This originally appeared in Friday’s Need To Know newsletter from the Charles River Regional Chamber.
Some Newton City Councilors are signaling that they’d be willing to sacrifice millions of dollars in state aid for roads, bike lanes, sidewalks, traffic mitigation, affordable housing and other improvements, rather than abide by a new state law.
What law could be so odious that some Newton electeds would be ready to give up millions in state grants in perpetuity?
A housing law, of course. The third rail of Newton politics.
At issue is that new zoning reform law — the MBTA Communities Law – that’s designed to chip away at two urgent problems: Our housing crisis and our climate crisis.
As I wrote in Thursday’s chamber newsletter, the new law doesn’t mandate new housing. It changes zoning codes to allow property owners to build small multi-unit homes if they choose — a process that could take years, or decades, if ever.
We’re not talking about massive apartment towers. The law is designed to encourage more townhouses, triple-deckers and carriage houses near T-stops — instead of McMansions.
Failure to rezone would make a community ineligible for certain state grants, according to draft regulations.
Still, at recent meetings City Councilor Marc Laredo and some of his colleagues have been suggesting it might be preferable to sacrifice the “very small amount of funding at stake” than to follow the law.
Except, it’s not a “small amount.” It’s millions of our taxpayer dollars.
It’s not a one-time penalty either: It’s in perpetuity.
Here’s examples of recent state-funded projects Newton would conceivably have forfeited if this law was in place at the time:
- $7 million in Massworks funding for Route 9 improvements (2012-2014)
- $1.6 million in Massworks funding for Oak Street/Needham Street Intersection (2019)
- $400,000 in Masswork funding for design of Pettee Square (2021)
- $220,000 in Housing Choice funding to undertake affordable housing feasibility study for West Newton Armory
- $75,000 in Housing Choice
Some — but not every city councilor — agree with Laredo.
“What we don’t want to do is embarrass ourselves by essentially saying we’re wealthy enough to walk away from this and not comply,” said Councilor Vicky Danberg. “It’s kind of like parking in a handicap parking place because you can afford the fine.”
“For ten years, we’ve been talking about affordability and about climate and about making some dramatic changes,” added Councilor David Kalis. “And this just might be the kick in the tuchus that we need.”
MBTA Communties Law applies to these cities and towns
This law applies to 175 communities — stretching from the Cape Cod Canal to the New Hampshire border to Worcester.
Our housing crisis and our climate crisis are problems we all need to share. It’s audacious that any of Newton’s leaders are suggesting our municipality should be exempt.
Please city council, give this law a fair evaluation before rejecting it out of hand.
Greg Reibman is president of the Charles River Regional Chamber. Sign up for the chamber’s newsletter here.
To learn more about this law , the Boston Foundation’s Boston Indicators has produced this excellent white paper. Slate also had an interesting take on this, as did this Globe oped.
San Francisco is indeed suffering the impact of decades of exclusionary zoning. It’s a great example of how stagnant housing growth can drive prices to ridiculous levels.
There’s also nothing wrong at all with triple-deckers. I think they’re pretty cool myself.
It would be helpful if the D line were a little more reliable.
Other cities and towns in MetroWest are starting to weigh in.
Framingham: Believes it is already compliant
Natick: Still thinking
Wellesley: Says it will comply
Franklin: Says it will comply
https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/story/news/2022/02/02/mbta-multi-family-zoning-requirement-draft-guidelines/9186643002/
I think it’s great when representatives from Pittsfield and Holyoke can vote to change our zoning laws. That’s what people here call “democracy”
1969 called. They want you to know they just passed chapter 40B.
Exactly. Not to mention MGL Ch. 40A, which regulates, um,…zoning.
40B applies to the entire state but maybe that doesn’t mater in your definition
It’s a curious element to focus on Joe, but I’m quite certain Newton’s entire state house delegation voted for the MBTA Communities Law. And voters statewide supported 40B.
Not really Greg. 40B affects the entire state. The last time I checked this statute has little or no impact on many communities in the commonwealth. My point is that within certain statewide guidelines (40B) the RESIDENTS and taxpayers of Newton should be able to freely make their own zoning decisions. Do you think the farmer in Grafton would like it if the state voted to allow his neighbor to subdivide his land based on representatives from Newton and Cambridge?
Few examples of multi family units expanded zoning will create
If progressives are so confident, they should approve zoning in parts of newton… and only approve more parts if the prices decline in each phase. But nah, that would offend too many developers
$2Million for a unit in a 2 family:
https://www.redfin.com/MA/Newton/230-Austin-02459/unit-1/home/177217780
$2.1million for a unit in 4 unit development
https://www.redfin.com/MA/Newton/70-Walker-St-02460/unit-3/home/177922441
980k for 1200sqft in a 21 unit development
https://www.redfin.com/MA/Newton/68-Los-Angeles-St-02458/unit-202/home/177814587
This isn’t about other communities “changing our zoning.” Rather, it’s other communities asking Newton to acknowledge and share the tremendous resource and advantage we have: access to public transportation, which is funded by the entire state. More dense and more affordable housing is simply our civic obligation. Newton doesn’t exist in a bubble.
Don’t forget Boston–they voted for it and exempted themselves despite having the MOST MBTA service of any community!!!
Jackson Joe – Do you have those same reservations when those same representatives “in Pittsfield and Holyoke” get to vote on state funding for the MBTA?
Aren’t Needham Street and Route 9 state highways and maintained entirely by DOT? Your list implies that those funds were allocated to the City of Newton – is that really the case?
Yeah, those figures are scare tactics. The law provides additional funding IF the City enacts the specified zoning but Newton is in no way loosing funding. In fact, the additional aid provided wouldn’t even cover the costs to expand schools for the new housing, so it would likely result in a deficit for Newton. The only winners here would be the developers represented by Greg, their paid lobbyist.
Jerry, I see Commerce and Housing as different issues that should be dealt with differently. Commerce and business affect the entire population directly. Zoning regulations within state guidelines in Newton have little affect on towns 100 miles away. Why would you want outside communities to vote on zoning laws specific to Newton? It kind of reminds me of the early 1990’s when I would see thousands of signs in Western Mass that said “Get government out of your house, abolish rent control!”. Even though they didn’t live within 100 miles of any community that had rent control and Boston, Brookline and Cambridge all voted to retain it, those far away voters ended rent control and made thousands of people homeless as a result. I don’t call that democracy.
Housing costs are a regional problem and don’t stop at our borders. What Newton does in housing affects every surrounding community, and impacts the entire Boston area. The region is expensive partly because wealthy suburbs like Newton failed to build our fair share of housing that the region needed.
There’s a lot of talented people that would love to live and work in our region, doing important and often life-saving work (such as vaccine development and disease research , across the many universities and biotech firms in the area). There are many people that would also like to access the huge economic opportunities here from our many world-class companies and institutions. But the area is simply too expensive for them, and that’s a problem for everyone in this region, including business leaders.
then the solution is to stop jamming all the jobs in a central location. No solution is going to be scalable if you just keep adding jobs in a 10 mile radius.
Job sprawl is a terrible idea. You make quality transit non-viable if jobs are spread out everywhere, and the resulting car dependency will add lots of traffic. It becomes difficult to change jobs without ending up with a much longer commute. Worse for everyone involved.
.. because commuting into downtown Boston today is so so easy and relaxing. NOT.
You remove the choke point of a single bottle neck and everyone fighting to live 40 mins from the citty
Jackson Joe – Yes, representatives from across the state are having some say in zoning details within the MBTA communities in the east. That said, I’m not seeing the distinction you’re trying to make here. That’s the way state government works.
Those some representatives vote on the MBTA funding for a transportation system in those same communities in the east, that they also have no direct stake in. Waving you hands with I see “commerce and housing” differently doesn’t explain anything.
We have a wide spread, regional housing crisis, that continues to grow worse every year. It’s not a Newton problem, its a regional problem. Newton cannot solve that problem, but Newton and all of the surrounding towns and cities in the region can definitely be part of the solution by beginning to take relatively modest steps to relax the zoning restrictions that effectively prevent substantial increases to the housing stock regionally.
As Councilor David Kalis so eloquently put it …
“For ten years, we’ve been talking about affordability and about climate and about making some dramatic changes … and this just might be the kick in the tuchus that we need.”
Joe’s perspective is perfect for anyone interested in ignoring the real problem.
This law, and other needed steps, are designed to address problems that needs to be our shared responsibility.
When it comes to addressing our housing needs, Newton and Massachusetts have been kicking the can down the road for decades.
It’s why our housing prices are shattering records.
It’s why a new report out this week says Greater Boston rents may soon surpass San Francisco — the poster child for expensive places to live.
It’s why our suburban communities aren’t as diverse as they should be. It’s why our traffic is so horrid.
Greg, I’m interested in real solutions, with incentives and tax breaks to encourage thoughtful and pragmatic results. This won’t yield the results that you are promising. Actually you are the one that is ignoring the true problem and feeding the public what they want to hear.
Municipal zoning itself is only allowed because a state law created it.
I am not in the weeds on this new zoning requirement, but does it prevent an expensive single-unit property from becoming two expensive units on the same property? If this new regulation created truly affordable housing, I’d be for it, and I don’t believe, as Greg does, that increasing the supply of units in itself will lower housing costs.
@Bob: I’d urge you — and everyone else — to spend part of this snowy day reading this from the Boston Foundation. There are elements of this law — and the draft guidelines — that deserve thoughtful debate, including the question you just asked. Starting with a baseline understanding would allow us to do that.
@Bob—it’s like the price of used bikes and used cars when new ones were’t available because of the pandemic. Those both got expensive for everyone until new cars and bikes started to hit the stores with more regularity. Housing (especially when we are adding jobs well ahead of production) is no different. It’s why homelessness is highest in those communities with the highest housing prices (and a long history of stifling production.
What I like about this law is that it concentrates the housing where it’s most desirable—near transit—and where it won’t by its isolated nature lead to more driving.
Then only approve new housing near the T with 0 parking spots. Or does the existential threat of climate change not apply to developers?
I’d support that, Bugek. And I don’t think there would be a problem finding buyers/renters.
I agree, the lack of parking be compensated by lower prices/rents to attract folks. There are enough young ppl these days who can live without a car if they have T access.
Jerry the difference between housing and commerce is similar to us being forced to accept the gun regulations of Texas if it was so voted by the country. The idea that zoning changes will affect the cost of housing is a farce that has been fed to the public for decades with no positive result. Remember how the abolishment of rent control was supposed to increase the housing supply to meet future demand? I do. For the record I believe in dense cluster zoning right in town centers not half a mile away in some centers but not in others. I will also predict that the amount of housing that is built in Newton will not be the reason that is may become more affordable for more people to move here. Anyone who thinks that housing prices are comparable to bike and car prices in the real world is very naive.
I wonder to what degree the Commonwealth seriously studied and deliberated decided against what some other Top 40 DMAs chose when they were approaching the size of Boston. Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas and others reprioritized their grown away from their downtown central hub economic zones, in favor of building-out micro-cities in the surrounding region. If congestion and the costs of complexity are making Boston’s economic structure unbearable high, there are places to the West that deserve greater investment in economic development … and all that comes with it.
In effect, “stop building greater carry capacity into the Hub; reverse the flow”.
Did anyone do the analysis? What does it say?
You are describing silicon valley (excluding san francisco). Each area san jose, mountain view, san Mateo, cupertino, san bruno, Sunnyvale are job hubs in their own right
Serious question: how does zoning affect real estate property tax assessments?
Do owners who have been upzoned get a surprise property tax increase? Their land assesment (not building) has now become more valuable as you or a developer can build multiple units on the same lot… the land is now much valuable than before
Please google prop 2.5. I’m not explaining it to you again.
Ann, Thank you for your response below. The zoning proposal is only targeting select areas of Newton. So yes these folks could potentially see dramatic overnight increases in property tax
A parcel of land which can now build 4 instead of 1 house is not going to see a small incremental increase. It’s going to be pretty dramatic (which could be good if u planning to sell, but VERY bad for someone on fixed income who wants to live in their own home)
.. could be solved by a property tax discount on seniors?
Bugek
The answer is yes. If the value of the land increases your assessment will increase and that has nothing to do with Prop 2.5. There is no limit
If ONLY your value increases, then yes, your taxes will increase.
If the entire town’s value increases, then PER PROP 2.5 the town has to DROP the tax rate to limit their annual tax increase on existing properties to 2.5% annually.
So in this case, if zoning only makes 1/2 of the lots in the town more attractive/have a higher assessment, residents on those properties are going to see higher taxes. (And be able to sell for more money, as the land can be further developed)
Conversely, those in lots that are not assessed at a higher rate are going to pay LESS taxes. Their assessment is now a smaller percentage of Newton’s tax base, and a bigger base (sum of all assements) necessitates a lower tax rate to meet the requirements of prop 2.5.
Theoretically, your hand wringing could be as impactful as your theorizing makes it sound.
But in the City of Newton we all know, land values bear little relationship to acrual market value, no less potential market value. For example, when a property owner sells and transfers ownership of a slice of a parcel on which there is no building, the increase in value on the acquiror’s parcel can be as low as 15% of the cash amount paid for the land.
Worry in theory gets trumped (lowercase ‘t’) by actual case worries.
Mary, I was born and raised in Atlanta, although I’ve lived here for over 30 years. Urban planning was not a thing happening in Atlanta when growth was exploding outwards, starting in the 80s–instead it was almost purely developer-driven. There wasn’t a lot of long-term thought put into it. Now they’re going back and trying to retrofit. Atlanta has (or had) a completely different attitude about preservation, density, cars, etc. New was always better, and *of course* you’d get in your car to get there. Part of the reason I moved to Boston! Just saying :)
This is called job sprawl, and it make transit nonviable if jobs are spread out everywhere across a region. It also makes it more difficult to change jobs without ending up with a very long commute. Atlanta and Houston are sprawling and car dependent cities.
Having lived in Silicon Valley for 10+ years, I can tell you the traffic there was god awful. Sunnyvale, Cupertino, etc. are all job hubs – but, even if you get a job in the city you live in, chances are you’ll change jobs within a couple of years. Not to mention that housing prices in Silicon Valley make Newton look affordable.
I used to believe anti-smoking campaigns were a distraction funded by the car companies – because the smog was so thick in Silicon Valley you could see it driving down the Santa Cruz mountains and descending into a gray cloud that covered the valley. When you were living in the smog, you didn’t notice, because that’s how it always looked.
Decentralized hubs are a great idea, if you want to live in your car and pave over farmlands, forests, and fields. Most of Silicon Valley was farmland before the boom. While we were there, developments of McMansions would suddenly appear in an empty field – all oversized, a mish-mash of building styles, with winding roads and no services.
I live near the Newton Highlands T stop and think making this change is a good idea. I hope my City Councilors will support it. I live in half a house on a street with several multi-unit residences.
While not everyone can do without a car, many people I know are able to go from two cars to one for their families if they are walking distance to the Green Line or other public transit, and make many fewer car trips than they otherwise would.
California recently abolished single family zoning. We should wait a few years to see if it had the desired affects.
Find a similar city to newton (maybe palo alto, Cupertino, san mateo) and see if housing costs came down after 5 years..
No need for theoretical, we’ll have real data in several years. Or we could even look to portland where accessory units have been available for few years already…
Again, we’ll have real data to make decisions in a few years
Great idea Bugek, let’s wait a few more years just to make sure all the ocean warming, wildfires, massive storms, flooding and are enough of an inconvenience that we’d want to allow triple deckers and carriage houses near our train stations.
Climate change is such an existential crisis that we cant even
Ban all plastic water bottles for sale in Newton
Ban all fossil fuel cars from parking on public streets
Provide temporary property tax discounts to homeowners who use 0 fossil fuel
Add 2 carpool lanes and bus only lanes to highways into boston.
Add bus only lanes on newton roads leading to highway
… of course the only solution is to allow developers to pillage Newton. We wont bother with any other solution but believe us when we say its an existential threat!
So your solution to not doing everything to do nothing?
Well lets use science. During the pandemic, a worldwide decline of 6% emissions was recorded.
Yes, every country in the world pretty much stopped communting to work and the planet was only better by 6%.
So the global impact of adding these units in Newton in the name of global warming is likely 0.000000000000001% benefit globally.
If everyone stopped eating beef and stopped the throwaway fashion trend… there would be much much greater benefit than high density housing
That pretty much debunks the “Green Card” what’s the next one that Greg pulls out?
Heres the scientific results.
Global emissions reduced only 6% during covid.
Very surprised, i expected much more. But science is science
Critics will point out USA numbers were much higher but USA is not the planet. And these are absolute best case scenarios where almost everyone on earth stopped commuting.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3
Wouldn’t it make sense to build in areas that are not going to be under water in 50 or 100 years time?
Covid has changed the rules.
Why not invest in new hubs and alleviate the pressure on Boston.
100 percent agree Simon! And in fact that’s exactly what this does. It makes it easier to build in 175 communities going all the way out to Worcester.
Rather than depend on characterizations, I encourage people who haven’t to watch the 1/24/2022 ZAP meeting when Housing Choice was discussed. The discussion starts at 1:13:30
https://vimeo.com/newtvgov
Bring back the trend of building triple deckers! It gives younger folks, empty nesters, etc, an opportunity to have a smaller sized unit but with the perks of balconies and shared yards. Lots of people in my hood of West Newton moved here because of the combination of city and suburban amenities. (Including us) The density, the walkability, alongside green space and small yards. Triple deckers fit right in with this vision while also providing housing for people who don’t need a ton of space or bells and whistles.
I agree, but who is going to build them?
If zoning allowed them they would likely get built. Our current zoning doesn’t.
I disagree Jerry. I don’t think the zoning is the barrier. Developers won’t make as much money building modest triple decker It’s just the reality of the economics
Unless they could restrict the dimensions. But Housing Choice doesn’t allow any size restrictions. The was one of the definitive answers at last Monday night’s ZAP meeting
@MaryLee – I wasn’t offering an opinion about what developers would or wouldn’t build. I was just pointing out that 3 deckers are not build’able under our current zoning rules.
Trio might.
While famous for their bigger projects, they also just gut renovated a two family home on Melrose Street. No change to the envelope, but very swanky inside.
If they could have gotten a third unit in, I could see them having made the decision to only keep the foundation instead of the foundation+framing (it got all new siding, windows, roof, and all systems/interior)
Not a huge project, but it was probably a place they could send this subs on a slow day, and from my estimated math (selling price – buying price, -real estate transfer fees and taxes, – cost to own, and – Reno costs) make an OK profit.
If you change the zoning, a lot of triple deckers would be built. And a lot of single family homes would be split into three units. Brookline has a bunch of those conversions. If you are talking classic South Boston triple deckers with a flat roof, I doubt that design would be used that often unless zoning required it (height restrictions).
All that said, I think triple deckers or three unit housing is a great way to bring back increased density to the areas around our transportation hubs. But I’m somewhat doubtful folks who oppose density and change really want 3 family housing either.
ask yourself this: For towns/cities nearby with more relaxed zoning (watertown, waltham etc), how many NEW construction triple deckers have you seen?
The trend of 2 or 4 luxury townhomes. Obviously this can be fact-checked if pro-density folks want to use the triple decker argument
It depends on the zoning. Sometimes triple deckers aren’t built because of height restrictions. I also think developers think that townhomes are what folks want. But conversions of three story homes would certainly occur (attic being expanded and third story). Look at Brookline. 20 years ago, those were all single family homes. Now, most of the larger queen Anns have been converted from what I’ve seen.
Triple deckers are just a design. A 3 floor conversion isn’t a classic triple decker, but same result, no?
Got to go, but nice chatting with you Bugek.
I realize that Brookline and Boston and many surrounding communities have triple deckers. Can you, or anyone, point to any that have been built in the last 3-5 years.
I live in a “two-over” or “double decker” (although our porches are in the back) as are the majority of the homes on my street. In a number of cases the upper unit is actually 1 and 1/2 including mine (although I am on the 1st floor) I have NO DOUBT my street would welcome three deckers
MaryLee: If you mean the tradition triple decker, only a few. But I’ve seen a ton of 3 family conversions where zoning allows. Basement condo/First Floor/Second Floor, or 1st/2nd/Attic 3rd. Brookline has developers that go street by street and offer owners of single families money to sell. Less than 10 years ago, but that is because so many were converted. Everyone I know in Brookline seems to live in a condo…same for Cambridge. That is self-selection of course, but still, lots of 3 families in MA being done. Newton doesn’t allow it, so it doesn’t happen most of the time.
I’ll also say that in a lot of ways these conversions are better for the feel of the street than a teardown. But Brookline/Cambridge have lots of families with just one car. So maybe it is more likely there for transportation reasons alone.
Personally, I’m not eager to go back to living in a condo, although a bunch of our neighbors have done just that over the last decade. And I candidly admit to some trepidation when a large lot nearby recently sold. But like Keith I was more concerned with the beauty aspect that the density aspect. That’s just me though. I’d frankly love some younger kids for my kids to play with in the neighborhood. Everyone who has moved in recently has been on the older side in my immediate neighborhood.
I figure a big part of the debate involves people who really appreciate and value living in a community that has beautiful streets with pretty homes and yards that people maintain with flowers and greenery. Communities that have quant to semi-quant downtowns. With beautiful buildings dotted around. A community that makes you say ‘wow, I really enjoy the beauty of my town.’
I’m one of these people. To feel better about plans to create more density I’d like to see plans that include the notion of keeping the beauty.
I frankly like the idea of some of the centers like Newton Center (not so much Newton Highlands which is much prettier) being rethought to include multilevel retail and residential. The Piccadilly building is awesome. The shops around the parking lot can become multilevel. Add direct residential. Change the parking lot too.
I don’t want a bunch of ugly. Make me feel better about that and I’ll feel better about densification.
Sorry, I guess I’m selfish. But there is are reasons why I live here and how beautiful the communities are is very much one of them.
Keith,
I agree with you. I don’t think it’s a selfish viewpoint. I don’t think it’s anti environment, and I don’t think it’s racist. I would call it common sense urban planning with a vision of preservation of community.
Keith, I agree with you in large part. Beauty does matter. Part of the issue is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I’ve heard lots of folks who hate the new Trio building for instance, but I like it except for the roof line. And sometimes opposing a larger project gets you a smaller uglier project, a la the Philip Neri project homes in Waban, which I’m not a fan of.
The downtowns aren’t hard to envision as more dense and beautiful. The South End of Boston has 5 story brownstones and is though of as charming. Same with Beacon Hill. Commonwealth Ave in Boston has buildings that are unique and of different heights (8 stories is not uncommon). I think Newtonville will eventually be 4 and 5 story buildings. If the street is wide enough, no problem.
And we agree on Newton Centre.
But I’m not sure we agree on more dense housing not being beautiful. It can be. I hear lots of complains about townhomes, but some of them can be done in a way that blends in with surrounding homes. And except for the cars/parking, transfering a large single family into 2 or 3 unit multifamily doesn’t even change the footprint.
Part of the problem is that it seems folks often use the “beauty” argument as an excuse to keep the status quo and block everything. And it is difficult to address different standards of beauty in the zoning code. But I certainly don’t think you are selfish if you find Newton currently beautiful and want to maintain it that way. I may not agree, but I don’t blame you for wanting to maintain something you like either.
Thanks fignewtonville. To be clear though, I don’t equate dense with ugly. In fact, I think it can be very beautiful. I’ve seen it too.
But it isn’t automatic. I’m nervous about it.
Thing is, if it is done super well and has visual beauty combined with awesome mixed use retail …. it may not align with some folks’ goal for much cheaper housing.
And – I want it done well.
I think part of the problem is that our system has become so adversarial that by the time projects are finally approved, some of the beauty has been value engineered out of them. Or we push down height to the point where folks can’t get creative to maximize space. For instance, I would have gladly traded an extra floor to both Trio and Austin Street to get a much larger public space on the ground. We need more gathering spaces…
On the single family home projects, I’m not opposed to sensible setbacks and certain design restrictions (snout houses would be one I suppose). But one person’s amazing modern house with huge windows is another person’s eyesore. And one persons multi-colored Queen Ann with wood trim is another persons nightmare.
There are also some classic homes I’d love to have preserved. That is a much harder question, and probably worth its own thread someday.
One of the reasons I’ve always advocated for large scale projects to bury the utilities is that beauty matters. Can you imagine Austin Street if they had decided to leave the utility poles in front?
“I would have gladly traded an extra floor to both Trio and Austin Street to get a much larger public space on the ground. We need more gathering spaces…”
I would gladly *now* trade the vastly-underutilized Austin St. development’s rear parking lot to get a much larger public space on the ground. We need more gathering spaces…”
Greg,
If zoning change is made, your prediction in 5years for a 2br 1200sqft MARKET RATE condo unit walking distance to T in newton center?
Are you willing to go on record?
My prediction: Its not going to be under 1million
Only winners will be developers
Bugek, it is a regional problem. And it won’t be 1 million. I’d take that bet. But if you changed it to a 3 bedroom 1,500, I wouldn’t take the bet.
I don’t think this zoning change suddenly makes Newton affordable. If folks are arguing that, I’m missing it. On a regional basis, hopefully it provides more housing, and maybe limits the increases a bit. Provides more starter homes. But it is a regional supply problem. Newton could add 100,000 units and it wouldn’t solve anything unless our neighboring communities did more too.
As for the change that this promises, I think folks overestimate this zoning law. I’m sure it will create some additional units and density. But folks in this new zoning aren’t suddenly going to pick and sell in mass. And the real estate market isn’t going to treat every home as a potential conversion. Lots of folks still want single family homes and will pay for well-maintained ones. If anything, this type of change is pretty limited by my read.
We should forfeit the state money. We dont need to change the fabric of Newton. We dont need the money.
Not everyone gets to live in Newton. Or Wellesley or Weston. Thats now how the world works. All you people need to stop. Just cause you want to live here doesnt mean you can. Its a free market society and if the cost here is high, live somewhere else. That what normal people do? Not expect laws and zoning to change for their benefit.
Newton is already changing – with the rising housing prices, Newton’s residents will only get older and more upper class. Fewer and fewer kids who grow up here can afford to come back to their hometown and start a family here. Fewer and fewer of Newton’s teachers can afford to live here anymore. Same with the city’s employees. By supporting the status quo and trying to preserve mere physical buildings, you’re excluding many of Newton’s own people and own community, changing it in a much deeper way than mere physical buildings.
The high prices are caused by the Federal reserve artificially keeping rates low.
Watch how quickly prices fall within a year of a 2% federal funds rates.
You want to bet on that too Bugek? Quantify how much they’d need to fall to make a material difference. 2% federal funds rate won’t even take 5% off the current pricing. It might cause some stagnation at current price levels or a small decline. Home prices, once risen, are pretty sticky.
The real question is who should decide what Newton’s zoning laws are. Representatives that live 100 miles away or the people that live here. It’s as simple as that. We are not talking seat belts, cross walks, taxes or school regulations. We are talking about the way that people have lived here for the last 50 years. I support ultra dense zoning in the middle of the town centers but to let my neighbor sell out to a developer who can build a 3 unit condo is ridiculous.
So you want to control what your neighbor can do with their own property, but object when other state legislators want to control what Newton can do with its zoning laws. Seems…inconsistent.
Jackson Joe: So you’d be ok with majority of city council approving zoning changes? I mean, they are elected by the people that live here…and at least right now a simple majority vote would pass most of these major zoning rules I’d think…
At some point all of these choices are hard. What right do you have to tell your neighbor not to sell out to the highest bidder? What right does the representative in Western MA have to tell your city what to do? Who gets to choose who serves on the city council committees and boards? Why do only some major projects get directly voted on? Why is 40B’s cutoff 10% / 1.5%? Why does 40B exist at all? Why does the state government give a well-off community like Newton money?
I’m not trying to be difficult, but it isn’t as simple as geography in decision making.
Fig, I said that the community as a whole should make major decisions on the cities future, not just a few representatives. To me the representatives (councilors) are caretakers and shouldn’t be entrusted to make major decisions. I can’t tell you off hand what constitutes a major decision but changes in zoning is to me. Of course I want to restrict what my neighbor does with their property. When they purchased it they knew what the rules were and if they didn’t like them they could’ve purchased elsewhere. 40B is a statewide regulation that is enforced equally throughout the state. I think it should be reformed to address problems with it but otherwise it has served a useful purpose. This act is capricious, arbitrary and poorly thought out. Wait till you see the reaction when certain villages are threatened with a change in zoning while others are able to escape it. I’ve said before that I support dense cluster zoning in the middle of the town centers but not drastic changes into residential areas.
Pretty sure that the “rules” allowed your purported neighbor to apply for a variance to allow developers to develop. If you do not like what your neighbor does with THEIR property, you are free to purchase it yourself and keep it just as you want it. Otherwise, perhaps it is you who should be relocating.
As for your primary point, it is trivial to argue either way as to the appropriateness of western MA reps “imposing” this on those of us in the east. All in all, this is much ado about little. There is no obligation to develop one way or another, just an opportunity for some who wish to. The rampant sky-is-falling speculation on this thread is what we have all come to expect n this forum: the same folks projecting what they view as a worst case scenario on the rest of us. What a waste of bits.
If this passes, the new trend will be:
Developer buys a house for flip/teardown and then offers a “package deal” to direct neighbours for 50%-100% over market price if they ALL sell
This allows a developer to amass 20-40k sqft parcels to build 4-8 luxury townhomes for 2M each
And obviously the affluent areas of newton will be less affected as those folks wont be as tempted to leave their homes.
See example:
https://www.redfin.com/MA/Newton/70-Walker-St-02460/unit-3/home/177922441
Sorry to comment and run, but I’m off to deal with bedtimes and such. And with a busy week ahead, I can’t promise to post much. Thank you to everyone for a pleasant conversation.
One final thought: Does everyone understand exactly what this kick in the tuchus actually entails. We all seem to be making assumptions in the amount of change it actually controls. My read of it is that it wouldn’t be that hard for the city to meet the law for areas in the city already. Am I missing something? Is it a matter of us jumping in with both feet or just sticking our toes into the compliance bucket? If anyone is a quasi expert, some explanations might be helpful. Or point out if I’ve missed it.
Also, go Bengals. For no other reason than that city needs a win.
@Fig: The answers to so many of these questions live here.
Thanks Greg. That’s helpful. More thoughts to follow once I have a chance to digest.
So in my modest neighborhood with many homes from $800K to $1M, and they are 90% capes and colonials and 90% owner occupied and single family homes, originals to the neighborhood, if my next door neighbor (fellow bungalow homeowner) sells to a developer, I could be living next to a large multi family home and there goes my sunrises, blocked by a large building? My 1000 square foot home could be living next door to HOW BIG of a multi family home?
This law expressly calls to rezone properties to encourage small multifamily homes — triple deckers, town houses, carriage houses, not big apartment buildings, as opposed to the McMansions that often get crammed onto lots now.
But please don’t take my word for it, the answers to so many of the questions folks are asking here can be found in this very, easy to understand explainer from the Boston Foundation.
Wrong. The law funds a rezoning effort. It’s doesn’t “call” or require Newton to do anything.
You’re trying to pitch this as legal compliance, but it’s actually a finacial stimulus for certain projects. Read the law, not some shill summary of it! https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2020/Chapter358
Greg, I don’t believe that is accurate based upon the presentation made by the Planning Department on 1/24. There weren’t a lot of questions that had definitive answers but there were a few.
Q:Can We Required Smaller Units?
A: No. To comply a multi-family district could not require units with age restrictions and could not place any limits of restrictions on the size of the units, numbers of bedrooms, size of bedrooms or the number of occupants.
Q: Can We Still Require Affordable Housing in a By Right District?
A: Yes, our inclusionary zoning requirement still applies to all developments whether by-right or special permit, that contain 7 or more units.
In regards to the size limit question, if would appear that senior housing could not go in one of these districts, or at least couldn’t be include in the 8300.
In regards to affordability, Housing Choice has no specific goals in regards to affordability. Were Newton to adopt it or not we still follow the inclusionary zoning ordinance requirements. HC doesn’t strengthen or weaken that.
Now I understand that in the trickle down theory of density, it will be argued that a side effect will be more affordable housing. I see more direct paths to that goal. And please don’t call me immoral if I don’t see Housing Choice as the best means to the end of more affordability.
It absolutely is a means to the end of more density. That is why I see this as a density mandate.
On the plus side, if your neighbor sold to a developer… the same developer would offer you crazy amounts of $ to buy your home. Even Larger lot = bigger profits
I have a small lot (5,400 square feet) as do many of my neighbors. It happens that I live next to a small house on an 11K square foot lot. So no one wants my property . . .
If zoning does go ahead, i hope the city will provide assurances that property taxes on affected properties will not see giant overnight spikes.
Your 5400sqft lot could now build at least 2 units of housing.. even if u have no intention of selling. How much will your assessed land increase? Who knows but the city MUST make this extremely clear before approving
I guess for those of us that live in Capes and ranches, the multi family (two family) homes nearby are HUGE. They tear down the $850K Cape and build a two family townhouse) that sells for $1.8M. It is creating housing near the train station, but not affordable housing. Might as well leave the $850K Cape house. I don’t see how adding two units is more affordable than leaving the small modest Cape. The developer can afford to buy it because he/she is going to make a great amount of profit.
Meanwhile, a more affordable house is knocked down to make room for a two family townhouse, that is NOT affordable.
@Newton Mom: Except all you need to do is drive around the city add see that this is not what happens. Little capes and ranches get replaced by McMansions (allowed under current zoning) instead of smaller multi-family (not allowed).
@Greg Anecdotally I am seeing modest houses in my neighborhood of West Newton (toward Auburndale) getting knocked down and replaced by McCondos. Giant oversized two family homes that barely fit on the lot and have big garages. IMO that’s not the type of new development I’m interested in seeing.
Such blatant lies in this post it should be labeled FALSE INFORMATION. Newton would be IN NO WAY BREAKING THE LAW if it elects to decline financial aid to re-zone the City. The state often makes funds available for projects, like building high schools, but choosing not to initiate them is not breaking “a new state law.”
In case anyone doesn’t know, Greg is a registered lobbyist representing local business interests including developers like Northland. Follow the money and ignore his taunting insults and bully ways.
It’s sad to think anyone in Newton would even consider the advice of a business lobbyist over its own electorate.
Greg-
What do you and what does the Chamber think about laser focusing on the on Brae Burn Country club as a solution to coming into compliance with the state law MBTA Communities (notice the Woodlawn Station at the southern edge of the property), to maintaining the reasons why current residents of Newton moved here (because no change would be needed anywhere else in the City), and to creating opportunities for affordable housing?
Especially as the membership at the country club is overwhelming comprised of people from outside Newton, do you consider the possibility that the City would do a taking, then see to those parcels being (perhaps subdivided and) built-out?
Remember that Housing Choice is about zoning – i.e., potential. The city does *not* have to do any takings or build anything to comply. The city just has to make it possible through zoning.
Mary: Rezoning only defines what you’re allowed to build, not what your required to build. Rezoning Brae Burn or even Woodland to allow housing will only get you housing if Brae Burn or Woodland want to get out of the golf business and there’s never been any indication from either one that they do.
Is there any legal difference in the legislation between rezoning land that is played upon as opposed to land that is currently lived upon? to take the idea to the extreme, wouldn’t rezoning Brae Burn to be SR-3 satisfy the Commonwealth and still allow Newton to collect its millions in redistributed funding from the state? Afterall, Brae Burn is within 0.5 miles of the T station and, at 190 acres, it is more than 50 acres.
And if residents want to make sure the construction happens in fact, why would the Chamber support the Mayor doing a taking of the land so to support a public policy being imposed from the Commonwealth, for the greater good?
Funding such a taking should be easy in these days of cheap money and the City’s pridefully strong balance sheet …
No, because SR-3 doesn’t allow multi-family housing. But MR-1…
@Greg, rezoning a golf course seems like it would be a tremendous gift to the country club. How could they afford not to sell? What would that 190 acres be worth as MR-1 or MR-2? Is that really all it would take?
And way off topic, but you know I won’t pass up the opportunity to question whether we would have been better off without that $7M grant that benefitted Chestnut Hill developers and businesses but created a ~2mi daily backup on Route 9 WB.
The city should do more for accessory units (los Angeles now has pre-approved designs to speed up adoption)
Key quote: “58% of ADUs are rented at below-market rates”
So you will increase density but without the obnoxious $4000 2br price tag which only benefits developers
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2021-03-05/new-city-program-brings-high-design-concepts-to-granny-flat?_amp=true
Newton already allows ADUs by right (as of 2 years ago?). The experience of other cities who have had more success is that it takes time after making a change like that seems to be that it takes a few years for momentum behind ADUs to build. So perhaps we’ll see some more of those in Newton in the coming years as owners take advantage.
Did you have a suggestion of what else Newton could do around ADUs?
The article points to LA having pre-approved designs to remove redtape. A homeower can pick a design with known upfront cost (minus site prep)
I assume cost the main issue. Needs to be under 100k to gain traction. The unit would be rented way way below the outrageous trio,austin
Recently, a City Councilor said: “There’s no poverty in Newton’s villages.” Wow. Then why does Newton possess a Food Bank in Waban? And why do Newton residents GO TO THE FOOD BANK? Too many people are out of touch with the realities of the communities they reside in.
*Property taxes are onerous throughout Newton (e.g., $50,000 for one such home without one acre in Newton Corner). I know several homeowners who relocated or happened upon a nice quiet suburban city named Newton in the 1960s and 1970s. Today, they all agree: “We could never buy in Newton nowadays.” They are barely able to remain in the homes they raised their children in — each residing outside Newton or in another state — because of rising property taxes. They cherish the homes that grew familiar and safe within the neighborhoods and friends they met five to six decades ago. All are retirees and most are in need of property tax relief.
*Some 2,000 residents live in apartment complexes with State and Federal subsidies owned and operated by the Newton Housing Authority. Several more people rely on Section 8 Vouchers (Federally subsidized) and Alternative Housing Voucher Payments (State subsidized) to reside in private apartments such as two-family homes in every Village; Woodland Apartments (at Woodland D Branch T Station); Avalon at Newton Highlands on Needham Street, and so on.
*Affordable accessible housing is a crisis in the 347 municipalities across the Commonwealth. Disability rights activists and public housing advocates rang those alarm bells since 1990, warning that persons with disabilities are leaving dreadful institutions; State-run archaic Asylums are closing, and tens of millions of people across America will reach age 65 by 2006. People are living longer, healthier lives after all. It’s happening!
Yet cities such as Newon have neglected to heed the wise warnings three decades ago. Elective public servants looked the other way too often. As a result, greedy and sleazy developers swooped in and bought tracts of land to build multi-story condos and slap all manner of hidden fees to over-priced units! Landlords raised rents to keep pace with millionaire developers, thereby pushing working-class folks out and forcing them to scatter to other communities. Zoning laws were hatched to favor the developers. Necessary rent control referendums got shot done before reaching public vote.
So, there’s big fish to fry for Newton’s City Council. Homeowners of all ages seek sanity to the onerous property taxes that rise unabated. Newton’s three Commuter Rail Stations are daily in violation of the Federal decree of the Americans with Disabilities Act. As such, persons with disabilities and older residents who no longer are able to drive are shut out of the freedoms and independence their able-body cohorts enjoy!
Mayor Fuller and City Councilors are in lockstep with MBTA officials who knowingly and brazenly trample the civil rights of people with disabilities by violating the ADA. And MBTA officials are in a perilous position as seen by the gaping lack of accountability towards recent deaths within its transit hub as well as last July’s Green Line collision on Commonwealth Avenue that sent dozens of passengers to the hospital.
The chaos listed above in my fact-based commentary shall continue until citizens get involved in the vexing issues of the day, become engaged in their community’s goings on, and follow through on bringing solutions to the problems daily impacting their lives. What are you prepared to do?
Don’t we still have prop 2 1/2? That is, in the absence of an override, which I don’t think there’s been one lately, the taxes aren’t going up but the values.
And enough
people can afford it, to keep the values that high. The land is finite, so, as many here wish, much higher density is the only way to get more units. But I’m not convinced you can build enough dent the price much. You’d have to build upwards of 10000 apartments, to make a large difference in price, I’d take a SWAG.
There was a reason (there’s always a reason, we just collectively forget what the reasons are) there was rent control in various cities, which went out of fashion in the late 80s in favor of Condos, etc.
My aunt lived in a rent controlled apartment on Long Island until she pass away at 95. 50 + years in a rent controlled apartment in Great Neck, Long Island, easily a more affluent town than Newton. She could afford to save money on her Teacher’s pension (another thing retirees today are lacking).
I think you can find plenty of blame in the economics of both the Dems and the Republicans. It’s no coincidence that inequality is at a level like the 1920s, or even greater than that.
Wages have been stagnant, and pretty inelastic. Only in the past year or so have we seen upward pressure on wages. Defined pensions went out of fashion for the “ownership society”, where everyone can be an investor by playing with their 401Ks.
It’s a conundrum, I have no solution for. I’m not sure anyone does.
A rising tide doesn’t lift all boats, it seems.
@Girard A Plante – Do you have an opinion on the city complying with the state mandated changes to our zoning? (the topic of the post)
Jerry – I know exactly the topic of the post. While my comments lack clarity relating to your question, I meandered about the ‘lay of the land’ to show how Newton has lessened the quality of life for people residing here decades and others forced to leave too soon. My comments are interwoven with the “topic” before us. We’re all in this together.
Also, a home in Newton in 2000 cost $700,000. A home in Newton today cost $1.3 million. How did THAT inequity happen? How did zoning laws fit into the equation? We know that price-fixing — on home sales and rentals — and other evil schemes such as outright lies that a home sold when it did not and an apartment got rented when it had not, kept Black folks from entering Newton. You see, many variables factor into that larger topic you pose.
3% inflation compounded over 25 years = doubling in price (700k to 1.4M)
No mystery or explanation needed. Its simply inflation
Bugek – Um, greedy, sleazy landlords and developers and real estate brokers RAISED prices, pushing many people seeking homes to buy out of the market. And with all that back-door dealing the citizens could never get offered a say-so. Then certain powerbrokers fall in line.
You quoted price increases of “Also, a home in Newton in 2000 cost $700,000. A home in Newton today cost $1.3 million”
That is simply 3% compounded over 25 years. Ie natural inflation. The math doesnt lie, nothing insidious with that rate of increase
Here’s a Newton Patch article summarizing the MBTA Communities Law and how it affects Newton.
Only in Massachusetts could something this poorly thought out be passed. In other states people cry out for more local representation and here the state is trying to force a special set of zoning rules on our city. How many of those reps that voted for this have ever set foot here?
California just ended single family zoning statewide and made it easier for cities to upzone. New York’s and Washington state are headed in the same direction. California also recently started imposing statewide housing production mandates, with 40B-like bypass of local zoning laws if localities fail to comply. There is now a broad recognition that local interests will generally oppose the construction of building much-needed housing, and that too much local control results in little housing being built, which has contributed to out of control housing prices in blue states. Under the US constitution, all local power is derived from the state, so it’s perfectly appropriate for states to come in if localities are failing here.
We have luxery to wait a few years to see if the zoning was positive/negative in california.
I suspect it will show the complete opposite result.. just like defund police/bail reform.
We’ll know for sure in a few years
Your are correct that local power does come from the state but this is different in that the local community didn’t request this power and it’s not being enforced universally throughout the state. You are wrong when you imply that the state can do whatever the hell they want to do to try and solve a housing crisis