All candidates running for contested seats in the upcoming election were invited to submit a post in support of their candidacy to Village14. This is Barry Bergman’s
In my work as a financial systems consultant, listening to the client was a key step in a successful software implementation campaign. In my campaign for Ward 6 City Councilor, I am walking through Ward 6 listening to what residents are saying. This is what I have found out:
Out of Scale Development – On many streets I walk down, the neighbors show me the out of scale mansions built in their neighborhood and the adverse effects they have on the neighbors. In 2007 the residents of Wellesley took a stand against the “mansionization” of Wellesley by voting for a large house review process. As a result of this process, mature trees are saved from destruction, drainage issues are addressed and the size of these homes are reduced. Wellesley’s goal was to balance personal property rights and one’s social contract with the neighborhood; a concept questioned by my opponent (ZAP mtg 6-29-20). Our Zoning and Planning Committee chair refuses to schedule a docket item concerning teardowns. This is just wrong. Our Zoning Redesign project is supposedly looking for resident input. Why wouldn’t the committee in charge of this effort hear from city councilors on our biggest zoning issue?
Affordable Housing – Most residents I have spoken to want affordable housing. Unlike my opponent, nearly all agree with me that two homes on a single family lot will not lead to affordable housing. Just ask the folks I have spoken with on Halcyon Road, who have seen modest two family homes torn down behind them on Athelstane Road and replaced by two separate homes going from $1.6 – $1.8 million each. This only foreshadows what will happen if single family zoning is ended. These residents want real solutions like:
- Protecting our existing modest homes
- Promoting accessory apartments
- Working with nonprofit developers on mixed use developments in our village centers
- Creating a housing trust where the City buys up homes and resells them to people who couldn’t normally afford to live here, giving them the ability to create wealth.
Environment – Everyone I speak to agrees that our climate action plan is great, but there is more to do. Unlike my opponent (NewTV Candidate Profile 9/23/21), I believe that we need better tree replacement policies and need to increase our tree canopy, which is half of what it was in the 1970s. On a number of streets residents have pointed out where natural gas leaks have long been ignored by National Grid. We have the most natural gas leaks in the state outside of Boston. We need to work with the state to get this rectified.
Infrastructure – A Beecher Place resident sent me a copy of their petition to the City to request that their street be paved. Enclosed were photos of all the children and their injuries suffered while playing on the street. On Hartford Street a resident told me about their fruitless attempts to get a speed limit sign to slow down cars using the street as a shortcut from Route 9 to the Highlands. A Trinity Terrace mother told me how during the recent electric outage the Mason Rice backup generator wouldn’t turn on. Newton’s Comprehensive Plan says “Fix It First”. We need to give high priority to maintaining our streets, sidewalks, parks, athletic fields and schools.
Public Safety – Residents want to live in a city where every single person feels safe no matter who they are. They want to work together with the police to implement the Police Task Force recommendations community, not vote to cut their budget, like my opponent did for the 2021 budget.
Budget – Many agree that we need greater budget transparency and smart spending.
Most importantly, our Ward 6 residents want to be heard and I am listening. In this campaign you have a clear choice. I hope you will take a close look at the issues. If you do, I think you will find yourself agreeing with me and the residents I have spoken with. Learn more at www.barrybergman.org.
It is time for a change. Please vote for me in early voting at City Hall Friday (8:30 am – 5:00 pm) and Saturday (8:30 am – noon) or at the polls on Election Day – November 2.
Mr. Bergman, thank you for your willingness to serve and for your statement. I have just looked it over and I had some thoughts on your housing proposals. We know there are no easy answers, so I appreciate your thoughts and clarifications.
You mention the large home review process that Wellesley implemented. I didn’t know about it and it was interesting to read about their approach. It seems that it only addresses egregiously large homes (two times the median size of the neighborhood median, however that is measured). It would definitely be nice to filter those projects out for greater scrutiny.
However, a reasonable number people seems to be hankering for even more restriction than that. At some point in scale, you’ll start hearing from owners who believe their property values are adversely impacted by such restrictions. Like I said, no easy answers, but there is clearly a clash between the rights of the individual and the community. How do you approach that problem?
Furthermore, who is responsible for this review? Wellesley does it with a volunteer Design Review Board. It also produces significant work for the Planning Department, which have to meet with project design times about eight times during the course of a project. When discussions of using unelected boards for design review have come up in Newton, Councilors such as Councilor Malakie has resisted it, and are even campaigning against it. It is great to bring new ideas to the table. But do you believe they are workable in Newton and worth, say, hiring an extra planner as I believe Wellesley had to?
In your discussion discussion of affordable housing, you don’t mention Newton’s most common model of affordable units in for profit development. I agree this isnt the sole way to produce affordability, but other methods involve spending real taxpayer money on affordability rather than effectively taxing the building occupants. I support an approach with a broader base of economic support, but how do you convince taxpayers?
You also mention a housing trust where homes are purchased and resold to those who could otherwise not afford them. I believe this is a noble approach but extremely inefficient use of public housing funds. Purchase of homes, including market rate land, is very expensive. Selling the homes at a loss effectively grants the first owners a financial windfall, but also saddles them with the unpredictable expenses of home ownership for which they may not be prepared. Without deed restrictions limiting the profit on a future sale, affordability stops with the first owner: the house returns to market rate. Alternatively, with deed restrictions, any financial benefits of buying versus renting a home decrease or disappear entirely. For these reasons, affordable units are easier to run as rentals since the city’s initial cost can be amortized benefit of many successive owners, who are also spared the unpredictability of house maintenance costs.
The challenge of affordable housing and how to maximize our investment in it is real and complicated. For as much oxygen as it consumes in our local political discourse, we don’t seem to spend much time explaining it so that regular people can understand it. While we fight against market forces and each other, the challenge of thousands of regular people looking for a sustainable way to live gets worse and worse.
How do we start to address this problem for real, rather than for talking points? I find Council hearings to be a poor forum for this kind of discussion: there is simply not enough time to get Councilors and the audience up to speed, much less have a productive discussion,
Thanks again for your statement.
@Mike Halle
You can do what I do. Pickup the phone and discuss these issues with Councilors.
Simon, thanks for the suggestion. I feel it is often more informative for the community to ask respectful questions in a forum such as this one so that we can broaden our dialog and learn from each other.
@Mike
With all due respect, I sometimes try to read your emails. I rarely make it past the first paragraph when I realise you have several more.
People often complain how long city meetings take, and I would suggest it would be counterproductive to engage in this manor.
@Mike – I appreciate your thoughtful comment and questions. I, too, would be interested in reading responses to them.
@Simon French – I nearly always find Mike Halle’s comments thoughtful, considered, civil and unfailingly polite. As Sly Stone often said “different strokes for different folks”
@Jerry Reilly
I thought I was being polite.. Even constructive!
Mr. Bergman, I appreciate your comments about infrastructure in your statement and on your web site. I too am impatient to see improvements in our roads, sidewalks, bike facilities (and transit!). We have a long way to go, and the safety and civil rights of some of our most vulnerable residents depend on us.
Ask the city, and they will say they *are* prioritizing these things, and in fact there was a lot of paving and sidewalk work going on this year.
What would you ask the city to do differently, or prioritize differently, or get the Council to do differently than they already are doing? Citywide or in your ward? The current Ward 6 Councilors have been some of the most pro-active on the Council on the streets and transportation front.
Somewhat related, how would you approach the issue of gas leaks through National Grid any differently than what the city is doing now? This is a very important issue for climate, environment, and safety, but no one is *for* gas leaks. What extra leverage do you believe Newton can have?
Thank you.
@Simon French – I wasn’t throwing any shade your way. Yes you were indeed polite
I was just responding to you comment about Mike Halle’s posts. You seem to find them overlong or boring. I find them interesting and thoughtful. … different strokes
@Mike – great questions and thoughtful consideration to possible pitfalls.
The problem with our current path towards housing is the ratio in who benefits – for profit developers vs the people who need affordable housing. 20% affordable (Northland offered what, 17%?) The rest is all cha-ching!
If Newton is serious about providing affordable housing, it should put its money where its mouth is. Use eminent domain to take back land. Hell, Mayor Fuller did it for a glorified dog park (Webster Woods), why not do it for the nobility of providing affordable housing! Then partner with non-profit developers for the building, maintaining and running of these projects like the West Newton Armory or the work of Can-Do.
On a smaller scale, we allow two and multi-family by right and citywide – but with some conditions; like caps on FAR, increased setback requirements (both to encourage more modest sized/priced homes) and that any project of significant scale requires owner occupancy for x-years. This will provide more naturally affordable homes for those with a bit more means to buy – perhaps accumulating some savings for a payment after living in the aforementioned affordable rentals. Better yet, combine the two as sort of a pathway to home ownership. No disguised benefits nor deed restrictions required.
What’s tiring of hearing the talk of how much we need affordable housing and the socioeconomic and racial inequities that brought to us the housing crisis we have today, and all while, filling Developers’ coffers; allowing them to gobble up land like ruling clans in “Game of Thrones”.
Personally, I would gladly accept some density, if outcomes aligned with intentions. Let’s stop pretending that Northland, Korff and McMansion Developer X is out for anything other than the bottom line. Frankly, they shouldn’t have to. Yin and Yang is black and white, with clear distinctions – yet work in harmony. No grey areas to debate about. Sometimes the answers are just that clear.
Dear Mr. Bergman,
In your response to Councilor Noel’s post on Village14, you stated that you “don’t know” what the process was for approving the renovations at Levingston Cove. Yet you signed on to an appeal to delay this project. If you aren’t willing to do the work to learn and understand the issues in order to get elected, why should I believe you will do the work once you ARE elected?
Your commitment to the tree canopy of Newton is laudable. I think the beautiful trees of Newton is something all residents can agree on! But have you considered the investment many Newton residents have made in solar panels? Restoring the tree canopy will likely ruin solar capture for many residents. I worry that your vision for Newton is more grounded in the 1980s than the 21st century. Can you articulate how you will meet specific 21st century challenges – such as climate change – in Newton?
Crystal Lake is a community treasure, and I applaud your commitment to its protection. Does your concern for the environmental protection of Crystal Lake extend to the considerable amounts of herbicides and pesticides that many abutters dump on their lawns which then run into the lake? We will see the extinction of the bumble bee in Massachusetts within the next few years (already extinct in neighboring Rhode Island), and the neonicotinoids these residents use on their lawns is part of the cause. Again, interested in your thoughts on environmental issues affecting Newton. Thank you.
” Restoring the tree canopy will likely ruin solar capture for many resident”
Are you seriously arguing against preserving our tree canopy due to solar panels? These are not mutually exclusive. Most homeowners trim branches back from over roofs to avoid falling limbs on roofs and providing easy access for squirrel to get in. Just a silly argument
Most of our trees are lost when developers clear lots of homes and trees to build new houses
@MaryLee. It’s silly season. Do we give out prizes for the silliest argument this election season. This one should be nominated.
Mr. Lai,
Nobody is arguing that developers are motivated by profit. How many of us work for non-profits? I don’t. You don’t.
The question is whether or not we’re harnessing their profit motive towards a constructive end. Northland, Riverside, Trio, Dunstan East, are all providing two things we need: more market-rate homes in Newton. And, the hundreds of permanently affordable homes that those market-rate homes subsidize.
Inclusionary zoning and 40B have been, by far, the greatest engine of affordable-home creation in Newton in the 20+ years I’ve lived here. Do you have any idea how much it would cost the city to develop the 140 permanently affordable units at Northland, plus the 110 affordable units at Riverside, plus …? By contrast, the proposals for the Armory, which promises to be a once-in-a-generation achievement in the city, range from 41 to 76 units.
Should we do other things? Absolutely. We need a full set of tools in the toolbox.
Zoning changes like you’ve described? Absolutely.
100% affordable housing on existing or to-be-acquired city-owned land? Absolutely.
Shannon, There were a bunch of hearings open to the public on Levingston Cove before the pandemic. Since the pandemic I know there were presentations on May 11 and June 8. I didn’t attend either presentation as I was totally unaware of this project before I started seriously running for Ward Councilor. I do know that in the June 8 presentation Weston & Sampson was still proposing a 42″ railing on the deck over the water, which is not in compliance with ADA regulations for fishing decks. That was adjusted to the 34″ ADA compliant railing in the September 20 fact sheet, just over a month ago.
The tree canopy I refer to relates to the City of Newton owned trees that line our city streets. We have half the publicly owned tree canopy that we had in the 1970s. There is nothing wrong with pruning your trees. We did that for the solar panels on the back of our house. Newton has a climate action plan and that is great. We have to rebuild our publicly owned tree canopy now. We have to put ordinances in place that incentivize developers to save mature trees on the lots they are building on. Newton has the most natural gas leaks outside of Boston. We have to work with the surrounding cities and towns along with our state legislators to get the state Department of Public Utilites to clamp down further on National Grid to address these natural gas leaks
I am very concerned about the chemicals put on the lawns of all homes in Newton. We pulled out our front lawn and planted trees and native plants to try to sustain our bee and butterfly populations. If elected I would do everything possible to encourage Newton residents to do the same. We are in a dangerous phase of climate change. I am passionate about us doing everything we can do to address this now.
I don’t think the issue of solar and trees is silly. In fact, we saw it play out with the library parking lot renovation, where mature trees were cut down to accommodate the solar panels.
But I don’t think the problem is trees or solar panels, or the people who support them. We should celebrate and encourage both (and the people who support them). As said here, there are ways to work around many of the situations where they happen to conflict.
The problem is that people who value trees should nominally be political allies of people who support solar power and renewable energy sources. Instead, in Newton they somehow get set up as political adversaries, fighting over an already tiny piece of the municipal funding pie. Same is true for people who support universally accessible sidewalks going head to head with people who value a lush canopy of street trees.
In the end, who wins? The status quo wins. “No consensus in the community, we cannot move forward.” Or one side “wins”, with a plan that isn’t the best plan, leaves many people frustrated and some people alienated, and adds to existing Newton’s list of long term political resentments.
City Council, city departments, advocacy groups, and residents simply must do a better job in communication, building collaborative mechanisms and trust, and working toward compromises that people can understand and support.
Barry,
There is no longer any debate that adding housing around transit is an effective tool to fight climate change. Are you on board with zoning changes to allow gentle density in Newton by right within a 15-minute walk of transit? Duplexes, triplexes, small apartment buildings. Not just housing in village centers with transit, but housing around village centers with transit.
If so, why not?
Also, please let us know how you feel about Save Nonantum?
Sean,
I am all in favor of adding mixed use development on our commercial property in our village centers. I believe that these developments can incorporate trees and green space into our village centers and reduce our urban heat islands.
I am totally against the elimination of single family zoning in residential areas. Allowing two new homes by right on a single family lot just opens the doors to developers to do what they are currently doing on Athelstane Road. On this street, which already has modest two family homes, developers are tearing those homes down and replacing them with larger homes costing between $1.6 – $1.8 million dollars each. Why? Because our zoning lets them do it. If single family zoning is abolished, this is what we can expect in those neighborhoods also.
Barry,
You continue to assert that allowing multi-family housing in our current Single Residence districts will inevitably lead to what is currently happening in our Multi Residence districts. That continues not to be true. The city council can both allow multi-family homes in what are currently Single Residence districts and prevent large and expensive units. I wrote about it here. The short version: add the ability to build multi-family homes and include dimensional controls that limit unit size.
Not only that, the City Council could prevent the bad outcomes that current zoning allows in Multi Residence zones, too. Add the by-right ability to build more than two units on lots in current Multi Residence districts and include dimensional controls. It would have been much better if what happened on Athelstane resulted in three or four 1,000 to 1,250 s.f. units then the two large condominiums.
I beg you to please stop the fear-mongering about luxury condominiums every time eliminating single-family zoning comes up. People want more housing around transit, and not just on what is currently commercial property.
More importantly, if you’re serious about climate change, you’ll recognize the need for more housing near transit and support reasonably regulated multi-family housing within walking distance of our T stations and commuter rail.
If you continue to be “totally against the elimination of single[-]family zoning in residential areas,” I think it’s reasonable to conclude that you do not take climate change as seriously as you do other issues.
Also, do you agree with Councilors Lipof, Cote, Kalis, and Grossman about Save Nonantum?
Mike,
Newton has the most natural gas leaks outside of Boston. In our climate action plan we have set out goals to reduce the use of natural gas by the year 2050. I think we need to act now; today. Newton is a member of a municipal association. We need to lead the way by getting those cities and towns on board along with our state legislators to get our state Department of Public Utilities to toughen regulations on National Grid regarding natural gas leaks.
On summer weekends at 5:30 am I go for a 10 mile bike ride looping around Newton. I ride down Parker and Walnut Streets along with Allerton Road between Centre Street and the Weeks House. The scariest part of that ride for me was riding down Allerton Road because of the poor condition of the street. Allerton Road is not on the repaving schedule. Neither is Beecher Place. A resident from that street sent me and our Ward 6 city councilors a petition asking for their street to be repaved along with pictures of the injuries sustained by their children from riding and playing in the street.
To be fair the DPW is now starting to address this as per this statement from the Commissioner of Public Works regarding the road paving plan: “The plan utilizes prioritization strategies such as cost benefit value analysis, roadway condition, preventative maintenance, and complete street ideologies to determine the schedule for road improvements. The program addresses road condition, intersection safety, accessibility, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, traffic calming and new pavement markings, as well as rehabilitation of City-owned parking lots. The accelerated program has already raised the average PCI from 62 to 71. In an effort to address residential side streets that are in very poor condition, the program has started targeting all roads that currently have a PCI below 25, and then will target roads with a PCI below 35, which will in turn increase the Citywide average PCI and expedite the repair of streets that are in the worst condition.” Hopefully we will see some progress. It shouldn’t have gotten to this point.
Sean…..THERE YOU GO AGAIN!!!!!…….Spreading around half truths about others instead of trying to find any common ground. Fortunately most people realize that your tactics are meant to divide and not bring people together.
BTW where did you clip this quote from? “totally against the elimination of single[-]family zoning in residential areas,” Another dirty trick of yours?
Jackson Joe,
No half-truths. No dirty trick. I got the clip from Barry’s comment above.
Sean,
You cherry pick your examples. No one is converting a structure at 9 Walter Street into 2 housing units because the lot square footage is 4,500 sq ft. I’m concerned about the bigger lots. In the article you refer to you say “Is the scenario of a $900K property being turned into two $1.7 million condos a real threat?” Yes there is. We are seeing this on Athelstane Road. We are seeing it at 100 Langley Road where a $1.375 million dollar house was sold to a developer, who is building 2 luxury townhouses that are rumored to have been presold for $2.5 million each.
There are scenarios where two homes on a single family lot do lead to affordable housing. One exists on Floral Street where a developer bought a house for under $1 million, renovated the house into two units only slightly expanding the footprint. He sold the two units for slightly under $1 million. Now that is responsible development. However, we need this type of development to go through the special permit process. We can’t allow two units on a single family lot by right. For every responsible developer there will be one who will take advantage of our zoning laws and build that out of scale luxury unit I am concerned with. It is not fear mongering. I along with most Ward 6 residents want responsible development.
I have spoken to many Ward 6 residents, participated in debates and given interviews. Not one person until today has asked me about Save Nonantum. And to be perfectly honest, I am more focused on the issues Ward 6 residents really care about.
Barry,
I live in Ward 6. I’m asking you: in light of what they wrote and their smear of Councilor Leary and in light of the fact that two candidates have already refused their endorsement and two other city councilors have condemned the letter and the smear, do you accept the Saving Nonantum endorsement?
Let me repeat, what we are seeing on Athelstane is the consequence of our current multi-residence zoning. Nobody is proposing that we adopt our current multi-residence zoning in single-residence zones. What I and others are proposing is by-right multi-family development with additional dimensional controls — size constraints — on how big each unit can be. I say additional controls, because Single Residence zones already have significantly lower floor-area ratios (FAR) then Multi Residence districts. 100 Langley and 40-42 Athelstane would not be possible under such a proposal.
Here’s what’s particularly puzzling about your fear-mongering. You and others propose dimensional controls on single-family residences to prevent teardowns. It seems like you understand the concept, but just don’t want to apply it to multi-family housing.
Also, please re-read my post. The very first sentence:
“A challenge to V14 readers: find a lot in Newton that’s currently zoned for single family homes only (SR1, SR2, or SR3) and is on the market for, was recently sold for, or could credibly be valued at $900K, on which a property owner could build and sell two $1.7 million luxury townhomes, imagining that zoning allowed a two-family building.” (Emphasis added here that isn’t in the original.)
40-42 Athelstane and 100 Langley sold for $1.2 and 1.3 million respectively, not $900K. And, both are in MR1 districts, and, as I explained above, MR1 allows significantly larger homes than single-residence zones.
You have been stoking unfounded fear since August. Please stop.
@Joe Jackson – There’s no ‘dirty trick’. The quote you objected to was from Barry Bergman’s comment today (above) on this thread.
Jerry I object to the conclusion…….. I think it’s reasonable to conclude that you do not take climate change as seriously as you do other issues.
I stand corrected
Mr. Bergman, thanks for interactively engaging here. It’s always easier to keep one’s head down, but that’s not really the point.
And thanks for taking a real interest in transportation and streetscape related issues. Some other candidates say they have this interest, but they haven’t shown it by following through once in office. Yes, “It shouldn’t have gotten to this point” is accurate, but we got there because those before us ignored the problem over decades, so now we have to fix it.
So you’ve seen some streets that residents want paved, and they aren’t on the DPW list. So what’s the solution to this and other road/sidewalk problems you see if you are a Councilor? What addresses safety but is fair and equitable?
While fixing streets is pretty universally popular (though expensive!), improving bike and pedestrian facilities get less attention and more pushback, especially when they involve loss of parking. The current Ward 6 Councilors have invested real political capital in this cause. They have helped lead the city forward to protect vulnerable road users, even in snow, allowing (for example) more kids to walk and bike more safely to school.
Are you willing to do that?
Mike,
As a bicyclist, I’m in favor of anything that will make biking safer. I never ride my bike down Cypress to Newton Center because it feels unsafe. I would love to see one of the parallel sidewalks from Cypress to Beacon turned into a bike lane. I don’t venture out for a walk when there is snow on the ground due to how dangerous certain sidewalks are. I would definitely invest time and energy into making our streets safe for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The DPW has a system that rates all the street surfaces in Newton broken up by street section. I would like to see all street sections below a certain rating repaved. It doesn’t even have to be the whole street; just the real bad portion.
Mr.Bergman,
As another Newton voter, I too would like to know if you accept the endorsement of Save Nonantum. I look forward to your response.
Sean,
This is a very busy time in my campaign. I barely have time to respond to you let alone investigate a group (Saving Nonantum) that I never heard about until today. In regards to zoning we are talking about proposed plans to allow two new homes on a single family lot by right. This isn’t happening now in SR1, SR2 or SR3. You are correct. It is happening in other zones. But, without full transparency into what the Zoning Redesign folks are proposing for the elimination of single family zoning how do we know what opportunities it will be providing unscrupulous developers?
If my comments since August have been unfounded, why hasn’t the chair of ZAP scheduled Pam Wright’s docketed item regarding teardowns and the resulting out of scale structures? Why is the elimination of single family zoning tabled until a later date without a clear presentation of what is being proposed? I would like to see a lot more transparency on what the proposed ordinances are from our Zoning Redesign process regarding the elimination of single family zoning. I think we would all benefit if you would present that information on Village 14.
Barry,
You are allowing a group to endorse you without even investigating them?
Are you now alleging that zoning redesign is happening without transparency?
The elimination of single-family zoning has been tabled because Councilor Marc Laredo, who has endorsed you, very loudly demanded it. He said it out loud. At a meeting. Which is recorded and available for your review.
Councilor Wright’s item on teardowns has not been scheduled because it was the joint decision of the committee that they needed more data before they could continue with residential zoning, so turned their attention to village centers. Again, a discussion out loud, at a meeting, which is recorded.
@Barry,
Are you saying that as someone who wants to be elected to our City Council and represent the entire city and help deal with all its issues, you are not aware of a very vocal group that has been spreading fear and misinformation for months? Please do some research and let us know if you accept their endorsement.
This is sounding a lot like when Trump refused to turn down David Duke’s endorsement (if memory serves, he claimed not to know who he was).
Ben,
I am running for Ward 6 City Councilor. I am running to represent the ward; everyone in this ward. During this campaign I have heard derogatory words against candidates and groups of people within ward 6. We don’t need derogatory words spoken against individuals and groups of individuals in our ward. I would like to see Village 14 contributors follow that same philosophy.
@Barry,
To confirm, you will not be letting us know what you think of Save Nonantum and divisiveness in our politics?
[V14 Admin] Two comments were removed here — the first comment for doxxing and the second comment because it was raising a complaint about that doxxing.
V14’s rules say: “All are welcome to use either their real identity or a pseudonym as their Village14 identity.” In order to be welcome in using a pseudonym, users need to be assured that their pseudonyms will remain pseudonyms and not be outed.
My apologies. I haven’t heard term doxxing but I get the gist.
@Bruce, Thank you.
Sean,
A lot of people are endorsing me because they agree with my opinions regarding the uncontrolled destruction of modest homes that are being replaced with out of scale structures. They don’t believe that abolishing single family zoning and allowing two homes to be built on a single-family lot will lead to affordable housing. They want our tree canopy restored and our natural gas leaks addressed along with my other positions. I welcome whatever support I get. I don’t believe in demonizing people. We just got rid of a president who liked to do that. There is no place for that behavior in Newton.
In regards to zoning redesign, I see the 2018 proposal clearly on the website and am able to find an annotated April 2021 version via other memos. I think where we stand on zoning redesign can be more clearly presented.
I believe that the elimination of single-family zoning should be permanently tabled. I was under the impression that it was until I heard that it may be up for discussion again in December. The status of this issue is very unclear from the website.
I have watched ZAP meetings where Councilor Wright’s requests to discuss teardowns are routinely shot down. I don’t understand how we are able to tackle residential zoning redesign without discussing teardowns. Yet, we have been doing this since 2011.
@Barry,
Thank you for confirming that despite the lies and smears being spread by Save Nonantum, you are welcoming their endorsement and support. It is curious that you claim to be against demonizing people, but refuse to acknowledge that a group supporting you has been doing just that, and refuse to reject their support.
It is always good to know who people are and what they are willing to stand for, and stand against.
@sean, are we “harnessing developers’ profit motive for affordable housing”, or are they harnessing Newton’s progressive motives to make a truck load of luxury apartments? I would argue the latter.
@Barry, it’s hard to watch this community put you in the interrogation chair and brow beat you for a group’s endorsement of your campaign. It’s just not right. I wish I could pick up and move to Ward 6 just to vote for you. Hang in there sir and thank you for running! Happy Halloween!
@Ben G
” that despite the lies and smears being spread by Save Nonantum”
In the other thread on Save Nonantum you replied to me quote
“@Simon,
See above. I didn’t call them liars. I asked for proof. There’s a very big difference”
So what is it @Ben G
For me, you have lost all credibility. I hope others take notice of the hateful rhetoric.
@Matt: Save Nonantum went on the record in The Boston Globe today acknowledging they have been lying and using those lies to spread fear and misinformation. I don’t think it’s such a stretch to ask candidates for office in this city if they want to accept an endorsement from such a group.
I do find it ironic that Barry went on record here accusing anyone questioning SN’s endorsement of “demonizing” SN. It’s not demonization to ask for the facts and state the facts. You know what is “demonization,” though? The act of spreading falsehoods against city councilors and members of our community.
It’s actually sad to see that Barry is accusing everyone else of divisiveness, but not SN. Really lends credence to him believing “anything for a vote.” Not exactly standing up for what he claims (being against divisiveness and demonization in our politics). But I’ll offer him another chance:
@Barry, I look forward to hearing you reject the endorsement of SN, as they went on record today acknowledging that they have been lying and demonizing hardworking members of our government. Or, you are welcome to acknowledge that you don’t care that they lied and demonized members of our government and populace, and that their acts are permissible because they endorsed you.
@Simon: Your timeline is mixed up. I didn’t call them liars until after the Boston Globe piece was published, where they go on record, and acknowledge they’ve been spreading misinformation without the facts to back it up. I said they were spreading lies *after* they admitted it, and *after* we had that conversation. I suggest reviewing the timeline.
While I’m so very sad to lose your deal of approval, somehow I’ll get by without it.
I was raised to respect my elders….whether I fully agree with them or not. Especially one in my community. And at my age, the ceiling for elders is getting pretty high. Hang in there @Barry. Good night all!
@Ben G
That was an opinion article, and contrary to what you suggest It does not mention anything about misinformation. You are the one spreading misinformation. Perhap s we should play your games – where is the evidence.
And quote Matt Lai
The first word, even before the headline, is OPINION.
And as saying goes, “opinions are like (butt) holes…everybody’s got one.” Here’s mine….
@Simon, I thought I lost all credibility with you! I see that means a lot.
The evidence is clearly written in the article. The SN member was asked on the record to provide a comment about which city councilors were attacking them – they provided *nothing.* They could not substantiate a single one of their claims.
Since it is clear that you are defending SN’s misinformation campaign and that Mr.Bergman is happy to take votes and an endorsement from an organization that has done nothing but spread fear, I don’t see any reason to continue discussing with you. I have the answers I seek. Have a lovely evening.
Mr. Bergman, you should read this opinion piece by Newton’s own Jason Korb and Judy Jacobson on viable strategies for creating affordable housing, including curtailing restrictive zoning that prevents the construction of multi-family homes near village centers and public transportation. Because, respectfully, your views on development and affordable housing are totally inaccurate and uninformed.
Ben,
On my website and literature, I say “We want to live in a city where every single person feels safe no matter who they are.” The rise of racial and ethnic intolerance in our community is frightening. I have spoken to Asian residents concerned about the rise of Asian hate. At my synagogue we now need to have armed guards when we pray. Racial or ethnic intolerance is unacceptable in Newton and must be called out when it occurs.
@Barry,
You’ve written a very artful dodge to my questions about your acceptance of Save Nonantum’s endorsement. You have excelled at turning *actual* antisemitic and anti-Asian acts to pander to Save Nonantum, despite the fact that there is zero evidence that their ethnic/racial community is “under attack,” as they claim.
I’ll ask again.
Do you accept their endorsement, despite that they have clearly been spreading misinformation, stoking division, and attacking decent, hardworking members of our community and local government?
I agree that “racial or ethnic intolerance is unacceptable in Newton.” Do you agree that groups like Save Nonantum should not spread misinformation and lie about city councilors?
@Ben – you have no credibility. There is no one that speaks in your defense. Think about that for more than one second. You are wasting your time writing divisive and hateful posts because almost everyone can see through them.
@Jackson Joe – Woah there, buddy. Calm down and please stop with the exaggerations and lies
.
First of all, I don’t need anyone to defend me – but if you review this thread and other comment threads over the last few days, you will in fact find several commenters that have been agreeing with me.
Second, I appreciate your concern for my time. Thanks for caring!
Third, I believe you meant to direct that last sentence to Save Nonantum PAC.
Fourth, I applaud your commitment to defending an organization that spread divisive and hateful rhetoric, it’s always good to see where folks stand.