With all precincts reporting, Jessica Barton received the fewest votes, which eliminates her from the Nov. 3 ballot for alderman at-large in Ward 2.
Jake Auchincloss won the most votes with 2,054, Susan Albright came in second with 1,993, Marcia Johnson was third with 1,667, Lynne LeBlanc had 1,295. Jess Barton won 596 votes.
I did a quick tabulation of Ward 2 votes. Someone should check my math but I believe Jake won the ward and Lynne came in second, with Susan close behind.
This campaign has been heavily about Austin Street, and Ward 2 voted at higher levels than the rest of Newton, against the incumbents that support the project.
We shouldn’t be forcing development onto citizens who don’t want it.
Absolutely in agreement with Paul. Both Jake and Lynn won ward 2. As elected officials they should know better than to go against the will of the people. BUT, they still have 6 weeks to straighten it out.
Kudos to all off the candidates. Its difficult to put yourself out there and clearly all 5 put in a lot of hard work that deserves recognition. Regardless of the outcome, we all win as this has clearly increased our collective level of discussion and gotten more people involved than ever.
Jess Barton has worked hard and has gotten to know many residents. I like her spirit and hope she stays involved in Newton. Good luck Jessica.
I thought Jake would come in higher than at least one incumbent but am surprised he came in the highest. Great job Jake.
I think Marcia and Susan will need to do more than depend on their records for either to win this election. I’m wanting to hear some new ideas from them.
This is a stunning victory by Jake over two completely entrenched incumbents. For a first time candidate, this is a public relations gold mine for him as he moves towards the general election in Nov.
Charlie – The only thing stunning about the outcome of this election is the overall turnout: 8%. The second lowest is recent history.
Even in Ward 2 where supposedly everyone was up in arms, the turnout was 15% in 2-1, 14% in 2-2, 12% in 2-3, and 15% in 2-4. With the exception of a few few precincts, the rest of the city voted in single digits.
This was an election that was supposed to be about a hot button issue. One would think that voters would have shown up at the polls in significant numbers if the issue had been a serious concern to them.
@Jane,
I think you need a reality check.
The result of this contest is clear.
At least one of the incumbents is going be voted out, possibly both.
The incumbents views do not represent their constituents. As my father in law likes to say, it’s democracy at its best!
Simon – The reality check is that 8% of the electorate voted in an election that was supposed to be about a very hot button issue: developments in the city. Another way of looking at it is that 92% of the city don’t see it as a burning issue.
If people are so concerned about development, why didn’t they show up at the polls?
Paul/Simon/Charlie:
Got to say I agree with Jane. This was an election with very low turn-out, with an obvious result and a very low theshold to victory (being in the top 4). Here is what I draw from the results.
1) Jess probably should have dropped out. I’m all for democracy, but with the current rules (which are incredibly stupid, what a waste of money to have a run-off to a pair down to 4 candidates) it was pretty clear she was going to be out. I think the vast majority of folks on this blog predicted it. I realize some will say that is harsh, but politics ain’t beanball as they say, and I view that as being honest. I hope she stays involved, I applaud her for running, but I still believe she should have weighed the cost to the city versus the increasingly small chance she’d beat the other 4 candidates and dropped out.
2) It was a shame we put her in that position. Charter commission take notice. Waste of time, waste of money. If that was a show of democracy it was more a grade school play version than a full throated opera of freedom. ;-) Should have been all 5 in the general election.
3) Kudos to Jake. Strong candidate, great resume. My personal view is that it is very tempting to vote for him, but thus far I find him too much like a politician. I like my local politicians to be, well, local. Namely that their ambition is to be an aldercritter, or at most, mayor. Not a congressman or more. I appaud his resume and his participation. But I’ve caught him a few times giving different answers to different audiences, most prominently on Austin Street. I fear if we elect him he will run for another office as soon as he can. Ambition is a good thing in small doses for local politicians in my view.
4) Lynn placed 4th. I’m not quite sure how that makes it a victory for the anti-Austin Street crowd. Jake has told many of us he would be fine with a project on Austin street if it was changed to be smaller, etc. Lynn has been the darling of NVA and she placed last. What does that tell us Simon/Paul/Charlie? You can’t trumpet Jake and not mention Lynn….
5) Here is my prediction. This was a wake-up call for the supporters of the incumbent. To draw a conclusion out of a low turn out election for any candidate would be foolish. This is going to be a very interesting race to watch. But it is typical in these primaries for the truly dedicated to a particular candidate to come out and vote. It will be a much broader group of people in November. Simon, with all due respect, I think you are counting your chickens before they’ve hatched. Feel free to do so, just be willing to come back and eat crow in November. As for me, the two winners will be 2 of either the incumbents or Jake. He’s a strong candidate with a great resume, and he’s young and enthusiastic. The only think I’m willing to predict is that Lynn loses. Always possible that some of Jess’s votes go to her, but I think it is equally likely that her votes stay home or go to another candidate (or already voted for Lynn, can’t vote for the same candidate twice… ;-) )
Charlie, public relations gold mine? Wouldn’t the turn-out need to be a bit higher for that. I polled my neighbors, none of them knew about the election. Definitely a positive for the young man, but I’d recommend him to keep wearing out the shoe leather.
Just my 2 cents and my prediction. We’ll see who is right in November!
Great post, Fig.
That’s it for the night.
I am with Fig and Jane on this one. I think this was very interesting for what it was but very hard to draw conclusions. IMHO there are a bunch of folks against Austin, a bunch of folks for (maybe less maybe more) and a whole lot of folks who don’t believe its a big deal enough to take a bit of time off and vote. I think it will be interesting this fall for the full election, which while still an off year should have a higher turnout. Typically higher turnouts favor incumbents, but off-years also tend to favor challengers… The Charter thing ads a twist into this for sure as well. I think there are some lessons here for all. Never hurts to have an election but I also felt that maybe it could have been handled a bit differently…Turnout was very very light this evening in Ward 2, and we were all suppose to be “up in arms”…
The 92% can not be attributed to feelings about Austin. Look to the 8% and look at the results in Ward 2. Those are the people closest to Austin.
Turnout was extremely low because most voters don’t want to bother to take the time to go to the polls for 1 contest to whittle the field from 5 to 4. The people who contribute to this blog are hyper engaged voters who would go to the polls if the contest was to choose a dog catcher!
Jake did great and Lynn had a solid showing in an election where long-serving incumbents had huge signage and establishment support….but that support was surpassed by Jake.
And the challengers’ best showing was in Ward 2. That’s a very real story.
Actually, I was making a different point, Charlie. The case has been made here and in the campaigns that the number one issue in this race was development and I’m suggesting that it may not be the case in the minds of most voters. In fact, I am looking at Ward 2 and that was the biggest surprise of all. I’d expected a much higher turnout there. 12-15% is very low, given the amount of press that Austin St. has received over the last year.
None of us are in a position to say why people didn’t vote, but we do know that 9 out of 10 registered voters didn’t. It behooves us to reflect on that in the coming days and do our best to find what motivates people to vote and why they stayed home. What issues do voters want the candidates to address?
A lot of people don’t vote because they are uninformed. If they don’t want to vote, let’s not give them ice cream cones to vote.
Congratulations to all of the candidates who ran. To those who made the cut, your reward is six more weeks of hard work until November 3rd! And many thanks to Jess Barton for putting herself out there, and running hard for what she believes in. No one who runs the race to win can be called a loser, in my book.
I make the same prediction here that I’m making for Bernie Sanders. Everyone has their opinion of how it’s all going to turn out, but, in fact, nobody really knows.
What Ted said.
@Fig: i am not sure that the Charter Commission can change the need for a Preliminary. I think State regulation determines when Prelims happen. Anyone know for sure?
I think the fact that we had challengers is amazing. I applaud them as well as the incumbents for speaking to issues and seeking support. The race in November should be more lively and the voters can only be better informed as a whole. Although some called it frivolous, for less than a doller per registered voter, 7000+ people exercised the rights that our democracy allows! I am glad that Jess had the guts to stick it out and hope she joins in again in the future!
The unofficial turnout was actually only 4176 voters, or 8%, and the cost of the preliminary election was about $60,000. So, more like $14.36 per vote cast. Because math.
Given that this year we are also revisiting our Charter … Should a candidate’s place of residence matter (other than being a resident of the city) if, by the evidence of the voters, he/she may not be the representative of choice from the neighborhood?
It seems we’re inconsistent. Either:
Neighborhood Matters Then there should be a process where the neighborhood gets to choose who they’d like to see as their reprsentative. I would suggest that our preliminary elections to do that rather than simply to weed out 1 or two candidates that exceed the “2 for 1” rule of general elections.
OR
Whole City Then where in the city one lives doesn’t matter and one simply runs at-Large. Any resident of the city is eligible for any at-Large seat. Perhaps leaving neighborhood specific issues to the Ward Alderman/Councilor or Area Councils.
Just thinkin’ out loud …
” None of us are in the position to say why people didn’t vote …” Well, most are able to say why people told us they didn’t vote, like Fig did, and we can certainly speculate with some knowledge. What would V14 be without speculation?
As I said on other threads, when asking voters why they skipped the election, the highest number said they were sure that Jess Barton would be the one illiminated whether they voted or not so why bother. So I agree with Fig there. But I don’t agree that she should have dropped out or be held responsible for the money spent to hold the election. She showed she is not a quitter and was still working to get votes up to the last minute. I did hear from some who didn’t know about the election, but they were the ones who aren’t interested in local politics (?) and wouldn’t have voted anyway. I don’t believe a robo call reminder would have changed things much.
As for the meanings that can be drawn from the turnout and results of the election, some things seem clear to me.
1. From the loud, persistent noise made by the avid supporters of Lynne LeBlanc all over the city, in emails, on the blogs, in the papers and on google groups and list servs, I don’t think any of them didn’t know about the election so if their numbers are high, instead of just vocal, they would have flooded the election booths. Maybe Austin Street and density aren’t the “hot button issues” they would have you believe.
2. Jake and his supporters and advisers know the best ways to run a less noisy but extensive campaign and how to influence a diverse group of voters in Newton whose residents run the gamut but include a great number of educated, busy professionals, educators and business owners who respect his education, leadership qualities and background in policy writing. He is a personable guy who seems equally comfortable speaking with most anyone, anytime. I too have heard him say different things to different people and haven’t quite deciphered who the person is under the politician. In addition I know veterans, especially marines, who will support him because he is one of them and they respect him and his military leadership. He has politics in his blood and I think he will go far.
3. I still think Marcia and Susan have a good chance of winning, but I think they may have to work harder to define themselves as individuals with new ideas and somehow separate themselves, because I still think Jake may take one of their seats. I would want to make sure it’s not mine. (And as for my two cents, I would stay away from saying overrides could be used to pay off debt.) There is the possibility that incumbent supporters didn’t vote in the primary because they haven’t given the challengers much thought. Its time to pay attention if that’s the case.
@Fig
LeBlanc had more support that either of the incumbents in Ward 2. Johnson, who has been clearest about her support of Austin St, came in a clear fourth in Ward 2.
There is an unfortunate history in Newton of parts of the city looking out for their own interests over the interests of other parts, so I’m not surprised that overall the incumbents did better across all of Newton. I’m sure Austin St has broader support in parts of Newton that are less close to Newtonville. We all share the 40B development risk together, and if you don’t want to risk 40Bs/high density in your actual neighborhood but it has to be somewhere, people will support it in parts of the city that aren’t near them. NIMBYism at its finest.
We should all be concerned if the general election shows a similar pattern: that Ward 2 has a different voting pattern than Newton at-large. If LeBlanc beats the incumbents in Ward 2 again, that should mean something. Just because she loses overall because NIMBYism once again wins the day, doesn’t mean its right to force something onto people who don’t want it.
@Ted: I wasthinking one person, one vote…but we had up to two apiece. I also had heard that the election cost was $54000. I said the cost per registered voter was less than $1. Using your figure of $60,000, the cost per registered voter was $1.11. Because math!
@Ted and Sallee, I think Sallee is right in using the number of registered voters as opposed to the number voting. The cost burden is shared with those eligible to vote and it would be great if more people participated. If we only had 5000 registered voters we could cut the overall costs with a couple of voting locations etc.
@Sallee, I understand what you said. The Charter requires preliminary elections “for the purpose of nominating candidates” for Mayor, aldermen and school committee. (Up until special legislation was passed this year, such elections were also required to be on a Tuesday.) I get why it makes sense to have a primary in a partisan race, so that each party nominates one candidate. But a number of folks I heard from yesterday questioned the need for preliminary elections to pare down the number of candidates from 5 to 4, in a nonpartisan election. Candidates pour a lot of time and money into these races (as do their contributors). When the turnout is as low as it was yesterday–which is not unusual for preliminary elections that are held on a Tuesday let alone a Thursday–and none of the “winning” candidates received even a majority vote out of all the ballots cast, I think it might be worth at least thinking about amending our Charter.
I might add that in special elections to fill a vacancy, the Charter requires a preliminary election for a Mayoral race, but not for alderman or school committee. In the recent race to fill a vacancy in Ward 3,for example, we had 4 candidates running for 1 seat. Would it really be so awful to do the same thing in regular elections for alderman and school committee?
Discuss.
@Ted: So the State doesn’t mandate the preliminary for races in which there are more than 2 contestants in one aldermanic race? If the City Charter is the determining document,certainly then the Charter commish could debate the value of early discussion on issues and stands vs.the cost. What if seven candidates ran for a ward’s two at-large seats? Where would you like the line drawn? Would you want 7 candidates on the election ballot in Nov., possibly for many or all wards?
We all value contested races and call out voter apathy when we don’t get them. So we shouldn’t be surprised that that costs money. Remember, this race defined what the 4 left standing symbolize more clearly to the voting public in Nov.
Paul: I understand your point, but I think your comment is a bit misplaced. The system is clearly defined. At large candidates are, well, at large. Our system requires them to live in a particular area, but they, in my mind, are looking out for the greater whole. Emily Norton is our local aldercritter, and she is very much on your side on this issue. It is up to Emily to convince others of her opinions. I want the at-large candidates to be looking out for Newton as a whole, not just one village. I want the local aldercritters to take into account local concerns at a higher level, since they need to be directly responsible to that particular village.
I’ll also note that I hope you’ll maintain a consistent position if Lynne doesn’t win Ward 2 in the real election and say that it must be the “will of the people of Ward 2” that Austin Street move forward…. ;-)
I repeat again I think the story here is Jake at #1 AND Lynne at #4. I found that very surprising, and a real boon for Jake, and a real disappointment for the NVA crowd for Lynne. Just my 2 cents. What does it mean? Not much, as stated above. Low turnout preliminary elections are pretty worthless as indicators…
I’ll also note the very ironic use of the word NIMBYism in your post. NIMBYism by the other words to stop your NIMBYism. Does no one else recognize that as kinda funny? Btw, considering that many wards are facing 40B projects, the reasons Lynne placed 4th could also be because folks don’t support strict positions on some of these issues, and want folks like Jake (who has pledged to consider various options). Just sayin’ that there might be more than one reason.
Cheers to all. I’m done posting on this now. I look forward to the campaign and the real election where this actually matters and real conclusions can be drawn.
Btw, has Emily endorsed particular candidates? If not, why not?
@Fig: I’m with you on the backwards use of NIMBYism. I don’t think NIMBY necessarily means “yes, in everybody else’s backyard.”
As for what to read from the preliminary, I think there’s one and only one big takeaway: We’re going to see four people campaigning their butts off during the next six weeks.
@Ted,
I originally felt it was wasteful to hold a preliminary contest. However it seems to me that the incumbents get a home advantage, and by holding a preliminary and whittling it down to 4 gives the challengers a “fairer” opportunity. Given that Jess and Lynn hold similar views, and looking at the numbers from last night, Lynn should be able to convert Jess’ votes, making ward 2 fair game for all.
@Fig,
In humble opinion I think last night was a serious blow to the Engine6 / Pro-development protagonists !
I should imagine some of the incumbents in the other contested wards are scratching their heads too.
@Simon,
I’m sorry but I must have missed something. The Engine 6 supporters and the pro-development advocates are the same people? Supporting affordable housing is the same thing as supporting increased development in the villages? If that’s the case, wouldn’t it be fair to say that the people opposed to development are opposed to affordable housing?
I’ve always dismissed the claims that the issue for Austin Street opponents was affordable housing. Perhaps I was wrong to do so.
@Gail
From this post http://village14.com/newton-ma/2015/09/developers-circle-the-wagons/#axzz3m7K5gE9t
they all appear to have vested interests.
@Simon, I don’t get the correlation. Engine 6 wasn’t a 40B and it wasn’t a proposal from real estate developer looking to make a profit.
Does anyone have a sense of what a vote-by-mail or vote-by-email process would have cost? If the trade-off makes economic sense, certainly a predictably minimal-turnout local preliminary like this one is an obvious candidate for experimentation. We’ll be going to the polls, what, three or four more times in the next fourteen months. Little wonder so many people (myself included on an unexpectedly complicated day) gave themselves a pass this time.
What fig said.
There are already absentee ballots that can be snail mailed.
Email is not private but your vote is so don’t think that’s an alternative.
Simon:
Two quick things. Lynne isn’t going to get much of a vote bump in my view. Remember that folks got to vote for 2 people. Many of Jess’s voters also likely voted for Lynne already. They both shared similar views, and both were against Austin Street strongly. She’ll get some bump, but nowhere near 500 votes, since some of Jess’s voters are likely voting for her due to personal connections, etc.
As for the connection of Engine 6 and pro-development, I think they are united in approving of Austin Street, but Engine 6 has a goal of affordable housing, not development. It just happens that NIMBYism tends to prevent affordable housing in Newton unless projects like Austin Street and 40Bs are approved. Not the same thing. But I understand how you might be tempted to lump them together. The motivation (affordable housing vs. profit) are very different and deserve mention.
Also, regarding the rather silly email invitation link, I thought a number of us had made it clear that that particular invite went out to a large group of people. I guess it really does take a village…
I think it was certainly bad news for one incumbent Simon. Jake is a very strong candidate. But NVA can’t decline to endorse him, then take crow about his victory as a win for NVA/no austin street. Lynne was your horse. She placed 4th out of 5. If Jake was a one issue type guy or supported your position in full I’d agree with you, but it is hard to fault folks to voting for someone with his resume, even if he is young and politically inexperienced. But the other incumbents suddenly looking in the mirror and being afraid of the power of the NVA and the anti-development folks? I just don’t see it. Just the opposite in fact. In a small election as JEffrey Pontiff has mentioned, the most motivated and passionate folks vote. NVA couldn’t even motivate enough folks to get their candidate past either incumbent, when most of the apathetic masses who would support an incumbent stayed home. In a regular election, I predict Lynne places…4th.
Again, the best part about debates like this is that in a few months we’ll know the answer. I look forward to eating my words, or asking you to do the same. ;-)
Greg, for the love of all things newsworthy, please do a predictions thread the week before the elections!
Yes, well, absentee ballots are an adjunct to regular polling-place voting. What I had in mind was an exclusively vote-by-mail election, in which ballots are automatically sent to all eligible voters. I believe the entire state of Oregon has been doing this for some time. I’m not recommending this for all elections, but for a local preliminary with little turnout expected, it might be interesting to try, if the cost doesn’t exceed the expense of operating twenty-four polling places.
To return to voter turnout, 8% is low, but it was a one-race election to whittle a field of 5 down to 4. In the last non-Mayoral municipal election in 2011 when 32 races were on the ballot, turnout was only 19%. And with the hotly contested Mayoral race of 2013 added in, turnout then was a whopping 25%.
Contrast those numbers with 60% turnout for the 2014 Gubernatorial election and 85% for the 2012 Presidential.
Newton is just not the hotbed of local political activism that we like to think of ourselves as living in. There is a ton of local apathy. Or maybe 32 races are just too many.
@Gail: You said: “I’m sorry but I must have missed something. The Engine 6 supporters and the pro-development advocates are the same people? Supporting affordable housing is the same thing as supporting increased development in the villages?”
Kathleen Hobson’s e-mail to her Engine 6 Supporters would substantiate that: ” Friends of Austin Street, the coalition of organizations and individuals who support this long-awaited mixed-use project and of which Engine 6 is a member, has been very busy over the summer, meeting with Aldermen, planning for the fall, creating materials for educating our fellow residents.”
Does the opposite correlate as well? I would argue that the answer is no. Many residents in the St. Philip Neri neighborhood registered their opposition to that 40B proposal in over 200 letters sent to MassHousing objecting to the proposal as written (too tall, too dense, lack of open space, traffic safety concerns, poor drainage, etc.) and all but one were supportive of building subsidized housing. The right formula for acceptance might exist…it just doesn’t seem to have been found yet
I really like Amanda Heller’s suggestion of making some elections absentee. That could actually increase participation — and is worth a shot just to see if it would. From a very practical standpoint, that $60K could be used for a greater good. It could even cover a salary. However, I’m not willing to ever throw out real democratic process for the sake of money. Democracy is priceless, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t be operationally more cost efficient. Procedurally, since we don’t have political party declaration in local elections, another possibility would be to allow as many people on the final ballot as can get the signatures. How often have we had so many candidates? It’s a blessing and the least viable candidate should not feel guilted into pulling out for cost savings because they’re eating up the equivalent of a classroom aide or something.
The problem wasn’t Jess Barton. The problem is a backward voting system that provides the same staffing and support for a ward aldermanic preliminary as it does for a presidential election. Amanda’s suggestion is a great one. My suggestion of allowing more than 4 on general ballot would cost nothing. Between those solutions, what about only having one polling place per ward? Or better yet, one polling place for two wards? I vote in 5-3. At 5 p.m., there were two check-in and two check-out officials and only 120 votes counted. In the same building, 5-4 had just as many personnel for 113 votes. All of this could have been handled ward-wide at the Hyde with 4 staffers max, checking in the entire ward. I know that these people are mostly all retired and do it more as a civic duty than a job. We just need fewer of them.
The other thing that I have to ask is this: If we, as a community want to increase voter participation, what are we doing to foster it? If we have a purely municipal election, who says it has to be on a Tuesday (or Thursday)? Why can’t it be during the weekend? I have held signs and stood outside polling places at many a local election. It’s no secret that seniors are the heavy voters. Realistically, we have to ask ourselves if they do it because they’re of a more civically-engaged generation or because they have more free time than stressed-out people with stressed-out jobs focussed on their school aged children? Twenty years ago, the whole motor-voter concept seemed radical. Now it’s standard. I’d just like to see more innovative pro-voter practices at the local level.
What Karen said: “If we, as a community want to increase voter participation, what are we doing to foster it?”
We need come up with solutions are voter friendly. I see a lot of good ones on this thread.
@Fig
I don’t think you did understand my point.
It had nothing to do with this being an at-large alderman bid vs ward alderman. It had to do with the fact that there is a clear history of people looking out for their own hyper-local interests at the expense of others, and the people that voted for the incumbents who support Austin St would be opposing them if Austin St was in their neighborhood instead of Newtonville. As I’ve said before, people in this city support affordable housing, as long as its not near them. We see it with every proposed development– they’re all vociferously opposed by the local neighbors. Its classic NIMBYism. The fact that people can reduce 40B risk in their neighborhood by supporting affordable housing elsewhere in the city is icing on the cake.
So you can continue to pretend that the system works fine, as the Waban-types continue to press their thumb on the scale to their advantage. I’m more inclined to be sympathetic and particularly attentive when there is disparate impact on less wealthy parts of the city.
Newtonville chose the candidates that opposed Austin St. We should respect the wishes of our citizens.
And yes, I’ll respect those wishes in November, irrespective of outcome. I believe in democracy, unlike others here who only think votes matter if they reach their personal turnout metrics. (Or whatever other crazy rationalizations when votes don’t go their way.) How about you? Are you willing to acknowledge that you’re in the minority and support the wishes of your fellow neighbors if the opposition wins in Ward 2?
Paul:
Well, I said I wouldn’t respond anymore, but I can’t help myself. So much to unpack in your post I can’t resist!
First of all, again, your use of NIMBYism to describe the forces opposing ACTUAL “hyperlocal” NIMBYism is a real verbal jujitsu move. So…you actually practice NOT IN MY BACKYARD, but you think the rest of Newton is engaged in some Machiviallian scheme to oppose your candidates and support Austin Street because it will somehow help their village avoid “affordable housing”.
Waban and many other villages have 40B projects in process. By your logic the folks in those villages would support Lynne, who would help to block those projects. Why would they support the incumbents? Even with Austin Street, we are a long way away from meeting the 10% rule on 40B. It doesn’t help Waban to have “affordable housing” in Newton unless we get to the 10% mark. Your logic kind of falls apart once the other villages don’t have a real reason to plot against you Paul. It could just be that the see the good work that the incumbents have done, or really liked Jake because he was a Harvard grad and a veteran, or because hey, they liked the idea of city development and smart growth. Or it could be because the more they screw over Newtonville, the more they prosper. (This is where you insert your “maniacal laugh” if you are reading this aloud.)
You seem very focused on the fact that more folks in Ward 2 voted for Lynne and Jake, which would be a significant fact if it actually mattered in the election. I guess it is an interesting talking point. But since it is a city wide election, the rest of us will be focused on reality, which is that vote that matters is…city-wide.
So basically you can’t win on your issues city-wide, and instead have decided that all that really matters for “democracy” is Ward 2. Talk about moving the goalposts. If the “opposition” wins Ward 2 in a city election, but the same “opposition” LOSES the freaking election city wide, I’ll be happy to acknowledge the talking point at the victory party for the aldercritters who actually win the election. Because (to channel THM)…DEMOCRACY.
(Aldercritters have victory parties right? I should mention that is a rhetorical attendance at said victory party, since I’m not supporting any particular candidate yet…)
As for Newton respecting the wishes of its citizens, it already has. Emily got elected. She’s a supporter of your positions and is hyper local to Austin Street. But at-large is at-large. Don’t like it? There is a great deal of discussion on the charter commission that might be of interest to you!
1. Democracy doesn’t come cheap.
2. We had 5 very talented, very different candidates and unfortunately we were going to lose one of them, it’s unfortunate for Jess, but thats how it works.
3. I think Karen has a good idea, experiment with weekend elections. Thats something worth looking into.
4. I think both Lynne and Jake will divide Jess’s votes, Lynne should get a bit more.
“As I’ve said before, people in this city support affordable housing, as long as its not near them. We see it with every proposed development– they’re all vociferously opposed by the local neighbors. Its classic NIMBYism.”
You need to learn how to read, dude. My words verbatim.
Lynne opposed Austin St, not other 40B projects. That’s precisely my point. If she opposed the Waban 40B, their votes would have looked like Ward 2.
Who moved the goalposts? I’ve been extraordinarily clear– multiple times– that people support affordable housing, they just don’t want it in their local neighborhood. I’ve always been focused on the people close to Austin St, nothing has changed now.
Fig, honestly– you’re a waste of time. You’re more interested in writing snarky posts and thumping your chest– facts be damned. You’ve made wrong assumptions about me, forget (conveniently?) multiple things I’ve written in the past and instead assume the opposite (moving goalposts is just the latest), and NEVER acknowledge any mistakes. When caught in your errors– again, multiple times– you just ignore the thread.
Haven’t engaged here for a while because its frankly a waste of time. And you just confirmed it once again. Well done.
The echo chamber can go and listen to themselves.
PS Speaking of moving the goalposts:
Jake opposes Austin St. Yes, he’s said different things around why, and his general level of support for development, but he doesn’t support the plan.
He beat both incumbents. And will be elected in the general. A bit much to ask for a clean sweep of incumbents. One of them is gonna get knocked off because she isn’t listening to constituents. Change is a comin’.
That’s a win for opponents– that is the side he’s on. The odd obsession with NVA generally and their lack of endorsement of him doesn’t change that he’s an Austin St. opponent.
Keep spinning. Keeping ignoring facts when they aren’t in your favor. He’s winning. One of your Austin St supporters is going down. CITY-WIDE.
Paul, gotta say, take a deep breath. It’s a parking lot and a local aldercritter election. This ain’t life or death. Hard to understand the level of anger about this stuff. The yoga studio in Newtonville is quite nice I hear, with ample parking. ;-)
NIMBYism is usually defined as a local person objecting to a project coming into their neighborhood. You were using it as a wider city supporting the incumbents because the objectionable project was not in their particular village. Still doesn’t make much sense to me, as Lynne has been very much connected to the NVA and others who are clearly against 40B projects. Lynne in her candidate statement says the following:
“Special permits muddle expectations and are a way of reshaping Newton without expressed consent. Often neighbors are surprised at and in many cases unhappy with developments built in ways they had not expected. High density housing, allocated by special permit and under the guise of helping our housing problem, is not allowing residents to anticipate changes nor decide on their merits.”
Luckily I’m able to read that particular statement. I believe it means that she’s against 40Bs. Perhaps the use of Special Permit was a bit of code, but that’s a pretty clear dog whistle.
As for folks liking affordable housing, but just not in their neighborhood, I guess I must be the outlier, along with a fair amount of my neighbors. We welcome it, right near my house. Most of the condo projects in Newton have it, and as I’ve mentioned before, my kids play with some of the kids from those affordable units. I never would have known if the father hadn’t mentioned to me the restriction on the property on sale in a recent conversation.
As for whether I’m a snarky poster, well, perhaps a little bit. But perhaps you are also a bit annoyed to be challenged on your assumptions a bit Paul. Not sure what errors you’ve caught me in (mostly you just have gotten angry), but I’d be happy to continue to discuss anything you want. As for this website being an echo chamber, I actually think it is pretty good mix of views. I doubt Joanne, Sally or Emily would agree that it is an echo chamber.
As for Jake, I didn’t know you claimed him for your own. As I said earlier Paul, I’m considering voting for him too. But I think you are going to be very surprised if you think he is anti-development. Jake seems to me to be a politician first. And it is very hard to be a politician opposed to development, especially smart development. If I had to bet, Jake is closer to the incumbents than to Emily, which is why NVA didn’t support him directly.
To be honest with you Paul, I’m really not a one issue candidate. School start time (Mike Strair convinced me on that one), full day kindergarten, unfunded liabilities, affordable housing, smart growth, expanding our commercial base, charter school reform, more efficient city departments, better sidewalks and streets, beautiful village centers, all of that is more important to me than Austin Street. Austin Street comes up far more on this blog than it does in real life. I care a lot about the village, just like I’m sure you do. I happen to think the parking lot is ugly, and that the deal we are getting from the developer is weaker than I would have wanted, and that the mayor has screwed up the process. But in the end I support the project. Sometimes life isn’t perfect, and I refuse to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You seem to be very focused on the immediate neighbors of the project, I’m focused on the changes to the entire village. We can agree to disagree.
So when you say I’m spinning, that a win for Jake is a win for Austin Street, I’m just not seeing things on that same wavelength. Nothing wrong with an incumbent being knocked off from time to time, as long as the incoming person is reasonable. Jake seems reasonable. But he’ll win because of his service and his resume. I think his Austin Street position is carefully calebrated to appeal to the most people, hence why he can potentially attract me and apparently you.
Btw Paul, for the record, in one post you questioned my ability to read, called me a liar, called me a waste of time, and a snarky chest thumper. Perhaps you’d find this blog more inviting if you responded with some humor instead of some insults. Although I do embrace the snarky chest thumper one. That is SO me. ;-)
Cheers!
@fignewtonville ;-)
Fig has outdone him/herself.
Well played, fig. Points!
Game, set, match. Fig.
I vote for Fig for Chest Thumper Snark of V14. We should have a medal-conferring ceremony!
Although fig should have points taken off for the double use of the “Winky” emoji.
Quick point I just wanted to make real quick. Based on the disparity in funds raised / expended and in doors knocked to this point, I think the credit for the preliminary result should go to some very well run campaigns rather than any specific issue resonating or not resonating.
@Bryan: Yes, some campaigns were very well organized…but the candidates who knocked on doors reported that they asked questions and listened to what the residents said. There may be more resonance than you think!