Observer: What was your motivation for launching the NRTZ campaign?
Nate Levin: With a big investment like this it’s always best to exercise the option of seeing what happens. Making an investment, seeing what happens, and then if it goes well, continue it from a perspective of just prudence and making a rational decision — given this is like the biggest zoning change Needham has undergone since I believe the 1940s. We’re not against housing, but we’re against the expanded version because there’s so many uncertainties. People raise a lot of questions in town as to what the implications are; we really don’t know what all the implications are going to be. We just don’t know, and we think it’s just a prudent course of action to go ahead and build the first group of units, and then if that goes well continue on with the rest of it. If it doesn’t go well we have the option of pulling it back. We’re assuming that there’s no guarantee that all these units are going to be built right away, but because they’re zoned for, we have to assume — as did the town Finance Committee — that the way to make a decision on zoning is to assume that it is all going to be built.
Observer: What are your primary concerns with the neighborhood plan?
Nate Levin: Whether the town can handle the infrastructure requirements that might be necessary. There’s been conflicting information on the ability of the schools to handle the increased enrollment that might come to pass. And again, we don’t know what the ultimate result is going to be. There’s a big cone of uncertainty. Just like any big investment decision, there’s a lot of risks. It could turn out well, but it may not turn out well. It’s really a timing issue in terms of the volumes of new units that are being proposed.
Other concerns are lack of green space. I’ve lived in Needham for 30 years, and I know recently with the flooding that came to pass not this past summer but the summer before, there’s an issue about the ability that the town can handle this particularly with trees being chopped down in single-family construction. There’s not enough green space, not enough trees to absorb the water, and that’s going to just be exacerbated.
The other issue is risk to small businesses. I know the Charles River Chamber of Commerce is pushing the Neighborhood Plan, but there are lots of smaller professional practices up and down Chestnut Street which are at risk because there’s no mandate for developers to put in retail space on the first floor. It might be that Needham residents will have to go to other communities to get the services they currently need.
Observer: Yours was the only name that was publicly made known as part of the NRTZ movement. Is there a reason for that?
Nate Levin: I think people feel like they’re going to be canceled. They don’t want to speak out. But people’s voices will be heard on Election Day. We have tremendous support for our position. Nobody’s driving anything, people are popping up every day volunteering. It’s just an amazing grassroots effort. It’s not top down, Chamber of Commerce-led. The only vested interest people have in our group is to do the right thing for Needham. Lots of people have lived in this town for many, many years. Granted, there is a need for new housing, but we should do the Base Plan, see what happens, have the option to expand it or change it. But to do something so much greater is probably not the prudent thing to do in my view and the view of many others.
Observer: Would you agree there is a housing crisis in Massachusetts?
Nate Levin: I strongly believe that there is a housing crisis in the commonwealth, as there is in many parts of the country due to a lack of supply, which is driving up costs.
I haven’t really studied it that much in depth. But I know people are leaving Massachusetts, at least people 65 and older are leaving the state for a variety of reasons. There is a housing crisis in terms of new, affordable housing. And from an economic perspective, one of the issues that I see is that the housing plan — either of the two housing plans — will not necessarily grant affordable housing. There is a set-aside of I think 12.5% of the units for subsidized, affordable housing, which is fine. And Needham already has a lot of affordable housing. But I think one of the issues here is the cost of the land. The developers, or whoever constructs housing, needs to get a return on the investment, and one of the larger investments is the land. So that is an issue. It’s just economics.
As you get further away from Metrowest it becomes a little bit more affordable, but it’s a tradeoff. People will move to Westboro or Shrewsbury because they can’t afford Needham. So it’s just a rule of basic economics that forces people to more affordable areas.
Observer: What, if any, do you think Needham’s role should be to help with the housing issues?
Nate Levin: Needham should definitely play a role in this by doing two things: multifamily where it’s called for is perfectly fine, that’s why we support the Base Plan; but also single-family housing. I’m not a zoning expert, but I see these small homes being acquired by developers, torn down and new homes, thousands of square feet, five bedrooms, four bath for like 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 million dollars being constructed. That to me is as much an issue as lack of multifamily housing. I strongly agree that we need to do something with single-family zoning akin to the proposal set forth by Town Meeting member [Joe] Matthews, which lays out a change to the FARs in new single-family construction that would cut down on the number of new McMansions in the town.
That being said, I believe that the burden sharing should be equitable among the towns impacted by the MBTA Communities Act. I’m sure both groups have had these kinds of discussions. We all have to work together because no one place can solve everything on their own.
Observer: So what is Needham’s role?
Nate Levin: Well if you listen to the town Finance Committee, we’re pretty much in line with their view that we’re for housing, for the Base Plan, but let’s just see how it goes. We’re talking about putting the housing in a very small part but a very busy part of the town. If you drive through Chestnut and Highland in the middle of the day, it’s very difficult to traverse. And having all that housing in that spine is an issue. I don’t know why consideration wasn’t given to place more units by Hersey or other areas.
Observer: Who have you, from an expert perspective outside of the town, had come in and look at the concerns that you have?
Nate Levin: We have not hired any outside experts. But we know from just a common sense experience point of view that a lot of projections that were made were just that: projections. And depending on what assumptions you use in the projections you can get wildly different answers. I was in business for 30 years and working with corporations making projections for acquisitions and for capital investments. Most cases, if there was a lot of uncertainty — which there clearly is here because if there wasn’t uncertainty people would be in agreement, there would be a lot more solid support — if you have the opportunity to stage the investment, build, and then wait to see what happens and then continue on, that’s always the most prudent course of action in any business decision.
In terms of expertise, one thing I know is from what I gather from listening to the town meetings
is that the projections aren’t based on any analogous situations. So you can’t say, ‘Well, there was a project like this. Another town did this zoning and this is what happened, so we’re basing it on actual experience.’ Because the projections are not based on an analogous situation, they’re just that: projections. If there was really a solid case that this happened — here are the facts, this is the number of units we built in a town of a certain size, this is what happened to the school system, this is what happened to the infrastructure — then we could say, ‘OK, somebody else did that.’ Because we don’t have that certainty, it’s just the prudent thing from a business judgment standpoint or an investment standpoint to build the minimum number of units required so we’re in compliance and then continue on. I don’t know why you’d want to do it otherwise, frankly. It makes no sense.
Observer: Based on what projections are you worried or not worried about the schools?
Nate Levin: Well that’s it: based on projections. My view is that you build a certain number, see what happens, and if the schools can absorb it then you continue on with the Neighborhood Plan.
Observer: What, fundamentally, do you want the public to know about the No position?
Nate Levin: That we’re for more housing in Needham, but not to the extent of the Neighborhood Plan because of the potential traffic issues, potential issues with small businesses being at risk, potential issues with infrastructure and potential overcrowding in schools.
The research is based on projections which may or not come to pass. The projections are speculative and we need to just wait and see. ‘Go slow’ is basically the bottom line here. It’s about risk mitigation.
I think the Base Plan has risks, too. The issue is that when you are embarking on a large project of this scale and you have the opportunity to wait and see, zone for a certain number of units, see how the projections play out, and then if things go well potentially consider increasing the number of units. It’s not like building a machine. You can’t build half of a machine. But in real estate you have the opportunity to stage your investment over time and look at the implications to the town and to the citizenry and the businesses in the town. That’s really all we’re saying.
Save as PDF