On June 26th the Newton City Council’s Zoning & Planning Committee will hold a public hearing on proposed new village-center zoning. In anticipation, some residents have expressed the fear that by allowing multifamily housing to be built by right in and near village centers, the new zoning will encourage gentrification and make Newton as a community less diverse.
The attached graphs show that our current zoning is already doing exactly this. These graphs compare the distribution of household incomes in Newton, and for context in Massachusetts as a whole, in 1990 vs. 2021. Over the past three decades, while Newton’s zoning has not changed significantly, Newton as a community has changed radically — in the very ways that worry many people who are skeptical about the proposed new zoning.
It is appealing to think that the best way to keep our community from changing is by not changing our current policies. However, these graphs strongly suggest that leaving our current zoning in place will make Newton even less diverse economically than it already is — though the 2021 graph makes it a little hard to imagine what “even less diverse” would look like!
We cannot make Newton more diverse by doing nothing — we must push back actively against the kinds of change we do not want. Although zoning is certainly not the only factor currently making Newton less diverse, it is at least under our own control. I believe revising our zoning has an important role to play in that push.
Respectfully, this argument is not resonating with me. But let’s take as step back (to then look ahead)…
PERCEIVED BENEFITS:
✅ More affordable housing
✅ More housing (supply) will drive down prices (demand)
REALITY:
The planned re-zoning does nothing to improve the current baseline ration of 8:2 (8 market rate for ever 2 affordable). A diet of 80% meat and butter to 20% fruits and veggies does nothing to improve one’s health – quite the contrary. Not to mention that the fruits and veggies in question lean on the expensive side (Newton’s high average median income) so not only is this diet unhealthy, it will also make you broke!!
Additionally, look at major cities like New York, LA, Chicago and Boston, or more locally Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline or even Watertown and Waltham. All have grown via developement over the years (insert line chart here), yet prices have always gone UP not down. So why? Supply decreasing demand works for some commodities (i.e. basic consumer goods), but in the case of housing, supply INCREASES demand, because new housing adds new amentities, which increases interest, adds foot traffic, and ultimately leads to increasing demand – like moths to a flame. Prices rise accordingly, and the affordable housing for workers of city services, or suppliers of said amenities can no longer afford to live here. It’s as predictable as a sunrise, death or taxes.
Is there a (miniscule) chance I could be wrong? Sure. If I had a crystal ball, I’d win the lottery and will be able to afford Northland market rate rents. 🙂
So what would sway me to support Village Center Re-Zoning? For one, how about a plan to handle the inevitable, accompanying density? I’ve attended a number of these Village Center Re-Zoning meetings and this rarely if EVER comes up. For one, how about some sort of dedicated subsidy or tax to developers fund added community/infrastrucure (roads, schools, etc.) for the priviledge of “by right”. Or how about instead of deferring blame to the MBTA or DOT for poor public transit or a crappy Needham Street corridor, working with MBTA and State leadership to secure guarantees of repairs and completion dates BEFORE proposing re-zoning?
Or how about just being HONEST. If the argument was, “Village Center Re-Zoning will have detrimental density, but you’ll make a whole lot more when you sell your homes at retirement”, at least it’s genuine and doesn’t ask residents to buy into what will more likely than not be… a fairy tale; good intentions and wishful thinking.
All of that said, until it’s a done deal, I will keep ears and heart open. My hope is that our elected represenatives and the Planning Department evolves the plan from favoring those why may move here, to the people that are living in and contributing to this community RIGHT NOW. How can re-zoning better benefit Newton’s current residents? I would be thrilled to be proven wrong, but until that time, I cannot in good conscience support the current Village Center Re-Zoning plan.
More pro development agitprop disguised as virtue signalling.
Exactly
Please compare to watertown which is Literally next door and has much more developer friendly zoning.
How are their metrics, back up your original post by providing facts
Also if you believe more units will equal lower prices then you have to consider the following.
A notable decline in prices would happen over several years, not overnight.
If a developer starts building in 2024 for a 2026 move in and takes deposits. In 2025, prices decline 10%, orig buyers now walk as they can buy 10% cheaper or maybe even 15% cheaper in 2026.
Developer will stop creating supply to prevent themselve from a death spiral as the sales will no longer meet the bank loan terms if prices meaningly decline over years.
Ie whe prices decline, developers become very stingy creating new units
Since I moved to Newton in 2006, the value of my house has increased an average of $54k per year. Some years less, some years more, but the average over 16 years is $54k more per year in market value. Being in the heart of Newton’s building boom, that is the village of Newtonville, nothing has slowed down the appreciation of my home’s value. It might not be as quiet as it was before, it is busier, we have better restaurants, but it is not cheaper. Increasing density will just provide more options for people who want to live in Newton. There would have to be a full scale emptying out of the city of Boston and surrounding cities for the price of real estate to decline. We are off the market highs, you can see that in the properties lingering on the market with recent price reductions, but the surrounding area is not going the way of San Francisco. Call it what it is…some people are in favor of greater housing density and some are not. I doubt either plan will impact the value of my home from increasing. What will impact the value of the home is a credit contraction, inflation, higher tax burdens, dysfunctional local government, high interest rates and a decline in the quality of life in Newton. On a side note, my home owners insurance increased 23% Y/Y so the insurance companies see the effect of material inflation, higher replacement costs and no meaningful decline in the value of a home in Newton Mass.
W.R., I agree, for those seeking single-family homes, nothing short of a regional economic meltdown will slow the rate of increase in value.
New condos or apartments are expensive, but they increase the supply of housing, and they won’t appreciate nearly as quickly as detached houses do. The cost of condos may stabilize if most towns and cities respond to incentives from the state govt. And in each building, 20-25% of the places will be means-tested. Those lucky folks will benefit.
Unless I’m missing something, the household incomes on the horizontal axis don’t appear to be inflation adjusted. So these charts don’t tell you much. $1 in 199o is worth $2.40 today.
John…I agree with your points. Condos may appreciate slower, have greater density, but they are not really affordable in Newton if your goal is to reach lower income brackets.
If I was a developer I would welcome higher density and easier multi-family builds. You can jam more buyers at market rate into a smaller footprint. Makes sense to me.
As of this morning, a quick scan of “active” condos in Newton reveals 32 units for sale at an average price of $1.395M. Take out the $10M penthouse near BC as an outlier and it is 31 units for average of $1.03M. To buy an average priced condo in Newton, the buyer needs to show up with $217k down payment, a 30 year fixed at 6.25% will cost $5.5k a month, add in taxes of $750 a month and CAF of $400 and the monthly outlay is $6.6k. A buyer will need to be making $225-250k a year and have $225k of cash. That is the napkin math and multi-family homes are a higher bar for entry.
Multifamily homes are a developers gold mine. Currently 13 units available in Newton for an average price of $2.06M.
The charts are nice, but 30 years of inflation, 30 years of tax increases, 30 years of rising assessment values, 30 years of credit and income expansion lead to higher priced assets. This is what happens with the Federal Reserve allowed for securitization followed by QE. No amount of zoning is going to have a meaningful effect on the market prices of residential real estate. If affordable housing is the goal, the only path is some sort of private/public partnership that offsets the cost barrier for the buyer without the buyer taking on the debt burden. If you have lived in Newton say 30 years, your property is 4-5x in value today and it is not going lower.
Bingo! Such an obvious oversight NOT to present inflation-adjusted data. We’re talking 33 years difference!
No point in commenting beyond that.
That’s exactly my point (consistently) as well. If these developments were actually providing affordable housing em masse, that’s one thing…but CANNOT stand being giving developers an unchallenged path to print money at the detriment to existing Newton residents.
The Mayor, majority of the City Council and the Planning Department have blinders on in terms of getting this pushed thru. A ballot or referendum question is the only way to stop this crazy train.
The City Council is currently proposing to rezone 1.5K properties in Newton into a Village Center Overlay District (VCOD) with a public hearing scheduled for 6/26/23. These parcels are all in the densest parts of Newton, and one of the biggest zoning changes will be the removal of all parking requirements for these properties if they build multi-family housing.
State Law MGL40A, Section 5: “Adoption or change of zoning ordinances or by-laws; procedure” strictly governs the rules for zoning passage. This law does NOT ALLOW anyone but the city council to vote on the passage of zoning. Residents can only vote to overturn the zoning after passage via a voter referendum.
The law, links posted below, does give residents, however, two other important rights that are important to know now.
1) Right for property owners in proposed rezoning areas to file a protest BEFORE the Council vote and get the City Council majority required for passage to be 2/3, not 1/2. This would decrease the number of City Council votes required to defeat the rezoning from 13 to 9. The current proposed VCOD zoning is eligible for this protest.
2) Right to go to court to get any passed zoning overturned for misleading process defects. There are numerous misleading process defects in the current rezoning attempt, due to the Zoning and Planning Committee Chair Deb Crossley’s complete contempt for the public process. Because Newton is a city and not a town, like Brookline, the AG has no oversight, however, over zoning content or procedure for violations of state law. Newton residents still have the right to challenge the zoning process for violating state law, but they have to fund the challenge themselves by going to court.
In addition, the proposed 1.5K properties are not the only properties that could have been selected to satisfy the MBTA Communities Act. A large section of Chestnut Hill and most of Woodland golf course could have been chosen instead and would have absorbed the rezoning with less impact on residents. Newton residents can still advocate for these wealthier sections of Newton to be rezoned, as opposed to the 1.5K properties in the already dense parts of Newton.
Actual full law text with effective section and change dates, included:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter40A/Section5
Less confusing Massachusetts Government Trial Court Libraries abridged law with only current effective sections included:
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/mass-general-laws-c40a-ss-5#:~:text=to%20the%20Constitution-,Section%205,in%20the%20manner%20hereinafter%20provided.
Debra,
Thank you very much for informing residents of their rights. The mayor implied it’s the “law” and we have no choice but to “shut up”
Advocating for chestnut hill increase density is very interesting. How is the omission not redlining?
I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but I looked at the map and it’s interesting to me that the north and south side of Newton corner are part of the district. Makes sense because the busses are right along the pike in the middle so walking is from either side is easy. Then Newtonville, both sides again as the train stop and busses are central along the pike. Now my neighborhood west Newton, it’s only on the North side even though the train stop is right on the Pike just like the other villages. The only difference I can think of is that the fanciest neighborhood in the city is
Over there. Personally I’m not against the zoning changes, I just want it to be done fairly
Could someone tell me what will happen to the Newton Commuter Rail Accessibility project if we do not change our zoning to fit the State law? Will we loss all chance at State and Federal funding for it?
@Debra Waller – You mentioned the possibility of changing the zoning of the Woodland Golf Course as a possible way to comply with the MBTA Communities Act. Even if that is legally a technical way of complying, doesn’t it defeat the whole purpose of the zoning change since it would be unlikely to create any additional housing …. i.e. so lonh as Woodland is a golf course.
one could argue that creating luxury rentals 2BR for 4k a month defeats the purpose of affordable housing. Trickle down housing? Lets reduce taxes for billionaires so their $ can trickle down too!
Count me in favor of a better utilized, more lively, newton center. Put that parking area to better use. Allow some upward building. Including more residential. I don’t know about the housing prices. I just think it will make Newton even better.
Frankly, probably make my house more valuable by having a more awesome ‘downtown’ near by. Better shops. Perhaps bars with more live music. Lively evening destinations.
National average foreign born population, 13.5%. Newton is 21.3%.
A, why does everything gave to be (and only be) about skin color???!!?
B, we are very diverse, far more than most places. Diversity is more than skin color. It is ethnic, cultural, religious, etc.
Newton is great. Stop complaining and look around. We are lucky.
The far left don’t consider a city diverse enough until you have homeless people setting up tents on the sidewalk. These policies are no longer ‘theoretical’, look how they’ve destroyed San Franciso and NYC
@Keith and Frank
I find it so fitting that it’s a conservative in the thread who is the first one to actually bring up “skin color”, while complaining that everything has to be about “skin color”.
And another conservative who’s worried about policies aimed at affordable housing creating homelessness.
It’s like we’re living in the upside-down. I mean, do you even read your posts before posting.
Matt,
The current strategy of creating LUXURY units to reduce prices actually does cause more homelessness for the following reason:
– it makes the wealth gap much wider
– It creates expensive units to subsidize those lucky enough to win housing lottery units
– It increases the rents in the area as it gentrify the area with high end housing.
– It creates 2 classes of ppl in the area, ultra rich and ultra poor. Middle class slowly get squeezed out
– Those in middle class and cannot get housing lottery slowly sink in into homelessness when bad luck strikes
These liberal policies are not theoretical. Look at the mess San Francisco, NYC, Portland has gotten into
Bugek. You’re ridiculous claim was that the far left policies that create diversity causes homelessness. Try again to defend it.
@ Matt – what? I’m very confused. Your post was replying to me? Where did I say anything remotely close to what you say I said?
@Keith
Apologies! I meant to @Frand and Bugek
Aren’t we all tired of assertions about the “far left,” the default epithet of discredited Fox News? We were having a lively and informative debate about zoning and affordable housing until we turned to the world of the mythical, conspiratorial “far left.” What we call “the far left” in this country is so tiny, so powerless that I envy the European democracies whose social democrats, though on the decline, still fight to preserve the social safety net.
As for the connection between rezoning and the supposed increase in affordable housing, I am as skeptical as anyone else here. Most of the housing constructed, be it in developments or homes converted to multi-family, will cost beyond the reach of the less than affluent, the affordable set-asides excepted. That is the reality.
There is a need, however, for housing even for well-off families if the Commonwealth hopes to attract the talent needed for the high-tech and biotech industries. They are the motors driving the state’s economy, and we risk losing valuable young professionals unwilling to pay $4 million dollars for their homes.
Time will probably prove that however many units we build, housing prices stay high. But we still need lots more housing stock, and Newton has to contribute to an extent to the solution. Let’s just minimize the impact on the quality of life in the Garden City.
It looks like there are plenty of apartments for rent in Brighton, and huge high-rises being constructed along Comm. Ave. there, too. Do we really need more in Newton?
With a vacancy rate of less than 4% in the area (with some articles claiming <0.5%), bidding wars going on now for rentals, and the Greater Boston area having added 2.5x more jobs than housing units, the answer is very much yes.
I guess I just don’t understand. Please help me. I just looked at Zillow’s Boston metro area rental listings, again, and the map seems nearly covered with them, though not Newton. Thank you.
Only 313 (2.3%) of the currently available 13,358 Boston metro rental listings on Zillow are in Newton.
A major cause of the lack of affordable housing is that wages have not kept up.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades
Although the above is 3 years old, and there have been modest increases at some places, inflation and offshoring of manufacturing have decimated the middle class in this country, MA included. Combined with a rapid increase in *some * wages in the Boston area ( Bio-tech, etc.) which push up prices wherever those companies congregate, we are where we are today. Building more units will have little impact on economic diversity in Newton. It’s nothing more than a gift to developers ( and the bio tech industry for housing), and probably more taxes for the city. Is there some sort of ethical, altruistic motive for making things more dense? Maybe for some people, but we live in a capitalist society and “follow the money” seems to still work.
I agree that actually driving housing prices down is a very difficult problem, possibly insurmountable without an economic catastrophe that will have extreme pain in itself.
However, we (Newton, Boston metro, Massachusetts, the US) aren’t anywhere near keeping up with the need for housing, even putting aside the issue of affordability. People need to live somewhere. Putting them geographically closer to jobs and other resources makes sense from an efficiency, sustainability, and congestion point of view.
It’s not a gift to developers to build housing for people. People need housing. Developers build housing. The problem comes when a developer’s vision supersedes a community vision. Unfortunately, that’s happened in Newton more often than not when the city had little or no vision. There wasn’t a “Hello Washington Street” before there was a Mark Development plan and property purchases to start implementing it.
If we don’t address the demand, we effectively make the existing supply more scarce as more people want it. That drives prices up higher than if we have more supply. As the original poster suggests, not doing anything doesn’t freeze current conditions, it exacerbates them.
Unfortunately, these threads always devolve into blaming developers (even the ones who built the houses we all live in now), debates of “character” (keeping the “wrong” people and housing types out of the City), nostalgia (for times that aren’t coming back), and denial (problems are for somewhere else). No wonder we’ll be stagnating in a few short years.
Newton is not perfect but it’s the best place on earth so I see no problems with stagnation whatsoever.
Of course not, Bruce. That must be what life inside the bubble must be like.
I grew up in an arm pit of America so I know what life is like outside this awesome bubble of ours.
Another virtuous suburbanite. Perfect.
Another virtue signaler. Even better.
I grew up in downtown Jamaica, Queens and moved to Newton from lower Manhattan. Newton was, and still is, paradise. I wish i could understand why so many of you seem want to turn it into what i was so grateful to escape from, but i just can’t.
I guess it’s for the good of the many over that of the few and just need to accept it.
But then, there are all those apartments and vacancies in Brighton, Allston, Brookline, Cambridge, etc., etc. Do we really need more in Newton?
Yes:
“For decades, Massachusetts has not kept up with housing demand which has led to today’s housing shortage. Limited supply has driven our state to have some of the highest and fastest growing home prices and rents across the nation.”
“Many communities [such as Newton] have zoning regulations that restrict where and how much multifamily housing may be built by-right.”
“Newton is considered a “rapid transit” community and [therefore] the final [state] guidelines require the following: [capacity for 8,330 multi-family units]”
https://www.newtonma.gov/government/planning/plans-policies-strategies/multi-family-zoning-requirement-for-mbta-communities
Looking at Zillow, there seem to be plenty of available Boston area rentals.
Yet very few of those rentals are currently vacant. Greater Boston has a <0.5% rental vacancy rate, and we're starting to see bidding wars for rental units.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/04/18/business/apartment-hunting-season-ramps-up-finding-place-boston-is-harder-than-ever/
https://www.boston.com/real-estate/the-boston-globe/2023/06/12/boston-ma-rental-market-bidding-wars/
@Ted I’m not blaming developers. As a matter of fact, I almost became one when one in the two “abandoned” houses on my street came up for sale. I considered buying it and I met with a builder and he said he wouldn’t do it because he couldn’t make enough money on it. And right now the house is torn down, the lot is a mess , the phone pole on the lot had an electrical fire, and a neighbor is suing I believe because the demolition caused damage or something ( as I understand it ).
My main frustration is no one is looking at the realities and the big picture of wages, decline of middle class, and other factors that have influenced the cost of living everywhere, especially on the coasts. The developer of the house I live in was building on what once an apple orchard. It was bare land, which they aren’t making more of.
I’ve given up on the topic of more housing in Newtonville ( or Waban) etc. I now do not care. But, I will bet you a hundred dollars that there will not be enough affordable housing in Newton in 10 years, no matter how much you build. Supply alone is not a solution ( and, I don’t have one either ). But simply saying that building more IS the solution has little to back it up as far as I’ve seen.
The solution is clearly NOT to cram all jobs into a single location. At the end of the day, people want to live within a decent commute to work. Scatter the job centers around the suburbs so towns like Newton don’t become responsible for Boston’s self inflicted problems.
or at the very least create a bullet train from western suburns into downtown Boston. There’s plenty of available land outside the 20 mile radius of Boston
I live next Trio. I went through the whole process with the builder and have met with the builder many times throughout the years. I happy with what was built. It is far better than what was here before. I enjoy the restaurants, but the local vibe is different. I would suggest that we need to be careful and thoughtful as to what is built in Newton, or we will just be an extension of the Brookline, Brighton and Boston. Is anyone lauding what was built in Waltham along the Charles? Maybe, but not me. I am sure the builder of Trio wanted to build bigger, and I know the neighbors wanted it built smaller. It is far better than what was here before. The hood has changed, and I have beeping trucks backing up at 5am, but I am not complaining. My neighborhood is great, the commuter rail sucks, there is more traffic and I wish the City took the time to enforce speed limits, but it is easy to get into Boston by car. We have shops that are easy to get to, we have trees, parks, quaint homes, and a neighborhood feel. We have walkable schools. It would be a terrible loss for that to go away. It would be awful to line our streets with cars 24x7x365. If we are not thoughtful, we might find ourselves in ten years wondering why we became Brookline and how do we undo the mess we created which of course we will not be able to do.
I think the City leaders would serve the residents of City far better by focusing on what is best for the people of the City, rather than regional, national and global goals. We can control what is local, not what is beyond our control.
Newton’s leaders are being unrealistic, always on the side of a few rich developers, but are pretending to be “liberal”, like the virtue-signaling O.P. New housing is almost always more expensive than old. The proposed village center zoning will invite more Trio-like buildings, at $4/sq.ft/mo. or more, hardly afforable, but with a few lottery ticket “Affordable” (big-A) units so they can claim to be helping. What is actually affordable are small multifamily houses, like the 2-families torn down to build Trio. Developers don’t have much incentive. But to be sure, I live now in a Needham neighborhood zones 2-family. A new building just went up, $2.345 per unit; other post-2000 units are >$1M. That’s the market here, and Newton tends to be a bit higher.
The “no parking” is a joke. People will park on the street. Most people need a car. Newtonville parking has gotten awful. I often make take-out runs into Newtonville to our favorite places, still there, and during dinner hour it is very hard to find a space on Washington St. It used to be easy. This ain’t Manhattan where everyone takes the subway. Nor the Newton of 1900 with its 12 streetcar lines.
Here are some links that are useful for understanding the proposed VCOD rezoning.
Copy of proposed zoning code. Note that not only are there no parking requirements, but there is a new “parking setback” requirement that requires a 4 ft. “no parking” area from the rear and side property lines. This will make it very hard for many properties to have a functional driveway, even if they want one.
https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/101756/638221687617470000
Copy of proposed zoning map that also shows the ½ mile radius around the MBTA stops that makes properties eligible for the MBTA Communities Act rezoning. Note that Ruthanne Fuller’s Chestnut Hill neighborhood is totally eligible for the MBTA Communities Act upzoning but is spared completely. This is ostensibly because much of Chestnut Hill is an historic district, but being an historic district has NOTHING to do with MBTA Communities Act upzoning eligibility. Note also that Nonantum, Thompsonville, and Four Corners, are being upzoned, despite being OUTSIDE the ½ mile radius around the MBTA Stops.
https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/99758/638176788855370000
Commonwealth Magazine article that does a good job describing how the multi-family housing capacity is calculated for a property that is upzoned as part of the MBTA Communities act.
https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/what-the-mbta-communities-law-means-for-your-town
Zoom link to 6/26/23 VCOD public hearing. Newton residents can also attend in person at Room 207 in City Hall. Looking forward to hearing the Chestnut Hill residents lecture the Nonantum residents to “stop being NIMBYs.”
https://newtonma-gov.zoom.us/j/84222707047
Full set of Info Sheets explaining VCOD zoning: https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/101640/638218117511030000
Source: https://www.newtonma.gov/government/planning/village-centers
Residents are better off just reading the proposed zoning code and zoning map, rather than looking at the secondary “explanations” supplied by the Mayor’s Planning Department. If passed, the zoning code and maps will become binding local ordinances. Explanations from the Mayor’s Planning Department about what things “really mean” will have NO LEGAL BEARING after passage.
By state law, MGL 40A, Section 5, the Newton Government MUST supply the proposed code and map for inspection for two weeks before the public hearing. If this wasn’t legally required, the Newton Government would never do it. To counter this legal requirement, the Mayor’s Planning Department is burying the proposed zoning code and map under a pile of other documents and attractive graphics.
Residents should take advantage of one of the few protections that the state is giving them in the zoning process. They should try to understand the proposed code and maps, as is.
How is information about VCOD being buried? The information is easily at hand:
https://www.newtonma.gov/government/planning/zoning-redesign/village-centers/version-2-0-draft-maps
Furthermore, despite your use of scare quotes, these summary sheets are pretty clear and factual.
Not every Newtonian has the time, inclination, and/or expertise to directly parse zoning ordinances.
If there are dramatic discrepancies between the primary and secondary documents, please let us all know.
“Looking forward to hearing the Chestnut Hill residents lecture the Nonantum residents to “stop being NIMBYs.”
Say it all right there. It’s staring us all in the face.
@E
I have read the zoning laws, which are a snoozer and I have read the summary presentations. When I read these documents there are all sorts of words such as “inclusion, equity, affordable, community space, green, climate etc.” These appear to be just word games to pass some zoning laws that do not go far enough. If affordable housing units is the goal, then why are the percentages in the VCOD Affordability Requirements so low? How does the City build housing stock around $250-300K? That is affordable. Is this proposal just some sort of token grifting to appease Beacon Hill and make people living in the elite enclaves of Newton feel better? If we are serious about affordability, then we should start the requirement at 50% and go up from there. I know why this is a non-starter, but we should forget about all the other stuff used to justify the new zoning laws and focus on the real problems of affordability and unit construction. Yes, it is a difficult problem, but everything else is a distraction if these are the tier 1 problems. The leadership of the City should be asking how many units can Newton develop at $250k a unit? What do we need to do to get them built? Focus on those objectives. It takes courage to do that as everything else is just politics and all the window dressing of the solution is what aggravates residents as they always feel there is another surprise around the corner and the City leadership never really resolves these issues, so we are faced with another special election and City drama. It really is a go big or go home solution. Just my two cents.
Spot on!!! Significant percentages of truly affordable housing won’t be built under the proposal. It is all lip service and “lipstick on a pig”
This thread is people living in $1-$2 million detached single family homes complaining that $700K condos are not affordable and therefore should not be built.
“should be asking how many units can Newton develop at $250k a unit”
Probably none unless it’s a non profit or heavily subsidized.
In my little foray into development my builder ( was looking at tearing down an old mold infested house on my street) and investing in the redevelopment )told me he can’t compete with low priced builders who get cheap labor and cut corners. That’s what you’re going to get.
I took a pass.
I agree. If you are not trying to find a solution to that problem, then what problem are they working on?
Any zoning change should come with a blight tax. The developers of Dunstan are simply allowed to giant eyesore for years simply because they will make LESS profit due to costs?
So technically they can tear down large swaths of our villages and leave them as dirt for years if a recession hits? Tails I win, heads u lose
What’s up with Dunstan, anyway? I can’t find any info about why it’s been stalled.