I would like to write a little more about the debate started in this post on the bridge proposal which turned into a discussion about the Coalition for a Better Acre. I’d like to clarify a few points, respond to some of the things in comments, and open it up to all of you as well.
First, I would like to talk about the city, access to the halls of the decision makers, and the CBA.
The misconception is that the CBA shut itself out with its confrontational methods (if you call rallies and resident meetings confrontational). The big debate was over the commentary on the CBA website citing the CBA action in Boston at the Mills to Martinis marketing event (trying to entice rich Boston people to move to Lowell’s high-priced developments), which then led to the comment from a city official that this action “would hurt the CBA.”
Look, the CBA did try to play the game. Back a couple years ago, when there was a pile of contaminated dirt on the site of the future Stoklosa School, they asked the city politely to get the company to live up to its promise to cover it before contaminated dirt blew around the neighborhood. When no action was taken, they held a rally, and showed up en masse to a city council meeting. Guess what? It was the second action that actually produced results.
When the bridge proposal was announced in the paper (touted as a done deal, even though we’ve found out since that it isn’t) the CBA had meetings. They called city councilors. Most of them didn’t know any more than the CBA did about this proposal. Gee. Wonder why not? Because there was never an official conversation and vote in the Council on it? (I think Cox got his “impression” that the city council “wanted” the proposal from only a handful of the councilors, like…say…Armand Mercier and Bud Caulfield?) They asked for meetings with the city to discuss the lack of public input into the proposal. They formed the Upper Merrimack Street Planning Process.
Yes, the city did send a couple assistant city planners to that meeting. They gave the CBA big nifty aerial photos of the region. The participation at those meetings was a sight to see. However, the discussions were centered around issues like putting in an extra stop sign, or better signage, or airing concerns about safety at an intersection. The city wasn’t interested in hearing public opinion on the central proposal that started the debate in the first place - the University Ave bridge. Or about other issues like incorporating affordable housing into the development plan, or fulfilling their promise of 100% affordable housing replacement for all the public housing units destroyed at Julian Steele!
Great, some access. A stop sign there, a crosswalk here. That doesn’t get to the core of CBA’s mission.
So they came up with an action of interrupting Cox’s little marketing campaign to the rich Bostonites (which by the way, the city spends a lot of taxpayer money on). The bright-green-shirted CBA contingent of about 30 was not confrontational; on the contrary, the invited attendees seemed interested in what the CBA members had to say. I’ve been told by CBA volunteers they had some great conversations with these potential new Lowell residents. They seemed to like the idea of an active citizen community (after all, a lot of young professionals are also sympathetic to those causes, and to the central “attraction” of Lowell - the artist community.)
However, the city manager or his staff decided that being civicly embarrassed was too much for them. From my point of view, it didn’t have to be that way, if only the city would, say, have meeting with Acre and other residents on the big issues of development in this city. But a lot of people know that this does not happen. The Planning and Zoning boards are not run for the people, they are run for the connected developers. So. To put this issue to bed in my opinion, the CBA never had real access, and wasn’t going to get it by playing by Cox’s rules, because the fix was in a long time ago. As a result, they agitate and organize and the Sun loves to give the impression (because they’re the Sun and their reporting leaves a lot to be desired most of the time) that the CBA is in leadership disarray and made their own bed and should lie in it. I don’t know about most of you, but I never take the Sun, or Cox and his administration, at their word. The Sun doesn’t like to dig for real answers (like most lazy corporate media) and Cox has his own agenda. As we saw last Tuesday when he proposed spending $50K without much discussion. Thank god the City Councilors woke up to the fact that he was trying to sneak in proposed spending on a project before a democratic decision making process could begin. And don’t think for a minute that was an accident on Cox’s part.
Next, I would like to say, I have never in all the time I’ve volunteered or talked to CBA members, heard that they are against high-end development. Let’s get that straight. What they want is for the city to plan its development in a fair manner that includes its more vulnerable residents as well as its upper-class. Sheer gentrification is just plain dumb. Sorry, but it is. Smart city planning not only helps the vulnerable residents stay in the city, but it’s better long-term because plain market-driven gentrification has a failing record in many communities once no one but the rich can afford to live, work, or shop there. Do we want the city of Lowell to lose all the things that make it great to live in? Like being a first stop on the path of many waves of immigrants? Or being affordable enough to have an amazing culture of artists, musicians, theatre and other events? Didn’t think so.
The CBA has had a summit and many meetings where they’re talking about innovative ways to accommodate this fairness; ideas like exclusionary (edit: oops, INCLUSIONARY not exclusionary) zoning and affordable development of abandoned properties. The CBA knows more about civic engagement than most of the city’s elected officials. That’s something the councilors and the city administration should be co-opting and incorporating rather than fighting. But City Manager John Cox does not to my experience know how to give access. He would prefer to fight (and lie about it afterwards, as evidenced at the last city council meeting) than to provide a conduit for a working relationship with people who disagree with him. I know there are city councilors who themselves are out there in the community, being involved, who must in their heart of hearts know this. I am pleased that last week they showed they do not want Cox to determine the direction of the city by himself (”I got the impression the council was for this” - yeah, right.)
Some good things were planned last decade for the city. We’re seeing good results from those years, and some bad results. The CBA wants to turn those bad results around and make them good. I think we can all agree that the current city development plan is not perfect, has flaws, and needs work. I don’t trust the developers and the connected to make all those decisions for the good of all city residents. Simply going after the money doesn’t fly (trickle-down economics is a myth, people). But, the city can work with those who want to make money, and those who want to ensure that the powerless have a voice, and create innovative solutions to produce a result where no one loses. This isn’t rocket science. It’s just good sense.
