Last night’s city council meeting took an interesting turn when the city council split on how strong to make the zoning ordinance. On one side are a group of councilors who believe that there is a chance that we can entirely prohibit gun stores and want to hold off voting. On the other side is a group that wanted to act last night and then make changes later as necessary. The result was a 12-12 vote to charter the item, send to the committee of the whole, which puts it off until the next city council meeting. The question is whether the person who wants to open the store on Washington Street can get it open in the next few weeks. Some councilors say that even if the zoning law is changed later, it would prevent the store from opening (see Councilor Norton’s comments in the video below at 2:47:10). Others believe that the law is less clear and that the owner can get his store up and running in the interim.
Since the vote was to move the debate to the full committee, a vote of Nay was in favor of debating and voting on the issue last night, a vote of yay was to delay the vote and reconvene on the issue later. Councilor Norton chartered the item alone. The 12-12 vote was to send it to a committee of the whole instead of deferring to the next full Council meeting with no interim action. 12 Voted Nay (meaning they wanted a debate and vote tonight): Bowman, Crossley, Danberg, Downes, Greenberg, Humphrey, Kelly, Krintzman, Leary, Noel, Ryan, Allbright; 12 Yays: Baker, Gentile, Grossman, Kalis, Loredo, Lipof, Lucas, Malakie, Markiewicz, Norton, Oliver, Wright.
Mixed in all of this are allegations that several male city councilors acted disrespectfully toward Council President Albright, calling the shouts just the latest in a long history of sexism on the council (see video below starting at 2:52:00 and the next few minutes). In a Tweet this morning, Councilor Noel stated “For those of you who think sexism is dead sit back and review the tape of last night’s city council meeting. Male privilege in all its glory. And please don’t tell me gender had nothing to do with it- this is not my first rodeo.” In a closed group on Facebook (that I won’t quote directly) a debate has raged between city council watchers who say they were outraged by the blatant sexism and those who say that it wasn’t what it appeared. Many of those who commented there are readers of Village 14, so I hope they’ll comment here as well.
I can’t seem to embed a video in this post. Until I can figure that out, you can find it here: https://newtv.org/recent-video/63-newton-city-council-meetings/6803-city-council-meeting-may-17-2021
The Vimeo link doesn’t work.
I’m not sure what happened to the previous link, but it disappeared. This one should work.
The statement by Councilor Noel has no basis in fact and I urge people to watch the meeting and make up their own minds. It’s an insult to actual sexism to call it out falsely. The Council President repeatedly told Councilors who happened to be male to stop talking, claiming that they were improperly discussing a docket item not under consideration, when actually they were talking about the issue under consideration but referencing the CONCEPT of a ban as part of their comments, not deliberating about the ban docket item per se. I’m sorry if this sounds arcane but the devil is in the details and these are serious accusations she is making and they are baseless. As a strong minded female I’m quite aware that sexism exists but it’s not merely having a man push back on you verbally, sometimes having a heated conversation is simply having a heated conversation.
This was the most disturbing, distressing city council meeting I’ve ever attended. Two male councilors badgered two female councilors relentlessly for an hour and a half. They yelled at them, interrupted others as they tried to speak, didn’t follow the common rule of allowing colleagues to complete a statement without interruption. Yet, when a male councilor spoke on the same issue, these two men said nothing. He was allowed to speak – as he should have been.
Part of the problem was the deafening silence on the part of the other male councilors while this debacle was going on. Why did they not speak up to their male colleagues? Have they not heard of the concept of allyship? Or is that just for school children? When you see a wrong being done to a person of any identity – race, religion, gender identity, AND gender – you need the speak up. Not after the meeting in private. That’s taking the easy way out and frankly, doesn’t work. It needs to happen during the meeting as the incident is happening. Nor does it have to be a big deal, just a quick reminder of the importance of civility to the person whose tone and tenor, as well as voice volume, is out of order.
Another possibility if this is too threatening is to revise and tighten up the guidelines for civil dialogue during city council meetings. A third possibility is for the councilors to have facilitated discussions in small groups to hear what others’ experiences are on the council.
As Chuck can attest, good communication can clear up a lot of the minor communication problems. He and I had an oddly tense relationship that was confusing to both of us because we agree on just about everything. It took just one conversation of “well, this is what I thought you meant…” and “and this is how I experienced it…” to clear everything up. We’re all good now.
Unfortunately, the city council clearly has a much more serious problem. Concerns about misogynist behavior have been expressed and observed by the public for four years now. . It’s 2021 – time to end this lack of civility on the city council.
.
All this because you need to figure out how to harder screw over an honest business from opening for purposes of virtue signaling. Hopefully this gives him the time needed to get his store open. Then low-and-behold, the sky won’t fall, and maybe eventually some of you will admit you were wrong (not likely).
Jane you must have been watching a different meeting than the one I sat through. Just because a man tells a woman he wants to finish making his point, thank you very much, that does not equate to sexism. You are insulting bona fide sexists!
At 11:15pm the idea of actually beginning to debate and then vote on the ordinance was ludicrous. The only sensible vote at that point was to defer the conversation to another time.
The sexism charge was also ridiculous. The chair is supposed to be impartial and not push their own agenda when running a meeting.
And definitely watch the video to make up your own mind.
It’s like saying it’s sexism when Charlie Brown complained about Lucy taking the football away.
Misogynist behavior is when a man repeatedly treats womens’ thoughts and opinions as lesser than, when a man interrupts a woman, mansplains, talks over a woman, uses a demeaning or rude tone of voice, and in the process doesn’t allow a woman to complete her assigned responsibilities. That’s what happened on Monday night.
I did not call out Ms. Norton, who also yelled at the two women because she’s an equal opportunity yeller she yells at the men and the women. That’s her style and her right, and I have no problem with that and have never in any part of this conversation mentioned her as part of the problem that exists on the city council.
The city council needs to address this problem, and it needs to happen very soon. All I’m asking for is a solution so every councilor is respected, and any solution needs to involve all the men on the council, even those who treat women respectfully.
This was not Charlie and Lucy have a children’s kerfuffle.
I’m off this conversation in this setting but wanted to make this final comment.
Thank you for posting the link to the City Council meeting. I don’t get it– it was a bit of a yawner for me, but I just watched the entire meeting addressing the gun store and honestly did not detect a whiff of sexism. Zero. I felt it was an impassioned discussion with councilors of both sexes making their points–some more strongly and vociferously than others. I did not agree with some of the points made (and not necessarily by the male councilors being singled out in this post), but my feeling is to call out these councilors as sexist is wrong. If you haven’t watched the video, please do so before casting judgment.
Jane, that makes no sense. Marc and Chris and Emily where all repeatedly shut down and told they can’t share their opinion and objections and they were all shut down. They were the ones being told they couldn’t voice their opinion and were being talked over
But somehow Marc and Chris’ objections to being told they can’t speak and voice their opinions are misogynist?
I agree with Lisa. People should watch the video and decide
Battle lines have been drawn by some of the thin skinned women on the council. They do not like the hurly burly of big issue debate. Politics can get rough at times. Some of Albright’s decisions are open to debate and controversy. Men and women get into heated debate over difficult situations. For me I can respect both sides. However, the women should not be raising gender bias as a control tactic.
Claims of misogyny are right out of the Fuller playbook against Scott Lennon in 2017 and my guess is the claimant here is playing that card. Heck it enabled Fuller to beat Lennon by a few 100 votes. Will Newton voters fall for it again.
To be clear, I have no issue with allowing legal sale of guns in Newton because it is an artificial boundary and the sale is legal. Personally would I like to eliminate all guns. Hell yes. But that isn’t the law and isn’t going to happen.
Personally I feel as if the call for a total ban is at least more intellectually honest than using zoning to restrict the sale to certain areas or impose so many restrictions that it is in practicality a ban.
As a woman of a certain age who has succeeded in a career in male dominated fields, I have to tolerance for playing the misogyny card. It cheapens the claim when it is actually happening. All of out City Councilors are perfectly capable of advocating for what they believe.
I think the debate is worthwhile and objected to the efforts to stifle that debate
And to be clear, the claim of misogyny was made by one City Councilor via a tweet. So far I haven’t heard that any other Councilors endorse that assessment and hopefully we can continue with an honest debate on the issue at hand. Divisiveness serves no valuable purpose
I’m wondering if all of this is about something else entirely. It’s clear that tension exists between Councilor Laredo, who was city council president and is after the job again, and President Albright. There are a clear eight city councilors in Laredo’s camp (including himself): Baker, Norton, Malakie, Gentile*, Wright, Oliver, and Lucas. That makes me wonder if the political maneuverings on Monday were more about taking control of the debate than actually winning it. Meaning, is this about a ban on guns in Newton? Or is it about establishing a narrative that will play out in the next election cycle?
I know, this is a very cynical view. But keep in mind that the vote came down 12 to 12, meaning that if either Lucas or Oliver had lost last election (both were backed by those city councilors listed above), it likely would have come down on the other side. So in a way, this could just be a test of political power.
As for the claims of sexism, I know there is some additional context around some of this in that it’s a pattern of behavior and not just an isolated moment. I would hope that some of the other city councilors would comment.
*Under Laredo, Councilor Gentile chaired the Finance Committee. He remains on that committee, but since losing his leadership role to Councilor Grossman, he has not attended a single meeting.
@Claire Yes! Hadn’t thought of that but makes perfect sense.
I watched this part of the meeting in its entirety. Notably, the only time the chair called individuals out of order was during disagreement between Crossley and Norton when she said both were out of order. I must assume then that the Chair knows how to call a member out of order and as she didn’t, instead choosing to try to speak over some councilors and stop them from making relevant points, I conclude she (a) knows how to use her power to call members out of order and (b) found only one instance when that was necessary. If others think the meeting was out of control I respectfully suggest that reflects poorly on the chair. And as another woman in a heavily male dominated field, I’ve personally witnessed and experienced misogyny and saw nothing of the sort during the meeting. I saw a lot of very impassioned people who all WANT to get to yes the best way possible, who want to adopt the most protective ordinance we can for the good of the city. I wish that we not get sidetracked by these personal grievances and personality conflicts. Thank you.
I agree with Chuck. This was a lot of political posturing. Some folks are considering a run for mayor, we have a fractured city council on major issues, etc.
I watched the meeting. Call it what you will, but it certainly wasn’t 24 members of our legislative body treating each other with respect.
I’ll withhold judgement on the proceedings until I see the end result. At a minimum, that end result should not include a gun shop in Newtonville, as that outcome could have been prevented, but wasn’t.
And, as always, my main takeaway is to remind myself that being a city councilor is a hard, thankless, job, made harder if the 24 folks can’t get along and treat each other with respect. And that includes respecting the chair’s authority (which they used to do from my recollection)
@FNV. Please tell us who on the council is considering a run for mayor. There has been a group of folks actively trying to find someone, anyone to oppose RAF in November and are coming up empty.
I think Chuck is right and it worries me.
This seems to be sort of a weird mirror image of our national politics – rather than political parties we have two seemingly fixed camps of councilors. As in our national politics we seem to be heading towards a if-youre-for-it-then-Im-against-it style of addressing issues.
In this case, we don’t seem to have two opposing views on the basic issue at hand – i.e. should we set up special zoning for gun stores, or not. Instead we had a proposal on the docket to regulate gun stores, and the opposing camp wanting to regulate them more. Even more curious, the camp that wants to regulate the stores out of existence is made up of the members who typically lean towards a lighter hand when it comes to government regulation on other issues.
I can’t help but think the main motivation at play is indeed if-youre-for-it-Im-against-it. That’s a bad path to go down as a way of hammering out local issues.
Seriously, Newton is just too calm and homogeneous for people who like the thrill of a passionate argument. This last one really required some dip digging…
Jerry it hasn’t been like you to pot stir or dig for ulterior motives. That is more Chuck’s MO. But one of the obvious problems with his theory is that Grossman joined Gentile in voting to have more discussion. As did Lipof and Kalis, who are usually pretty straight down the middle.
Voting to take a little more time, especially when some additional legal advice came in that very day and not force a debate and vote, at 11:15pm was a very reasonable vote.
@Claire – I hope you’re right. My intent wasn’t to stir the pot.
What jumps out at me in this is that all the councilors are on the same side of the bigger issue here. They all want to regulate gun stores, yet the meeting was as contentious as any meeting where there is a big divide in the opinions of the councilors.
@Claire I’m not trying to stir the pot, I’m just trying to look under the lid and see what’s cooking.
But I think your points don’t contradict my original statement. If you’re doing some level of vote counting you are looking for those swing votes, and I believe that Grossman, Lipof, and Kalis fall into that category. They tend to be more down the middle. So if you’re flexing some political muscle, you’d want to create a situation that attracts those votes.
Jerry wrote “the camp that wants to regulate the stores out of existence is made up of the members who typically lean towards a lighter hand when it comes to government regulation on other issues.”
HUH?! I want the government banning everything made of plastic, the government [as opposed to private sector] to play more of a role in creating affordable housing, the government to provide single payer healthcare, just to name a few.
So – provide some evidence for that statement.
@Jerry Reilly – Don’t think of it as different levels of regulation, think of it as regulate vs completely ban and the sides become more visible. This issue has struck a nerve with people more than any other I can think of recently. More than zoning, leaf blowers, Riverside/Northland, etc… It also seems like there’s a sizable group of people who consider anything less than a full ban to be unacceptable and a failure of the council/city to act irregardless of the legality of the ordinance (ie. if it is truly illegal make them go through the courts). Laredo and the other councilors aren’t looking to control a one sided argument, they’re looking for a win on the full ban side vs regulate and tweak side and making that intent clear.
Respectfully, I do not see this as either sexist nor misogynistic.
In the span of a couple of weeks, the proposed gun shop has been THE issue in Newton. There’s a FB group with hundreds if not thousands of comments. Lawn signs are springing up faster than crab grass. And City Hall’s servers are overflowing with constituents’ emails. Newton has not been this united in purpose (for the most part) since the Tsarnaevs terrorized Boston!… with a ticking clock and fear that NF will find a way to open!
The only big difference is the approach, and both sides are arguing for the approach they believe is right – ordinance or outright ban. The Council President currently is Susan, but Marc, Lenny, and Emily would have been just as impassioned in their resolve if the President was a man, person of color, non-binary, or cartoon animals.
To imply any other wrong doing undercuts what the Council is trying to accomplish at the community’s behest and sense of urgency.
I have now watched the NewTV video of the council meeting and this is my take.
As for one tweet about sexism – why even bring it up for discussion. It gets in the way of the purpose of the meeting. Councilor Albright handled the rudeness like a pro.
Councilor Albright did a fine job of presiding over what must be a difficult medium and was more than able to call out those who rudely continued to discuss a ban when it was the possible zoning ordnance that was being discussed. Councilor Laredo continued to speak – he was more than rude; he was out of order. He passionately wants the ban and would have continued regardless of who was presiding.
Everyone else on the council seemed to just speak about the “terrors”of having a gun shop in Newton. (I wouldn’t want one either.) Councilor Norton spoke her piece and when the vote was tied about sending the possible ordinance to the Committee of the Whole, she chartered it, keeping the discussion open until then.
I couldn’t discern from the members at the meeting what the upside/downside was to vote on a possible ordinance that night even though several councilors asked the question? Or if the zoning, is changed to reflect the places gun shops are allowed, would it be retroactive and would the gun shop, if already opened have to move?
Councilor Norton says yes – Councilor Crossley says no.
I can understand both sides. I would have liked to have an zoning ordinance in place soon but without already having one written, they wouldn’t have been able to vote that night. Sending it to the Committee of the Whole so they have a more clear idea of the legal options seems reasonable to me.
I’m not seeing yards signs saying “Limit Gun Shops” or “Restrict Gun Shops”. The overwhelming sentiment is to ban them. So why would banning them be off the table for discussion?
I personally don’t care if we 1) have gun shops, 2) ban gun shops or 3) regulate/limit gun shops
“I want the government banning everything made of plastic”
The kind of common sense I want in government.
As far as I understand it, the City Law Department’s advice is that a full ban would not survive a legal challenge. My experience with the legal department is that they are very careful in how they approach the law. There is a 9th Circuit decision that’s emerged in the last few years upholding a full ban, saying that a right to own a gun does not translate into a right to sell or purchase a gun. I would speculate that the law department believes that decision could be overturned in the future.
There are experts in Newton, who are offering their work pro bono, who believe that a ban is possible. It comes down to a question of risk. Does the city enact a ban, with the chance that an owner (this one or a future one) could challenge it and win? Or does the city take the safer route and enact something that is more likely to win in a challenge, or even not get challenged in the first place?
Related, does the city have the tolerance for a challenge in that such a situation would eat up resources.
Chuck,
The city is more than willing to spend millions on eminent domain for webster woods… somehow this is less important?
Jane comes from the Zilles school of pointing fingers and stirring up debate. That is the educator mantra. Let’s hope this gun store opens.
Where can I get a pro-gun shop sign?
According to the Hale and Dorr and Mintz lawyers from Newton there has been a de-facto ban in Cambridge since 1986 which has never been challenged in court.
Roach Sporting Goods in Porter Square, Cambridge, sold firearms and ammunition, before closing in 2012, (https://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/05/04/roachs-sporting-goods-closes-after-108-years-in-cambridge/)
Service Merchandise, in the Twin Cities Mall, East Cambridge also sold them, until closing in 2002.
@bugek that is a rather simple view of “resources.” First, it’s not just about cash outlay, but also about the attention of the people within the law department. Second, that also depends on where the money comes from within the budget and how it’s allocated. Many city departments remain understaffed because of constraints on our operational budget. The money that went to Webster Woods is not, and has never been, available for operational expenses.
On the sexism issue, I cannot easily dismiss it as a “single tweet.” Jane is an experienced person in city politics who has attended meetings for years. Her perspective here is important and it’s worth listening to. I’ve also seen similar comments from Ted Hess-Mahan, another person with deep experience in this city. Councilor Noel doesn’t make this allegation lightly, as she’s told me that it’s a pattern of behavior, not a single instance.
I watched a video on microaggressions recently that compared these to a drop of water. One or two drops of water are nothing important but added up over time and they start to soak or become a flood. The question here is whether this is a single drop or the continued drip of sexism. I’m hearing from people I trust and respect that it is, in fact, a flood.
Thanks Alex for the fact check. Perhaps they meant no new gun store licenses were issued since 1986.
Woke-olympics are in full swing here. Guns AND sexism? I’m sensing some racism, white privilege, and transphobia.
…………______
…………/……..\
………../……….\
………..|………..|
………..|………..|
………..|………..|._____.._____.
………..|………..||…….|.|…….|.._____.
………..|………..||…….|.|…….|.|…….|
………..|…………|..___|_|_____|.|……..|
………..|…………/…………….___.\..__..|
………..|………./………………|__|.|.|_|..|
………..|……./…………_________/.\.__./
………..|…./……………/……………….|
………..|../……………/…………………|
………..|/………………)………………./
………..|………………..)……………./
………..\…………………)…………../
…………\……………………………./
………….\…………………………./
……………\………………………/
……………|……………………..|
@Matt Lai – I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Newton is loaded with limousine liberal drama queens who have had soft, sheltered lives. No city is more whiny, divisive, or pretentious.
In Newton, they whine about Firefighter memorial flags and the hard working landscaper’s leaf blower, while they virtue signal with sycophant yard signs.
There is no need for 24 City Councilors, each of whom can retire from their part time job after just 10 years with a pension and a lifetime of taxpayer subsidized health insurance.
Boston has a much larger population than Newton, but half as many City Councilors.
@Pretentious Newton – I don’t believe there’s anyone commenting on here who can beat you for shear repetitiveness.
“Newton is loaded with limousine liberal drama queens who have had soft, sheltered lives. No city is more whiny, divisive, or pretentious. In Newton, they whine about Firefighter memorial flags and the hard working landscaper’s leaf blower, while they virtue signal with sycophant yard signs.”
“Newton is the Snowflake City .. a lot of pretentious limousine liberals who whine about leaf blowers, Columbus Day, and even Firefighter memorial flags.. Drama Queens”
“Newton is the loaded with whiny drama queens .. The Snowflake City .. a lot of pretentious limousine liberals who have had soft, sheltered lives .. they even whine about Firefighter memorial flags and leaf blowers ”
“Snoot’n, Massachusetts .. they virtue signal with yard signs while whining about Firefighter memorial flags and the hard working landscaper’s leaf blower. Drama queen limousine liberals who’ve had soft, sheltered lives”
“snooty Newton, Mass. .. where pompous limousine liberals virtue signal with sycophant yard signs while whining about Firefighter memorial flags and leaf blowers… the most pretentious and whiniest city you’ll ever see. Snowflakes and drama queens.”
I’m happy to see that this time around you also raised an actual issue that we can have a conversation about. Thanks. Let’s discuss that.
There does seem to be a fair amount of agreement among the citizens that our City Council should be smaller. That agreement falls apart though when the discussion moves along to how exactly to shrink the council. In recent years (about 5 years ago) the League of Women Voters undertook the major job of collecting the signatures and initiating the process to change the City Charter. One of the biggest motivations for that effort was to address the size of the City Council.
A Charter Commission was elected, they held many public meetings over the course of a year, they reviewed the entire charter. They put together a series of recommended changes, including a reduction in the size of the Council. Once there was a concrete proposal on the table for how the Council would be shrunk, very strong opposition arose in response to the details of that plan – i.e. eliminating the Ward councilors.
The city held a referendum vote in 2017 on the new charter and it failed to pass, primarily due to public concerns about the proposed elimination of the ward councilors.
So here we are, still with 24 City Councilors. After the failed Charter reform effort in 2017 I’m guessing that it will be some time before anyone undertakes the massive effort to try to re-open the City Charter once again.
You betcha, Jerry!
Jerry you’re missing the detail about 17 City Councilors voting to reduce their own size to 8 at-large, 8 ward councilors, and Mayor Warren refusing to sign off on it, effectively killing it.
Also – Boston Councilors are full time, making full time salaries (100K) with full time staff. If cost is the issue, following Boston’s model would not yield a cost savings.
Pretentious Newton may have repeated these themes, but frankly some of that sentiment is agreeable to many within Newton as well as those observing from the outside. There is often a disconnect between our actions if not a certain…duality. Kudos for Pretentious for letting it all hang out.
As for the number of councilors, I recall the Charter failing because it was important to many (myself included) to maintain Ward representation. 8 at large and 8 ward on the other hand, feels about right…especially due to the lack of folks running this upcoming election. Once again, I agree with Emily!
@Jerry — re: “Once there was a concrete proposal on the table for how the Council would be shrunk, very strong opposition arose”
Newton Citizens for Local Representation was formed in August of 2016 to preserve ward-elected representation — 14 months before the Nov 2017 vote on the charter. It was in full swing well before the charter commission’s proposed changes were finalized for the vote. Many people engaged in those early public meetings against ward-elected councilor elimination but were ignored. I personally advocated strongly for a 16 member council with both the commission and then subsequently with the council for its proposed home rule petition. E.g. March 2017 – http://www.newtondemocracy.org/news/charter-proposal-needs-improvement
I disagree with Emily Norton and Jane Frantz about equally. But in this case, I find that Emily Norton is not a reliable narrator.
This is not Susan Albright’s first rodeo. She chaired a contentious school committee long before she was elected President of the City Council.
Emily Norton is a gadfly. Marc Laredo and Lenny Gentile are a couple of bullies. They all bring a level of vitriol to the City Council that is neither productive nor professional.
In the interest of full disclosure, I support the proposed ordinance that sets sensible criteria for keeping gun shops away from schools and in zoning districts where that type of use makes sense. Calling for an outright ban on gun shops is not only unconstitutional, but is inviting a lawsuit that the City will pay dearly for.
Reject these false idols and get behind the rational, reasonable councilors who support the proposed zoning amendment that received unanimous support from the Zoning and Planning Committee.
BTW, when I worked at Ropes & Gray, I beat Wilmer Hale and Mintz Levin as often as they beat me. There is a reason why every community has at least two lawyers.
The reason that the Cambridge ordinance has not been challenged is the same reason that Newton’s zoning ordinance restricting adult entertainment has never been successfully challenged–it effectively bans adult entertainment without actually banning it. Get a clue, “woke” Newton.
I have only lived in Newton for 14 years and I have never met Ted Hess Mahan, but based upon my reading of his comments he does not seem like a very nice person. I’m certain that he cares very much about Newton and means well, but he comes across as imperious more often than not. A more diplomatic delivery of his message would serve him well.
It is to the point where if he is opposed to something it nearly always leads me to support it and vice-versa.
Ted Hess-Mahon is a thread killer.
@Peter as someone who has met Ted I would say he’s the opposite of what you describe. He’s one of the nicest people you could meet, but he’s also passionate and forthright. He’s certainly “pulled the gloves off” of late and his language has grown more pointed. But as I’m reading comments on various forums I get the sense that’s a reaction to some of the truth twisting going on.
I agree with Ted, that the idea of an outright ban on gun stores in Newton is not a realistic strategy; we need zoning that does the work in a careful and legal way. It then makes me ask the question: if a ban is not a realistic strategy, then why would some elected officials pursue it? I’ve been reading the gun store debate on Facebook and that group seems to be divided into those who are realistic in what’s possible, and those who are looking for a full ban. All of this makes me believe that the elected officials pursuing a full ban aren’t doing so because it’s the right thing to do, but because they can gain political points. Passion drives action, especially when it comes to voter turnout.
You don’t need to look all that hard to see the results of this. Had Ranalli beaten Oliver in the last election, then the gun store zoning vote would have already happened. Oliver won, in part, on the passions of Save Nonantum and Right Size Newton. Passion drives action. So here we are with another zoning issue and the same people pushing for stronger and tighter zoning regulations, working on the passions of those who want to ban all gun stores.
Does anyone want to guess what the talking points will be this fall?
@Peter, I can confirm that I am an absolute SOB.
If even one sq ft of Newton is sacrificed, I cannot support the Ordinance route. It’s a main reason why 1/2 of our Councilors opted for a Ban, and why I left the Stop Newton Gun Shop Facebook group. I’d prefer not to have a gun shop in Newton as well… but not willing to screw over another neighborhood to get there.
PS. I hope only homeowners get fined for leaf blowers and not the landscapers. It’s an ordinance rooted in bullying and a text book definition of NIMBY.
@matt Lai- now you have me really confused.
Here you say “if even on sq foot of newton is sacrificed I cant support the ordinance route”.
When you say “sacrificed” do you mean a gun store is allowed?
On another thread you say “why is newton so fired up about a gun store”.
I’m definitely confused.
Here’s my take.
I’m not a gun owner. I wont be a customer of a gun shop and I think we as a country have a serious gun problem that surfaces violently seemingly every week.
That aside, I don’t like what’s happened and how it happened. Someone decided to open a perfectly legal business. When people got wind of it a big uproar went up, our elected officials heard the uproar, and went to work to figure out a way to retroactively make the business illegal. That’s not the way government is supposed to work.
That aside, councilors and the planning department put together new proposed zoning rules to try to effectively zone the possibility of gun stores out of Newton. The plan they put together did that – only three very small areas in the city would allow gun stores and they would require a special permit. The special permit requirement alone pretty much guarantees there would be no shop. On top of that, one of the areas (North St) they wouldnt be allowed unless someone bought the property and rebuilt the buildings, and another (The Street) the property owner has publicly said they wouldn’t lease to a gun shore. At that point, gun stores have effectively been banned from Newton – should that be your aim.
That wasn’t enough though for many citizens and for many City Councilors. For these folks, stopping a gun store from opening in Newton was not enough. We had to take a stand and announce no gun stores could ever open in Newton as a matter of principle. Taking this final step doesn’t really change any reality about gun stores opening in Newton but what it does is open a barn door size invitation to guns rights organizations to sue the city for 2nd amendment issues. I’m not a lawyer and people can/have argued about how such a case would likely unfold. What’s clear though is whether or not this blanket ban is enacted there would be no gun stores in Newton with just the zoning changes.
At this point, at least to me, it seems the city has lost its collective mind about this gun store issue. It seems that the entire debate is “I hate gun stores”, oh yeah “well I hate them more than you”.
I’ll be glad when this one’s over.
@Jerry, sorry my comment was confusing. Perhaps I should not be allowed to post things on the Internet whilst watching NBA playoff games. 😉
For the past couple of years, I’ve noticed certain patterns in the Councilors who are in favor of a Ban (vs “Zoning out”). I honestly believe more than anything else, it’s about Newton’s willingness, however unlikely it may be, to throw “three very small areas of the city” under the bus, and the fact that these Councilors do not seem to think it’s fair to do so. Some have said as much in prior open meetings. To me, it seems like its more about looking out for the little guy, than some grandiose social statement or political motive. And on behalf of all the little guys (Upper Falls), they have my thanks!
This is what I meant by “sacrifice(d)” previously Jerry, and why I stand by it 1,000%. Unless the residents of these neighborhoods openly campaigns to be a gun shop haven and take one for the team, the rest of us had no right to impose it on their behalf – like imminent domain, but in reverse.
As for “(the other) thread”… some time has passed since that comment and this, and your, “oh yeah….well I hate them more than you” quote hits the nail on the head. Is this really about public safety anymore, or preserving the optic and brand of Newton being a bougie, righteous enclave of “progressive values”. If the latter, the preference of simply not wanting a gun store in town, is a luxury we can no longer afford in principles surrendered.
“Newton is welcome to all…” (unless you fit a demographic deemed undesirable by the town folk. Then it’s fire and brimstone.) The rhetoric got to be too much… and it’s why I left the “Stop Gun Shop” FB group.
What Jerry said.
@Matt beware of elected officials offering you easy answers or absolutes because few exist.
@Matt Lai – I’m having a hard time with the idea that this ban is about looking out for “the little guy”. Somehow I don’t think The Street in Chestnut Hill as being that put-upon “little guy”
A contrarian view: many people feel gun control is one of, if not the most important, existential and moral issues in this country at the moment. As a thought experiment, think of another historical activity that while there may have previously been open questions of legality, many felt there was a moral imperative to eradicate. Say, child factory labor, or segregation by race or religion. Would it have been ok for Newton to allow these activities in only a couple of city areas, with extremely low probability these activities would ever occur?
There’s some inconsistency with the same voices that tell Newton residents it’s their responsibility to contribute to solutions for regional and national housing, climate, and policing issues but that there’s too much risk of costly litigation for tackling what many citizens say – especially following mass shootings – they consider to be the most urgent policy problem the nation faces. People have cited the risks of a total City ban, and I’m sure those risks are valid and those folks’ analysis is thoughtful. But what about the reward of enacting a ban that did survive challenge? What if the court system, which is capable of surprise, upheld a local sales ban as not in violation of 2A?
If you’re a person who decries the tragedy of gun violence, and is frustrated at the national policy stalemate, shouldn’t you be in favor of trying something that attempts to create a new, positive fact in that struggle? Is that a worse use of City resources than trying to improve other national issues? I realize there are legit questions about the CC’s tactics and timing, but overall if one says gun violence is abhorrent then it’s consistent to be willing to take a chance to meaningfully move the policy debate.
Jerry wrote:
“The plan they put together did that – only three very small areas in the city would allow gun stores and they would require a special permit. The special permit requirement alone pretty much guarantees there would be no shop”
So, effectively what the council will be doing is enacting a ban without calling it a ban; instead it is a de facto ban. In my experience, judges are pretty good at seeing through shell games like this. Either way, I fully expect that there will be litigation over this because the effect of the zoning change will be the same as if the city enacted a total ban. The only real difference – as I see it – will be whether Mintz and Ropes & Gray will represent the city pro bono (free) as they offered if the city adopts a ban. I don’t believe that offer extended to representing the city for a zoning change but I could be wrong.
@Jerry
The “little guy” is the person living near Rumford who bought at the border of Newton, which is cheaper than the rest, just to be in our City.
Or the people in Waltham, less fortunate, that have a playground right on the other side of the border.
I favor the outright ban, on principle, but aside from that, I think this has been a productive debate because it has yanked us all out of our predictable camps & jumbled our politics up.
I think we can all agree that the statistics are UNACCEPTABLE. There are about 40,000 gun-related deaths in the US each year (mostly suicides). We need to eradicate guns from Newton NOW, or at least try. Yes, some people like to hunt and shoot at targets. But those activities are not necessary. If you know somebody like this, you should be compassionate, not angry, and explain that their hobby is unnecessary and hurting society.
Some other HARROWING statistics from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms: There are 95,000 alcohol-related deaths in the US each year.
There are 480,000 tobacco-related deaths in the US each year. Most of these alcohol- and tobacco-related deaths are gradual forms of suicide. But not all. There are 41,000 deaths every year from second-hand smoke.
I do not drink alcohol or smoke. I understand that some of you probably do. I urge you to stop because, statistically speaking, you are like a gun owner. It is a cruel coincidence that the number of deaths from second-hand smoke is equal to the number of deaths from guns. If you smoke near people, you are basically tossing around a loaded gun near innocent people. I do not mean to be disrespectful or confrontational, but I want you to open your eyes to what you are doing.
I hope this will be the beginning of a movement to eliminate harmful, unnecessary products from Newton, starting with Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Together we can save a lot of lives. If we are able to gain the necessary control in Newton, we can even start to address fast food, which kills even more people and is COMPLETELY unnecessary for people’s nourishment. I don’t eat that either.