Left In Lowell

Citizens: I Need Your Questions for the City’s Candidates!

21 Responses to “Citizens: I Need Your Questions for the City’s Candidates!”

1. joe Says:
   September 18th, 2007 at 6:31 pm

   Do you believe the City Manager should turn over all information from the Department of Revenue about the city’s fiscal condition to the Council during their deliberations over the annual budget?

   How’s that for a question?

2. Mr. Lynne Says:
   September 18th, 2007 at 6:36 pm

   Thats a fine question.

3. Right in Lowell Says:
   September 18th, 2007 at 8:25 pm

   What are your thoughts on the city’s entitlement programs and union contracts? Do we need to reign them in or should we continue on the current path? If you believe they need to be reigned in, are you prepared to pledge right here and now to take on the unions when the need arises?

4. jack Says:
   September 18th, 2007 at 8:29 pm

   [comment deleted]

   (Jack, this comment was inappropriate. I am calling for serious questions for all candidates for an actual questionnaire I plan on sending out. I would appreciate if you could find a better way to fight the good fight other than ridicule…you’re better than that. — Lynne)

5. Prince Charming Says:
   September 18th, 2007 at 8:55 pm

   Betcha there hasn’t been a martini served at the SAC club since Father Spike died.

6. Lynne Says:
   September 18th, 2007 at 9:11 pm

   Let’s get back to the reason for this thread, please, guys. I need your real and honest questions. Thanks!

7. joe Says:
   September 19th, 2007 at 11:54 am

   The city owns several buildings which are long vacant, in poor condition, and blighting influences in their neighborhoods, such as the building behind the playground on West Sixth Street and the Butler School on Gorham Street. The City has allowed these buildings to stand vacant for years, in the hope of renovating them for public uses sometime in the future, but has not been able to secure to the funds to do so. Should the City continue to maintain the buildings as they are, or sell them on the private market?

8. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   September 19th, 2007 at 8:28 pm

   I think 1 - 12 CC questions are still good plus 15. (updating names like Lynch for Cox and 1 year for 5 years)

   I like Joe’s question about disposal of vacant crumbling city owned buildings.

   RiL has a point about reining in some of the perks that the top tier departments enjoy (specifically police). Do the candidates feel the perks are out of line? If so, specifically which ones and would they vote to approve or reject a contract that contains the perks they have identified as too expensive for the city? If so, why?

   Also, we are going to hear lots about “economic development” Lowe’s etc is building, how can we market the industrial park area further to attract more new style “anchor” companies?

9. Right in Lowell Says:
   September 20th, 2007 at 3:07 pm

   For the record, my question isn’t specifying the police dept. I’m including all municipal unions (Fire, Public Works, Teachers, etc…)

   If you’re going to include mine, please leave everything on the table. Thank you!

10. ArtisFun Says:
    September 20th, 2007 at 6:23 pm

    Not so much a ? as an issue. Taxpayer paid cell phones, Cox took some away in city hall after the Pat Cook fiasco but I think there are a lot more out there especially in the PD.

11. Anonymous Says:
    September 20th, 2007 at 8:33 pm

    The downtown area is full of shuttered businesses. What would you do to attract business to downtown and what would you do to help them thrive?

12. waittilnextyr Says:
    September 20th, 2007 at 9:23 pm

    I’d like to hear the positions of each candidate on the 21 issues from last election that we have been tracking, at least those that have not been adequately fulfilled. For those, what is the candidates position on the issue, and how does he/she plan to address it?

    Ordinarily, I would update the list at the end of the quarter (this month), but will do it early in case you want to include any open issues in your questionnaire.

13. waittilnextyr Says:
    September 20th, 2007 at 11:25 pm

    From the list of 21 items, I would propose the following questions to items that are still at issue.

    1) What is your target percentage increase in the tax rate for the upcoming FY2009 budget, and what are the primary actions required to achieve that?

    2) What do you plan to do to facilitate developemnt at Massachusetts Mills and the old post office garage sites?

    3) What do you consider the most pressing traffic bottlenecks in the city, and what would you propose to alleviate them?

    4) What will you do to help coordinate worker training for Lowell commercial development in conjunction with UML and MCC?

14. Mr. Lynn Says:
    September 21st, 2007 at 10:25 am

    What do you see as our options and what do you recommend with regard to improving our bond rating and our reserves?

15. Eleanor Rigby Says:
    September 21st, 2007 at 9:19 pm

    RiL the specifically comment way mine! If you note I said top tier departments regarding benefits.

16. Jason Says:
    September 22nd, 2007 at 6:50 pm

    I also like Joe’s question about the city owned vacant properties. If we aren’t going to utilize them in a timely manner, we should try to get them back on the tax rolls. And Wait’s list as always is very thorough and covers most of the bases.

    To those I would add (hopefully without being redundant):

    What would you propose to stop daily firehouse closings? It has been 15 years and no one seems to want to find (or care about) a reasonable solution that protects all neighborhoods safely, fairly and equally.

    In addition to schools how do you propose funding to maintain and repair existing city buildings in poor condition given limited resources?

    What else would you propose to support/stimulate additional commercial and industrial development beyond the plans currently on the table? Is there anything new (Dare I say revolutionary?) on your long term agenda?

    Do you feel given the city’s investment in the JAM plan and the one time opportunity it provides, that public facilities are the best use of the property? How will you work to ensure taxable property is added to the rolls?

    What can be done (if anything) to mediate the legal challenges to the Lowe’s and Mass Mills developments?

    How can better use be made of the Connector Corridor and its access to the highway system?

    What is your opinion of the National Parks role/involvement in the future development of the city?

    Is the possibility of commuter rail service through the city to UMass Lowell and Southern NH dead?

    What else can we do to support the growth/recruitment and retention of more artists in the city?

    Do you think Lowell’s long term viability is helped or harmed by being a gateway city for immigrants? Conversely is the prospect of gentrification a subject of concern?

17. Victoria Says:
    September 23rd, 2007 at 10:27 am

    1) Because Congress has not passed any immigration reform measures, cities around the country have begun passing their own regulations. Would you consider measures related to undocumented immigrants, and if so, would you be in favor of measures intended to shelter undocumented immigrants from the current anti-immigrant climate or measures intended to force them out of our city?

    2)This summer residents in the Lower Highlands have reported that police and city of Lowell Health inspectors have come to their homes and requested entrance in order to look for violations of the health code. Reportedly, these residents are both unaware of their right to deny entrance and also afraid to deny entrance. Do you support this intervention as a means to fight gang violence? If so, are you concerned with the fear that this intervention can create among those refugee residents who have a history of brutality at the hands of their former government?

18. TooJohn Says:
    September 24th, 2007 at 9:36 am

    Questions I would like to have answered:

    1. How do you keep up with local or regional news? A television program? Radio program? Newspaper? Magazine? Blogs? Talking with members of the community? Which programs or print media do you read? How frequently do you do this? How accurate or inaccurate do you rate these sources?

    2. How do you keep up with national or international news? Which programs or print media do you read? How frequently do you do this? How accurate or inaccurate do you rate these sources?

    3. Could you describe an initiative or set of initiatives, either in Lowell or elsewhere, that either needs to be expanded, continued, or brought in to Lowell? Why do you feel this way?

    4. Could you name one or two current elected officials - at any level of government - that you admire and why?

19. Eleanor Rigby Says:
    September 24th, 2007 at 2:27 pm

    Regarding Jason’t questions about firehouses. I would strongly suggest that the fire chief and CM sit down and evaluate what fire protection is needed in the city and where, then I would draw up plans to replace the firehouses in those sections of the city.

    As I posted in the Friday open thread, Nashua had a ladder truck in Lowell covering the city for the funeral of Firefighter Page and it could NOT FIT INTO THE FIREHOUSE ON WEST SIXTH STREET! That tells me that Lowell is operating with equipment designed to fit the needs of century old buildings, not the current needs of the city.

    Commercial and industrial development is necessary in a city like Lowell, do I think the Jam Plan is going to do the trick, no I don’t! The Jam Plan, as I understand it, is primarily residential or non-taxable in nature. That’s not going to cut it!

    The city needs to get aggressive in marketing space, especially along the Connector, to retailers much like Nashua has done.

    I’ve heard a lot about the ‘delivery system’ that was in place under the Cox administration, but the ‘delivery system’ has yet to find a way to effectively compete with the no sales tax land a few miles up the road leaving Lowell better than most older cities in the state, but nowhere near those ‘poorer cousins’ of Nashua, Concord or Manchester NH!

    Most of the schools in Lowell are new buildings, so now we’re talking
    about other municipal buildings. Again, planning!

    The National Park and its assets should be frozen! It it hasn’t been declared historic at this point there is a reason, it isn’t! And when something is incorporated into the National Park it no longer generates taxable revenue. Sure, there are folks that come to Lowell and take the tour, but I question the numbers that there are millions, if there were then downtown Lowell would be a thriving place to own a business.

    Lowell has always been a melting pot. As long as Lowell is a melting pot then its residents will be low income. Do away with our immigrant history and future and you will kill the city, why else would anyone come here but for the diversity?

    Keeping antiquated buildings is nice, but to try to keep them functioning as municipal buildings that serve a purpose? That’s just not practical!

    A capital plan for the future for all departments in the city and
    elimination of surplus property!

    This isn’t all that hard, at least not in the real world but in the political world of protecting public sector jobs…it’s untouchable!

20. Jason Says:
    September 29th, 2007 at 12:13 pm

    I’m posting this in two threads because it applies to ER’s posts about the LFD.

    ER,

    You are jumping to conclusions here. Because one of Nashua’s three ladder trucks didn’t fit into one of Lowell’s eight active stations, hardly means we are using antiquated equipment unfit for the city. In fact Lowell’s fire apparatus fleet is probably better than it has been at any time in the city’s history. All the front line trucks are 15 years old or less. While some (including both the spare engine and ladder) are beyond the recommended NFPA (#1911) replacement time by a few years, it is still not bad. All Lowell’s fire apparatus are suitable for duty and perfectly capable of performing the tasks required of them.

    We do in fact have a Tower Ladder very similar to Nashua’s which fits just fine at Headquarters on Moody Street. No changes were made to accommodate its size. Tower Ladders are both longer and heavier than standard ladder trucks and not necessary for most fire suppression applications. Most similar sized communities have one and usually only one. While an excellent apparatus design with some nice safety features, they are not essential by any means. The drawback with this type of apparatus is that it can not fit everywhere. Sometimes smaller trucks with shorter wheelbases and a better turning radius are needed in certain neighborhoods. Fire apparatus designs are almost always custom, based on the neighborhood they serve in instead of where they park. For example; Boston had to custom design trucks for the North End to fit the narrow streets and alleys. The ladder truck at West Sixth Street #4, though the oldest in the city (built 1994) normally in front line use, is well suited for the neighborhood it serves. It is nearly identical to the truck that serves at Branch Street #2 (two years newer) in the Highlands. In fact Ladder 4 served in that station before being reassigned. Bottom line is, what works for Nashua doesn’t mean it’s required in Lowell.

    As for a study on where firehouses are needed, let me save the city a few thousand dollars. A study was commissioned in 1990, I believe during the Johnson Administration. It was done by the MMA Consulting Group in Boston. Notable among its 30 recommendations and conclusions were:

    1. The city should continue to operate with the existing number of fire companies (16) and personnel, based on the significant hazards and potential for high loss fires. Among 25 cities at the time with populations of 100,000 to 300,000 “Lowell is classified among those with the highest negative potential for fire and life loss, and with the most difficult street and construction environment for fire suppression purposes.”

    2. Long range consolidation of stations #1 and #11 and #5 and #6 could be accomplished IF existing personnel were sent to supplement busier stations.

    3. Immediately replace as many as 6 apparatus and have 2 reserve engines.

    Since that time we have cut the department approximately 50 jobs and permanently closed three stations, only one of which was among those even considered for consolidation. The Johnson and Martin Administrations ignored much of the consultant’s report they paid for and went completely in the other direction. Since that time the number of calls for service has roughly doubled. Though fires have declined slightly, that is attributed to the active inspection program and more stringent code enforcement. On top of that, most of the pull boxes on corners have been removed, thus eliminating a majority of false alarms during the same time period. The fire department has assumed responsibility for hazardous materials, being the city’s medical first responder agency and quite a few other things. What has happened in the city? We have gone on to add a lot of high density housing, where fire deaths occur most (noted in the study). The added residents also increase the need for other calls and congestion on our roads.

    A regular plan to replace apparatus yearly was never enacted. A good portion of the city’s current fleet (6 vehicles) was bought with CDBG money, not city money, in the mid 1990’s. It took 7 more years to replace the apparatus needing to be retired immediately, according to the consultant and we still only have 1 reserve engine, but every front line truck in this city has been replaced since 1994. Apparatus purchases generally have tended to come in irregular patterns, not a yearly capital plan. The reason is because receipts change so much year to year we can’t count on the funds to be there. Whenever revenue falls and expenses rise, capital expenditures are the first cuts. The only other option is service cuts (already stretched too thin) since more than 85 percent (ballpark figure) is salary and wages.

    Other notable comments from the study were:

    “Closing one or more stations, of course, increases an already high risk relative to rescue and quick initial attack because of response route difficulties, plus minimal crew size.”

    “The department has a minimally adequate number of personnel for an urbanized city”

    And

    “Most often lives are saved and property loss held to a minimum during the first 10 to 15 minutes of the fire…As a result, communities need to provide their own reasonable sized initial attack crew. This concept of the fastest possible initial attack by crew of sufficient size is probably the most important argument for on-duty crews.”

    These statements were made before all the cuts. We’re still closing stations on top of the permanent station cuts that were opposed by the study. While some of the bridge issues present at the time of the study have been solved, we still have quite a few unsafe bridges for our trucks, extending responses further. Crew sizes of 3 are still below NFPA (#1710) specified minimums of 4.

    It’s been 15 years this has been going on. People put out fires and pull people out of burning building, not trucks, not fire stations. If anything, the study is more relevant now that it was then. We need to have the right amount of firefighters available to do the work, and protect every neighborhood at all times. Not randomly pick and choose. While I would very much like to have a modern group of stations that are energy efficient, with roofs that don’t leak, insulation that isn’t asbestos (we don’t’ know currently), safe electrical wiring, I know the major capital expenditures are not forthcoming. I’d settle for some basic repairs and having enough people to do our jobs and protect the public. Without the firefighters on duty the rest means nothing.

    You aren’t in danger because of the equipment, you are in danger because the stations aren’t always open and staffed. What else do we have to do to get anyone to listen?

21. Bobo Sinchero Says:
    October 23rd, 2007 at 10:41 am

    I believe Ms. Rigby has just been schooled.

Leave a Reply