Sorry for the late notice.
The City Council’s Zoning and Planning Committee is holding a public meeting to discuss the proposed Village Center Overlay District, tonight June 26 at 7 PM.
It will be a “hybrid” meeting so members of the public who wish to speak can do so either in person in the Council Chambers at City Hall or via Zoom – here’s the Zoom link
Chestnut Hill has a T stop. We should stick the luxury condos and apartments there. Its denizens (including the mayor) use a bogus historic district designation to avoid their shared responsibility. Chestnut Hill is already practically a part of Brookline, where traffic congestion makes Brookline Brookline.
I liked how they used Main St Brattleboro VT as an illustrative example of successful 4 story mixed Retail/Residential build out. They failed to mention numerous city parking lots / garages 2 or 3 blocks up the hill from Main on the feeder streets…
https://www.brattleborochamber.org/parking-downtown/
Agree. The Street, The Shops at Chestnut Hill, and the shopping center with Wegmans are the most appropriate places in the city for dense, high-rise style housing. Residents would have MBTA access, shopping, medical, and groceries within true walking distance.
Missed opportunity – does anyone know why? If it’s really because of “historic” restrictions, that’s truly laughable.
Historic District Designation “redlining” seems to be a national trend….
“Most interesting in the video is the observation that historic designation attempts have boomed in California and Oregon after each state passed their respective laws to end single-family zoning. Following Oregon’s House Bill 2001 passage in 2019 and California’s Senate Bill 9 passage in 2021, each state saw neighborhoods rush to designate low density neighborhoods as historic. ”
https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/05/07/sunday-video-historic-district-abuse/
So what’s the strategy if one doesn’t like these plans? Is there still a way to change them, or are they going to get steamrolled through? I don’t follow the ins and outs of city politics closely enough to know.
The option is a referendum after it passes.
Another option is enough public pressure that enough City Councilors fear backlash from voters, but since they will vote on it in the lame duck session that isn’t as effective an option. However we should force it to be discussed as an election issue so candidates need to go on record
The properties within a 1/2 mile radius around the Chestnut Hill T-Stop are totally eligible for the MBTA Communities act upzoning. This includes the home of Mayor Ruthanne Fuller, whose Planning Department is shoving their MBTA Communities rezoning plan down our throats, whether Newton’s middleclass residents want it or not. Chestnut Hill is not being included in the upzoning, only because Newton’s wealthiest residents live there.
The Planning Department’s rezoning is NOT a done deal, however. Newton residents can demand to get Chestnut Hill and the (also eligible) Woodland Golf Course rezoned for multi-family housing, with required parking, instead of meekly accepting the Planning Department’s completely elitist plan to put more multi-family housing, with no required parking, into the densest and poorest parts of Newton.
If this isn’t done, Newton residents can overturn the entire rezoning plan AFTER it is passed with the voter referendum that is allowed by the Newton Charter.
I must be thinking of a different “Chestnut Hill” than some of the other commenters. The Chestnut Hill I’m familiar with is hands-down the most densely developed of all Newton’s villages. [BC, The Towers, the Mall, The Street, Chestnut Hill Square, and soon The Landing]. So I really don’t understand the dumping on Chestnut Hill. Glad to have someone explain it to me though.
Also, just my opinion… I think this concept of rezoning golf courses is a horrible idea. I believe Newton should be moving now on a long term plan to acquire the golf courses as open space in order to reforest and preserve them. I know some might question whether it’s possible for Newton to purchase a golf course. I would direct them to Newton’s Commonwealth Golf Course, which the City already purchased and currently owns.
Mike – We’re speaking to the MBTA Communities Law . Chestnut Hill’s residential high density falls more than 0.5 miles from the Chestnut Hill subway station. The subway station is in the “Historic District” Same 0.5 mile problem with the T station adjacent to the Golf Course land.
Fred–
Thanks for the explanation. Other commenters referenced the entirety of Chestnut Hill, including some of the specific properties I mentioned. As a village, Chestnut Hill is more densely developed than any other village in the city. So I think it’s a losing argument to pick on Chestnut Hill. But I do agree with your specific point that protections in the Chestnut Hill Historic District provide unfair insulation from the MBTA Communities Law. That’s a fair debate to have.
In my opinion it’s critically important to preserve certain aspects of our history. But it’s more important that every Massachusetts resident has a roof over their head when they go to sleep at night. Time to rethink some of our priorities!
I would also support rezoning small areas of Newton’s private golf courses for dense residential development, as Debra suggested above. But only as part of a plan for the city to acquire the properties in their entirety. I believe that changing the any zoning of golf courses at this time, would substantially increase their value, and make it impossible for the city to ever purchase and preserve the bulk of their undeveloped land. So the time to identify an area for residential development, would be after a purchase price has been arrived at.
We can dance around this thing till we’re blue in the face, but the basic unavoidable fact is that this rezoning is being force fed down the throats of in the name of the MBTA Communities Act.. the same MBTA that has not run efficiently for decades… an MBTA that had no less than 3 negative stories in last night’s newscast and a new one today – around basic rider safety (nevermind reliablity).
https://whdh.com/news/emergency-crews-respond-after-flames-spotted-on-tracks-near-tufts-medical-center-mbta-station/
And even more telling is that Newton’s state represenative and senator has had zero presence in the discussion with the community. It’s a bad deal for Newton – plain and simple.
@Matt – Yes the MBTA Communities Act is definitely part of this. The effort to overhaul Newton’s zoning though has been going on for a few years now and predates the MBTA Communities Act. With or without that state act we would still be addressing rezoning, the details would just be somewhat different.
The Mayor’s Planning Department is needlessly combining their previous Village Center rezoning effort with the MBTA Communities Act, purely to get the Village Center rezoning passed by the end-of-year deadline imposed by the MBTA Communities act.
This is a manipulative political tactic. Five of the village centers included in the current proposed VCOD upzoning are OUTSIDE the 1/2 mile radius around a MBTA stop and thus have nothing to do with the MBTA Communities Act. These outliers are Nonantum, Newton Corner, Upper Falls, Lower Falls, and Thompsonville. There is no reason to include these village centers in the current rezoning proposal, as any housing created in these village centers is ineligible to meet the MBTA Communities Act requirements. There is also zero justification to require no parking in the rezoned properties in these five village centers.
Nonantum, Newton Corner, Upper Falls, Lower Falls, and Thompsonville are only being included in the current rezoning proposal to take advantage of the MBTA Communities Act deadline. And the rezoned properties in these five village centers are only being freed of parking requirements to satisfy the anti-middle-class faction of the Newton government. This elitist faction simply ignores the majority of Newton residents with jobs and/or children who do not have the time or ability to walk or bike everywhere.
@Debra Waller – As I mentioned above, the larger effort to update Newton’s zoning has been going on since before the MBTA Communities Act was enacted. Given how much effort and time it takes to update zoning law I think its a specious suggestion that they should break this up in two separate re-zoning efforts and handle them sequentially.
It was also specious to have turned the original zoning process where the goal was simply zoning standardization into a social engineering project. The original goal was to make zoning rules clear not to create a goldmine for developers
Jerry – had to look up what “specious” meant. Good word. Unfortunatley, dead wrong in this case.
While I agree with you that overall zoning can always be evolved to meet changing needs (like for example, why won’t the City or Planning touch eliminating single family for multifamily city wide with a ten foot pole?), I also agree with Deb that this “all at once” appoach, and the volume proposed – 8,330, which does not include the thousands of units recently approved or in progress of approval (from Austin Street and Riverside to 528 Boylston and Northand Charlemont), is overly optimistic… and reckless.
It’s been less than 4 months since the proposed general override was voted down – or effectively a vote of no confidence in the Mayor and City’s abilty to manage a half BILLION dollar budget. The MBTA has proven time and time again, they cannot serve today’s riders let alone 25-40% more (why 40%? because the new residents are supposed to be care lite/free, right?).
And lastly, this rezoning ultimately comes down to the two words – “by right” – and doing away with special permit. In our personal lives, we would not buy a home, or select a spouse, without carefully, and fully vetting the various considerations and options. The virtues of what makes Newton, “the garden city” deserve equal care and consideration. The rush to get this pushed thru by the MBTA Communities deadline puts politics ahead above all else.
@Bugek – Which aspect of what is being proposed to you consider to be “social engineering”?
Can’t speak to Bugek’s intent, but Oxford Dictionary defines social engineering as, “the attempt to change society and to deal with social problems according to particular political beliefs, for example by changing the law.” The assumption then would be the specifica phrase, “to particular political beliefs”.
For a laundry list of arguments already made, there has yet to be conclusive evidence that rezoning will bring PROPORTIONALLY more affordable housing nor diversity (racially and econonmically) Newton’s politial leaders would like to have us belive. And the downside? Bye bye Garden City.
creating luxury high end rental catering to uber affluent residents and affordable subsidized units. This is engineering a massive wealth gap in Newton: a society of haves and have-nots and hollowing out the middle class.
This is called trickle down housing.
@Matt
+1
This is what I said in the other thread. If the goal is build affordable housing, then let us be upfront about that. I am cool with that. Anything short of 50% of affordable housing is just grifting off the need for housing to do something else and yes, in the end the City suffers. Be true to oneself.
Yes, by its very nature the entire field of zoning is inherently “social engineering”. When the city passes a complicated set of rules and regulations that dictate the details of what you can do with your personal property, so that you wont bother or interfere with your neighbors …. I’d call all of zoning “social engineering”.
When the city overhauled the zoning in the 80’s and added all sorts of new restrictions on property use and sizes, that was “social engineering” just as much as it will be if we now loosen some of those regulations today.
The reflexive opponents of Village Center Zoning aren’t really against social engineering, just for social engineering that excludes those uses (and persons) who don’t fit their version of what is acceptable.
Another thing worth reminding people is that 90% of the garden city that we all love was built by private developers before most of today’s zoning rules were in place (1980’s). Much of what we love about today’s Newton could not be built under today’s zoning – including a huge chunk of my entire neighborhood in Upper Falls.
Of interest for those who haven’t seen it, here’s the 1920’s era zoning map of Newton:
https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/46930/637423500562030000
As a longtime skeptic of affordable set-asides in developments as the panacea to the shortage of affordable housing, I think that critics go to far in declaring that the rezoning plan means “Bye, bye, Garden City.”
Some hard truths:
– The post-war Newton housing boom consisted of lots of Capes and ranch houses affordable to veteran families and attractive to ethnic groups like Jews and Italians. Farewell to those affordable “starter homes.” One by one they have been torn down, and their replacements, usually single-family monstrosities, now cost in the millions of dollars each. For whatever reason, city government has stood aside and watched, apparently believing the shift inevitable and perhaps even desirable.
– All other measures, like set-asides, taken to increase the presence of families of lower and middle income, including minorities, will have but a modest impact on our demographics . Better than nothing, perhaps, but no cure for the chronic shortage of affordable housing in Newton. Newton’s residents will continue to become wealthier and wealthier.
– Greater Boston is short on housing for all social strata, including the affluent. In my view, the construction of any housing, even units priced out of the reach of all but the wealthy, is necessary. Hence, the rezoning near transportation of single-family units to multiple, though it realistically will hardly increase housing affordability, still meets a need. The Commonwealth is losing citizens, and we want to encourage the best and brightest to move here to fill the many vacancies in our biotech and high-tech sectors.
– In my view, the Garden City has a moral obligation, as do all affluent suburbs, to increase its housing stock, preferably affordable but all ranges, to meet the chronic lack of housing in our area. We cannot do a Pontius Pilate and wash our hands of the problem. We can, of course, protect our abundant green space and take measures to keep Newton livable as the population increases. But grow we must, for better or worse.
Well put, Bob.
I have written the following to Councilor Crossley 4X with absolutely no response:
Hello
In an edition of the Boston Globe you are quoted saying ‘Targeting village centers is an idea proven to make cities more vibrant.’ Yet in the
weekly Planning & Development Department’s “Friday Report” there is
the following statement regarding an affordable housing lottery:
‘Located in one of Boston’s most vibrant suburbs…’. These 2
statements leave me confused. Is Newton vibrant as the Planning &
Development Department states or is it in need of increased vibrancy
as you believe.
One final thought/question: Newton has 87,000 residents according to
the BG article I referenced. What is the number of residents that you
think should live in Newton? Is there a number that would change
Newton into a different city or can we keep expanding and still stay
‘The Garden City’? As the chair of the zoning committee and a firm
advocate for development, I hope you have an answer to this question.
Remember what Yogi Berra once said: that place is so popular, no one
goes there anymore.
Thanks
Bob Kavanagh–
FYI… The population of Newton in 1960 was approximately 92K. Several thousand more people than live here today.
What’s everyone’s take (and I mean supporters of VCOD) on eliminating single family zoning throughout all of Newton – as Minneapolis had done? Anyone?
@Matt–
For the record, I support the elimination of single family zoning in Newton. That does not mean I support the elimination of other zoning controls like set-backs etc. But I do believe we should allow multi family residential construction by-right in what are now single family residence zones.
Somethings I don’t understand about many of the anti-rezoning voices:
First, the repeated claim that supporters of the changes are in the wrong because they see them as a panacea for the problem of lack of affordable housing (or available housing in general). While it’s far from a fix-all, I don’t believe anyone is claiming it is, and since when is that the standard for any legislation? Why not take a step in the right direction?
Second, the claim that the measure would only benefit wealthy homeowners, or squeeze out the middle income homeowners. Do you have any data or strong evidence of any kind that shows these changes would have any real impact on demographic? Is there any reason why the rezoning wouldn’t simply help balance the socio-economic distribution of residents?
If you can’t answer any of these questions, perhaps you should rethink your stance, or at least the motivation for it.
Matt’s points make sense. The entire Boston region is desperate for housing of any sort, from affordable to luxury, and we need to accept, however reluctantly, that the current proposals are necessary…even if they don’t change the demographic trend in Newton towards greater affluence.
Best way to lower housing costs: turn the schools into overcrowded hell holes and fill the city with crime. Works every time.
There is only shortage of housing that is short commute to boston, low crime and good schools. Travel further west and there is abundant affordable homes. A high speed bullet train would not force ppl to live in a 20 mile radius of downtown
If the Boston region is “desperate for housing of any sort” how come there are over 13,500 available metro-area rentals listed on Zillow?
@Alex
Because there are *ten times* as many jobs to be filled as there are units to house those workers who want to contribute to our common wealth in the Commonwealth (2021 “Future of Work in MA” report by the Baker administration: https://www.mass.gov/doc/future-of-work-in-massachusetts-report/download).
Bugek said: “There is only shortage of housing that is short commute to boston, low crime and good schools. Travel further west and there is abundant affordable homes.”
According to Boston25 news, there were only 3,000 homes for sale in all of MA in April of 2023. That’s just for sale, nothing about affordability.
“A high speed bullet train would not force ppl to live in a 20 mile radius of downtown.”
A high speed bullet train would likely make housing along its route more desirable and thus less affordable. And we can’t build a bullet train, certainly not one that goes to every relatively affordable pocket of the state.
But the state can, apparently, demand more density where our existing state-funded mass transit system goes. Unfortunately, that system is not working so well right now, much like our attempts to provide housing.
@Bugek
More baseless pontificating. If you want to make an argument against the proposal, make a rational, evidenced based one. I mean it. I’d really like a good reason to reject the measure, as I’d prefer not to have more residents in Newton. But just making up or speculating about consequences that are both lacking fact and bordering on classist, is unhelpful. Student enrollment in Newton schools has actually been declining in the last few years and projects to continue to do so in the next 5 years.
Source:
https://www.newton.k12.ma.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=10327&dataid=16070&FileName=Enrollment%20Analysis%20Report%20-%202022-2027.pdf
Whoops, that was the other day. today its only 12,158 available rentals.
Here are some links to articles about the housing crisis in greater Boston and in Massachusetts:
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/greater-boston-housing-earns-failing-grade-in-annual-report/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/01/30/opinion/maura-healey-wants-solve-states-housing-crisis-heres-step-one/#:~:text=But%20the%20housing%20plan%20Healey,new%20housing%20units%20per%20year.
The challenge is real, and we have to try to meet it.
Thank you. Very interesting articles. Maybe i’m just stupid, but my ‘thought’ is they would likely be more convincing, if the number of available metro-area rental (and sales) listings on Zillow, etc. were near zero, not ten + thousands.
@Alex– No child could possibly go to bed hungry tonight, with all the supermarkets filled with food. As illogical a conclusion as the one you’re drawing.
@All–
I’m taking a 30 day, self-imposed hiatus from V-14, in protest of the site eliminating comments that were critical of public officials. While I did not agree with any of the comments in question, I strongly disagree with silencing people who are expressing their own opinions about issues of public interest or public officials. I think dialogue is the best way to solve disagreements. I hope to bring my voice back to this conversation in a month or so.
We’ll miss you Mike.
@Mike
False statements of what someone said or did are not opinions, they are lies.
We are living in a climate where the very dangerous spreading of spurious accusations and lies are putting people in danger (see claims against pro-vaccine scientists) and undermining our very democracy (see, well just about anything a MAGA supporter says these days). Free speech absolutists don’t seem to understand a few things: 1) the first amendment does not apply to private corporations or non-for-profit community blogs, 2) the first amendment does not cover slander or libel, 3) no right is unregulated or without restrictions, including freedom of speech.
Rent control! We had it in Cambridge until 1995, so could even afford my apartment there while supporting two kids by driving a cab for a living.
From the mayors email:
“ We gathered so that family, friends, neighbors and fellow parishioners of these three good people, and those of us who didn’t know them but nonetheless feel shaken by this nightmare, could learn ways to cope with the grief and a shattered sense of security and normalcy.”
Showing the accused murderer as a victim of the system is NOT A WAY TO COPE.
Mayor fuller should resign. She is not a good person and couldnt give a sh1t about people in Newton, especially thosd who dont vote for her (Nonantum, NPS parents, etc etc)
May God bless the families of the victims and may the victims rest in peace. The accused is not a victim and if found guilty may he feel the full brunt of the legal system to pay for these horrible crimes.
@Frank
“Showing the accused murderer as a victim of the system is NOT A WAY TO COPE.”
Trying to understand and express indignation about the causes of a tragedy is very much a way to cope with its aftermath. Especially when it’s done in conjunction with expression of the pain it causes all those affected by it.
What if if was a white kid who killed people with a gun. Would talking about his mental health as an excuse and calling him a victim be ok? Or would we be having another protest to ban guns?
I know the answer and so do you. Republicans bring up a shooters mental health and get crucified. Why is it ok here?
Was the knife the problem? No. This murderer (if convicted) was the problem. Period. Not the system, not the weapon. Eff that.
Mayor fuller should grieve the victims first. For a while.
Then maybe one day talk about the a$$hole who stabbed three innocent residents, 2 celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary.
Or maybe not. That man should rot in jail or worse for this crime. Think about if god forbid it was your parents. Would you care why the guy did it? If you say yes you as a disingenuous moron. Think about the families of the victims. Not the murderer.
@Frank
“What if if was a white kid who killed people with a gun.”
Why do you make everything about race?
“Republicans bring up a shooters mental health and get crucified. Why is it ok here?”
So is mental health a factor or not? It’s okay when Republicans bring it up, but not the mayor of Newton.
The reason Republicans “get crucified” is because they do so in a completely disingenuous way. They blame mental illness, yet do nothing but gut funding for mental health resources. Democrats don’t discount the role it plays in mass shootings, but once again, have the brain capacity to hold two thoughts at once.
“Think about if god forbid it was your parents. Would you care why the guy did it?”
Of course I would.. Wanting to understand why a senseless murder took place is a normal reaction to a tragedy like this.
Not to mention the fact that the friends and family of the suspect are also going thru tremendous pain at the moment. Certainly not at the level of the victims’ friends and family, but to have no compassion for all involved is simply inhumane.
I dont make it about race. Just posing a hypothetical.
I am a lifelong democrat. I just couldnt give a f, right now, who or why the person did it, let the family grieve. Dont play the excuse game yet.
So next time there is a mass shooting its ok to in the days after to say, well lets grieve with the family of the shooter who was let down by the system.
Nope. Never ok. I dont claim me tal health ever. I vote to ban guns. I vote to put perps in jail. The time is for the victims families, not so halfwit mayor making excuses.
Im sorry i am emotional. My family had a shooting victim (cousin) a few years back. I cant handle bullsh1t politics anymore on this stuff.
There were only 3 victims. Not 4. People need to remember that.
Then one day, and it is appropriate, we can talk about why.
But it is far too soon to say, well the murderer is a victim of the system. He isnt. He is a murderer. Maybe we can prevent similar in the future but this man committed a horrible crime. If convicted of course. Remember that.
@Frank
I’m so sorry your family had to go through that tragedy.
I just simply disagree that only 3 people were victims in this case. – if you define the term as someone who has suffered due to the actions of others. Of course, the 3 people who were murdered are primary victims. But friends and family are also harmed. Many others in the community, especially those who are triggered by such an event, as well. Friends and family of the perpetrator also suffer immense grief.
You asked me to imagine if a family member of mine was the victim of a similar crime, and it’s near impossible to do so. I’d ask you to imagine if a relative of yours was suffering from mental illness for most of their lives and did not get the care they needed and in a manic episode took the lives of 3 innocent people. Imagine the grief they too would experience. Let’s try to have compassion for all who suffer from a tragedy.
I was unable to read all of the comments in the “Suspect apprehended for Newton triple murder” thread before they were deleted. Nor did I attend the Horace Mann meeting about the murder.
I “somewhat” understand why V14 deleted the “Commoner” comments for falseness, but don’t think V14 should have deleted all the comments. Also, V14 itself was guilty of false statements during the 2021 City Council election, with regard to implying that campaign finance laws were broken during the election. No campaign finance laws were broken and yet Jim Cote has been allowed to make statements on V14 as recently as two weeks ago that “The OPCF completed their investigation at dead ends given the well organized criminal nature of the enterprise with well covered financial tracks using fake names/financials.” Cote’s comment should also have been deleted for being slanderous.
In the “Suspect apprehended for Newton triple murder” thread, someone had posted a CBS news link about the murder, the Horace Mann meeting, and Mayor Fuller’s controversial response that “our system let [Ferguson] down.” That link should never have been deleted and I am reposting it now.
https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/newton-triple-murder-christopher-ferguson-arrest/
Thank you Debra for reposting that link. I didn’t realize that all the comments had been removed. I think everyone should be able to hear in the Mayors own Words what she said. Too bad she didnt use her time to speak about the people that were murdered and the tragedy their family must now deal with. Or the fact that they were such kind and good people from the words of the Priest at Our Ladys.
@Bugek
You”re post presents your opinion of what the mayor did. You have the right to it and the privilege to post it here. The original posts were false statements. V14 has the right to remove them.