I would like to write a little more about the debate started in this post on the bridge proposal which turned into a discussion about the Coalition for a Better Acre. I’d like to clarify a few points, respond to some of the things in comments, and open it up to all of you as well.
First, I would like to talk about the city, access to the halls of the decision makers, and the CBA.
The misconception is that the CBA shut itself out with its confrontational methods (if you call rallies and resident meetings confrontational). The big debate was over the commentary on the CBA website citing the CBA action in Boston at the Mills to Martinis marketing event (trying to entice rich Boston people to move to Lowell’s high-priced developments), which then led to the comment from a city official that this action “would hurt the CBA.”
Look, the CBA did try to play the game. Back a couple years ago, when there was a pile of contaminated dirt on the site of the future Stoklosa School, they asked the city politely to get the company to live up to its promise to cover it before contaminated dirt blew around the neighborhood. When no action was taken, they held a rally, and showed up en masse to a city council meeting. Guess what? It was the second action that actually produced results.
When the bridge proposal was announced in the paper (touted as a done deal, even though we’ve found out since that it isn’t) the CBA had meetings. They called city councilors. Most of them didn’t know any more than the CBA did about this proposal. Gee. Wonder why not? Because there was never an official conversation and vote in the Council on it? (I think Cox got his “impression” that the city council “wanted” the proposal from only a handful of the councilors, like…say…Armand Mercier and Bud Caulfield?) They asked for meetings with the city to discuss the lack of public input into the proposal. They formed the Upper Merrimack Street Planning Process.
Yes, the city did send a couple assistant city planners to that meeting. They gave the CBA big nifty aerial photos of the region. The participation at those meetings was a sight to see. However, the discussions were centered around issues like putting in an extra stop sign, or better signage, or airing concerns about safety at an intersection. The city wasn’t interested in hearing public opinion on the central proposal that started the debate in the first place - the University Ave bridge. Or about other issues like incorporating affordable housing into the development plan, or fulfilling their promise of 100% affordable housing replacement for all the public housing units destroyed at Julian Steele!
Great, some access. A stop sign there, a crosswalk here. That doesn’t get to the core of CBA’s mission.
So they came up with an action of interrupting Cox’s little marketing campaign to the rich Bostonites (which by the way, the city spends a lot of taxpayer money on). The bright-green-shirted CBA contingent of about 30 was not confrontational; on the contrary, the invited attendees seemed interested in what the CBA members had to say. I’ve been told by CBA volunteers they had some great conversations with these potential new Lowell residents. They seemed to like the idea of an active citizen community (after all, a lot of young professionals are also sympathetic to those causes, and to the central “attraction” of Lowell - the artist community.)
However, the city manager or his staff decided that being civicly embarrassed was too much for them. From my point of view, it didn’t have to be that way, if only the city would, say, have meeting with Acre and other residents on the big issues of development in this city. But a lot of people know that this does not happen. The Planning and Zoning boards are not run for the people, they are run for the connected developers. So. To put this issue to bed in my opinion, the CBA never had real access, and wasn’t going to get it by playing by Cox’s rules, because the fix was in a long time ago. As a result, they agitate and organize and the Sun loves to give the impression (because they’re the Sun and their reporting leaves a lot to be desired most of the time) that the CBA is in leadership disarray and made their own bed and should lie in it. I don’t know about most of you, but I never take the Sun, or Cox and his administration, at their word. The Sun doesn’t like to dig for real answers (like most lazy corporate media) and Cox has his own agenda. As we saw last Tuesday when he proposed spending $50K without much discussion. Thank god the City Councilors woke up to the fact that he was trying to sneak in proposed spending on a project before a democratic decision making process could begin. And don’t think for a minute that was an accident on Cox’s part.
Next, I would like to say, I have never in all the time I’ve volunteered or talked to CBA members, heard that they are against high-end development. Let’s get that straight. What they want is for the city to plan its development in a fair manner that includes its more vulnerable residents as well as its upper-class. Sheer gentrification is just plain dumb. Sorry, but it is. Smart city planning not only helps the vulnerable residents stay in the city, but it’s better long-term because plain market-driven gentrification has a failing record in many communities once no one but the rich can afford to live, work, or shop there. Do we want the city of Lowell to lose all the things that make it great to live in? Like being a first stop on the path of many waves of immigrants? Or being affordable enough to have an amazing culture of artists, musicians, theatre and other events? Didn’t think so.
The CBA has had a summit and many meetings where they’re talking about innovative ways to accommodate this fairness; ideas like exclusionary (edit: oops, INCLUSIONARY not exclusionary) zoning and affordable development of abandoned properties. The CBA knows more about civic engagement than most of the city’s elected officials. That’s something the councilors and the city administration should be co-opting and incorporating rather than fighting. But City Manager John Cox does not to my experience know how to give access. He would prefer to fight (and lie about it afterwards, as evidenced at the last city council meeting) than to provide a conduit for a working relationship with people who disagree with him. I know there are city councilors who themselves are out there in the community, being involved, who must in their heart of hearts know this. I am pleased that last week they showed they do not want Cox to determine the direction of the city by himself (”I got the impression the council was for this” - yeah, right.)
Some good things were planned last decade for the city. We’re seeing good results from those years, and some bad results. The CBA wants to turn those bad results around and make them good. I think we can all agree that the current city development plan is not perfect, has flaws, and needs work. I don’t trust the developers and the connected to make all those decisions for the good of all city residents. Simply going after the money doesn’t fly (trickle-down economics is a myth, people). But, the city can work with those who want to make money, and those who want to ensure that the powerless have a voice, and create innovative solutions to produce a result where no one loses. This isn’t rocket science. It’s just good sense.
December 12th, 2005 at 1:01 pm
Hi Lynne, since I’m apparentley the only voice here that will question the CBA, bear with me.
You are saying 30 people in green shirts interrupted a marketing campaign meeting, and you don’t think this is confrontational in its very nature? Suppose 30 members of Lowell’s new residents, all in bright purple shirts, stumbled into a CBA affordable housing summitt and said how we already have enough affordable housing in Lowell and there should be more in the other communities like Chelmsford and no more in Lowell. You wouldn’t take this as a confrontational action?
I appreciate the details of the relationship and I don’t doubt that the city has screwed up, but usually in debate you have to concede points to be taken seriously, and if one were to believe your writings we’d think CBA has never made a poor decision in its existence.
As for the Sun portraying unstable leadership, I still haven’t heard the rundown of who has been in charge since Mr. Cavahlo (sp?) Does anyone know? If it indeed has been very stable leadership since then, maybe I’ve got the wrong impression from the paper. I knew Mr. Cavahlo back then and always had the sense he was working well with the city, and since then don’t think that’s happened as much. Again, I could be wrong, but nobody has corrected me on the leadership question yet.
December 12th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
The CBA would welcome the debate, Mike, the city does not. The point is, THEY NEVER HAD ACCESS. The little access they had was appeasement, not real power to talk to the city.
So why do you expect them to continue to play “the game” after years of being shut out? Please.
You know what? I was talking about a specific instance and specific debate. I never said the CBA “has never made a poor decision in its existence” so please again, stop putting words in people’s mouths (you seem to do that a lot). They should have had more to say about the Julian Steele project - but it wasn’t the Acre, so they stayed out of it, and no one was there to advocate for those people that were displaced. I think a lot of CBA members regret that as a mistake.
Fuck the Sun. Sorry to swear, but seriously, you take that rag at its word? If you do, then it’s going to be hard for us to talk to each other, because every time I read the Sun on a subject I know something about, I seethe inside for the lack of actual fracking coverage and digging I see there. Like most newspapers, they are often lazy, don’t bother to interview those they criticize, and therefore, I will not take them seriously until I see a concerted effort on their parts to be part of the civic solution and not the problem.
As to the interruption of the city manager’s marketing campaign, yes it was an action, but they didn’t DO it in a confrontational; way - they did it to START a conversation and were pleasantly rewarded by connecting to those attending.
Poor John Cox; he’s only a non-elected official virtually in charge of every aspect of city planning and development despite the fact he works for the city council. Boo hoo. How terrible for him that he’s forced to deal with the poorer residents that he’s screwed over the years.
As to affordable housing in other towns (”there should be more in the other communities like Chelmsford and no more in Lowell”), you really don’t understand the issue. You should go to one of CBA’s meetings, they can explain a lot to you, since they’re studying it.
First, CBA works in Lowell so why should they worry about Chelmsford? Let Chelmsford worry about Chelmsford. If a group from Chelmsford formed and wanted to work with the CBA they’d be happy to come up with a regional plan. But they cannot be responsible for starting one; they don’t have the resources.
Second, Lowell is a city with a larger concentration of people, especially poor and immigrants, so the need is proportionately larger here than elsewhere. So 14% affordable housing in Lowell sounds like a good number until you look at the number of working class here proportionately.
Third, as a city (and cities tend to have more resources, as centers of productivity), Lowell has public transportation. Do you think people who need affordable housing all own cars? Our highway culture excludes a lot of people, Mike, and therefore having affordable housing in Chelmsford or Westford is pretty much useless until we have a comprehensive public transportation solution for every town. Lowell has the train; it has the LRTA (which goes into Chelmsford but is severely limited). It can sustain a working class population, while Chelmsford does not. Yes there should be more in those communities than there is. But to say Lowell has done enough, time for Chelmsford to do it is really just an uneducated way of playing NIMBY.
As to the leadership issue “not being addressed,” as far as I know they’ve had a steady stream of dedicated directors. One didn’t work out and was gone in a few months. Another was an interim director but was no less committed because of her title as interim. I don’t understand where you get your idea their leadership was in disarray but I can tell you from my point of view, the CBA board (who choose the director) had made decisions as best they could and considering the CBA was instrumental in organizing against Cox’s little trick last Tuesday, seems to me they are still quite capable and organized.
December 12th, 2005 at 1:47 pm
Oh and if in terms of what happened to the city/CBA relationship you want to blame the CBA - remember, John Cox came in what, five years ago or so? Why didn’t you think of that as having a possible connection to the degradation of the relationship? You would rather, though, blame the CBA and listen to the Sun. Which is known to have a pro-Coxian slant.
The Sun-Cox slant is not my observation alone, that’s the observation of people much more in tune to Lowell politics than I. I’m just the first person with an audience that’s said it in writing.
December 12th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
I don’t think the access problem will get corrected until an independent, professional city manager is hired at a good salary by the city of Lowell.
Lowell is not the only place that has socio-economic trouble brewing:
Las Vegas boom deals some a losing hand [Edited by Lynne - link was too long so I embedded it in HTML]
December 12th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
In regards to this last post:
“I don’t think the access problem will get corrected until an independent, professional city manager is hired at a good salary by the city of Lowell.”
I completely agree and have maintained that all along.
Lynne, Excellent post! Very well done.
Remember folks, tomorrow evening is Dick Howe’s last meeting. Tune in!
December 12th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
“I never said the CBA “has never made a poor decision in its existence” so please again, stop putting words in people’s mouths (you seem to do that a lot).”
And I never said you said that. So stop putting words in MY mouth, Lynne. I said if we were to believe your writings, that is what we’d think, because to this point I’ve never seen you say a bad word about CBA. So what am I supposed to think?
“Fuck the Sun. Sorry to swear, but seriously, you take that rag at its word? If you do, then it’s going to be hard for us to talk to each other, because every time I read the Sun on a subject I know something about, I seethe inside for the lack of actual fracking coverage and digging I see there. Like most newspapers, they are often lazy, don’t bother to interview those they criticize, and therefore, I will not take them seriously until I see a concerted effort on their parts to be part of the civic solution and not the problem.”
I’ve got no problem with that, I’ve lived in many cities and The Sun is not a great paper, I was just looking for answers. And as you pointed out, there’s been a “stream” of directors. That is not a stable situation. One “didn’t work out”? Did he or she damage relations at all in the process? Have any of the others in that stream?
As far as the affordable housing debate, that was never what these strings were about. The CBA has a very fine mission at its core. I just think there’s a reason the city has pushed back in recent years and it’s the over agressive attitude that has been present during the stream of directors.
This string and the one before it was about me saying that I didn’t believe CBA represented everyones views in the Acre, and I still don’t. It was about me saying I think the relationship has soured since Mr. Cavahlo left, and I still think it has. It was about me saying the CBA is not as respected an organization as it once was because of unstable leadership, and I think the lack of respect issue is very clear - no matter who you blame. It was about me saying that the Manager is WRONG for not letting the public talk about this bridge issue, but that there is reason for ill will from the city towards CBA, and that’s been proven out by the writings of you, the other poster from CBA, and the CBA website that indicates actions taken against the city. Yes, I know the CBA has its reasons within its mission, but to me that isn’t working with the city it’s working against it. And you have the exact opposite opinion. We can agree to disagree and leave it at that.
By the way, I have to say I appreciate this blog and that you are open to differing opinions. I can tell by the way you are writing that I infuriate you at times, but to me this is a healthy discussion.
December 12th, 2005 at 6:31 pm
That could imply that the only way to not think that CBA has never made a poor decision is to believe Lynne’s writings are not true! Of course, that is not what you mean, but rather that you think she just looks on the good side of CBA, (and maybe on the bad side of Lowell growth plans)?
December 12th, 2005 at 10:09 pm
The point was just that in this discussion it’s a slanted viewpoint here in favor of CBA, and that’s fine, it’s Lynne’s blog and that’s the point afterall I assume.
Everyone makes good and bad decisions, including the city and CBA.
December 12th, 2005 at 10:19 pm
I’m glad you don’t think the Sun does its job well, Mike. That makes us on the same side at least some of the time.
As any writer, I write what I know. The leadership changes (that I’ve been around for) seemed for the most part to be internal affairs as far as I can tell. Yes, of course there’s institutional change when a director leaves, but do I think (from what I’ve observed and know) that the shifting CBA leadership is responsible for the breakdown? No, I do not. I think it’s very much an inbred city administration that does not like dissent or challenges to their power.
Working with the city by playing the “game” ever since Cox came in has been, as far as I can tell, a fruitless venture. The only thing left at that point is to make a point, using whatever loudspeaker will work. The Julian Steele debacle was a huge part of that - and the CBA didn’t have anything to do with that decision and the subsequent disasters that have happened surrounding that issue. But we all know Cox was the guy behind that!
I believe it’s not the case that relations have deteriorated because of the last few CBA leaders; I think the blame is securely on the city manager. I mean, look at his demeanor at council meetings. He’s so damned hostile to his own bosses! Any of us acting like that to our managers would have been fired long ago. Cox thinks he can act with impunity. He shut out city activists, not the other way around. You can’t work with the guy, or his staff. He shuts people out, and then lies about it, on camera and to the elected councilors. “The CBA never contacted me.” What utter bull.
Hey, if the city was cooperative and a working relationship possible, don’t you think the CBA would be happy to give up spending hours organizing to put out house fires every time they turn around? It impedes their progress on their core issues more than anyone! Trust me, I know that from first hand experience. As it stands, they have to scramble to react to things like a proposed $50K expenditure on the eminent domain appraisals. They would love to get away from being reactionary and be able to be proactive (which I can also say they’ve been doing on top of reacting to the emergencies). They’re overworked, and overtired, and could use a vacation from Cox, frankly. As could I!
December 12th, 2005 at 10:30 pm
As a response to the last post, Mike, I like to pride myself on my ability to observe. I have observed in my last few years here a discourteous, untruthful, dictatorial city official in a position of leadership. I see a habit of the city to shut people out of the debate, especially the most vulnerable, especially when they organize. I see them giving out little crumbs to appease them, and then when the activists decide that’s not enough, to call them recalcitrant and use that as their excuse to not work with them.
The onus is not on the CBA, it’s on people in power to engage with the concerns of their citizens - the voters and non-voters alike - and ensure access, transparency, and accountability. I see none of those three coming from this administration. Access is not given freely but doled out to the connected. Transparency - I don’t have to spell that one out; the city councilors themselves didn’t know crap about the plans Cox already had decided on in regards to the bridge, and certainly there was no public debate (and that really spells trouble for the council - I have said time and again that they have every appearance of being merely figureheads most of the time). Accountability, well, we all saw the councilors give Cox a raise. Think he’ll get one next year? Probably.
Maybe that’s how it works in most towns…maybe I’m complaining about the same things people in Cambridge, or Boston, or North Adams, or any other place…that doesn’t make it any less urgent that we call attention to this inbred system and give it a good shake to get the snakes out.
December 12th, 2005 at 10:43 pm
I agree with you on Cox, but I place the blame on the city councilors who let him get away with it. Is it that some of them benefit by playing the game, or do they just not have the courage to stand up for what is right?
December 12th, 2005 at 11:03 pm
I think it varies. You have Armand Mercier and Caulfield who seem to agree with Cox and let him do what he does because they like it and think that’s the way to run a city. I think some others are often trying to be diplomatic just out of fear of the Lowell Sun. At least that’s what I’ve heard.
Look at the Sun’s influence when it decides to be for or against something. The four on four plan, which may or may not have been a good idea, didn’t even get a good public airing because the Councilors got tons of phone calls after the Sun blasted it to smithereens and didn’t allow a debate in its pages. So they felt forced to kill it, not send it into committee for further discussion, just kill it dead.
Fair hearings begin and end with the Sun. Which is largely why I want this blog to succeed. Not for myself; I hate publicity if you really must know. I’ll never be comfortable with it (being on the radio was fun but was totally nerve-wracking!). But I think it would be just the coolest thing in the world if this blog ended up eventually with more website hits than the Sun gets. That would amuse me entirely.
Hey, if the Sun can be biased and not disclose the fact, I can be biased in the other direction and I disclose it to boot. Not to mention the fact that I can be reasoned with, and have no cause to care about power and access the way the Sun does (I’m sure the top-level editorial staff loves being in charge of the city).
If activists, and this blog, can give the councilors a way out of the iron clad grip of a second-rate city rag, so much the better!
(By the way, I just want to say, I know good people at the Sun, they just aren’t in charge. I do not wish to malign those people in any way.)
December 12th, 2005 at 11:44 pm
As far as the Manager getting a raise, I don’t think he’ll be around next year. The Council looks itchy to do something. It’s too bad, I’m on the other side of the fence and I think what has happened in Lowell under this Managers eye has been nothing short of astounding. Other cities can only dream of this kind of revitalization to their urban core. For the council to interrupt this to me is disturbing. Unless they find a hotshot that can continue the progress.
December 12th, 2005 at 11:59 pm
As far as I can tell from talking to people, this administration is basking in the sunlight of development that was planned 10 years ago. I have yet to see any evidence that all our good fortune is Cox’s fault.
December 13th, 2005 at 6:44 am
Anyone can plan anything, every city in the country has great plans, this is one of the few that has been actually doing things.
December 13th, 2005 at 9:36 am
Probably Cox’s greatest strength is what annoys most of us, that is his ability to control the process and therefore the results. Being democratic can sometimes get in the way of progress.
There is a danger in forfeiting our rights to such an individual, however. We rely on the city council to represent us to set the policy of our government. The “go alongs to get alongs” on the council do us a disservice, whether their reasons be selfish or merely to not rock the boat of the SUN’s or CM’s ship.
There has been significant progress in Lowell in the past 10-15 years after the downturn in the late 80’s. I have been impressed with the capability of the people in the Division of Planning and Development, although one of the key members has left in the past year. However, I am not satisfied with the disregard of the average person who is not connected to this current administration. Even though most of us are not directly harmed by the actions of this government, we must speak up for those that have been treated unfairly, or else we will stand alone when our turn comes around. I am most grateful that Lynne has put in the efforts to create this opportunity to share our feelings on this.
Lowell is a working class city with a great history, and it would be selfish of us to abandon those who are attempting to carry on this legacy. Balanced development is needed, and it appears that this city is off on the tangent of high end bedroom community priorities. Of course, that probably is the best opportunity for developer profit right now.
Now, one question should be is “where is the Julian Steele housing that was promised?”. Or was that only a ruse to get rid of the “blight” in the neighborhood where the SUN people own substantial property?
December 13th, 2005 at 10:16 am
Mike, although I appreciate your views, I need to ask you “Where have you been for the past 10 – 15 years.” If you think what has happened to this city in the past 5 years is the result of Cox’s leadership or the decision-making of the recent past 2 City Councils, I have to question your judgment.
I do agree that this City is doing great compared to the 70s or even 80s but please do not give credit to the current administration. What economic development has the Cox administration articulated and implemented to bring validity to your comment: “…what has happened in Lowell under this Manager’s eye has been nothing short of outstanding.” What am I missing? Please do not give me a Marketing Plan such as the Winter Festival or Mills to Martini.
In my opinion we are benefiting from the planning and vision of previous City Councils, the good fortune of a strong housing market and an economic upturn. How long can we live off that?
December 13th, 2005 at 10:18 am
The Julian Steele story is at the core of what’s wrong with this administration. It was not part of the big revitalization plan as originally laid out years ago as far as I can tell (though I would need someone to confirm that), and it was perpetrated by the city despite the opposition of state housing officials and local people. I remember hearing that Cox was hired as the lobbyist by the city for getting the Home Rule bill that allowed them to destroy Julian Steele. I also remember hearing (from reliable sources) this was after the state offered the money to fix it up and keep it as public housing. I also have heard stories of how the leaders of the community in Julian were intimidated, kicked out of the project, and otherwise silenced when they tried to organize. Those are things you don’t hear from the Sun (and the reason I don’t trust the paper further than I can throw their now-abandoned downtown building). Then you have the fact that the developer who benefited now says it will cost too much to build. Look, that whole fracking thing, the lobbying, the demolition, was at the city’s - and the taxpayers’ - expense. Seems like that’s more than an adequate reason to suspect recent bad planning and development decisions despite the good years we’re enjoying from previous economic plans.
However, I’m also starting to hear other things…like, businesses in and near downtown complaining that there’s not as many people out there buying as there used to when there were lots of manufacturing and other jobs in the city. When the working class lived and worked here, they shopped here too. I’m beginning to suspect this administration has been on autopilot, raking in the benefits of previous development planning of the downtown area and others, and ignoring the truth about the situation here. If businesses in and around downtown are talking about a lack of buyers, I don’t know how turning Lowell into a bedroom community helps at all. What we need is more jobs - high tech, biotech, new energy solutions (the solar-powered coffee dryers which are helping preserve the rainforest were developed here with the help of UMass Lowell after all). The best development plan is a mixed one, not putting all your eggs in one basket. We’re already starting to see the backend of gentrification here; at least I am seeing it. If we were on the upswing of a gentrification process, sorry, but the downtown locations would be all rented out or being in the process of being filled by businesses who see profit here. There’s businesses shifting around in the downtown and some new ones for sure, but we need to be more than a bedroom community to sustain a good business atmosphere. I didn’t go to school for planning or economics, but to me that’s sort of an obvious view.
December 13th, 2005 at 10:33 am
Just a little nitpick:
“…but usually in debate you have to concede points to be taken seriously…”
This might be true. If it is, I find it sad. Nobody should feel obligated to concede points on the other side to taken seriously. In any debate over the truth one only need concern oneself with valid and true points. Conceding any points just for form alone or some sense of balance alone is a bad idea since it compromises the search for truth. Assertions do not deserve credence merely because they are asserted. Thus the mere assertion does not obligate anyone to concede anything.
It’s a small thing to point out, but there are so many bad arguments are promulgated in the media using similar reasoning.
ID for example has been given fare more airtime than is proportional the actual relative amounts of scientists debating the subject. There is no controversy in the scientific community but the minority, by a huge margin, keeps getting airplay because of people in the media who, at a minimum, feel the need to cover these fringe ‘scientific’ opinions out of some sense of balance, or at worst, wish to sidestep the scientific process and the scientific community in order to promote these fringe ‘scientific’ opinions themselves.
December 13th, 2005 at 11:20 am
I wholeheartedly agree with and know this point personally,
“Even though most of us are not directly harmed by the actions of this government, we must speak up for those that have been treated unfairly, or else we will stand alone when our turn comes around”
It is an imperative that we as a people stand ujp for oursleves and in doing so, we stand up for others. It is not only a civic
obligation, more importantly, it is a moral obligation.
We as a society have isolated ourselves, rejecting the community as a whole.
In the past two monhs alone, Lowell has lost 3 (that I am aware of) companies. These companies, collectively employed
approximately 200 people. Whether they were Lowell residents or not, is irrelavant.
It speaks to the larger issue, that we continue to lose employment and gain housing?
With no jobs to employ residents, we’re going to have a tough time filling those housing units. When those housing units are
not filled, we (the City) are not gaining anything (taxes or otherwise).
The focus has to be on the J-O-B (s)!
I’d like to know excatly why we have lost so many businesses. What can the City adminstration do (components w/in our control)
to keep businesses or bring them back or bring new ones to Lowell?
Has Planning & Development surveyed these folks, inquiring as to why?
I understand, economics is what it is, however…why is it that Chelmsford or Billerica are gainning, while we are losing BIG TIME!
December 13th, 2005 at 11:48 am
Retaining and expanding jobs is not an easy challenge.
What can Lowell provide that would enhance the possibilities?
1) Provide a capable workforce - UMassLowell, Middlesex, Lowell schools, and training programs. Lowell has advantages in this regard.
2) Provide access - freight train, passenger train and highways are good, but links within city can be improved.
3) Provide low tax burden - TIF helps, but Lowell is at 1.75:1 on commercial-industrial/residential, unlike Chelmsford at 1:1.
4) Provide good quality of life - downtown, Tsongas arena, ballpark, Lowell Parks and Conservation, MRT and Auditorium good, but traffic, crime, and neighborhoods are not so good.
5) Provide the R&D for new techology - use it locally to gain a temporary advantage vs. the outside world. UMassLowell provides a unique opportunity here, and we must engage it.
6) Provide equal opportunities and reach out to businesses - this is the area where we are falling down in the last few years.
December 14th, 2005 at 12:43 am
“This might be true. If it is, I find it sad. Nobody should feel obligated to concede points on the other side to taken seriously. In any debate over the truth one only need concern oneself with valid and true points.”
In this case when all I read is great things about CBA and poor things about the city, I can only take it with a grain of salt because I know it’s just not all that cut and dried. Nothing ever is. And I know as someone who is familiar with what Lowell used to be known for, that there’s been an amazing turnaround here. Ask people 10 years ago if they wanted to live in downtown Lowell, they would have looked at you like you were an alien. But you see very little recognition of those facts here. This is what I’m talking about in conceding points. If you can’t admit any positives, how in the world can anyone take your view as objective?
But, apparentley it works here, because with every anti-city or pro-cba post, there are 10 posts after it cheering it on.
December 14th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
First, yes it’s nice they turned the city around. Do I have to say it in every post? That was planned and implemented years ago. I’m not apt generally to live in the past, maybe others are.
Second, that turn around did come at a cost. And then came Julian Steele. And several other bad decisions, which are not going in the same great direction you want me to talk about as all roses and sunshine.
My job here isn’t to give lots of credit. My job is to see where the problems are and try to start a conversation - which the Sun generally fails to do - that will bring attention to them. We have a huge homeless problem. We have a backlog of people who need affordable housing. We have unfilled downtown business units, we have problems with oversight on our new school construction, we have people in charge who aren’t interested what the public has to say.
Sunshine and roses are a waste of my time. If we spent less time patting ourselves on the back and more time working for the future to make it even better, we might get somewhere.
December 21st, 2005 at 6:42 pm
TRY # 2. New to comp. My name is Paul Johnson and I am currently the clerk of CBA. aa
I am also in my 2nd year of active membership in the Acre Neiborhood Comitte.
As regards our leadership our exec director Laura Buxbaum is now in her 2nd year
with us.
She has more than adequately filled this role and in fact her staying on with us was
one reason I ran for board membership.
I first became a member because of the bridge proposal. After reading about it in
the sun I could not get info on how this would help/hurt my neiborhood like many
others. Nobody would answer my questions.
CBA tryed to get john cox to tell us these things but was told that he would be
unavailable. In Jan.2005 a neiborhood meeting was held in which a city and Mass.
Highway rep were present but not Mr.Cox. At this meeting the residents did not get
the feeling that what they wanted mattered especially after being told that we could
comment on it when plans were 25% complete. We voted against the proposal and asked
CBA to help us.
My personal belief is that ANY TIME YOU WANT TO DO A MAJOR PROJECT IN ANY
NEIBORHOOD YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN WHY AND HOW IT WILL BENIFIT THE RESIDENTS.
Thank you
Paul Johnson