Newton’s mayoral candidates share a common problem: their positions — or perceived positions — on single-family-only zoning. Mayor Ruthanne Fuller will have to deal with opposition characterizing her as a threat to single-family zoning, despite her seemingly being okay with it. Challenger Amy Mah Sangiolo apparently feels the need to defend single-family zoning to energize an important bloc, though defending single-family zoning renders her housing and land-use policies incoherent.
The boxes they find themselves in are both of their own making. Fortunately, they both have a way out. They can stand up for what’s right and against what’s wrong.
Some background. In May 2020, at the height of the outrage over George Floyd’s death, Mayor Fuller (along with City Council President Susan Albright and School Committee Chair Ruth Goldberg) issued a powerful statement decrying systemic racial bias and pledging to root it out of Newton. Some housing and social justice advocates, including your humble scribe and the Boston Globe, noted that exclusionary zoning was an obvious and easily fixed example of systemic racial bias in Newton and urged Mayor Fuller (and a host of other public officials) to first publicly identify Newton’s single-family-only zoning as systemic racial bias and then pledge to eliminate it. Eliminating it boils down to legalizing multi-family housing in the 70% of Newton currently zoned single-family-only.
As it happens, the city has been engaged in a zoning redesign process, starting with discussions in the City Council’s Zoning and Planning Committee (ZAP). In August 2020, the Mayor’s Planning Department introduced new draft Zoning Ordinance language for ZAP’s consideration. The new draft, without any prior discussion, legalized tightly regulated multi-family housing in formerly single-residence districts, specifically legalizing the construction of two-family homes by right (meaning without requiring a special permit) and legalizing multi-unit conversions of existing homes, also by right.
From a housing and social justice perspective, the new draft language was a terrific step. If adopted, it would rid Newton of the Jim-Crow stain of de jure exclusionary zoning. It offered reasonable limitations on development, providing a workable starting point for further discussion and negotiation in the City Council.
A group of councilors, most notably Councilors Marc Laredo and Lisle Baker, did not, however, share this enthusiasm and complained quite emphatically. They did not discuss and negotiate. Instead, they demanded that ZAP table any consideration of abolishing exclusionary zoning at least until the next Council was convened, in January 2022.
Mayor Fuller made no public defense of the new draft. Instead, in one of her regular emails she announced a “consensus”:
To move away from considering both two[-]family zoning as well as the conversion of very large homes into up to six units as by[-]right options applied everywhere in Newton[.]
And, like that, her effort to eliminate single-family zoning was put on ice. As far as I can tell, the draft language is no longer even available on the city web site.
Unfortunately for Mayor Fuller, whatever hope she might have had that withdrawal of the proposal and announcement of the consensus would quiet the issue, Newtonians in favor of maintaining single-family-only zoning warn of a continued threat. Now-Councilors Tarik Lucas and John Oliver put defending single-family-only zoning against its threatened elimination at the center of their successful special election campaigns.
And, now former Alderperson, City Councilor, and mayoral candidate Sangiolo, presumably to secure and activate the Right* Size Newton bloc that helped secure Councilors Lukas and Oliver their seats, is ascribing to Mayor Fuller a continued desire to eliminate single-family zoning. Candidate Sangiolo positions herself as the candidate who will protect the institution. In a recent tweet, she posted a campaign infographic, “Amy vs. Ruthanne On Zoning,” which opens “Amy is against the elimination of single-family zoning” and characterizes Mayor Fuller as having “pushed for more multi-family zoning without strict regulations.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Fact check: the multi-family housing that Mayor Fuller’s Planning Department proposed for single-residence districts was more strictly regulated than current multi-family housing opportunities.
You can almost hear Mayor Fuller’s frustration. Why should she be pinned with wanting to get rid of single-family-only zoning when she was never a leader on the issue and clearly gave up on the project?
Unfortunately for Candidate Sangiolo, the tweet and graphic backfired, largely because her enthusiasm for single-family zoning seems to be at odds with her stated commitment to affordable housing. Within hours, Twitter housing advocates, including your humble scribe, mercilessly criticized the tweet and infographic for a variety of reasons, including logical inconsistencies and bad-faith characterizations of Mayor Fuller’s positions. In a follow-up tweet, Candidate Sangiolo alleged disinformation about her commitment to affordable housing, which drew further ridicule. Candidate Sangiolo (or whomever controls the campaign account) has deleted the original tweet with the graphic.
Candidate Sangiolo repeated the logical inconsistency in her written TAB candidate statement;
I do not support eliminating single-family zoning because I believe diversity of our housing stock and our neighborhoods is essential, making Newton attractive to a wide variety of residents.
What’s the inconsistency? Because of Newton’s single-family zoning, seventy percent of the lots in Newton are a legally mandated single-family monoculture. Single-family zoning makes it illegal to build the variety of housing stock — duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, small apartment buildings — that would provide the choices that Candidate Sangiolo claims to believe are necessary.
In sum, Mayor Fuller seems to want to have nothing to do with the issue of exclusionary zoning, but is going to be characterized as its sworn enemy. And, Candidate Sangiolo seems to want to put her experience as a housing advocate and her commitment to affordable housing at the center of her campaign, but her defense of single-family zoning perilously undermines her credibility.
So, what can the two candidates do to undo their self-inflicted single-family-zoning predicaments?
Mayor Fuller should do what she should have done last summer. She should stand up to Councilors Laredo and Baker and their allies, actually or metaphorically look them in the eye, and say: We are morally compelled to get rid of Newton’s exclusionary zoning. I’m happy to work with the Council to craft multi-family housing regulations that make sense for Newton, but maintaining a Jim-Crow legacy is just not an option on my watch.
Candidate Sangiolo should say that she too believes that single-family-only zoning has no place in a welcoming city and that multi-family housing across the city is a critical element to achieve her affordable housing goals. And, she could say that she is the more likely of the two to shape a post-exclusionary-zoning Newton that both eliminates systemic racial bias from our zoning ordinance and preserves what we love about Newton.
Even better, Mayor Fuller and Candidate Sangiolo could achieve something historic. They could issue a joint promise that either one, if elected, would work to eliminate exclusionary zoning and that neither would speak negatively about the other’s commitment to end single-family-only zoning.
They would both have to contend with the fact that they’ve acted inconsistent with such clear statements of principle. But, voters recognize that candidates undergo the occasional policy transformation.
Even still, there is clear political risk for either of them. But, what’s the point of running for office if winning the office requires you to turn a blind eye to systemic racial bias or, in Candidate Sangiolo’s case, explicitly defend it?
Last year, Mayor Fuller, instead of withdrawing the proposal and avoiding the debate, could have established the moral terms of the issue with Councilor Laredo and possibly changed the arc of the debate. No, you are not going to brow beat my staff and my allies on the City Council, she could have said. Exclusionary zoning is wrong. And, we are not going to accept your justifications, apologies, and excuses for maintaining it.
As the coming municipal elections are expected to be, at least partially, a referendum on development and zoning, Mayor Fuller and Candidate Sangiolo have a similar opportunity to establish moral terms, individually or together. Defend single-family-only zoning if you want, they could say, but we will identify the defense for what it is: a defense of systemic racial bias.
If the special election tells you anything, you are not in the majority. I have no problem with letting homeowners be. If you want to build more apartments and multifamily, why not use city owned land like Webster Woods instead of rezoning legally owned land.
If you want to live in a more dense city, Im sure Somerville or Cambridge would be happy to have you.
Caution on the zoning topic (=permitting more multifamily housing) also prevented some Councilors from even voting (yay or nay) on a Commendation for the Newton Fair Housing Committee :-/
Even though the White House, Governor, and state legislature, and state Dem party platform all acknowledge we need to deregulate zoning some to create more market rate & affordable housing.
Typo… “yea or nay”
Cool, Sean, why don’t you whitesplain housing and racism a little more to a candidate who is a woman of color? I’m sure that’s going to be really well-received.
The city council were so focused and committed to racial inequality that they whole-heartedly endorsed a white candidate to preserve the all white makeup of the city council..
The only major difference between the candidates were their approaches to affordable housing (both had same goal but difference approaches)
Just a reminder when you go to vote in November of the hypocrisy
This is just getting silly. Most Newton voters want Newton to remain a suburb. They make it clear in their voting in election after election, and the more people learn about radical changes to zoning laws, the less they like them.
Sean, if you want to live in Watertown you and Barash could probably split a duplex.
This post is a pretty long one, many words. Big paycheck coming to you for today’s work.
I was curious to learn more about Sangiolo as a candidate and hadn’t made up my mind, and then found myself turned off campaign messaging that repeatedly lifted up single family zoning and maligned efforts to expand multifamily housing in the City.
One way to see where the candidates stand may be to ask in a debate for specific comments regarding their views on the Housing Choice legislation. Great context on this topic below.
https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/01/27/new-zoning-reform-tied-to-school-integration
This is the ass backwards way to improve schools. Focus on the schools that underperform and make them the best schools. Then you will see plenty of integration
I’ve said this before but it’d be one thing if we eliminated single family zoning and these old run down houses were replaced by modest duplexes and triple deckers, but those gaudy oversized townhouses that barely fit into the lot…who are they helping? How does that promote integration?
I’m up for removing single family zoning, but I don’t think we are doing it right and I don’t think what’s happening in Newton helps Sean’s supposed “causes.”
@Sean
It was Deb Crossley, the Chair of Zoning & Planning who decided to table the residential aspect of zoning.
This occurred shortly after the planning dept held a couple of well attended zoom events soliciting feedback from Newton residents. The overwhelming feedback was that people did not want to eliminate single family zoning.
At the time Chair Crossley and President Albright made comments about how the public was evenly split. So it was quite a surprise when she later tabled it.
My personal opinion is that Mayor Fuller was feeling the heat from within in her own Ward and that contributed to the change of the Zoning & Planning Agenda too.
All the same, you are not portraying the history of this accurately.
@Jackson – I 100% agree that zoning reform alone doesn’t solve education funding issues (for example, districting is another topic), but zoning reform can make it easier for people who want to move to Newton have the option to – instead of being excluded by design as was the intent when these laws were created in the 1920s.
@MMQC – I hear you. My optimistic take is:
(1) we still haven’t tackled refinements to dimensional requirements in the council, which could limit the size of additional units that can be built by right. As in, help make homes possible at many price points.
(2) even so, the new giant townhouses sell for less than if old single family homes were replaced with new single family homes.. which may happen over time.
(3) when we start talking about apartment buildings, the inclusionary zoning ordinance kicks in, and now units below the market rate enter the conversation
Thank you again, your points are important
Jason, there is nothing that “zoning reform” or any other regulatory mechanism can do to provide market rate housing in Newton for below $1mm. That ship has sailed. The only way get affordable housing in Newton is to subsidize it, either by having the city build it or forcing developers to include below-market units.
If a tiny bit more income diversity in Newton is your goal, press harder on these mechanisms and leave single family zoning out it.
1. While there is still alot more work to do on racial equity and haromony, can we please stop equating Newton’s single family zoning as the, “Jim-Crow stain of de jure exclusionary zoning”. It’s simply not true. Housing access comes down to just one color – green $$. Newton is expensive, but to call one of the most progressive communities in the state/region/country racist is a stretch.
2. Elimination of single family zoning is not the panacea for affordable housing. No more than walking from the living room to the kitchen is, “exercising”. It’s a piece of the puzzle that should be considered, but not does not equate to countless words expended by our favorite humbe scribe, nor a primary determining factor on whom we vote for Mayor.
3. With any change in zoning, we MUST ask ourselves the question, “who benefits most?”. If we look at the past 4 years, Newton has permitted and/or seen built over 1,000 luxury, above market reate apartments, and countless $million plus duplexes and townhouses. Is Newton any more diverse? Any more affordable? No. Are developers getting rich? Yes. Every conversation going forward on rezoning should begin and end end with, “who benefits most”? (if not, “follow the money”)
4. Majority of Newton residents moved and settled here because it’s a suburb. Period. We also want good schools and reliable bussing. The current adminstration is really dropping the ball on the latter, as our kid is racking up undeserved tardies a pinball machine.
Matt,
1. Exclusionary zoning is a Jim-Crow relic. That’s not really debatable. But, let’s take your formulation. When centuries of disparate (and worse) treatment have left black families, as a group, with substantially less wealth than white families, then having a high-dollar requirement to obtain basic necessities — a good home, access to a quality education, open space, &c. — is systemic racial bias.
It is odd that a community that considers itself progressive maintains exclusionary zoning, which is so widely understood to constitute systemic racial bias. But, I don’t think the contradiction you recognize makes the point you think it does. Maybe Newton is not quite as progressive as it thinks it is. I’ll have more on this point over the weekend.
2. “Elimination of single family zoning is not the panacea for affordable housing.” Please point to a single person who suggests that it is. Even one. Multi-family housing is a necessary step to provide more options across the economic spectrum. And, we’re not going to get affordable housing without more multi-family housing. Eliminating single-family zoning is necessary, but not sufficient.
3. There are something like 500 households who will be getting subsidized housing as a result of recent or upcoming new housing developments. There are all sorts of seniors who are moving to Treo and Austin St. and who are delighted that they can stay in Newton without having to afford the upkeep on a house that’s too big for their current needs. There are young professionals who have the opportunity to live in Newton, who can’t afford or don’t want to live in a big ol’ house. Developers are a necessary evil. I wrote about it. Housing and zoning discussions should start and end with what kind of housing do we need to be the city we want to be.
4. Unquestionably many of us moved here because Newton is a suburb. But, some of us have been convinced that climate change, a regional housing crisis, and the inequities that created the suburbs (and the good schools) cannot be ignored. If we want to solve any one of the three, we’re going to have to change. I’m good with that change. We have to sacrifice the suburban ideal. If you think the suburban model is a more important value than climate, housing, or equity, that’s your calculus. I’m optimistic that Newton residents are broad-minded enough to understand that change is necessary.
Craig said:
“The only way get affordable housing in Newton is to subsidize it, either by having the city build it or forcing developers to include below-market units.”
Leaving single family zoning aside for a moment, I believe there are other mechanisms that can provide affordability. Co-op housing, which separates housing from investment and appreciation, is one that has had some success in pockets of the metro area.
A combination of new development and co-op housing could provide a fairly large number of perpetually affordable units without explicitly designating a handful of “affordable” units mixed in with market rate ones. Housing co-ops also build extremely strong multi-generational communities.
As for single-family zoning. I think of land in Newton as a limited resource that’s not optimally used right now. In some ways, single family zoning is protecting that land at a relatively low density, but not used to its maximum potential. Zoning reform can change land use, and we’d like it to be for the better, to benefit people today and into the future. What “benefit” means is different to different people, and that’s part of the discussion.
We’ve neglected zoning since the days of Buddy Holly, tail fins on cars, and leaded gasoline. Almost anything significant you’d like to do to make your house better requires a special permit. Yet somehow we are so unconfident, distrusting, and scared of our own shadow that we can’t do better than leave things as they are.
There is a bizarre assumption being made that someone advocating to simplify permitting for smaller homes may not also advocate for deeply affordable housing and public subsidies as a tool to deliver it.
@ Jason JH . I can’t figure out where or why you made that statement.
I’m thinking that you are the one making assumptions?
“where from”
@Jackson:
“Elimination of single family zoning is not the panacea for affordable housing.“
(Matt, I’m not mad at you friend, there is a common ground we agree on.)
BTW california just reduced single family zoning this week. Any residential lot can now be split up to 4 parcels.
https://ktla.com/news/california/newsom-signs-housing-bills-that-could-reduce-single-family-zoning-in-california/
Be interesting to compare affordability in similar towns to Newton 5 years from now
Palo alto, san mateo, cupertino, menlo park
We get to see “real” non-theorectical results 5 years from now
Co Ops have been brought up a couple of times, but it doesn’t really seem to be a popular concept in this area. Realtor.com had some easily understood information
https://www.realtor.com/advice/buy/what-is-a-co-op. From that site:
There are three basic types of co-op structures:
Market-rate co-ops are treated like most standard residential cooperative properties, where owners are allowed to sell their shares whenever they want, for as much money as they want. These types of financial market-rate co-ops are very common in New York City.
Limited-equity co-ops are usually geared toward those seeking affordable housing. There is a cap on how much equity members can earn in their homes, so they can’t sell their share for a huge profit. This restriction works to keep these co-op communities affordable. An example of this is New York’s Co-op City, the largest co-op in the nation, with more than 50,000 members and more than 15,000 units.
With group-equity or zero-equity co-ops, members do not accrue any financial equity in their homes, but they pay rental rates below market value.
It seems like the latter two types are the ones that are likely to provide affordability, but not really the equity building advantages of home ownership.
Who would create these co ops? Certainly not for profit developers. Maybe non-profit or the city but it seems there are more traditional paths for these latter two to take that would create small homes and opportunities for true home ownership.
Newton isn’t NYC or Boston or even Cambridge or Brookline where I could see the co-op concept being more attractive. As Matt pointed out, most people attracted to Newton (present writer not included) are attracted to Newton for its suburban character.
@ Jason JH
That still doesn’t make any sense to me.
Making statements linking single family zoning with mixed use developments and large scale developments makes no sense to me..
Except that I see no reason to exempt any of them from a review process. It’s the way it’s done in many other suburban communities around Boston and New York.
Painting people as anti development is unproductive gaslighting and doesn’t help both sides to a common ground.
Sometimes I think that I agree with some of Sean’s positions and then he says something ridiculous that infers that people who favor single family zoning support Jim Crow.
It’s a poor way to bring people together
@sean – Like Thanos said, change is… “inevitable”. But the question is, what does change look like and again (and I’m to beat this point as often as you do on housing in general), “who does it benefit most”?
Congrats to the seniors who are able to “downsize” into the luxury pads over in Austin Street and Trio, but frankly when I reach that age, I’m not sure if I will have the same luxury to do so. Selling and moving to a cheaper location is more likely. The young professionals you speak of… are scrambling to find remaining, available apartments on Craigslist… as costs are driven up by the “market rate” (not so much) units at Austin and Trio. In short, it’s not really solving the need, and who benefits most are the folks at Austin Street and Trio who are collecting rents.
You know what would have helped? If even a portion of untis at Austin Street and Trio were condos. Their smaller square footage, at market rate price/sq/ft would natually lend to more affordable, accessible home ownership and equity/wealth building opportunties – and with it, the ablity to upgrade to their forever home. That’s how we did from Brighton to Fenway to JP to Newton…. and many of our neighbors as well. Who would reasonably sized and priced condos benefit? Young professionals, young families and the flood of Millenials at or approaching that age. (Workforce housing as well)
So now let’s get back to Single Family Zoning. While I agree how it came to be was not great, it is not a race issue today. That said, while neither candidate will support removing it at this time, I’m personally not against it… IF (and again, let’s go back to “who benefits?”)
1. IF zoning states that people can build up but not out (keeping living sizes and prices contained, while adding more housing stock)
2. IF zoning allows for land to be sub divided and set backs reduced (keeping living sizes and prices contained, while adding more housing stock)
3. IF the new zoning is applied the same across all of Newton – and not excluding the Mayor’s Chestnut Hill, Waban, etc. (because it’s all about equality, right?)
This would be sort of rezoning and change I can get on board with. Less of a departure of the suburban character so many of us in Newton cherish, while providing new home ownership opportunites for those who do not have them today. And by no means I am I say we should abolish apartments before someone misquotes). They are a vital part of the housing mix. That and the subsidies and other programs Ms. Sangiolo proposes in her housing policy… we could really be on to something!! Right @Jason JH? 🙂
Matt,
You’ve gone from only-developers-benefit-from-new-apartments to I-don’t-care-about-the-people-who-benefit-from-new-apartments. Interesting. I’m still going to contend that the folks in the deed-restricted affordable units benefitted.
Also, please dispense with the luxury-apartments-drive-up-Craigslist-apartments disinformation. First, it just doesn’t make sense. Second, study after study disproves it. It’s called filtering, a well-known phenomenon. When new market-rate units come on the market, they drive down prices of older stock. If apartment prices are going up in Newton, they would have gone up more without the added supply.
Totally with you on modest-sized condos. We need more options. You’ll be delighted by the project at the current Oakley Spa site. Modest-sized condos. (I can’t remember how many.) Also, the project on Jackson St. Twelve modest-sized condos. But, we can’t build modest-sized ownership units on 70% of the lots in Newton. Small apartment buildings like Oakley Spa or Jackson St. Duplexes. Triplexes. Townhomes. All illegal across most of Newton. Make them legal. That’s how you’re going to get modest-priced, modest-sized ownership opportunities.
By the way, many of the councilors you say you support drove down the size of the Oakley project and are trying to make the Jackson St. project smaller. And, of course, they are against legalizing multi-family housing in more of the city.
As for your proposed zoning rules:
1. I don’t understand what you’re suggesting here.
2. Totally for smaller minimum lot sizes and reduces setbacks.
3. Absolutely, we should have uniform zoning rules across the city.
But, you don’t seem to include multi-family. Single-family homes are never again going to be entry-level homes for folks of modest means, even smaller ones on smaller lots. Look at 9 Walter St. Very small house (1,311 s.f.) on a very small lot (4,500 s.f.). Sold for a whisker under $1 million last year.
You can subdivide until the cows come home. The era of entry-level single-family homes has passed (in Newton). You know what’s a great indication that I’m right? Luxury townhomes. People willing to pay more than modest amounts for larger than modest homes are telling us that single-family homes are not a necessity.
Not sure how you can so blithely acknowledge that our current zoning regulations might have been ill intended or had demonstrably bad outcomes for certain group(s), but then assert that it just doesn’t matter.
@Jackson, I think you are putting words in my mouth: I didn’t conflate mixed use developments with zoning for residential districts, though to be fair I did mention the benefits of the inclusionary ordinance. It looks like there is some common ground between our comments. Thanks
@Matt – super interesting. Thanks!
One small comment: I would be ok if structure footprints got larger by right if it is pursuant to creating more, smaller units.
Agreed, Jason. I saw a really cute looking bungalow with an uncharacteristically large yard for my neighborhood get razed a few years ago. It is place are two VERY large condos which take up the entire lot. No more yard, the extra space is just big driveways. If it’s going to eliminate the yard I’d much rather it have been replaced by 4 units at half the size each. I see that as contributing to solving the housing crisis.
MMQC,
1,001%
1,000% MMQC
I met Amy S. at an event a couple of years back and I felt like she cared a lot about the housing problems. I think if she knew for sure that getting rid of the single family zoning would really help make housing more affordable for people she would back it 100%. She is just afraid unintended consequences will occur that make things worse. When you look at the prices of all the new construction, she has a point.
Mike,
Not sure I share your understanding of Amy’s intentions, but let’s go with it.
What evidence do you think Amy’s looking for that multi-family housing would be more affordable than single-family housing?
On any given lot, a single unit in a multi-family home is going to be less expensive than a single-family home. Allow more multi-family housing and, lot-by-lot, housing will become more affordable.
A new unit in a multi-family building might be more expensive than the existing single-family home, but the real comparison should be to the new single-family home that would have been built. Or, the expanded single-family home. Or, the renovated single-family home.
Somebody’s going to say, “If we could eliminate the opportunity to build a huge new single-family home, then it’s possible that the existing modest home would be less expensive than two huge replacement luxury condos.” I’m not sure that’s even true. But in what world are we going to prohibit a single-family McMansion but allow multiple McMiniums©. If we want to make sure that multi-family replacements for single-family homes are modest, then we should — and can — write the rules that way.
Turns out, that the 2020 proposal to create multi-family housing everywhere did just that.
Here we go again-
Sean Roche has always got that race card ready to go…
Anyone who doesn’t agree with his housing
ideas is a racist..,
Is there anyone other than myself reading
and posting here that is okay with this nonsense?
Seriously…Anyone???
Almost the entire city council and school
committee voted for a white candidate when
an excellent African-American was on the ballot… How is that not in itself “systemic racism”?
Wasnt that racist? Or Jim Crow like?
Are we playing the situational racism game?
Were all those politicians inoculated from being tagged as racists
because they had BLM signs on their lawns..?
Let’s not conflate pointing out the racist origins of single family zoning with calling people racists. Please. Sean is not doing that that I can see.
Sorry Doug-
He is absolutely doing that.
Why is it necessary to bring race into
a conversation about housing?
It’s called race-baiting.
I’m sorry you can’t see that.
Paul
I agree 1001%
If there are readers looking for the relevance of race in housing policy discussions, these links are helpful:
https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/2020-09-land-matters-podcast-housing-racial-history
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/opinion/white-privilege-civil-rights.html
There are many more.
Jason,
Do you believe minorities (asian, hispanic, black) cannot purchase in Newton TODAY solely because of the color of their skin and NOT because they do not have sufficient income?
From my observations, you have down payment, income and best bid and the house is yours. The only color is green
If your issue is that minorites have less income then the issue is not zoning or housing…rather education,poverty, social
Thanks for the link Jason.
You’ll be encouraged to learn that Newton’s
historically racist single family exclusionary zoning
will be eliminated in your neighborhood first. The neighborhoods of Sean Roche, Ruth Goldman and Doug Haslam will be next. I cant imagine they wouldn’t want to be among the first to lose this zoning and renounce their white privilege.
Nothing feels quite as good as having some
skin in the game to accompany the”powerful
statements decrying systemic racial bias”.
Hi Paul,
I’ve mentioned before here that I welcome more density in my neighborhood. We actually are three units sharing one driveway and my house was a boarding house in a prior life… so it would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood to have some more multifamilies on the block
-Jason
I’m just going to put this out there…I’m white, my husband is not. He doesn’t come on V14 or Facebook groups, so I showed him some threads about race and development. He found it very offensive that a bunch of white guys are insisting that single family zoning because it sends the message of “we think that people of color can only afford to live in condos or apartments.” I don’t think this is what any of you are intending, but I think that as white folks we need to be cognizant of messaging. And as a white person, I don’t have a place to tell my nonwhite husband that what he’s reading isn’t offensive.
So I say tread carefully. Let’s have some more people of color chime in. These conversations needn’t be dominated by white people.
MMQC – my mentors on the topic of housing these days are primarily BIPOC leaders in Greater Boston. We don’t all have to have the same point of view here, but I want to clarify that my comments are informed by voices and experiences beyond my own. I do think the conversation is struggling here bc it’s an online format – so tone is lost.
I never said BIPOC families can only afford a certain type of home. I did suggest some land use laws were created with the intent to exclude classes of residents.
Thanks,
J
Thanks Jason!
Very happy to hear that. You’re half way there. More density is always better however..,
I know Sean, Ruth and Doug(and all their neighbors)are looking forward to the much denser (and less racist) neighborhoods
that the elimination of the single family exclusionary zoning will afford them.
The editor/babysitters of V14, Jerry Reilly
and Chuck Tanowitz are certainly all in
on eliminating the exclusionary single family zoning in their neighborhoods also.
Eliminating historic systemic racial bias in housing
is a no-brainer, isn’t it? Glad to see so many are willing to do their part!
@sean, I never said, ” I-don’t-care-about-the-people-who-benefit-from-new-apartments”. But Austin and Trio… it’s the wealthy who benefit. The developers who collect the rents and the fortunate few retirees who can afford them long term.
Thank you.
MMQC – I misread your note. Not seeking to deny anyone’s experience. Thank you for that important share.
-J
As a Black woman who lived in Newton for 14 years, I can say unequivocally that it’s so affirming to have people (like Sean and Jason) recognizing and talking openly about the systems of oppression at work in housing and in general. It’s also incredibly frustrating to see comments pointing to singular POC as spokespeople for all of us. We are not a monolith. We are dynamic and have multiple perspectives. Just because someone is a certain color does not make them the answer. Clarence Thomas is Black but I sure would never have chosen him over most anyone for his job. The tokenism in these comments is so insulting and the mere use of the term “race card” is the ultimate gaslight. It’s ok to have different ways to want to solve for an issue, but don’t deny the history or context because it makes you uncomfortable. It just makes you uninformed.
Here to try and have a reasonable conversation. There are my thoughts.
Point 1 – What is a suburb?
I see people say that allowing multifamily housing will make newton not a suburb anymore. I don’t understand this logic and it’s probably a definition thing. Can people articulate a little more what they mean when they say “suburb”? Many, many suburbs in Boston and beyond allow multifamily housing.
Point 2 – Multifamily homes are cheaper than single family homes
There are many people who are unhappy with the glut of expensive housing we are seeing in Newton today, including myself. Personally, I think we should make additional options for people to live here who can’t afford the $200,000+ down payment on a $1,000,000+ home. That is where my reasoning and logic come from – how do we make housing available to people without that kind of money.
One reason why we are only seeing land used in certain ways is because our land use policies make it against the law to build cheaper housing. Land is a significant driver of cost in real estate, and a vacant lot or a condemned building in newton is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. I agree with the experts that multifamily housing units are much more affordable because they share the cost of land between multiple units. Therefore, if we’re trying to reach the goal of “less than $1M housing for more people” one part of that is to add additional housing options to the mix, especially the types of “missing middle” housing that are currently illegal to build here. See the links below for more information.
Regarding land use and housing: https://www.brookings.edu/research/fixing-greater-bostons-housing-crisis-starts-with-legalizing-apartments-near-transit/)
Missing middle housing: https://missingmiddlehousing.com/
Point 3- Renters need housing too
I’m no landlord sympathizer, but I do support expanding the number of rental options of all types in greater Boston, including in Newton. People balk at the expensive rents here in Newton but keep in mind that people are willing to pay those prices, and the renters do not think they are getting a bad deal. It helps to relieve upward pressure on the rental market when high-net-worth renters move into new construction apartments.
Over the last 10 years the price “fair market rent” of a 3BR apartment has increased from $1,623 in 2010 to $2,880. That’s an increase of over $14,000 a year, and much higher than inflation, which at 2% per year would be closer to $2036. I have known many renters over the years, and I will tell you that many renters love and value the community they live in just as much as the landowners in the community. Ultimately, renters are displaced from their beloved communities when they get priced out of their apartments because people with higher salaries compete with them for the same apartment. That competition is happening all over greater Boston, and it is the vulnerable long-term residents who end up getting displaced. The only way to stop displacement of the people who are already here is to make room for the new people who want to live here.
I could write a whole lot more about the state of renting in Boston, but for now please see this May 2021 article from the Boston Globe: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/05/03/opinion/how-make-rent-affordable-boston/
Matt,
Fifty-eight households will have (already have) subsidized apartments in Trio and Austin St.
While you may not think of them as benefiting, I’d wager they think they’ve benefitted.
It’s not just the rich.
Sean,
Robbing peter to pay paul. The 58 have benefitted to the detriment of hundreds having to pay inflated market rates in trio and to others who rents have been raised in the area (as landlords now see demand for 2br at $4000)
The history of exclusionary zoning in Newton, the metro area and across the US is undeniable, it is documented up and down. We are not responsible for writing those zoning laws, but we are responsible for how we respond when revisions are up for consideration.
Sean, I appreciate the clear explanation of the “real estate math”.
Re the comment about apartments at Trio and Austin St. – All of us benefit from projects like Trio and Austin St, IMO. These developments provide reduced rate housing opportunities for those among us who make 50%-110% of AMI – area median income – in perpetuity. These developments also provide desirable housing at market rate, retail, community-use space and well-used exterior open space, I think those are pretty great things.
MaryLee,
Co-ops may be traditionally uncommon in Newton, but so it denser multi-unit housing. Just because it hasn’t existed doesn’t mean it can’t. My read on popular opinion is that there’s a fair sized chunk of people who don’t mind higher density but don’t want to see luxury units and developer profits. For this reason, co-ops could be appealing.
“Who would create these co ops? Certainly not for profit developers. Maybe non-profit or the city but it seems there are more traditional paths for these latter two to take that would create small homes and opportunities for true home ownership.” But if you’re building small homes, where are you putting them? If you aren’t building a fair number of units, you’re having no impact. Small homes need land, and land is precious (and expensive).
And as for “the opportunities of true home ownership”, “true home ownership” is a horrible way to do affordable housing. You create an affordable residence through subsidy or preservation, but then what happens? Either the house becomes market rate (“true home ownership”) and it’s no longer affordable ever again, or it doesn’t (through deed restrictions) and the incentive to maintain it gets complex. Affordable rental units are better and more natural than affordable units for sale, because the rent can be fixed for subsequent residents.
The whole point of a co-op is that regular people need housing as in “roof over their head”, but we take profit out of the equation by decoupling it from profit for the individual resident. It provides limited equity (unlike renting) but not market rate profit (like traditional home ownership).
If the city subsidizes housing through investment or land, its money doesn’t have to pay for profit, either by residents or developers.
@Lisa Monahan
It is interesting you mention “Reduced Rate Housing Opportunities”, and not “Affordable Opportunities”.
From what I recall “Affordable” single bedroom apartments at Austin St are about $1700 a month, which I do not find so affordable. Reduced Rate seems more appropriate.
For those who struggle to find $1000 a month for rent – these developments mean diddly squat. I do not understand how the predominantly white and entitled Engine 6 supporters feel so good about it.
Simon
“I do not understand how the predominantly white and entitled Engine 6 supporters feel so good about it.”
The answer is simple, its not in THEIR backyard. They get to dump all their social engineering experiments in someone else’s neighborhood and not live with the consequences – crowded schools, more traffic, same resources for more ppl
Going back to the original post that pointed to some of Sangiolo’s comments.
When I first saw that infographic of hers about zoning, I was puzzled. I wondered what she means when she says she supports single family zoning because “Newton needs a diversity of housing types to increase access to affordable housing.” Then she said that she supports single family zoning because she “believes a diversity of housing stock…is essential.”
How does single family zoning support a “mixture of housing types” or a “diversity of housing stock”? How does single family zoning “increase access to affordable housing”? Can anyone try to answer these questions? Thanks.
Kathy,
You are looking for a simple answer to an extremely complicated issue. If you look at Amy’s web site you will find many of the answers that you are looking for.
You might not like some or all of the answers depending upon your viewpoint but there is a plan that makes sense to some people.
The infograghic was obviously meant to show that she wishes to maintain the look and scale of Newton’s neighborhoods instead of seeing neighborhoods exploited by developers who aren’t producing any new affordable housing and enriching themselves at the neighborhoods expense.
Let’s develop sensibly!
Hi Simon and Bugek,
I was not trying to dodge the topic of affordable units at, there is a mandated range of reduced rate rental costs as I’m sure you’re aware. Qualified individuals earn no more than 50% to 110% AMI, and as the rent ion these units is subsidized in perpetuity. To me that sounds like movement in the right direction…
I gladly welcome new apartment development in my neighborhood – the Walnut St. apartment project with affordable units is just over a block away from my house. I’d love to see a building like Austin St. or Trio developed on the parking lot in Newton Highlands. The Highlands needs more people to keep our shops and businesses busy.
It would be great to have options where I might be able to move to in ten years… An elevator building within walking distance to the T and the village center and residents all of ages.
I am also hoping the City revises the zoning code so that it’s conducive for the creation of a new kind of starter home. Two and three-bedroom condos close to transportation. Otherwise, Newton is at risk for a big generation gap in residents, along with a burgeoning aging population… I don’t mean to be a downer, just following the stats.
Joe, I was looking for some of that detail on Amy’s website too. Would you mind pointing out where we can find that info.? Or post it here? Thanks so much.
Matt,
Your question of why rentals vs condos.
Take Northland as an example, ppl may be shocked to know that they are “private equity investment ” company. Their purpose is to provide a steady return on investment (tjink mutual fund)
They use rents as a way to provide a steady income stream to return to their investors. NOT the goodness of their own heart.
They dont care for any negative consequences (over crowding, traffic etc).. they just want their monthly rent check to give to hedge funds.
Hi Lisa,
I’m looking for some new fresh ideas because I see neighborhoods that are getting exploited for profit. At this point I’m not endorsing Amy’s ideas but I think they are worth considering. Here is her Affordable Housing site
https://sangiolo.org/affordable-housing/
This statement I agree with 100%
Preserve existing naturally affordable housing stock. “The problem is not simply that tear-downs remove smaller sized homes that serve as entry points for young families. The McMansions that are built in their place are not just a little more expensive – but a lot more expensive – making Newton less and less affordable”
The thread that “Spin Doctor Sean” was preaching is just the typical disinformation that he is famous for..
@joe
“Preserve existing naturally affordable housing stock”
The smaller homes should be heavily subsidized to maintain their footprint on the lot. I’ve seen perfectly nice smaller homes even on west Newton hill demolished and large homes with no or little lawn put in as replacements. Smaller homes require less energy ( when upgraded as needed ) have more space for trees, grass ( carbon sinks ) and have a chance at being more affordable. But it will require subsidies and heavy tax relief etc because the market won’t support that. They maintain a pleasant scale, and are often set back further than the townhouses with garages that replace them. Bigger is not better.
Why affordable rentals and not condos? Affordable (below market by whatever means) condos are affordable only once. After that, without deed restrictions, they become market rate. With deed restrictions, they aren’t a great investment while at the same time tying up otherwise liquid capital.
Affordable rentals are affordable in perpetuity. They can provide affordability to a series of tenants because the tenant (and the market) doesn’t control the next tenant’s rental rate.
Yes, affordable units tax the other unit owners. But those owners agree to that because it is baked into their rent. The problem that I find with that system is that it is a narrow-based tax for something we as a city say we value. We can build these developments and feel good about our social mission because and do it on the cheap because it comes at no tax cost to Newton residents. (Development has other costs and benefits, but those are less quantifiable.) That means we don’t have much financial leverage to build affordable units.