Discussing a single whereas clause in a non-binding proclamation celebrating the work of Newton’s Fair Housing Committee (and ultimately approving the entire proclamation), the City Council’s Zoning and Planning Committee (ZAP) this week overwhelmingly recognized the role that zoning reform has to play in the City meeting its obligation to “affirmatively further fair housing.”
Councilor Alicia Bowman drafted and gathered eleven co-signers (so far) for a proclamation intended to recognize — as April is Fair Housing Month — the important work that the city’s Fair Housing Committee does. Consideration of the proclamation was an item on the ZAP agenda on Monday night and passed 6-0 (2 abstentions).
During discussion, there was a single proposed amendment, to remove the following whereas clause:
Whereas the Fair Housing Committee’s expertise and focus will be important in addressing other action items from the Analysis of Impediments, including the review of restrictive zoning policies that limit the amount of multifamily and affordable housing, as well as compliance with recently passed state legislation that requires the creation of at least one by-right multifamily zoning close to transit.
The amendment to remove the clause failed 2-6, with only Councilors Lisle Baker and Pam Wright voting aye.
The thirty-three minute discussion begins at roughly 2:21:35 on the NewTV video of the meeting and lasts until 2:54:30.
The contested clause gets to the heart of an issue that is core to the City’s Zoning Redesign initiative. What role does zoning play in making Newton racially and economically diverse? The support for the clause indicates that ZAP and other councilors at the meeting recognize that zoning plays a key role in promoting equitable and affordable housing.
Under the Fair Housing Act, any town or city receiving Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds, needs to “affirmatively advance fair housing.” Fair Housing Commission Chair (and former alderman and ZAP chair) Ted Hess-Mahan explained at the meeting that the obligation to affirmatively advance fair housing is intended to reverse racial segregation in housing that is the result of government and other policies. Those policies include exclusionary zoning, like we have in Newton. It is not, as ZAP Chair Deb Crossley, limited to preventing “overt act[s] of discrimination at the point of sale or rent.”* It is, as FHC Chair Hess-Mahan said, about “promoting diversity in housing.”
Under the Fair Housing Act, a municipality receiving HUD funds must prepare an Analysis of Impediments, The Analysis of Impediments, despite the name, is not just an analysis of what impediments exist, but a five-year plan to reduce or eliminate impediments. Newton’s Analysis of Impediments, prepared as part of the WestMetro HOME Consortium, includes two relevant items in the “Strategy and Actions” list:
Each community will adopt policies and practices to support safe, diverse, affordable, accessible, and integrated housing
- Review zoning ordinances, bylaws, and practices to identify provisions that may encourage, unintentionally, discriminatory practices in permitting residential uses, e.g., requiring fiscal impact studies or excessive parking for multi-bedroom units, or age restricted housing definitions that prohibit occupancy by people under 18. The communities will identify ways to reduce the barriers they have imposed on multifamily residential development.
- […]
- Unless a community has already done so, each community will study, on its own or through a subregional compact, options to reduce or eliminate single-family zoning by allowing two-family dwellings (at minimum) in all residential districts.
(Emphasis added.)
The disputed clause simply notes the value the Fair Housing Committee can bring to an important, already existing obligation, as set out in the Analysis of Impediment five-year action plan, to review restrictive zoning policies. The clause also notes the newly enacted state law that obligates Newton, as a “transit community,” to create a transit zoning district, with density up to 15 units/per acre allowed by right.
What, then, are Councilor Wright’s and Councilor Baker’s objections?
Councilor Wright said she thought that the Fair Housing Committee’s scope was limited to rules governing sales and rentals “and not producing low-income housing. I think that’s a separate bucket.” As Hess-Mahan explained, “‘affirmatively furthering fair housing’ is an obligation that city of Newton has, and it goes well beyond just merely creating affordable housing, it has to go to equal housing but also promoting diversity in housing.” Nonetheless, Councilor Wright voted in favor of the amendment to delete the clause and then abstained from the vote on the resolution as a whole.
Councilor Baker, who moved the amendment, similarly said that he believes that zoning policy “is different from housing discrimination” and that the discussion of zoning policy in the context of a resolution celebrating the Fair Housing Committee amounted to “baggage.” He said he’d prefer to debate the relationship between zoning policy and housing discrimination separately.
His colleagues weren’t having any of it. Councilor Alison Leary noted that “that’s a very critical paragraph and it really gets to the immediate problem with the difficulty with creating new housing opportunities” and simply rejected the notion that as “baggie that doesn’t need to be carried along. Councilor Andrea Kelley said, “I think it’s very important if we’re going to be making this sort of statement about furthering our fair housing goals that we include” reference to the Analysis of Impediments and, specifically, multi-family housing. Councilor Bill Humphrey made the point that it’s “basically undeniable that certain specific aspects of the zoning code have been identified, externally, as obstacles for low income housing development in Newton,” citing a zoning designation that would allow more affordably housing, but is not mapped to any specific district, requiring a would-be developer of affordable housing to go to the expense and bother of getting a zoning change.
Far from baggage, Councilor Vicki Danberg said, “I read this clause as really being central to the goal of furthering fair housing.” Council President Susan Albright noted that governor and the state legislature, “passed the Housing Choice bill for exactly the kinds of reasons that Councilor Bowman’s resolution mentions to affirmatively further fair housing.” And, Councilor Josh Krintzman made the obvious and important point that “it’s indisputable that single-family zones limit the amount of multi-family housing. That’s not really a question.”
The committee discussion and rejection of the amendment to remove the clause amounted to a rejection of Councilor Baker and Wright’s denialism about the relationship of zoning to equitable and affordable housing. As the Analysis of Impediments makes clear, density and equity go hand-in-hand. We see that in our own city. The densest village, Nonantum, is also the most diverse.
Side note: depending on how you draw its boundaries, Nonantum has no or very little area zoned single-family-only.
Two minor, but important point. Councilor Baker made an appeal to comity and collegiality. He advocated for removing the zoning clause — what he called “minor surgery” — because it would make unanimous support for the proclamation more likely. His colleagues were having none of that, either. Councilors Leary, Kelley, and Bowman explicitly preferred keeping the clause in, even at the expense of unanimity. As, Councilor Kelley put it, “like Councilor Baker, I hope that the full council does all vote unanimously but if it doesn’t, […] I would be happy if it passes.”
He also argued that the zoning close in the proclamation to recognize the work of the Fair Housing Committee would, in a legal sense, amount to an admission against interest that might be held against the city in some future litigation. It’s discouraging to hear a city legislator worry about admitting problems to be addressed, in this case, the city’s exclusionary zoning and how it has created segregation and inequitable opportunity. Without acknowledging these problems, how can we fix them? But, that may be Councilor Baker’s point: he’s not interested in fixing them.
* All transcription of the meeting video is my clean up of the automatically generated real-time transcript. If I have made any mistakes, please let me know in the comments and I will update, accordingly.
Zoning and Fair Housing is an oversimplification and a zero-sum game. Ditto with “supply and demand”.
I agree with an earlier post/comment you made about capping square footage of living spaces to create more moderately sized and priced housing, but blindly adding density hoping that someone else will take care of its by products?
If the MBTA slashed services and/or people do not take the T, is Newton really a “transit community”? Or just one with an unmaintainable amount of traffic, cars and congestion?
Looking forward to November.
Matt,
Please identify even a single person who has proposed “blindly adding density.” All of the discussion about additional density that I’m aware of has been either in the context of special permits, which are tightly governed by criteria, or zoning, which is, by definition, not blindly adding anything. I think the only way one would “blindly add density” would be a call to abolish zoning, which, again, I’m not aware anyone has done.
Please expand on how zoning and fair housing are a zero-sum game. Not sure what you mean by that.
Newton is a transit community by law. The recent changes to the Zoning Act define an “MBTA Community.” The definition includes the “fourteen cities and towns” identified in MGL ch.161A, sec.1.
RE: “Councilor Baker’s point” — Astoundingly, Sean Roche fails to understand our own differences, then uses his pedestrian deafness to judge adversely against a specialist, in a specialist’s context, making a specialist’s point.
Sean should have understood Baker, as attorney, protecting the City from attack in a court of law. Funnily enough, that was what Baker said he was doing. Taking people at their word was once a value Newton residents lived by.
So why the ad hominem attack? Was it to establish, by suggesting so to incite repetitions from an echo chamber, a pretext for an accusation that Baker’s views are … wait for it .. “racist”?
Oh the conniving arts in full bloom even before (no “after” ..) the special election season …
We have yet to be our better selves.
MaryP,
I should have been clearer. I was criticizing Councilor Baker for his actions as a city legislator. He was not acting as a specialist. He may have been providing a specialist’s view, but in his role as a city legislator, his function is to legislate. And, I take issue with a legislator who uses the threat of litigation as a reason not to identify a problem. Because, if the City Council is afraid to identify a problem because of the threat of litigation, how can they solve the problem.
Moreover, as Councilor Bowman and others pointed out at the meeting, the whereas clause at issue doesn’t draw any new conclusions. It simply recapitulates the city’s obligations under the Analysis of Impediments and the MBTA Communities legislation. Councilor Baker’s isn’t even a good point if we evaluate him as a specialist in this case. It doesn’t create any new admission.
Mine isn’t an ad hominem attack. I criticized his words, not his character.
Also, as I’ve written repeatedly, I don’t care if Councilor Baker or any other public official is or isn’t, in fact, a racist. What is in his heart is immaterial. His policy preferences, as he expresses them, would perpetuate a system that has had a demonstrably bad impact on communities of color. I and others have repeatedly pointed out to him that his policy preferences have had a disproportionate impact on people of color. He has stated publicly that his policy preferences don’t make him a racist. So, one could conclude that he understands that race is an issue. Yet he persists with his policy preferences.
Does that make him a racist? Again, I don’t care. He might harbor racial animus. He may think that the only way to retain his seat is to advocate for certain policies, regardless of their racial impact. His motive is irrelevant.
I would argue that our better selves are most fully activated by confronting the injustices of the past and interrogating our privilege.
Updated on 3/26 to add the words in italics to make clearer, in response to MaryP’s criticism, that whether or not a public official has or does not harbor racial animus is irrelevant to me. It’s the impact of their words and actions that matter.
For those who may be interested there are 23 pages of listings for building permits during Jan. and Feb. 2021. Many of the permits include accessory apts. and additions to 2 family homes. I would say our city is increasing its density at a rapid rate. Lisle Baker is correct. There is no data to support that zoning changes guarantee racial diversity in access to Newton housing. High paying jobs determine who lives where.
1. Income and wealth inequality is what keeps people of color from moving to Newton, not exclusionary zoning.
2. Hundreds of affordable apartments (offset by thousands of luxury apartments) does not close this gap. The gap is closed by helping people BUY and build wealth over time. Offering buying assistance and subsidies closes this gap, not more (over) development. Let’s be honest, most who live in Newton came via some form of subsidy – help from generational wealth for a down payment on a home, financial assistance to start a business or to pay for college tuition – plus hard work. If you want meaningful equality, Uncle Sam, Uncle Charlie or Aunt Ruthanne should be doing the same (subsidy).
3. Newton pays much lip-service to racial diversity. “People of color” is code for “black and brown”, and Asians are often excluded in these policy pushes, further marginalizing the “model minority”. By doing so, Newton is swapping one form of systemic racism for another – glaringly evident in the lack of an Asian presence on the Policing Task Force. Showing for a rally on a Sunday afternoon does not make Newton a welcoming friend of the Asian people. Instead, how about working with the owner of the lot next to NTB on Needham Street (an empty parking lot on most weekends) or in the Wells Ave area to host a weekly, open air Asian Market? Housing is not the only way to add diversity.
All this tinkering with zoning, subsidies, etc. are at best temporary band-aids and more akin to landlord/developer subsidies disguised as anti-poverty measures. The only way to make housing more affordable, to address inequality is to replace our current regressive tax system with a single tax based on unimproved land and natural resources. People should own the value they produce themselves, the economic rent derived from land including from all natural resources (e.g. oil and gas) should belong equally to all of us.
The concentration of land ownership in few hands is the persistent cause of inequality. Whenever those struggling get more money, it just ends up in the hands of landlords in the form of higher rent. As one wise man said: “The rent is too damn high!” This is why schemes like Universal Basic Income are really welfare for landlords. These landlords just inherit their land and sit on their asses collecting rent checks. Make this scam on society less lucrative and we will all be better off. Even for the landlord/development interests (including the ones that control Newton), for it’s only a matter of time until the torches and pitchforks come out.
Matt,
1. Income and wealth are only blockers to moving to Newton because we don’t have enough affordable housing options.
2. Adding affordable homes does increase opportunity. One of the biggest (the biggest?) indicator of lifetime financial success is the zip code you grow up in. Every affordable home creates an opportunity for a child to go to Newton schools and get the zip-code benefit.
Adding thousands of market-rate apartments will lower the cost of rental housing. Full stop. Google “filtering.” And, the more rental apartments added to the city, the less of a premium the newer (and the older) units can command.
Opponents of more housing keep typing “luxury apartments” as if developers just get to choose what kind of housing they’ll build and demand will just magically be there for it. But, the reason developers build “luxury apartments” in Newton is that our exclusionary zoning constrains supply. Zoning creates a market for luxury. At a certain point, the luxury market will become saturated.
By the way, even as we add new market-rate — luxury — apartments, it helps create more moderate opportunities, as the folks who move into the new units leave other housing, which lowers demand and price for those existing units. Again, Google “filtering.” This is a well-documented phenomenon.
3. You’re essentially right, but it’s also a bit of a circular argument. I know that there are people of color who can afford to live in Newton who choose not to, because the diversity is poor. But, some of them are put off by the defense of exclusionary zoning. And, to your point, if we want to have diverse cultural and commercial experiences, it would probably be easier if there were a diverse population to support them.
Open-air markets seems like an interesting idea. You should pursue it with the City. In the meantime, I’m going to keep advocating for affordable housing and a more diverse Newton.
RE: “By the way, even as we add new market-rate — luxury — apartments, it helps create more moderate opportunities, as the folks who move into the new units leave other housing, which lowers demand and price for those existing units.”
I feel like this isn’t happening that much in Newton. These smaller, more affordable homes are being torn down and replaced by monstrosities. Often they are multi-family, but they’re these 3000 feet luxury condos replacing small capes or other older homes. I’m certain that’s what will happen with our 1300 square foot house eventually and the other homes on my street. I’m seeing it all over our neighborhood of West Newton.
MMQC,
You are raising an important point.
When I wrote about market-rate apartments, I was speaking of the new apartment buildings like Trio and Austin St. and the pending apartment buildings at Riverside, Riverdale, Dunstan St., and Needham St. Except for a few apartments in the old Orr Block building, I believe that the others all replace commercial space (which is another topic).
What you’re talking about is another important thread: the loss of small, detached single-family homes and moderately sized duplexes. In single-family zoned districts, the single-family homes are being demolished and replaced by much larger homes or expanded to 2,000 or more s.f. In districts that allow multi-family homes, the single-family homes and modest duplexes are being replaced by large (3,000 s.f. or more) condos.
Our current zoning provides incentives to build big. So, what are the alternatives? I’m skeptical that we can preserve small standalone homes. Somebody will pay top dollar to build bigger on your lot and zoning shouldn’t be used to diminish your property value. The question is what should zoning allow to be built. There are lots of different 4,500 to 6,000 s.f. buildings zoning could allow. Should zoning limit it to two 3,000 s.f. condos or a huge single-family house?
I don’t think there’s any question that current zoning stinks with regard to small homes on modest to larger lots. We need to look at the alternatives. And, like I said, I’m skeptical that zoning can preserve our existing homes, not without depriving homeowners of significant property value.
Sean,
I think the most interesting question to be answered is:
If a person strongly believes single family zoning is racist and judges others who believe otherwise…. does it make them racist they continue to live in a single family home in a single single family zone?
Surely they would move into a condo or townhome in disgust?
Bugek,
You raise an interesting point.
I don’t judge anybody for wanting to live in a single-family home. If you or someone else currently lives in a single-family home and wants to stay there, more power to you.
The racially problematic piece isn’t living in a single-family home, but insisting that your neighbors live in single-family homes, too. It is currently forbidden by law to build anything other than a single-family home (and, in some cases, accessory dwelling units) on 70% of the lots in Newton.
I want people to have more options with what they do with their own property.
The English language is more and adequate to understand one another. Sean writes as a blood-in-the-eyes warrior and not as a reasoning-in-public journalist or even Newton citizen of good faith. As with the Proud Boys, we ignore what is said at our own peril …
Sean writes “I don’t care if Councilor Baker or any other public official is, in fact, a racist.” We understand him at his word.
He did not write “I wouldn’t care if Councilor Baker or any other public official were or had been, in fact, a racist.”
We all expect that the fine institution called Newton Public Schools still teaches that different words mean different things. Yet, Sean chooses words that are not “more than perfect” … we could kindly assume his ignorance of Latin’s plusquamperfect tense and its synthesized constructive use in English, and of English’s conditional perfect tense.
The arrogance of Sean’s unproven and thus scurrilous assertions are shameful. His use of language here is either ignorant or willful. If merely ignorant, let us beg that Jerry require a minimally sufficient competence from those given use of this platform for publicly spanking others. And if not of ignorance, Sean’s use of this platform should be judged as wantonly aggressive with malicious intent and thus worthy of Jerry’s disciplinary action.
Prejudicial accusations repeated made in a public forum appear designed to preclude a fair defense by the targets. That is simply unfair. Using an unfair device while claiming to right a wrong is still as unfair as it is unnecessary. Wrapping such comments in feigned woke-speak doesn’t elevate such misbehavior to the acceptable, regardless of one’s name or family heritage.
Jerry, how far will you allow this to go?
The fact that Oregon, parts of CA and cities like Minneapolis are upzoning fully is going to be usefuI to us I think. We will get to see real data about if it increases economic/racial diversity or not. Up to now we can only guess.
“What you’re talking about is another important thread: the loss of small, detached single-family homes and moderately sized duplexes.”
Sean – The teardowns should be part of the housing discussion. All over the city, neighborhoods of capes and ranches are being decimated. Until that issue becomes part of the discussion, you’re unlikely to engage people who don’t support the larger developments.
The city needs to address an important housing issue that residents are concerned about. We can talk and chew gum at the same time.
Jane and MMQC,
I added a new post to start the very conversation you’re correctly identifying that we need to have: Discouraging teardowns.
Looking forward to your thoughts.
Sean,
Great response. Judging the current landscape, I think you might get more bang for your buck by focusing on accessory units.
The ordinance is already passed, its been a few years and the sky hasn’t fallen. Use your political capitol to loosen the accessory ordinance
– easier to build external structure
– ways to keep costs low
– city to make much much easier for permits, water, sewer hookups
It’s much less controversial and you don’t have to resort to accusing ppl of veiled racism
… and then after several years, allow subdivision of the plot.
Agreed, Jane. The loss of moderately priced homes – single-family or small multi-family homes should be part of the conversation.
Now, I would be more understanding if these small single homes were in disrepair and replaced with things like modest 1100 square foot triple deckers. But we know that isn’t happening.
@Mary Presumptuous
You’re mixing me up with someone who’s in charge of something. Like about a dozen other people, I’m a regular contributor to this blog. I take full responsibility for anything I write but I take no responsibility nor have any authority to police what Sean writes, nor would I ever in a million years consider signing up for that job 😉
Sean Roche was one of the co-founders of Village14. I’m merely a johnny-come-lately, semi-regular contributor.
FYI – Like you, that line from Sean, as written, also bothered me. There were many other better ways he could have expressed his “I care about policy not intention” message. I won’t comment on Sean’s intention but I do criticize what he said and how he said it.
ALL conversations about race are inherently difficult in America, they only get much, much harder when the word “racist” gets carelessly dropped in the middle of them.
Jerry, you’re responding to the wrong person!
@MMQC – oops. sorry, fixed it. I was getting our V14 Marys scrambled 😉
@Jerry: We keep dogs. House rules are “four on the floor”. Each has their own bed. We rouse them, not the inverse.
If you are a cat person or run your household differently, I am cool with that. But we are concerned enough about what one catches for intimate contacts that we behave our way … and advice all who want advice similarly.
@Mary Presumptuous – I have no know idea what any of that meant … sorry
As a former member of the Newton Board of Aldermen, I participated in establishing Newton’s first proactive plan to convince developers to make 10% of new housing projects available to low-income families. As a member of the State Legislature, I wrote a bill to establish the first public/private mixed use transit oriented development in Massachusetts. I have some experience in zoning matters and I have some thoughts I would like to share.
When discussing zoning it is helpful to define our terms. For example, multi family housing does not include two family homes. Multi family housing is now defined as three or more dwelling units.
Newton is well known for its discriminatory zoning laws, as are most other suburban communities, by virtue of creating different minimum lot sizes [10,000 sq. ft., 15,000sq. ft. & 25,000 sq. ft.]. Of course, at the time these lot sizes were established vacant land was plentiful and the regulation of lot size was considered enlightened thinking, a way to protect the city’s tax base, protect consumers and allow moderate and low income families to live in Newton.
In recent years, Newton has changed its zoning ordinance to allow two dwelling units in all residential zoning districts; it just defines them as single family homes with an accessory apartment. The second unit can be up to a 1,000 sq ft or larger by special permit. It seems to me that that we have achieved one of WestMetro HOME Consortium relevant items in the “Strategy and Actions” list: to reduce or eliminate single-family zoning by allowing two-family dwellings in all residential districts. It also allows, as of right, multi family (three units) in our current multi residence 1 zone.
I understand that we, as a city, are close to achieving the goal that 10% of our housing stock meets state regulations to qualify as low/moderate income housing. It has taken 50 years but I think it is another worthwhile achievement. If the revised zoning plan properly identifies recreational land, we will soon exceed the state’s 10% goal.
Newton has a long and proud history of addressing housing issues. We have had our setbacks, but we have made significant progress from where we started.
In the real estate industry there is a term, “location, location, location”. It means what it says. Location is an important factor in determining value. Newton fits into that factor. The geographical location of the city results in an increase in land value for residential purposes, resulting in an increased cost of the finished product.
One of the difficulties in dealing with today’s housing proponents is that the goals are unclear. We have proponents for low income housing. We have proponents for the “missing middle”. We have proponents for “naturally affordable” units. How many units do we want to build? How many villages do we want to “urbanize” with multi family buildings?
If we have specific goals we will get better results. If we can identify the challenge, we can solve the problem. To paraphrase my favorite childhood author, Jules Verne, anything one person can imagine others can make real.
I note that a great deal of the housing conversation in encased in philosophical dispute and attacks on the motives of opponents; old, but often effective, political weapons. It’s time to get off that stage coach, do away with platitudes and talk about what we want to achieve and how we can achieve it.
MaryP,
That might be among the least charitable readings of anything I’ve ever written.
First, it was a response to your suggestion that I was insinuating that Councilor Baker’s views are racist. You brought up Councilor Baker’s state of mind. I did not.
And, in the rest of the comment, I make very clear I’m not interested in his state of mind.
Where I went wrong, I realize, is not writing, “I don’t care if Councilor Baker or any other public official is or is not, in fact, a racist.” Again, I care not one whit about his state of mind.I don’t think conjecture about his personal biases or lack thereof is useful or informative.
I do care that he continues to publicly deny that our zoning code acts and was designed to act to discourage people of color from living here. I do care that, through his public office, he continues to block, at every turn, any effort to undo that sorry history.
Land use in Newton is inextricably linked with issues of racial justice. I’m going to keep writing about zoning and land use and the racial inequities they create. If you think my criticism of Councilor Baker and other public officials for their words and actions in consideration of zoning and land use constitutes an allegation of racism, that’s on you.
Sean-
You write precisely as we teach our children not to behave; irresponsibly when in possession of power and with self-righteous denial when in the wrong and given opportunity to self-correct.
You owe Lisle Baker a phone call, an apology, and a beg for forgiveness. I don’t expect any of that will happen, if I’ve got the right measure of you.
@Matt the open-air market is a great idea. And as the guy whose job it used to be to handle these kinds of things I’ll tell you that you can’t just handwave and say “this should happen.” You need a champion and to take it on yourself. This is the only way things get done.
Wells Ave (and the lot behind NTB) are private spaces. Your best bet is to contact the owners of those locations and try to get something going. As a starting point, I suggest speaking with the Newton Needham Chamber (I know a guy…) which has a real estate committee. Placemaking, which is what you’re talking about, is a huge part of that.
Honestly, I think they may be more trouble than they’re worth for use of space. I suggest focusing on the Upper Falls community and, as part of that, the Upper Falls Area Council, which can do this kind of thing along the Greenway. There is a Community Corporation that owns the old station (currently a coffee shop) and the land in front of it. They were wonderful to work with when we did the Greenway Arts project.
If you move now and find the right partners, you may be able to have something up and running by fall, possibly in August if you’re aggressive. There are a number of different organizations that I can think of off the top of my head that may be willing to partner with you on this kind of thing. You’ll also need funding. I’ve found that the real estate owners and developers are sometimes more willing to help out with services and funds for something that will help bring people to an area, if that’s something they want. So Northland may be a good partner (they were for the previously mentioned arts project) as well as Crosspoint, who own Newton Nexus and some other retail properties along Needham St (they were also a good partner).
I’m not sure whether Deb Crossley’s comments are taken out of context, and I am not going to listen to this meeting again. I lived through it already, and once is enough.
Councilor Bowman approached me about a Fair Housing Resolution to commemorate Fair Housing Month, which is in April. The Fair Housing Act, which made housing discrimination unlawful after decades of federal housing policy that resulted in racial segregation in housing, was passed in April 1968, just a week after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. He was a strong supporter of the goals of the Act. Those goals are to eliminate racial segregation in housing, to outlaw discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, and religion, among other things, and to promote diversity. Moreover, communities like Newton that receive federal housing funds are obligated to “affirmatively further fair housing” by, among other things, eliminating impediments to fair housing.
Restrictive zoning, particularly in suburbs, has been identified as one of the impediments to fair housing, along with decades of redlining that prevented BIPOC from getting mortgages, racially restrictive covenants, and patterns of racial segregation that were created and sustained by government policy, mortgage lenders, and private individuals since the end of Reconstruction (1865-1877).
The recently enacted Massachusetts Housing Choice law requires every community in Massachusetts to study restrictive zoning and to create at least one zone near public transportation that allows multi-family zoning. The MetroWest HOME Consortium, which consists of a dozen communities including Newton that receive federal HOME funds for housing, has issued an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing report that contains various recommendations to eliminate and/or reduce those impediments. Newton is the lead member of the consortium, administers and distributes HOME funds among the member communities, and drafted the report and recommendations with the support and input of the other member communities. The report includes a recommendation to study zoning reforms that would, among other things, convert some single-family zones into multi-family zones. The Fair Housing Committee is tasked with supporting the consortium’s efforts as part of a five-year plan to implement the recommendations in the report.
I am grateful to Councilor Bowman and the other members of the Zoning and Planning Committee who participated in drafting and supporting this Fair Housing Resolution. I would add that Mayor Fuller has also been a strong supporter of the Fair Housing Committee’s work. I urge the City Council to pass this resolution as written to show their support for fair housing in Newton.