To the uninitiated or those who do not know the underlying elements of our local politics, last night’s defeated vote on the creation of a city Cultural office must have seemed completely baffling. Here you have a proposal welcomed and lauded by the last City Council (made up of 75% of the same folks), on creating a city department that other Mass communities like Cambridge and Worcester have successfully leveraged to increase their cultural economic assets, and then on the other side, the opposition was nonsensical or irrelevant. It had overwhelming support from the very community that it would most affect; it was the cultivation of two years’ worth of hard work from the cultural task force and $100,000 worth of professional advice; and most of all, it was just plain common sense. But it failed, nonetheless.
And you probably won’t see a satisfying explanation of this strange phenomenon in the Lowell Sun, though I think many of its reporters know the score and would tell you about it if they were allowed to actually write anything useful. Unfortunately their boss seems to have other ideas about what information you, the citizen, should be hearing.
So I’m going to speak about it here. Someone has to. That, plus another rant on some things that bug the crap out of me about last night.
Defying Common Sense
Through the whole discussion by the Council after the public hearing was closed, it seemed like the two sides were living in different parallel universes. There was a war going on between common sense and…well…what? What was the true objection against the implementation of the first recommendation from the Mt. Auburn report that everyone was in love with a couple months ago? The faked outrage over taxpayer dollars was pretty ridiculous, as we’re already paying for a cultural outfit called COOL, and to be totally frank, the monies invested in this city in cultural affairs is stunningly thin compared with the total budget anyway. But that was moot, as - let me repeat it yet again in case it didn’t sink in the first dozen times - there would be no need for new monies. What could be so important in the face of honest logic that one would want to shoot down this motion?
Well, I can tell you. It stems from the politics of personal loyalty, that bastion of shoddy government that we’ve been living with in this city since god knows when. It appears that Councilors Rita Mercier, Kazanjian, Lenzi, and Mayor Bud “Unity” Caulfield were trying to protect someone or someones who work in the city government or with the city. The GOB (Good Ol’ Boy, for the uninitiated) network rears its ugly head once again.
How do they not see this as a insult to LZ Nunn, the Director of COOL, whose expertise and great work for the city-funded cultural organization would merely be expanded and prioritized by the transition to a city department? Do they think this is some thumbscrew on their friends who work for city government, that she would be a bad and mean director of this new department? If their friends were doing good work for the city, they have nothing to worry about. No one in the city was either getting a demotion, nor a pay cut. Job descriptions were to remain the same. But since the GOB appear to be worried, it makes you wonder if maybe said persons aren’t doing so good a job in the first place…why else the poorly-argued opposition to this motion, otherwise?
By opposing this new department with no logical explanation, they expose their GOB friends to questions about their real value to the city. Let’s be honest.
I have an apology to make. At the beginning of the last City Council, I once said that former Mayor Bill Martin lacked vision. Nothing could have been further from the truth, and I was happy to be so completely wrong. Under Martin, not only did the city move towards accountable and more effective governance, but Martin also placed a priority on economic development, especially where arts and culture were concerned. He continued and expanded the efforts of Mayor Mercier, and Martin’s leadership brought together the cultural and local business communities to contemplate a larger vision for Lowell, one that could go much further in leveraging our cultural assets. We were treading water, and Mayor Martin set us up with a successful roadmap to bring our economy to the next level. Though the opposition downplayed the importance of this vote, it is not being dramatic to say that this was a pivotal moment in the economic development movement in Lowell. Without this city cultural office, the priorities that this City Manager has set for bettering Lowell overall are in jeopardy.
No, it was not Mayor Martin who failed to have vision. But I do know a Mayor who is already a failure, only one month into his term - Mayor Bud Caulfield, who has shown that protecting his GOB friends is more important than common sense solutions to Lowell’s economic future. Mayor Caulfield was diminished yesterday by his vote, by his lack of vision, and by turning his back on the momentum of the last few years. Mayor Caulfield will not be remembered as a mayor who led Lowell’s progress, but who stood in the way. And for what? A perceived threat that would not be a threat if everyone would just do their jobs, and commit to doing the best they can for Lowell instead of themselves. This lack of leadership from the Mayor and his fellow dissenters threatens the future success of the JAM and HCD plans, to the perception that Lowell is an up-and-coming cultural and economic boomtown, and to the enthusiasm of the cultural movement itself, which worked so hard to find a path to success and to make a difference, who came and spoke with passion and common sense and who were completely ignored.
Is there a way the Mayor can redeem himself? Perhaps. But this vote has shown that he is less interested in unity, for in what circumstance could you hope for more unity than last night’s amazing support by the cultural leadership of this city, from the Lowell Sun, from local businesses, and from the experts who studied our city? No where. And yet, disunity prevailed. That is how this Mayor will be remembered.
Mystifying Hypocrisy
And now for my other rant. I need to get this off my chest.
I will never understand the cognitive dissonance that is Councilor Rita Mercier.
Beside all of the obvious things wrong with yesterday “vote against culture” stood a piece of breathless hypocrisy by Mercier. I touched on it in last night’s liveblog. She spent considerable ire on “a colleague” for mentioning their support for this motion to the newspaper. Her argument, it appears, was that no one should have an opinion before having a public hearing on a subject.
This is relatively amusing, because it was quite clear that no amount of public support or rational explanation was going to budge her, Mayor Bud “Unity” Caulfield, Kazanjian, or Lenzi from their devoted adherence to flawed arguments, when they so obviously had made up their minds before ever stepping foot into the chambers that night, nevermind waiting for the public hearing. Arguments, mind you, that were debunked over and over during the meeting (such at the illogical outrage on behalf of the taxpayer, or the fact that this new department would not affect the Tsongas, MRT, or the Lowell Memorial Auditorium, which have their own boards). So I don’t know where Rita Mercier gets off complaining about any opinion, stated publicly or not, that someone might have before coming to a public hearing.
Too many people give Rita a free pass. Personally, I’m getting tired of hypocricy and the rank, blatant cronyism.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Elliot is widely considered the spending hawk on the council and even he said the reorganization was a no-brainer.
Also… I vote that from now on we refer to BC as ‘Bud “unity” Caulfield’.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
This very bad outcome is something to worry about in terms of the larger issues the city faces in it revitalization efforts. There is no question but that the region’s creative economy and all of the activities taking place in Lowell are a very, very important engine for future growth. For so many on the Council to exhibit such narrow, ill-informed, and supremely self-absorbed behavior in their comments and vote goes well beyond what I anticipated would happen last evening. And, it makes me wonder what happens as the Hamilton Canal project moves forward. This vote coupled with the vote the other evening to block further development of the Western Ave studios area sends out the wrong message to artists interested in coming here, developers other than the ‘chosen ones’ who want to do something interesting here, and it calls into question the lonmg-term future of the city. To vote no and clearly have no alternatives in mind to build from the creative economy report completed by Mt. Auburn, is to play deaf, dumb and blind to the city and region’s economic realities. For the nay sayers to exhibit a level of commitment to economic growth and care for taxpayers, as they repeated over and over, they must present a growth alternative or take credit for the slide that is inevitable otherwise. Artist and creative folks welcome - but don’t expect us to actually understand what you do and help things move forward! Ugh!!!
BTW - watch the same crowd in action as they continue their mean=spirited attack on the poor and homeless. Further proof that there is little interest in moving the city ahead - esp when a broad-based group of residents has been working for months to come up with a series of recommendation on how to end homelessness in the city. Lets just move everyone without a place to live to Tewksbury - makes perfect sense if you lack any historical understanding of why people are homeless or who isbeing made homeless by the foreclosure crisis, or how so many of the folks that need facilities like the Transitional Living Center are military vets and the working poor, folks who have served the country or are working in miserably low paying jobs with no hope of getting out of a rooming house or shelter housing. This discussion has started to take a mean and nasty turn and there is a danger that a lot of the good will built in the city in the last few years will be lost, making further outside investment less likely and exacerbating problems in an already weak local and regional economy!
February 6th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
This is off topic and yet so perfectly on! Just emailed to me by a close friend from our many years ago in college. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY2jmgwwmFk
February 6th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Lynne, we do not need another office in city government. Especially where culture is concerned. Lowell has had a rich cultural history that has thrived for more than 100 years without government help. Culture does not need government to survive. In fact, the idea of government-approved cultural activities is pretty oxymoronic to me.
A city cultural office would simply grow bigger and for invasive. Sure, you say it requires no additional money now, but government bureaucracies ALWAYS grow. It would grow to the detriment of our city’s many cultures which need to thrive independently of any bureaucracy.
Not only are you wrong to say that opponents did not make their case, I would are argue that I have not heard one really good argument as to why we NEED a cultural office in the city. Government is not a goody bag to provide us with things we think might be cool. It is there to provide us with public goods that are necessary.
Just answer this question: Why is the private sphere incapable of providing these services and why is it necessary for the government to step in?
February 6th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
OK.. where to start.
Their case:
1) Expense. As has been gone over by many before me, this is 0 net change in dollars for the City. Simply put this is a revenue neutral way of improving some administrative functions of the City. Exactly the kind of thing we want from our leaders and exactly the kind of thing you’d expect from an experienced technocrat. Seems those in the way would rather spend $10 badly vs $10 wisely.
2) Additional administration… yeah yeah blah blah blah. All government bad. No government good. Heaven forbid there is ever a possible bureaucratic structure that works. Better for the perfect to be the enemy of the good. If something doesn’t work should it be reformed? Of course. Thats what this is.
3) Their friends weren’t asked to head the department. I think this one thing would make them all change their tune actually.
4) This will interfere with union negotiations. This is just malarkey. Its revenue neutral. Anyone who claims that one person got a raise while their responsibilities increased is somehow wrong is smoking something. Its exactly what any union member would expect for themselves isn’t it? Or are unions and non-union workers supposed to supply charity to our government by ignoring any responsibility-salary relationship.
5) Why do we NEED it? Because the consensus of experts and laymen alike assert that we should improve our local creative economy. The people that looked at how to do that came up with this. I trust them more than you. Moreover they did it in a revenue neutral way.
It improves things and doesn’t have a downside… there really isn’t a good reason to object to it. Of course there are thousands of bad reasons too.
February 6th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Kazanjian likes to speak to the cameras. How unfortunate that he and Lenzi,(business owners) could be so shortsighted. Maybe if Kazajian owned the building that housed thr Cultural Office, the outcome would have been different. I expected that type of behavior from MCM, very, very disappointed in Kazajian. It is hard to watch Lowell going back in time. We had such potential.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Josh, look around downtown Lowell. It would still be 1983 there if the city, state, and federal governments hadn’t acted on their owne, and in partnership with private parties to make things happen that The Market(TM) wouldn’t have done on its own.
You want to argue about the morality of doing so? Maybe we can sit at a sidewalk cafe that would have been where, someday, the market would have put another vacant lot aftern an arson, and we can debate how wonderfully ethical it is not to use tax dollars to promote growth and redevelopment in our historic urban centers.
Tell you what, let’s each bring a list of American cities that have seen major rebirths; I’ll bring a list of cities that have done so through public-private parterships guided by redevelopment planning, and you bring a list of historic cities that have revitalized themselves by cutting taxes and shrinking government.
The one with the shorter list can buy the sangria.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Nice work as usual Lynne but, in my opinion, perhaps Hypocrisy, but there should be no Mystery associated with the actions of the logic-lapsed four last evening. That would be going far too easy on them. They’re just acting in a way that comes oh-so-naturally to the Crony/GOB set - doing what’s best for the connected few at the expense of the many. What we now know is what many of us knew the day that Kazanjian and Lenzi were elected. That Lowell is once again in the chokehold of a crony influenced machine politic. The past two years provided only a sliver of respite from a malady that has afflicted Lowell for decades. Sad but true. For any of us who grew up here, have left and returned or those who have relocated here, it is easy to recognize and suffer astonishment with the egregiousness of the apparently logic defying actions such as we witnessed last evening on the part of these four Legislators. For nowhere that I have resided throughout this country, have I ever witnessed the boldness with which illogical governmental decision making and overt favoritism are exercised here. It’s not that it doesn’t go on in other city governments, it’s just that here in Lowell, cronyism is far too often casually tolerated and, for the most part, goes unchallenged. I believe that KRS nailed it in that the actions of Kazanjian, Lenzi, Rita and Caulfield last evening were directly related to preserving the comfort level that Andy St. Onge and other crony/GOB loyalists enjoy in their current “no heavy lifting” positions down at City Hall. St. Onge is, after all, King Crony Cox’s bff and fellow SAC Club drinking buddy. Yup, that’s what I’d call doing what’s best for the few at the expense of the many! In the olden days, we could count on the Sun to dog these creeps and out their true intentions and motivations. But unfortunately, since Campanini took charge, he has forbidden his most talented investigative reporters from dabbling in such issues thus transforming the Sun from a full disclosure and in-touch local newspaper into a benign 5 minute read that does far too little to keep the lights on in darktown.
Sounds primitive and tribal because it is. Sorry, but I believe that we ain’t seen nothin yet folks. And you thought eight years of Bush was painful. Viva la Left in Lowell….
February 6th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Oh “Observant One”…. are you gonna be alright?
February 6th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Josh, Joe is dead on. If you still believe what you wrote, I respectfully ask you to please read what Joe wrote again slowly, and turn down Rush Limbaugh so you can concentrate better. If you need help with any of the big words my 10-year-old says dictionary.com is pretty good.
If you see what he’s saying now then I heartfully applaud you and your open-mindedness and ability to recognize when you make an error (we all do sometimes). Good job Josh! Bravo!
February 6th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
The issue before the council is the epitome of good government in the modern era. The office will be supported by a small amount of city funds as well as funds from other sources. The economic good that small amount of funds brings to the city is multiplied many times over. The ability of a municipality to nurture public/private partnerships is NOT big government. Public-private partnerhips encourage communication, civic engagement, innovation and the power of many to leverage funding, goods and services. The proposed city office of cultural affairs and special events provides the opportunity to link successful entities together to reach larger audiences and bring more tax receipts, income and prestiege to our fair city.
To the five council memebers that said ‘yea’ to this measure: I offer you my most humble thanks. You showed those in attendence, and the good citizens of Lowell, the ability to think big and support the economic growth of our community. To the City Manager, thank you for your support, encouragement and work supporting this measure. To the four that voted no, shame on you. Please remember, ALL of us are taxpayers! All of those that contribute to the city’s cultural economy pay propoerty taxes, payroll taxes, licensing fees and the like. I could go on with a rather uncivil discourse, but will not. Ultiamtely, I remain convinced that the good of the many will triumph over the small mindedness of the few.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:14 am
The decision against this initiative was based on personal agendas, not in the best interest of the City of Lowell. What they so splendidly fail to see, is the bottom line (duh, they’re businessmen!) and the economic viability of the creative economy. How very sad!
Unfortunately, at the core, is the flame against taxpayers who were not born and bred in the City of Lowell.
Those with monies to invest from outside Lowell will think twice.
Cultural investments do reap significant rewards!
Bet your butt, if “one” of the CC owned the property that the entity occupied, the story would be alot differant.
Solution…..don’t use a certain catering company or its facilities and certainly don’t use the car repair services offered by another CC. The others have nothing to offer.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:15 am
If the council keeps up these boneheaded decisions, soon the only way that we’ll be able to get anybody to live here is to require them to live here to keep a job. . . .
February 7th, 2008 at 1:24 am
I asked:
“Why is the private sphere incapable of providing these services and why is it necessary for the government to step in?”
It was a very specific question and so far no one has answered it. I’ve heard ad hominem attacks, reasons why the market sucks, and why the city council is made up of jerks, but no one has answered my very specific question.
I think Mr. Lynne came pretty close when he argued that the government should step in but I think “should” is a value judgement and isn’t really the same as necessity. Betting everything in the creative economy is a pretty big gamble for thc city to take. Yes, the consultants did a comprehensive study, but I don’t want to run the risk of putting all our eggs into one basket if there are so many other possibilities for Lowell’s development. I hope he can follow up and touch on the idea of the office as a public good incapable of being supplied privately.
Joe, I would argue that it has been government regulations and taxes that have been ruining cities in Massachusetts for decades now. If you look at the fastest growing cities in the country, you will find that they are in the South and Southwest where they tend to have less taxes and regulation. The stagnating cities are in the states that have the most government intervention in their economies. People are fleeing Massachusetts and New York or Neveda and Arizona.
Peter, stop being so condescending. If you want to make an argument then make one. If you really want to have an “I’m smarter than you” pissing match, I doubt you’ll win, bud.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:07 am
“Betting everything in the creative economy” “all our eggs into one basket”… thats hardly whats being proposed now is it. Lets divert the snow removal budget to creative economy advertising? Not on the table. Thats a straw man. Right… we’re giving up on nanotech now. NOT
As to your response to Joe,… correlation does not causation make. Besides which, I’ll bet the cost of rent and housing has a lot more to do with it. Also the price of commuting from places you can afford to live to places that pay sufficiently. This happened in the early 80s too. Simply put, you could buy twice the house in the south as the NE and just swapped winter heating for summer AC (back when electricity was still cheap too).
February 7th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Sadly, Josh, I must recind my congratulatory remarks. I was really pulling for you “bud.” However it is below me to get into a “pissing match,” as you so elegantly put it, with a “man” who obviously has a UTI. On a happier notes; it does lift my spirits to know people such as yourself read blogs and oppinions such as those often presented here. Perhaps with time you will come to realize the folly of the ideas put forth by the “right” (such an ironic term, I know). Like you I often listen to what the “other side” has to say. I probably read and listen to about 30 hours a week worth and I can tell you with absolute confidence that there is nothing but hate mongering going on over there. On a side note I am joyed at how quickly the GOP is self-destructing right now!
February 7th, 2008 at 7:56 am
There are a handful of possiible ways to move the Lowell and regional economies forward: 1)science and technology research at the university including nanotech and medical instruments; 2) work to boost the hundreds of immigrant ownedsmall and medium size businesses that are not going to run away like textiules once did; 3) boost the creative economy and in particular help artists develop ways to export their products outside the region, perhaps with web sites and classes on how to market. Each one of these things requires serious, consistent government helkp of soome sort. Just as the fed govt has funded virtually every significant technology advance since WW II, the same ought to happen here. To believe the so-called ‘free market’ is at all able to help the valley grow is to somehow give what is indeed a myth anyway even greater super-human powers. To see government efforts to coordinate, bolster, help to fund the creative economy as some evil plot by big govt is way, way off base. What happened, as others have said, is people who don’t know much blustered and once more mastered the fine art of helping the city to run in place while appearing to care about tax payers. I have said it before - if the gang of four care so deeply about taxpayers then it is their responsibility to come up with job creative and revenue enhancement alternatives and not jst block the hard work of others. Another Dunkin Donuts does not a city make. There is no badly needed growth that way and developing way tomove forward, esp. in the recession we now face, requires creative people to work together, not naysayers to repeatedly dig their heels in and somehow think they are right when they want to buck the overwhelming hard evidence that the creative economy matters.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:53 am
A little off topic, but I guess it’s worth a mention; In the same way we’re told told to “buy american,” it is well worth making it a point to frequent local chops and eateries when you do choose to spend money. Having, say a burrito place, downtown is great. But if you stop and eat in Woburn on your way home from work in Boston, guess how long it will be before that burrito stand is replaced with a vacant building. I have lived in several other cities up and down the East Coast and am amazed and inspired by the work being done in Lowell by both government and private agencies. But obviously we must also do our part as individuals, like the people who run this website or the people who volunteer to help at the folk festival, in order to keep things moving and thriving. “Buy Lowell!”
February 7th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Wasn’t it only last week that ‘BUR had this piece on the “creative economy”?
http://www.wbur.org/news/2008/74473_20080130.asp
Definitely worth another listen/read.
Also, this week’s “Radio Boston” features Fitchburg Mayor Lisa Wong and her plans to revitalize “an old mill town with closed factories, a crime problem and a record number of foreclosures.”
http://www.radioboston.org/index.php/2008/02/04/fitchburg-rising.html
Hmm…. Perhaps we should be paying attention?
February 7th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Josh,
I think the manager is trying to make Lowell more like the well run cities of the south and southwest. Many of those places in the south and west that you speak of (the ones that steal our residents) are doing the same thing that he is proposing to do. Often these programs are a way for local gov’t to secure state, federal and private grant money for art and culture and coordinate events between multiple organizations. For example:
Phoenix established an office like this in 1985: http://phoenix.gov/ARTS/artscomm.html
Santa Fe, NM: http://santafenm.gov/index.asp?NID=797
Austin, TX: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/redevelopment/cad.htm
I’m sure there are plenty of other examples . . .
February 7th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Yours truly will be on the Radio Boston show mentioned above on Friday afternoon at 1:00 offering my perspective on what the region’s older mill cities need to do to move forward. There will also be a blog and live chat attached to the discussion. The mind whirls. Fitchburg’s story is a good one - my hope is that th enew mayor can make this work and not have to suffer the same ‘good old boys AND girls’ problems rearing up here in Lowell. Another problem is that this is not a great time to launch into major developments which require property investments, what with the precarious economy.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Speaking of local economy, did anyone see this article in yesterday’s Lowell Sun, http://www.lowellsun.com/business/ci_8185401
To have this much property that hasn’t been sold…wonder just how well other large condo and townhome developments are doing?
February 7th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Not to get into the argument above..
I still question the idea of a single person heading up all the cultural assets of the city.
First, I don’t like government taking on that role.
But more importantly, what happens when Mr “I wanna take a picture of 5000 naked people in front of city hall” shows up? Does one person have the ability to decide “thats not in my taste”? “this would be inappropriate for Lowell”?
Maybe thats a poor example.. but it jumps out in my mind.
Although I would or would not agree with the decision.. should the power to choose what is appropriate art and/or culture belong in the hands of government?
I like separate, private groups sponsoring a diversity of arts… some I can appreciate, some i think are crap.
One person who represent all would eventually be held responsible for any one of the groups doing some controversial event.. and thus over time would water down all of them to protect their position and the role of their growing department.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Remember the punk concert that got derailed? That stuff is going to happen either way, if for no other reason than permitting. So yeah… I’d say its a good example but a moot point.
The point of the position is not to be an overlord but to make things more efficient in the way people get grants and streamlining the marketing of the overall creative economy. The point isn’t to lord over who gets what, but to be an organized resource for what is currently a dis-organized community.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:03 am
sd: You spoke to soon… Kazanjian has already proposed a ridiculous ‘to work in Lowell, you must live in Lowell’ motion. Hopefully, it goes down in a blaze of unglory! If I’m a fire fighter in Boston and my husband is a teacher in Lowell, what do we do? God forbid they go for the best candidate who isn’t their buddy. Can’t wait to see what the nationwide search for a new school chief brings us… $10 bucks says they find a friend for the job right in the Bon Marche building.
Please tell me where to get my votes back!
I agree we boycott his business and the catering business as well (the food’s not that good anyway) and bombard them all with phone calls giving them a piece of our minds. They need to get over the cronyism and do the right thing.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Professor Forrant, I did not mean to make the government out to be evil, but I simply think this office would be unnecessary and counterproductive in some of the ways Shawn mentioned above. Government programs have a tendency to overreach their initial intentions. There is a lot of speak of the GOB network, but no one seems to worry that it would have affected this office eventually had it been created.
I don’t doubt the value of the creative economy either, but I’m just failing to understand why this needs to be made into a government office. Where is it currently failing?
As for Peter Rollins, he looks to be getting all his talking points straight out of the official handbook of baseless liberal comebacks. I bet you also voted for Hillary, don’t drink Dunkin’ Donuts because its too bourgeois, and your education consists of reading some Marx once and maybe a little continental material (but that might be pushing it). Your smug attitude is evidence of your ignorance. Good luck in life my friend. You’ll need it.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:37 am
The day it overreaches I’ll speak out against it. In the meantime, as designed, its a net benefit (with almost no risk at that). But lets not call it what it isn’t just because it might become that. Nobody is suggesting that we enshrine the position for the next ten years and handcuff everyone from doing anything if it goes wrong. We could all just sit there and assume all government actions will be bad and stall everything for fear of the future Lets instead demand government work well and intervene when it strays.
For once this a local proposal comes along that aims to increase efficiency and be a better resource for the community, and (some of) our leaders would rather their personal agendas stand in the way of such progress.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Agreed, Mr. L. — Government is simply a tool; how well it works depends on how well we look after it.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Kami touched on this in the previous post.
www.leftinlowell.com/2008/02/05/liveblogging-the-cultural-dept-vote/#comment-394732
Trust me this was very much about protecting Andy St. Onge, and for good reason. IMO, one of the all time no show jobs. How many people here have been investigated by the FBI before?
I won’t even get into the CVB and their so called “turf”.
And let’s cut the crap about the unions, everyone knows its 8 percent for three years with a few minor concessions on healthcare offerings and bi-weekly pay (same as firefighters and superior officers). Just a matter of when the rest of them sign on the dotted line. 1705 will be the big holdout.
As for spending money on studies and then ignoring the recommendations, I think they have a special room at city hall full of cabinets that hold them. What was new about this one was ignoring the huge public support that showed up, most hacks don’t ever have the guts to do that.
Too bad, now it looks like we’re trying to drive out Bernie AND LZ.
I’m far from a political insider, but the longer I’m around this city the less I like the smell, and I’m not talking about duck island.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
New motto for (some of) the CC? “The courage to lead badly”
February 7th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
The real shame is that readers of this blog need no convincing of the CC’s “new motto.” It’s too bad there’s no way to get this into the hands of the MSM but of course JC will never let it see the light of day in the Sun. The only small ray of light I see is the Boston Globe’s Northwest weekly. Does anyone know Russ Contreras well enough to drop a dime?
February 7th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
You can contact Russell Contreras from the Boston Globe directly tonight. He is a stand-in radio host tonight from 8 to 10 pm on WCAP and will be discussing Lowell and the Democratic Primaries.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Just emailed him a link to this thread.
February 7th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
A useful link for contacting the City Council, among others, if you want to tell them what you think. It was apparently rolled out last week. Now let’s just hope The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse read their e-mail. http://www.egovlink.com/lowell/action.asp
February 7th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Red writes…”The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse…”…The funniest freakin’ phrase I’ve heard all day!
February 7th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I’ve been afk and missed a lot of this debate thread but I need to ask Peter Rollins, as much as I agree with you, and as exasperating as Josh is sometimes, to please use more respectful language when arguing your points…your first post on this thread is something that I might not have allowed through without editing had I been the one to approve it. It’s borderline. Josh might be our (token!) conservative around here, but he’s been around a long time and does try to have an honest opinion (as much as I think he’s misguided *grin*), and I don’t think he deserved quite the tone you gave.
Other than that, please continue.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I *hate* anonymous posters to blogs! Unfortunately due to an oversite i became one!! That was me who posted the suggestion to contact Russ Contreras (#31). And thanks to Anonymous II for the information about his appearance tonight on WCAP.
To Red (and others who attempt to access the new e-gov link) the login does not work; the CM replied to my post on his blog that someone would be fixing that ASAP.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
To All the City employees moving to Lowell, Councilor Tow Truck has a lot of condos for sale and he’s transferring his kids to Lowell schools too.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Josh asked, Just answer this question
Why I think it is necessary.
Foremost, for the reasons stated by the opponents, but with the opposite viewpoint…namely, there are so many groups that are responsible for their own entities.
I don’t think (though I could be totally wrong on this, but trying to be positive) these people/groups don’t like each other, aren’t capable of working together, spend their days and nights worrying about losing power (and if they are… they don’t deserve to be in the position). I suspect it is more like, just too damn busy worrying about the Auditorium, for which I am responsible, to worry about what happens down the street at the Textile Museum, and so on…
Hence, the reason I believe the person in this position could accomplish, in additonal to other duties, the following…
1. Increase the buying power of marketing and advertising efforts of the city by pooling advertising dollars and coordinating such among all of the groups to create a greater presence of the city as a whole. Similar to the full-page ads for Folk Festival that were in Boston papers. The Festival Foundation may have the big-bucks to buy one of these, but individual entities like the Auditorium, MRT, or Western Ave., couldn’t possibly afford such. However, collectively, it could be affordable to place one of the mega-ads let’s say, for a weekend when all three of those venues are holding events.
2. Coordinate above with Downtown business. Downtown retailers, restaurants, bars, art galleries, complain they do not get more business from the large venues. Visitors to the large venues complain (as do those who live in the neighborhood, myself included) because nothing is open when they are here. Downtown retailers say they cannot afford to be open all the time. Endless circle… Here’s a nifty thought, what if, the Cultural Affairs Director worked together with all of these folks and could coordinate communication, etc. between them. Maybe even do something crazy, like have a bunch of students (who would be happy to make a few bucks) hand out flyers to everyone coming out of the auditorium after a show telling them what is open. Downtown retailers would be aware of major events, and plan accordingly to expand their hours.
Since these things, (and all the others covered in previous posts) can have a positive economic impact on the city, I do believe it is in the best interest of the city to have someone in this position.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Paul, give the egov link another shot. It seems to be working for some folks.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Why is nobody questioning the “Hot Dog Man” St Onge’s connection with Lenzi??
February 7th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
For me, PC, its simple: wasn’t aware of it. Thats the amazing thing about this town, if you listen closely you can learn about something crooked every week, if not every day.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Re: my earlier comment about my inability to register for the E-gov link I found that the “Submit” button activates a popup. I have a silent popup blocker on my browser which prevented me from registering. If you are trying to register for the E-gov link make sure your popup blocker(s) are disabled
February 7th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Someone should let him know to have the website editor add a note on the popup-blocker issue.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
#38 Anonymous…,likely, yes, towtruck has tons of condos still available. Very unlikely that he would be transferring his children back to Lowell Public Schools since he sends his kids out to Groton, to school, to the tune of $35K per year.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Josh, you are wrong about the source of urban decline in this country. If it actually was caused by Massachusetts’ tax and regulatory policy, why wouldn’t we have seen suburban and small-town decline as well over the same period? The hollowing out of Lowell and Fitchburg and Lawrence had nothing to do with the regional migration of industry, as there was plenty of economic growth in our region’s sprawling suburbs that could have replaced the jobs lost in the cities, but went elsewhere. As I’m sure you’re aware, the period of industrial migration out of old urban centers was a period of tremendous growth in Massachusetts’ suburbs, led by the economic development of our numerous cutting edge, high-employment, innovative industries, which makes the high-tax, high-quality-of-life northeast a major economic engine for the country.
The fact is that the shift of jobs from more economically-advanced places to the hinterlands is every bit the market-driven phenomenon, and explains why even the tax-hating, low-regulation, union-busting places like South Carolina are now losing the industries they took from us to Pakistan.
Older cities in fast-growing, prosperous regions went to pot right along with older cities in declining areas - see Richmond, Los Angeles or New York City. Lowell’s decline was an urban issue, and we as a society have actually found a strategy that can be applied to revive cities that suffered from the American 20th Century City-Busting Disease that ravaged this town. Part of it involves these initiatives to revive our role as a center for culture.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
So considering residency for City employees is a problem, but it is your business to question a public official (and his wife) in a private decision about where to educate their children?……..Another thing, didn’t LZ Nunn and her husband got their first City of Lowell paychecks because they were hired by John Cox?
February 8th, 2008 at 12:07 am
What’s the record for most posts on a thread here? This has tobe approaching it…
I can’t believe people didn’t realize what they were getting when they voted for some of these clowns. Something has to be done quick or the city is going to become one big embarassment, scaring away investment, visitors, new development, etc. How do you think the Trinity developers feel when they see this? All it creates is uncertainty in an already dangerous economic time…a simple vote like this must have them thinking twice as it doesn’t exactly create confidence in the city’s elected officials when a simple administrative vote like this is blown. Can’t wait until the vote comes up to finally sell the site to Trinity and what nit wit stuff they try to pull.
Who’s got the Ethics Commission on speed dial because I can see at least half a dozen items here worth investigating between questionable relationships/connections, staged ZBA opposition to Western Ave. project by AK’s employees and other flunkees, etc. It’s so obvious so why isn’t anyone picking up on this and dropping dimes and fighting fire with fire. Sooner or later their stupidity is going to catch up with them…
February 8th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Re: #35 K-R-S. I think the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse were named Famine, Pestilence, War and, oh yeah — Cronyism.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:15 am
Mr. L I had already let the CM know in a personal email exchange to add that note.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:32 am
To put comment #47 in tru perspective:
The arguement for residency requirement is being made that those who work for the city should live in the city, schooling their kids in the city (paraphrased from a quote in The Sun’s article from these CC).
Once again, if we were to require residency for all city employees, it should be across the board. That is every single employee of the City should be mandated to live in the City of Lowell, no exemptions. Fair is fair.
LZ and her husband have nothing to do w/ this issue as they didn’t bring forward the residency motion. Had they done so, I would have the same issue. BTW, you MVP, brought up the frmr mgr., not I. THAT is an entirely differant thread (and a boring one at that).
February 8th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
“…and a boring one at that”…LMAO! Yes, yes indeedy.