It’s taken me awhile to make this audio user-friendly by adding tracks, so I’ll keep the post short.
There was a woman who is really excited by the project. Just one little issue — 80 units is ‘crazy.’ How about 20?
Some aldermen attended. I saw and talked to Emily Norton, Brian Yates and Greg Schwartz, and was told Ruthann Fuller was there, and maybe a fifth but I don’t remember. So correct me if I’ve left anyone out. Oh, and the mayor was there, the whole time. Don’t want to forget the mayor like Matt Hills. 😉
Thanks so much Julia, I listened carefully to all the comments. The speakers pointed out the many deficiencies of the parking study. I cab bot believe that the city could base their decisions about this development based on the fact that the lot is under utilized. This whole argument is very flawed.
Marcia Johnson is the one I forgot; I apologize! She was there for at least part of the meeting also, I was told.
So is Newtonville thriving or is it not? It seems to be thriving on this page of the city website. Did someone not get the memo? Or is “thriving” significantly less desirable than “vital?”
I was there and thought about speaking, but the crowd was so opposed to the project that I felt my comments would do little more than anger people.
I’ll write more on this later, but studies have proven the benefit that density has on business, especially retail. It also spurs innovation, which is a huge focus of just about everyone on Beacon Hill (and the N2 Corridor). This project fits perfectly into that vision.
Parking (especially free parking) is not always the answer. Yes, a city needs some, but people don’t come to a place because of the parking. They come because of what they find there. Need examples? Just look at the long-term failure of shopping malls. Plenty of parking there, not enough density and foot-traffic.
In listening to the people speak I came away thinking that they just didn’t care to understand what the report said. It wasn’t an opinion, it wasn’t saying that we should use Shaws, it wasn’t designed to talk about the people parking in front of houses, it was there to show how parking is currently used in Newtonville. What we do with that information as this project moves forward (and it should move forward) is up to us.
I did hear a lot of people talking about the “village” nature of Newtonville, about how they could toddle across the street as a kid and go to the local bank. It’s a great memory and a great vision for the future. Parking isn’t going to get us there, density will. People LIVING in the village will get us there. making it pedestrian and bike friendly will get us there.
Vast, empty, windswept lots will not.
I think this could be a political moment for Mayor Warren. He appeared uncomfortable at the meeting. Does he want to continue to market a proposal that many residents don’t want? Usually he is shielded from actually hearing from residents directly, but last night he was in the room with residents and business owners who were actively questioning the value of the development plans, and he was surprisingly quiet for someone in the primary leadership role in the city.
But the lot IS under utilized. The parking study is correct based on what I see when I walk past it almost every day. As Chuch Tanowitz said, it was a factual study and, although good memories and stories are great, it needs to be treated as such. It has to do with the future, not the past and Newtonville can keep its village appeal with a new development on Austin Street if we actually start talking about it. I understand why the Mayor was quiet. What could he add to the discussion when it was not about how to move forward, after hearing the facts from the parking study, it was centered on denying facts in evidence and complaints in general? The Austin Street parking lot is an eyesore with its cracks with grass peeping through, holes, bumps and emptiness. It seems to me, and I live close to the center of Newtonville so I feel OK expressing my opinion, that we are at the point of deciding what we want to accomplish, how to best meet that goal, and what we want it to look like. If we can start to talk about that, I think the mayor will join in the discussion and so will the rest of us.
Chuck, sorry.
Sadly, I had to miss the meeting. I would have gladly spoken up to support the project. Did the usual Yoga contingent complain?
I believe that there may be a 30% surplus of parking spaces at the municipal lot. However, this does not justify removing !00% of the existing lot and replacing it with a 4-5 storey building in the heart of a residential area.
The truth is we need lots of easy parking to draw people to the area. Take away most of what already exists and you diminish the value of the area. What people most want is an improvement to the village not the opposite.
Colleen, no one has proposed removing 100% of the parking and actually, the lot is closer to commercial property and certainly not in the heart of a residential area. I live very close to the lot and walk past it almost every day. I would much rather see a well thought out, mixed use, purposeful developed area than the under utilized eyesore there today. People will be drawn to Newtonville by offering them what they want not by parking. It’s time to move on to planning what we want to see there instead of remaining stuck between the cracks in the ground. Wouldn’t you rather take part in deciding what will be built instead of letting it pass you by?
Marti, are you endorsing that the mayor should stay quiet until calmer heads prevail? Is that your definition of leadership? He seems to have that strategy of staying quiet regarding tough issues well developed.
I grew up in N’ville and still live in another village of Newton. I still frequent multiple stores in N’ville. I would be in favor of a limited development. I think many people are against the 4 and 5 story options, which could significantly change the profile of the village.
I can empathize with why people are opposed to this project. I understand why some people want Newtonville to stay just as it is. I can even understand why they might be upset with the mayor, or even perhaps the two aldermen from Ward Two, who are in favor of developing the site. At the end of the day, they’re the deciders.
But I do not understand why some folks feel that gives them a license to be rude — make that obnoxious — to our city employees. Or as was the case last night, to an outside traffic consultant, who was simply presenting basic information he was hired to present.
Last night, I was embarrassed for our city. The poor traffic engineer (sorry I didn’t catch his name and I won’t torture myself by going back and listening to the tape) did not deserve to be spoken to the way some attendees spoke to him. Nor do our city employees. No person in any job should have to take that abuse.
This isn’t the first time this has happened. It won’t be the last. The blatant pot shots at city workers happens here too. But really, would you tolerate your son/daughter/sister/brother/parent/spouse being spoken to that way?
Also, how strange to criticize the mayor for being there and listening? Would you rather he had stayed home?
If he looked uncomfortable perhaps it was because it really was uncomfortable.
I’m really sorry I missed the meeting. The parking issue has really gotten me angry lately, especially the business owners who needed parking variances to open, and now are complaining about CITY owned parking. If you want to control parking for your commercial venture, move your business into a shopping mall. I completely respect the various business owners right to comment on and try and direct the debate. But I also feel like several owners have gone way beyond that, and now feel like they are entitled to the city parking by virtue of their very presence.
To the heavy users of the parking, would you have gotten a certificate of occupancy from the city if you had been honest and told them you needed a large number of spaces a day? I’d think there might have been mitigation required over a certain amount, no? I’m curious what Ted and others think.
Julie, I didn’t realize you posted the audio link. Awesome! I’m listening now.
How many people showed up?
Patrick. I am not easily baited. Leadership is handled in many ways, as I’m sure you are aware. I will not get into a contest to try to prove who’s definition is the best as I suspect there would be no winners. Yes, calmer heads need to prevail before anything can be accomplished. The rude, critical, condescending, boarish behavior displayed at the meeting only stalls any kind of progress. If the mayor had taken part, instead of remaining professional while listening, it would have only added fuel to the already quite stoked fire and you would still have criticized him, because that is evidently what you do.
Marti, I am not baiting you. I am questioning you, as I am the mayor, as to the appropriate leadership style to be used in a public forum that appeared to have run amok based on yours and Greg’s assessments.
I was not at the meeting so I will rely on the above comments by Greg, whom I respect. He said that city workers were treated rudely – make that obnoxiously – by Newton citizens (I presume; correct me if I am wrong). The mayor by his organizational position was the lead person in attendance at a public meeting about city business. His employees were being mistreated (again based on Greg’s observation). For the mayor not to interject himself into the conversation to protect his staff is unacceptable to me. If he does not know how to calm an angry crowd, he needs to take a course in conflict management.
Greg asks the rhetorical question about the willingness to tolerate family members being mistreated. I would say the mayor has a managerial responsibility to speak up when his employees are being mistreated in public. Silence allowed the berating of his employees to continue. I doubt his employees appreciated his silence.
Patrick, I appreciate how you might reach that conclusion. But I don’t believe he should have interjected. This was a public comment period and there had been considerable criticism that people weren’t allowed to speak at the prior meeting.
While I criticized some attendees for acting badly I failed to praise the team for acting with entirely professionally.
Greg, if the unions don’t like the way the taxpaying residents of this city talk to them, they can always find another job. We pay them. They work for us. Sometimes, people in this city forget that relationship. When city employees are working to damage our neighborhoods in order to put up a gaudy, 40B-style, high-density housing project that privatizes profits for Scott Oran and Bob & Geoff Engler while socializing increased school enrollment costs to taxpayers, what precisely would you like them to say?
Bill Heck had a conversation with an Alderman who freaked when he referred to the city employees as “employees” This alderman said “You cannot call them employees!” Bill said to the alderman, “Then what would you call them — people who do work and that you pay a salary or a wage and who don’t have an ownership stake in the enterprise?” The alderman then turned and walked away.
Josh, I do not agree with your position. Disagreement does not mean the suspension of civility. The attendees have the innate responsibility to treat the city workers / employees with respect. That does not mean a person must eliminate passion when expressing their position,. It does mean they should focus their comments on the issue and not mistreat the individuals.
Greg, I still say that, if the attendees were behaving as poorly as you and Marti describe, the mayor stood have interjected himself into the conversation to remind people of the basic guidelines for a meeting where their input should be constructive and leading towards a reasonable next step. Having been both an employee presenter and a manager in various difficult meetings, a stern yet calming comment from the mayor would have helped both the meeting’s outcome and I suspect positive feelings for the mayor by his employees.
Patrick, but do you agree with Bill Heck’s position?
Perhaps I have a higher tolerance for heated discussion but I did not find the speakers at Monday’s meeting to be rude or obnoxious. Many of them were angry but that is not the same thing.
Many speakers at the Rowe St 40B meeting and the 2 medical marijuana dispensary meetings were similarly vehement in the manner in which they communicated their feelings about those projects.
On the bright side the audio is posted so people can listen and decide for themselves.
Josh, are you are referring to Bill Heck calling city workers “employees”? If that is your question, I think they are employees of the City of Newton. There is nothing wrong with that title.
I am not big on the concept that they work for us. I see myself more as their customer / client. I may have limited options as to where I can go for various services; however I do not believe I can order city employees around. I am not their manager; I do not control their pay card.
If you want me to make an inflammatory comment, then I do not like the terms “public service” and “public servant” unless one is talking about volunteers for the city. Public sector people being paid properly for their work are not performing a service any more than private sector people are performing a private service. There is nothing dishonorable about being an employee.
I think Greg will decide we are off on a tangent.
I guess boarish (or boorish) is in the eye of the beholder. I saw it as a robust discussion, with some people feeling very strongly that their concerns are not being listened to. Others did not understand why the parking study was done the way it was, notably not including the non-residential parking on streets like Washington Park as part of demand and supply of spaces, since they are apparently heavily used. Others raised issues that Nancy Hyde seemed to think were valid to consider. It never occurred to me that Setti Warren needed to jump in to protect the presenters. Patrick, as Emily said, you don’t need to take anyone’s word for it, you can listen for yourself. And one of the NewTV people who were videoing told me they’d be putting the whole thing on their website. Not sure when.
Last night I watch the meeting on NewTv which started at 7pm. What fun. All the speakers were eloquent. Each made specific and relevant points. All were well worth listening to. Nancy Hide responded to many people and she was very courteous. Both groups seemed civil to each other.
Patrick, I spoke to Bill Heck about the whole employee issue and whether they work for us and we see eye-to-eye on this matter.
He also said that until we start treating people in government as employees, we can expect more of the same. They do not intend to stop taxing and spending much too much because no one has told them otherwise.
It should be noted that while Mayor Warren didn’t jump in to the discussion, he did have private conversations with several attendees as they were leaving. I don’t believe he needed to jump into the discussion.
The crowd itself was certainly biased against the project, but I’m not convinced that constitutes a majority opinion of the city. Public comment periods like this tend to attract only the most outspoken fringes of an argument, often those opposed. It makes great theater and can occasionally bring up good points, but it’s difficult to form an opinion from listening to just one side of an argument.
If you sat in that meeting, as I did, that’s all you heard. Sometimes, under the anger, there was a decent argument. But it took some doing to find it.
Ok, so I’ve now listened to the entire discussion. I think it wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be based on the prior meetings. Emily and others, I think in general most of the opponents and proponents of the project have been civil. There have been some unfortunate exceptions. The first meeting there were several very rude participants. And on this blog there have been several posters who have routinely hinted at (or just outright said) disparaging remarks regarding the code of conduct of our elected officials (all without any shred of proof).
I really wish I could have attended on Monday. But I will admit that the last meeting didn’t exactly inspire me to come to the meeting, especially as a supporter. Since I already like the direction the city is going in by and large, I’m not that motivated to come to a meeting regarding the parking. It just isn’t as important to me as it is to some others. I did find some of the points to be good ones, but like Chuck, found it hard to separate the wheat from the chaff…
Count me as a silent supporter in this case. I am mostly done attending these types of meetings since they are not productive and turn into whine fests (though seemingly this was not as bad as some I have attended). The parking study seemed well designed and meets typical study standards. I see nothing wrong with it after careful review. Did they miss including Washington Park, perhaps. The city should have done a better job designating the areas of study so it could be more complete. That said if folks are parking at that location now, they would likely continue to do so. Austin street has 0 impact on if folks are parking there or not. Does it need to be marked resident only or tiger parking, I don’t know. That is a discussion to have. Are folks using the Shaws lot? yes, and the study covered that. Perhaps a recommendation should be given to Shaws to put meters at that end of the lot as it does not seem to be needed by Shaws shoppers.
Austin is surplus, yes there are some data points that come close to filling the lot, but we need to stop planning for black Friday type shopping events and plan for the average every day usage. Otherwise we waste 30-50% of the land every day to make sure we have “enough” one day out of the year. Concerned about parking? stop driving to Newtonville. Do we need more service on the 59 bus? Yes but the parking peaks happen while the bus is running. Do we need better bike connections? Yes, bike lanes are being extended from City Hall to Newton North right now, there are ample side streets that can be used to access the village without traveling on Walnut as well. You can easily get to Newtonville using something other than a personal vehicle (and you can carry things on these other modes too, people in Boston do it just fine every single day).
Is 5 stores too much, yes I think it is. The city has zoned this a bit much. Will 5 stories 100% residential box get built? No it will not. It will be fine because people are engaged. I predict maybe a 4 story building stepped back with maybe 3 stories along Austin street. This is good density that the village needs to maintain the vibrancy that is has now.
I missed the meeting the other night and will not have a chance to fully listen to the audio, etc. but I do not support the proposed project as someone living in the zone. It doesn’t mean I want a traditional parking lot in that space, but I do want to see a thorough vetting of a project rather than the usual done-deal after thoughts that ends to happen.
Here’s the thing, I questioned a variable on the traffic study at the last meeting and was told that wasn’t the time to ask questions (there was a huge spike in the data with no explanation). I also had a question about the validity of a traffic study that doesn’t factor in things like NNHS overflow parking, weather variables, etc. so I look forward to having a breather next week where I should be able to listen to what I missed.
Bottom line on traffic is this, as a resident I find it incredibly frustrating when it takes me 15 minutes to get from just over the Lowell Ave bit of Austin Street across Newtonville to Cabot Elementary during school start/release times. It’s just ridiculous. I am frustrated at those who believe Newtonville to be “transit-centric” when part of the reason I make that ridiculously short drive is because I can not easily use public transportation to get to classes in the Fenway area of Boston due to the T running during traditional commuter hours and after 7:30/8 pm, you’re on your own. That undermines the argument that the development would attract 20-somethings wanting to move there to get their lives started. (My 20-somethings are looking at places in Somerville, Quincy, Allston and other real transit-centered communities, not Newton.)
I think there are several opportunities here for that parcel that the city can develop rather than a short term sell off. My first thought was to build a multi-story parking deck similar to what they have throughout Waltham with solar panels on top to generate power for municipal buildings the way many other communities are starting to do. I believe it is critical there be a discussion about overall development of Newtonville given the Court Street project, the proposed dispensary and the impact all this will have on the schools, roads and community as a whole not just the “Austin St. project” separate from the “Court St. project” separate from whatever else is in the pipeline or not being discussed until it’s at a point of no-return for everyone involved.
I think we need to include plans for alternate transportation, such as bicycles, in the process. Not just bike lanes (which we desperately need) but safe parking facilities for bike parking. Boston, Cambridge and Somerville are putting in multi-level and covered parking facilities outside of T stops as well as claiming 2-3 parking spaces for multi-bike parking corrals.
FTR: One thing I do know, disparaging references to patrons of a successful business (the “yoga contingent” cracks I hear more and more frequently) is frustrating and rude. The truth is it is a very successful, and beautiful, studio that brings people in for classes and then those folks buy coffee, tea, etc at Geroge Howell’s or Starbucks. They run into CVS to pick up a couple of things because they’re, “right there,” and maybe stick their head into one of the local boutiques in an effort to support local businesses. We know that 70% of each dollar spent on a local business stays in the community vs around 40% of the same dollar spent in a big box/large chain business, so I would rather see Newtonville filled with local businesses rather than chains and banks. It’s not an us vs them thing, this is about the whole community working together to find the best solution that provides long-term benefit to the city as a whole and not just a throw it up and complain later because it wasn’t thought through situation.
I listened to the audio and would like to admit it didn’t sound as bad as I remembered. I think I was overwhelmed by the whole thing since this was the first meeting I had attended about Austin Street and I wasn’t prepared for such anger, expressed inappropriately in my opinion. I had been keeping up by reading the summaries and discussions here. I live close and walk around Newtonville almost everyday either just to walk, to go to the library, to eat or get takeout, or run errands at Shaws, CVS, Bread and Chicolate, Great Harvest, etc. so I’m very interested in what will be built on Austin Street. I wanted to start attending meetings at this point because I thought we would hear the conclusions of the parking study and move on to discussion of the next step. I didn’t expect more anger about leaving it a parking lot; the developers have already been selected so I was ready to move forward. I’m sorry I overreacted.
Karla, I don’t believe there is a “proposed project” at this point. (Someone correct me if I’m wrong please.) My understanding is that only the developers have been selected. I had been hoping for a discussion on the next phase at the meeting.
I cross the intersection at Austin and Lowell often and sympathize with it’s difficulty. Sometimes I feel like I’m risking everything to make it across. As to getting to Fenway, have you tried the commuter rail? I don’t know if it runs late enough for you to get home from classes. It has been testing later hours on weekends, but that probably doesn’t help. I have friends who are trying to use the train during those times in hopes it continues.
Your point about the yoga studio patrons is a good one.
I would like the city to develop a comprehensive plan for all types of development in the future.
Karla, as someone who is often been critical of the yoga studio in particular, I don’t think making critical comments regarding the yoga studio’s role in this process is disparaging. As a business I have no issue with the yoga studio, I know it is very popular including with many of my friends. I’m glad it opened since it seems to be successful. But the owner of the yoga studio has been VERY vocal regarding the Austin Street project. She was also, in my view, rude to public officials at the first meeting, including shouting over the speaker. I realize she is probably very frustrated. But once a business owner involves themselves in the process to such a vocal degree, I think it is only fair to examine their motives and their use of the resource (in this case, parking).
In my view, the yoga studio wants it both ways. They opened in a basement space for what I presume was fairly low rent. They use the city’s parking to a much larger degree than most (15-20% from reading the parking study). They clearly want to preserve that easy parking for the users. But I’d bet they asked for a parking variance when they opened, and they are relying on a CITY resource. It is Newton’s parking lot. The city can decide to move it, restrict it, build on it, etc. This isn’t being unfair to the business, the Austin Street discussion was going on before they opened. They make more money from keeping it a parking lot, and clearly it is a huge benefit to them. I’d also guess their rent would be higher if they moved to a larger shopping mall area with dedicated parking. So in my view, they want the benefit of the parking without paying for it via rent. That isn’t just them, all of the businesses do, although to a lesser degree since ground floor spaces have higher rents. And that on its face is fine. But as a heavy user and a very vocal member of the opposition group, I don’t believe we should be giving them a free pass in any discussion (especially when they are rude, which I’m hoping won’t occur again).
Btw, for the person who questioned why parking went up one of the days they tested, the Yoga studio owner at the first meeting shouted very loudly that it was due to a “master class” being held on that day. Which was actually not a fact in her favor, since a one time event shouldn’t be how we determine our parking policy.
Just my 2 cents. And I still think a well designed project, even a big one, can be a real boon for the village.
One final thing, regarding the Austin Street/Lowell discussion, why don’t you cut over to Washington Street. is it bad in both directions? I live on the opposite side and don’t see the traffic you are talking about with Cabot school.
I can understand when a business such as a dry cleaner or shoe store worries that less adjacent parking would pose a challenge to their ability to make ends meet. But I’m pretty darn skeptical when I hear that a yoga studio would be forced out of business if some students had to park, say, on the other side of Washington Street on the day there was a big master class. I live with a yoga fanatic. These people are not discouraged easily. Really nothing will keep them away.
Yes I know there are people who circle around their health clubs so they can park really close before hopping onto the treadmill for an hour. But are we supposed let those people drive public policy?
Karla, I’m sorry I’m wrong about the commuter rail, as you probably know; it’s the T that I thought ran until late.
@Greg, “But are we supposed let those people drive public policy?”
I don’t think we should let the desires of people like Scott Oran and Bob & Geoff Engler to privatize profits for their developments while socializing costs to taxpayers through higher school enrollments drive public policy either. When it comes to land use, we need to make sure that the interests of the taxpayers are represented, not just politically connected, crony corporatist developers. When Obama talks about millionaires and billionaires not paying their fair share in taxes, what do Scott Oran and the Englers have to say about that?
Unfortunately, it seems like Scott Oran and the Englers are a lot more politically-wired than the people who circle around their health clubs.
Well Josh you lost me when you brought Obama into the conversation but I don’t think we should let the president decide on the Austin Street lot either.
Greg, I referred to Obama because he has called for “millionaires and billionaires” to pay more taxes. Considering that Oran and the Englers are left-wing Democrat donors who are millionaire real estate developers who make millions of dollars from their real estate projects that stick the taxpayers with the bill for higher school enrollment costs, I was wondering if Obama was talking about them when he spoke out against millionaires and billionaires not paying their fair share in taxes.
I was also wondering what Oran and the Englers make of Obama’s rhetoric against millionaires and billionaires since Obama is a Democrat politician, they are Democrat donors and Obama, Oran and the Englers are all millionaires.
As for Obama deciding Austin Street, I said no such thing. Don’t put words in my mouth.
@Josh: I’m entirely in favor of people making money AND paying taxes. If Oran and the Englers are, as you say, good Democrats, then I imagine they don’t have a problem with that either.
Joshua, I think he meant it tongue and cheek. Your Obama reference was a bit random. Although I get your point.
I think every business worries about adjacent parking. But I’m also well aware from personal experience the pluses and minuses of basement space, the evaluation of public metered spaces vs. public non-metered spaces, and the evaluation that goes into commercial permitting in heavily trafficked areas. Again, I’m fine with the yoga studio advocating to keep the parking. I’d just appreciate a bit less rudeness and a bit more acknowledgment of how much of the resource they are using.
Can we have a new posting about what we want Newtonville to look like with the Walnut Street redo? I’ve heard that they are considering putting in ugly streetlamps again, which would be a bad decision. I’d really love the spruce up things a bit, and if it doesn’t happen now it won’t happen for 10 years.
My only problem with crony corporatist one-percenter Democrats like Oran and the Englers is that whatever taxes they pay are more than offset by the soaring costs to educate an increased student body population that is the result of their 40B housing projects.
In short, their activities represent a net present and future cost to taxpayers and is a clear example of them using their political connections and a state law that is for all intents and purposes an unfunded mandate to cities and towns to privatize profits for themselves and socialize costs to taxpayers.
Ha. Ha. Ha. I get it Josh. You don’t actually believe the stuff you write here. No one could believe the stuff you write. This is just a prank and some day you’ll admit that all your silly litmus test stuff and creepy Bill Hect hero worship was just a big goof. Ha ha. You had me going there for a while. Good one, dude!
Greg, for a minute there, I thought you were just pretending to be a smarmy, snarky, snotty, sanctimonious, self-righteous, condescending, conceited, arrogant, left-wing ignoramus. Unfortunately, it appears that you aren’t pretending at all.
I don’t hero worship Bill Hect, or Bill Heck for that matter either. However, Newton would have been a lot better off he was elected mayor instead of your hero Setti Warren. I like Bill Heck because he treats people with kindness, decency and respect. You could learn a lot from him.
Why do you and Gail engage in hero-worship of Setti Warren? I thought it was bad when you and Gail endorsed David Cohen’s override in 2008 when you were running the TAB into the ground, but why have you fostered a personality cult for Setti Warren?
It’s inaccurate to claim that taxpayers get stuck with the bill for “educating an increased student population” arising from 40B developments. In fact, 40B developments almost always result in a net pecuniary gain for cities and towns.
In Needham, the Charles River Landing 40B development, with its 350 units, resulted in an increased enrollment of 17 students.
The entire complex is valued at $70 million. Needham’s FY14 residential tax rate is $11.54.
Given those metrics, prima facie tax revenue per new pupil enrolled works out to $47,000.
Needham’s spending per pupil? $13,742. Newton’s? $16,400.
You might be able to adjust the revenue numbers downward based on affordable-housing units, abatements, etc. but at the end of the day, total tax revenue ends up being between two and three times actual educational expenditure.
Marti, the commuter rail is great (albeit a bit expensive) during normal commuter hours; however, for night classes I have to wait for over an hour on an open platform at Yawkey station. While the new platform that just opened is a bit less scary than it was a year ago, it’s still an hour at night for a woman alone. Fortunately for me, the bartender at Boston Beer Works would let me sit at the bar and watch sports center with him for as long as I needed.
The point being is that Newtonville is not a “transit-centered” community as many have proposed. Hopefully that will change, but until the T responds to that desire, to think that young starters would choose Newtonville is a fallacy. There’s a reason why places like Davis Square in Somerville has taken off and a lot of it had to do with the Red Line extension back in the mid 80’s.
Michael, I do not think applying all the generated tax revenue to the purpose of educating the added students is a viable position to take. There are many other city/town services affected by the added population of any development the size of Charles River Landing.
Also, multiplying the number of new students by the average cost is a somewhat irrelevant number given there are fixed costs embedded in the average cost calculation.