Left In Lowell

City Board Appointments

12 Responses to “City Board Appointments”

1. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   July 25th, 2006 at 12:26 pm

   Even though we will have a new city manager in 1 week, don’t look for any changes in the boards
   etc. Why do I say that? While it’s true that members of the various boards are appointed by
   the city manager they do not serve at the pleasure of the city manager, they are appointed for
   specific terms.

   Now would it be nice if members of the various boards submitted their resignations to the CM in
   order for him to review their performance and decide whether or not to bring his own people in,
   as is common with a number of other forms of govt. I don’t see it happening.

   I agree that the boards are supposed to be the last line of defense for the common folk and
   by and large the boards in Lowell haven’t been, what will be telling is whether Mr Lynch begins
   to advertise board positions when terms expire or if he will, as has been the “tradition” in Lowell
   for decades, just reappoint the same folks without seeing if anyone else might be interested.

2. Lynne Says:
   July 25th, 2006 at 12:33 pm

   Well, as I recall, some of those terms were up/are up. Didn’t some of them not get reapproved by the CC? I seem to remember a to-do about some of these names not coming up when they should have for renewal. I could be wrong, maybe that was resolved.

   The fact is, though, that as those terms become expired, I would hope a TRUE review of those positions would commence.

3. waittilnextyr Says:
   July 25th, 2006 at 3:09 pm

   There were some appointments made earlier this year, but there are still several positions pending. Remember the heat CC Broderick took when he filed a motion for the CM to not make/submit for approval any more appointments during his remaining tenure?

   With all politics aside, the difficulty is the contradiction of wanting “qualified” board members, yet having them independent of those with vested interest. People in the field may be considered the most qualified, although good judgment and fairness would win out any time.

4. Mike Says:
   July 25th, 2006 at 5:07 pm

   Isn’t Julian Steele being built as we type?

5. Lynne Says:
   July 25th, 2006 at 5:52 pm

   Mike, that’s not the promise I’m talking about. Though, that whole mess was another matter.

   No, the promise I am talking about is the promise to replace Julian Steele with 100% NEW affordable housing elsewhere. The city has not yet come even close to living up to that promise, and even the percentage they claim to have done is largely made up of projects previously planned which is not a fullfilment of what they said.

6. Mr Lynne Says:
   July 25th, 2006 at 6:15 pm

   Conflicts of interest are ok as long as:
   1) They are kept to as minimum number as possible
   2) They are disclosed in an open and timely manner.
   3) They are mitigated with appropriate behavior, i.e. non-discussion of the conflict in question (in or out of session) as well as appropriate abstentions.

   As long as people can recognize the ethical obligations that arise when conflicts of interest come up and can be adult about it, it really shouldn’t be that much of a problem.

7. I81u812 Says:
   July 25th, 2006 at 7:30 pm

   How many lawyers (who have their own practice) have been appointed to boards by the previous 2 CM’s? It’s the good ‘ol boy tradition of “Bennies for Buddies”. These guys score appointments to these boards for one reason only. Health Insurance. The ones with the real political juice are not only able to score Health Insurance, but pensions too. Self employed BC/BS is in the range of 700-800 dollars a month. Do the math. Health bennies are non-taxable and if their term is for 4 years, they’ve saved their law practice about 40 thou. That’s forty thou extra to throw at city councillors/state reps for their parties and rounds of golf. Makes sense, doesn’t it?

8. Mike Says:
   July 25th, 2006 at 10:07 pm

   What do the affordable housing folks think (seriously) of bringing in a guy that comes from a town that has historically fought affordable housing?
   (without reverting into an anti-Cox speech)

   I would hope like anything else they will give Mr. Lynch the benefit of the doubt, but he’s not coming from a place that has dealt with an issue like this often.

9. Renee Says:
   July 26th, 2006 at 2:02 am

   As for affordable housing where Julian Steele use to be…

   http://www.riversedgelowell.com/index.html

   “A number of the units will be made affordable to families meeting low and moderate income levels in the area. The remainder of the units will be sold to families whose income does not exceed 150% of the area median income.
   The market rate single family homes are priced at $279,900 and the duplex styled homes at $339,900.”

   If you go to www.zillow.com the median home is about 288k in the 01852 zip code and 280K in 01851 zip code.

   In 2000 the median household in Lowell made a little under 46k. 150% of that is 69K. I’ll be nice and say in 2006 it is 50k, then 150% would be 75K. A mortgage of 300k even at 6.25% at 30 years is about 1850 Dollars. A family making 75K can not afford that! Technically they can, but most people will want to be able eat too if they own property.

   These homes according the website are marketed to people outside of Lowell.

10. Lynne Says:
    July 26th, 2006 at 9:23 am

    I don’t know, but I expect they will get more dialog with Lynch then they ever got from the Cox administration. Who basically shut down the access of those people to city employees (yes, actually shut down access).

    The impetus, however, for smart growth and affordable housing has got to come from City Councilors. That’s where the initatives would be born and direction given to the city manager. It’s where the 5 year plans are developed. Although I’m sure Lynch would have great input, and certainly we’ve seen the importance of the city manager in being a liason between the city’s groups and city government, it’s not Lynch’s call to place emphasis on initiatives.

    Lowell could be a model city for mixed zoning and smart affordable housing in the midst of a revitalization plan. It’s not too late to stop pricing the poor and moderate incomes from living here. The Acre plan, in particular, needs a good going-over by all parties of interest in the city - developers, affordable housing advocates, and residents.

11. JANE Says:
    July 27th, 2006 at 12:54 pm

    It is my understanding that the only board that needs an appointment is the Planning Board. And it is my observation that the last 2 changes in the Planning Board is a big part of why Cox was asked to step down.
    One, being that Zaharoolis stuck around a little longer than he should have. George was excellent at analyzing plans and interpreting the intent of the applicant, but his strong-armed style of running the meetings undermined his own reputation. Even though his vote was typically in the best interest of the neighbors, as more and more people spoke in front of him, the more and more people he pissed off. And unfortunately, he upset too many people who had strong ties to the City Councilors.
    Prior to the Special Permit (I.P.O.D. 2004) part of the Planning Board process, the Planning Board had no teeth, basically they were a fact checking instrument. The five-member panel would approve or deny projects based on their compliance to the Zoning Ordinances, with no regard to the neighbor’s concerns or to neighborhood character. This, for a long time, created an atmosphere where the Planning Board would be used as a spring board into city politics (half of the current City Councilors sat on the Planning Board). For the record, Zaharoolis was a strong proponent and instrumental in creating the Special Permit part of the approval process. And for the record, the Burbeck’s project was not his fault. Now came Mary Burns.
    It is my understanding that prior to Cox, the City Manager would ask the Department of Planning and Development staff to review the applications for Board Member replacements, and ask their opinion for the top applicant. Let us just say Cox did not ask for recommendations. So, when the City Councilors got wind through reading the Sun that Mary Burns was chosen over two far more qualified individuals to replace Zaharoolis, the crap hit the fan. Burns was promised the next board appointment for political reasons, and not in the best interest of the city, especially, to a board who’s power went from fact checking to development control.
    As what I have observed, I believe Lynch’s board appointment recommendations to the City Councilors will be the most qualified applicant, at least that’s what he said last week in his radio interview, but we will all have to wait and see. And, I know there are at least a dozen developers waiting for the Planning Board it be a Five member panel again, so it should be a very busy Fall.

12. Lynne Says:
    July 27th, 2006 at 3:39 pm

    Jane, thanks for the interesting perspective.

    A Planning Board with teeth definitely needs members who are willing to be fair (to both residents and developers).

    Interesting that you say Cox flouted the recommendations of the Planning Dept…frankly, I’ve talked with members of the Planning Dept and they seem competent and good public servants. It would gall me, if I were a professional in that sort of job watching someone appoint an overseer of your area for political reasons instead of for good governance.

    If that’s the reason the councilors have for letting go of Cox, it’s good enough for me. I’ve witnessed how “political” he was in other arenas. It looks like Lynch has the professional awareness of a municipal manager; let’s see if he has the will to exercise his job in a non-political fashion despite the hurdles (as in, everyone else will make it political, getting up in arms if their friends don’t get the nod for these positions).

Leave a Reply