Left In Lowell

We now have a Lowell Office of Cultural Affairs and Special Events , headed up by the current director of COOL. It seems rather anticlimactic when you consider what it took to get here (moving at the speed of government, or rather, the speed of consensus) but with the nest-protecting language that was added, it passed, 8-1.

I think this is not merely a simple moment in the city’s politics. The impact will be felt for the rest of this Council’s term. The Cultural Office itself will have its mark to make of course, but I don’t just mean for the creative economy here. I mean this episode will have an impact for how things will get done in the city over the next couple of years. This was one of the first major battles between what the city needs to move forward, and the objections of people trying to protect and serve the status quo. On balance, progress - and City Manager Lynch - won. And it won on the merits of the case.

Of course, there are bigger battles to fight, evidenced by the reaction of some who opposed the new Cultural Office in the first round. The protectionism surrounding the Auditorium or the MV Convention and Visitor’s Bureau should not exclude them from the same scrutiny that COOL has just received. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, Lynch presented a breakdown on COOL’s budget to the Councilors at the request (past motion) of Mayor Caulfield yesterday. I’m not sure what the intent was on the motion, though I don’t believe it’s a bad thing to outline COOL’s funding and accomplishments. I do fear future death-by-motion movements wherein we see government hampered by excessive micro-managing by the Council simply for the sake of making life more difficult for Lynch (for example, we should be due for another “Request – City – Manager – Lynch – to – report – on – the – homeless – shelters – and – what – can – we – do – to – shut – them – down” from Councilor K. at some point soon). But if we have done this for COOL, I want to see this done for all the marketing monies the city spends, be it the Tsongas or the CVB.

However, on balance, things are still headed on the right track. Despite extremely tough times for the budget, we seem to be making some progress. Not as much as we’d like but it’s better than going backwards. The future payoff should be in the form of a fiscally healthier city, one where structural deficits are unseen and smart investments in growth allows us to fully fund our schools, infrastructure repairs, and services. This despite the “majority” of elected Councilors who ran campaigns about being angry about the past and their opposition to moving on. Doesn’t “I’m for Cox” seem like a lifetime ago?

The more intelligent will decide that it’s better to lay claim to good works than oppose them, and the fools will never learn. Which are whom only time will tell…

It now has been 6 months since the local radio station, WCAP, changed hands. My views have not changed much since last fall when I wrote my post on the new format.

Currently, the morning and afternoon drive time are devoted to locally-produced programming, as well as the evening program. Since I only have an opportunity to listen in the morning and a few times at night, I cannot say much about the afternoon program.

To the morning Magazine program, when interviewing public officials, stop throwing soft balls. I like the friendly, polite, civil tone of the conversation but they really need to ask some hard questions. At times it sounds like a love fest.

I like the segment with the local “experts” who appear regularly but I do not like interviews of Herald and Globe staff; I can get those views at their outlet. Having a Sun reporter do segments regularly would be nice but I am wondering if there is some kind of rule at the Sun that prevents anyone from contributing to WCAP unless it is Saturday morning. (more…)

Tomorrow night’s City Council meeting has a full agenda. The “revised” ordinance on the Cultural Affairs office is facing a public hearing. I am assuming that this time CM Bernie Lynch has the 6 votes. But that is the last item that grabbed my attention; a motion by CC K. Broderick “Req. City Council adhere to the Council Rules.”

I am not sure which specific rules CC Broderick has in mind but anyone who has watched meetings of this CC meetings on a regular basis has noticed a general neglect of parliamentary procedures.

First, there is continuous request to “suspend the rules.” Why have a posted agenda when topics and issues are going to be raised without the public being informed in advance? If it’s not an emergency, then it can wait until the next meeting.

The Mayor/Chair is allowed to participate in discussion from the podium. He should step down and hand-over the gavel to the vice-mayor as is customary and proper.

And when has the agenda item Manager’s Response turned into a Q & A on any topic that may enter a CC member’s mind at that moment. If a CC has an issue, they need to file a motion so that the CM can provide them with the information they require; otherwise CC meetings will be turned into “gotcha” sessions.

As Lynne discussed in an earlier post, last night the City Council took up the issue of a “Acceptance for Payment in Lieu of Taxes for Real and Personal Property,” an agreement between the City and Montgomery L’Energia Power Partners (the Tanner Street plant.)

Massachusetts law allows municipalities to come to an agreement with utility providers; so instead of a tax assessment, there is a set fee. CM Bernie Lynch explained that it is often difficult to assess the value of such a business, thus difficult to assess taxes. Thus this option. The City Council approved the 20-year contract, which is front loaded. Yes, 20 years. I could catch the exact numbers but I know at the beginning it is about $500,000/year, and then drops off but if they upgrade the facility, then the numbers will altered. According to published reports, Billerica may receive as much as $1.5 million their massive power plant.

The ubiquitous and politically connected (former State Energy Secretary, Finance Committee member of Niki Tsongas’ Congressional Campaign) Joseph S. Fitzpatrick, president and chief executive officer of DG Clean Power was in attendance and allowed to speak and answer any questions the City Council had. Surprisingly, the great majority of the Council sat silently; only CC Rodney Elliott and Rita Mercier asked questions. CC Elliott focused on the details of the contract and CC Mercier raised the issue of any pending legal issues between the power company and the town Blackstone (MA). Fitzpatrick answered that there were no problems. I wish that CC Mercier had then asked was there an issue in the past; how was it resolved and how much money did the town of Blackstone spent on legal representation to resolve the issue.

Also, Mr. Fitzpatrick also answered some questions regarding the new Billerica power plant but most likely he will return when the Environment/Neighborhood Sub-Committees take up CC Elliott’s motion to discuss the “impact on the Concord River and traffic issues affecting South Lowell resulting from proposed power plant in Billerica.” I think this time he will be joined by some South Lowell residents who may not agree with his assessment of the situation. By the way, has anyone resolved the idle trains sitting on the tracks that run through that neighborhood?

And speaking of the environment, it looks like the City Council is aggressively looking at a resolution to the skyrocketing costs of residential trash pick-up. A number of CC members, Administration and others will be traveling to Worcester in a couple of weeks to evaluate that city’s Trash and Recycling program.

It is with sadness that I read today of Senator Kennedy’s diagnosis. We send our best to him and his family, and hope for successful treatment, though this is not good news.

(Article found via BMG.)

If all the other issues now on Lowell’s collective plate just aren’t enough for you, here’s another discussion we as a community need to have - whether or not to close the Middlesex portion of the Lord Overpass when redeveloping Hamilton Canal. The discussion will take place at the Traffic Working Group meeting this Wednesday, May 21, 2008 from 7-9 PM in the Mayor’s Reception Room.

The proposal for this is explained on the JAMbra website, including a map. It states:

Trinity Financial, developer of the Hamilton Canal District has recently submitted their development to the state agency MEPA. Part of that plan includes a proposed traffic redesign for the JAM neighborhood and the Lord Overpass.
…
It has been proposed that part of the Lord Overpass is removed breaking Middlesex Street into two parts. Traffic will be routed through Revere Street to either Appleton Street or an extended Jackson Street. There are many ramifications to this plan. Appleton Street will become four lanes of traffic for a portion eliminating on street parking through Revere Street.

This is part of the Trinity proposal for how to deal with the Hamilton Canal development, but it affects JAM businesses. The JAM plan will be in full swing long before Hamilton gets going, so the traffic changes in this area could strand or lessen the value of the new developments in JAM. JAM businesses and residents feel that they have not had a chance to examine and question the traffic plan from Trinity. JAMbra’s site says:

This will harm many area businesses including the Durkin Building and the Owl Diner. Revere Street will be extended requiring additional land acquisition/taking. Access to Middlesex Street heading west will be severely impacted, disconnecting this area from the JAM neighborhood.

So, if you have an opinion one way or the other, go to the meeting this Wednesday and be part of the process. (Speak now, or forever hold your peace!)

(I know, I know, I couldn’t resist the pun for the title. I am as bad as all those local morning news anchors and newspaper headline writers that I constantly mock. I hang my head in shame…)

Two items on the Council’s agenda tomorrow night spiked my interest. One, which the Sun writes about, is the acceptance of a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement from L’Energia, the rebuilt Tanner St power plant. The same big firm (coupled with “DG Cleanpower” - a misnomer if I ever heard one) is also trying to build a 6-stack, 348-megawatt gas/diesel power plant in north Billerica.

What is payment-in-lieu-of-taxes? Well, it’s simple. The plant agrees not to get taxed, in favor of just giving us an agreed-upon payment for some number of years that may or may not be less than what they would pay if the property was assessed the old fashioned way your house and mine are. I wish I could freeze my property tax payments for something like 20 years without worrying about the worth of the dollar for a couple decades, inflation, or an increase in value for whatever reason. But it seems like industrial/commercial properties get to do this. Feh.

At the heart of developing these (yes, dirty, fossil-fuel-based) power plants, by the way, is a former City Councilor, so you wonder just how much this guy relies on his old-style connections to get things done around here. I have met Joe Fitzpatrick, and I can tell you that he’s lied to my face during a Q&A session about L’Energia on Tanner. So I don’t trust him one iota, and would love to see the Tanner plant stopped as well as the Billerica plant. But I certainly do not want to get screwed out of due tax money from it either.

Does the payment-in-liu-of-taxes take into account the cost to the city in terms of pollution, increased health risks, and everything else that comes with sticking a power plant in the middle of a city? L’Energia should have remained off line and redeveloped to something appropriate, not put back into use as a polluting power plant. Doesn’t South Lowell get dumped on enough?

Update: I also meant to comment on the other power-plant-related subject of tomorrow night, that of a C. Elliot request to have the Environmental/Neighborhood Subcommittee meet in regards to the very real, very scary traffic issues that could arise out of the proposed Billerica power plant. Kudos to Elliot for starting this conversation. You see, Lowell gets no “payment-in-liu-of-taxes” from the proposed Billerica plant, but we’ll have the mess to clean up if a tanker hits a house, or can’t brake coming down an icy Woburn St ramp and spills its aqueous ammonia right near that dense neighborhood.

I think the city should discuss creating an ordinance making it illegal for tanker trucks carrying fuel or ammonia (or other materials deemed too dangerous) to use the Woburn St exit (or, if we don’t have jurisdiction, get the legislature to do it, or put the ordinance on Woburn St itself), citing the serious safety concerns. That in and of itself negates one of the more attractive features of the Billerica site - its proximity to route 495 - and makes them find another route for their hazmat tankers. Maybe, say, getting off route 3 at Exit 28, Treble Cove Road, and make it entirely Billerica’s problem, seeing as they would get all the cash (er, “payments-in-liu-of-taxes”) from having the plant.

Of course, that doesn’t work, because our first responders have to help if Billerica gets overwhelmed by an accident of those proportions. So who pays for that, and the training besides?

The subcommittee responsible to unraveling the knotty recycling participation and waste disposal budget deficit problem, the Neighborhood/Traffic/Recycling/Utilities Subcommittee (consisting of C. Kazanjian, Chair, C. Broderick, and C. Rita Mercier), will meet again tomorrow night at 5pm in what will probably propose our new trash and recycling program.

The initial reports looks like the PAYT (Pay As You Throw) options are getting widespread support from city councilors. PAYT is the general recommendation of the Citizen’s Action Committee. It consists of “a hybrid base/bag fee program that would increase the base fee by $1/week. The new charge would be $150/year. The city would then add a $1.50/bag fee for a second or greater number of bags needed for weekly trash disposal.” That means for those who can keep their trash disposal down to one bag a week, the increase of $50/year from the $100 yearly trash fee now in place is all you’ll be responsible for. The PAYT program as proposed should nearly eliminate the trash budget deficit, with the final deficit covered by possible increased participation in recycling. (See comment from Jay for a clarification on this statement.)

Other options to be discussed are extra fees for large and bulky items (like couches) and possible ordinance changes to make recycling mandatory, as well as forming a citizens advisory committee on trash and recycling.

If you can’t make the meeting tomorrow at 5pm, you can send the city councilors an email.

It appears that the current program will stick around while a solution is considered, so don’t fear that your recycling bin will be left full at the curb just yet!

As for my commentary, I would add that we need to ensure good enforcement of the bag limit and of all other ordinances, and make people responsible for what they dumb to the curb. Anyone caught dumping (either from out of town or a resident looking to avoid fees) should be fined heavily. Without strong enforcement, we could face a situation such as Dick fears, of too much garbage left in the streets.

Then again, I see dumped crap all over the place right now as is, so I’m not sure it can get much worse.

My other comment is to set aside some money (or go after a grant) to sponsor a push in the educational aspect. We need to get people to understand the new PAYT (if it passes), as well as what they can recycle and how. Use volunteers to accomplish a lot of the work, so that it doesn’t cost too much, but spread a group out across the city to distribute bins and educate residents. I think that this could, coupled with PAYT, give us a double whammy on increasing recycling participation.

This is why I just adore having three citizen blogs in the city of Lowell (besides also having the CM’s blog). There’s always something being covered that I can’t, and then I can just write about it. Jackiedoherty.org reports that:

As noted in today’s Sun, Lowell City Manager Bernie Lynch informed Superintendent Baehr yesterday that the city could provide an additional $200,000 in funds for the schools next year, enabling the restoration of four key positions to its FY09 budget. The enhanced communication between the city and its schools, along with an early commitment from the state on its education funding, have improved the school budget process—even though the approved budget required extensive staffing cuts due to limited resources.

Good news, indeed. Ah, to have professionals running the show at last…

There will be cuts, however. With a 1% increase in the budget, a very modest one considering health care and cost-of-business inflation, which is far more than 1%, Jackie notes we’ll have a loss of 60 positions. She tells us that “This is the seventh year in a row of school cuts that total 360 positions eliminated since 2002.” Though the schools are doing the best they can with what they have, we are losing the battle for quality education. The trend must reverse soon if we’re to keep making good gains for our students.

Go read the rest of Jackie’s post, which has other good info. And Margaret also writes about the Citywide Parent’s Council meeting tonight (televised on channel 22), which will feature a Q&A with school department administrators, as well as a call for interested parents to join the board of the CPC, which will be chosen tonight.

Of course, the price of oil doesn’t just affect those at the gas pump, but the cost of food, services, and goods. So everyone is affected no matter what.

However, I’m struck by how much my husband and I are immured from the direct cost increases of gas. And how this showcases a better way for everyone, if only we had the courage to take it on, I think.

First, I drive a very old car, a Toyota Corolla. It gets maybe 26 or 27 miles to the gallon, so, real high compared to most of the crap people are driving, but certainly not stellar. And yet, its small tank (maybe 10.5 gallons?) gets filled maybe once a week, and the difference between $3/gal and $3.60/gal gas is only $6/week for us.

The bulk of our traveling (between the two of us) is by train - he commutes to Boston for work. It’s not the best of situations…the monthly pass does cost a bit (though, I think we’re now making out ahead on that versus driving due to the high gas) and it’s a looong commute, certainly not great for one’s standard of living (though, he gets lots of reading done!). Once he hits the city, his pass allows him T transit, or he walks. Mostly he walks. It lengthens the commute but also keeps him really healthy.

I of course work in Lowell, about 3 minutes away from our house. Now that summer is here I’ll probably bike more, and I’m moving my studio/office downtown, so I’ll be within walking distance from a lot of restaurants and other amenities (especially once the Hamilton and JAM developments are underway). I partly chose where I wanted to move my business on that center-of-town convenience.

So that got me thinking - what’s so bad about avoiding commuter traffic, saving gas, and using less fossil fuel? Well, for most people, it’s the fact that public transit doesn’t go where you need to go.

Personally, I think we should consider expanding the rail lines. For instance, connecting the outer “gateway” cities, Haverhill to Lawrence to Lowell to Worcester. Connect the spokes of the hub which is the commuter rail, and suddenly the train becomes a potential alternative to driving (I hate driving to Worcester). Once you get to your city, perhaps an expanded bus route could take you exactly where you needed to be. Unfortunately, the geography between these cities is densely packed, and it would cost a lot to create new rail line, but once created, it could reduce the traffic congestion and our overuse of the highways. What about connecting the inner circle? Reading/Woburn/Lexington/Waltham. In fact, it might be easiest to build new track along the same route as 128 or 495.

That would all be a very ambitious project. And the trend in this country for rail is a decline, not renaissance. However, that’s only because our emphasis is on widening highways and building new ones. Our usage of rail in the Boston area is quite heavy, and I expect many commuters who are frequently stuck on 128 on a daily basis might opt for an alternative if they had it.

It probably wouldn’t cost any more than the Big Dig did, anyway. And it could help save the planet.

Update: In the realm of if-they-can-do-it,-why-not-us, California is contemplating high speed rail Japanese-style.