Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/leftinlowell/leftinlowell.com/wp-includes/functions.php on line 330

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Dependencies in /home/leftinlowell/leftinlowell.com/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-support/wordpress-support.php(10) : runtime-created function(1) : eval()'d code(1) : eval()'d code on line 1
Left In Lowell » Blog Archive » defying etiquette

Left In Lowell

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

2013 Candidate Questionnaire Responses!

July 11, 2013

defying etiquette

by at 5:51 pm.

There is this .. other .. blog in Lowell. Not quite a blog. Not quite a monologue. Monoblog?

i came across a recent sun “the column” opinion piece regarding the possibility of a $40,000 preliminary city council election, about which the expressed opinion was that $40,000 is a lot of money to spend, and wouldn’t it be great if we wouldn’t have to spend it.


because 50 people with an agenda can get a heck of a lot done here in this city if they would only be given the opportunity to do it.

and that’s worth $40,000 out of our hundreds of millions spent here every year administering our city government.

unless, of course, you own a newspaper and wish everyone but your guy(s) would go away.

i’m down with that.

9 Responses to “defying etiquette”

  1. Taxpayer Says:

    A good idea would to be to consolidate some on these elections or primaries into one if possible. Greater turnout less money!

  2. Eleanor Rigby Says:

    I agree that when a special election is scheduled and a normal election cycle is weeks away they should be combined.

    Look at what is happening in NJ.

    The US Senator dies and Chris Christie schedules the special election Oct 16, just 20 days before the statewide general election.

    Why? because he is up for re-election and wants to ensure that the opposition party has to spend a lot of resources on the US Senate special election, not the gubernatorial election.

    A month after his election, Governor-elect Chris Christie said, “I don’t think any responsible governor at this point would call for a special election that would cost $10 million.”….but now? The governor has announced the primary will be held on Aug. 13, while the special general election will follow on Oct. 16, just three weeks before Christie’s re-election date.

    According to New Jersey Office of Legislative Services, the special election is estimated to cost around $23.8 million.

  3. Paul@01852 Says:

    Mass. may be different from NJ. In Mass. the legislation that forces a special election for state-wide and national offices has time limits on how soon after a replacement becomes necessary that a primary election must be held and how soon after the primary the final election must be held. Prior to this legislation the Governor would appoint a replacement to servce until the next general election but the Democrats in their infinite wisdom wished to prevent a Republican Governor from exercizing this prerogative.

  4. Eleanor Rigby Says:

    Trial balloons are already being floated on Beacon Hill to see if voters would put up with a return to the old gubernatorial system. Voter fatigue is what it is being called. We’ll see, next up the special election to replace Ed Markey in the House of Representatives. Not in the Congressional District of Lowell but interesting to see none the less

  5. Christopher Says:

    What would there be to consolidate a City Council election with? I am not aware of any special elections involving Lowell on the horizon.

  6. Eleanor Rigby Says:

    True, my point was when there are special elections that need to be held then consolidation would be cost effective and have a better turnout.

    The trial balloon to return to a gubernatorial appointment for the US Senate is being floated and I’d say in a year or so it might be acted upon.

    Regarding the Lowell Preliminary election if there are 19 candidates for City Council then the preliminary should be held. If the city does not want to hold the election as directed by the amended charter then then open the charter for change.

  7. Taxpayer Says:

    The primaries and special elections in which no voters turnout, when possible they should be consolidated into elections better turnout less money. Markey hasn’t even been sworn in yet been over a month we could have waited until Nov.

  8. C R Krieger Says:

    When “no voters turnout”—I am a voter and I turn out.  Let us not be messing with the right of the Citizen to vote.  Plans for efficiency work against the right of the People to manage the affairs of Government as they, the People, see fit.  No voter suppression, please.

    As for the Monoblogger, while he is often long winded, he does take and respond to comments.  He is pretty perceptive and usually on the mark.

    Regards  —  Cliff

  9. kad barma Says:

    Thanks for the kind words, Cliff. I can’t speak to perception or on-the-markedness, but I do freely take and respond as best I’m able to comments. My point, missed by many of the commenters here, is that partisan party primaries are possibly more of a waste of our public/civic resources than a run-off plebescite leading to our city council election, and it’s disingenuous to oppose the latter without addressing the former. My opinion is that partisan parties ought to pay for partisan party primaries, and not municipalities. However, where municipal primaries are concerned, the public benefit is clearer, and we shouldn’t object to increasing the breadth of our civic process simply on the basis of it costing money. There are advantages, and I say we should embrace them, not avoid them.

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.
BadgermillCity logo


Recent Posts