The zoning plan passed in October by Town Meeting in response to the MBTA Communities Act has become one of the town’s hottest issues in years. With less than a week to go before a special election to decide whether to repeal the plan, the Needham Observer sat with proponents of each side to discuss the values and goals of their respective movements. Nate Levin, who is listed in the public filing for Needham Residents for Thoughtful Zoning, spoke in favor of the repeal effort, the “No” side. Kate Weinograd, chair of the Yes for Needham organization, and Marianne Cooley and Heidi Frail, Select Board members who are part of the Yes steering committee, spoke in defense of the housing plan. The interviews began with similar sets of questions and included followups and questions specific to the respective organizations.
To view the interviews separately, click on the headlines below
NRTZ advocate calls for mitigating risks, slow approach to growth
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.
‘Yes’ proponents extoll benefits of Neighborhood Housing Plan
Observer: What was your motivation for launching the Yes campaign?
Heidi Frail: The motivation for launching the campaign was education around the question, around the issue — the question being the referendum specifically, the issue being the plan in general. It seems like there are some folks who haven’t been following the progress as the process moved through the past three years or more, so helping to bring people up to date. When we were moving this through Town Meeting we found that zoning is just very complicated, and this has ramifications well beyond just building. It impacts the economics of the whole town into the future. So it was just necessary to do a lot of education with our Town Meeting members so that they could make a responsible vote, and certainly that’s needed for the residents as well.
Observer: What are your primary concerns as we approach election day?
Marianne Cooley: I think primary concerns always are about how do you actually reach everybody so that they are able to have an informed opinion when they vote rather than an opinion that’s based on a fear or some uncertainty about something that they don’t understand. That’s always the challenge in everything.
Observer: What are your concerns around what happens if the repeal passes?
Heidi Frail: I think that certainly compliance and the funding that comes with compliance is a major issue, but I’d also note that MBTA Communities is a tool that the town is using to help produce some housing. So worst case scenario is we go back to Town Meeting and we become compliant, but we don’t produce any housing. That would be a real tragedy because I think that there are impacts for Needham well into our future if we miss this opportunity. We won’t provide housing diversity for our seniors, who will then stay in their single-family homes that will lock up our housing inventory. That has ramifications for our school enrollment into the future. I mean, there are some big issues here that won’t be solved by being compliant. Compliance is one thing, solving Needham’s housing crisis is another.
Observer: Knowing that you recognize the state is in a housing crisis, what role do you think Needham should play in solving it?
Kate Weinograd: Well, obviously Needham can’t solve it alone, right? Everybody — every town, every part of Massachusetts, has to do a tiny little bit, and then all of those tiny little bits add up to a whole bit, right? I see our role as we have to be a good community in our state, and a good community for residents of Massachusetts. But also we need to be a good community for people in Needham who are looking for flexible housing options and give people that middle housing that they’re lacking. It’s all interconnected and intertwined, and if we do our small part we can help our town, and hopefully that has a trickle impact on the state as well.
The plan was written based on feedback from folks in Needham, so while we’re complying, the structure of the plan was really based around what would help Needham for the next generation.
Marianne Cooley: We’re seeing some discussion recently about what Needham’s doing relative to what other communities are doing, and that’s never been our focus. Our focus has always been what do we need in Needham to successfully put some housing in places that makes sense to us.
Heidi Frail: This plan was entirely tailored by Needham residents for Needham’s use, you know, to solve Needham’s problems, but also tailored to our geography and our commercial corridor and everything it has in the greater scheme of things. Sure there’d be an impact on the region, but this was all about how we make Needham healthy in the long run.
Observer: Is it reasonable to think that Needham can make a meaningful impact on the cost of housing?
Kate Weinograd: It’s not about necessarily taking the cost of housing on the market today and altering it in some way. It’s about creating some options that are not subsidized, deeply affordable housing or a single-family, million-dollar-plus house. There needs to be something.
I think a lot of these terms are inherently confusing. When you talk about “affordable,” people imagine one thing, but it’s a calculation. So it gets a little bit tricky in terms of what people understand is affordable versus what affordable means in the state law.
Heidi Frail: I think we can make a huge impact on personal finance. Whether we’ll have an impact on macro pricing in the area, no, I don’t think so, not for a while. Eventually yes. This is a supply bill. If everyone increases supply, then eventually supply and demand will equalize, and there will be a price drop, right? However, I do think that a senior who is feeling like they want to move out of their single- family house, personally their finances are going to benefit from the sale of that house, their finances are going to benefit from stopping paying the real estate tax on that house. They’ll purchase a condo or move into a rental, and their personal finances will improve. I know that there’s a lot of talk about how this won’t be affordable to Needham seniors, but someone who has potentially just sold their house and maybe doesn’t want to buy again will have the money that they need to pay rent, if that’s the situation that they choose to find themselves in. So I think there are a lot of other questions about whether or not this is affordable and beneficial.
Marianne Cooley: MBTA Communities was not done for affordable housing, but with Needham’s inclusionary zoning 12.5% is 12.5%, and it is better than 0. But you have to actually build some housing to yield some affordable units.
Observer: What outside experts did you consult to come to your conclusions?
Marianne Cooley: We did not bring in any outside experts, but it’s fair to say what the town brought in.
Heidi Frail: There was a ton of research done into both housing plans. RKG was the consultant that we worked with during the HONE committee’s work. There was one commissioned by [the town] with a third-party vendor. Same thing with the traffic study done by GPI specifically for the HONE report. And then a lot of the numbers that were used for housing cost burden, school enrollments, housing costs as opposed to incomes or versus incomes are available through the state. There are reputable sources with a lot of industry experience.
A lot of the information about resourcing for the ongoing work was done through department heads throughout the town. Police and fire weighed in, sewer and water, the DPW, parks and rec — all of the town departments were consulted about how this would impact their capital costs and operating expenses, and I consider those people to be experts, so that was counted as well.
Also, a lot of these cost estimates weren’t created for this work. Those are the same numbers that we’re basing our five-year capital plan on. Those numbers are all vetted by the Finance Committee, who has confidence in them. They are entirely reliable, and if they’re not, certainly we have bigger problems than not passing the zoning.
Marianne Cooley: I really look at the last 25 years at least in town as being a period where the town has worked very hard to think carefully and logically about its budget and what the forward needs are, and to build in provisions for what’s going to be required for future needs and anticipating what those are. So when people are saying, ‘Well, what’s going to happen, you’ll need more infrastructure.’ The answer is there’s already infrastructure projects in the capital plan. We know we are going to be continuing to work on infrastructure, and this is just part of our ongoing stewardship
Observer: What is the most compelling data that enables you to not have a concern about overcrowding in the schools?
Heidi Frail: Of course we’re concerned about overcrowding in the schools. What we’re not doing is catastrophizing, there’s a difference there. We’re always looking and planning and preparing to make sure that our schools are well set up, well resourced, and that our children are well taken care of. We were incredibly responsible with our planning. The numbers that we used were inflated, the timeline that we used was reduced just to offset any uncertainty that could crop up. We’ve consulted experts. So I would say we’re totally planning based on that concern, just not catastrophizing.
Marianne Cooley: I also want to speak a little bit from my perspective in 20-plus years of future school needs. When the schools hired Dr. [Jerome] McKibben to start working as our demographer, we were all highly skeptical that [he] was correct about what was happening with underlying demographics, and I have to say that time has borne him out. The trends that he has talked about have been trends that have occurred here, so I have a high degree of confidence in at least his thought process and his interrogation of the numbers and his consideration of what the future might look like.
Observer: What do you most want the public to know about what the Yes side stands for?
Kate Weinograd: The Yes campaign is centered around the idea that we can do better for Needham, that we can have long-term vision, that we can not only comply with the MBTA act, but craft zoning and craft policies and craft public policy in a way that reflects the future that we want to see for Needham’s seniors, for Needham’s workforce and for the kids that are even yet to be born into our town. We can have and we can do all of these things if we work together, if we listen to our neighbors, if we craft plans and policies that reflect what is best and what will move Needham forward over the next 50 years. That’s why we think that this plan is a bright future for Needham.
Save as PDF