Both John Chaimanis and Fred Smith are correct. John is correct that Newton cannot build its way to affordability. The rule of supply and demand would need a catastrophic assist. Fred is correct that vertically built, multi-family housing offers the most promise to alleviate the region’s severe housing shortage. The problem is that Newton does not want multi-family housing for economically disadvantaged families.
What Newton wants is housing for those who can afford upscale units. I do not say this rashly or without cause, but with a history of 50 years of participation in and observation of the problem.
Homeowners want to protect their neighborhood from change; developers want to make profit. The City wants to increase its tax base; the do-gooders want to share suburban safety; there are advocates that remember the difficulties that accompanied the “projects” of the 1950’s and the 1960’s. There is a conflict at every turn; discussions become emotional arguments; aspersions abound. Which is the best path — “My way or the highway” or “Compromise”? Who gives in first?
We need a new housing plan. My opinion is that building apartment buildings and multi-unit market rate condos is not the answer. It may be that the time has come for the City to become involved, once again. When Oak Hill Park was built, the City of Newton was the moving party. It constructed the infrastructure, it hired an architect, it designed the houses, it set the prices, it found a builder.
We may need dense housing communities in all our villages. We may need unwanted and costly parking spaces for tenants. Before we build, we should agree upon who are we building for: low-income families, upscale tenants, or downsizing seniors. Will our first concern be the builder’s profit or the quality of life of the tenants?
Peter F. Harrington
Newtonville