You are herecontent / Zoning changes could reduce required parking, affordable units
Zoning changes could reduce required parking, affordable units
Proposed zoning changes discussed by the Town Council on Tuesday would minimize required parking and give developers alternatives to building affordable housing units. The council seemed to be tilting toward zoning that would result in fewer affordable housing units. After listening to the presentation of town planner Greg Watson and consultant John Connery, At-Large Councillor Steve Corbett addressed the issue of affordable housing:
"All of the burden for providing affordable housing is falling on the developer." Corbett favors allowing developers to slightly increase density of a project to offset the cost of sub-market-rate housing, and to lower the percentage of affordable units developers are required to build into a project. "I think 15% is just too high." Corbett also noted that other towns have what are called "impact fees," cash payments in lieu of the value of affordable housing. "We take all of the give-back in the form of affordable housing, and we have other needs."
At-Large Councillor Marilyn Devaney concurred with the idea of allowing developers to give cash payments in lieu of building affordable units. She pointed out that Watertown already met the 10% affordable units standard set by the state: ""We're not a family community anymore. We're 53% absentee landlord, which means we get two girls, a guy, and it reflects on our community -- we hardly have 2600 population in our school system. I think we need to get businesses in to help homeowners with their high water bills, high property taxes, and have jobs. We have met our 10% on affordable housing, good for Watertown, but I think we have to start seeing what we can do to enable people to stay in Watertown -- we're losing a lot of lifelong residents."
Watson: "Let's not have a protracted negotiation every time surrounding affordable housing. Let's tell people what we expect up front."
Councillor Donohue said, "I have a concern that affordable housing has gone too far." But parking is a concern, too, he says: "Parking is a serious issue all over Watertown; the issue of a parking structure in the central business district is very important to creating business stability in that area."
District A Councillor Angie Kounelis, a longtime foe of the increased number of affordable units being built at the Coolidge School on Grove Street, asked incisive questions about whether changing parking requirements would lead to abusive development and overcrowded on-street parking: "On School Street, there was new construction -- it was kind of a sideways house. How would this new provision have affected this development in terms of parking?" None, says Watson. "I still have concerns about the parking. What about the St. Theresa's property? How would this affect that property?" Watson replied that the new zoning wouldn't require the condos going in at the former church to have more parking spots, since all the planned units were two bedrooms or more.
Connery, who helped the develop the new zoning, defended the new parking proposals "One of the things that creates a bad impression in a multifamily area is a large surface parking area that has no design value and sheets of runoff...But if you have tremendously punitive parking standards for one and two family, you force people to build something that's very unattractive."
Nothing's been set in stone yet -- the Council voted to send the new regs to committee for further review.
If they reduce the number of required parking spots per housing project, where do those people park during the winter?
Also, did they ever think people are leaving Watertown because it's getting too expensive to live here and there's no parking on the street for half the year?
(And possibly because we have crazy councillors who allegedly throw curling irons? ;) )
"We're not a family community anymore. We're 53% absentee landlord, which means we get two girls, a guy, and it reflects on our community..." Does this mean I'm not welcome in Watertown unless I get married and start producing kids? Or that mixed-gender apartment sharing erodes the moral fabric of the town somehow?
There's a certain amount of nostalgic (and politically strategic, have no doubt) handwringing about how people like us are causing the town to go to hell in a handbasket.
I'll know it's serious when the town stops cashing my property tax checks and revokes my library card. (Which of course would never happen, since the people actually doing the work are far too sensible to fall for this silly nonsense).
Pray tell of great and wise “Blog-a-natrix” H2Otown, what does the issue of parking which Councilor Kounelis’ was addressing have to do with her opposition to the current version of the Mitchell proposal vis-à-vis affordable units???
Councilor Kounelis has supported affordable units in the past. Check the record.
She, like many of us who understand the Real Estate market, is concerned that the increased number of affordable units at the Coolidge will make it difficult for Mitchell to meet their obligation to the Town.
With 10% more affordable units there is little or no wiggle room if Mitchell can’t get his estimated rents for the market unit.
If Mitchell has to lower his rents by $100 for the 2-bedroom units, he will be in the RED.
At which point he will eventually be seeking new terms or tax abatements.
Conversely, should the number of affordable units be 30% instead of 40%, Mitchell would have more market units to offset any reduction in projected rents.
This is about the numbers and not about anything else.
This begs the question: Were you taking a shot at Councilor Kounelis, whilst praising her line questioning? It is of course your right to do so. But knowing your benevolent nature, as the great and wise “blog-a-natrix” is so unlike my caustic propensity to rip anything and everyone in sight, I’m a bit surprised.
Regarding your rant about not being from Watertown or not graduating from Watertown High, etc, etc, etc.
That has little to do with it. It is about people who have moved into the Community with radical leftist views trying to impose those views on the rest of us. It's about people coming into Watertown, which was always naturally eclectic, and telling us there is something wrong with us. We are told what to think, how to speak, what traditions we can keep and so on.
While I don’t espouse the same views of Ralph Fillicia, the man has a right to hold his opinions and speak them.
America is an experiment in advanced citizenship. That includes sticking up for the freedom of those who say things that curdle your stomach.
We have no right to tell people they can’t hate. If they want to hate, it’s their civil liberty to do so. Are we now going have politically correct inquisition that monitors emotions and speech? There is no right to not be offended!
So, oh great and wise “blog-a-natrix” it ain’t got nothing to do with where you went to high school. It has everything to do with a minority of new comers who want to impose their priorities and worldview on the rest of us.
"We have no right to tell people they can’t hate. If they want to hate, it’s their civil liberty to do so."
A civil liberty to hate? Are you serious? And no, we can't tell people they can't hate. But we can surely tell them they can't act on that hate.
RJ
In Absentia Luci Tenebrae Vincu
Perhaps I should rephrase that.
We have the right to tell people that can't to hate-- in the sense that have the right to say the words.
We can't forbid them from feeling hatred.
And you exactly correct when you say cannot act on that hatred if that action is a crime.
So if you hate some one and say you hate them-- that amounts to free speech.
If you hate someone and throw rocks through their window, you've then committed a crime.
But the crime is vandalism; it's not a so-called "hate crime".
The point being is that when we start punishing people for what they think and feel, we then become an "Inquisition".
As a Christian (and I'm sure folks from other faiths and humanists will agree) I believe hatred is a destructive force.
It's self-destructive as well. That's why I do my best not allow myself to get offended. That's just the flip side of hate. It takes too much energy to get offended; even more to hate.
That said; there is clear distinction between hating people and having deep doctrinal convictions that a conduct is wrong.
That's where the problem comes in.
For example: Mother Teresa was the epitome of a loving human being.
Yet if you asked her what her views on sexuality were, I'm sure she espoused the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Now some would call that hate or intolerance. I don't and I think it is just as intolerant of Catholicism to say people who espouse Catholic beliefs on sexuality are guilty of hate or intolerance.
It like saying: There is no right or wrong and your WRONG if you say there is.
It’s a paradoxical self-defeating argument.
So it boils down to respect. It is perfectly acceptable for someone to believe another person or their behavior is wrong -- so long as they treat that person with human dignity that they deserve as a member of the human family.
As you like to say in Latin.
In the absence of light, darkness wins.
Dominus Vobiscum.
John says: "America is an experiment in advanced citizenship. That includes sticking up for the freedom of those who say things that curdle your stomach."
As Michael Douglas' character in The American President, 1995 movie, said, "America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. (snip) You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."
I'm not arguing with the meaning of the words. As a culture, we have become lax about important details such as accurate spelling and honoring of copyrights. So, sometimes I feel compelled to jump in and publicly acknowledge the sources of clear expression and innovative ideas. How we speak and use words affects how clearly we think. Thus, accuracy in language and fair attribution are personal passions of mine.
I now return you to your regular programming.
Peg,
You outed me.
I just watched that movie the other night for like the 5th time. And yes that's where I got the line.
I should have put it in quotations, had I been writing a column I would have been cognizant of copyright implications etc, etc, etc.
But it's a blog, I sort of treated it as conversation.
Nevertheless, others have articulated the same notion in many ways. No matter how say it, this principle is the bedrock of our Republic; the very butress and essemtial bulwark of our liberty.
As to my spelling, I plead the following:
1) I'm a special needs case -- I'm phonetically impaired. Being bi-cultural (Italo-American) I learned Italian first. In Italian we spell the way we pronounce it.
2) Having my theological roots in Pentecostalism, I often type in tongues.
Those are my stories and I’m sticking to them.
Finally, I would return to my regularly scheduled program but NBC cancelled the West Wing.
“Decisions are made by those that show up”.
The West Wing, last show first season.
Almost forgot -- before Peg dope slaps me again. The triple “etceteras” (“etc, etc, etc,”) in previous posts was hackneyed from "The King and I"; a film in which Yul Brynner played a 19th century King of Siam.
(Said movie was released by 20th Century Fox circa 1956 AD or CE if you prefer. The Author was Walter Lang. The music was composed by Rodgers and Hammerstein. I optained this information from the internet which was invented by Al Gore!!!!!)
All other sequences of consonants and vowels, commonly known as nouns, verbs, articles, conjunctions “ etcetera, etcetera, etcetera” come from the Oxford English Dictionary. As for the punctuation, I lifted that from some grammar book ;>)))))))))
In answer to the rhetorical question: Did you parents graduate from Watertown High?
No, my parents came from Italy and I graduated from St. Pats. The point is: many, many Townies are immigrants, 1st or 2nd generation Americans. Your aforementioned question implies that Watertown is not a welcoming community. And that is exactly the kind of better than thou attitude which sets Townies off.
We are an extremely eclectic community and we didn’t get that way by not welcoming newcomers. We certainly didn’t get to be so, because we attended sensitivity classes, by putting up signs, or by passing resolutions. And we sure a heck didn’t get there because of some federal mandate.
No, people came to Watertown to work, live, or raise families.
What they didn’t do is come here with an agenda to change Watertown to their liking in spite of what the majority of the current residents wanted.
That doesn’t mean newcomers don’t have a voice, a stake, or a franchise. To the contrary, their contribution is welcome. But that’s not a license to impose an “enlightened gospel” of whatever the heck you are holding up signs for this week.
For example:
Most of us drive cars. Roads we built for cars. We don’t want additional traffic congestion; we don’t traffic to be redirected because a handful of people want to use rickshaws.
Now, does that mean we can’t have some bike paths? No it doesn’t mean that at all. It means it is not the priority of most citizens.
Some of what you want can be accommodated. You live here too. Just don’t expect the rest of us to sing “Granola Uberalis”!!!!
Granola Uber Alles.
I've seen it spelled both ways.
Witty comment aside, I don't imagine its spelled that way in the real world.
RJ
In Absentia Luci Tenebrae Vincu
Dear John,
Welcome to The Internet! I couldn't help but notice your mention of "Uberalis"(sic.), clearly a reference to the German national anthem. I am going to go out on a limb and assume this was an attempt to equate liberals in some way with Nazis. I have also noticed you making similar comparisons in the past.
As a citizen of The Internet, I feel it is my duty to remind you of Godwin's Law. If you look in your Internet handbook (should have come with your modem) under the section "Rules for engagement in discussions of a political nature" (Page 41 in the second printing of the handbook, I don't have page numbers for later editions), you'll notice that section four outlines what is known as Godwin's Law. The law, quoted in verbatim: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.", was coined by Internet lawyer, Mike Godwin. The original law has been expanded to state that whoever is the first to make such a comparison has automatically and unconditionally lost whatever discussion was going on.
I bring this up for your benefit, John. I would hate to see you continue to lose arguments in such a way. You clearly have your share of opinions, and are perfectly willing to defend them. We can really do without the hyperbole of a Nazi comparison. Again, just a friendly heads up in case you weren't aware.
If I'm mistaken in assuming the Nazi reference, I apologize profusely. Catch you on the Inter-Web!
Best,
Jake
I moved here from CAMBRIDGE to make all your kids GAY! I want them to be HOMOSEXUAL, because of my AGENDA.
I want to BAN CARS in Watertown! I HATE THEM SO BAD. Except for LEXUSES. We LIBERALS will be able to buy LEXUSES. But only HYBRIDS.
I invited all my ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT FRIENDS to move here with me. I want to give them TAXPAYER DOLLARS for FREE. In fact, I want the TOWN TO HIRE THEM as a force that ROBS OLD LADIES to fund their DRUG HABITS. Why? Because I'm a LIBERAL!
I want to CONTROL WHAT YOU THINK. I am designing a MICROCHIP that will give you an ELECTRIC SHOCK if you think one single thought that is not POLITICALLY CORRECT. The factory that builds them will be RIGHT NEXT TO YOUR HOUSE. Every morning a bus full of DRUNKEN TEAMSTERS will arrive so my UNION BUDDIES can get PAID FOR NOTHING.
And I would have GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT if it weren't for you meddling townies!!
I moved here from CAMBRIDGE to make all your kids GAY! I want them to be HOMOSEXUAL, because of my AGENDA.
I want to BAN CARS in Watertown! I HATE THEM SO BAD. Except for LEXUSES. We LIBERALS will be able to buy LEXUSES. But only HYBRIDS.
I invited all my ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT FRIENDS to move here with me. I want to give them TAXPAYER DOLLARS for FREE. In fact, I want the TOWN TO HIRE THEM as a force that ROBS OLD LADIES to fund their DRUG HABITS. Why? Because I'm a LIBERAL!
I want to CONTROL WHAT YOU THINK. I am designing a MICROCHIP that will give you an ELECTRIC SHOCK if you think one single thought that is not POLITICALLY CORRECT. The factory that builds them will be RIGHT NEXT TO YOUR HOUSE. Every morning a bus full of DRUNKEN TEAMSTERS will arrive so my UNION BUDDIES can get PAID FOR NOTHING.
And I would have GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT if it weren't for you meddling townies!!
Gosh, I wish we had a function on the blog to recommend certain posts. This one had me laughing out loud...thanks, Evil. I needed that.
Peg
DEAR EVIL LIBERAL INTERLOPER,
You do get points for style. However were those my views I would bother to meet with liberals in the community to discuss areas of common ground and to discuss our respective visions for Watertown's future.
All caustic hyperbole aside, the "us against them" attitude is premeates both sides of this debate.
A friend just sent me in email. While he will go unnamed, I'll quote him.
"When we complain about the factions in our beloved Watertown all we are talking about is the consistent, energized zanies versus the grumbling, ineffective Townies. With the normal folks trying to make it through the day working two jobs, most of what happens in town slips through the haze."
Of course I view the last catagory as the just as guilty. "Decisions are made by those that show up." And apathy is in fact the enemy.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Oh, Evil Liberal Interloper! You just got me in big trouble. Laughing out loud here at work, almost spilling coffee on my 'puter. Now my boss is asking me for my green card, which I have misplaced. Maybe it's at my last job in Cambridge....
Dear Mr. Evil Liberal Interloper,
I must admit, for your typical tie-dye delusional liberal you have an admirable flare for caustic hyberbole.
As one who often dabble in the acerbic art of sardonic cynicism (say that 3 times fast), I must encourage you to write right more often.
I mean if I’m going to have to read liberal psycho-babble, I’d much rather have a good laugh than hear about “Bows and flows of Angels hair and Ice cream Castles in the Air.”
Please argue with me, just don't bore me. Hech if your going to be wrong may as well be funny ;>O)))))))))
I don't have a ton of time this morning, but this is a very entertaining thread. Just to clarify one thing: Am I taking a shot at District A Councillor Angie Kounelis? That wasn't my intention. I wanted to relay her point of view to the readers of this post, which I understand as:
1. Skeptical about zoning regulations that reduce the required off-street parking for multifamily projects.
2. Against the increase in the number of affordable units at the Coolidge School.
My positions on the same are as follows:
1. Neutral. I don't think we really know whether reducing or increasing parking requirements in this case will "help," and I don't have a clear idea of what our goal state is, really.
2. For the increase in affordable units at the Coolidge School.
As far as the affordable units question goes, I don't think either Angie or I have a blanket position here. I don't think Angie is against all affordable units, and I'm not for all affordable units. In any case, I wasn't trying to say that Angie was against all affordable units, which is why I wrote it the way I did.
I voted for Angie and I think she's doing a good job, although I think we vary in a few areas; in particular, I sense that I'm a little more on the New Urbanist side than she is (meaning, I value pedestrian traffic and commercial activity and would do things that would have a moderate impact on the speed of traffic or the ease of parking to benefit pedestrians and local businesses, what you might call "sidewalk life.")
More later. Ta-ta!
Post new comment