total of 21 bedrooms (9 units with 1 bedroom, 6 units with 2 bedrooms), affordable in perpetuity to households earning up to 80 percent of area median income, in a mixed-income development that combines 13 units in a rehabilitated building with 44 units in a new building, for a total of 62 bedrooms.