I didn’t see the most recent Ward 2 candidate debate but Rich Heald reports that Bryan Barash contradicted public comments that he had made previously about eliminating city-wide single family zoning.
Reports Rich Heald – “The portion of the debate where Bryan looked concerned and Tarik raised his phone happened just over 1 hour into Monday’s Boston Intercollegiate Student Govt. debate:
https://youtu.be/KvJYfHpJgkY?t=3602
Tarik noted Bryan’s support for eliminating single family zoning in Newton. And Bryan responded, “It’s just not true. I’ve been very clear I prefer a targeted approach to zoning reform.”
This reply directly contradicts a prior statement from Bryan on this topic. In a 8/23/20 V14 post – https://village14.com/2020/08/23/globe-editorial-board-tear-down-this-paper-wall-newton/ – a Newton resident asked, “Why won’t any of Newton’s elected officials or housing advocates denounce the 1/4 or 1/2 mile radius bit and allow multifamily across all of Newton?”
The only person to respond was Bryan, who said, “Many of us do. Constantly. I have. Sean has. Several of the city councilors have. Alicia Bowman said in her campaign she would support that citywide.”
Is this a fair criticism? Did Barash waffle on his previous position about zoning or is there something missing in Heald’s reporting of the exchange?
Are allowing multi-family zoning and eliminating single family zoning the same thing? I suspect this is semantic hair-splitting in hopes of a “gotcha”, but perhaps I am missing something
Is this the “proof” Tarik was holding up?
My impression of Bryan is that he is unapologetically progressive… I dont understand why he would say he doesn’t support “multi family” zoning in all of Newton.
It could be true that he doesnt support it “now”… so technically not lying
Yes, what’s being discussed is the idea of allowing multi-family housing to be built by-right across the city and not having any zoning that would ONLY allow single family zoning. Even if such zoning changes were enacted, property owners would always be able to build single family homes if they chose tp.
To be very clear – there is no current plan on the table to do that in Newton.
So the accusation is not true then. Got it.
On to the real issues: uncovering the mysterious bogeyman (“they”) that wants to destroy everything in Nonantum. I suspect it’s Mr. Potter from It’s a Wonderful Life, but I have no proof.
@Jerry – There most certainly IS a plan to do that… it was merely tabled until after the November 2021 election. For obvious reasons. My guess is Bryan said he wanted to allow multi-family all over the city, or eliminate single family zoning — which is indeed the same thing — out of a concern that single family zoning is racist. But then he found out in the course of campaigning how unpopular his views are, so he is now saying something different. My view on the issue itself, as I said in my July 2020 newsletter where I went into some detail on this whole idea, “…if single family zoning is racist because it’s expensive–and I’m not saying it’s not–then this policy will allow us to build more racist housing.”
What Emily said.
@Jerry – Eliminating single family zoning across Newton most certainly was on the table; it was tabled because we are in a pandemic and some bright minds decided it would be unfair to push this through right now. But it isn’t a dead issue and I expect it will again be on the table and not simply in targeted zones. So it is pertinent and relevant.
There’s really no question in my mind that this is a flip flop from the position Bryan espoused here on Village 14 – which position was in the context of Bryan posting an editorial from the Boston Globe on Newton zoning. In that thread (which is linked) Bryan posted another comment with citations which (in a nutshell and to paraphrase) suggest that single family zoning is exclusionary and racist. Please do go and read the entire link. It’s all there in black and white no matter how folks try to spin it now. I strongly urge readers to go and read the entire thread helpfully linked above and draw your own conclusions.
I should have said: are multi-family zoning and eliminating single-family housing the same thing? My impression was no. If the idea was to paint Barash as trying to get rid of all single-family housing, then I can’t imagine that was ever on the table.
I wouldn’t mind Bryan clarifying what he meant- or what he thought Tarik Lucas meant.
On the larger issue, it’s clear the two of them are on different sides of the issue, regardless of semantic arguments.
In any case, pardon my misstatement above.
@Doug Haslam – The terms are functionally identical, when they say “eliminate” single-family zoning it’s not that single-family homes would be banned just that multi-family would be allowed anywhere in all residential zones by right. You may see people use “allow multi-family” more as it doesn’t have the connotation that single-family homes are completely banned but it’s ultimately the same thing.
@Jerry Reilly – Currently, yes, but allowing multi-family by right across the city was very much in play up until recently when it was tabled. The original thought was allowing multi-family within a certain range of all transit stops which then morphed into allowing multi-family by default. The meetings were definitely going in that direction up until they hit the pause button as Emily mentioned to take a step back and reassess.
There’s not really much left to interpretation in the exchange between Matt and Bryan – the question is clear and Bryan explicitly mentions Sean who’s been a very outspoken proponent of multi-family by right along with Alicia being in support of it city wide, so if he’s now saying he prefers a “targeted approach” over city wide multi-family that would seem to be a notable change in position.
This is certainly worthy of discussion. I’m curious as to the positions of all three candidates.
Also, has there ever been an election like this one in Newton, where a sitting councilor weighs in against one of the candidates across multiple platforms? Don’t get me wrong, I’m ok with it, I just wonder if this is the new normal, or just because the Emily and Bryan Ward 2 election was such a contested election that it just hasn’t ever stopped. It feels like Bryan is running against Tarik AND Emily. We’ve got posts about the 2017 Charter commission vote in 2021!
It is an amazing thing that so many folks can be so passionate about city councilor jobs.
Good job Jerry. Now do campaign contributions from outside of Newton.
Bryan Barash likes the comments on Facebook where his defenders post regarding a grieving father’s words on his son’s opinion of Bryan and how these words don’t fit in Newton politics. He’s savvy on social media and the internet in general. Where is Bryan now? Why isn’t he commenting on whether or not he’s changed positions. If he didn’t flip flop, he could say it.
Why does Bryan have so many out of town campaign contributions and what does he promise to those out of town groups and contributors to get them?
It is amazing that folks can be so passionate about city councilor jobs that they start shopping for campaign contributions from the Sheet Metal Workers Local Union in Dorchester.
@Emily Norton, @Lisa Palagreco, @Patrick Butera – As I said
… but yes, it certainly may be taken up again in the future.
@Fig — This is a rare (largely) head-to-head at-large election. Normally we have a vague 2 vs. 2 pairing, and no direct contest and contrast between two specific candidates.
If the charter hadn’t tried to make that situation worst (with the four “slate” positions), it would have had a much better chance of passing.
Newton would be well served if we could agree to just designate the at-large seats “A” and “B” such that people had to run head to head for one or the other.
Uh oh.
It sounds like Jack Prior’s looking to set up the next Charter Commission 😉
Jack, I’d be fine with that at-large idea. A and B. But if you set up a new Charter Commission, I think I might move to Watertown. (or Somerville, they have some great restaurants)
I disagree that this is simply the result of the pairing. Sometimes a tough race leaves bad blood.
@fignewtonville Perhaps Emily is just doing what she can to try to even the field. Other sitting city councilors are putting their thumbs on the scale, just not in this forum. Instead, they’re using their Facebook pages and extensive email lists to reach voters and make recommendations on whom to vote for. This is nothing new. To some, it may feel like Tarik is running against Bryan AND a bloc of like-minded city councilors.
@Lauren Berman:
That’s not putting their thumbs on the scale (which would imply cheating), it’s campaigning. Just like what Councilor Norton is doing.
@Fig
What Lauren said. I don’t know what political races you follow, but elected officials endorsing and campaigning for candidates is pretty normal for local, state and national races. We’ve all seen that you got some weird obsession with Emily, but please give it a rest. Bryan’s got plenty of support from City Councilors, and nothing is wrong with Emily doing the same for Tarik.
@Casey
Fully agree. Where are you Bryan? What was your position then and what is it now? We all know you’re reading this thread. Waiting for you to clarify.
Gail and Lauren, I think it is a bit different. I’ve certainly seen other councilors speak up for both candidates in their listservs. But it has been mostly in support of their chosen candidate. There is a lot to say that is positive about both candidates. I’ve seen lots of city councilors campaigning for and/or endorsing either Bryan or Tarik. But Councilor Norton is the only one engaging in what negative campaigning about Bryan. Like I said, I may not agree with it, but it is certainly her right, politics being what it is. I just point out we don’t see it often in Newton races. It is rare to hear a city councilor directly criticize one of the candidates for an election. You certainly don’t hear any of the city councilors doing the same to Maddy, including Counselor Norton. I’m curious as to what happens if Bryan wins and they have to work together.
Alec: C’mon now. Your comment “We’ve all seen that you got some weird obsession with Emily, but please give it a rest. Bryan’s got plenty of support from City Councilors, and nothing is wrong with Emily doing the same for Tarik.” First of all, Emily is my ward councilor, and she is basically the leader of an entire political faction in the city. She has probably had the most impact on the political life of the city of any resident except the Mayor. So…no weird obsession here, in fact, a ton of admiration. But I tend to talk about what’s current, and there are a lot of current posts and action in this election, and she has put herself right in the middle of it. I do find it weird that folks constantly try and act like Emily can’t take criticism. That’s a bit of a “cult of personality” in my view, to quote Living Color (great song btw).
I tell you what, if Susan Albright starts to post negative posts about the candidates, I’ll be right there commenting. (Susan did endorse Bryan I believe, but I haven’t heard anything negative in her communications about other candidates. Maybe she is too busy getting things done).
Second, I didn’t say Emily’s posts about Bryan were wrong, I said they were evidence of bad blood and perhaps a worsening atmosphere for elections in Newton. I stand by that. I like contested elections, but we seem to be going down a path of separate factions/slates in each election, and the negativity is getting to me. I mean, someone just threatened Greg with a federal investigation in another thread. It was nonsense, but the anger was palpable. Maybe Emily is right and that it was always this way, and I’m just being naïve. But it certainly seems like it is getting worse, and if the city councilors start becoming active participants in a negative way, that’s just one step towards making Newton elections like our national elections.
I think you all owe Emily Norton, jay Ciccone’s dad, and everyone else who spoke out against Bryan Barash’s actions. Weather you agree with he tactics in was distributed in or not, the writing is on the wall. Bryan Barash is a Liar weather its in personal encounters or on policy. How can anyone in good faith vote for him when the writing is clearly on the wall ? I am genuinely concerned about how hard people like Gail Spector, fignewtonville, Jerry Riley , & all of the other Bryan allies on here go so hard for Bryan. Whats in it for you guys? what back door dealings or lies has he told you to get you to back him? Why won’t Bryan speak for himself? is he fearful he will be caught in another lie? His character is being shown by the way he acts and the way his supporters do as well, as I stated before on this site it is very disheartening to see the toxicity of the Power elite on here spewing their rhetoric
AlleyD – I think you’re mixing me up with someone else. I haven’t yet taken a position on this race and haven’t said much about either candidate. I like and respect them both.
I did write quite clearly and forcefully that I thought the campaign ad that Save Nonantum published was reprehensible and I stand by that. It would be equally reprehensible if any organization ran it against any candidate.
The one thing I did like about your comment is hearing that I’ve been promoted to the “Power elite”. Thanks for that 😉
AllyD:
As I sit here in my sweatpants, I’m very heartened to know I’m in the power elite as well. Best news I’ve heard all day. Jerry, we need a secret handshake ASAP. I suggest two elbow bumps and then powerful jazz hands.
Also, I owe zero folks an apology on here. Except maybe Fran, since I mocked him with an Adam Sandler quote, which I now feel quite guilty about. (being serious about that). I’ve treated posters with respect and I’ve spoken my mind. Maybe I’ve been a bit flip at times, but that’s also my personality. I’m named after a cookie, after all.
Every election there are accusations of some power cabal controlling Newton politics. I don’t want to speak for Jerry, but I control nothing. You should come by my house and observe the chaos.
Here is my grand unified theory of Newton politics. On one side we have those who are focused only on what’s best for Newton (I don’t always agree with this group), and on the other side we have those with ambitions for state or national office either for themselves or their children. This group is very careful about offending the teachers union and supports positions that could help them with future donors. Often times these positions (Defund the Police, affordable housing, environment) are also agitprop that preys on our liberal sensibilities (speaking as a Bernie voter here). Getting rid of single family zoning is a threefer: anti-racist, affordable housing (even though in reality it will just crowd us with luxury condos), and makes future developer donors happy. I also don’t trust this group with all their union endorsements to strike a good deal for the city which has fiscal issues. This is why I am voting for Lucas and Oliver.
Bruce,
I thought you were going in a different direction.
There are those who are focused on what they think is best for Newton
and
There are those who are focused on what they think is best for the greater social good, with the assumption that is what is also best for Newton
Claire,
There are those who want to help residents with their concerns and there are those who want to use Newton as their social engineering playground.
@Bugek, I was steering clear of judgment but that certainly is a way to look at it
Honestly, this is one of the most interesting conversations I have ever seen on V14. I am a resident that is relatively new to Newton politics. I do know when I have heard the same story from people I trust five times that it is the truth. There are reasons why people are not able to “tell the story” or explain a certain action because what they have to say does not paint a pretty picture. I think I would feel much better if a candidate came forward and said “I made a mistake.” I know that I have been insulted by some of the things that the candidates have said. There is so much negativity going around and people who I think of as “political insiders” using their power and opinion to try to bully and/or persuade the other side. Maybe this is how political campaigns are run, but it is not a feel good experience.
@bugek wins the, “more with less (words)” award. Honorable mentions to @claire and @bruce, but “social engineering playground” hits the nail on the head!
Bugek and Bruce:
I disagree. Your theory doesn’t fit the facts. Jake is the one candidate that has moved on the higher office and he was the most centrist member of the counsel. If Bill H. or Bryan or Maddie are going to run for higher office, that is far in the future. Mayor Fuller has no such designs I believe. Setti Warren certainly did, but that is a few years ago, and I doubt he would have run re-election because folks thought his ambition was getting in the way of his job (and I say that as someone who largely liked what he did).
Look, it is possible that both sets of candidates strongly believe that they are what is best for Newton. They are pretty close on some major issues. I get that it is tempting to demonize or assume the worst of an opposing candidate, I urge folks to resist that temptation. Bryan is certainly progressive, but he’s been volunteering and giving his time to Newton causes for years. He isn’t some mad social scientist trying out his ideas on his neighbors.
Ellen, is it at all possible for you to be specific? Lots of folks seem to be using innuendo and rumor about how “bad” a particular candidate is. You say it does not paint a pretty picture and that you’ve been insulted. I’ll just say that unless you can be more specific, how do you expect to convince other folks to vote in a similar manner as you? Would you believe me if I said “John Oliver is the worst. I can’t say why, but lots of folks say it, and I trust them and therefore it must be the truth. I can’t say why, but it doesn’t paint a pretty picture. I can’t say how, but I was insulted. And if you ask me why, you are bullying me.” I don’t say this to be argumentative, but I’m really curious how any of the candidates insulted or hurt your feelings. I haven’t seen or heard anything negative come out of ANY of the candidates, and Bryan seems to me to be running a uniformly positive campaign. Any chance I can convince you to supply more details?
I am glad that I have limited political ambition. Or should I be afraid I’ll be seduced as I get more involved with service to Newton. Actually I’m too old to have to worry about that. Seriously, it is a very sad situation where our councilors and candidates develop such zealousness and righteousness toward public service.. which speaks to the sadness of the times we are living in and not necessarily through.
In a way, single family restrictions are already in place. When I met with James Freas of the planning department I asked hm a hypothetical question about restrictions in my area ( R3). I asked him ” if I bought a small two family house and wanted to convert it back to a single family, could I do that?”
Answer- “No.”
So once a house goes two family there’s no going back.
Just FYI. I already live with large apartment buildings ( low income across from Horace Mann school) on my block and 2 and three family’s all around me.
So, whatever.
Rick, the city doesn’t restrict you from buying a two family house and converting it to a single family. It is still ZONED a two family, but as far as I know that doesn’t stop you, as the owner, from living in both units. Happens all the time in Brookline and Boston.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your concern though.
I couldn’t convert into a single unit is what I’m saying. That’s exactly what the planning department told me. I suppose I could live in 2 “units” whatever that means, but perhaps that’s a loophole. Anyways, I asked the question just like that and Mr Freas and another women whose name I can’t remember said that I could not “convert” it to single family.
So right now I live in a single family house. It has one front door, one kitchen, etc. if I were to convert it to a 2 family- I suppose it would get 2 street numbers? – there no going back to single kitchen, one unit, one street number.
@Rick Frank – I’m not sure what the issue is with what you’re describing. My house was a one family, converted to a two family, then converted back to a one family before we bought it. The one residual is that we still get two electric bills for the left and right halves of out houses – but that’s only because I’m too lazy/cheap to have an electrician deal with changing the meters.
Maybe somethings changed that I don’t know about but I have never heard of any obstacle to turning a 2 family back into a one family if that’s what you want to do.
It’s possible that they were saying that that it wouldn’t be converted to single family zoning which would make sense. If its multi-family zoned you can have a single family or a multi-family.
Councilor Norton:
From your newsletter that you cited in your comment above:
While the high list price per square foot is a contributing factor, isn’t the problem that we don’t have enough 1,200 s.f. homes in Newton? At least for people who don’t make a lot, but make more than 100 or 120% of area median income (AMI) and are, therefore, not eligible for deed-restricted, subsidized housing?
More $600K condos don’t sound so bad to me. A $600K home is affordable to for a family with a household income of about $140K a year, or about 120% of Boston’s AMI. That family would be unlikely to qualify for subsidized housing. If we want that family to live in Newton, we need to provide market opportunities. The only way we’re going to do that is with a different government intervention: zoning changes to allow more multi-family homes.
Among other things, the cost-per-square-foot is high in Newton because the land is so valuable. One way to bring down the cost-per-square-foot is to spread the cost of a single lot across multiple units.
If we don’t have more 1,200 s.f. condos, we’re going to end up deeply divided: high-end single-family-homes for the wealthy, subsidized housing for those who qualify (though not enough), and nothing in the middle.
@Jerry that’s definitely NOT what they were saying. I gave them the hypothetical of being in my neighborhood ( R3 ) without changing the zoning. Once it converts to two family ( and gets a new street address for the second unit ) there was no going back. I was sitting face to face with them, I don’t think it was a misunderstanding,
@ fignewtonville – I would be happy to speak with you directly, but I do not know who you are.
I am not interested in bashing anyone that does not align with my values or calling out how someone may have offended me. I did let someone on the candidate’s team just this week know when they called my house looking for a vote. I am not afraid to speak my truth, but I am not going to do it in a public forum. I believe that there are many people who fall into this camp. I would bet most people read this forum but do not post. Furthermore, I would bet that many Newton residents do not even know V14 exists.
@fig – to be fair, at the beginning of this race, the two “factions” (as Bob wrote in a parallel post) of candidates were further apart in their views, but have come closer together with each passing debate. The nature of policies I assume.
On a lighter note…
Found it endearing that the BIG moderators called Bryan, “Bah-rahsh” (a nod to Bah-rash Obama?)… and refuse to call John anything other than “Candidate Oliver” (is it because he rolls with two first names?)… or the fact that Maddie pronounces Newton as, “Noo’in” or David’s, “Newden”. Sorry Tarik, nothing for you. 😉
Goof luck to all and get to the pols, people!
@Rick “Single-family detached” is an allowed use in all of the multi-residence districts. Take a look at section 3.2.3 of Newton Zoning Ordinance.