If you haven’t already, please go watch the Ward 6 candidates forum between incumbent Brenda Noel and challenger and long-time activist Lisa Gordon, hosted by the Newton League of Women Voters and produced by NewTV Government. These fora are almost always informative.
Here are some takeaways, in no particular order. (If you only have enough time to either watch the video or read this analysis, definitely watch the video.)
1. I’m reluctantly coming to the conclusion that nobody has a plan for better transportation in this city. Candidates have goals: more bike lanes, protected bike lanes, walkable village centers, better transit. And, we already do okay with new-development-related improvements and are at least hit and miss with big, well-funded projects. But, nobody’s got specific policy proposals — that can be implemented by the city — to systematically and systemically reduce driving and increase alternative modes across Newton. (Actually, one came up in the Ward 2 forum, but you’ll have to wait for the takeways post for that one.) We need to know what specific changes candidates propose and by what funding mechanism and what process they are going to be implemented. I do not see how we’re going to fundamentally change our streetscape within our current budgetary constraints. Who’s proposing an override?
2. Candidate Gordon raises some interesting questions with her stated preference for commercial over residential development. She’s right. We have a tax base weighted way too heavily residential. The pressure to develop more housing is only going to make it worse. But, the developers of the two last big developable properties — until we take the golf courses — want to build housing, not commercial space, which suggests that Newton is not attractive as a home for commercial. How is this sustainable? How is it fixable? (Note: Fifty years after Sylvania dropped its plans, Wells Ave. is still not the answer.)
3. Councilor Noel had a crisp answer on affordable housing and development that should be the reference for any candidate’s response on these issues: like it or not, private development is the main source of new affordable housing in the city. We need greater density to accomplish our affordable housing aims. We have to manage the tradeoff, not wish for other sources of affordable housing (that is, if you think it’s a tradeoff). Implicit in her answer: if you don’t want density with your affordable housing, then maybe affordable housing is not your first priority.
4. Candidate Gordon really doesn’t like the way the City Council operates. Across various answers, she didn’t just criticize Council transparency, but the way they schedule public meetings (in small rooms without space for the public), their respect for the public, how they debate, the range of voices, how individual voices are not being heard, the socio-economic representation, the insufficient effort they make to really explain the issues that are before them. Not clear how she’s going to fix these problems as a single councilor, but she’s not happy.
5. Given the really thoughtful discussions about seniors in the two Ward 5 ward councilor forums, it was a shame that this forum didn’t touch on senior issues.
6. Having a tough time figuring out if there’s anything animating Candidate Gordon’s run besides development-skepticism. The candidates’ stated priorities are roughly the same: environment, transparency, affordable housing. Candidate Gordon offered no criticism — implicit or explicit — and drew no distinction between herself and Councilor Noel, except with regards to building more housing. One minor exception: they did disagree about councilor compensation. But, I find it hard to get worked up about a long-overdue raise which amounts to a pittance in the city budget. The two painted different pictures of how well the council is functioning, but Candidate Gordon’s critique amounts to mostly disappointment, not any specific, actionable proposals. If this race has another salient issue besides development, it wasn’t on display in the forum.
7. It may be time for the League to revisit this format. There is a huge need for follow-up questions to draw out and clarify answers. Candidate Gordon made several references to trustee/non-trustee models of governance, but was not clear at all on what she meant. Sounds interesting. The moderator should have had license to ask, “What do you mean?”
8. There is no nice way of saying this, but Candidate Gordon has not done enough preparation to merit serious consideration as a candidate. Despite her 20 years of activism, she only knows that adding density is not going to solve the housing problem. Beyond that, she needs to “grapple” with the complexities of the issue. She’s just plain wrong about density and carbon emissions. What she does propose as possible solutions to affordable housing are not remotely feasible or responsive to the problem, like her suggestion to create programs that will keep properties in Oak Hill affordable. It’s not the size of the house, it’s the cost of the land. Her desire for buses that connect the villages to each other ignores the inconvenient reality that transit requires density, the very thing she opposes, to be feasible. Candidate Gordon wishes the council had more diverse views, delved deeper into issues, collaborated more. And, was more streamlined.
9. A question that doesn’t fit into the League’s ultra-evenhanded approach is one to challengers: why are you running now, against this incumbent?
10. The evergreen “What would you do if an issue before the council were bad for the ward, but good for the city?” question to ward council candidates continues to elicit weird answers. Councilor Noel couldn’t think of an example. Candidate Gordon can’t imagine the council wouldn’t be working cohesively. Puh-lease. Of course there are going to be issues with different impacts across wards. And, basic political reality requires that a ward councilor keep an eye on both the city-wide benefit and the local impact, or end up losing their seat. Crib Kathy Winters’ answer: “Bring ward issues to the table and vote for the city.” Slightly disingenuous, but at least it sounds thoughtful.
11. The development-skeptical folks are beginning to say the quiet things out loud. Candidate Gordon said that additional housing is a threat to our excellent schools. Of course it is. Our schools don’t reflect superior values or a more robust civic commitment to our youth. The concentration of wealth from exclusionary zoning leads to high per-pupil spending. And, she’s just not interested in anybody’s kids but our own. According to Candidate Gordon, an additional 800 families represents a tax on our schools, not an opportunity to share our educational abundance.
12. Moderator Patti Muldoon seemed to be having a good ol’ time in chair during her preliminary remarks.
Re #7 — Trustee vs Delegate representation is a political science concept on how elected representatives should vote on issues. The Delegate model means that they vote based on the exact majority opinion of their constituency as ascertained to the best of their ability, through polls or letters/phone calls etc. The Trustee model is that we have a representative democracy not a direct democracy and thus there must be some distinction between the two and that the people therefore elect the person they believe they can best rely on to exercise leadership and take in new information on issues as they arise and balance conflicting interests within the district. It also assumes that a) it is basically impossible to know the exact views of the district on every single issue and that trusteeship is preferable to 50 letter writers deciding a rep’s vote while the vast majority of people aren’t engaged, and b) that the general public does not actually have clear and specific opinions on every single issue and that their opinions might shift depending on political leaders making the case for or against certain things (especially true in the realm of foreign policy where the general public doesn’t follow the details of every country in the world).
Basically two different models or philosophies on governance and representation in legislative bodies, and a core point of nonpartisan contention in American politics (as well as other countries) since the founding.
I remember during the Delaware marriage equality campaign there were key districts where we had to go out knocking on doors and physically hand people a cell phone dialing their state legislator to leave a voicemail because we knew that legislator would decide their vote literally by counting up pro calls/letters/emails against the stack from the opposition because that was their view on how to be a Delegate style representative.
Thanks, Sean, for the summary.
As I was watching, I was trying to figure out a way for those with limited time–or whose viewing is interrupted–to be able to advance through the video to sections that might be of particular interest. I wonder if the LWV has ever thought of providing an accompanying online “table of contents” document, a written index of questions with starting times.
Items #1 (traffic) and #2 (commercial vs. residential) are intricately linked:
85 percent of Newton residents commute outside of Newton for work while 89 percent of employees at Newton businesses commute from outside of Newton.
No wonder we have so much traffic!
Now imagine how building diverse housing near Newton’s jobs might change that equation.
Great content, Sean, but I’m most intrigued by your statement “until we take the golf courses…” Are you suggesting the city should take Woodland and/or Brae Burn by eminent domain? Shut down and develop Newton Commonwealth? I’d love to get a sense of your thought process on this one.
Yes, George, I think that the city should take the private golf courses along the Green Line. Terrible open space. No biodiversity. Water intensive use. Chemically intensive, too. Closed to the public. Tax-favored. Not good citizens (see the fence along Washington St. which is in violation of the city fence ordinance).
Great opportunity for some medical office space and other commercial. A mix of high-density housing (nearer to the T) and lower-density housing. Connections between Grove St. and Washington St. A public school or two. Some public parks. Maybe a community amenity like a senior center. &c.
@Paul Levy, I posted this “table of contents” on the previous Ward 6 debate post. Hope this helps:
* I put a star next to the segments where I noticed the most differences between the candidates, in case you want to skip to those. The first three segments are mostly covered more in depth in later questions, so if you skip those parts, that lops off 10 minutes. And the closing statements are pretty skippable (vote for me!)
03:20 Opening statements
07:00 Top Priorities
09:00 How will you address your top priorities
10:30 How to improve city council *
13:30 Transparency *
16:30 City council raises *
19:00 How to handle conflict of city-wide and ward concerns
21:00 Income Inequality and Equality in general *
28:36 Environmental Sustainability *
31:20 Traffic Congestion & public transportation *
35:16 Closing remarks
@Sean, I disagree that candidate Lisa Gordon does not have a credible plan for more affordable housing —it is just not the one that you prefer. Her emphasis on prioritizing commercial development over residential development would provide an enormous amount of tax dollars that could be used, if the city chooses, to increase the amount of affordable housing or vouchers. This approach would not dramatically increase other market-rate rental housing and burden the schools, which some voters see as a plus, while others do not. It would re-balance our tax base away from our primary reliance on residential housing which even you have suggested is not ideal.
Sarah,
In response to your suggestion that Lisa has a credible affordable housing plan, you connect the dots in a way that Lisa very much does not. She explicitly says that she does not have a plan beyond being opposed to more density. She says that the issue is complex and that she’ll have to grapple with it. Her words, not mine. As far as using commercial tax revenue for affordable housing, she had a perfect opportunity to make that connection. She did not.
She did not, in the forum, articulate a plan to use additional commercial tax revenue for affordable housing.
More importantly, wishing for commercial development isn’t going to make it so. Developers clearly think that the money in Newton is in residential housing or a mix. The developer at Northland has a by-right ability to build non-residential and has asked for a zoning change to build residential. Attaching unrealistic conditions to affordable housing is not support for affordable housing.
“DENSITY IS THE PROBLEM” !!!!!
It screws up the schools, it adds to the traffic problem , it denigrates the tree canopy /landscape, it contributes to the paving over of the landscape and heats up the the city, it adds air pollution with added cars and heating systems, it raises the cost of trash removal , snow removal, fire and police services etc etc etc!
It’s all very simple. Density is anathema to the quality of life in a declining “Garden City “!
Lisa Gordon gets my vote .
@Blueprintbill – That’s a bit simplistic. If you think “too much density is the problem”, fine, but the whole personality of Newton relies on density to some degree.
I think historically the whole essence of Newton is that its a bedroom community with pockets of density distributed all around the city – i.e. the village centers.
Jerry,
Yours is a really great comment (about being primarily a bedroom community). I agree wholeheartedly, except I would add that it’s a bedroom community with a significant higher education presence. Any desire to transform us into a significantly better commercial/residential mix is hunting for unicorns. (Sorry, Greg.)
Thinking of Newton as a bedroom community sharpens the discussion. The issue for me is what kind of homes are the bedrooms going to be in. For a variety of reasons, the bedroom community primarily made up of single-family homes is not sustainable. I’ve been writing this for years. The economic, social, and environmental issues are such that the city is going to lose control of our ability to maintain single-family zoning. Economically, land is too valuable and developers are going to press to build multi-family. Come by my ‘hood. And, the economic, social, and environmental justice issues are going to cause the state and federal government to take away our ability to zone. We have 40B. Bet that gets expanded as the housing crisis expands. And, see today’s news: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has filed legislation that would withhold federal transportation funds from municipalities that have and enforce single-family-only zoning. Such a bill may not pass soon, but we should pay attention that it’s even being proposed.
The bedrooms for the families that work outside of Newton are going to increasingly be in multi-family buildings. But, we’ll still be a bedroom community. That’s the reality, I submit, we have to get our heads around.
Greg. It is great to see numbers. Where did they come? Do you have the breakdown of where the Newton commuters work and where the employees live? Can you tell stats as numbers of people, not percents?
@Jeffery: It’s from the Newton Economic Development strategy, which was adopted by the City Council in February.
@density is the problem: “it contributes to the paving over of the landscape and heats up the the city, it adds air pollution with added cars and heating systems” – please provide support for this statement.
Sprawl paves a lot more land than dense development, it also increases driving and the need for cars – causing more air pollution.
“Because low-density sprawl gobbles up so much land through large-lot zoning, it ends up destroying the very thing most people moved there for in the first place—the natural areas and farmland. It forces people to drive longer distances, increasing regional air quality problems.” from “High Density Development: Myths and Facts” by the Sierra Club, American Institute of Architects & the Urban Land Institute https://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/HigherDensity_MythFact.ashx_.pdf
If we truly want lots of “affordable” housing, then the current plans in Newton for high-density housing projects hardly fit the bill. Everyone gasped when the rental rates for Austin Street came out even though rents there are, theoretically, more affordable than the usual 40b. Yet that project’s rents for “affordable” units still lie outside the range of families of low or moderate income, especially if they want at least two bedrooms, as any family with kids would.
If a family should pay no more than a third of their net income for rent or mortgage, then private developers are not providing units for the kinds of families- socioeconomically, racially, and ethnically diverse- that I thought we were striving to include in our Newton community.
As currently formulated, building high-density housing might (I stress “might”) make our community more inclusive, in the long run, in only one way: lots more units in many communities might eventually drive down rental prices across the board, especially if we reach conditions of rental glut. I don’t view that eventuality as likely. I know that business leaders like Greg Reibman are more hopeful.
In the meantime, let’s stop pretending that with the completion of Riverside, Northland, and the extensive Washington Street developments, Newton will suddenly provide housing for those employed in local businesses and government as well as a more diverse community. Believe me, I wish it were so.
@Bob: Here’s an anecdote I heard the other day. A fellow who owns several rental properties in Upper Falls is dead set opposed to the Northland project, but not because of traffic, building heights, or any of the other concerns we hear frequently. He’s concerned that once Northland starts renting he won’t be able to charge as much for his apartments.
Supply and demand is not a new concept. It’s been driving economies for as long as we’ve had economies.
What BPB said. And no, it is not simplistic. It’s simply laying it out in a way that is succinct and to the point. Another thread is talking about a dangerous intersection. It will only get worse with the addition of high density housing. Connect the dots.
Does anyone have comments on the debate itself?
I’ll bite. I believe Lisa is missing the connection between housing and commercial revenue growth. Our current businesses are struggling to hire and new employers will not locate here if they don’t feel confident that they can attract workers. Our housing shortage is a key driver to our hiring crisis. Building more housing will drive commercial growth. It’s not an either/or proposition.
@Greg Supply and Demand sound great, but are too simplistic mathematically.
Linear Programming more accurately models what the popular press calls “Supply and demand”. (nothing to do with computer programming, btw).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_programming
The equilibrium price will come from the costs per unit vs the income of the buyers. And even this is too simple.
The cost for housing will not decrease to “affordable” even with the amount proposed being built. If supply and demand alone were doing it, there would be a point where the cost (price) would be 0.00. But that will never happen.
@Greg: “I’ll bite. I believe Lisa is missing the connection between housing and commercial revenue growth. Our current businesses are struggling to hire and new employers will not locate here if they don’t feel confident that they can attract workers. Our housing shortage is a key driver to our hiring crisis. Building more housing will drive commercial growth. It’s not an either/or proposition.”
And yet, PTC moved out of Needham despite the fact that Needham was providing the housing that you say, businesses like PTC wants….
If Newton continues to convert all of our potential commercial properties into housing, we will not have land for the “businesses” to locate.
We should build housing with a commitment from our city leaders to fund our schools and infrastructure (including our parks and fields). We currently don’t have that.
What Richard said. What Amy said. MY takeaway: if you haven’t drunk the punch, you don’t get to be part of the ‘un-crowd’.
@Sean, Again, what is causing the housing “crisis”? Is it the ( over ) development and encouragement of businesses to move into Boston, so that Boston can reap the tax revenue and the suburbs can be “forced” to build all this housing? No one is talking about root causes.
And, again, is a Boston, a place that will be flooded worse and worse each year, the best place to locate these businesses?
Rick,
You’ll get no argument from me that Newton hasn’t caused the housing crisis. Much as we’d like it to be otherwise, Newton’s major contribution to the employment boom is services (including city services) and retail for its own residents.
But, the reality is that Boston is growing. And, while we haven’t caused the housing demand, we’re certainly benefiting from it. You and I belong to an unofficial cartel that uses zoning to restrict housing supply. So, we profit from Boston’s growth.
Also, it’s not like any of us chose to live in Newton and then Boston sprang up. We chose to live in Newton for its proximity to Boston … or at least we chose to live in Newton aware of how central Boston was to the fortunes of Newton. In fact, our zoning is a way of intentionally tying us to the region. See Jerry’s comment about being a bedroom community.
For those interested in the linear programming model, a slightly more sophisticated model than merely “supply and demand”, with this model one starts with desired profits. That is, a manufacturer adjusts how many units of an item to manufacturer, and the cost to manufacturer, and plots that with the units expected to be sold. Where the plots intersect is the break even point.
It’s my understanding that for example in the case of Austin Street, councilor Norton was not in favor because she wanted a not for profit developer to develop the property. And in that case, the break even point is all that’s needed. But, with a profit model, there’s a point at which making units at a certain price breaks even or loses money. The simple linear programming model can help make that prediction more sound.
Here’s a link to a little less pure mathematical use, in economics.
http://www.economicsdiscussion.net/linear-programming/linear-programming-explained-with-diagrams/5844