Left In Lowell

Center for American Progress has launched a new newsletter, the Middle East Bulletin. I’m already impressed, reading this in-context in-depth analysis on the Gaza situation by Mara Rudman and Brian Katulis.

Leaders in Fatah and the Palestine Liberation Organization had recognized Israel and readily participated in negotiating a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But many were notoriously corrupt, and provided little opportunity for new approaches and leaders to emerge. They also had too few tangible results to show the Palestinian people on the key issues most directly affecting their lives: not enough jobs or quality education; constraints put in place to protect Israeli settlements that impeded Palestinians’ movement; and limits on the movement and access for goods and services that held back Palestinian businesses’ ability to export products, sustain and grow jobs. In sum, this absence of leadership resulted in the failure to deliver what the Palestinian people so desperately seek: a government that offers hope that Palestinian children can aspire to a better future than their parents in a society that respects the rule of law and rewards those who respect it.

Hamas exploited the gap between Palestinians’ expectations and their daily lives. They won an election last year on the Palestinian leadership’s failure to deliver. Arguably, they’ve now won a costly battle for control of Gaza. We cannot allow them to win any more.

They have a specific and realistic outline of how to avert further disaster with the civil strife (possibly war) among the Palestinians. Unfortunately, it requires active and interested (and competant) United States diplomacy. Until we change horses (another good argument for the impeachment of Cheney and Bush, NOW), there’s little hope that the chaos spreading the Middle East will be halted.

I am very sad for the Iraqis, the Palestinians, the Lebanese, and all the others around the world who the US has hurt through its actions or inactions. This was predictable and preventable. Bush has even more blood on his hands now.

It’s older news I suppose, but I missed that week’s Column originally, titled “City Council or ZBA? Kazanjian has eyes for both.” (I found it in an unrelated search I was doing on the Sun’s site.) I’m going to quote a lot of the section in question because it’s sure to go poof soon, as it was posted May 27 and Sun web articles expire after a couple weeks. The Column is authored, of course, by multiple people.

ALAN KAZANJIAN, chairman of the city’s Zoning Board of Appeals, is putting City Manager Bernie Lynch and the City Council in a box by asking to be reappointed to the ZBA when his term expires in late July.

The reason? Kazanjian is a declared candidate for City Council.

If Kazanjian was serious about running for City Council, why is he asking for reappointment? Just be a brave candidate, show the city you’re serious, and step down. Also, a really good question for me is, if the guy has to abstain from many ZBA decisions because he has conflicts of interest, how many times will he have to step aside for city council deliberations? After all, don’t we want to elect city councilors who can actually do the job most of the time? (Unrelated to the article, just askin’.)

Now here’s the kicker:

A builder, towing-service owner and municipal officer, Kazanjian has walked a fine line of controversy on some of his projects and board decisions. But in 15 years on the ZBA, few of the board’s decisions have been overturned by higher authority, nor has Kazanjian faced any Ethics Commission complaints.

Right, so that must mean he doesn’t use his connections this city to get his way, or use intimidation tactics either. Because he’s never actually been caught with his pants down. Well, neither has Cox but it appears it was only a matter of time. Fine line my you-know-what. He constantly crosses the line of good behavior. Whether or not there’s anything beyond that I can’t say for certain.

If Lynch reappoints the K-man, he risks alienating neighborhood activists who see Kazanjian as pro-development and city councilors who see him as an election threat. If Lynch doesn’t, he might be viewed as taking a negative stance against someone who enjoys firm standing in parts of the city.

Any reappointment would need confirmation by the council. Should councilors even consider confirming someone who’s running for one of nine seats?

Kazanjian’s response to that is that he’s running for the open seat created by George Ramirez, who announced he’s not seeking re-election after one term.

First of all, “the K-man”? What kind of relationship does this author have with said person? Second, does Kazanjian even know what a Plan E form of government is? All nine of the seats are open. Maybe he meant metaphorically, but still. Kazanjian, if he wins, may well “take” the seat of an incumbent. (Of course, I’m hoping he won’t make it at all, but anyway.)

Also, I think the article severely underestimates the number of people who Kazanjian has pissed off, compared to the numbers that like him.

I say to Lynch, we got your back, forgo reappointment for Kazanjian. Now’s the time to get someone in there who will be fair, and who won’t have to abstain every five minutes for conflicts of interest. Plus, in the likely event that he fails to make the city council, he won’t have the ZBA to fall back on. Time to let Kazanjian, like Cox, go back to private life.

I have to finish out the commentary though:

“I have more to lose if I’m elected,” said Kazanjian in the interview. “Quite likely, I won’t be able to do any business with the city as an elected official,” he said.

Kazanjian has sent a letter to the state Ethics Commission seeking verification on what he can and can not do if elected. “I want to be as transparent as possible about this, and I will be,” he said.

In his letter to Lynch, Kazanjian wrote: “As you know, I am running for City Council and as I stated when we met, I am not running a negative campaign or a so-called witch-hunt for your position. I am running a positive campaign focusing on issues which I feel will best serve the City of Lowell.”

Yup, and the Mittster was always pro-life in his heart of hearts, thank god he realized it on time to run for President as a Republican who can appeal to the southern conservatives. Also, does anyone seriously believe that Kazanjian will just up and stop doing business in this city if elected? Or that this isn’t about Lynch, losing lucrative city contracts, or the ouster of Cox? Hardly. The timing’s just too convenient (if he was so keen to serve, why this particular election year? Didn’t he realize everyone would see this as a grudge match?). But, voters will have to make up their own minds in the fall.

Margot at Truth & Progress brought an issue and an article in the Lowell Sun (from one of my fave reporters, Matt Murphy) to my attention. Now that we’re past the gay marriage fight, maybe we can do some real administrating at the state house?

From Margot, who put it better than I could:

As we hear more and more about the toxic — and sometimes deadly — effects of many of the thousands of man-made chemicals that surround us, we have to grapple with the very real question: “what do we do about them?” The question that is asked in the current U.S. regulatory system comes down to “how much pollution can we tolerate?” It often seems that we have to trade our health and safety for jobs and economic security.

Business-can-do-no-wrong conservatives will often argue that regulations are burdensome and ineffective. And you know what? When it comes to regulations built on the traditional tools of risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, they’re right. But the good news is, there’s another way to do it: replace risk assessment with alternatives assessment.

In other words, stop saying “what toxicity level can we live with ‘reasonably’” and start saying “gee, do we need these toxic chemicals in the first place, or is there something better?”

Well, there’s a bill up in the state lege, “An Act for a Healthy Massachusetts: Safer Alternatives to Toxic Chemicals” (H-783 & S558), which addresses this concept and, as the Sun article posits, “would expand the state’s Toxic Use Reduction Act to focus more closely on finding alternatives to certain toxic chemicals found in many consumer products.”

What’s more, there’s economic opportunity to be had in this bill, especially for Lowell. From the Sun article:

[The U-Mass Lowell] Toxic Use Reduction Institute has been on the leading edge of helping companies clean up their manufacturing processes with safer alternative chemicals.

“This would open a whole new area for research and greatly expand the focus of the institute,” said Ken Geiser, a professor of work environment at UMass Lowell and co-director of the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production.

We don’t have to lose money on this, we can create jobs with the increased innovation - with a little help from government regulations and initiatives. Otherwise, corporations have no incentive to do squat. They just judge on risk - how much can they get away with without getting sued too much. Meanwhile, we’re dying out here. But Lowell could become the green chemical capital of the world…and that will bring in companies, with good jobs, and we can all sleep better at night - literally.

We really need Governor Patrick on this one. A little urging from him will go a long way towards passing this bill. Here’s that info (or email him from this page):
Office of the Governor
Office of the Lt. Governor
Room 360
Boston, MA 02133
Phone: 617.725.4005
888.870.7770 (in state)
Fax: 617.727.9725

Also call your state Rep and Senator and ask them to actively support this bill, you can find that information for Lowell here, or other legislators here.

UPDATE: Also, go vote for this issue at devalpatrick.com!

UPDATE 2: I should have been clear, if you’re calling Sen. Panagiotakos, or Reps Murphy or Golden, they are co-sponsors of the bill already. Make it clear you would like them to actively persue this bill and get it out of committee.