This week the Newton Patch ran a Letter to the Editor signed by 19 architects and builders, dated October 2021, stating their opposition to the proposed changes to the residential zoning code. The letter outlines several issues they have with form-based zoning, density, and the pressures these changes will put on the city’s infrastructure. There’s only one problem: the letter is neither new nor necessary.
In a comment on the letter and in an email exchange on the West Newton Listserv, City Council President Susan Albright points out that this same letter was sent to the Zoning and Planning committee more than a year ago, and in December put the entire residential zoning redesign project on hold, choosing instead to focus on village centers*. So, why would this letter resurface now? From Albright’s email:
I find it disingenuous at best that almost the same letter resurfaces 3 weeks before the election as if this was new information. I hope that everyone reading this letter understands exactly why it was resent a year later. I’m ashamed for our community at this ploy.
* As a member of the Economic Development Commission subcommittee on village centers, I have been personally involved in this project.
Technically, the residential portion of zoning was “tabled” until after the election… so still relevant as this Technically could resume after the election
I think 19 architects do have a valid voice in the direction of zoning
Sorry Chuck, I have to 100% disagree.
I read the letter. It’s fully based on policy substance, laying out disagreements. There are no attacks of any kind. No negative tactics.
It’s still relevant with these policies still under consideration, voters have a right to hear about it. Resending something that is still relevant policy-wise is completely fair- I never heard of this letter and follow Newton issues more than most.
A substance based disagreement should not be called negative tactics. Repeating a substance based disagreement a year later, when still relevant, is not negative tactics.
Chuck- you do a disservice to our dialogue when you’re criticizing speech that is fully legitimate. Issues should be debated and discussed.
Also from Albright’s email (emphasis is hers): “On December 14, 2020 , 3 months after that letter was received and 9 months ago- the Zoning and Planning Committee took the discussion of Article 3 OFF THE TABLE. We agreed with many of the points in that letter and agreed that much more work needed to be done to analyze the impact of the proposals from many points of view.”
Not sure I’m seeing negative tactics here. Just because you disagree with the content doesn’t mean they’re going negative. I’m not really sure where I fall on this issue yet, but I found their perspective useful.
When I look at the Zoning & Planning agenda for the Mayor’s office and Council, I see several enormous & complex topics under way, including but not limited to:
– Digesting the Vision Kit & focus group feedback to help enhance our village experience (for residents and businesses)
– Digesting a thorough study of commuter patterns, density, and job opportunity by village
– Responding to the Housing Choice legislation
– Utilizing ARPA funds (especially to help folks who need rental assistance)
– (Hopefully) advocating to keep the $327B housing funds in the Build Back Better Act
– Continuing to identify land on which to build (or convert) affordable units for ownership and rental
I just can’t visualize a rationale in the next few years to subordinate the above items in order to discuss a city wide zoning change when (1) that approach hasn’t succeeded for decades and (2) there are endless opportunities to deregulate and build more homes (affordable and market rate) in a contextual manner with the agenda above. All that being said, I have heard growing support from Councilors for simplifying the permitting of multifamily units if those units are much smaller than the 4K+ homes we see being built today, and I am all for the Council exploring that further — in light of the rapidly expanding size (and cost) of new homes in Newton.
So much good can come from the Council & Mayor’s current, substantial, progressive agenda over the next few years, and there are many questions yet to be answered with the current work — perhaps we can focus on that?
https://commonwealthmagazine.org/economy/the-silent-majority-in-support-of-housing-action/
https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/pandemic-reveals-need-space-building-smaller-units-remains-essential
The content itself may not be seen as negative, but the context– the timing, and Albright’s response to it- does bring motivation into question.
I hope this will be a change election. We all deserve so much better.
Susan Albright needs to go.
She was on the school committee years ago, the board of aldermen,
and now the city council as its president. She’s been around for 20 or 30 years. She hasn’t been good for neighborhood schools, promotes large dense development and has done nothing to diversify the city council.
She shunned the opportunity around to elect the first African American in 30 years to the city council.
We desperately need new leadership
at the top of the city council.
@Chuck
I see your addendum with Albright’s email- dialogue furthered, a good thing.
Albright hasn’t committed to 1) making changes to the proposal, just to be further studied (some cynically will read the latter as waiting for a different time to slip it back in) 2) that this won’t be taken up in the next session.
So it’s reasonable for those concerned to keep up substantive pressure on things they care about and argue for candidates aligned with their views.
Please don’t call this negative campaigning. No one has taken this issue permanently off the table, its a live issue.
Paul, maybe, just maybe, we should be picking our elected officials based on their character, experience and policy positions, rather than their ethnic background. I’m kinda old-fashioned and naive that way. (And also male and white and therefore privileged, so please do take my words with the appropriate grain of salt.)
Now I get that Tarik fits your policy preferences better than Susan Albright does, but for other folks he does not, including me.
@Robert-
I actually am judging Susan Albright by the best measures. What I see when I leave my front door.
Two giant developments, Avalon Bay and Northland. On her watch with her blessings. Our streets are a mess.
The local school hasnt improved
one iota during her tenure on the school committee or the board of alderman/city council.
I’m old fashioned also. I believe the city council should be diverse, inclusive,
equitable and representative of its entire population. An all white city council does not reflect our diverse
population whether you agree with their policies or not.
I don’t see this as negative campaigning. And I think “tabling” the zoning redesign project means exactly that, it is tabled until it isn’t. How are folks who oppose it supposed to oppose it if they don’t advocate against the proposal and documentation currently available?
The zoning redesign as written is a flawed proposal that needs a lot of work. But the report is out there, the election will determine how zoning is taken up and dealt with (and what comes off the “table”).
A letter to the paper advocating for your position is completely acceptable political speech. I don’t agree with all of the points in the letter, but they signed their names to it, and they are professionals in their chosen field. I hope the city council takes their views into account too, just like I want my views considered.
As for the fact that they published the same letter earlier in the process, I understand the frustration by Susan Albright that this isn’t fair since it is responding to the original proposal and is now being used to influence the election, but since the city council will be the main group making the decisions on zoning, it matters who they are and what they stand for. As such, the timing seems understandable from a political perspective. I think this is when their message could have the most impact, even if Councilor Albright disagrees with the conclusions of the letter.
In American legislative-speak, to “table” a proposal is the same thing as “killing” it (Congressional Quarterly literally uses these as synonyms). While it is technically probably true that you could bring it back up for discussion, in practice that is not what happens – tabling the motion meant it didn’t have enough support to pass.
Any new proposal would start again. And in fact that is the process we are going through now going through with all the “visioning” and so forth. Whatever comes out of that will be different from what was previously tabled.
Gary just nailed it. My two cents: I have stayed silent too long. As a moderate voice that does not ascribe to one camp of thought or passion on this issue, I believe that the entire process being shelved was not to bring it back as it was poorly proposed. The proposal from Planning was to elicit discussion regarding ongoing zoning reform, specifically responding to a question as to how we could use zoning to create smaller, middle market units in Newton. In the prior meeting Councilor Markiewicz said that we should consider 2 family everywhere. So at the next meeting Planning came back with a proposal to add 2 family housing in all zones. THIS WAS JUST TO BE DISCUSSED. It was not law and just a draft. As Councilor Laredo reminds all of us quite often in Land Use meetings, “planning doesn’t make law, the Council makes law”. He is correct! So why was this misinformation spread as fear that this is what we as a council were planning. It was a response from one councilor and then presented as a draft to consider. We never got a chance to say how we felt about it, if it made sense, etc. We never discussed it to the point that we had anything to vote on. It was taken off the table because the misinformation became fear of the city doing something radical. It was never discussed! So Gary is correct. What I want to do is to continue the process of zoning reform after months of Planning’s additional engagement and data gathering which has been ongoing. I am saddened that it appears that our City has become divided over something that should have stayed in committee and not gone straight to the community before we had a chance to do our work. Have faith in the process. Have faith that there are many like me on the council that want reasonable incremental growth that will be a product of letting the process happen involving all stakeholders.
Thank you Councilor Lipof for that explanation.
Seems to me that if Donald Trump’s stolen election claim is the Big Lie, claims that the city was or is plotting to outlaw single family homes is Newton’s Little Lie.
With the Big Lie, the tragedy is that we have a number of electeds in Washington who know better, but keep repeating it for their own political gain.
The same appears true of Newton’s Little Lie. We have councilors who know better but keep repeating it for their own gain.
I would add one caveat to what Chair Lipof shared. My recollection of that discussion in the summer of 2020 was that Councilor Markiewicz’s comment about whether Newton should allow two or multi-family everywhere was when it was suggested that the proposal that was on the table was to allow that anywhere within either 1/4 or 1/2 miles of a transit stop and I think it was President Albright who correctly observed that might cover something like 85% of Newton. So Councilor Markiewicz logically suggested that it might be cleaner to allow it everywhere. I agree it was a casual thought or musing vs. a actual proposal..
It is true the the “elimination of single family zoning” or single family only zoning” has become a lightening rod. But it might be a distinction without a difference if the real question is if Newton should allow multi-family anywhere within 1/2 mile of a T stop. That will be discussed and resolved when zoning redesign in residential districts is taken back up as that is what was actually the proposal.
That said, I do think it is very possible for engaged voters to ascertain where many City Councilors stand on that question.
I recall a debate before the last election between Vicki Danberg , Greg Schwartz and Alicia Bowman , during which Ms Bowman made a shocking admission that she was in favor of the elimination of single family zoning city wide . Is it any wonder given her victory, that given such a statement some constituents might remember and imagine what the future might bring ?
@blueprintbill I recall racist and homophobic emails from a Leader of Rightsize Newton attacking city councilors during the last election all in the name of zoning.
Is it a wonder that we have so much hate in the city when citizens start attacking individuals based on their beliefs around zoning?
Imagine a future where we ban those ignorant people from participating in these types of forums.
BTW Should we consider RightSize Newton a hate group?
1. When title of this post came thru in a Tweet last night, my immediate reaction was a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Anything can be spun into fear, and labeling it as such points a lighting rod in its direction. Just stop. Patch saw fit to re-run the letter. Are they now fake news? (No)
2. Do I think Councilor Leary tried to dupe the system? Of course not, she’s a nice lady. Was it a bone head move to have her husband notarize the signatures or let a single family member sign for each member of their household? Yup! Again, not a scare tactic. Her opponent is trying to win an election as she is, and a Brady should not have let out quite as much air in those footballs back in 2015.
3. “Eliminate” has such a negative context, but going on record as saying I’m not against multifamily zoning by right…so long as its citywide (to level the playing field and ELIMINATES hypocrisy) and there are protections against Developer abuse, ie requiring the “developer” to have to also live on the property for the first 3 years as California recently enacted.
@Councilor Lipof do you have an opinion on California’ recent move to statewide multi family by right?
@Greg,
The only thing that bothers me is that, when I had a meeting with the planning dept ( James Freas, and another woman whose name I’m sorry I can’t recall) I was told on no uncertain terms that once a home is 2 family, it cannot be converted back to single family.
So, in a way it does eliminate single family homes, albeit over time.
I find that restriction a bit troubling in terms of the right of an owner to use their property how they wish.
I’m sure it wouldn’t even be that common.
@Rick Frank: I have never heard that about 2-family properties converting back to Single families. In my 30 years as a real estate appraiser and consultant I have seen this happen and using a 2-family as a single family, if the owner so chooses is allowed. A 2 family can not be used as a three or four but you can use it for less units than approved for.
A reminder to all with a strong opinion one way or the other. My point is that it doesn’t matter how you feel about where we should go with zoning and where we should land. My frustration is that the process was hijacked and we never got a chance to all discuss, weigh in, debate, and come to a vote on this piece of our residential code. Regardless of where you want it to go, it was derailed and curtailed unnecessarily and irresponsibly against and outside of our process and better practices. Those who chose to do this by going to the community before our work was done sewed unfounded fear in our community. As city councilors we should put council and community first. And it is important to point out that the hard work to arrive at a proposal is ONLY a recommendation to the full council! Any committee vote is not law but a recommendation to be debated and deliberated by all 24 councilors. As your elected body we were presented a proposal that was never discussed or debated, and no recommendation was formulated. Nothing got started because misinformation ran rampant that something was being formally proposed. If you are sitting back right now and thinking about divisions of thought in our city and that maybe and sadly they are not based on reality…. I’m sitting there with you.
@Matt: I can’t speak to what California did but thanks for telling me and I will read and research. Every town, city and state has its own unique qualities and issues. We can learn from each other.
I am always open minded and often my first stance on something can be altered by learning new information and listening to alternative views. I have no definitive view at this point on adding multi family other than I find it most reasonable to allow greater density within 1/4 mile of our city centers/train stops. This would allow people to walk to trains and to walk to the village centers. Two times a day they would not need to get in their cars. I would cap the size of these units at 1,000 sf in an effort to make them more affordable whether rental or condominiums. They would represent this “middle market” that has disappeared in Newton, the units for our children to start their adult lives here in Newton or for our parents to downsize to stay here. I want to move the needle forward while retaining what we all cherish in Newton. Now many may agree with me and some may disagree and some may want to debate and discuss and who knows where I or anyone will eventually land on this…… we never got a chance to do any of that…….the whole process was thwarted and the outcome for our city has been damaging. Elected officials should do everything to bring us together and not tear us apart.
@Rick Frank – I live in a house that began as a single family, was converted to a two family for a number of years, and was then converted back to a single family.
Perhaps they were referring to the property’s zoning designation rather than its use. In our house’s case, the property remains zoned as a two family throughout these various uses.
The two family zoning of our property means that I have the option in the future of changing its use back to two family but doesn’t require me to do so.
Thank you Councilor Lipof for getting involved in the discussion. From what I’m reading here, it looks as if it’s essentially what City Council President Albright mentioned above. That a letter was sent that is old, addressing a topic that is not up for discussion, for the sole purpose of stirring up fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the community.
In the PR world people call this a FUD campaign and the tactics we’re seeing here are just what happens. In the case of this particular letter I would add that it took advantage of a change in the editorial lead at the Patch in which the new editor (who covers many communities, not just Newton) didn’t have the knowledge and history, so simply ran what, to her eye, seemed like a reasonable letter to the editor. The people submitting it, however, knew full well that it was old and timed to rankle voters.
Those sympathetic to the Right Size Newton message then took the letter, which now has the third-party credibility of being on a “news” site with a recent date (making it appear “fresh”), and shared it with audiences on community email boards as if to say “isn’t this interesting?” It gave the appearance of credibility when it is likely a calculated move across the board.
So you have a dead issue that is resurrected by taking advantage of a new editor at a local website, not with the purpose of discussion, but with the purpose of using fear and doubt to push specific candidates to the fore. This is why I believe that it’s a negative tactic.
@Chuck
From your own quote above, Albright is saying more work needs to be done. It’s not a dead issue, by her own words.The gist of the letter is fully relevant to the types of City Councilors people want or don’t want to elect for this ongoing work that Albright is acknowledging and you cited.
Your comments sounds like trying to silencing the opposition with mostly irrelevant hyper technicalities.
Chuck, So rezoning is a topic not up for discussion ? What a relief to hear that its a dead issue !
I’m sure the city council is happy to hear that. They can now go on to more timely debate like transit oriented development in village centers. Or is that off the table as well?
@Bill to quote Ronald Reagan “there you go again.”
No, zoning is not a dead issue. No one said it was. We are talking about the issues specifically addressed in the letter above. Those issues are not currently “on the table.” The Village Center discussion is CLEARLY ongoing, also mentioned above.
What Chuck said a couple comments ago.
Except what does FUD stand for?
@Chuck
The “work needs to be done” was in specific reference to Article 3. Read the quote above, you are either misreading or misconstruing intentionally. She says nothing in her quote about village centers.
Albright is clearly saying that works needs to be done on the issues specifically discussed in the letter. Again, not a dead issue. She specifically said so.
Fear, Uncertainly, Doubt.
You want examples?
@blueprintbill You must have missed the question posed to you.
A leader of Right Size Newton sent out homophobic and racist emails to discredit someone running for city council. Do you think Right Size Newton should be considered a Hate Group?
@Fig
I have one for Chuck
Did you come out and complain about the threat of 3 separate massive 40b developments at Northland if the special permit was overturned? No. In fact you and many other propagated that BS. You are no stranger to FUD!