Left In Lowell

Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs

 
Lowell 2009 Campaign Info
 
LiL Council Video Questionnaires
 

January 18, 2010

Assistant to CM Up For Discussion

by at 11:06 am.

Oh thank goodness. We can finally get back to sanity, and reverse the tragic decision of the last Council to defund (possibly not legally) the Assistant to the City Manager position. This crucial position is up for discussion on tomorrow night’s agenda, according to the Sun. Some of the reason why:

Lynch said yesterday that the position is needed in order to provide support to himself and city departments, as well as to coordinate interdepartmental projects.

“Given the council’s clear support for moving forward with CitiStat, as well as neighborhood efforts, it is crucial that we have this position,” he said. “It is a position I believe can clearly pay for itself by finding efficiencies and by freeing me up to focus on the big picture items.”

So, Elliot, can you now say you’ve finally been educated on what the Assistant to the CM does? Sigh.

Other items of interest on the agenda tomorrow night include:

C. Elliott-Req. Mgr. work w/UML to ensure Start Up Co’s researching @ Univ. locate in Lowell.
C. Elliott-Req. Mgr. determine feasibility of installing lights @ City Dog Park.
C. Martin-Req. Mgr. seek add’l funding First Time Homebuyer/2 For Lowell & report to Council.
C. Descoteaux-Req. Mgr./DPD report on programs/funds available for struggling businesses & report on indicators from new marketing strategies etc.
C. Murphy-Req. Mgr. explore establishing Neighborhood Venture Fund & widen outreach efforts for existing loan programs etc.
M. Milinazzo-Req. Mgr. investigate install lights @ 3rd St. Parking Lot.

Full City Council agenda here. The full Council packet is uploaded to Move Lowell Forward’s website.

(Update: Link to Packet Part 3 on that website now fixed…)

5 Responses to “Assistant to CM Up For Discussion”

  1. Maggie Says:

    Thanks to Lynne - I found the full Councilor packet and read the traffic studies for the proposed Walgreen’s- 3 yrs old, traffic has increased, no allowances for the 2 new and one newly planned-for businesses within eyeshot of the Rourke Bridge. And then there are those yellow lines they want to paint on Cornell and Columbia. Maybe they need to actually drive down those streets today and see that they are barely one car wide. I have emailed all Councilors that I could at their homes as it turns out they did not get any of our email before last weeks meeting. I find that very interesting as I sent mine out well before the deadline for packets. Nor did they have full traffic studies before the public heraring last weeks. Thanks to all who support us. You are appreciated.

  2. Kami Says:

    I will be very interested to see who votes yes and who votes no on this tonight. Will the new Councilors go with the neighborhoods as they promised during their campaigns or will they vote with business? Will Councilors that voted yes to the land sale (which is not the same as supporting a specific development) vote yes or no for the abandonment of the street now that they will see the real plans and potential impact to the neighborhood from the actual traffic studies that are now complete.

    They did not have this “real impact” data before. To vote to make the parcel available for bid and sale is a far different vote than this one. At that time anyone could bid on the land. It didn’t necessarily mean that Walgreens would.

    Will people on this blog still support councilors that don’t vote their way? What about Councilors that do NOT support the project like Bud? He’s not a darling of this blog. I’ll be interested to see the fallout and responses after tonights vote. Are people going to hold the new councilors feet to the fire or will they get a pass? I think its going to be interesting.

  3. Lynne Says:

    I’ll support an individual decision of someone that I generally don’t support, hells yeah. I’ll give Bud his due. It just isn’t an issue much. (Though I suspect he’ll behave a little differently now that he’s not following Kaz’s lead.)

    This is not an all or nothing blog. If the CM does something I don’t like I sure as heck will post on it. And if Bud or Rita does something right, sure, I’ll post on that too. It’s just rare.

  4. Paul@01852 Says:

    Bud’s just like the stopped clock! Even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

  5. nextyearishere Says:

    The Walgreen’s issue went ahead 6-3. Although I am against the further erosion of that neighborhood, the discussion on the council floor was refreshingly professional for the most part. The traffic engineer was able to point out that the changes proposed would reduce the bottlenecks, although I expect the two left-turns in and out of the revised Edwards street could well increase the accident count. It was not professional of him to use the old accident count data of 77 when the more recent 138 and 134 data has been available for some time.

    But, the classification of that area as commercial some time in the past set the stage for this problem. It may be wise to review the zoning for all such areas in the city before the next “Walgreen’s” comes this far.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

[powered by WordPress.]

If you are not on Twitter and want to follow our feed on Facebook, click "Like" for our FB page.
follow me on Twitter

Pages:

Recent Posts

Search

Categories:

Archives:

January 2010
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Other:

Email us!

(replace spaces, ['s, symbols)
Lynne | Mimi

LiL Fundraising for Elizabeth Warren!

Goal Thermometer

Lowell Area Bloggers/Forums

Lowell Politics

Mass Bloggers

Media in Lowell

Media in MA

Other Daily Reads

Politics Online

Progressive Local Orgs

Snark and politics

The Arts in Lowell

42 queries. 1.299 seconds