By Chris Steele

Peter Harrington’s recent letter misses the mark (and continues to muddy an ongoing, challenging community discussion) by framing Greg Reibman’s suggestions as either obvious or misguided. In fact, Reibman’s points touch directly on some of the most persistent structural barriers to balanced growth in Newton—barriers that are rooted not in safety regulations, but in outdated local policy.

And frankly, Mr. Reibman could have addressed these had he been able to fulfill his role as representative of the region’s business community and its concerns at the Zoning and Planning meeting.

1. Let’s talk about what’s actually slowing things down.

The problem isn’t Newton’s oversight of fire, safety, or public health. Those are essential.

The problem is a byzantine, opaque, and outdated zoning code and special permit process. For many types of projects—even those consistent with the city’s stated goals—developers must spend months and tens (or hundreds) of thousands in legal and consulting fees just to determine whether something is even possible.

That’s not thoughtful planning—that’s unpredictability that adds cost to every square foot built, whether for housing, commercial use, or community benefit.

2. “We’re not building for office workers,” because we’ve made it nearly impossible to build for anyone else.

It’s true that we’re not building many starter homes or workforce accessible housing. But that’s not because developers don’t want to, it’s because our zoning code (and process) actively discourage it.

Newton regulates residential development largely through FAR (floor area ratio) limits rather than simple height or lot size rules.

Combined with the widespread need for special permits, this system incentivizes maximizing the building envelope, not building modest, lower-cost homes.

In effect, we reward the construction of large, expensive single-family homes or large-lot developments and penalize smaller-scale, more affordable projects. If Newton truly wants housing diversity (homes for young families, essential workers, or downsizing seniors) we need to change the code and the process, while also understanding the market.

3. “Luxury” is a marketing term, not a policy category.

The frequent hand-wringing over “luxury housing” distracts from the real issue. “Luxury” means nothing in zoning. It’s a branding term, not a legal or architectural one.

If the issue is that developers are building *high-cost housing,* then let’s name that. And let’s also be honest:

High land and entitlement costs—driven yes, by our reputation and proximity to Boston, etc., but also by Newton’s unpredictable permitting system—push developers toward high-cost units because only those projects pencil out.

If we want to change what gets built, we have to change the inputs, not just the rhetoric.

4. Speed, transparency, and competitiveness matter.

Harrington brushes off Reibman’s mention of business attraction, as though competition among cities is trivial. It’s not.

Newton competes for residents, employers, retail, and jobs. And when a city is known for slow, unpredictable, and expensive processes, it loses out.

Streamlining doesn’t mean cutting corners. It means setting clear expectations, eliminating unnecessary obstacles, and reducing risk, especially for the types of development we say we want.

Reibman’s letter wasn’t empty. Instead it was a call to modernize, and moreover was a notice that we can only have meaningful conversations when knowledgeable parties are invited to the conversation with policymakers. Harrington’s response, while rhetorically sharp, overlooks the ways in which Newton’s current policies actively work against our own values.

If we want more affordable homes, a stronger commercial base, and a vibrant local economy, we need to change how we plan, not just what we say.

Chris Steele
Newton Upper Falls
The writer is the past chair of the Newton Economic Development Commission