Update — After reading Elmo’s comment, it occurred to me that there is a comparable election to look at: the 2013 preliminary, when then first-term Mayor Setti Warren faced a long-shot challenge from then City Councilor Ted-Hess Mahan.
The comparison starts in 2009, when newcomer Warren ran second to State Representative Ruth Balser in a hotly contested preliminary with at least one other legitimate contender: then Alderman Ken Parker. The 2009 preliminary loos much like 2017, with then Councilors Fuller and Lennon as the front-runners, and then Councilor Sangiolo the legitimate contender. The turnout in 2009 was 15,866 and in 2017 was 14,294. Roughly comparable for similar dynamics. In 2013 the turnout was 6,154, a much bigger drop than the 10,853 for this 2021 preliminary.
Takeaway 1: I was wrong on this year’s turnout. It isn’t even close to as bad as I wrote below. In fact, it is encouragingly good, and may be at least partially attributable to enthusiasm for Challenger Sangiolo.
Takeaway 2: Mayor Warren’s 4,265 is a much higher percentage (69.3%) of the vote total than Mayor Fuller’s, reflecting both well on Challenger Sangiolo’s campaign compared to Alderman Hess-Mahan’s and poorly on Mayor Fuller’s.
In the end, it boils down to the same conclusions: Challenger Sangiolo’s campaign did well, but much worse than she needed to do to be a credible threat for November. Mayor Fuller has to be disappointed by her relatively tepid support, particularly given the relatively high turnout compared to 2013. Challenger Sangiolo’s ant-development message, which is shared with a number of City Council candidates, didn’t play as well as it appeared it did in March.
—
What a thoroughly disappointing election. On all fronts. The numbers aren’t encouraging for anyone.
The unofficial vote total was 10,853, down about 25% from 2017 (14,294). There’s plenty to explain the drop-off. This race was a foregone conclusion, Mayor Ruthanne Fuller and challenger and former Councilor Amy Mah Sangiolo were always going to move on to the general election…and did so, handily. In 2017, there were three legitimate candidates — then Councilors Scott Lennon, Fuller, and Sangiolo — for two slots. Much more at stake to draw people to the polls in 2017. Add COVID in 2021. Still 25% is a big drop off. Not a great night for participatory democracy.
But, the biggest disappointment has to be Challenger Sangiolo’s. She earned 4247 (39.1%) votes to to Mayor Fuller’s 5926 (54.6%), a 1679 vote/15.5% spread. Challenger Sangiolo is not going to win in November. If she had a shot beating the incumbent mayor, it was going to take an enthusiasm advantage, which would have made itself visible in this low-turnout election. Whatever enthusiasm there is for Challenger Sangiolo, and I suspect her core is more enthusiastic than it was in 2017, it’s not broad enough. It would take a miracle to make up 15% in the general election. My bet is that the difference will be even greater in the general, closer to 25% (something like 60/35).
Election’s are zero-sum affairs, so bad news for Challenger Sangiolo is necessarily good news for Mayor Fuller. Mayor Fuller will keep her seat, so there’s that. But, she cannot be delighted with the results, especially compared to 2017. Then Councilor Fuller was top vote-getter in the 2017 preliminary, winning about 37% of the vote, with fellow Councilors Lennon and Sangiolo second and third with 33% and 25%, respectively. Despite the benefit of incumbency in 2021, Mayor Fuller barely split the Lennon vote. She actually received fewer additional votes in 2021 (+686) than Challenger Sangiolo did (+743).
The last two have been tough years to be mayor, but tonight’s results don’t seem like a ringing endorsement of Mayor Fuller’s leadership.
If this election (like the spring special election and the 2020 Northland special election) is another referendum on development, it’s tough to see this as a victory for the development skeptical slate of City Council candidates. Challenger Sangiolo has tried to make her pro-single-family, anti-developer policies a clear difference between her and Mayor Fuller. The city’s voter seemed to have shrugged. Can’t imagine how today’s results translate into victories for anti-development challengers in November.
So, I guess there is one group that can go to bed happy tonight: pro-housing candidates.
Sean this election wasn’t a referendum. This was roll call for all the people who vote no matter what.
Now that we have two capable women in the race I’m interested to see what the differences are.
That’s really all there is to be said today my friend. Get out enjoy the day it’s going to be a hot one.
Another poorly argued, if not incorrect, analysis on the part of Mr. Roche. At least we did not have to read a treatise to come to what would have been the same conclusion.
That Mayor Fuller’s support may not be what it was in 2017 could well arise from the fact that she is now Mayor and not merely a contender. She has governed. She has made decisions that some folks may not like. That comes with the territory. Given the sniping nature of Ms. Sangiolo’s challenge coupled with her “Tax the Rich”-like populist appeal, one could conclude that a 15.5% spread is a strong performance. The expectation of a “ringing endorsement” after that last 18 months for any politician seems rather misguided. But such is what we have come to expect from Mr. Roche.
Who wins? Well, nobody since this was a primary. Who should be happy? At the very least, those of us whose primary asset is our house. Ms. Sangiolo is a perpetual threat to the short, medium, and long term value of that investment. Those of us who do not have money to burn or who can ill afford to pose as a SJW should be at least hopeful.
Mayor Fuller was put in an almost impossible position over covid. For every voter that shares my view that mask mandates for vaccinated people in extremely low covid Newton are insane, you have another who is screaming about 100% vaccinated BC kids. And yes, kids should have been back in school much sooner than they were, and yes, Fuller and the school committee should have known that the Newton “elite” were never going have their kids do a generic online learning academy.
While Sangiolo might be slightly better for single family housing in Newton, the distinction is slight. And it comes with a boat load of woke nonsense.
Mayor Fuller is a great choice for Mayor if you want to live in a city that will consist of an expanding inventory of 2-3 million dollar homes. Her pro big business unfettered development policy will only diminish the supply of moderately priced single family homes because the developers will outbid moderate income buyers and tear down those properties with new construction that will sold for a much greater price. Those developers are piling large amounts of cash into the Mayor’s war chest. It is an uphill battle for Amy especially when people don’t look at the entire picture
Jackson Joe,
You wrote about Mayor Fuller:
I think you describe the problem 100% correctly. Developers (and wealthier buyers) are bidding up the price of single-family homes, whether they end up tearing them down, expanding, or renovating them. But, the mayor has very little to do with it. It’s entirely a matter of limited housing supply in the region, Newton being very desirable, and zoning.
The question, as I discussed here, isn’t whether a mayor or mayoral candidate is or isn’t pro-developer, it’s a question of the kind of Newton we want. Amy has articulated a vision that centers affordable single-family homes. Ruthanne’s planning department proposed (and then withdrew) a vision that allows for more multi-family homes — reasonably regulated multi-family homes. What do you want Newton to look like?
For the reasons you’ve articulated I think that a Newton full of “naturally affordable” or attainable or reasonably affordable single-family homes is not in our future. The market for single-family homes is just too hot. The median cost of a single-family home in Newton is well over a million, with no end in sight and no reasonable way to bring those prices back to earth.
So, if you want housing for households with moderate income, we’re going to need more multi-family homes, which means fewer single-family homes. You’ve diagnosed why.
I’ll save my election analysis for a different time…but regarding this comment:
This is a opinion blog… not a newspaper. Of course the folks writing it are going to have opinions. That’s what opinion blogs do. Disagree all you want but can we stop being outraged when someone here has an opinion?
OK. back to it.
My vote had nothing to do with housing. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
The candidates who are able to speak to the full range of issues the city faces in 2021 and show a willingness to work collaboratively to deal with them effectively have the best chance of winning in November.
My vote didn’t have to do with housing either. Mine had to do (primarily) with our public schools. These problems with NPS and the current administration predated COVID.
I suspect that most people don’t fall into these super strong pro/anti housing like this blog tends to suggest.
@Craig
Fortunately we don’t live in a bubble and so we can compare Fuller’s “impossible situation” to leaders of fellow towns and cities.
In schools, Newton did worse than literally every peer comparator. It was an abysmal, incompetent, inexcusable job. NPS is half of our budget and a core driver of housing values- it’s hard to understate its importance. Her performance was disqualifying- worst in the metro area.
You are welcome to name any area that performed worse on COVID and schools than Newton. Being the worst should not be acceptable.
Wow, Sean. I’d like think that you wrote this after the results were in, but I’m fairly certain the only writing that was done was the plugging in of numbers once they were finalized.
Did Challenger Sangiolo cut you off at a light once ten years ago and you’ve been waiting to get back at her through this blog post? This isn’t quality content. Affordable housing is something ANYONE can get behind but you make it so hard to be Team Sean with every mean spirited word your write.
Nonantum, Tarik, Amy. It’s all so personal with you. You need an editor.
This was a low turnout election during an off-season, back-to-school week when no one was really thinking about elections and the election results were a given. That will not be the case in November. I agree with Jerry that it looks good for Amy and turnout will be key.
This is an editorial, not a post!
I’ll be following with my own related post right after the YK Holiday.
Sean clearly gets paid by the word. This ‘post’ isn’t just an editorial, it is also a fantastic confabulation.
@Alec
Please don’t mistake my comment as a defense of the way schools were handled. I would only ask that you take into consideration parents, teachers, and a school committee that was in so far over their heads they might as well have been in a submarine.
The question is not whether Mayor Fuller is the perfect mayor. She most assuredly is not.
@Craig
You’re sort of missing my point. The parents, teachers, school committee- every town had the same issues there. So when you evaluate on a relative basis, Fuller performed the worst.
If anything, the parents part of this is potentially BETTER in Newton than other towns. The parental resources that were available to Fuller (Jha, Wallensky, etc) which she was far too slow in using are as good as any school system in the country.
Just shockingly incompetent all around. Literally don’t understand how folks are supporting her re-election. It’s not like schools are some side issue. She failed to lead and our kids lost months of education.
I served in a submarine. The school committee and mayor were far less in touch than any sub’s crew. Both failed the pandemic and related issues.
My larger concern is that this Mayor is tone deaf. She poses for lots of photos, appears to listen, but doesn’t hear. It ties to the huge differences in her personal life experience. Amy needs to do far more to call all of this out. It’s the difference between a Chestnut Hill view of the city vs Auburndale or Nonantum, etc. Amy can still win, but her execution and attack needs to improve dramatically. Last night the Mayor’s victory email was full of falsehoods. These need to be dissected. The absence of critical newspaper reporting gives her a big advantage. No one is attacking her. She says what she wants and gets away with it unchallenged.
I agree that the Mayor handled the schools badly. I am not convinced that Amy would have done things dramatically different that would cause me to vote for her despite my disagreements with her on housing and tax issues. Maybe she would, but she has not clearly stated what they would have been other than she would participate more vocally in SC meetings. The debates should be interesting
What I do know is that Amy docketed an item as a city councilor for a teardown moratorium and, in her last mayoral bid, she publicly stated (in 2017) that she was in support of a Prop. 2 12 override. From that perspective, the issue of development looms large in my decision making
Greg, I’m always outraged at your opinion. I know you founded V14, but the point of these blogs is to get a topic out there and then have everyone comment. I often launch something, and then comment on it later. I know you disagree, but that’s your right, just as it’s mine to disagree with you and not be shut down by you.
Hi Michael, Not trying to shut you or anyone down, nor do I have any ability to do that. I’m just suggesting it’s counter productive to not focus on the issue at hand by distracting the conversation to what this blog is or isn’t designed to do. My response to you today was fueled by years of comments suggesting that there’s something nefarious about the bloggers here having opinions when, in fact, having a forum for opinions is the reason Sean and I started this blog in the first place.
And I realize that this comment is distracting now too, so I won’t reply again. Enjoy!
Same message. Different day.
white privileged male living in a
SINGLE FAMILY HOME bloviates on affordable housing, only this time it’s laced with racism AND misogyny. First Lucas Tarik was his problem, now it’s Amy Mah Sangiolo. What’s up with that? Even Greg Reibman ran for mayor for one day Sean. What’s your excuse?
Activists with keyboard, no practical
experience, no professional credentials, and no interest in running for office are
a dime a dozen….
I think that was something that doomed Bryan’s campaign. His schtick was that you were racist if you disagreed with him about housing. He couldn’t use that argument against Tarik. Bryan lost handily and proceeded to be a sore loser and now is leaving Newton. He was sooo committed to this city that he would only live here if he could hold office. I am saying this as someone that voted for him!
Now again we have a formidable candidate of color, and I can’t imagine another white person trying to whitesplain housing to Amy Sangiolo.
@Paul Green – “racism and misogony”???
What post are you reading?
But Greg, don’t you see that people drop off of V14 precisely because of the way you swoop in like that. You’ve done it to me before, but in the spirit of Yom Kippur I forgive you! : )
How can I put this tactfully.. I’m very encouraged that these two particular candidates won and that a different pairing of the three candidates did not win.
I have a great deal of respect for both candidates and am looking forward to a vigorous debate of the key issues facing the Garden City. All of us should listen with an open mind.
Beware, however, of terms like “pro-housing” activists. I am thrilled by the Armory project and disappointed that local, state, and federal government won’t play a more active role in creating affordable housing for those of modest income. But that doesn’t make me pro-teardowns, pro-McMansions, and pro-outsized developments. Self-described pro-housing activists do the movement a disservice by tying it so tightly to the ambitions of powerful developers. The private sector should not be cast as the sole solution to the region’s housing shortage: that is no solution at all.
But Greg, you’ve done this to me before. It’s why people drop off of V14, but it’s too addictive to stay off forever. : )
…and can people stop casting Greg Reibman in the role of nefarious puppeteer manipulating the bloggers on Village 14 in an attempt to brainwash the gullible? Take on his ideas or mine or any other voice here, but avoid ad hominem attacks, please.
Sean Roche
I just want to see families of moderate means have a chance to buy a moderately priced home instead of always being outbid by developers who can take advantage of lax redevelopment rules and convert moderately priced properties to 3 million dollar homes.
I’m assuming that you think that if 20 high rises were built with 5,000 total units then the price of single family homes would sink? That might be true on the streets that abut such monstrosities but it wouldn’t change the demand curve for single family housing
Despite Greg’s false claims, Newton is the easiest town for developers to make huge profits at the expense of working class families.
Picture this Sean. Your neighbor sells their house to a developer who tears it down and now raises the foundation 6+ feet to fit in a tall basement (that doesn’t count against total FAR) .You will have a taller structure hovering over your property with possible reduced sunlight and drainage issues (if the promised underground water storage tanks don’t function perfectly)
Yes the Mayor wasn’t attentive to the issues at NPS but from her hacienda she has no idea of the havoc that is being caused throughout Newton. And no I am not opposed to teardowns, I just think that there needs to be more considered when proposing a teardown than how much profit can a developer reap.
Jackson Joe,
I completely share your goal of families of moderate means having a chance to buy a moderately priced home. Perfectly put.
But, I don’t think it’s ever going to be possible in Newton for a family of moderate means to buy a moderately priced single-family home. Not even if we put up 10,000 new apartment units. If we want families of moderate means to be able to live in Newton, we have to provide alternatives to single-family homes, alternatives that our zoning code currently makes illegal on 70% of lots in the city.
I have gone to visit the house on White Ave. a dozen times or more. It’s a monster. We just don’t need any more single-family homes that are that big. But, even if you make those illegal, are you going to stop the owners at 9 Walter St. from selling a 1,311 s.f. home for $975K? Or, stop the owners at 16 Daniel St. from building an addition that will push the price of their home further above $1M? The McMansion at 23 White Ave. and similar developer-driven projects are not making Newton unaffordable. They are making it even more unaffordable. Even if you stop the McMansions, single-family homes are going to remain expensive and continue to become more expensive.
So, if we want to see families of moderate means to have the opportunity to buy moderately priced homes, we have to build alternatives to single-family housing. If we build 5K moderately sized (1,250 s.f. or less, say) new units in multi-family housing, it won’t likely drive down the price of single-family homes, the price of single-family homes may even go up. But, 5K new units in multi-family housing will create five thousand opportunities for families of moderate means to live in Newton.
“Despite Greg’s false claims, Newton is the easiest town for developers to make huge profits at the expense of working class families.”
The city brought in Camoin and Associates to lead the writing on an economic development plan. That plan included interviews with builders and developers around the Boston region. At a talk in the Newton Public Library, the report’s author said, flatly, that Newton was known amonth developers as “The City of ‘No'”. They went so far as to write that in an early draft of the report.
During my work in economic development here I spoke with several developers, including those who live here and some who have offices here, who all said that they would not develop in Newton. The projects they want to do, good mixed-use projects that include public space, transportation options, and different types of housing, are much easier to do elsewhere. There is opportunity for them to do it in other communities, have lower legal costs, fewer headaches, good profits, and, when it’s done, create something they’re proud of.
No, there should not be (much) more to consider when proposing a teardown. Anything short of an unequivocally exorbitant proposal becomes a question of aesthetics: owner likes this, neighbor likes that. Beyond the catharsis of voicing their opinion, why should the neighbor have a say about e.g. shadow? Was there a promise made to the neighbor when their home was purchased concerning the distribution of sunlight in their yard for all eternity? I am pretty sure not. If the neighbor wanted unfettered access to sunlight for all time, then perhaps investing in Newton with its smallish lots was not such a great decision. There is no reason the owner/developer should be penalized. Certainly, there is no reason to limit development because a water tank may, hypothetically fail. Finally, the thought that the city should in some official capacity effectively be adjudicating aesthetics is terrifying at best in light of the (in)competence with which Newton City Hall manages those things it is supposed to be doing.
@MMQC-
You are spot on. Sean Roche uses the same shtick when addressing affordable housing. If you disagree with the white guy living in a SINGLE FAMILY HOME, you are a racist. It’s time to return the favor by shining a little light and transparency on his act. “Truth, data, (science), and facts” should rule the day here.
When Roche had the opportunity to elect the first and only African American on the City council in 30 years, during an election year of “racial reckoning”, he voted for Bryan Barash, the white candidate. When he has an opportunity to vote for a women of color in our mayoral race, he will again vote for his version of diversity – a white candidate living in an exclusive neighborhood dominated by multi million dollar single family homes. Unfortunately, Sean wasn’t alone voting for the white candidate during our year of “ racial reckoning. “Progressive” Democrats on the city council, and school committee, the entire Newton Democratic Committee- including its director (and current school committee candidate)- Sean Fitzgibbons, and dozens of bold named progressive Newton Democrats preaching diversity and inclusion did the very same thing. Priceless.
If Newton is going to address the systemic racism inherent in our city politics, many more
are going to need to follow Bryan Barash out the door.
Jerry Reilly may think no one is noticing,
but I guarantee you they are.
Even Chuck Tanowitz voted for the white guy!!! How diverse, inclusive and progressive
@Paul you have no idea who I voted for. I never shared that.
Chuck Tanowitz
“The projects they want to do, good mixed-use projects that include public space, transportation options, and different types of housing, are much easier to do elsewhere.”
I wasn’t talking about these types of projects that are extensively reviewed before approval. I was referring to out of scale new single family construction that removes moderately priced housing from the marketplace without ANY review process besides a one year delay.
I see a difference there don’t you?
Is Bryan Barash really leaving Newton? I hope we see a goodbye post since he seemed so committed to Newton.
Hopefully he’s not moving to a single family home in a majority white neighborhood with 2 cars in the driveway.
Sean,
Almost every single home owner can create an accessory unit. Why do you keep implying smaller homes are not possible in Newton.
Technically, the density could increase 20-30% within 5 years if the market provided a $50k 800sqft ADU unit. The city should focus on cutting the ADU redtape and work with deveopers for bulk buy discounts.
Bugek,
Fair point (on ADUs). I’m not an expert on them, but accessory dwelling units are a good option to have in the city. As implemented, they aren’t moving the needle. There have been disappointingly few permitted since the ordinance was changed. I don’t think it’s red tape. I think the regulations are still too restrictive. (If you think that’s saying the same thing, great.)
Also, ADUs are not really an option that’s going to create an opportunity for a young family to settle down and create roots in Newton. Yes, ADUs. But, we also need more duplexes, more triplexes, more small apartment buildings, more rental units, more condo units.
A couple of observations….
1. Not reading too much either way into last night’s results. The simple fact is, the overwhelming odds were that ultimately it would come down to Mayor Fuller and Ms Sangiolo. Lots of people stayed home because of that.
2. Completely unfair that to classify Amy’s stance on housing as, “Sangiolo’s ant-development message”. Her position on housing IMO mixes various strategies and not rely on simply giving in to any developer’s demands.
https://sangiolo.org/affordable-housing/
3. This election is about more than just housing, yet not surprised Sean continues to paint the picutre of anti-development (again, a cheap and unfair label) vs “pro-housing candidates”. Just because someones choose a different road, does not mean they can’t reach the same destination.
Matt,
1. As I discovered doing a little more research, in fact it was pretty decent turnout for an incumbent, a known by long-shot challenger, and a no-chance candidate. But, let’s assume, as you say, that folks mostly stayed at home. What makes you think that the folks who voted aren’t broadly representative of the folks who didn’t? Do you have an example of a situation where two candidates in a preliminary captured almost 95% of the vote and then had substantially different shares in the general election?
As I’ve written plenty, I like Amy. I think her housing policies are incoherent, but I like Amy and I’ve enjoyed working with her on various issues over the course of 20 years.
She has zero chance of winning in November.
2. Here’s why it’s not completely unfair to classify Amy’s stance on housing as anti-development. She has stated in multiple fora that a) she wants to preserve single-family housing, b) she wants to reduce the amount of housing that for-profit developers produce, and c) she is for affordable housing, but under conditions and restrictions that won’t likely yield much actual housing. Here’s what a pro-development candidate wants: a) alternatives to single-family housing, b) more housing like the city has provided under private/public partnerships, and c) affordable housing by way of lots of different mechanisms.
3. Most elections are about more than a single issue, as is this one. Not a controversial insight. And, even when an issue is central to a campaign, it doesn’t mean that it is central or even relevant for all voters. But, this election, by the explicit admission of many of the candidates, centers housing and zoning. Which is understandable. We’re in the midst of zoning redesign. We have a regional housing shortage. There is growing awareness that land use is both a contributor to global climate change and a possible (partial) solution. The Biden Administration has identified land use as a social justice issue. I’m not upset that zoning and housing are front and center. I’m not wishing it to be when it isn’t.
As for roads and destinations, Ruthanne’s planning department issued proposed zoning that would have eliminated single-family-only zoning. Amy adamantly promises to preserve single-family zoning. Those aren’t different roads, my friend. Those are very different destinations.
@Chuck Tanowitz-
Um, actually you did share that.
I’m looking at the Bryan Barash website,
and you’re name is listed among the “over 600 RESIDENT ENDORSERS” for him. Your
name is listed in between Ruhina Tahir and
Eve Tapper. When you endorse someone, you are giving them permission to use your name. That’s how an endorsement works. No conspiracy theories or tin foil hats here. Greg Reibman might disagree however..
Happy to send you a screen shot if you like. Maybe Bryan will take your name off if you ask him nicely.
I’ve always felt like there is a little Donald Trump in all of us, and I think that’s why there
is so much self loathing and hatred for Trump.
It may be time for some Newton “Progressive”
Democrats to embrace that little part of Trump inside themselves that is very “Trump” like when in comes to matters of race and affordable housing, Nimbyism, etc…
Yes? No?
Can we please stop the Bryan Barash bashing? He ran for office. He lost. If he chooses to leave Newton for a different job, for family reasons or just because he likes the weather in another state, that’s ok. No one says you make a lifetime commitment to live in Newton when you run for public office. It is gross to imply he is somehow a hypocrite or disloyal if he chooses to move.
Leaving beside all of the other comments, Bryan is a human being with a family. He volunteered for this community. He ran for public office twice. Everyone got to vote for or against his campaign. He didn’t win. He doesn’t owe you anything. Disagree with his positions as much as you want. No need to make it personal or crap on someone after the fact.
A little bit of kindness goes a long way. Folks sacrifice enough when they run for public office in this town.
Fignewtonville,
If Bryan wasn’t so divisive and didn’t accuse a large population of Newton of being racist then his exit would not be so widely discussed.
Wish him all the best and should be thanked for running (as its a thankless job).
And I’m going to say one more thing. It is has been a long hard 18 months. I don’t agree with much of what Paul Green says above, but I do think a lot of us have a core of frustration and anger within us that has built up over time. Our kids not going to school. A business shut down or cut down. Lives lost. Friends and love ones hospitalized. I’ve never seen more people in my life with tempers frayed, patience gone, emotional reserves on empty. It’s the pandemic, the election, the constant friction of community bonds on social media. I’ve never seen the larger world and our smaller community like this.
A lot of the policies of Ruthanne and Amy are very similar. They are different people but they support a lot of the same causes. Yes, they might get there different ways. But the way we react to these local elections has gotten so negative that it hides that fact.
We are all going to wake up after the election, take down the signs and move on with our lives. And Newton will be ok no matter who is mayor.
Don’t let the anger and frustration of the past 18 months bleed into the election. I’m done it too, and posted in anger and frustration. It isn’t worth it.
Bugek:
I don’t agree with your statement, both in substance and in the motivation for the comments. Some folks like to kick someone when they are down. I’m not asking anyone to suddenly agree with Bryan. The folks commenting about him aren’t pointing out anything about Bryan that they haven’t shouted from the rooftops a dozen times on this forum and elsewhere. But they are making themselves look really small. At least to me.
There is just no need for this.
@fignewtonville-
Facts
Data
Science
Truth
Build Back Better
Get vaccinated
Put your mask on
Have a healthy, joyful, and productive year
@paul sorry, I didn’t realize we were talking about Bryan. Yes. I did support him.
Paul, I don’t know if you are quoting those out of frustration or agreement, but I hope you have a healthy, joyful and productive year as well.
I planned on voting in the prelims but didn’t. As an NPS parent, schools are my biggest issue, but haven’t heard much policy difference between Ruthanne and Amy yet, despite being very engaged. Also their differences on housing development seem like splitting hairs. I realize some parents didn’t like the mayor wearing reflective eyeglasses while checking her email during 3-hour SC zooms, but I do that too on long Zooms. Not a needle-mover for me. Hoping to hear some real policy debates between the candidates the next 6 weeks, and hearing what NPS and SC is doing now that she’d do differently. Right now mayor race seems like a personality contest. Thanks to all 3 candidates for running, certainly easier ways to spend their time.
I was lurking on the Civic Action group on FB and I don’t understand how housing has become the litmus test for progressivism. It’s like the pro-housing folks have such a myopic view that they are willing to look past issues like the gun store, or the schools (which were a problem under the Fuller admin BEFORE COVID and have only worsened), or the glaring inequities families and neighborhoods are seeing, or the conditions of our athletic fields, or the fact that our school nurses went without a contract or losing green space!
I feel like I’m going insane. What am I missing here? How is housing the only important issue? The pro-development folks (which I thought I was one until a few months ago) are gaslighting us all into thinking that the only way to be progressive is to build build build. And even the arguments flip flop – first it was about racism until Tarik ran, now it’s all climate change. Like WTF. It seems like an obsession.
There are dozens of other issues deeply affecting Newton and its residents (including kids – our future!) but it seems like there’s a distinct inability to talk about them because of this frankly bizarre fixation on housing being the be all and all.
@MMQC – I I totally agree that there a whole host of important issues aside from housing/zoning/development that are important and that should be part of the mayoral campaign.
That said, I think the detailed results from last night’s election tell a story. There a number of issues that I’d be hard pressed to tell you the policy differences between Fuller and Sangiolo. I think they clearly do have difference approaches to housing/development and it appears the voters have picked up on that.
Despite the fact that the mayor has a strong showing across the city, every precinct where there has been a big recent development project went for Amy Sangiolo.
My take is that the electorate at large isn’t particularly focused on development issues but the people who are alarmed about recent development are … and have gravitated to Sangiolo as their candidate.
Like you I hope between now and November the campaign broadens out to dig into lots more issues and we get a clearer view of how the candidates differ in approach on all those other issues.
@Jackson Joe
The real issue with basements is that our ISD department refuses to enforce the ordinance.
Vlll. A portion of mass below the first story, to be calculated as follows:
The lesser of 50% ofthe floor area of mass below first story OR
the following: XIY * floor area of mass below first story
Z-77
Page 3
Where:
X = Sum of the width of those sections of exposed walls below the
first story having an exterior height equal to or greater than four (4)
feet as measured from existing or proposed grade, whichever is
lower, to the top of the subfloor of the first story
Y = Perimeter of exterior walls below first story
The key part being
measured from existing or proposed grade, whichever is lower
ISD do not enforce the Grade aspect. I took my neighbor to court over it. Sadly the judge never got to rule on it as the developer modified his plans so he would not violate it
@Simon French
and if the developer brings in fill to address the 4 foot requirement they are home free to have a basement with 10 foot ceilings that will not count against FAR
You are correct that other towns are stricter about this
@Jackson Joe
No – read again
measured from existing or proposed grade, whichever is lower
WHICH EVER IS THE LOWER.
Bring in as much fill as you like, but the existing grade would be the LOWER.
In cases like mention ISD should be measuring from EXISTING grade, not the Grade they manipulate afterwards.
If ISD enforced this rule Basements as you describe would be included in FAR calculations
@Simon French
Which is what happens in many other communities
I find the ordinance as worded to be unclear. I hope that you can get it straightened out and enforced!!!
@Jackson Joe
Can you imagine the frustration of being a law maker and passing legislation that the administration refuses to enforce?
Amy will resolve this.
Um, Sean, respectfully, the results of the 2013 mayoral campaign have bugger all to do with the 2021 mayoral campaign.
Ruthanne Fuller and Amy Sangiolo are both strong candidates with clear differences on the issues, although Ruthanne as the incumbent who received a majority of the votes cast in a low turnout preliminary election has the inside track.
That being said, Ruthanne will be re-elected in a cakewalk.
PS Don’t @ me.
The good news for Amy is that Sean and Ted have been wrong more than they have been right in their recent election predictions!!!!
@Peter. Winner winner chicken dinner!
(But not until after YK)
The good news for the City from Tuesday is that self-delusional supporters of both candidates have good reason not to be self-delusional.
MMQC, I am with you. I also do not understand the ins and outs and nuances on the housing issue. In the recent Republican Forum Ruthanne adamantly stated that: “Supporting our unique villages and special neighborhoods means that eliminating single-family zoning all across the city makes no sense.” Doesn’t that mean Ruthanne wants to preserve single family zoning in certain parts of Newton? What parts? Which “special neighborhoods?” What does that mean? I could easily be missing something–but what? Maybe this belongs in a different thread…
Wow, she said that? So she either changed her mind or her views are being misrepresented by her supporters…
Also want to know what neighborhoods she’s talking about!
What people need to understand is that the current Planning Department which is driving the discussion on Zoning Resign reports to the Mayor and serves at her pleasure. They aren’t pushing concepts and plans that she doesn’t agree with. I think that is why the discussion on the Residential areas was tabled until after the election.
Lauren is there any link to a video from that forum? It would be interesting to understand the context of the comment