At this point, there should be little debate that single-family-only zoning is a form of systemic racial bias. I’m not going to re-litigate the point here. Read The Color of Law, by Richard Rothstein or watch Rothstein talk to folks in Newton about housing and segregation. Or, go here or here or here.
The question is what, if anything, we should do with this legacy of racism in Newton’s zoning code. One candidate — and his supporters — is trying to make it a problem that another candidate might want to end this form of systemic racial discrimination. I cannot express how deeply frustrating is to to read that a candidate has said, in effect, “Don’t vote for this guy, he wants to eliminate a zoning provision that was designed to segregate and has been successful.” That the first candidate is Black and the second white certainly complicates things. But, it doesn’t make the first candidate immune to criticism.
So, let’s take a look at Tarik Lucas’s argument in support of maintaining single-family-only zoning in the context of an actual property in Newton. The argument: ending single-family-only zoning will only lead to the tearing down of currently affordable homes and the building of more luxury condominiums, like what happened at 121 Arlington St., in Newton Corner. Replacing modest homes with luxury condominiums won’t help solve the problem of housing segregation.
Candidate Lucas’s argument is echoed by John Oliver, who, by his own admission, hasn’t been involved in housing and land-use debates in Newton before running for elected office.* It is also an argument regularly made by City Councilors in the context of zoning reform, most notably by Councilor Pam Wright.
The argument doesn’t hold up. It has as its premise a non-existent limitation. Luxury condominiums are not the only possible alternative to single-family homes and don’t even need to be an alternative. Maddeningly, Candidates Lucas and Oliver are running for the very body — the City Council — who would determine the alternatives to single-family homes. If those alternatives include a variety of housing types, ending exclusionary zoning should lead to greater diversity in Newton neighborhoods. As for the notion that persisting exclusionary zoning will preserve currently affordable homes, it won’t.**
We really need to stop making excuses and erase this particular relic of intentional discrimination in our city.
Very briefly, Newton’s zoning prohibits anything but single-family, detached homes on something like 70% of the lots in the city. This is referred to as exclusionary zoning and, as noted above, it’s widely recognized to be a form of system-racial bias. The cure for exclusionary zoning is to make it legal to build multi-family homes on any lot in the city.*** In an August draft of potential zoning language being considered as part of the Zoning Reform initiative, the city Planning Department wrote the residential sections of the ordinance to allow multi-family housing across the city. The City Council Zoning and Planning Department subsequently took multi-family across the city “off the table” for the remainder of this Council’s term (through 2021).
What Candidates Lucas and Oliver say they fear is neatly illustrated by what recently happened at 121 Arlington St., near Bigelow Middle School, where a detached single-family home was converted to two luxury townhomes. The conversion was allowed because the property is located in a zoning district where multi-family homes are allowed by-right under current zoning. But, it illustrates what might happen to a property in a district currently zoned for single-family homes, if multi-family homes are made legal everywhere in Newton.
The house torn down at 121 Arlington St. was just under 2,000 s.f. with 3 bedrooms, one full, and one half-bathroom on a lot just over 10,000 s.f. As a single-family home, 121 Arlington was most recently assessed for $850,900, probably the upper bound on what might be considered “naturally affordable.” Depending on how you do the math, qualifying for a mortgage on $850,000 would require a household income of around $200,000.
This modest single-family home was replaced with two town homes, each more than 3,500 s.f. in size, with four bedrooms and 3 full and 1 half-baths. One unit sold recently for $1.6 million. (The disposition of the second unit is not clear.) Definitely not affordable, by any definition or calculation.
If there were no option to build condominiums, would 121 Arlington St. have remained a modest, naturally affordable home? No chance. The 121 Arlington property would have been a tear-down candidate even if the lot had been zoned single-family-only. In a single-family-only district, an owner of a 10,000 s.f. lot can build a single home of over 4,000 s.f.. Even a single home the same size as either of the 121 Arlington condos — 3,500 s.f. — would reasonably fetch north of $2 million, given the prevailing 30% or so premium for single-family homes over condos.
Any home that would be a tear-down candidate if we eliminated single-family-only zoning is likely a tear-down candidate under current zoning. Ending exclusionary zoning is not a threat to currently “naturally affordable” single-family housing. The artificially constrained supply of homes in Newton is. (Some argue that zoning targeted to reduce teardowns could preserve naturally affordable homes. It wouldn’t. More on that in another post. Coming with video!)
But, and this is the more significant assumption, Candidates Lucas and Oliver — and the like-minded current councilors like Councilor Wright — assume that eliminating exclusionary zoning is all that the City Council could or would do. If the City Council made multi-family housing legal everywhere, they could also impose what are referred to as dimensional controls, which would limit the size of the units in multi-family dwellings in what are now single-family-only districts. So, for instance, a companion to making multi-family homes legal on every lot could be a limit to, say, 1,500 s.f. units in multi-family buildings. One can reasonably argue that a 1,500 s.f. condo in Newton is not going to be cheap, but it would be substantially less expensive than the luxury condos that Candidates Lucas and Oliver warn against … and probably a good 30% cheaper than a 1,500 s.f. detached single-family home. And, Newton needs more 1,500 s.f. homes, a housing option that’s in short supply.
The City Council could write new zoning that would allow enough smaller units to create an incentive to develop multi-family housing. Basically provide a the developer or property owner a meaningful choice between a single 3,000+ s.f. home or multiple sub-1,500 s.f. units. With different zoning, 121 Arlington could have been 4-1,500 s.f. or 5-1,200 s.f. homes in the same sized building.
Again, what’s truly odd about Candidate Lucas and Oliver’s expressed fear of the impact of multi-family housing: they are running to join the body that would and could both make multi-family housing legal and make sure that the resulting units were not too big. (It’s even more odd for the folks who are already on the Council to have that concern.) They could both end exclusionary zoning and prevent luxury townhomes.
This leads to the last part of the argument: that removing the tool of segregation won’t necessarily reduce the segregation we have in Newton. On its face, it’s a weird argument to make: exclusionary zoning has been so successful in its intent to segregate that we have no choice but to maintain it. Fortunately, the answer is to allow a variety of housing types in what are now single-family-only districts. As the Boston Foundation’s 2019 Greater Boston Housing Report Card concludes, adding a variety of housing types is highly correlated to reducing segregation.
Candidates Lucas and Oliver (and the other candidates) could — and should — campaign on ending exclusionary zoning and making it possible to add the kinds of housing types — triplexes, fourplexes, garden apartments, &c. — that would attract more economic and racial diversity to Newton. Instead, Candidate Lucas treats wanting to end exclusionary zoning as a political liability.
Draw your own conclusions.
—
* Sadly, none of the five candidates in the special election support multi-family housing on every lot in the city. But, only Candidates Lucas and Oliver make the logically flawed argument that ending exclusionary zoning would inevitably lead to additional luxury housing,
** Other folks have made other arguments against ending exclusionary zoning, like the argument that we should only have multi-family housing near transit. I’ll address some of those other issues in another post.
*** Note: making it legal to build multi-family homes by-right everywhere in the city would not make it illegal to maintain, sell, or renovate a detached single-family home or to replace a detached single-family home with a new detached single-family home. It would simply give the property owner the additional choice to build a multi-family building.
*** I use “naturally affordable” or “attainable” to distinguish from “affordable,” which is often thought of only as subsidized housing for households, which is typically limited to households with incomes that are some percentage — usually 100% or less, but sometimes 120% — of the Boston area median income (AMI).
Mr. Roche claims “I cannot express how deeply frustrating [it] is to to read that a candidate has said…” and then goes on, in his typical manner, to provide the masochistic reader with a 1500 word Joycean rant. Apparently, he can express his deep frustration.
Elmo,
Fair point.
Dude, stop. Its 2021. As a person of color, I’m not buying the, “single family zoning is a form of system racism” bit. It may be the case in the past, but not today. Or does my opinion not count because I am not of the right color, or have suffered enough racial injustice. (Look up the Chinese Massacre of 1871 or the recent beatings of Asians, especially the elderly.)
The purpose of zoning is to prevent exactly what you are describing, a complete building free for all – a developer’s paradise where they can cram as much profit into a single lot as they like; where “The Garden City” can easily become the “The City of Concrete and Asphalt” (and slapping a solar panel on top doesn’t make it “green”). There’s a great picture in this post (but I don’t have the V14 super powers to include images to this comment).
https://www.bostonbuildingresources.com/advice/what-is-zoning
It’s also tragically comical that a Black person who grew up in public housing and a Co-President of a PTSO are being accused of segregation.
That said, after removing the personal attacks, I do agree with some of your points.
If single family zoning is to be eliminated, it should be city wide. Anything less is anti-Equity. Building around transit unfairly burdens those who live in those neighborhoods and protects those with the largest and wealthiest homes. What’s more segregating than that?
Want to increase ridership of public transportation? Make it better and more efficient. Provide more parking so people can conveniently leave their cars and hop on the train. Would rather see (1) 3 story garage in Waban that serves all of Newton vs 30 million dollar plus condos who’s residents will probably end up driving anyway. Or force large developers to put into a transit fund that makes it easier for everyone to access the T.
The other piece of your argument I like, is the cap on square footage. It’s a great idea that should be thrown into the zoning tool kit. With you 100% on that one. Modest size = modest price, helping both the young and the downsizers while also creating more diversity in Newton’s housing stock. Where do I sign up?
A builder will always build for maximum profit. Period.
Now, prices can come down due to significant increase in supply.. but at that point, the following has probably happened
– newton population has doubled
‐ schools become crowded and have become worse
Every buyer would be competing with developers looking to flip a single family into condos for maximum profit… it would be the slow death(will take decades) of single family homes except in ultra primes of newton (the ultra rich can outbid developers for really nice sfh)
Sean Roche, a white man, is saying that we should keep our City Council all-white, because Tarik Lucas, a Black man, supports racist housing policies.
SMH. This is white privilege in action folks. White man knows what’s best for black man.
@Sean Roche – You’re missing the point – Bryan wasn’t being criticized for his support of eliminating single-family zoning in the other post, he was being criticized for DENYING being in support of it. Bryan visibly starts shaking his head as Tarik is saying he (Bryan) supports the elimination of single-family zoning and his first words in response is “It’s just not true. I’ve been very clear I prefer a targeted approach to zoning reform.” YOU of all people I would have expected to be jumping all over him for that comment yet instead you’re glossing over it to attack Tarik and John for the same thing. Unless you think that Bryan’s comment from the debate doesn’t reflect his actual position on zoning, which would lead into a different issue.
I have not seen any empirical evidence that “zoning is racist.” Rather, “zoning is racist” is a hollow chant used to frame opponents as supporters of racism.
I have only read a few chapters of Rothstein’s book. What I have read is amateurish. Once i have more time, I will try to finish it. It is painful. Rothstein is not an academic. He does not impartially weigh evidence. He only presents evidence of racism, and fails to present evidence that runs counter to his world view. He thinks a sole case study is indictive of broad problems. He is a white guy who has been cashing paychecks all of his life for yelling “racism.”
Rothstein gets one thing correct–zoning reform by itself will not affect the racial composition of Newton He clearly said this during his recent Newton talk.
This is gross on so many levels but sadly, who at this point would be surprised.
It is a perfectly reasonable opinion for a Newton resident to favor preserving the city as a place of primarily single family, suburban homes. It isn’t racist and it doesn’t mean that you don’t care about the environment. If people in Newton wish to live in a dense, mixed use community they need only to drive a few miles to the east for a luxury version in Brookline or a few miles north to Watertown.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with keeping Newton the garden city.
However if one wishes to indulge Sean’s foolish premise they need only look at his example. It’s true that for the teardown he spotlights the choice was between two, $1.5m condos and one, $3m McMansion. But neither are “affordable” in any sense of the term and the condos potentially double the number of cars on the (full) roads and kids in the (full) schools.
As many, many people have pointed out on this board, the only way to add affordable housing in Newton is to package it with major developments. I personally am fine with such (live near Northland and approve of it!) but it is absolutely fine and non-racist to oppose them.
Sean, stop saying that converting a huge % of the existing housing stock to ugly, snout-garage condos won’t drastically and irrevocably alter Newton.
And stop calling your political opponents racists.
@Matt, I agree with you about the positive features of @Sean’s plan. With appropriate limits on per-unit and gross building sizes that are allowed by right, this so-called radical solution provides more housing (good!) that is quasi-affordable and potentially buyable (good!) and peppered throughout the city (good!).
It is disturbing enough when the self-righteous blithely use the charge of “racism” as a cudgel against anyone with a different opinion on a complex problem. It is astonishing when a Caucasian dude like Sean Roche uses this tactic against a Black candidate like Tarik Lucas.
Those of you pointing out the irony of a white guy (me) criticizing a Black man for his support for policies that were intended to segregate and that have had that effect raise important issues.
Representation is important. I would love to see a more diverse City Council.
Policies are also important. Fighting systemic racial bias is also important. My opposition to exclusionary zoning is entirely independent of and predates this special election.
In this case, there is a conflict between the goals of representation and inclusive policies. I’m landing on the policy side.
I don’t understand this post. It seems that Tarik and Bryan are presently in agreement that single-family zoning should be maintained in some parts of the city, so why the attack on Tarik? I don’t think that anyone should attack anyone, but it would make sense for Sean to instead attack Bryan, whose views on single-family zoning originally resembled Sean’s, but now are very similar to Tarik’s.
Sean, don’t be the white guy explaining racism to people of color. Just don’t.
Its systemic racism and the legacy of slavery that makes a disproportionate number of persons of color unable to afford to live here. Not single family homes. I don’t see how more million dollar townhouses is going to solve this. That’s why “Single Family Zoning is racist” strikes me as pro-development agitprop disguised as virtue signaling. The idea that getting rid of it will make our town more diverse is laughable on its face.
Sean, why I am not surprised by this at all, but take a page from one of your candidates on how white people should advocate on behalf of POC. On April 11th 2020 Ranalli tweeted” @ fellow white folks “advocating on behalf of others” is code for speaking and over marginalized people rather than supporting their work and uplifting they voices. This is dangerously wrong.” Trying to silence the voice of Tarik someone who I assume has a better understand of discrimination than you ever will is dangerously wrong. Don’t try to lecture POC on racism and discrimination when you will never be able to comprehend it the way that they do.
Anna D you hit it right on the nail!
The commentary from Sean is laughable, having to my knowledge the majority of bloggers being white, take a step back before you lecture a black man on racism and discrimination in any aspect of policy. Like David Micely Said in the area council debate Tarik would be the best man to talk about these issues in relations to race, elevating someone like Sean’s or Bryan’s when there is someone like Tarik in the conversation who has more thorough understanding of race & discrimination is wrong. If Bryan Barash was serious about racial justice and equality in the city of newton he should step aside and let the first black man in 35 years get on the city council. We are long over due for POC to have representation on the city council. But it’s only BLM or Elevate black voices when it works for the white man right?
Sean,
Both Waltham and Brookline both have liberal zoning which you want to advocate for, yet their race demographics are similar or worse. These are towns closer to Boston
Newton, AA 2.6%: http://www.city-data.com/city/Newton-Massachusetts.html
Waltham, AA 1.6%: http://www.city-data.com/city/Watertown-Massachusetts.html
Brookline, AA 3.0%: http://www.city-data.com/city/Brookline-Massachusetts.html
Removing SF zoning will do nothing to improve diversity. Its not theoretical, just look at the neighboring towns.
Out of all the problems in society – horrible inner city schools, poverty, child abuse, black on black crime in the cities, jobless rate of minorities
The liberals in affluent towns have chosen “housing in affluent towns” as their sword to fall on.. I don’t get it, we have way bigger problems to address
While I realize that V14 is a private blog in which the public is invited to participate, it really irks me when some “moderators” (and I use that term loosely) appear to manipulate the forum and its reach to push their own political viewpoints and candidates. I’m not as politically in-tune as others who post here, and I do look to the blog for unbiased information around elections to help me better understand issues and make voting decisions (silly me…) I would really prefer a forum with apolitical moderators, and the community weighing in with their own political perspectives. Can V14 be this type of forum? Was it ever intended to be?
@SeanRoche-
Your entirely white neighborhood near the Bowen school appears to be comprised of SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
There is not a single African American on the CC, yet your vote is for the white lawyer. I’ll bet there is a BLM sign in your lawn, yes?
Who is promoting systemic racism?
Who is the racist?
@JerryReilly-
You now own this cesspool called
V14. Nice job!
Clarifying: Bryan Barash has been caught back tracking more than once in this election and the last one that he ran in for a city council seat in Newton. Once is more than I want in someone who wants to represent me in City Council seat.
He’s also gotten so much money from out of town interests. So much money in general. We’re at close to $110k.
And a majority of our city councilors endorse this proven back tracker (schools, zoning, ward representation) plus a college student who has never paid an energy bill, never paid rent, has wonderful positive ideals but has never had to work late to feed a family or chosen to go without so that her child can. She has never had to make a difficult, gut wrenching choice like every single adult has. She has a good heart. She gets good grades. But how can they compare her to AOC?
Do you remember when Trump said that Biden would be boring? Boring politicians take down flags in the background of a debate as requested and move on. They don’t get excited about the personal drama and political points. (Tarik had a flag too!) But a white man who is a known flip flopper and a white young college student who is an advocate who tells people their place in a civil rights fight explaining racism in zoom screen to a Black man who was evicted twice as a child and was never afforded the privileges that these two have been given is peak white privilege.
Nothing, but nothing sticks to Bryan. Why does he get so many chances? How many times will Bryan backtrack on our council? What is he promising the out of towners? How many times has Tarik been caught backtracking? None. How many campaign contributions has Tarik had to return? None.
Instead of electing a city councilor, could we just install a bot that would do exactly the opposite of whatever Sean would do?
Not sure how to interpret this post. Is it implying Bryan is racist because he clealy stated he wants to continue single family zoning?
Pls clarify, such acquisitions can get ppl “cancelled” these days
This may sound cynical, but let’s be honest- Newton is never going to be an affordable community anymore than Weston or Wellesley will be. I grew up in the South Shore, always envious of all the opportunities Newton kids had. My family was not poor, but we could not afford to buy anything in Newton based on income. The only way we were able to move to Newton is when a family member wanted to downsize and we were able to buy a two family house. This was thirty five years ago. Not much has changed and I do not believe much will in the future no matter who is on the city council. Sure there will be a smattering of affordable rentals and maybe houses, but those are and will be a very small percentage of available housing. Even the term of what is “affordable” in Newton really is not affordable to people on the lower end of the income spectrum.
I won’t speak for Sean, but my reading of it is he is not calling any person racist but is looking at position on issues. He did call out the racist history of zoning laws and documented it above, but by all means go ahead and respond to someone not actually implying someone is racist by calling him racist.
None of these issues are cut and dried, but I think Sean raises real questions about how the city should approach future zoning, and I for one would like to hear more clarification from the candidates rather than trying to demonize either (or accuse posters and commenters of same).
@Paul Green
Huh? I didn’t write this post or even comment on this thread.
I think you’re mixing me up with Chuck Tanowitz again
There’s a brand new two family getting built 100 yards from me on a tear down of an existing 2 family. It’s larger than the original, has 2 gigantic garages ( the existing had none). The giant garages make it hideous. Their cars will have a larger bedroom than myself.
Let’s restrict the size of the garages! ( partly joking here )
Jerry, is that why this is among your lawn signs:
https://keepcalms.com/p/keep-calm-and-blame-chuck/
Just to add on the free market discussion – a friend of mine is a developer on the North Shore. He told me that they can’t make any money unless they do a tear down and build upscale. Do I need to repeat that?
So, for Sean’s plan to succeed, the government would have to subsidize the smaller 1500 sq foot homes.
What we have here is a market failure, if one assumes that the market should supply homes to those making a certain level of income.
I’m not sure I would make that assumption. Housing may be a right. Housing in Marblehead Neck ( or Newton for that matter ) may not be a right.
Rick,
I sent multiple letters and ultimately video testimony to the Zoning and Planning Committee recommending that we put a moratorium on new garages.
Note: if you don’t like what I write, you’re really not going to enjoy watching me speak. You’ve been warned.
Rick,
Local developers testified to the Zoning and Planning Committee that they would be willing and able to build more modest units profitably if zoning were changed to allow more multi-family buildings.
But, again, I don’t think that “exclusionary zoning is structural racism, but it has been so successful driving up housing prices we can’t afford to get rid of it” is the soundest argument.
Let’s get rid of exclusionary zoning. It won’t cure our racial disparity all at once or by itself. Let’s also take other necessary steps to make it attractive for people of color to move to Newton, including lowering our local preferences and increasing funds available for subsidized housing.
Sean,
You might have a point if you restrict developers to 1200 sqft MAX per condo/townhouse
Developers obviously want to build more and will say anything to make that happen. Pls push the 1200 sqft non-sfh limit to the new zoning rehaul
Oh obviously they will need very lax height restrictions to make $
I think 3500 units of affordable housing on
west newton hill
would solve all these problems!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Doug Haslam – Thanks! I just ordered some
Is it just me, or did @Sean Roche just call everyone who does not oppose single family zoning racist?
@LDS – not quite, but yes pretty close to that
I don’t know @Jerry. The article leads with “there should be little debate that single-family-only zoning is a form of systemic racial bias.” Thing is, quite a lot of us would be open to the elimination of single famil zoning, if we could be convinced of its benefits, including the potential creation of more affordable housing. But instead the article smears the author’s less favored candidates (one of whom is black) with preachy calls of high horse racism. This, I think is where today’s tone deaf left often shoots itself in the foot. Many of us are quite cognizant that “zoning” has been used to advance racist ends. But I just think most Newtonians who support single family zoning do so for legitimate reasons and don’t deserve the crap that’s being thrown in their faces.
Drum roll please
Here it is, the paragon of affordable brand new two family homes in Newtonville
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/401-Albemarle-Rd-UNIT-2-Newton-MA-02460/2075668377_zpid/
1.4 million– EACH
Now, I don’t think there’s a chance in Hades that they get that price.
My wife nor I can recall if there was a two family there or a single family. But I can tell you this- whatever was there before was way more affordable.
Geesh. Careful what you wish for, Sean.
Many of these “tone deaf left” continue to live in “single family homes”.
“Do as I say, not as I do”
Glad people are finally recognizing that apartments and condos are not inherently “affordable”.
Hey,
So a few comments:
– When we moved to Newton, we bid on several multifamily homes and lost due to the limited supply (and high demand) at the time, so we bought an older single fam that hadn’t been updated in 20+ years and had sat on the market for a year. Point being, some proponents of permitting more multifamily housing (in diverse unit sizes) in Newton happen to live in single family homes because that’s 70% of the housing stock in the city.
– There is a valid, important discussion around displacement, tear downs, and McMansions that Tarik and Bryan both raise.
– There are also important discussions around how permitting apartments can reduce long term housing costs, which has support from Rep Clyburn, Senator Booker, Rep Pressley, many folks in GBIO leadership, the National Fair Housing Alliance, our President and Vice President … it’s a long list.
– Responding to an earlier comment, I live at the bottom of West Newton Hill, and welcome affordable units in my neighborhood.
This election is a complex one. Tarik and Bryan both raise questions worth listening to and processing.
Jason,
In the past 12 months, 513 condos+townhouses sold in Newton from 200k to 2M
https://www.redfin.com/city/11619/MA/Newton/filter/sort=lo-price,property-type=condo+townhouse,include=sold-1yr
There is more than enough inventory to switch out of SFH if you believe SFH is based on racism.
Living in a SFH while strongly believing its is built from racism is like buying stocks in companies which were founded on slavery. Put it simply (this is not directed at you).. “put your money where you mouth it” otherwise there is no reason to listen to hypocrites… “single family house for me, but not for thee”
I guess its like being a strong believer in climate change and “green policies” but driving a work when public transportation is readily available… gee, I wonder which candidate would do that??
>some proponents of permitting more multifamily housing (in diverse unit sizes) in Newton happen to live in single family homes because that’s 70% of the housing stock in the city.
According to the the US Census, 43% of Newton households live in condo or multifamily housing (circa 2019), which means just 57% of households are in single family homes.
Worcester, MA actually has the same ratio as Newton: 43% multi and 57% single fam.
see https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=newton%20ma%20housing&tid=ACSDP1Y2019.DP04&hidePreview=false
Hi Bugek,
There are flaws in that argument, and we bid on 3 homes before matching with a seller… but I don’t want to litigate my home buying history further a public website.
I am not promoting multifamily housing as a mandatory lifestyle choice, just sharing that there is a widely held view that when cities add units to a lot, it can lower the long term housing cost. For example, all townhouses built in Newton since 2010 are selling for half the size and price of their new single fam peers. None of those houses are “affordable” – that requires a separate set of policy tools which are important as well. I am not trying to talk you out of a position… we have gone around a few times and I appreciate the debate.
Thanks
@Rick the house will sell for close to it’s asking prices. Prices that I see for these new town houses are 1.2 million. Location. Location. Location. Given current building costs, they will need to go for that amount for the developer to make a profit.
What was there before probably sold for 700k-800k and was either very small in terms of livable sq ft. Or needed a lot of work. Whether a developer buys it or an owner occupier purchases it, it is hardly affordable for most people in the middle.
Bruce C & Rich, market in Newton for two family is over $600 @sq. ft. right now
I live less than 100 yards away. It’s not that great a location, where that house is ( in my opinion.)
Our 3 story single family ( with finished basement, so four stories ) isn’t listed for that much.
Those things are crazy over priced. And the size of the windows? They look like gun holes for shooting out of.
The only thing that’s going to be affordable by your standards are the public housing units across Brookside Ave from this new thing.
Certainly what was there was by definition more affordable and what’s there now is clearly not. That’s my point.
Jason,
This is not directed at you, but if one feels strongly enough to preach others on their position then:
There is nothing preventing that person from selling their racist SFH and moving to condo/townhouse. Last time I checked SFH demand is on fire and you can get top $
Or analogy would be: so, you want to hang onto your stock in companies which were built on slavery because they pay nice dividends and you enjoy the steady income.
Or perhaps the excuse is: oh, we can’t move because the kids enjoy the school. YES, they enjoy the school because its not overcrowded and teachers can give them attention because its ZONED in a single-family zone!
I would take their augments more seriously if it weren’t for the hypocrisy.
I definitely agree more supply = lower prices but you have to be honest to ppl what “that” supply tipping point is… its at least doubling the population of Newton and all the negative aspects which may come along with that
again, none of this is directed at you personally.. its to the overall group of supporters
Also why is everything so short and wide in the house? The windows are TINY
Claire here’s a 2 family house less than 100 feet away for sale, has had to come down in price, very nice house.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/46-Brookside-Ave-Newton-MA-02460/56305002_zpid/
And they want 1.4 million for ONE of those units. Must be the garage.
Rick,
That’s a V nice 2 family house. Its pending now. Walked past a few times. If a developer buys it, I expect they will renovate(or tear down) and list each unit for at least 1M
Now imagine if multi-family zoning was city wide: EVERY single home sold will go through the same scenario
– multiple bids by developers. Regular buyers can no longer compete
– house will be torn down for MAXIMUM profit. ie build 2 condos for 1M each
Rick, here’s a another listing you probably not aware of:
6 single family homes along the charles in Newton. 2.5M EACH. used to be some commercial or small building before.
https://www.raveis.com/mls/WR0168/7farwellst_newton_ma
@sean My personal policy when a people of color are talking about racism? Shut up and listen.
You ask what, if anything, we should do with this legacy of racism in Newton’s zoning code?
… If you’re a white man? Shut up and listen.
No one needs a white man to analyze, litigate or control The conversation.
As far as I’m concerned this post by you simply perpetuates systematic racism
(Yawn). Wake me when Sean moves out of his racist single family home.
@Bugek – yikes. Well the unintended (?) consequences of cleaning up the charles river means ‘river front” becomes desirable.
Will it be gated? ( just kidding. I hope.)
Mike, if you’d like to talk to people of color about the legacy of racism in Newton’s zoning code, I’m pretty sure I can set that up. Tarik doesn’t speak for everyone, he speaks for himself (as we all do). You can disagree if you want, but there is no need to attack Sean in the way you just did. And I don’t believe in censoring voices in the community because you disagree with them. Respectfully, just strongly disagree with how you approached that, even if born from frustration with the post.
As for this conversation, my take is that zoning history in many communities has some pretty awful background. My take is also is that more than one thing can be true. The history of single family zoning can be awful, but I also moved to a community that had it, bought my home in a community that had it, did not move to Brookline that was more crowded, and have concerns about schools being crowded and traffic. We are allowed to be nuanced about issues, and we live with the past, but are not completely defined by it. I’m fine revisiting zoning, increasing density closer to transit nodes, increasing our commercial base. I have no issue with my neighborhood having additional density as well. I can also understand the feelings of those of us on the Northside who are frustrated that certain wealthier neighborhoods never seem to welcome density of any form, and push out logical projects even next to transit nodes (Waban, looking at you (Philip Neri, cough, cough)). But I also feel the history of zoning is the only part of the story, and I strongly believe for any zoning change to really work, it needs to come at the state level as well. Because increasing density in Newton doesn’t really lower prices unless other communities increase density as well, and even then it might not. Supply and demand are influenced by desired locations. And we are in a desired location.
that is why I’ve generally supported larger projects by transit nodes with dedicated affordable housing. Good for commercial development, good for affordable housing, good for environment. And yes, reasonable people can disagree on that as well.
@fig, I agree, my post was harshly worded, and I’m sorry if it offended anyone. My post is however earnest. My personal opinion on the issue is that developers probably shouldn’t be restricted to single-family by right because they should be able to develop their land as they wish. I live in a condo conversion – A single-family home converted to two units and I see no reason two or three units shouldn’t be allowed by right city-wide.
My issue with Sean is exactly as stated. I couldn’t have been more clear. I don’t think white men have anything to offer right now in the race conversation, and I don’t appreciate being lectured by him on the issue.
Shut up and listen are exactly the words I say to myself. Also, I would be thrilled to hear what any person of color might be so generous to share in regard to racism and our city.
Light-skinned East Asian here who appreciated a thoughtful in-depth conversation with Tarik and hosted a lawn sign for him…
AND I have to say, wow. Were these comments plucked straight out of an episode of Portlandia*? Competition for Wokeness, check. Fragile egos, check. More concern about being called a racist than if outcomes of policies/behaviors are racist, check. Mythologizing and tokenizing BIPOC, check. Using BIPOC who agree with you as a chess piece to further your already-decided agenda and to prove you are not racist, check. Shouting and shaming from a pedestal whilst hiding behind a screen name, check.
News flash, no one person speaks for all of “their people” – making this leap of logic is insulting, condescending, and the very core of tokenizing, stereotyping, and mythologizing. Unless all Black people agree with Tarik’s policy – which last I checked they most certainly do not – it is illogical, disingenuous, even manipulative in some cases, to claim that to agree or disagree with Tarik’s policy has any bearing on whether one is racist** or not. If you are voting for someone simply because “he’s Black and his opponent is white” then this same logic would have led many of you to follow Larry Elders or Clarence Thomas. All while being self-righteous about it. Yikes. Oversimplifying this race or the topic of housing to just the race of one specific candidate is another form of racism… or a slick way of promoting your agenda, which I suspect is the case here. But maybe I’m wrong, maybe lots of the people here who are such vocal and ardent anti-racist supporters of Tarik used to support eliminating single family zoning but have now shifted their views because they are respectfully trusting and following the one Black candidate.
Can we please just assume no one here *wants* to implement racist policy, so that we can move forward instead to being curious about which policies have anti-Black anti-Indigenous impacts***? Is anyone here actually genuinely trying to listen and learn from the range of opinions and experiences within our Black, Indigenous, and brown communities, those who have been most systemically excluded from housing? If so, why the laser focus on just Tarik? What does it mean that Josephine McNeil and other knowledgeable prominent Black leaders who have spoken up on housing policy are NOT being discussed? What is the impact of equating Tarik to Black People? What other Black voices are ignored/minimized/silenced?
I know this election has since passed but as I am doing my research for the mayoral election, I came across this article and couldn’t help but comment given how similarly people are trying to leverage race… Sigh…
Signed,
Melissa Chu, probably never to have the time to engage here again, but dropping my three cents here
*Confession, I have not watched Portlandia.
**What is this absolute obsession with proving we are not racist?? This country and our culture were built on racism, and racism persists because we are in such staunch denial of that. If you are not Black or Indigenous, or a magical unicorn, but think you are not racist, you’re deluding yourself. Living and breathing in a system that is racist and benefiting from having light-skin, I do harm every single day; my goal is to work on doing LESS harm and find out where I’m wrong, NOT to pretend I do no harm or am always right (that would be utterly exhausting and miserable!). What about a goal of continuous learning and harm reduction, not keeping up the unsustainable lie that we are not racist? Our cultural obsession as light-skinned people with being “good”, infallible, perfect is ironically one of the biggest markers of internalized supremacy, and one of the best tools for protecting our privilege and power. If we spend all our energy debating intent and making personal attacks, there’s not much space to tackle impact and systemic solutions. Case in point.
***Matt Lai, as a light-skinned East Asian, I certainly think there is a time and place to address anti-Asian racism… I don’t think fair and inclusive housing in Newton is the place at all. Asians are disproportionately represented in *higher* numbers here (13% compared to 5.7% statewide!). I also certainly did not move to the suburbs to live “the good suburb life” – my family has all skin tones living here and I moved here with the explicit hope of making it a little more welcoming and inclusive for ALL. Keeping my head down and keeping tranquility that lacks justice is not my personal cup of tea, and I know many other families of color and white families who have similar hopes and goals. We all know that we face an uphill battle given the history of how suburbs came to be.