Left In Lowell

In today’s Sun, Matt Murphy reports on the vote taken by the Auditorium Commission that will allow a Tsongas campaign-sponsored political rally featuring former President Bill Clinton as well as a fundraiser but then “but passed a motion that stated this event would be the exception, and not the rule.”

What? What does this mean? This will not hold up under public scrutiny and I wonder what the courts would say, if this was ever challenged. Now that this event will take place, it leaves the Auditorium open for such events for others. It is the only fair thing to do. We cannot allow one mistake to be corrected by another mistake.

If you did not read Murphy’s first article in the Sun, here is the link.
There are two issues involved with this “controversy.” First, the method by which the Auditorium was reserved for a political fundraiser and second the propriety of having such an event in that building which historically has not allowed political fundraisers to take place there.

The Tsongas Campaign is not to blame for this mix-up; those selected to represent the City’s tradition and interest, who made a poor judgment are to blame.

Forgotten in all this is that a very popular ex-President is coming to Lowell and that his presence should draw a significant crowd and some nice publicity. (Note: Republicans, please keep your anti-Bill comments on this blog to a low-level.)

For those of you who are planning to come to Lowell to hear the former President, the trip is well worth it. I heard him at an open air political rally in 1996. The man is a phenomenal public speaker; one of America’s best. By the way, Lowell is having its annual Open Studio that weekend, so come in a bit early, bring your checkbook and contribute to our cultural economy; have something to eat, buy gas and do not forget to park at one of our municipal garages

Here is frequent LiL commentator Waittilnextyr’s City Council Quarterly Report Card

1. Control Property Taxes (B+)
Last year it was 5.4% above inflation (property value increase). For FY’08 it is targeted at 2.5% period. This is the first budget proposed by CM Lynch and it was frugal, transparent and complete. However, the CC did request some increases to the budget, and subsequent agreements to the arena contracts add further risk to holding the line at 2.5%. However, the CM has recently announced that the $800K added to the school budget, previously to be “paid for” by the Telecom tax, can now be covered by savings achieved (primarily) during FY 2007.

2. Expand Commercial Tax Base (C)
Some improvement with L’Energia back on the tax rolls, and plans for both Lowe’s and Target to come online in the next few years. However, Hamilton Canal Master Plan is weak on encouraging commercial development. Although delayed, the Master Developer selection has been made, and the charette process should begin shortly.

3. Put 180 Units of Affordable Housing on-line at Julian Steele (B)
First phase complete/sold, second phase complete/nearly sold. Third phase appears to be late (originally planned to start in April ’07).

4. Close an Acceptable Deal for Hamilton Canal Properties (B-)
Property was taken by Eminent Domain, as negotiations failed. The final cost may be tied up in litigation. No news released on anticipated payment by Developer.

5. Put 900-car Parking Garage on-line on Middlesex St (C-)
Construction is going ahead, apparently on schedule, and within the increased budget. However, the budget disconnect has not been solved, and the interest expense has bumped up significantly for FY 2008. The commercial space lease apparently requires legislature exception to 10-yr limit, and it may not provide income immediately upon completion of the garage.

6. Initiate Private Development in accordance with the JAM plan (C-)
Master Developer selected and negotiations are in process. We will have to wait a few more months to see what that process produces. Apparently the State will consume about 20% of the land area with non-taxable enterprises, the new courthouse and maybe the nanotechnology center for UML. If these become the focal points for related commercial development, this would be a good strategy. Much remains to be seen before we could improve the grade here, and one concern is the high percentage of housing being discussed.

7. Initiate Private Development at the Hamilton Canal Properties (D)
Some conceptual plans have been provided by the selected Master Developer, but little financial payback information has been released.

8. Close Loopholes in Zoning Code to Avoid Neighborhood Exploitation (B-)
Some loopholes closed, but other problems remain. It is still too early to tell what mark the new appointees to the ZBA will make in their interpretations of the codes and the exceptions that they grant.

9. Eliminate “Appearance” of Conflict of Interest on Local Boards (A)
Much improved with new appointments and televised meetings. (more…)

I’m aii (away from internet) a lot of today so here’s an open thread. Also, this morning I’m on WBUR on Morning Edition with Bob Oakes, talking casinos with proponent and Democratic consultant Dan Payne. Not my usual Friday morning radio stint, but I will be back from my hiatus from WUML next Friday with Dick Howe, Registrar of Deeds. We’re going to dive deeper into the housing subprime crisis, a subject Mr. Howe unfortunately knows all too well from his seat at the Registrar.

[Bumped. You have five more days!]

It’s been two whole years since we had a local election and I did my first request for your questions for our candidate questionnaires. Back then, I had been blogging a whole 5 months, and only got a few responses in each race (and I was impressed by that actually). Things might be a little different now…since that time, this blog has more than quadrupled in readership, commenters, and controversy. We’ve seen division and ire, but also open discussion about the issues facing Lowell.

This election, even more so than the last, will affect our future. It’s even more imperative to know where the candidates stand…and for candidates to face the voters and their concerns. So, to that end…

List your questions for the city council, school committee, and tech school committee candidates. You’ll have the next week to think them up, before I gather it all together to mail to the candidates. When you list your question, please indicate which group it’s directed to (yeah, I know it can be obvious…humor me). You can see a list of previous questions here, many of which are relevant again, some of which are not. So, I need new fodder for the cannon! Question away.

After finishing up a primary race which featured a debate per week on the Democratic side, the general election will only have three full debates; that is a forum where the Democrat (Niki Tsongas) and Republican (Jim Ogonowski) candidates will be present with the three un-enrolled, Independents Patrick Murphy, Kurt Hayes, and Constitution Party Candidate, Kevin Thompson.

There has been some rumblings and criticism that three is not enough but if I were running either the Tsongas or Ogonowski campaigns, I would say that three is plenty. Now, if the two campaigns made promises and now are backing down because strategically it does not work for them, then that is a different story.

If I was one of the sponsors or promoters of these others debates that got shut down, such as the League of Women Voters in Chelmsford (see Lowell Sun article), I would not be pleased. And if I was one of the other three candidates, I would be angry.

It appears that it was the Ogonowski side who decided not to debate more than three times. Tsongas just finished a long and arduous debate schedule in the Democratic primaries; she is definitely ready for prime time. However, Jim has limited experience and he certainly cannot be put in a position to be derailed by the other candidates.

However, the problem with a limited campaign period is that people are not paying attention; you need to engage them. During the primary, the discussions and arguments that took place during those debates/forums kept the race in the papers and on their airwaves. Now, I wonder if the electorate has gone back to sleep. If that is the case, what is the candidates’ strategy to wake them up?

Maybe the Bill Clinton visit next Sunday will be that catalyst!

I’ve been preoccupied a lot lately and hadn’t gotten a chance to read Governor Patrick’s casino proposal, but suffice to say, I’m definitely disappointed, and hope that the legislature defeats it. I’m all for finding new revenues for our investment needs, and angry at the legislature for rejecting Patrick’s other, better proposals, but this is not the answer. There is a high social and economic cost that the state will have to pay for, in effect, selling its soul for revenues that not only addict gamblers, but addict the state as well.

Now, there are and have always been good arguments for casinos. They do offer a better paying job on average than Wal-Hell. The regional aspect of Patrick’s proposed plan spreads out those jobs to different sectors of the state. They can, at least initially, boost economic development.

However, it appears that inevitably, we might just regret this easy fix to our long term structural problems. Economic development can also be arrested (a lot) by casinos, as smaller entertainment and retail businesses dry up trying to compete with the new, bigger kid on the block. The revenue streams casinos create is eaten up in new infrastructure costs (new police, roads, etc) and in trying to offset the economic impact to many individuals (addicts who lose everything, and the families that once depended on them). And who in the their right mind spends a day at a casino, then goes shopping at a store or out to a local restaurant that isn’t located directly on the casino site?

Think of it this way: if a mother goes back to work after having kids, but pays over 50% of her new salary in daycare costs, was it really worth the social cost to that child who now is growing up in a less parent-driven environment? (Not that I’m advocating women stay home - why not the dad? - or don’t realize the economic situation many families are in that gives them no choice.)

Governor Patrick appears ready to address these concerns with a stringent regulatory body. But that too will cost a great deal of money and eat into the revenue stream.

There is another area of concern I have: that the character of our state will change, especially if this opens up other opportunities for tribes to start casinos beyond the three proposed, via the federal approval process. Remember back to the sleazy Abramoff scandals surrounding that process? We don’t need that in our state, nor should we become all about the casinos, like New Jersey or Connecticut have become. I think casinos cost more than you think they do, don’t bring in that much in outside (non-Mass) revenue (at least, according to many studies), and in the end, diminishes a state. I’d rather take the slow way towards economic growth and prosperity, instead of puffing on the quick fix that casinos offer. I hope the state legislature feels the same.

The City’s web site is advertising for applicants to the Citizen Advisory Committee. That is the committee, appointed by the City Manager, that reviews grants, applications and recommends funding allocations to him for the CDBG, HOME and ESG programs.

The City of Lowell is looking for people interested in volunteering to serve on the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) for our Consolidated Plan. This 7 to 11 member committee is responsible for reviewing all grant applications submitted by non-profit organizations and city departments requesting funding under the Community Development Block Grant programs.

There is a lengthy competitive process that takes place, including review of applications, testimony at a public hearing and meeting to make the recommendations to the City Manager. Only Lowell residents are allowed to apply.

If you are interested, send an e-mail to Deputy DPD Director Adam Baacke to get more information.

From the PDM, Chelmsford chapter:

==========
SEPTEMBER MONTHLY MEETING THIS THURSDAY
Sept 20th, 7pm (3rd Thursday of the month) Independence Bar, Radisson Hotel

Please come to our first meeting. There’s a lot to cover:
* Issues discussion –
- Tax fairness (Chelmsford hasn’t endorsed closing tax loopholes, for
example)
- Tax override for Chelmsford
- MA05 race, other elections
- Other issues

* Recap of the state-wide PDM issues meeting (Sep and positioning training
* Organize precinct captains and other roles.
* New web tools demonstration & discussion

RSVP to Mike, mike {at} combsnet.com (replace spaces and {at} with an @)
==========

As Dick says, this is party unity? Dick has the transcript of a WCAP call from Pat McCarthy, a Tsongas supporter in the primary. The whole thing is worth a read, but I just want to point out one delicious little irony from something Pat says:

But this is a real personal campaign for them [the “six”]. I think that they’re going to openly attack people that supported Niki Tsongas. I’m sure they’re bitter about Rita’s endorsement and Bud Caulfield’s endorsement and they’re going to make it very personal. So it’s not really about raising the city up It’s not really about good government. I think it’s more about personal vendettas.

When in doubt, ascribe your own motivations to others, I suppose…this rant is, of course, from the treasurer of the “People for Lowell” who were going to get those “rats” (according to their own pamphlets) aka those councilors who supported getting a new City Manager. Even funnier and more ironic, the above was prefaced by a very personal attack on Councilor Elliot: “Rodney Elliott keeps saying this is how it should be run as a business, and this is what they do in the private sector. How would he know? He’s never held a private sector job in his adult life. And I’ll stake my reputation on that. Give me the list – if it’s 5% of his adult life that he’s held a private sector job, I’d be amazed.”

By the way, Eileen Donoghue - along with other primary opponents - have all jumped on the Democratic bandwagon and are doing their part. Eileen has strongly indicated her support for Niki Tsongas in the general, and was very clear about working to keep the seat in Dem hands. If anyone’s taking anything personal, it’s the GOB. Leave it to them to drag the larger Congressional race into this, erroneously. It’s not about anyone’s endorsement in the primary, for pete’s sake.

Thanks to Dick for putting up the transcript (which is probably get far more play than it should, but sunlight does do wonders).

Paul Georges, the ubiquitous President of the United Teachers of Lowell and President of the Merrimack Valley Central Labor Council (AFL-CIO), has a letter in today’s Lowell Sun in response to School Committeewoman Jackie Doherty’s op-ed piece in the paper’s September 11th edition.

Lynne had already posted (The Fluff Over School Hiring is Well Fluff) on SC Doherty’s commentary which dealt with a report on the hiring and promoting practices of the Lowell School Department. As SC Doherty stated “The report supports what the Superintendent has been saying all along. ‘We are committed to selecting the candidate who best matches the requirements and needs of the position being filled…We are also committed to developing and recognizing the skills and knowledge of Lowell educators who wish to pursue administrative positions’.”

But Mr. Georges sees it differently: “The additional classification of administrators as being ‘Lowell residents’ or ‘raised in Lowell’ is not germane to the question and does more to create a smokescreen than answer the greater question of whether rank-and-file teachers, with long and dedicated service to the system and community, are getting a fair shake in consideration as applicants for positions of leadership in schools across the City.”

I know I am swimming in dangerous waters when I try to debate Mr. Georges publicly. I have to admit that he is an outstanding orator and a relentless champion for his union but the only smokescreen here is the one advanced by the Superintendent’s critics. So now that it has been proven that we do hire from within Lowell, the definition of “within Lowell” has changed.

I respect the 44 out of the 45 “teacher building representatives” who indicated to the UTL that they “felt that there was little opportunity of advancement to a key administrative position in the Lowell School System.” I know that sometimes perception is reality and that most of us do not want to work in an environment where there is no room for advancement. But at the end of the day, the people of Lowell should be asking, where is the data that indicates that a qualified, willing “rank-and-file, long-term Lowell educator” was not selected and a less capable and ineffective “outsider” was?