A story in the Boston Globe today by John Hilliard reports on the substantial local tax breaks that three of Newton’s private country clubs enjoy. Between the three country clubs they get annual tax breaks of nearly $2 million thanks to a provision of state law intended to preserve open land and recreational spaces.
“That’s a huge deal. That could pay for teachers, firefighters, and police,” said Victoria Danberg, a Newton city councilor who opposes the tax breaks. “The taxpayers of the city of Newton are 100 percent footing the bill for these private clubs.”
Mayor Ruthanne Fuller of Newton, in a statement to the Globe, said she is encouraging the state “to reexamine the financial benefits” provided to recreational properties like golf courses. She acknowledged that communities can benefit from the open space and opportunity to purchase land under the program, but, Fuller added, “the level of abatement that state law currently allows deserves a second look.”
In a time of budget cutting and teacher layoffs these dedicated tax breaks for private country clubs sure seem awfully hard to justify.
Also from the article – “Founded in 1897, Brae Burn collects millions in dues from members, and in turn guards their retreat with no-trespassing signs and a chain link fence that earned it the nickname, ‘Fortress Braeburn,’ among some of its Newton neighbors.”
You would think that the least these generous tax breaks would earn the citizens of Newton would be an effort by the country clubs to be part of the community rather than “a fortress”
p.s. thanks to fignewtonville for suggesting this thread.
Yup. Until the last few years, the entire neighborhood used the course in the winter for sledding, cross-country skiing, and snow-shoeing. Now Brae Burn has fenced us out, and I see no reason to subsidize the institution.
Private golf courses get “tax breaks” in exchange for a legal commitment to not develop the land. The sale and transition of an 18 hole golf course to a residential use would be a disaster for Newton. Any doubters should take a half hour ride out to Millis, were you can see for yourself what happened when Glen Ellen Country Club was sold to Toll Brothers for residential development.
I’m good with the “tax break” for golf courses. It’s a net plus for Newton. What I’m not happy about is the pathetically weak effort city “leaders” have made to get more payment in lieu of taxes from large property holders like Boston College that are exempt from taxes for other reasons. The City should be billing BC directly for all services provided. It amounts to millions of dollars per year. Don’t “tax” them. Just bill them! [Seriously, why has the Mayor not figured this out?]
Back to the golf courses… Newton should negotiate a long term plan to use the “friendly taking” provision of Eminent Domain as a means to acquire all its’ private courses. The City should buy them over time, close them, and reforest them. The benefit to Newton is obvious.
Buying Newton’s private golf courses is an achievable objective, specifically because of the tax provision that allows golf courses to pay less property taxes. In opting for that provision, the courses have depleted the value of their property and made themselves vulnerable to being acquired for a price substantially less than the actual cash value of the real estate. I’ve done the math. It works! I’d encourage the City Council and Newton Conservators to do the same.
@Mike Striar – I’m no real estate guy, but even with the tax break, I’m having a hard time seeing how the price tags for those three golf course wouldn’t be astronomical. They are massive pieces of property in a very expensive town.
@Jerry–
Size doesn’t matter. At least when it comes to Eminent Domain. Fair market value sets the price. And thanks to the golf courses opting to restrict the use of those properties through the selection of their property tax status, the fair market value is substantially reduced.
I’ve been a partner in a company that owned 3 golf courses. I know the financial dynamics of the golf course business. My real estate partnership has been involved with Eminent Domain takings over the years, including one high profile case. So I’m also familiar with how that law works. Anyone can check the Newton Assessor’s data base to determine the assessed value of Newton courses. Their fair market value is likely slightly higher than their assessed value, but not much.
Keep in mind, Newton has already previously acquired Commonwealth Golf Course when that private course went under. In my opinion, reforesting Newton’s golf courses should start now with the one we already own, and that should be part of a much larger long-term plan to purchase and reforest all the courses.
Mike S, I like the way you think. Maybe I’d feel differently if I actually played golf, but whenever I pass one all I can think about is the massive amount of herbicides, pesticides, nitrogen-rich fertilizer, etc that must be needed to keep them so plush and green.
Tax the golf courses, why are we subsidizing hobbies for the wealthy? Golf courses do not benefit the environment. They dump pesticides and fill the air with diesel fumes from lawn care machines.
I learned something new today: That the City of Newton owns the Commonwealth Golf Course. Is it leased to a private operator? The website looks like that of any other club.
The City of Newton bought the Commonwealth golf course in the 1980’s after bankruptcy, in order to keep it from being residentially developed. That is why I’m advocating a pro-active plan to avoid that same situation in the future.
In my opinion, it’s inevitable that one or more of the remaining golf courses will eventually fold, [and much sooner than most people think]. If the City doesn’t have an agreement in place when that happens, we will never be able to compete with residential developers because of the price. We either get a long term acquisition agreement in place now [while the value is suppressed as a result of their property tax status], or we will forever lose the opportunity to return these lands to their natural forested state.
Newton leases Commonwealth golf course to a private operator. Again, just my opinion, but I think all golfing should be terminated at the end of the current operational agreement. I believe Newton’s Urban Forestry department should be tasked with developing a reforestation plan.
State Law Chapter 61B: “Classification and Taxation of Recreational Land” allows for a 75% property tax reduction on recreational properties, including golf courses, who choose a 61B designation. Not all 61B lands are golf courses and not all golf courses are 61B lands, however, and if 61B land is sold to anyone other than “for a natural resource purpose by the city or town in which it is situated, by the commonwealth or by a nonprofit conservation organization,” then the seller must pay 5 years of roll-back property taxes (with interest) on the full 100% taxable valuation (rather than the 25% 61B valuation).
All three of Newton’s private golf courses have chosen this 61B designation, but Newton has nothing to do with allowing the designation and the 75% tax reduction. The actual taxes paid by Newton’s golf courses, however, are a function of the 61B designation AND the Newton tax assessor valuations of the golf courses. In my opinion, Newton’s tax assessor valuations are TOO LOW relative to other Massachusetts 61B golf courses by 200%. In 2020, I obtained the assessor valuations of the 14 61B golf courses located in Massachusetts residential zoning districts (multiple courses in a single municipality were counted as one course, and courses had to be > 10 acres to be included.) This empirical data showed that the 61B golf course assessor valuations displayed a strong linear function with municipality per capita income and residential land valuations, except for Newton and Lexington, which had relatively low valuations. I believe that this empirical data shows there is room to increase Newton’s 61B golf course tax assessor valuations and the resulting tax collected, even with the 75% 61B tax reduction. Residents can see this 2020 relationship, and Newton’s relatively low golf course assessor valuation, in Figure 3 on the web page:
https://newtonrezoning.org/golfcoursesb/
Thanks for that info and explanation Debra. I agree, we may be stuck with the 61B designation and tax discount but it does sound like the city is significantly undervaluing the property with the assessments
Newton’s Abbie Richards has a plan for the golf courses.
The country clubs get a huge tax break, supposedly in exchange for free access by the citizens of their communities. In Newton, their property’s fair market value (FMV) assessment isn’t near its full value. For example, Brae Burn abuts property that sells for between $1.5M and $2.0M per acre. However, the average valuation for Brae Burn acreage is about $125k/acre, less than a 1/10th of similarly situated property. Even Auburndale Cove Park, owned by the City of Newton, is valued at $1.6M per acre, and it’s not nearly as well situated as the country clubs. Woodland Country Club, for example, is within walking distance of the Woodland MTA stop. For the other country clubs in Newton, there are similar disparities between their per-acre fair market valuation and the property that abuts them. The law permits the property assessment to be based on up to 25% of FMV. For Brae Burn, as an example, this would mean that their per-acre valuation would be about $375k – $500 per acre. It’s one thing to place the maximum assessment at 25% of FMV as the law does, but it is counter to the spirit of the law to lowball the FMV assessments, all the while failing to enforce the law’s open access to the general public requirement.
The golf clubs should be required to allow community access to the land outside of golf season in exchange for the tax breaks. If the discount is because they supposedly provide a public benefit, then the public should be allowed to benefit.
This is total BS.
Laws are meant to be changed. How do we get this one updated to meet the times? Is it getting 61B over turned?
The Globe article reports that golfer Deirdre Garrity said that “Brae Burn does a lot for the community. “ Many of us in “the community” would like to know to what she refers. What this “a lot” is. Does she refer to BraeBurn allowing the high school golf teams to practice on their course? So a small select group of high school students get to practice there for a few months per year — when Newton already has a community golf course the students could use.
Over the past 3 years, I’ve asked the mayor and several city councilors why golf course tax assessments are so low. They’ve all said they’d look into it and get back to me, but somehow they never do. I’ve concluded that this question is radioactive.
It is commonly stated that golf course assessments under Chapter 61B are 25% of fair market value. Actual golf course land assessments in Newton under Chapter 61B are around $55,000 per acre. Considering that the city spent ~$900,000 per acre for Webster Woods, it appears that Newton’s country club land assessments are based on a recreational use value that is around 6% of fair market value.
I noticed this about 3 years ago, when I co-authored an article about Chapter 61B and Newton golf courses.
https://newtonconservators.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Newsletter-2020-Spring-golf.pdf
Under Chapter 61, a landowner commits to maintain a property in agricultural, forest, or recreational use for a period of time. Participation is voluntary. To enroll, the landowner must submit a written application, and then reapply annually. The town or city then establishes a local property tax assessment based on “current use value” rather than “development value”, and in exchange the city is granted a right of first refusal to purchase the property if the land is converted to a use not covered by Chapter 61.
In Newton, Chapter 61B applies to Newton’s three country clubs and their combined 548 acres of open space. Under Chapter 61B, country club land is assessed at its “recreational use value” which cannot exceed 25% of its fair market value. Based on that assessment, the land is taxed at the commercial rate. In addition, country club buildings, which are not covered by Chapter 61B, are assessed at their actual value and taxed at the commercial rate. Other structures such as driveways, pro shops, pools, golf cart storage sheds, and tennis course are also taxed at the full commercial rate.
While researching the article above in late 2019, I reviewed the online records to make sure I understood how the tax assessments worked. I was astonished that golf course land in Newton appeared to be assessed around $50,000/acre, which is obviously much less than 25% of the land’s fair market value. At the time, I assumed there was something wrong with my calculation. But, alas, a few months later, in an August 2021 email, James Shaughnessy, Director of Assessing in Newton, confirmed that 61B golf course land assessments in Newton ranged from $52,596 to $55,723 at the time.
Using Webster Woods ($900,000/acre) as the reference for fair market value, the difference between 25% and 6% across 548 acres is around $1.8 million annually in lost tax revenue to the city. That appears to be the cost of how the Chapter 61B program is administered in Newton, in addition to the cost of the 61B program itself.
There is another state law regarding tax revenue and Newton’s 543 acres of private golf courses, that is currently more important than 61B to Newton residents.
The Planning Department’s proposed comprehensive rezoning (section 5.1.2) downzones all of Newton’s golf courses from their current residential zones to recreational zones. Right now, the golf courses can be sold, and the land used for housing, but, if the proposed rezoning goes through, no housing, except a caretaker’s cottage, can be built on the courses in the future. This proposed golf course downzoning is being done despite the housing crisis and the proposed upzoning of Newton’s dense Village Centers to allow more housing. In addition, all golf course land is being excluded from the proposed MBTA Communities Act upzoning by the Planning Department, even though there is golf course land within ½ miles of a MBTA stop, making that land eligible for the MBTA Communities Act upzoning to multifamily housing.
In my opinion, the proposed golf course downzoning, and MBTA Communities Act golf course exclusion, are being done purely for the benefit of Newton’s nonprofits who can claim “Dover Protection” through Massachusetts State Law Chapter 40a, Section 3 “Subjects which zoning may not regulate; exemptions; public hearings; temporary manufactured home residences.” Dover Protection disallows most (not all) zoning restrictions for religious or educational nonprofits, with the definition of “educational” being frequently stretched (or downright abused) by nonprofit projects claiming Dover Protection.
This means that many nonprofits would not be affected by the new zoning restrictions that would come with the proposed golf course downzoning to recreational districts, because Dover-Protected nonprofits would still be allowed to build most of what they want. In sharp contrast, all for-profit residential builders would no longer be allowed to build housing in the new golf course recreational districts. [Nonprofit residential builders would also not be allowed to build, unless there was an “educational” component to the housing.]
If the golf course land is sold, the golf course downzoning would stop residential builders from bidding against the nonprofits for the land. Consequently, the proposed downzoning of the golf courses from residential districts to recreational districts, and the golf course MBTA Communities Act rezoning exclusions, are the most profitable zonings that could possibly ever happen for any Dover-Protected nonprofit wanting to buy golf course land, because, again, the downzoning restrictions affect the for-profit competitors bidding on the property, but not the Dover-Protected nonprofits. If a nonprofit buys the golf course land, the tiny amount of current golf course tax revenue would also drop from 25% of market value basis to zero, because nonprofits pay no property taxes.
The proposed MBTA Communities Act rezoning (not the additional proposed golf course downzoning in the comprehensive rezoning) will probably have a public hearing in June, and the public should ask the City Council why the empty golf course land is excluded from the MBTA Communities Act rezoning, while Newton residents are being told that it is their civic duty to upzone the densest parts of Newton. They should also ask if Newton’s powerful non-taxpaying nonprofits influenced this MBTA exclusion and the additional proposed golf course downzoning in the comprehensive rezoning.
Thank you Debra. I had no idea this was slipped into the rezoning (the downzoning of golf courses). Do you know which Councilor(s) supported this?
If, under whatever circumstances it were possible, that Newton would gain control of a golf course, I believe a new athletic complex should be an element of the development.
Right now, Newton is limited when it comes to athletic fields (and other facilities such as a multi-season competition pool). We rely heavily on neighborhood fields and parks. That means lots of traffic in neighborhoods, as well as constant challenges related to parking in conflict with the recreational uses of the facilities. It also highly inefficient from a transportation point of view: youth sports involves families from across Newton driving all over the city, often several times a week.
Newton also has limited ability to host regional sporting events because of facility limitations. Having a first class sports facility near to public transit and also close to a major highway would be great for the city and the metro region.
Golf course property offers a potential path to provide a central facility that would in turn allow Newton to return at least some of our local sports fields for less formal use. Such a use wouldn’t preclude other uses such as additional open space or housing on these large properties.
There of course will be challenges to any such plan, and I don’t anticipate such an opportunity just happening. But at some point it might, and I think we should anticipate such an opportunity with a few potential transformative ideas.
There is a typo in my earlier comment. Auburndale Cove’s valuation is $0.6M per acre, not $1.6M.
Some raise the specter that developers would swoop in and build MacMansions where the golf courses are if not for the country clubs. Indeed, there have been suggestions that if the tax code is modified, the country clubs will choose to sell their land for development. If a country club sells its land, it would need to pay back taxes based on a reassessment of its value for the last five years. The period for computing back taxes was recently legislatively shortened. Moreover, if any country club moves to sell its land, the City can, through its permit process, affect the land’s development. If a single developer buys the land as Northland, the City can impose conditions on the permit issuance, including restricting some of the land from development. In the extreme, the City can use condemnation or its eminent domain rights to ensure that not all of the property converts to another use. I’m not suggesting the City acquire the country clubs, but I am concerned about fairness.
The Assessor is not transparent about the basis for the valuations of the private country clubs. For example, Leo J. Martin, owned by MA DCR, is valued at over $600k per acre. As another recreational land comparison, MA DCR’s land by the Charles River Country Club is valued at $1.2M per acre. Another basis for comparisons is current sale values. The Northland property went for approximately $1.1M per acre, even though it required significant environmental remediation before anything could be constructed (there had been industrial facilities on the site in addition to the commercial ones). The country club properties are prime real estate, and their existing facilities could actually add to their sale value if developed for residential or mixed residential and commercial use.
A fundamental problem of Chapter 61B is the vagueness of citizens’ access rights. The law states that the land shall be “available to the general public.” Does that mean anybody can walk onto a country club’s golf course or other facilities at their pleasure? What are the obligations of the landholders? The law’s lack of clarity raises many issues and engenders much of the public’s discontent. Therefore, the solution to the issues of Chapter 61B must include clarification of these rights and the issues regarding fair property assessment.
First, let’s give credit to Jay Werb, who made most of the same points found in the Globe article in his piece in the Newton Conservators newsletter a while ago. As Jay and others above have suggested, the resolution of the problem of low tax revenues from high-end golf clubs lies in reforming the tax codes and method of assessing the taxable value of the acreage.
To be sure, most of us would rather have a golf course as a neighbor than a dense development of McMansions. I also wonder if it would be feasible for the city to purchase, say, Brae Burn and convert it into an all-Newton athletic facility. But change clearly needs to happen.
Here is what I wish would come to pass:
– that private golf courses pay a much higher rate of taxes on their property. I doubt that if the tax rate changes, Charles River or Woodland would immediately demand that the city allow it to go residential.
– that the courses stop pumping herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, and lots of water into the soil and instead convert to eco-friendly “links “courses in the Scottish mode. That’s starting to happen in more places around the Commonwealth and across the country. The lush model of golf courses is unsuited to the northeast and damaging to the environment.
– that the community have access to the grounds in the off-season for recreational purposes like strolling, snow-shoeing, cross-country skiing, and sledding. All these activities have taken place on Newton’s golf courses since time immemorial.
If wishes were horses, as Mother Goose used to say, beggars would ride!
Many people agree that Newton’s private golf course tax assessor values are way too low, especially compared to other 61B golf courses.
However, everyone should also understand that Newton’s courses are also currently zoned as single family residential, meaning single family homes can be built there BY RIGHT, today, with Newton having no legal right to stop this, other than by changing the current zoning through a City Council vote. In addition, since there is a housing shortage, it would be totally fine to build housing there, and a much better use of the land than private golf courses. There is just no valid reason for the government to stop residential development on the golf courses, and a lot of reasons to encourage it, perhaps by allowing multifamily housing. Invoking “McMansions” to discourage housing on the golf courses while encouraging more housing everywhere else is elitist.
The Newton Planning Department is literally proposing to upzone the densest parts of Newton to allow 10K more housing units, none of which require parking. They are also proposing to downzone the golf courses to allow no housing. This combination is indefensible.
I for one am not invoking McMansions to discourage affordable housing anywhere; quite the opposite. Take a piece of a posh golf course and build affordable units, especially at a course like Woodland near two T-stops, and I would be thrilled. Amen to the other criticisms of the downzoning and so forth. Newton has a plethora of very wealthy people and extremely expensive homes, and if we are to do our fair share in fighting the regional housing shortage, why not place the emphasis on affordable units? Let’s proceed cautiously, to be sure, and look at issues of traffic and transportation and access. Alas, this all sounds like a pipe dream.
Right now, all of Newton’s private golf courses are zoned for single family housing, and the Mayor’s Planning Department has actually proposed to downzone them to allow ZERO housing in their comprehensive rezoning code for Newton. This downzoning is purely for the financial benefit of Dover-Protected nonprofits who don’t want to bid on the land against housing developers. The Planning Department’s comprehensive rezoning code also literally proposes that the current educational nonprofits and Newton-Wellesley Hospital can put up 100′ buildings in the middle of residential neighborhoods with only 15′ setbacks, regardless of their next-door neighbors. Clearly the Planning Department, and the Mayor, have put the best interests of Newton’s non-taxpaying nonprofits over Newton’s taxpaying residents in their comprehensive rezoning proposal. The comprehensive rezoning proposal will be picked up once again after the new proposed Village Center and MBTA Communities Act rezoning is voted on by the City Council.
Regarding the proposed MBTA Communities Act upzoning, that is currently before the City Council’s Zoning and Planning Committee (ZAP), the Planning Department has excluded the golf courses from their proposed multifamily upzoning, for the same exact reason, for the benefit of future development by Dover-Protected nonprofits. Newton’s Planning Department, and beyond-dysfunctional Law Department, will probably claim that the real reason for the exclusion is that the state considers Golf Courses “Undevelopable.” That is not true.
The Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) is responsible for issuing the compliance guidelines for meeting the MBTA Communities Act. Their final guidelines (link one below) have a list of “Excluded land” from any compliant upzoning, meaning “land areas on which it is not possible or practical to construct multi-family housing.” Golf courses are not on this list.
More importantly, DHCD also has a Housing Appeals Committee under it, which serves as an “an impartial forum to resolve conflicts arising from the siting of new affordable housing” with respect to state law 40B. In 2015, the Housing Appeals Committee made an unambiguous ruling (link two below) that Newton’s private golf courses MUST be considered developable for housing, as follows:
“Although the general expectation may be that this land [Newton’s private golf courses] will be used for quite some time for golf-just as other parcels of land in private ownership may continue to be held for low intensity uses or in an undeveloped state-the owners of this land could develop it for housing at any time by paying certain taxes and giving the city the opportunity to exercise its statutory right of first refusal to purchase.” [Housing Appeals Committee ruling in the Matter of Newton Zoning Board of Appeals and Dinosaur Rowe, LLC. Interlocutory Decision Regarding Safe Harbor. 6/26/15]
If the DHCD’s own Housing Appeals Committee has officially ruled that Newton’s private golf courses must be considered developable for housing with respect to 40B, then the DHCD must also consider Newton’s private golf courses to be developable for housing with respect to the MBTA Communities Act.
https://www.mass.gov/doc/compliance-guidelines-for-multi-family-zoning-districts-under-section-3a-of-the-zoning-act
http://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/10/05/newton062615_0.pdf
Per the article, the three Newton clubs own 550 acres of property. As property taxes are designed to pay for municipal services, I can understand that 3 golf courses over 550 acres would use far less services than however many houses/homeowners would occupy 550 acres.
I may have missed it in the article — it sounds like this is a tax break. The clubs must pay some amount of taxes, but I don’t see the amount listed. Knowing what they are actually paying, and comparing that to what sort of municipal services they might use, might help provide more context to whether the 61B idea makes sense.
In 2020, 61B golf courses in Newton paid $1,402,466 in taxes per square mile; commercial businesses paid $59,963,064 per square mile; single-family homes $30,918,807; apartments $40,988,734.
Undevelopable residential land paid more per square mile than the 61B golf courses $1,825,300 per square mile.
A few data points from the Newton Zoning website Debra referenced: https://newtonrezoning.org/golfcoursesb/
Hi Lucia – One slight correction. The amounts you are quoting are the tax bills, rather than tax payments. The amounts should be similar, though.
@Lucia – I am neither a member of a golf course nor a regular golfer. But, you are only looking at one aspect of this. What do fancy golf courses do for a community beyond taxes? They bring wealthy people. They bring money. They raise property taxes. They increase the desirability of a community for this in and outside of the town.
This current situation is a net win for Newton, make no mistake. It’s not exactly the same, but look at what the special privileges for Disney World did for Florida! Desantis may or may not know what he is doing, but on the surface, this power grab is stupid. Millions of people a year go to Orlando because of Disney. No it’s not the same as a golf course I get it…but there is benefit to the city. As mike S said too, golf courses don’t use city resources, don’t use schools, etc. It’s a win for us as residents.
I’ve read many bad ideas on Village 14 over the years. Heck, I’ve been responsible for a fair percentage of those myself. But one of the worst ideas I’ve ever heard is doing anything that encourages Newton’s golf courses to go residential. The residential development of any of our golf courses would be an unmitigated disaster for Newton, necessitating new schools and additional city services that will not be close to fully covered by any new tax revenue.
While Newton could certainly use more housing, both market rate and affordable, developing golf courses is not the way for this city to add housing. I’m in full support of the concept of adding more housing in village centers, and other zoning changes that allow owners of already developed property to add more housing units. I am adamantly opposed to any plan that converts open space to residential housing.
Again, it is my strong belief that the City should negotiate a long-term acquisition plan with the member/owners of these private clubs in order to preserve them from eventual residential development. While this opportunity may not be apparent to all, my personal experience as a former golf course owner and real estate investor allows me to see this situation from a unique perspective. I’d encourage any member of the City Council or the Newton Conservators who is interested in preserving these open spaces to give me a call [617-332-7645], and I will help you understand how Newton can afford to acquire these golf course properties.
Reading through these posts, I don’t think people are aware that the Mayor’s Planning Department is proposing to rezone Newton to allow 10K new housing units, NONE of which require motor vehicle parking. This is being proposed NOW, with a meeting tonight and a planned public hearing in June. This proposed rezoning is far more important than the override.
The 104 page memo with the proposed new zoning code and a 32 page list of affected properties is at the link below. To see if your property is on the list of proposed lots to be rezoned, you can hunt through pages 70 -103 to find your address, although this may take some time since the properties are intentionally not listed in any type of sequential order.
Note that golf course land is not included, although a significant amount of it is eligible under the MBTA Communities act for rezoning, because that land is being reserved for future development by Newton’s powerful non-taxpaying nonprofits.
If this proposal goes through, Ruthanne Fuller will have succeeded in transforming Newton from a middleclass suburb into a two-class system: impassible hell-hole with overcrowded public schools for most of us; lucrative rental properties for the rest, who also live on large lots with ample parking, and send their children to private schools. It would be hard to imagine a more mean-spirited and anti-middleclass zoning code than the one that Mayor Fuller’s Planning Department has produced.
Link to Memo with proposed rezoning:
http://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/100559
Link to tonight’s 7 pm ZAP meeting agenda:
http://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/100523
Link to tonight’s ZAP 7 pm meeting zoom connection:
https://newtonma-gov.zoom.us/j/89388736609
I like how they red lined the entire 0.5 mile area surrounding the Chestnut Hill Green Line station by calling it an “Historic District” and exempting it from the MBTA Multi-Family Zoning consideration.
@Fred – does anyone important in city government live in that “historic” district? We should figure that out.
mayor fuller
“All animals are equal but some are more equal than others…”
There are 4 historic districts in Newton, located in Upper Falls, Auburndale, Newtonville and Chestnut Hill. This designation is separate and apart from the zoning exercise. I wasn’t able to cut and paste the link but a map delineating the boundaries of the districts is available on the City of Newton website.
Whether or not they should be exempted is a different question. But it is incorrect to suggest that the historic designation was done contemporaneously.
I see – they Chestnut Hill Historic was expanded in 1990 – Anyway the Current Historic district doesn’t include Middlesex rd nor the Cricket Club – those shouldn’t be exempt from consideration.
https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/33803/637278026822570000
I love the description…so much for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
“The National Register Nomination describes the District as having commodious architect-designed houses with attention to landscape detail. The Chestnut Hill Historic District consists almost entirely of residential structures, most dating from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The dwellings are characteristically large, with lushly landscaped lots, affording privacy and a sense of seclusion….”
https://www.newtonma.gov/government/planning/historic-preservation/local-historic-districts-commissions/chestnut-hill-historic-district-commission
As Karen Lumino said the Chestnut Hill Historic District has been in place for years before this recent rezoning effort. According to the city web site it was created in 1986 and expanded in 1990.
While I believe it would technically be possible to rezone property in the Historic District I’m not sure how much practical value that would have. In the non-Historic District areas, if the zoning is changed that changes what the property owner can build “by right” without getting specific approval. Within the Historic District, property owners can’t build any thing new with out the specific approval of that district’s Historic Commission – effectively there is no “by right” within the Historic Districts.
.. either you believe in equity or you don’t. You don’t get pick and chose.
Is there a more modern day “racist” redline besides an “historic district “?
You lost me there Bugek.
There are certainly arguments for and against the creation of historic districts. …. but how they should be considered as “racist” or “redlining” is beyond me.
….Using the same logic as liberals use to conclude past zoning rule were racist
Historic districts are generally more expensive and the supply in those areas are pretty much static. The barrier of entry for ownership is an impossible bar – high price AND high maintenance(exterior changes and upkeep are highly enforced)
Chestnut hill with its own T station being excluded is indefensible!
I feel that golf courses, albeit largely private, remain one of the greatest assets of the Garden City in terms of the environment, beauty/greenery, open space and area property values. I believe every reasonable financial incentive should be made by our state and city leaders to preserve each and every one, especially in developed areas where there are increasing incentives by Golf Course owners/Country Clubs to sell and/or develop with more intense use.
I feel to do the contrary is short sighted, to say the least.
Jim how is dumping poison into the ground and supporting a monoculture of grass good for the environment? The phosphate fertilizer choaks our waterways with algae and “Much of the applied fertilizer runs off into waterways, or gets broken down by microbes in the soil, releasing the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide into the atmosphere.” https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/fertilizer-and-climate-change#:~:text=Crops%20only%20take%20up%2C%20on,nitrogen%20they%20get%20from%20fertilizers.&text=Much%20of%20the%20applied%20fertilizer,nitrous%20oxide%20into%20the%20atmosphere.
The pesticides and herbicides used to keep the perfects greens harm not only insects and wildlife but us: Can Environmental Toxins Cause Parkinson’s Disease?
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/parkinsons-disease/can-environmental-toxins-cause-parkinson-disease#:~:text=Here%20are%20environmental%20factors%20that,the%20incidence%20of%20Parkinson's%20disease.
You certainly can tell the folks who play golf from those that don’t…or the folks that are members…
To me, a golf course I can’t use because I’m not a member isn’t a community asset and doesn’t deserve to get treated as such. Area property values aren’t a consideration except for the people who bought next to the course. Open Space isn’t an asset because they fence off the courses. Fortress Brae Burn I believe is the nickname lately. Beauty/greenery? Non-native grasses, kept green with pesticides and fertilizers. At best, it has value to the community as undeveloped land that can stay undeveloped land. We are paying dearly for a protection that we will never get the chance to use. Meanwhile, 8 million dollars of tax proceeds are lost. That could protect a lot of land too.
I have zero problem with private club owners paying for the right to enjoy that good walk spoiled. But let’s not fool ourselves or pretend that it has community benefit that it does not. These are rich person playgrounds, nothing more, nothing less. Again, I don’t have a problem with that. I just don’t believe I should subsidize it as a non-member. You want to enjoy your golf game? Bully for you. Pay a fair property tax.
The excuse that the golf course uses less in community services doesn’t hold water for me either. Funny how that argument isn’t used for the multi-acre spreads of super rich. They get heavily taxed for their land when just 2 people live in gigantic house. And the jobs argument doesn’t add up either. Hotels have far more jobs than country clubs, and we tax them heavily. They are taxed via property taxes, via special hotel occupancy taxes, via meal taxes.
I do love the tone-deaf quote from the Brae Burn golfer, saying that the club does a lot for the community. Do you now? $600,000 worth per year? Because that is the tax break we are giving you, to operate a private club.
Look, I’ve got friends that love these courses and these clubs. They spend a lot of time there. They do business there. Host family events there. Good for them for finding a restricted community space that will accept them and that they enjoy (and that they are able to afford). I’m happy for them.
I’d be happy for the rest of us if we weren’t subsidizing their hobby. Our city parks are a wreck but our golf courses are doing just fine! We can’t afford to resurface our tennis courts but those greens are playing great! Our classrooms are at 26 kids per class, but those tee times aren’t crowded at all.
Perhaps we can come up with an arrangement where the local courses pay more, either by fairly assessing their land, or by pushing state government to remove the restriction (or allow a range of tax break depending on membership fee size or overall budget). I can understand the tax break for public courses or smaller courses. None of our Newton golf courses would close if they paid their fair share in taxes. I’m pretty sure they’d just add a surcharge to the annual membership fee, for which there is a waiting list on each course…
Fig makes some good points, however I feel he has overlooked that golf courses provide wildlife habitats, work with the natural environment and enhance biodiversity and conserve natural habitats — a substantial portion is wild and not fairways and greens — protect species and encourage species diversity, protect topsoil from water and wind erosion, absorb and filters rain, improve air quality, capture and cleanse runoff in urban areas, discourage pests (e.g. ticks and mosquitoes), and are “air conditioners” that produce vast amounts of oxygen while cleansing the air of pollution and cooling the atmosphere.
I feel that Fig also overlooks that healthy turfgrass is an excellent filter that traps and holds pollutants in place; courses actually serve as catch basins for residential and industrial runoff; many courses are effective disposal sites for effluent wastewater.
This is all in addition to improving and enhancing community aesthetics.
A believe that Fig may want to consider looking at this from the prospective of other than just gobbling up more land for human housing. Ask the average bird which they would prefer.
Jim, I’m not saying it doesn’t have value. Although I would say that the wildlife component is a fig leaf at best. The biodiversity and wildlife in Webster Woods would put any golf course to shame. And golf courses have a long history of pollution, especially with run-off. You ever see algae blooms in lakes/rivers right after a golf course has its spring spruce up? I have.
Look, I’m not trying to ban golf courses. Every bit of open space has some value. But I refuse to pretend that the golf courses are a public good akin to a park or a wilderness preserve either. And I very much doubt they give back to the community anywhere close to their tax break.
I’m a bit believer in compromise. That’s why the state should take the tax break and retool it. Give the golf courses some degree of tax break. Maybe a 25% discount. For that discount, they give up the right to develop the land. Smaller courses get a bigger discount to support their continued existence. But the Newton courses don’t need it. It just lowers the membership fees. They could admit 5 new members and pay the entire amount…
Again, this is all about priorities. That’s the tax code in nutshell. What do we want to prioritize. Many of the same folks asking to save the tax break for golf courses would argue that the college PILOT programs are unfair or set too low. It’s the same tax dollar folks. Which do we think has value? Which do we want to preserve and help? Maybe the answer is both. And that’s fine. But in a tough economic environment, both deserve a closer look and tough negotiation.
In a time when we are making tough choices, shouldn’t those tough choices involve those we subsidize too?
Or as I put it in an earlier comment, does no one else see the disconnect between beautifully manicured golf courses with impeccable greens and terrific drink options, and the broken down nature of our city parks? Anyone else in Newton Soccer have to go tell their kids to pee in the woods because half of our parks don’t even have port-o-potties? Anyone else have a kid who hurt themselves on a Newton field because the grass is non-existent and there are ruts from overuse?
I’m fine with the rich having their playground, but when the city parks are a mess and we are subsidizing the rich so they can golf in fenced off locations, our priorities are messed up.
Well said Fig!
Please show how Newton’s golf courses are good for the environment. To my knowledge non have “Green Certifications for Environmentally Responsible Golf Courses.
One of the major programs that recognizes environmentally responsibly and sustainable practices on golf courses is the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program (ACSP) for Golf Courses. To be certified, the golf course must maintain a high degree of environmental quality in these areas: environmental planning, wildlife and habitat management, outreach and education, chemical use reduction and safety, water conservation, and water quality management.
The Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf is an award winning education and certification program that helps golf courses protect our environment and preserve the natural heritage of the game of golf. ”
https://directory.auduboninternational.org/directory?memberCategory=&city=&state=MASSACHUSETTS&country=
https://cpe.rutgers.edu/golf-turf/golf-courses-and-the-environment
Turning the golf courses into housing would be better for the environment by reducing sprawling development in Massachusetts.
Fig concludes, “[t]he biodiversity and wildlife in Webster Woods would put any golf course to shame.”
Certainly a “Webster Woods” or similar land use would be preferable in terms of “biodiversity and wildlife”. But THAT is not the option or logical comparison. That is, unless the City or Commonwealth would be in a position to acquire a golf course within Newton for such purpose — which of course is a fiscal impossibility.
Lucia,
I just looked at the Audubon website you posted: none of the Newton golf clubs are on that list of those who respect the Environment . Do we know specifically what each club does wrong? can you access the checklist Audubon uses?
How worried should the newton residents be?
The Audubon Website should have more information.
It’s not a “fiscal impossibility,” Jim. The City already bought Newton Commonwealth golf course in order to save the land from residential development. And the City has the financial capability to acquire the land that its 3 private courses occupy, at less cost per acre than we recently paid for Webster Woods. I’d like to see a long term plan for Newton to acquire the 3 private golf courses and reforest all the golf courses including Newton Commonwealth.
Nothing is stopping the Newton golf courses from making a voluntary PILOT payment to the City for the record. They could certainly ask the city to dedicate those funds to a Newton park too. Doesn’t Brae Burn fields at Cold Spring Park sound good?
And yes, taking the tax break is a CHOICE. Brookline’s The Country Club doesn’t take it. Maybe when you are “THE” country club, you just make the decision not to take advantage of a tax break meant for lesser clubs. 😉
If I was the Mayor (or the next Mayor) I’d make this type of tax break a talking point. And I’d encourage the golf courses to come to the table with a proposal. And I’d take a hard look at the assessment if they don’t. Do assessors look to other communities to see how to value golf courses?
I don’t fully understand how this is playing out for zoning, but we seem to be a community right now that has to make difficult choices. Every possible funding source should be evaluated.
Mike, I would love for the City to acquire Newton’s (one or more) private golf courses to preserve from private development. Do you really think this is a fiscal possibility? If so, I’m on the bandwagon and am more than willing to lobby and work with you for that goal!
FYI, almost 30 years ago, before retiring and as an Attorney with the U.S. Department of the Interior, I corresponded with Newton’s Solicitor successfully to stop what would have been the imminent loss of nearly half of the current Cold Spring Park for construction of a new Middle School and related infrastructure. City plans were so far along that it was practically on the eve of excavation. Fortunately, a previous monetary grant received by the City from the Department of the Interior for creation of the life course trail, legally prevented that from happening — at a time when the City was otherwise completely unpersuaded by the environmental loss.
Hopefully, the City is in a different environmental place today and will recognize the importance of open space protection and reforestation. What do you think?
@Jim–
In my opinion [based on experience as a former golf course owner [3], and veteran real estate investor [30 years]], I see an opportunity for the City of Newton to acquire our private golf courses. The fair market value of these properties has been reduced by their elective property tax status, and further by the lack of any subdivision plan. Fair market value is the determining factor in eminent domain cases. It matters not what the fair market value might be in the future. It only matters what the value is at the time a property is subject to eminent domain.
So what is the fair market value of a golf course property that’s been assessed at [let’s say] $22M? This is where things get interesting. Assessed value almost never accurately reflects fair market value, as properties are often under assessed, and there may be other factors to consider. But what are those other measuring sticks by which a value could be affixed to a property that operates as a private [not for profit] club and has declared itself to be open-space? There’s not much to base that on beyond their assessed value.
I believe that the fair market value of Newton’s golf course properties is likely somewhere between their assessed value and their value if appraised as “open-space.” Many times less than the value of those properties if they had opted to pursue a subdivision plan under a different property tax category.
I am not an attorney. But I think these three private clubs have left themselves vulnerable to undervalued eminent domain takings by filing under 61B. I would suggest that the City use this as leverage to negotiate long-term acquisition deals with the members from the three clubs. It would be a huge mistake on the part of City Government to do anything that might effect the value of these properties before at least talking to club leaders.
Increased operating costs are gradually driving golf courses to extinction. When the inevitable happens [as it has in the past] and one of Newton’s private golf courses closes, the City would not be able to compete with developers who could buy for cash and wait out the permit and approval process. Now is the time for the City to open negotiations with these clubs to insure that they are ultimately owned by the people of Newton and permanently preserved as open space. [I’ve suggested reforestation].
As a former caddy from those way-back days, i’d truly love to see all golf courses closed, grown over and given back to their true ‘owners’, i.e., the rabbits, foxes, deer, bears, etc.
@Fignewtonville & @Lucia are right (though too kind). I could hardly get past the comment from @Mike saying: “Private golf courses get “tax breaks” in exchange for a legal commitment to not develop the land.” What? That’s backwards–we should be sanctioning them for that. We owe them nothing.
These courses are only currently useful to two small and unsympathetic groups: country club members, and the landholders who want to keep their property values inflated through artificial scarcity. The claim from someone above that we peasants derive a benefit from our mere physical proximity to wealthy golfers is too silly for words, the only thing normal Massachusettsians are getting from those courses is a contribution to the housing crisis immiserating the area.
These courses occupy huge swaths of land, adjacent to *three* precious green line stops, in a low-density city that is desperately in need of housing. The only justification for leaving that land undeveloped would be if residents had access to it as park (and even then, we hardly need both). Instead of subsidizing these gilded eyesores, a sensible policy from city hall would be to find creative ways of taxing the owners into oblivion, with the goal of forcing them to sell the land as cheaply as possible for development of dense housing & some public green space.
Ryan:
A large section of the golf courses is currently eligible for upzoning to multiple-family housing with 0.5 miles of an MBTA Stop, an upzoning that would help to satisfy the MBTA Communities Act and greatly increase the odds that these wasteful private golf courses would be converted to needed housing.
Instead, Newton’s Planning Department is excluding the golf courses in their MBTA Communities upzoning plan, a plan that creates 10K housing units, jammed together with no motor vehicle parking requirements, units that are completely unsuitable for families.
This debate about the MBTA Communities Act rezoning is going on NOW in the City Council Zoning and Planning Committee (ZAP), with a public hearing estimated for this June. If you, or anyone else, would like the golf courses to be upzoned as part of the MBTA Communities Act, please email the City Council at [email protected] and tell them your opinion TODAY. [And if you get a response back from ZAP Chair Deb Crossley using her private email, ignore it, as her private email content is frequently unreliable and a deliberate avoidance of the public record system.]
FYI – Newton is not a low-density city. In 2021, Newton had 5K people/sq. mile, making it the 22nd densest municipality in Massachusetts out of 351, a rank between Worcester and Waltham. By comparison, Wellesley has 3K people/sq. mile and Needham has 2.6K people/sq. mile. To me it’s the existence of three private golf courses near high housing density that is the outrage, especially as that housing density is about to increase.
If you people want to live in Somerville, move to Somerville.
Some of us like not being overly dense.
Some of us dont believe we need to fill the worlds housing needs by destroying newton.
Please stop with the nonsense. If you wanted to develop open space, why did we buy webster woods to preserve it?
Again, Newton is not solving the worlds problems despite what we think. Examples of our nonsense that you people think make a difference:
-Banning Nips. Really? cause we cant buy them in West Rox, Waltham, Brighton, etc etc
-Banning water bottles. diet coke is ok though…makes sense.
-banning natural gas and oil for homes. >66% of electric energy in Massachusetts comes from natural gas…sooooo stop with increasing my cost to live for your optics
-people like sean roche want to ban single family homes and yards. Like, please jsut stop
-Lets keep our schools closed again for no reason. No we should NEVER have done what we did to the kids simply becuase teachers unions lost their minds. Need I remind people that Newton teachers told kids to F off when they protested to open schools, or that they went on facebook telling people that opening schools would murder them. Again, nonsense.
-Leaf blowers. So let me get this straight, leaf blowers over X decibels are banned, but motor cycles arent?
-Bike lanes. Im sorry but newton has very poor public transit and instead of WIDENING roads to fit the cars, we seem to think that traffic will get better if we make biking easier. Last I checked it is cold as sh1t from Nov-March. Half the year.
-Let’s buy webster woods and keep it as woods, but try to buy golf courses that are privately owned to build condos? Condos where people will own cars. Cars which will make our roads worse. Just becuase you think it is better for the environment to have fewer cars doesnt mean people wont have them. People work. public transit sucks. So you what, ruin traffic for the rest of us so you can sit on your high horse and preach?
-Oh and firepits. Why the EF can we not have firepits? Like, WHAT? it produces smoke? risk of fire? again, please stop and leave me alone.
Please. Stop the nonsense. Let us be. I am not a republican, I am a democrat and a libertarian and want to protect my civil liberties. all of them. not just the ones you or the media deem topic du jour. Somehow I can have pre-rolled joints but not nips. Somehow we can be a sanctuary city and pay for health care and services for immigrants but we can increase teacher pay in our schools. This city has gone backward and has too many people who want to make ridiculous rules.
[end rant]
@Debra, thanks, I did! You seem nice.
@Frank, Sorry about whatever is going on with you that my mild criticism of the overprivileged triggered…whatever that was. Newton doesn’t have to solve the world’s problems—but by my lights it should at least try to solve the problem of Newton residents being unable to afford housing in Newton. While the status quo is apparently working out great for you, it sucks for me, so I don’t care about preserving the inflated property values you seem to consider your birthright. I live here too, and I’m just as entitled to advocate for my own interests. More so, in fact, because the stuff I want is better for more people. If you want to be “left alone” by people who are just trying to live their lives and save enough money to provide stability for their families, you should move to the woods, not guard a Boston suburb like your own private fortress.
Ryan,
Specifically what kind of housing (size, type) and how much are you willing to pay for it. Genuinely curious.
@Ryan If you think developing golf courses will have any effect on real estate values, I have a bridge to sell you on Eliot Street….cheap!!
The only way that real estate values would decline is if you put 5,000-10,000 units on each golf course which most people would view as a disaster.
Developers have been selling this trickle down supply theory of building new luxury housing as the solution for people like yourself who wish to find affordable housing in Newton. Maybe you should focus your efforts on changing incentives so comfortable middle class single family homes won’t usually get sold to developers who can make a killing tearing them down and replacing them with 3-4 million dollar McMansions. That only further reduces the supply of affordable housing
@ Ryan – I want to be left alone by virtue signaling idiots who think no longer selling water bottles is saving the planet. (we can still buy Diet Coke).
I want to be left alone by virtue signaling idiots who think banning nips is good for the environment.
I want to be left alone by virtue signaling idiots who think banning a gas stove is going to save lives.
I don’t have a McMansion. I am not wealthy. I do like my property value, but my point is this. Please let this sink in.
All the dumbass programs cost money. Money that SHOULD be spent on teachers, our children, our seniors, etc. We need to strip the fat and get back to our roots. If you are that concerned about getting by, I assume you voted NO to the operating override like I did right? If not, I will ignore everything you said but you clearly are confused.
@Frank D – The only rationale I heard for banning nip bottles was to reduce the nip bottle trash around the city. As someone who walks quite a bit around Newton I can definitely tell you it did indeed have that effect. Clearly you didn’t like the idea, which is fine … but do we have to call everyone we disagree with “idiots”?
stick and stones may break my bones but names can never harm me.
relax. You get my point. Personally I havent drank a nip in 20 years…but micro managing peoples lives is ridiculous. It is also bullsht lobbying that gets things done. just because newton seemingly is homogenous with politics doesnt mean we have the same problems all political entities have. As evidenced…a group of seemingly well intentioned residents wanted to make sure that academic excellence is EQUALLY important to equity in our schools. Personally I agree it has taken a back seat and If i had to spend the marginal dollar today I would dedicate it to AE, not DEI. Does that make me racist? No. Were these people called racist and tied to “national right wing groups”? Yes.
Its nonsense. 85% of Newton voted for Biden. thats insanely high. So, Biden voters who want to ensure academic excellence for their kids are racist? Idiots is a fitting term here. We are no longer kind as a society. We are no longer caring about our neighbors and respectful of their views and desires. We no longer care about personal liberties. I am a registered dem, but I am fed up with the jamming of bullsht down my throat. Since when does the democrat party practice intolerance toward the other side. Its one thing to disagree, it is another to be completely intolerant of the views of anyone else…often masked by an unfounded veil of “racism” toward those who disagree. Society is doomed and I fear the democrat party has gone too far. Dems dont even care about science or math anymore (math isnt racist). Dont be surprised when we lose the general election again in 2024 because we live in a bubble and the rest of the country (ex California who is more effed up than us) doesnt tolerate this nonsense.
The shortcomings of the environmental justification for subsidizing golf courses are twofold:
– The acreage would provide benefits for all residents if it were a wooded park with paths, ponds, and such a la Cold Spring Park;
– Maintaining the fairways and greens in the current mode requires tons of fertilizers, fungicides, herbicides, and water. Links-style courses are much more in synch with the environment than the lush model employed at our local courses.
Unlike others on this strand, I wouldn’t support the conversion of all our golf courses to tract housing. Is there a middle ground somewhere? At the very least, most of us agree that subsidizing the playgrounds of the wealthiest residents doesn’t make sense.
Frank D: “Condos where people will own cars. Cars will make our roads worse. Just because you think it is better for the environment to have fewer cars doesn’t mean people won’t have them. People work. public transit sucks. So you what, ruin traffic for the rest of us so you can sit on your high horse and preach?”
Possibly true – but your assuming if we don’t build condos in Newton, we will reduce car traffic in Newton. How much of Newton’s traffic is drive through? We can’t stop developers from building on our edges in Needham, Watertown, Boston, etc.
Building walkable communities and improving public transit can reduce traffic – including walkable schools. I can’t be the only one who notices the drop in local traffic during school vacation.
I am not assuming that. I am only saying that adding condos adds cars. which will make it worse. No comment on the status quo other than we should be hesitant to make it worse.
And building walkable communities is great, but what about what you said? people who live elsewhere and work in newton or people who live in newton and work elsewhere. Id love to walk to a restaurant for dinner from my home, but i will be driving to work no matter what. I will be driving to the supermarket, costco, target, the mall, etc etc.
I’m originally from the Cleveland, Ohio area. Grew up in a house immediately nearby a wealthy private country club to which our family could not afford to belong.
Though not a member, that golf course was the best asset in the neighborhood — nearby greenery, non-developed space, open air, wildlife, etc.
Years later was sold off and the golf course-abutted serene neighborhood of my youth was replaced with density and abutting dumpsters. Although don’t live there now, still feel a sense of loss.
I think people are missing something big here.
Right now, TODAY, Mayor Fuller’s Planning Department is proposing to upzone the densest parts of Newton to hold 10K additional multi-family housing units, with NO REQUIRED MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING, to satisfy the MBTA Communities Act. In addition, they are also proposing to upzone the dense Village Centers to hold additional thousands of new units, also with NO REQUIRED MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING. The Planning Department is being deliberately evasive in estimating the total number of new housing units that their proposals will produce, but it looks like the new units will be on the order of 15K units, or almost half of Newton’s current housing stock of 33K housing units. The 15K new units are also almost twice the 8.3K new units that the MBTA Communities Act requires of Newton. Increasing Newton’s housing stock by this much will have devastating effects on schools and traffic.
Importantly, ALL of the Planning Department’s current proposed upzoning is in the densest areas of Newton. The least dense areas, Chestnut Hill and the golf courses, are completely untouched in the proposed rezoning, even though both Chestnut Hill and the golf courses have portions of their lands within 0.5 of an MBTA stop, making them eligible to be upzoned for multi-family housing as part of the MBTA Communities Act.
If the eligible golf course portions are upzoned as part of the MBTA Communities Act, the result will be less painful and more equitable than shoving 10K Plus units into Newton’s densest neighborhoods, which in the current Planning Department proposal.
… its because they think we are stupid.
Debra, assuming what you are saying is fact, why would the Mayor want to destroy Newton?
Debra, do you know what is the City’s stated reason/justification for not requiring associated parking with the new housing units? As I understand it, this is a change from an earlier rezoning proposal. I have spent some time online (admittedly not a lot) looking for it. I hope it is grounded in some proven urban planning approach and not wishful thinking, i.e., if it is not provided then only those who don’t have, want or can afford cars, will choose to move in. Because on the face of it, it seems to belie common sense.
No parking minimum has helped other cities preserve historical buildings:
“Mr. Grabar highlights several success stories, including the revitalization of downtown Los Angeles, which happened quickly after the city abolished parking minimums almost 25 years ago. L.A. had been treating its beautiful old buildings, one developer complained, “as if we’re just waiting for them to fall down so we can sweep the bricks away and build another parking garage,” but the change in the law ushered in a flurry of historic conversions. Downtown parking minimums have since been scrapped in other cities, including New Orleans and Pittsburgh.”
Well-meaning city planners wanted to keep older urban centers competitive with suburbs. Their solution: mandate plenty of parking. Wall St Journal, May 1, 2023
https://www.wsj.com/articles/paved-paradise-review-why-downtown-is-all-parked-up-9cacc3c1?st=8albswfth87ugap&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
and an open article on the book:
“The paradise line from the famous Joni Mitchell song “Big Yellow Taxi” that gives Grabar his title may have been inspired by Hawaii, but Los Angeles is its truest manifestation. In the 1920s, as those newfangled private motor cars gummed up traffic, street-side parking downtown was banned. The result: comfortably smooth traffic flow and a revenue decline for downtown merchants of 50%.
Keeping shoppers and white-collar employees downtown became an obsession of city leaders for decades. Parking requirements for new construction and low-cost curbside parking made the cityscape repellent and traffic worse, ironically pushing more development to the suburbs.” https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/books/story/2023-05-09/paved-paradise-by-henry-grabar-parking-and-the-world-book-review
The whole notion of no/limited residential parking is only feasible if one can easily walk to grocery, pharmacy, restaurants, shops and rapid transit station. This is why redlining the Chestnut Hill T station is such a missed opportunity.
Lack of parking is one of those ideas that sounds good in theory but doesn’t work well in Newton. The idea that new residents will simply walk or use transit is fanciful. The weather is cold half of the year, and as a regular transit user I can tell you the system is a bad joke and only really (somewhat) useful for getting downtown.
What will instead happen is what you see in Somerville or South Boston – TIGHTLY packed parking on roads, ridiculous space savers to “save” your parking spot (and the ensuing neighborly conflict that invariably results), and hours spent circling the block to find parking. I really don’t understand why we would want to emulate that disaster.
Newton should do the bare minimum to comply with the MBTA Communities law and that’s it. No need to overshoot the targets. The solution to the housing crisis is for the generator of the crisis (the city of Boston) to build mass amounts of housing within city limits, and improve the quality of its school so families are not leaving when kids hit school age.
Please help me understand all of this. I lived in Newton and took the’ T’, drove or rode my bike to work in Kendall Square five days/week, until retiring about ten years ago. Have things gotten much, much worse since then? Thank you.
This is a good article to start:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/05/12/metro/t-slowdowns-leave-much-of-boston-running-late/
And yes, service has gotten much worse in the past 2-3 years.
Hi Everyone:
Residents can read the Village Center Overlay District (VCOD) proposed code document at the link, below. This 104-page proposed code document was released on 5/5/23 and discussed at the 3+ Hour City Council Zoning and Planning Committee (ZAP) meeting on 5/8/23.
On Page 2/104 of the 5/5/23 document, the “Next Steps” section reads “May: Set Public Hearing Date for June 26” and “Fall: ZAP and City Council vote on the proposed VCOD.” This means that this new rezoning is imminent, even though almost no Newton residents or affected property owners know about it.
On page 18/104 of the 5/5/23 document, the “Parking Design Standards” section reads “There are no vehicular parking minimums within the VCOD,” but that “Bicycle parking must be provided as specified.” This is then followed by pages 19 and 20 that specify the required short-term and long-term bicycle parking requirements for VCOD Districts. Again, however, there is no required motor vehicle parking in any of the proposed new VCOD Districts.
The new VCOD Districts are composed of the previously proposed Village Center Districts (VC1, VC2, VC3) and the only recently proposed Multi Residence Transit District (MRT). The total rezoned area is 1463 lots and 391 acres, with the MRT Districts comprising 181 acres. The list of proposed rezoned addresses is on pages 70-103/104 of the 5/5/23 document, and the lot/acreage summary is on page 104. The addresses are all in the densest parts of Newton.
The total capacity of the new MRT units is listed as 10K on page 48/49 of the prior 4/21/23 Planning Memo, link below, in the context of meeting the MBTA Communities Act requirements. The VC units are not listed as these units do not contribute to the MBTA Communities Act requirements. It is unclear how many additional units the VC rezoning will produce, but estimates are as high as 5K. The Planning Department has repeatedly been asked to provide the VC unit capacity, but has so far refused.
I am not asking anyone to trust me on this, but I am asking for two other things. First, please read the ZAP documents and contact the Newton City Councilors with your concerns about the proposed rezoning at [email protected]. Second, City Councilor Deb Crossley is the ZAP Chair. She has almost always used her personal email address, rather than her official newtonma.gov address, to communicate proposed zoning information. This circumvents the important public records system. Please ignore any correspondence that Councilor Crossley sends in this manner, and ask her to resend her correspondence using her NewtonMa.gov email.
5/5/23 Planning Memo containing unit capacity for new MRT Zones.
http://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/100539
4/21/23 Planning Memo containing unit capacity for new MRT Zones.
http://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/99778/638176826822300000
Re: the parking mandate noted above–council regularly waives or reduces the mandated commercial and 2-spaces per unit residential parking requirement in our current zoning. To meet the MBTA/Housing Choice zoning requirements, Newton would have to expand the MBTA zone for multi-family, or go much denser (taller) if it kept the parking mandates for residential. And we don’t want more people driving–we want less. Transportation is 30%+ of our carbon emissions.
Parking will still be built with new & renovated housing. But the zoning just takes government out of the parking business & lets the market decide on how much is necessary. Other communities have parking maximums, that is, they say that if you build in the center of a community, right on top of a train station, you can’t have more than X spaces/unit. We aren’t going there, we are just proposing that we allow for fewer cars near the T.
BTW–if we kept the commercial parking mandates, restaurants could not open without building parking garages in our village centers. West Newton Cinema could not renovate without finding 100s of parking spaces, or building on top of a parking garage.
If our State overlords want us to add 10,000 housing units because we have access to the T, how about they deliver a T that actually works?
“Overlords”. LOL
Bruce Wang – Real talk = the people who want to build so irresponsibly do not use the T on a regular basis and I would venture to guess that they don’t commute on Route 9, the Pike, the Southeast Expressway, Storrow Drive or any other main thoroughfare every day.
CoVID-19 and its wake have given us an opportunity to re-think how to think about and address housing issues. Willy-nilly construction in a vacuum will do nothing to make living in Newton more affordable and it will have extremely adverse consequences environmentally. Projects such as the West Newton Armory or the amazing Mahonia Crossing in Salem (94 senior apartments and 219 family apartments – all affordable) are where substantive change is made. The rest is just puffery and greed.
Since the average household consists of 2.5 people, can someone please explain why Newton MUST increase its population by 25,000 people (10,000 housing units)?
How many service, education, and construction workers perform vital labor in Newton every day, but are unable to afford a home here because they have been caused over the last several decades to cost a million dollars to own?
@E – why does it matter if people who work here can live here? I couldn’t afford to live here until in my 40s. Saved and Saved and bought a dumpy house…but I’m here and I love my home now after years of sweat labor.
There is no right for people to work where they live. That is a construct from the 50s. In fact, with remote work, we shouldn’t have any obligation at all. For someone who works in Boston 2 days a week and can’t afford Newton, they should just live further west. get a big house in frankly a better school district than newton. Maybe we should stop calling homework racist, stop pushing all kids to the mean, and stop underpaying teachers.
What is the benefit to being here anymore? That we can’t buy water bottles? are inundated with pot stores, but can’t buy nips? want to ban natural gas? ban cars? ban leaf blowers and grass and everything normal?
America is not communist. The government does not provide housing for you in the community in which you work. This is a free market country where supply and demand dictates prices and MERIT dictates salary. That’s right merit. if you don’t have a job that pays enough, you can’t live here. No birth right, just hard work. did we forget that hard work pays off in this world? That participation trophies don’t help people get job, only teach them to expect something without effort. Study hard, work hard, make yourself uncomfortable, and you will be rewarded. No wonder so many rich/entitled young people vote for Bernie and his handouts. they have walls lined with participation trophies and 9th place finishes and expect to make as much money as the kid who worked 3 jobs to pay for his/her college and then worked late nights and weekends to get ahead and make a career for themselves. THAT is the American dream. not free money from the government. not a birthright to live in a certain place. That is disaster.
America is not communist. The government does not provide parking for you in the community in which you work.
huh? no it doesnt but your employer may, or may not. what is your point?
Frank D,
I believe Lucia is equating the need for an employee who elects to drive to and from work to be able to park their car there (obviously within the city where they work), with the employee being able to live there (in the city where they work).
I believe this is a fallacious comparison because the act of driving their car to and from work, as a practical matter, entails that they park their car there while at work — and it is common for there to be available employee parking (either free or at charge). Whereas, the act of residing does not entail that the residence be in the same city as the place of work.
Why should the government be involved in parking? Can’t a business decide how much parking it wants?
Lucia,
My point is not that the government must or should provide parking. Rather, your electing to raise the issue of whether or not to enable in-city (or at-site) parking for city government workers in a discussion on enabling economically available in-city housing for city government workers seems a fallacious comparison.
I believe the issue is whether Newton’s zoning should require a minimum number of parking spots per building or allow the builders to decide how many parking spots they want. The democratic/capitalist method would allow the builder decide the number of parking spots versus the government legislating a required number of parking spots.
As referenced above, when LA lifted its legislated parking minimums for builders, historic preservation of buildings increased because the cost of building was reduced.
I happen to believe that in a democracy, government, which consists of officials elected by the citizens, has the duty to make decisions, in consultation with the private sector, over such matters as parking regulations. It would be undemocratic to leave such decisions entirely in the hands of owners of private businesses.
The common good must prevail. What could be more dangerous than someone like Elon Musk making decisions in his own self-interest, for example? Recent history teaches that social media cannot effectively self-regulate, nor can “market forces,” by themselves, guide us towards the best decisions for either local communities or the nation as a whole. It’s a balancing act between the private sector and a vigilant government.