Left In Lowell Comments

by: Greg Page

Sun, 19 May 2013 01:32:43 +0000

@JFL totally fair point. A Lower Highlands Rascal King might mean better things for residents there, even if it would discourage challengers. But the way around it is a hybrid system like a lot of cities have…you could have everyone inside a district w/a single Councilor representing them, and then have some at-large seats set aside, too…then you’d get the accountability stepped up and no one would ever have to take on Tammany.

I brought up the diversity thing b/c people sometimes say that district reps would = diversity, case closed. If neighborhood diversity is what they mean then yes, of course…but if they’re just referring to the demographic makeup of the body, it’s not that simple. The city isn’t balkanized enough to guarantee those sorts of outcomes (and I would think most people see that as a positive..we’re more of a mosaic than a paint-by-numbers).

by: Eleanor Rigby

Sat, 18 May 2013 02:24:02 +0000

Now there is an effort to starve them out in NH!

Homeless advocates, city dispute weekend meals
Church group told they can’t serve meals on city property

by: joe from Lowell

Fri, 17 May 2013 20:09:58 +0000

I can live with fiefdoms. I’d rather have some King of the Lower Highlands looking out for the people there than nobody looking out for the people there.

“You have an interesting idea about that zoning change. Have you ever seen the sidewalks on Queen Street? Maybe we can work together….”

by: Jack

Fri, 17 May 2013 19:09:14 +0000

Bill,
I’m not against the theory. I am against the reality of Lowell, as it is today.

With only 10% of the population voting, I feel the outcome of a strong mayor race would reflect suspect parochial interests and political clans.

The ‘crowd sourcing‘ that you refer to, works best when the “crowd” has a large enough population to washout the muck of local politics.

You know math well enough to understand why I reject your proposal. The voting behavior you propose is NOT a ‘linear relationship,’ in my humble opinion.

I assert that a ‘horizontal asymptote‘ exists. If voter turnout dwells below that threshold, then we need to diffuse the trend towards ‘mob rules’ amongst the representative gov’t (Plan E) that selects our Chief Executive.

Of course, should we enliven the sense of civics to the degree that we get a fuller breadth of Lowell diversity engaged, I’m convinced many (not you) of the “strong mayor” advocates will fall silent. Or, Bernie Lynch leaves office. Which ever comes first.

by: Bill

Fri, 17 May 2013 18:10:09 +0000

Jack,
I would always put my faith in the collective wisdom of the voting public. Under the Plan E charter the” Executives are the councilors who MAY hire an Administrator.”. A City Manager must “cowtow” to at least a majority of 5 councilors. Trust the people! I promise they’ll hire the best candidate. Voters are careful in the election of only 3 people(The President,The Governor & The Mayor) After that they vote ethnically,socially or for the guy next door. I don’t recall an election when the winner didn’t represent the most commonly acceptable positions. We vote for “ourselves” because we are really “We the People”

by: Eleanor Rigby

Thu, 16 May 2013 23:55:54 +0000

“A split system w/some at large seats might be good, but with districts you’re going to get fiefdoms. In our current system someone can be a challenger without being antagonistic - they’re not really challenging any particular person. also no guarantee of better ethnic/gender diversity with districts.”

One of the problems with the current system is the councilors are not challenged directly for their rhetoric and votes, that’s because challengers are not running against any “one” councilor. As for fiefdoms, they already exist. With district representation there is someone from each section of the city instead of a collection of councilors that are traditionally from one or two sections of the city, which also coincidently seem to get the most attention from the city.

by: Jack

Thu, 16 May 2013 23:41:20 +0000

Gee, Greg. You seem very certain about the ‘fiefdoms.’ Then, on the other hand “better ethnic/gender diversity” is a role of the dice?

Are we seeking “better ethnic/gender diversity?” Eventually, maybe. For now I’d be stoked, if we could get the city vote turnout to 20,000.

As the neighbourhood group leaders loom larger, it may be wise to simply cut to the chase and elect our spokesfolks.

by: Greg Page

Thu, 16 May 2013 20:42:30 +0000

A split system w/some at large seats might be good, but with districts you’re going to get fiefdoms. In our current system someone can be a challenger without being antagonistic - they’re not really challenging any particular person. also no guarantee of better ethnic/gender diversity with districts.

by: Jack

Thu, 16 May 2013 20:26:02 +0000

I must be getting ‘warmer.’
*grins*

by: Tax Payer

Thu, 16 May 2013 19:56:20 +0000

Jack get of the Ed Kennedy bashing unless you have something concrete your public sector vs private sector on Gerry’s website is a joke like you