Guest post by Andrea Kelley, City Councilor At-Large from Ward 3
This past year, thanks to Zoom meetings, more people have been attending City Council and committee meetings. For many of these new-to-the-council-meeting folks, they often ask questions about what ‘outside the rail” means and abstaining on votes. Here’s my take on both of those, based on a recent Full Council meeting where a Resolution to thank the Fair Housing Committee for its work during National Fair Housing Month, furthering the federal and local fair housing goals, took an interesting turn …
Are there guidelines for City Councilors abstaining from a vote, or standing “outside the rail” to not be counted as voting in favor or opposed to an item? I think not.
In-depth deliberations leading to a vote by the full Newton City Council happen at the committee level. With a smaller group of eight members, one from each ward, the committee delves into a docket item to review and vote, which then leads to a vote by the full Council of 24 members. In committee, members vote Yay, Nay or Abstain.
In my experience as a Councilor, a committee member chooses to abstain from a vote when:
* They don’t feel they have enough information to form a clear yay or nay opinion. This may be due to materials not being provided in a full or timely way by the petitioner, or they have not been able to review or process the information yet, or
* They have all the information but that doesn’t lead them to a clear Yay or Nay, and/or
* The appearance of a conflict of interest where their vote could imply partiality. (In the case of a real conflict of interest, such as the applicant is a client, an employee, an employer, a friend or relative, the Councilor will have filed a Conflict of Interest Disclosure form and be recused, vs. abstain.)
Abstaining at a full City Council meeting is not an option. It is expected that each Councilor will cast a vote in favor or in opposition to every docket item and proposed Resolution, and if voting Nay, explain why. This contributes to the discussion, informs other Councilors and constituents of issues they may not have considered, and helps deter future litigation. Some choose to stand “outside the rail”, meaning they do not cast a vote at all and are essentially absent from the vote.
The reasons to stand “outside the rail” seem similar to me to those for abstaining; inadequate information, not having a strong opinion one way or the other, an appearance of a conflict of interest, being physically elsewhere. Sometimes the Councilor has left the room to be at another meeting, for a bathroom or snack break, or to talk to a constituent or staff member. There is no official guidance or criteria that I’m aware of for abstaining or choosing to be “outside the rail”.
Abstentions and absenting oneself from the vote by “standing outside the rail” are also used by Councilors to avoid making their positions known, trying not to alienate some constituents by disagreeing with stance. This is a way to not be accountable to the public, as they have not gone on the record with a yay or nay vote, nor necessarily had to substantiate their indecision or opposition.
So, try to figure out on any specific item, is the Councilor’s abstention or standing “outside the rail” reflective of a legitimate lack of clarity on a position, or avoidance of transparency to be on the record with an opinion?
The City Council meeting that inspired this post was curious indeed.
A seemingly uncontroversial resolution was introduced to thank the Fair Housing Committee for its work during National Fair Housing Month. The resolution urged “a commitment to work with the Newton Fair Housing Committee to review restrictive zoning policies that limit the amount of multifamily and affordable housing as well as compliance with a recently passed state legislation.” – what seem to be general support for the Newton Fair Housing Committee’s mission.
But this involves housing and development in Newton where nothing is simple or uncontroversial. Much discussion ensued with various councilors objecting to various aspects of the resolution.
– Some stated that acknowledging our zoning has produced discriminatory impacts is a “policy opinion” and should be excluded from the resolution
– some stated that residents are not entitled to access to every neighborhood as a right
– some didn’t want zoning mentioned in the resolution if the Council is still split on next steps
– some stated a resolution should be a 2 inch put kind of document with language that everyone can agree with
(Note: that summary was lifted from Jason JH’s description on Newton Civic Action Forum.
When it came time for the vote on the motion, eight of the nine councilors who had objections took this curious turn. Rather than vote No, all 8 went “outside the rail”, in affect saying “i wasn’t there for the vote”. Councilor Malakie voted No, councilors Baker, Gentile, Laredo, Lucas, Markiewicz, Norton, Oliver, Wright all went “outside the rail”. The vote passed 15-1.
Voting No with an explanation of what your objections are seems like the job of a councilor. Voting “I wasn’t there” seems like a wussy way to avoid a vote that makes you uncomfortable at some level – i.e. not a good thing for an elected official to be doing when tricky issues come before the Council.
From this brief reading, it feels like an unnecessary slap in the face to the Fair Housing Committee. I would love to hear what the “Over The Rail 8” has to say about their decisions.
Here is the video recording. https://vimeo.com/533349248
The discussion of this resolution begins at minute 20.
I agree with Jerry. The option to stand “outside the rails” seems like a cop-out. Whether a councilor votes yay, nay, or abstains, I would want to know, as a voter, the reason for their position. Particularly with abstentions, or in this case standing”outside the rails”, is the councilor choosing this position because of one of the reasons Andrea stated in her post or are they voting this way because they do not want to alienate their constituents? The public has a right to know.
I can only assume that since they chose to “stand outside the rails”, they are taking the easy way out by not voting Nay and risking the potential for blow-back from their constituents. It would be nice if they had more of a backbone when voting on potentially thorny issues. I am especially disappointed in Oliver and Lucas since they were just elected. If they aren’t going to cast a vote, why bother electing them? Perhaps they can explain on this blog their reasoning for choosing to stand outside the rails.
@Lisa – Thanks for the video.
While I don’t agree, I’m a bit heartened to see that the “outside the rails” councilors did indeed explain their rationale before the vote.
I watched the video. Councilor Laredo, at least, spoke at some length about his rationale, agree, or not. This is as opposed to Councilor Oliver, who simply said he was stepping outside the rail and nothing else, prompting a heated reply by Councilor Noel (at about 34 minutes).
There seemed to be a stated objection that “this is not what a resolution should be” but I am not completely convinced that’s the real reason for all 8 ducking the vote.
Thanks for sharing, Lisa. Perhaps I spoke too soon for those councilors that gave a rationale for their decisions. Although I disagree, at least they gave their reasoning. Unfortunately, not all explained themselves.
FWIW, Councilor Kelly’s input that presumably prompted this post is at about the 48 minute mark.
Here is the text of the resolution:
https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=67746
What about this is controversial? I suspect those outside the rail (and Councilor Malakie) don’t like admitting that our zoning policy is a mess and needs to be revisited.
I’ve always interpreted stepping “outside the rail” as something similar to a Point of Order objection (but more informal) – basically objecting to the process/procedure as opposed to the direct matter being voted on. For example the resolution a while back in support of nuclear disarmament if I recall had a few councilors step outside the rail because they felt that it wasn’t within the scope of the city council to opine on national policy. It was basically a statement of “this isn’t germane to the council” as opposed to “I disagree with nuclear disarmament” which is how a No vote would have been interpreted.
In this case Councilor Laredo does give a pretty detailed explanation as to why he’s stepping outside, basically that the wording of the resolution goes beyond the intent to recognize the Fair Housing Commission and should be concise and to the point. Whether you agree with that is one thing but it seemed pretty clear to me why he was stepping outside as opposed to voting No. Where Councilor Oliver made an error is just stating he was stepping outside without an explanation, even if it was just a short statement of “For the same reasons as Councilor Laredo”.
I watched the City Council meeting live. As Chairperson of the Newton Fair Housing Committee, I hoped that all of the Councilors would vote to support the work of the Committee, which includes advising the City concerning impediments to fair housing, including restrictive zoning. The last time I remember any alderman or councilor “stepping outside the rail” rather than vote on a resolution was a resolution supporting the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The aldermen who stepped outside the rail claimed that they were not scientists and could not support the resolution, which was replete to references to climate science.
Like climate change, some people simply will not accept that restrictive zoning not only helped create but continues to maintain patterns of racial segregation in housing in the Greater Boston Metropolitan Area. Despite the City’s own analysis of impediments to fair housing, which contained recommendations to study and address the impact of restrictive zoning on fair housing, nine councilors chose to ignore the facts–not policy–underlying the analysis. Some of them also objected to the Committee’s commitment to advise the Mayor and City Council regarding the recently passed Housing Choice Bill, which imposes requirements on communities to approve added density close to public transportation and lowers the 2/3 majority required to a simple majority to approve special permits and zoning amendments that serve the purpose and goals of other state and federal fair housing laws.
I submitted to the entire City Council a memo that explained the City’s obligations under the state and federal fair housing laws as well as the recently passed Housing Choice Bill. In addition, I provided excerpts of the City’s own analysis of impediments to fair housing that contained recommendations to address such impediments and a memo from the law department explaining the Housing Choice Bill. At the Zoning and Planning Committee where the resolution was discussed, I explained and answered councilors’ questions regarding the role of the Fair Housing Committee in supporting the City’s efforts.
Some of the councilors at the City Council meeting candidly admitted that they were stepping outside the rail because they did not want to have to vote against fair housing. Their record on fair housing may be intact, but I believe that their reputations for integrity will suffer. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was assassinated just a week before the Fair Housing Act became law, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” The eight councilors who stepped outside the rail rather than vote on the Fair Housing Resolution may have avoided being on the “wrong side” of this vote, but in time I believe they will prove to have been on the wrong side of history.
All of the councilors clearly support fair housing and the commission. What the dissenters and those that stepped out of rail objected to was the length of the proposed resolution and its wording. That is a position in and of itself. They are basically saying that the authors could do better by more judicious editing.
I remember my ward Councillor Deb Crossley walking outside the rail with another Councillor a few years ago. I was furious that she thought her record was more important than a publicly taken position.
It was not during the vote about emissions. I think it had to do with the demolition moratorium or the number of units on a new development.
@Lisa, the length of the resolution was a pretext. When the Red Sox won the World Series in 2004, I read my resolution which went on for two and a half pages. Only one alderman objected, and it was because I made an offhand comment about Bill Buckner, to which he objected.
As I said, these outside the rail councilors did not want to be on the “wrong side” of the vote on fair housing, but will ultimately end up on the wrong side of history.
If the Councilors proposing this resolution had wanted a unanimous vote, they could have offered a simple resolution offering support for the Fair Housing Commission. It would have been UNANIMOUS. But that was not their intent. So instead we had an unnecessarily divisive discussion and vote. I believe the voters want to see us working together to solve problems, not petty gamesmanship teeing up name calling about who is a good person and who is a bad person. Ruthanne Fuller went outside the chair rail on climate change and nuclear power resolutions. Susan Albright, Deb Crossley and Marcia Johnson went outside the chair rail on the Wells Ave deed restriction vote. Does that make them “cowards” as this poster and other councilors last night implied? Does that make them bad people? I personally do not think so, nor do I think the name calling is productive or what most voters want their City Councilors spending time on.
@Emily, cry me a river. You voted against the Fair Housing Resolution because it went after one of you sacred cows: restrictive zoning. I want you to read “The Color of Law” by Richard Rothstein. His thesis, which is accurate, is that single-family zoning in the suburbs together with requiring large lot sizes for residential development, along with all the other Jim Crow crap that local zoning boards, city councils, and boards of selectmen threw in to keep out the poors and the BIPOC and AAPI and all the other minorities out of the suburbs. You have zero credibility on this issue. It is time for you to come face to face with your prejudice and stop your Pollyanna nonsense. You just don’t want fair housing. Your non-action stepping outside the rail to avoid having to be a pariah proves it. You will be on the wrong side of history, and you are anything BUT a progressive Democrat.
@Ted. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Thank you Emily! I really cannot see how labels, name calling, etc., can move us forward . And Ted Hess-Mahan, I am guessing that your very active life on social media in the last few months is leading up to a run for Mayor? I encourage you and anyone who thinks they can really make a difference in Newton to throw their hat in the ring.
I do think the “outside-the-railers” were more than willing to support a “Yay Fair Housing Commission” resolution as Emily Norton (above) and other councilors said in the meeting video. It would have been no more controversial then a “Yay Girl Scouts Troop 21” resolution … and ultimately just as useful.
I think all the tensions arose because the resolution went beyond a name check and instead ask the councilors to go on record in support of the actual mission and policies of the Fair Housing Commission. If one can’t support the actual work the Commission does, a “Yay Fair Housing Commission” vote would be a pretty empty gesture.
@Lisa, and sometimes a cigar is just a real dick.
@Jess, Hell no. I just call strikes and balls as I see them.
@Doug — It looks like you provided a link to a letter from Ted and not the resolution itself?
@Ted — “You voted against..” in your comment above is a false statement on your part.
@Jack Prior, semantics. But yes, to be fair, Emily Norton failed to support fair housing. Is that so much better than voting against it? Because I have known Emily for years, and her failure to support fair housing is legion. If it walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
@THM. technically it is “balls and strikes”. And for those who did not vote and played the outside the rail card it would be “No balls”.
@Ted: “The last time I remember any alderman or councilor “stepping outside the rail” rather than vote on a resolution was a resolution supporting the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The aldermen who stepped outside the rail claimed that they were not scientists and could not support the resolution, which was replete to references to climate science.”
Yes – wasn’t that our current Mayor who did that?
@Emily: Thanks for the reminder about Wells Avenue. They – Deb Crossley, Susan Albright, and Marcia Johnson all stepped outside the rail instead of casting a vote and I believe that vote was about lifting a deed restriction on Wells Avenue to allow 330+ units of housing?
@Ted Hess-Mahan on April 7, 2021 at 6:17 pm – “sometimes a cigar is just a real dick.”: Would you please explain? Unless I am the only reader who doesn’t take your meaning …
It’s just Ted getting away with calling someone a dick on this forum with some cute semantics… but it’s ok because he’s on the right side of history.
Good evening party people,
I had a similar reaction to Jerry: it sounds like some Councilors preferred broad statements along the lines of “the Fair Housing Committee is doing great work.” I don’t understand what is controversial around a “commitment to review restrictive zoning policies” and to “comply with a recently passed state legislation?” Though, some Councilors have come close to denying that Newton’s majority single family zoned environment directly contributes to restricted housing access for protected groups. Several Councilors (who also went outside the rails Monday) made statements to that effect in the June 29, 2020 ZAP meeting.
My challenge is that the justifications to avoid meaningful zoning reform (fears of tax burdens, school crowding, change to neighborhood character, loss of ability to pick your neighbors), give new life to the same language employed by civic leaders defending the status quo in Newton in the 1970s. Though, Newton’s “pro single family zoning” camp in the 1970s went a bit further explaining their positions. See comments below from one former Alderman who he led the Newton Land Use and Civic Association, a group that gathered TEN THOUSAND signatures (1 in 9 residents) to halt an affordable, multifamily housing proposal brought forward by 24 Newton clergy.
– “The concept of creating opportunity for urban ghetto blacks to get out of the ghetto and follow industry on Route 128, I do not believe in”
– “The building of low and moderate income housing on land zoned for single or two family dwellings must be prevented.”
– “I believe people want to live within their own environment, associate within their own economic groups, with persons of the same religious and ethnic background.”
(excerpts from “Housing the Poor in Suburbia”)
My point isn’t that single family homes are racist. It is that a systemic approach to impede development of multifamily and affordable homes across numerous generations in our City has at times been the result of voters and leaders with 100% discriminatory intent.
The NCDF/NLUCA conflict from the 1970s is relevant because it reminds us of the experience many residents (or their ancestors) lived through, and it reminds us of a major inclusionary housing opportunity missed: the NDCF proposal was ultimately vetted across 42 hearings as a tactic by the NLUCA to defer a decision, drain the organization of resources, and dramatically reduce scope.
Short version: I think if the Council is going to vote for a resolution affirmatively furthering fair housing, the vote should certainly include an acknowledgement of mistakes made and shared commitment to explore new paths forward.
At the end of the day, what we have is a failure to listen… both in the Council and within the community of Newton overall.
The despite some initial disagreement, the disussion was civil if not friendly, until Noel went off the rails, all foaming at the mouth. That alone put some councilors on the defensive, resulting in abstentions. I commend them for not backing down. But it’s not just the Council…
Whether it’s zoning, in person schooling, defund or Save Nonantum; social media has made us all brazen; a society that spends 80% shouting and 20% (or less) listening. I know I have been guilty of that at times and will try to do better.
What happened to Monday night was a shame, but not unexpected. This tension has been building for a very long time, leading up to the recent special election. Wonder if Mayor Fuller will now take a more active role in unifying the Council? Or do we need a huge purging of 1000 Commonwealth Ave come November?
@Matt Lai – The first five councilors who spoke, clearly artriculated that they would be voting no (Malakie) or stepping outside the rail (Laredo, Baker, Wright and Oliver). That was all before Councilor Noel has said her first word.
You can certainly criticize Councilor Noel for her words or tone but you can’t say the abstentions were a response to what she said or how she said it.
FWIW, I found “we got elected to vote” to be a valuable leadership message from Councilor Noel. If I was at a nonprofit board meeting, and one of my peers gave that coaching to the group, I would think hard about what was going on.
I don’t have the same perspective as Councilor Malakie on this resolution, but I respect that her vote clearly communicates where she stands.
-Jason
Jerry thanks for posting the video link. The ah-ha moment for me was towards the end about 57:40 when Councilor Bowman, however well intentioned, said that progress [on fair housing] won’t be made without making people uncomfortable. So many Newton families of all means and backgrounds are coming off of a hell of a year. Fixing our roads, schools, helping our small businesses…things that would make residents MORE comfortable should be a goal of local government. We don’t need the people elected to represent us seeking out ways to make us uncomfortable. I’m generally for development, have no problem with apartments (I grew up in one), and voted for Northland even though it’s in my neighborhood…but will be skeptical about future proposals brought forth by officials who seem to forget, or even actively dislike, who they’re representing.
Whatever happened to ” we can agree to disagree”?
Why all the polarization, bullying, virtue signalling, shaming.
Is this just a preview of the tone of upcoming elections?
Good afternoon everyone.
In response to @AdamB. I know exactly who I am representing. Everyone who lives in Newton. As I also said in that second comment everyone in Newton is currently or will be impacted by fair housing issues. Fair housing laws (per the MA Government website) make it unlawful to discriminate based on race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, ancestry, genetic information, marital status, veteran or active military status, age, familial status (i.e., children), and source of income (i.e., Section 8 voucher). Is there any among us that can say we or someone we care for will never be in one of these protected classes?
It is also important to note that Fair housing goes beyond discrimination in rental and purchasing of homes and requires communities that receive HUD funding to affirmatively further fair housing by creating more opportunities in communities for protected classes to have housing. Creating more homes that work for families, senior, low income, etc. Yes, many of those people live in Newton currently and cannot find housing that meets their needs. This is another reason advocating for supporting the work of the Fair Housing Committee is representing everyone in Newton.
One of the most important roles of government is to anticipate what people will need and work towards that, even if a majority of people are not asking for that just yet. Where would we be on accessibility for people with disabilities if the ADA had not been passed? Lastly, advocating for Fair Housing doesn’t take away the ability to work on other issues facing the city.
@Councilor Bowman
I really do believe your heart is in the right place and while I’ve disagreed with you in the past, your intentions were not among the disagreements.
“Now therefore be it known,
That the Honorable City Council representing the entire City of Newton, in celebration of Fair Housing Month, recognizes the important work of the Newton Fair Housing Committee and its critical role in helping Newton become a more diverse, inclusive and just community. We especially support its members, who volunteer their time and expertise to such a worthwhile goal. The NFHC’s work to end housing discrimination and to affirmatively further fair housing embodies our strongly-held American values of fair access and equal opportunity.”
Had the resolution simply been that, it would have received unanimous support. And to be fair, there is nothing factually wrong with rest of the document, but it is heavy in implication. The simple fact is, Newton has a huge, fundamental conflict in terms how how affordable housing should be acheived; both in execution and pace. The party lines drawn Monday night did not require a crystal ball to predict. In fact, it was a ticking time bomb, but even imply that those who did not support the Resolution, does not support fair housing, is why there is a divde in the first place… both on the Council and in Newton.
Lastly….
My father passed away last December. He lived a very hard life especially early on. As a child in the mid 1930’s in Southern China he was deepy impoverished, had to live thru a Japanese invasion, and received only a third grade education (in-person though). He lived thru the Cultural Revolution in China, where neighbors and family members were pit against one another, to support a growing communist party.
From when I was a little boy to my father’s last days, he would often provide, words of advice and guidance… at…every…opportunity. “If you see a fight, turn around and walk away. Don’t get involved. Don’t gamble or steal. Always obey the police. Work hard. Always show up early, not late. Don’t take time off or you’ll get fired.” Over, and over again it seemed.
While I miss his “advice” today, growing up, it was like nails on a chalk board. “Why does he keep stating the obvious? Why does he want me to live in a perpetual state of fear?”
So why am I sharing this?
Yes, there has been inequitable housing practices in the past. Yes, we need more housing for more types of people. Yes, there is more work to do.
But as much as I miss my dad, in the moment, no one wants to be preached at, talked down to, or worst case, insulted (NIMBY, anti-housing, against fair housing, etc.) It’s nails on a chalkboard. And with every resolution, every post, every comment, people become more and more defensive when it comes to housing. Winning the argument, has become more important than the argument itself.
Now that I am a dad of a teenager, I find myself offering my version of “advice”… but also knowing how I felt at the time, I am (mostly successful) in pulling back and catching myself, as I now understand that regardless of how well intended, pushing people is not any way to get things done.
@Alicia Bowman – thanks for your reply. There’s no dispute either in the CC or here that Newton must comply with housing law. If you’re aware of any constituent that has suffered housing discrimination, you should advocate for their fair treatment. If you believe Newton is in violation of HUD compliance, please provide the analysis. Better to nip it in the bud. You’re right, there is nobody among us that these issues won’t touch, which effectively reduces to equal treatment under the law.
My objection to your CC comment stands, I don’t believe at this point in time that councilors should adopt a tone of seeking to make their constituents uncomfortable. That doesn’t contradict above. You cite the ADA, a great piece of legislation, one that passed 377- 28 in the House and 76-8 in the Senate, numbers that aren’t indicative of legislators running out ahead of majority opinion.
As your constituent, my feedback is I’d rather not have Newton City Councilors working on things a majority of residents are not asking for yet. There are enough open issues most residents agree on (fixing potholes, city budgeting, saving local businesses, improving our green spaces) for the council to focus on. There are certainly broader societal problems that individual Newton residents can decide whether to take personal action on. You write you have the ability to work on issues besides housing, I just signed up on your campaign website to receive updates, and look forward to hearing about the council’s actions on every day issues. If your true passion is affordable housing, then please become an affordable housing developer in Newton. You probably have good connections for permitting.
Adam B,
To be fair, it is national fair housing month so…
I wonder what the top 3 issues concerning Newton residents are this year? Is it too unreasonable to ask councilors to focus on those during this horrible year?
Bugek thanks for the info. The world is changing and Newton will change with it. I believe we’re going to get higher housing density in the long term. The US population is increasing, we’re not going to build a wall at the city lines, and federal policy – as councilor Bowman accurately points out – is nudging in that direction. But sometimes boring is better for process.
I assume your question is what are the top 3 issues that should be addressed by city government?
@Adam B I am so happy you joined my mailing list. I have an update going out in a few days. Feel free to let me know what you think about it. You can find my past monthly updates on Twitter and FB. You will find that I have worked on a number of issues in my year and half on the council, including supporting restaurants, Climate Action, zoning, safer streets, and of course, the hard work of the Land Use Committee.
As for the ADA, it was most certainly ahead of public opinion and it still is, at least in the way that matters most: spending the money and making the changes necessary to achieve accessibility for all. Thirty one years after the ADA was passed, public transportation is still a huge barrier, look at Newton’s three commuter rail stations and many of our T stops. Come to a Land Use meeting or a Public Facilities meeting where vehicle speed and trip times are almost always prioritized over safer crossings and wider sidewalks. Go to the Newton Centre intersection of Beacon/Langley/Sumner with someone in a wheelchair and ask how they are supposed to cross this intersection safely. Even when changes are made to make something accessible you can bet councilors will get a huge number of people complaining about the changes, even though these changes usually make it so much better and safer for everyone.
@MattLai Thank you for sharing the story about your father.
@Amy, Marc Laredo and Ruthanne Fuller both stepped outside the rail rather than vote against a resolution concerning GHG. Right after the meeting, I emailed everyone in Green Newton and asked them to contact the aldermen who did not support the GHG resolution (since they had asked they we docket it). By morning, many, many, many Green Newton members contacted the aldermen. Marc Laredo, the parade marshal for Monday night’s two-step outside the rail, ignored the emails from many of his constituents. Ruthanne, to her credit, talked to the members of Green Decade. Since that night, she has come around to support a climate change plan that will, in fact, reduce GHG emissions and fight climate change. Some people learn and grow. Others petrify. Councilor Laredo should remember he works for the residents of Newton, not the other way around.
In the interest of fairness, I believe that the characterization of the NCDF issue is misleading, like comparing grapes and grapefruit.
The city voters were divided on the proposal to build low income housing. While there was some racist commentary, there was also strong objection to poor non-black residents. The “projects” of South Boston and other non black neighborhoods were often cited as reason to object to NCDF.
It was a hot, high profile issue. Aldermen received 100’s of hand written letters for and 100’s more against.
If my memory is correct we lost that fight by one vote.
My opinion is that today;s racist talk does more harm than good.
Newton has a strong history of support for low income people. It also has a strong history of discriminatory zoning. But then, in those days everyone discriminated against most everyone else. Those attitudes have changed and there is no need to revert to that kind of thinking by accusing someone who disagrees with you a name intended to incite anger and resistance.
“Councilor Laredo should remember he works for the residents of Newton, not the other way around.”
WOW. in my opinion Marc Laredo personifies working for his constituents.
TH-M you sound like you have an axe to grind
@Claire, Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Any elected official who not once but twice steps outside the rail rather than take a principled stand on an issue is NOT working for their constituents. They are far more interested in their own political self-interest.
I probably sound like a broken record, but changing single-unit housing zones to multi-unit becomes “fair” only if many of the units replacing the originals have a “fair” price that makes Newton a more accessible community to those of low and moderate income, particularly to those of color. If the lot with a ranch house becomes a lot with four condominiums, each of them as expensive as or more than the original house, then what is fair about that?
There is little evidence that creating more housing units alone will make Newton more affordable to those excluded by the steep housing prices. I get a letter or email once or twice a week urging me to sell my house to this developer or that. Do you suppose that what follows on my lot will be fairer and more affordable?
Rather than these divisive, name-calling debates, I’d love to see the City Council generate concrete, indisputable plans for create bona fide affordable housing. The Armory project is one such plan. Otherwise, all this noise is just idle posturing.
Bob Jampol just hit a responsive chord with me. Like him, I’m looking for approaches on affordable housing that will actually deliver on that goal rather than further divide what’s already become a way too fractured electorate. Also like Bob, I generally don’t get encased in back and forth with arguments with people holding opposing views because it almost never results in any positive mid course correction by either side. And I just may want to work with some or all of these opponents on some other citywide or neighborhood project down the road. To his notation about the Armory Project, I would also add the Howard Haywood senior housing development. Both are successes because they involved a careful planning and public involvement process that stressed cooperation and compromise and not pointless finger pointing. Finally, I would never use this blog to claim I’m going to use an upcoming campaign to call out any candidate for any position, action or vote they might take. It’s called leading with your right in boxing, and it seldom ends well.
@Bob and @BOB, the Housing Choice Bill will make it easier to get a special permit to build multi-family housing near public transit by reducing the voter required to a simple majority, and Newton’s inclusionary zoning ordinance will ensure that such projects include one or more affordable units. No doubt, Newton needs deeper subsidies to make housing affordable to low and extremely low income households. For-profit developers subsidize affordable units with market rate units, while non-profit developers usually rely upon federal, state and/or local funding. But allowing multi-family units near transit is absolutely required to provide equal housing opportunities for both local and non-local minorities, including among others BIPOC, AAPI, and people with disabilities.
Multi-family zoning by right would not eliminate single-family homes, since multi-family zoning allows for single-family houses and multi-family housing in the same zoning district. The only way Newton will get more affordable housing is to provide incentives to developers to creat multi-family housing which can subsidize the creation of affordable units. That is no an opinion, that is an economic reality. Until the federal, state, and local governments increase public funding for affordable housing, affordable housing opportunities will lag far behind the demand. President Biden took a first step back in January when he ordered HUD to study the effects of repealing the Obama Administration’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule by the Trump administration. Communities like Newton that receive federal housing funds are legall obligated to affirmatively further fair housing under the Fair Housing Act o f 1968. President Biden also ordered the expansion of the of Section 8 voucher program as well as adding ,a href”https://www.architectmagazine.com/aia-architect/aiafuture/the-biden-plan-to-jump-start-affordable-housing_o”>$65 billion in new incentives to construct or rehabilitate low-cost, efficient, resilient, and accessible housing for localities that are suffering from an affordability crisis and are willing to implement new zoning laws that encourage more affordable housing.
Those added incentives to affirmatively further fair housing are one of the reasons that eliminating restrictive zoning and implementing new zoning laws that encourage the creation of affordable housing was included in the Fair Housing Resolution voted on (or “not” voted on in at least 8 cases). The fact that councilors chose to step outside the rail rather than support fair housing measures that could bring federal money to Newton to create more affordable housing shows that they are not really interested in affirmatively furthering fair housing at all. At least fifteen councilors “get it” because they care about fair housing and they want Newton to be eligible to receive more federal funding for affordable housing.
Ted, why do you separate BIPOC and AAPI? AAPI are POC. I’m part of a mixed race family (Asian and white) and have never seen that before among our family and community.
The separation of AAPI from POC conversation by liberals has been infuriating. I don’t understand it and it contributes to them being targets by people who are clearly not white supremists
@MMQC People I know who identify as AAPI do not want to be identified as POC, so I am trying to be both inclusive and respectful. My rule is, if you want to know how someone wants to be identified, ask them. For example, for many years, “queer” was a dirty word whereas now it is how many people identify. Same with “Chicano” which started out as a perjorative term that Chicanos co-opted as a symbol of pride.
@Bugek, oh come off it. Many of the people protesting hate crimes against AAPI identify themselves as such, and want to call out the fact that in the past violence against AAPI has not been covered enough by the media. In any event, I call “BS” on your claim liberals calling people what they want to be called is contributing to violence against those very same people. Sounds like pretzel logic to me.
Ted,
I’ve heard the phrase “black and brown” many many times when referring to issues to housing, schools, police violence, poverty
This creates the perception that asian’s are not affected by these issues and therefore must be part of the problem.
I don’t expect a non POC to understand the subtleties of being excluded.
@Bugek, what you’re saying makes zero sense. I included AAPI in the list of minorities who are protected by fair housing laws in recognition of the fact that they are, indeed, affected by many of the same issues as BIPOC, or “black and brown” people as you call them. BTW, my cousins, whose father grew up in India and continues to live there identify as both AAPI and POC when they are in America, because their skin color is fairly dark. He moved back to India because Trump gave aid and comfort to racists, and he was sick of getting stopped all the time because the police thought he was either AAPI or Black. So, a) I might understand a little more than you assume, and b) as I said before, it is really up to people themselves how they want to be identified.
Ted,
We’ll have to agree to disagree. In my opinion and experience, asian’s consider themselves POC and don’t appreciate beind divided.
Again, just my opinion and apologize to anyone for having an opinion different to theirs.
@Bugek, that’s fine. Apparently we know different people.
@Bugek, I submit this article for your consideration.
I understand some people are looking for the Fair Housing Committee resolution that City Council adopted on Monday. Here it is: https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=67764
@Ted — “The Housing Choice Bill will make it easier to get a special permit to build multi-family housing near public transit by reducing the voter required to a simple majority, and Newton’s inclusionary zoning ordinance will ensure that such projects include one or more affordable units”
Won’t multifamily zoning mainly generate two-family units on lots where there are currently one? Does inclusionary zoning require one of the two units to be affordable? Or is this statement above incorrect?
@Jack, supply and demand is Economics 101. If you want to bring down the price of something, increase the supply. Newton needs housing at all income levels. What multi-family zoning by right will also do is make it possible for developers to create multi-family housing by right that will include affordable units under Newton’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance.
@Ted — I don’t think you are answering the question. You stated inclusionary zoning would require affordable units. I’m asking if that is the case in two-family units? If not, I think have have misstated the facts.
Supply vs. demand is complicated in the Boston area. Prices impact decisions for companies like Amazon to move here. You can debate on the merits of that, but demand isn’t fixed.
Multi-family zoning is not limited to two-family dwellings. But in answer to your question, upgrading from a single-family to a two-family unit will increase the supply of housing to meet demand at a higher income level, which will open up opportunities for middle-income families. But most of the zones which ought to be “upzoned” are in neighborhoods that are already occupied with two-family or more dwellings that are rendered “nonconforming” by restrictive single-family zoning.
Ted is absolutely correct that more supply will reduce prices, what he fails to mention is that it would require 10’s of thousands of such units to bring prices down. Potentially increasing Newton’s population 50% to 100%. Affects on school crowding, property taxes, service are unknown but one can use common sense to guess.
Prices in Newton will always be relative to Brookline, Boston. Period. Unless you remove one or more of Newton desirables (good schools, low crime)