A story by Martina Jackson in the Fig City News reports on a possible new plan for the Indigo Hotel at Riverside.
The initial plan for Riverside called for the demolition of the hotel. Since then the project has been on hold.
Now Mark Developer, the propery owner is in discussions with the state about possible re-purposing the Indigo as a temporary shelter for homeless families.
What do you think of that idea?
Who will cover the increased NPS costs?
The school committee just voted to increase the maximum number of out-of-district students. The administration assumed that it would not have budget impact and the school committee did not question it. My own calculations come to about $30K per student.
Presumably, Mayor Fuller will ask the state for money. It will be entertaining to see the logic the city uses to argue that students living at the Indigo are more expensive than students living in Boston.
I think this is a great use of the space. I don’t trust Mark Development or their motives but I want to hear more about this idea.
How are they going to make it habitable for being a temporary shelter? Do we really think Mark is considering this because the State has been a good partner to them? What is in it for Mark? Are they sincere in doing this or is it a bargaining chip to do allow them to change direction with their planned project?
Williams is the closet elementary school but also one of the smallest and also pretty old schools. That area feeds into Brown and South. Will Newton need to increase capacity at these schools or move kids around?
This gives Mark Development an income stream while the Riverside project is on hold. They arent doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Once interest rates lower and they begin the project, they’ll demolish the hotel. The city needs to be careful about what it can adequately deliver in the way of services especially since the override failed.
191 rooms so a minimum of 382 to 573 people dependent on social services in a single location.
I assume a minimum of 191 children will need extra attention given their horrible circumstances
I assume they will be bused around different schools in Newton to ease overcrowding in a single school zone.
This could go for several years if a recession forces mark development to change plans. But he gets to collect bags of $ whilw waiting
… and ppl say Developers are not pillaging Newton
@Bugek – the article says that the plan is for housing 64 families.
The plan also doesn’t mentioned the criteria they will use to choose. Perhaps only families with 2 or more children or only families with infants. Total unknown
The point is, the developer wants their cake and eat it too. They knew of the risks of construction and now they want to get paid and place the burden on the city of Newton.
Why stop here? Every empty storefront,office building should seek state/federal funds to open migrant shelters
If I owned a vacant building, I would love to collect rent during a recession
Maybe they can put some FEMA trailers on the abandoned Dunstan East site….
In November Charlie Baker filed a proposal to alleviate the influx of refugees. I don’t no if the Healey administration is carrying through with that proposal but the bill included plans for housing, services, and education.
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2022/11/22/charlie-baker-migrant-crisis-bill-devens-shelter/
“The third part of the bill allocates $37 million for costs associated with placing new students in local schools through the end of FY24.
The bill also contains several policy changes Baker says will allow the state to respond to the migrant housing crisis more efficiently.
One major policy change would allow the state, in concert with local school districts, to enroll students from state-placed families in nearby districts. This would help local communities manage the impact of an increase in student enrollment, Baker said.”
@jl – There’s nothing in the story that indicates this is for refugee housing. It was described as ” a temporary shelter for homeless families” in the article.
A Special Permit is not a golden ticket for a developer to do anything they want with a property. This use does not comply with the SP issued by the City of Newton, and the City Council should revoke the entire permit if the developer signs-on to this use. The prospect of prolonged litigation over the permit should be enough to pause this ill-conceived plan.
In recent years the City Council has done a horrible job of negotiating the terms of Special Permits for large development projects. They completely botched the Northland SP which should have included a higher percentage of affordable housing and more support for Newton’s schools. At Riverside the Council gave too much leeway to the developer in modifying the original permit. There’s little doubt in my mind that the willingness to modify the Special Permit was a display of City Council weakness that is now being exploited by the developer when considering the State’s proposal.
An opportunity comes along to help mitigate the misery of homelessness in our area. And these are the comments.
Perhaps Newton isn’t as progressive as I thought.
Keith, Newton is progressive. It’s just more of the transactional, keep up with the cool kids, I gave at the office, stop it at the city line kind of progressive.
I’m not sure why we expect Mark to be more community-oriented and generous than many of us pretend to be.
Keith, No progressive city is complete without its own “Mass and Cass”.
Also with this development “paused” and Dunstan being an empty ditch for a prolonged period of time, what does this mean for Mark, Korff, and the future of development in Newton?
It means nothing to the developers, Dunstan gets to enjoy a lower tax rate because the buildings are demolished, here they get to collect 100% hotel occupancy rates for years to offset its costs. The children from broken homes will need significant resources to help adjust to normality. Last time I checked, Newton is looking to cut school costs as resources are finite.
heads I win, tails you lose.
It’s not the proposed use that I object to. It’s the complete lack of process involving the community. If the proposal were properly vetted and subject to public hearings, I would very likely support the proposal, even if it were long-term. But it’s incredibly arrogant and completely insensitive for the State to think they can open a homeless shelter for [potentially] hundreds of people without any substantive community feedback. And it’s infuriating that the developer would even consider such a proposal without adequate community feedback.
Mike, Mark Development (MD) has been meeting with members of the Auburndale-Lower Falls Riverside Liaison Committee about using the former hotel as temporary housing. City Councilor Chris Markiewicz is a member of this Committee. I listened in on one of their meetings and the representative from MD stated that if the community were opposed to this project going ahead MD would not try to push it through. Other than getting feedback from members of this committee I am unsure how MD will elicit community feedback.
Mike – I think the problem is more a lack of a local newspaper. I first read about it in Martina Jackson’s article in FigCityNews.
@Lucia, the meetings are also summarized in the Auburndale Neighborhood Association newsletter, and we give the neighborhood a “head’s up” on upcoming meetings and the zoom link for participating, provided by the Riverside Liaison Committee. To be added to the Auburndale Neighborhood Association newsletter just email me: [email protected]
I appreciate that there is a community group involved. I question whether that’s an adequate process for a decision of this magnitude. It’s certainly not the normal, full process for obtaining input on large-scale projects in Newton. And it comes on the heels of this developer having both modified and delayed the underlying development project, which is of critical importance to Newton.
Any and all concerns I have about the former hotel being used as a homeless shelter would however be fully alleviated if this were truly a temporary arrangement. My concern is that this becomes a permanent homeless shelter conveniently located at the end of the Green Line. That would be something that requires a more substantive permitting process.
Has the State offered a termination date for the homeless shelter? Without that guarantee, I’m thumbs-down on this idea.
Hi Mike,
Here’s a link to the Auburndale Neighborhood Association with a summary of the meeting and a zoom link to the next meeting with Mark Development regarding plans for the Indigo, in case you want to add your voice to the discussion: https://mailchi.mp/8d58a43ae204/auburndale_village_day-15891349
Thanks very much, Lauren.
The parameters seems reasonable and self contained. Thanks for the link, Lauren!
Having now had an opportunity to get up to speed on this proposal, I feel used an manipulated. Why was this proposal for a large homeless shelter in Newton kept so quite until after the override votes? This is something that should have been discussed in full public view, so everyone understood that the proposal would likely result in dozens of out-of-district students being added to Newton public schools.
For nearly 20 years I have supported every large scale affordable housing project in the city. V-14 readers know that I have always pushed for a higher percentage of affordable housing in all of these construction projects, including Austin St. I’ve been very critical of the City Council’s inability to get more affordable housing units when they’ve negotiate Special Permits with developers, as was the case at Northland. I’ve even advocated for some conceptual affordable housing projects [like Wells Ave.] that were ultimately rejected by the City. I believe a large part of the solution for homelessness is to build more homes, and I’m an unabashed supporter of doing that in Newton.
I do not support this current proposal for a large homeless shelter. The entire Riverside development project was the subject of an intense permitting process that has already been modified once. The demolition of the Indigo is an integral part of that development and required by the Special Permit. The developer is already struggling with financial problems that have delayed this critical project for Newton’s future. Now he appears to have made some faustian bargain with state regulators to rent them his [former] hotel, citing their support of his overall development project.
This is bullshit! This proposal, like every other proposal of its magnitude, should be fully and completely vetted through the normal permitting process. The developer should be required to seek another modification of his permit if he’s desirous of making such a significant change.
I do not trust that Indigo will be a “temporary” shelter. In my opinion, the State is leveraging the developer, who in turn has found a sucker or two on the City Council willing to help him curry favor with the same State regulators who he is likely to have future business dealings with. Those councilors are going to look pretty damned foolish two years from now when there is no end in sight.
Mike, you ask, “Why was this proposal for a large homeless shelter in Newton kept so quite (sic) until after the override votes?” The Boston Globe, our local paper of record, reported on February 22 that the state and Mark Development were having “early conversations” about using the hotel as a shelter for families: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/02/22/metro/state-eyes-vacant-newton-hotel-temporary-emergency-shelter-use/. The override vote didn’t take place until March 14. And, honestly, I’m unclear as to why the timing of the announcement in relation to the override even matters. What’s the connection???
I think the City of Newton needs a formal community process, as I have not been in the loop at all with the Auburndale neighborhood group and do not feel that that can be the primary body for a public deliberation process (although people are certainly free to organize however they wish).
I support the temporary use of this large vacant building which represents some of the vast unused space we can spare for suffering humans. I live in Auburndale and go by that weed infested blight if a wasted abandoned place often. We care for our cars way more than our fellow humans.
Mike – Exactly the developer are only looking after their own profits – Austin Street has an apt available- 2 bed/2bath 1236 sq ft for ONLY $5855- And parking is probably extra! How is that Affordable.
And Mark Development – They put a pause because of high costs for materials – Yet ALOT of other developers are building huge developments in Brighton/Allston/Boston etc. But Mark Development because he obviously has no funds wants to demolish all the property’s so he pays less tax to the City of Newton because it is only on the land. So now he figures that the state can bail him out with putting a homeless shelter at Indigo. But the City of Newton will be on the hook for additional students or services or transport to other schools for the children that will be living there. But unfortunately the Mayor and some of the City Councilors seem to be letting Mark Development do whatever they want. Maybe they should PULL his Permits until he proves he had the FUNDS to start building.
A few years ago, I had argued that the promise of affordable housing in the context of projects like Austin St, Trio, Northland and Trio was mirage; a small number of unicorns available to a very few. And in turn, we were called NIMBY and selfish.
I had also commented half-jokingly that Newton would lose its collective mind if homeless folks decided to camp in Newtonville between Austin St. and Trio – like a Mass and Cass West. And here we are today.
The link that Lauren provided says, “An outside operator would administer the program and provide educational services to the families”, so hopefully the impact to NPS should be minimal. It also says that, “MD will be submitting a proposal to the city in the next couple of weeks” so it will be interesting to see how the Mayor and City Council reacts, keeping mind that….
1. If you believe the rumors, the Mayor would love a spot in Gov Healey’s Cabinet and ultimately this is a DHCD project, so will her support be for Newton or the state?
2. One Councilor in particular is known to have ties to Korff as well being a professional Social Worker. How will she react to this proposal?
3. Does MD need to even submit a proposal? They’re not building anything new (yet), so does the zoning need to be changed so they can use Indigo (temporarily) for social causes? What will be in this proposal, what will be the City be asked to approve and what leverage does the City have?
PS When will we finally learn the mirage effect of promised affordable housing by developers? Whether it’s the next big project proposed, or the City’s current re-zoning efforts… “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me”
As one of the more progressive members of the Newton Community, I’m almost never part of a pitchfork and torches mob. And it pains me that there are vulnerable human beings at the center of this controversy. But the people involved are not the controversial part. It’s the lack of process and transparency involved in the decision that’s bothering me.
Our city needs to do more on affordable housing. I have always supported that, and I always will. As people of good conscience, we certainly should do more in Newton to help alleviate the national homeless crisis as well. I will support any carefully considered proposal to do that.
But this particular proposal regarding the former Indigo hotel is ill conceived, and driven by state officials who are leveraging their authority over the financially troubled property owner to circumvent the local permitting process. Their proposal should trigger an application for modification of the Special Permit, and the requisite public hearings.
Mike, your “no end in sight comment” suggests you would be concerned if temporary affordable low income housing were to be made permanent? Because I would 100% support 100% permanent affordable low income housing at that site. It would be great workforce housing. Would you?
@Matt…
I can assure you that for the 23 families that live in affordable homes at 28 Austin Street their homes are not a mirage.
Five of those families earn less than 30% of median income (defined as “extremely low income”, and the remaining 18 families earn between 50% and 80% of median income (defined as “low income”.)
To be clear, all of these families earn less than 50 to 85% of the people in greater Boston.
If we had not built 28 Austin Street, it is very likely they could not afford to live in Newton.
So, no, it is not a mirage. It is affordable housing.
@Didi…
One third of 28 Austin Street’s 68 apartments – 23 homes — are permanently affordable.
The remainder are priced to meet the market.
Market rent apartments subsidize the below market affordable rents without any government subsidy.
The market determines rents. Owners don’t.
Rent is a factor of supply and demand.
We don’t have enough housing in Newton or Boston so supply is limited and prices are high.
During the pandemic, we had a natural experiment: almost 100,000 college students didn’t return to Boston, and some young people moved to remote locations or back in with their parents, and rents went down by 20%.
Last year, when they returned, rents went back up.
If we increase supply, rents will drop.
And if you think rental rates are too high, you may be shocked to learn that to buy the median priced $1.3 million house in Newton today, a home buyer needs $260,000 in savings and will spend over $8000 a month on mortgage, real estate taxes, insurance and maintenance.
In the meantime, homelessness remains a real problem in Massachusetts and I’m glad that Mark, the city, and the state are discussing using an otherwise empty hotel next to the Green Line to provide a short-term solution.
Given the recent rise in interest rates, continuing inflation, and threat of recession, unfortunately, it’s unlikely that any new housing will be built soon. Any construction you see underway was likely started before the recent rise in interest rates made new construction in Newton and Boston currently economically infeasible.
Scott,
Based on your logic, I assume you support converting every vacant office/commercial buildingsinto state housing for homeless, low income, migrants, halfway homes for convicts… anyone and everyone basically. Essentially any housing need can be fulfilled for ANY vacant building.
Obviously landlords would love guaranteed rent payments at 100 occupancy.
@Bugek…
Yes, given our severe housing crisis in Massachusetts, I do support converting all appropriate empty buildings to temporary housing. Vacant hotels are the easiest and most economic to convert and hence are the focus of the state’s efforts, like at Riverside. Just like Coke expects to be paid for their sodas, I’d expect landlords would expect to be paid for renting their empty buildings. And, conversely, I’d want the state, using our taxpayer money, to pay no more than what is appropriate.
@Nathan–
I would have welcomed retention of Indigo as a 100% affordable building, just like Mayor Fuller plans to do with the Newton Armory. I think the City Council missed an opportunity with Indigo to convert the building into affordable apartments for City employees like teachers, police officers and firefighters.
Both of those options would have been more preferable to me than the terms of the Special Permit negotiated by the City Council. If the owner of Indigo would consider retaining the building and converting it into 100% affordable housing, I would support a modification to their Special Permit that would allow them to do so. I do not support any process by which they avoid the normal public hearings associated with a Special Permit.
I appreciate what Scott Oran has done to create affordable housing in Newton. I consider the Austin Street development to be one of the best projects from concept to completion that I have seen in Newton over the past 30 years. And I strongly believe that we should be building much more affordable housing in Newton.
But it is the responsibility of Newton City officials, from the Mayor through the City Council and beyond, to represent the interests of the constituents who elected them. Local office holders are not elected to solve problems on the state or federal level. They have an obligation to follow the process long articulated by the City’s zoning regulations.
I believe the developer of the Riverside project should be required to seek a Special Permit modification to use the former Indigo hotel for any type of residential use including a homeless shelter. I’m not an attorney. It’s just my opinion.
@Frank D – Shelter for homeless families is “superfluous garbage”?????
There are obviously important issues with the proposal that need to be worked through and are worth raising and discussing. However I am really struck by how little discussion there has been here about the bigger issue – i.e. widespread family homelessness and what we can do as a community to help address it.
Independent of this proposal the larger Riverside project is on hold at the moment. For me, taking an empty hotel that is awaiting demolition and repurposing it on an emergency and temporary basis to house homeless families is an inspired idea. Yes, its important to get the details right but much of the discussion here seems more about wanting to shut the proposal down and let someone else deal with homeless families elsewhere, rather than figuring out how to make this proposal work.
Jerry,
I’m sure the mayor of Boston would love to find a sucker to accept all the homeless and mentally ill on Mass & Cass. I think a fool has been found in Newton
Newton can barely take care of its own residents, do we really have all the resources to solve everyone’s problem? Yes taking care of existing NEWTON resident is NOT superfluous, taking care of non-residents when the city already voted against an overrride and struggling with recession/inflation is CRAZY irresponsible
@ Jerry – sorry did I say that?
superfluous garbage = bike lanes when temps are sub freezing for 4-5 months. prefunding pensions. buying webster woods. etc etc etc.
Taking care of homeless is quite a noble thing actually – but given the financial situation of NPS I would say we would not be responsible as a city to take on extra cost to our tax payers. This is a non-starter to me, and if the mayor moves forward it is even more evidence that her disdain for NPS is large and growing.
Tonight I read Mayor Fuller’s newsletter supporting the conversion of Indigo into a massive homeless shelter. I’m reminded of the time Mayor Cohen announced that Newton North students would attend classes in other municipalities while their school was renovated. That was the last time I can recall any mayor of Newton so badly misreading the pulse of the community they were elected to represent.
Link to the FAQs on the Indigo Shelter.
This will be a 2-year project, and I assume it will completely delay all anticipated development of the Riverside parcel? So much for new (and much needed) tax revenue streams.
The answer on school attendance is interesting and not as described earlier in these comments.
https://www.newtonma.gov/government/planning/boards-commissions/hotel-indigo-family-shelter
Riverside should be the last parcel Mark gets to “develop” in Newton. Residents are left holding the bag on every level.
And dont be surprised if the site will start installing temporary shelters or modules for all kinds of housing needs… great way for the developer to take state/federal $$$ while the site is vacant
This is not going to be temporary. It’s actually quite profitable for both developer and the city (18k reimbursement per student)
@Bugek: At a reimbursement rate of $18K per student, won’t Newton be losing money?
In the FY24 proposed budget (dated March 29, 2023 – link below), NPS cites a per-student cost of $22,374 and the projection for FY24 is $23,376. So, at a baseline, there is a deficit of >$4K per student. Not to stereotype, but a portion of these children may need an array special services in excess of the average NPS student, thus further increasing the deficit per student.
https://www.newton.k12.ma.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=9524&dataid=18355&FileName=FY24%20Superintendent%20Proposed%20Budget%20Book%20PRINT%20VERSION.pdf
Thanks for pointing that out.
So let me get this straight…we as a city intentionally defund NPS to pay for the Sr Center, prefunding pensions, etc etc…
Then we ask for an override to pay for said pet projects, which fails…
Now the city is going to do this which creates more of a hole? At what point will we as a city realize we have a problem with prioritization and/or overall spending on superfluous garbage.
Then, add on that we are adding two administrators in NPS? Like what is that? And why are we hiring people BEFORE Anna Nolin starts? Is this intentional corruption or just plain stupidity?!?!
My concern at the start was cost. See the first comment above. And what do you know, the reimbursement amount is less than the average cost of educating a student in Newton. In other words it will make the NPS budget hole even bigger.
I’m a hard no on this deal. I would encourage anyone who feels similarly to contact the mayor and your city councillors.
Newton Resident hits the nail on the head. The cost per student will be a lot more than $18K. In fact, it will be a lot more, than $22K. $22K does not include the opportunity cost of land and buildings or the extra cost of ELL and SPED. If Mayor Fuller wants the homeless shelter, she should find funding for NPS. It should not be NPS’s problem.
Not only is the per student cost higher than what the state is paying, the number of students will be a lot more than the Mayor’s write up imples. More than 50% of the students will attend NPS. The homeless students are not currently attending better performing districts like Brookline, Needham, Natick, and the W’s. They are likely attending poorer performing districts like Boston. Their parents will prefer for them to attend NPS. Even if the shelter closes in 2 years, they are likely to remain in NPS. Is DESE still going to pay when the shelter closes and the students are still in NPS?
And i assume those who wish to stay will get preference to any low income houses BEFORE any existing Newton residents who have been waiting YEARS to get a unit
So tell me, how is this benefiting the existing of Newton who need help? They will just have to spread what little resouces more thinly.
The only one benefiting is the owner of a vacant building
Bugek, why do you assume that? I suppose they could get added to a wait list. But “preferential treatment”? Why? How would that even work?
Please don’t make stuff up just to push a narrative.
And Jeffrey is correct that the students will cost more than 18K. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do this, but it is important to acknowledge facts as well. It will function as a large family shelter, each of the families is likely to have kids, and those kids are likely to need supportive services. Which elementary school is this zoned for? Do they have capacity? Can we direct the students to our schools that have capacity (Underwood? Bigelow?)
I am surprised that this type of temporary shelter is the way MA wants to do this, considering the costs to build out the space and the temporary nature of it. But it likely goes to show you the extent of the family homelessness problem in and around Boston right now, with rents being so high.
Fig,
Preference is ALWAYS given to families with children. Period
No matter ones political views, everyone agrees on this
Bugek:
Are you talking the Right To Shelter rules? That is different than the affordable housing rental rules. Right to Shelter just gives preference for shelter itself, mostly in homeless shelters or temp shelters like this project.
Under MA law (Chapter 40B), you can set aside up to 70 percent of affordable units in low income rental housing projects for members of local preferences, including Newton residents. Even then there is typical a housing lottery, using with 8 to 10 times as many applicants as there are units.
Could these families join the rental lottery? Certainly for the 30 percent of units not restricted, just like everyone else. Maybe for the 70% reserved for Newton residents since they will technically be residing in Newton. But they would still be subject to the lottery.
We need to understand the education costs. However, and it is a big however, education costs in Newton do not scale smoothly with the number of students attending. Adding a relatively small number of students at this time – when our schools are below capacity – is not likely to cost $22k per student, or anything like that.
Why? We have huge sunk costs in our school system that is currently below maximum capacity for all levels below high school. For example, every neighborhood school has building staff, utilities, and other fixed costs. Those don’t go up if we add some kids; they are amortized across the entire school population. In fact, direct reimbursements at a rate higher than regular per student state education aid could potentially be a net financial benefit to particular schools in some circumstances.
NPS should assure that an increase in school population doesn’t adversely impact class sizes, especially in light of current budget cuts. Again, though, it is possible that the increased aid may actually allow a few additional teachers or aides to be retained if class sizes would otherwise be marginal. That could actually lead to smaller class sizes.
If I am right on this, we can do the socially compassionate thing and at the same time benefit everyone in our schools.
Mike – while I hope you’re right, the opposite scenario could also play out. Think of it like an assembly line that can produce 1000 widgets a day. If you’re at 900 and you want to make 50 more, your existing line can accommodate the demand. If you’re at 1000 and want to make 50 more, you need a new line, with all the costs that entails. Obviously this is a far more complicated situation (and education is not like making widgets – please don’t take my example literally!), but the general principle remains.
What I would have appreciated as a taxpayer and NPS parent is some sort of nuanced discussion of these topics. Getting it right under your scenario where it’s a net financial gain will require a lot of analysis/planning and some measure of good luck in terms of the ages of the students enrolling. Maybe if I saw some analysis I’d be more supportive. Instead, I’m told we’re getting $18,000 per student, which conveniently leaves out the fact that the average cost is over $23,000 per Newton student, and that I am capable of subtracting two numbers.
Tim, this situation is analogous to what NPS said during the override discussion, but in reverse: the aggregate price of Newton schools doesn’t go down proportionally just because some families shifted to private schools. It wasn’t like we could completely close a few schools to save money, because the empty slots are distributed across the system.
Conversely, incrementally increasing the school population at this time when enrollment is low fills out that existing capacity.
These calculations are always more complex than simple multiplication or division. We need to see the analysis, but there’s definitely reason to believe the numbers aren’t going to be so simple.
bear in mind, the state ASKED Newton. Does the city not know how to negotiate? Pay 23k per student or ask someone else.
Now, I bet the developer was able to negotiate a VERY good long term lease on the vacant hotel. I can probably assume the city’s hotel tax get waived too in this case.
The cost is nearly $30K per student. I stick by this estimate. Look at “long run costs” in a microeconomics or cost accounting text book. We have lost over 1,000 students. NPS is projecting future declines (not that it matters, but I think they are being optimistic). There are going to be some parents who revolt when the city decides to mothball a school, so politicians are resisting bringing it up, but it is a reality. The extra students at Indigo are going to be around in the long run.
I am pushing back on this because it is important that the school committee insists that the Mayor pay the full cost of her decision. The kids should not bear the cost. The mayor knows how much this will cost. I had a month long back and forth with her 10 plus years ago on this. It ended with her talking to experts. Chris Brezki gets it. Since Paul Levy was a CEO, he almost certainly gets it. Parlikar has an MBA from a good school. He might get it. It is unclear if anyone else on the committee has a background in economics and accounting. I hope the SC does not roll over and accept $18K per student or even $23k per student. It is north of that.
If Mayor Fuller had been honest and laid the facts out on the table sooner, I could have been convinced to support some iteration of this Indigo proposal. The state’s situation with homelessness is rightfully referred to as a “crisis.” But the Mayor committed a lie of omission by keeping news about the homeless shelter negotiations quite in order to give the overrides a better chance of passing.
But here’s the most cynical part… The Mayor plans to use the Dover Amendment as a means of circumventing her own city’s zoning regulations. The Dover Amendment is a piece of legislation intended to allow school buildings and houses of worship to locate in zones where their specific use would be non compliant. The Dover Amendment was never intended as a means to allow homeless shelters to locate anywhere they want. I hope one of the Indigo abutters will challenge this novel use of the Dover Amendment in court.
@Mike Striar I was wondering about the Dover Amendment aspect. Is there any loophole due to the fact that Catholic Charities is involved? Or maybe as I read the below blurb from Mayor Fuller’s email is it due toe the adult education that she is applying the DA?
“DHCD will be partnering with Catholic Charities of Boston to provide on-site 24/7 support and services for the families. This includes a variety of family supports, adult education, employment and training skill building, and individual case management. Catholic Charities has deep experience operating family emergency shelters.”
It just doesn’t sit right that she is trying to use the DA to go against Newton’s own zoning rules. She should be following City guidelines and processes to make the best outcome for Newton. It doesn’t mean not trying to make this work but I feel like there should be a public process for the best outcome. It should be a transparent city wide process. It just feels like there may be some underlying, self serving objective going on here on the Mayor’s part. Something about this overall idea seems off to me. It would be one thing if the hotel was already shape to house people. Money is going to go into renovating areas of the hotel to house people for 2 yrs and then eventually it will be torn down,
@Mike: I’m genuinely perplexed by your comment. First of all, as I already posted above, the Boston Globe, our local paper of record, reported on February 22 that the state and Mark Development were having “early conversations” about using the hotel as a shelter for families: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/02/22/metro/state-eyes-vacant-newton-hotel-temporary-emergency-shelter-use/. The override vote didn’t take place until March 14. So, I’m not sure why you continue to contend that there was some cover-up to keep the discussions a secret until after the override. And I honestly don’t even understand why you think there was any connection to the override at all.
Second, I think you’ve got the causal arrow wrong. I don’t think the mayor will be “using” the Dover Amendment for anything. I believe the way this generally works is that it is the applicant (in this case, Catholic Charities, presumably) who “uses” or relies on the Dover Amendment to circumvent local zoning. City officials do not “use” or rely on the Amendment…in fact, on many occasions, in other municipalities, it is local officials who have tried (often unsuccessfully) to challenge a proposed project’s reliance on the Dover Amendment. Also, just fyi, this is hardly a “novel” use of the Dover Amendment: https://masslawyersweekly.com/2004/05/03/zoning-dover-amendment-homeless-shelter-educational-purposes-2/
@Meryl– Are you suggesting that a small article behind a paywall is adequate public notice? Who the heck even reads the Globe anymore? Mayor Fuller is a wonderful communicator. She sends out long and detailed newsletters. Apparently the Mayor forgot to mention the huge homeless shelter she was contemplating. I believe that the first time her newsletter mentioned the shelter was after it was a done deal.
Regarding my “causal arrow” being misdirected… I don’t think so. Like it or not, Mayor Fuller owns this homeless shelter now. She negotiated with the state on the down low. Kept it from the public until after the override vote. She’s apparently already conceded the state’s use of the Dover Amendment to circumvent Newton’s zoning regulations. And does the Mayor really believe this is only for two years?
I’m no Nostradamus. But I can predict two things that will happen two years from now. Mayor Fuller’s homeless shelter will extend their lease, and the Mayor will be shown the door.
The perception is that the Mayor negotiated on behalf and to the benefit of the developer, not Newton. Last time I checked, residents were not asking to convert empty commercial spaces into homeless shelters and to increase school population with kids which require proportionally more attention and services.
.. after telling us Newton finances are in dire-straits. makes ZERO sense
Not to disagree here, but if the financing is available, there is no way Mark Development is keeping that building as a homeless shelter. His acquisition was too expensive for that. That land is too expensive for that.
I suppose it could be extended for another year. But his carrying costs are high. He isn’t going to make money on this type of thing, it is a holding action for another move. Either a sale or a redevelopment.
I’m just guessing. No inside knowledge. But land banking like this doesn’t work long term absent some really bad facts on the lending side. And two years is a lifetime to get the lending side worked out.
Don’t forget Mike, he still pays full property tax on the building. The use doesn’t negate the for profit ownership. And there is upkeep for the building too. Even if the state pays this (on the full building is unlikely…) and pays rent, his acquisition debt will suck away that cash…
Just my 2 cents. I appreciate you might have a different view. If this was a city owned project I’d think you’d be 100% correct.
Newton is filled with empathetic people. It’s something to be proud of if you live in this community. I consider myself to be an empathetic person, who is very aware of the homeless situation in the Boston area.
I’ve been a strong proponent of more affordable housing in Newton, and I’ve been very critical of the way representatives of the City of Newton have handled negotiations for more affordable housing with large scale developers. Affordable housing has not been given the priority it warrants. How many families will not get the opportunity to live in Newton because the City Council did not fight hard enough for more affordable housing at Riverside and Northland?
To date, the only leadership on this issue has come [ironically enough] from the Mayor, at the Armory. I applaud her for that. She took the time to follow a transparent process, got the community to buy-in, and will be delivering affordable housing that has a direct benefit for Newton.
Indigo is not the Armory. What’s happening at Indigo does not represent leadership. It represents failed leadership, playing out in real-time, without most of the checks and balances that are always a part of any major project in Newton. The Mayor of Newton is elected to represent the best interest of Newton. How does this shelter benefit Newton?
The most effective role Newton can play in alleviating the homeless crisis, is by adding affordable housing. Newton benefits from more diversity. We benefit from people moving here and investing in our community. Affordable housing offers crystal clear benefits for Newton that a large homeless shelter simply does not.
Mayor Fuller should nix this homeless shelter proposal. She should make the financially struggling developer seek Special Permit modification, and give the public a chance to weigh-in. The Mayor should use the City’s leverage in this situation to secure more affordable housing, even if that requires some limited concessions to State Authorities.
Mike how about speaking up for “affordable” home ownership. Why does every affordable residence have to be either a rental or a limited equity condo or co-op. There are plenty of affordable homes still in Newton but your friend the Mayor is allowing them to be scooped up by developers who turn them into McMansions or expensive townhouses. Where is your voice to keep these properties available for entry level families or minorities who wish to be home owners in Newton? crickets.
I’ve got bad news for you, Jackson Joe. Brace yourself. It’s gonna be as hard for you to read as it is for me to write…
The Newton you’re referring to in your comment above… it’s gone. Those wonderful little starter homes in Oak Hill that were built for returning soldiers at the end of WW2… gone. The genuinely affordable homes that used to be filled by hard working, blue color Newtonians “down The Lake”… gone. The $1200 a month 2-bedroom apartment in The Highlands where a single parent could raise a couple of kids… sadly, also gone. All victims of market forces that are much larger and more powerful than Newton itself.
The truth… everything changes. We can either bemoan the loss of the good old days, or we can put our energy into helping shape the future. So while I subscribe to the charm and allure of old houses, I’m content to leave the fate of most single family homes up to the individual property owner.
What this city and this region desperately need is more affordable housing. Affordable housing enriches the entire Newton community. So why not more fully embrace it? Also worth remembering in this moment, it’s affordable housing that actually helps keep families from becoming homeless in the first place.
In my opinion, Newton needs even more emphasis on affordable housing coming from City Hall. We need better negotiators squaring off with experienced developers seeking Special Permits from Newton. I’m sick of seeing our elected “leaders” getting the crap kicked out of themselves at the negotiating table. We need elected officials who can squeeze every last affordable unit out of every large scale project. I believe Newton should be building much more affordable housing. I’ll take a hard pass on Mayor Fuller’s massive homeless shelter.
Today Mayor Fuller announced that this ill-conceived plan to turn the Indigo Hotel into a homeless shelter, has been abandoned. Although the Mayor is suggesting financial considerations led to the projects demise, the reality is that political pressure from an outraged public was a major reason the shelter plan bit the dust.
In my opinion, Newton’s contribution toward ending the homeless crisis should be creating more affordable housing. In that regard, we have not yet done nearly enough. I believe Newton should require developers of large residential projects to designate 30% of the housing units as affordable. A substantially higher rate than projects built under 40B.
Tens 9f troubled middle/high schoolers who need extensive mental and wellbeing all concentrated in a single location… too close to Waban
Teens in general go through difficult mental issues, add in homelessness the outcome is unpredictable without extensive support.
If this was north of Pike i’m confident the outcome would be different
Its possible this could be resurrected if we see a huge influx of migrants this summer. The federal government will have no choice but to throw money at this.. so much $ that the developers eyes will pop out
Mayor Fuller has a problem. She just can’t say “no” to other public officials when they come to her with crazy ideas. First, it was State officials convincing her to turn Indigo into a giant homeless shelter. Today it was Middlesex District Attorney Marian Ryan convincing the Mayor to host a government run DNA collection program at City Hall.
Fortunately, Mayor Fuller came to her senses about Indigo when she learned those State officials were lying, and actually planned to keep the former hotel as a homeless shelter for longer than the two years they indicated. Today though, it took the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] to intervene, before the whacky DNA event was cancelled.
I’m trying to like Mayor Fuller. I acknowledge she’s done some wonderful things. But she has a baffling inability to recognize horrible ideas.
*[Major kudos to Fig City News for their reporting on the DNA collection event].
I thought this was a late April fool article. The mayor is being poorly advised as there is no scenario where this is acceptable in USA
… saying yes to everyone to make friends for an eventual run for higher office?
You are giving way too much credit to Ruthanne Fuller.
When asked by the state to hold a voluntary government DNA collection event at Newton City Hall, Mayor Fuller probably only questioned why it had to be voluntary.
Let’s add putting all of her eggs into the MBTA Communities Act basket to her list of bad decisions to appease Beacon Hill.
“You want us to sign up for 8,300 housing units? Sure, no problem. And I’ll have Planning propose to put them in the already densest parts of the City, so I don’t piss off my donors in Waban and Chestnut Hill – doesn’t matter if the MBTA runs on 100 year old technology and makes a Fiat look as reliable as a Toyota.”
Ugh.
Lest us not forget not batting an eye when somebody started opening Gun-a-Rama on Washington Street. She is totally clueless. Completely out of touch. I blame her for the failed override because the community does not trust her at all. She should do the right thing and resign. Has Newton ever had a mayor this bad? I’ve only been here long enough to know two and she’s making Seti look like Fiorello La Guardia.
“I blame her for the failed override because the community does not trust her at all.”
Ditto I talked to some coworkers (Newton voters) who didn’t vote for the overrides because they felt she could not be trusted. And some of the other voters (myself included) voted for the overrides but were kind of uncomfortable doing so because of not trusting her.
Indigo, Gun-a-Rama, DNA collection….. sure all bad. The absolute worst thing ( and I will get flack for this) is that Mayor Fuller shut down the schools. This is not only Mayor Fuller’s worst decision, it is the worst decision ever made by the city of Newton. Sure other communities shut down schools, but we did it worse. Evidence is coming in about the affect of school closures on children and it is really bad. Our children suffered for no reason.
Leadership matters. We knew at the time that European schools were open and there was absolutely no evidence of harm. Mayor Fuller was on DESE’s board. DESE recommended spacing of 3 feet. Mayor Fuller asked Rochelle Walensky, who told her 3 feet was fine. The city hired a pediatrician for advice on spacing between students, who told Health and Human Services that 3 feet was fine. At the same time, the mayor and the school committee rebuffed the offers of highly recognized medical experts that offered to provide advice to the city.