Left In Lowell

The Cable TV Sub-Committee (CCs B. Martin (Chair); R. Mercier, A. Kazanjian and M. Lenzi) met this afternoon to review the new Comcast contract. It was approved unanimously, now it will be presented to the full City Council. I am not sure if it requires approval; I inferred from the comments made by Attorney David Fenton, who was representing the City Solicitor’s office, that it was not necessary but that was the wish of the CM Bernie Lynch.

The City’s negotiating team consisted of Attorney Fenton, the City Manager, the City’s CIO Miran Fernandez and Jack Hall who was the City’s Cable Coordinator in the past and volunteered his service for this round of contract negotiations.

The bulk of the discussion centered around competition among cable provider; the terms of this contract allows for competition. It seemed that the City would really like Verizon to come here and provide direct competition for cable television. I do not think that we as a community are on Verizon’s radar screen. Are they still trying to get that bill passed through the State House so that they do not have to negotiate with each community?

Back to our new contract with Comcast. It is for 5 years, beginning October 2008, with an option for 2 more years if direct competition comes in within the first 3 years.

As some of you may know, 5% of your cable bill is sent to the City for their use. Lowell Telecommunications Corporation (LTC) gets 2% and the City gets 3%.

LTC uses those funds to operate the facility on Market Street and provide Public Access television to the Community.

The City uses its portion to provide funding for Channel 22, the Lowell school’s cable television station, pay for the Municipal Programming (broadcasting all those meetings), and to pay for the costs absorbed by the City IT Department.

In addition to all that, Comcast will provide the City $120,000/year for capital improvement. The total sum of $600,000 for capital improvement is up from the $400,000 from the previous contract. Some of those funds will be applied to maintaining and upgrading the City’s Institutional Network (I-Net) which is used for purposes other than video broadcasting.

In the words of Attorney Fenton, the City “achieved a good contract in though climate in terms of negotiations…It was not easy but we got a good deal.”

Here is a 40 second clip (courtesy of LTC and blip.tv) of Attorney Fenton:

Last week I read, like many of you, the article in the Boston Globe on “Cameras…in public sites.” I was startled by the opening paragraph because it was discussing the use of video cameras by the Lowell Police Department (LPD).

According to the LPD this is the plan: “…the LPD received federal grant money from the COPS Technology Office for the purpose of implementing a “City-Wide Security and Video Management Network.” In order for the surveillance system to work properly, it needs to be connected via video receivers at selected wireless bridge sites. Because several schools strategically located throughout the city, the LPD will be mounting these wireless receivers on the rooftops of selected schools, thus enhancing the network connectivity. The LPD will begin the project with approximately (14) cameras that will ultimately be mounted as needed and in accordance with the level of crime in a targeted area. “

There is no intention of monitoring students inside the schools nor outside. As some of you may recall, the LPD was one of two local entities to receive funds from the federal spending bill and the funds were for this video program.

And this is what the newspaper wrote: “Police in Lowell are installing sophisticated video surveillance systems to watch students inside and outside the public schools as part of a citywide security system to monitor and deter criminal activity.”

So if you read the Globe story and have not heard or read the LPD’s explanation, you are highly misinformed. I heard about the LPD clarification while listening to WCAP; I did not see a correction in the Globe yet.

OMG awesome. I’m all tingly!

There’s a lot of hype around this, but the threat is real. A virus has been propagating in order to do something - no one’s sure what - on April 1st. I keep my Windows machine pretty well patched and my virus software very updated, but the steps to ensuring you aren’t infected have to include more than that, so I’m running the suggested scan from McAfee. If you have trouble getting to the McAfee site John links to, that’s a sure sign you might be infected.

Also, be careful using Facebook and other application-running sites. Viruses are known to sometimes come through such sites.

I would like to interject into this regularly scheduled controversy to say a few more things.

The problem I have with Arena issue isn’t so much with a deal being made, as the way it was made. Which is to say, made via that Lowell standby, the Good Ol Boy network.

I used to defend Meehan. In fact, there was quite a lot of outrage against him at various times, and on national blogs, I said some nice things about him. I still think there are things to be happy about – his voting record (with some very notable exceptions) in the House was fairly in line with the Democratic platform, and I know he is an intelligent man.

However, he is a Lowell politician through and through, and to the people who tried to tell me this, years ago, I admit to you, you were right. And there’s a fine line between ambitious and career-driven, and the sort of politics that happens in this city (and a lot in the state house) when it comes to personal loyalties driving policy, instead of the other way around.

For instance, why is Panagiotakos’ name anywhere near this? It keeps cropping up. This is same outrage as when these people (the GOBs) back a clearly unqualified friend for a public position, or for a candidacy, when obviously the reason is far more about personal loyalty than the knowledge that that person is the best person for the job.

We all use our human networks in life. Humans are social creatures, there’s no denying that. I network for my business. But I can assure you, when I accept clients via these networks, I am qualified for it. I wouldn’t accept a job where I wasn’t. And the reason I know the difference between the GOB and the people I believe deserve my support, is that those people I support wouldn’t ever offer me some largess just based on my personal connection to them. And they don’t use what they can offer to solidify anyone’s loyalty, which is, essentially, how they wind up earning mine.

The GOB network doesn’t think like this. Of course, it’s perfectly human, how they use their networks – and perfectly unethical. But just because it’s the way business has been conducted in this city for a long time, doesn’t mean it’s right, or that it’s good for the city.

I stand by what I wrote – I do not see how UML really gets any gain particularly in the foreseeable future, and I still wonder what professors UML will lay off to pay for operating this Arena, or what student fees will go up - again. The state university system, I’m sure, would not want to actually pay for the Arena, if the deal included money up front (and again, profits to pay back the city? Please. Where’s the plan? I think the city taxpayers at least deserve to know the plan for making the damn thing profitable). And I still don’t see how we can give away the land next door, that’s just dumb. I also think there’s some very interesting possibilities for redevelopment in that area – perhaps, at this point, after the recession begins to subside. And that the way the Arena was set up to be governed years ago was obviously a failed experiment. (Well, at least in so far as appointed positions can be abused by abusive people and the Arena Commission seemed unwilling to actually make hard choice between personal loyalty, and what was a correct choice, in the past.)

For people who believe that an entertainment venue can’t work for a city, I refer you to a recent one well-done – that of the Verizon arena in Manchester, NH, a fairly comparable situation to Lowell (downtown location, part of a revitalization project). I’m from that area, and I know the Elm St downtown area really well. It was an abandoned pit. But not any more. The problems with our arena have been poor oversight and poor planning, but those things don’t have to be permanent.

What I wonder is, what sorts of plans to turn around the Arena can Meehan possibly put into action, given that he himself said on the radio when he was first hired, that he’s only planning on being chancellor for perhaps 2-3 years? Everyone knows that we will soon lose a Senator, and there’s a reason Meehan kept some $4-million-odd dollars in his campaign account even when the Democrats were in need of funds in order to regain Congress three years ago, and he was verbally hammered, nationally, for not doing his part.

I’ll note a lot of people came out of the woodwork yesterday, which is interesting in and of itself. There are some good arguments (and many bad ones) regarding what should be done and stating that this is a “good” deal. My problem with the thing (besides many of the specifics) is the games that were played, and the way it evolved, and the fact that the City had to come to the negotiating table basically hobbled. It wasn’t a negotiation, it was a capitulation, before the discussion even started.

And the games. The so-called Kraft Report. The political maneuvering. It was like watching that same bad movie all over again. (You know, the one where the City Manager almost got his city put on the DoR watch list…)

[As an aside, I find these comments, in particular, to be a freaking riot. “Thank god for Campanini and the sun.” Hilarious. Anyone else remember when we had such obviously-motivated drive-by comments? Though I am not referring to the honest commenters who have taken time to explain their views.]

Again, I don’t think it’s a logical conflict for this to both be bad for UML (I refer you to the budget cuts) and bad for the city. The city is possibly being asked to give away land that potentially in the future could be part of the city’s tax rolls, and may be a key to reversing the curse. Given to the University, I’m not sure it’ll be put to similar use. And I don’t think a Division-whatever hockey team is a good legacy for a university, sorry. I think our priorities are seriously screwed up and this is not the first time I’ve been disappointed as to where a public university decided to put its money and its time. While Meehan is trying to convince us they can take on the Arena costs, he’s out there making statements that jeopardize the Nanotech center, and yes, it was his statements that caused the hubbub. If he had done things right, we would be perhaps seeing a delay on beginning the center, but its plans still solidly in place. Investment does not thrive on uncertainty, however, which is what Meehan has projected.

I don’t have a bridge to burn here. I don’t get one iota of benefit from expressing my disgust at this whole process, it doesn’t help my business (which is doing quite well on its own, thank goodness). I don’t care if Meehan, or Pangiotakos, or any of them, hate my guts. Maybe there was a time when I could have been accepted into their fold, if I had kept my mouth shut, not care about the “way things are,” and become a part of it, but I choose not to. I don’t care if I piss off every man politician of them (including my own party’s leaders)…if I see something which I think is not right, I want the freedom to say it.

No, the only thing I get from this is a sense that my government is broken, but maybe, just maybe, it can be fixed. It is not a good thing for GOBs to operate in the dark, and sunlight is the only remedy. Well, that, and that the majority of these folks aren’t much under the age of 55…

If we don’t fix things and constantly stay on our guard, we’ll wind up back with incompetent technocrats and unopened Department of Revenue audit letters. No thanks.