Happy New Year

I just wanted to take a moment to thank everyone who's bothered to read the contents of this blog or comment on them. It's been tremendously rewarding for me.

Also, we appreciate everyone who has made our first full year in Newburyport so special. We look forward to enjoying many more.

Happy New Year to all.

Top Story: New England Development

I suppose New England Development continues to be a story of the year candidate here in Newburyport even without doing anything newsworthy, except perhaps existing.

But the group definitely is making news elsewhere. The Nashua Telegraph and The Patriot Ledger both have New England Development among the newsmakers in their own regions.

This is purely a hunch. But does anyone want to give me odds on the Waterfront West site plans, once they're finally revealed, NOT including a hotel?

Top Stories of 2007

What the hell, everyone else is doing it. So what were the biggest stories of this past year?

Rather than read through my boring list I'd ask you all to contribute. If no one bites I'll try to add more as I think of them.

Number one is the override. I think it was the defining moment of the year. It put the questions about school quality firmly on the agenda. It launched a few political careers (Stephanie Weaver, Nick deKanter) and possibly ended or sidelined a few others (did the Pro-Override folks help sink Gary Roberts?). Furthermore, it ain't over yet. It could be the top story of 2008 as well.

Some Props

BTW, I visited several downtown stores during the shopping season, and I got some excellent service from many

So here are some most honorable mentions in no particular order: Grand Trunk, Peter Mark, Lively Girls, Eureka and, of course, Gram's for the free ice cream give away.

The Past as a Present

Our family decided to ratchet back on the gift giving this year. The Boy and his ilk got more than their fair share, but most of the adults opted to enjoy presence over presence, with a few exceptions.

So the one gift I asked for this year was Life in Newburyport 1900-1950 by Jean Foley Doyle. (Okay, I did hint at a second one after seeing the replica Yastrzemski jersey hanging on a rack at the Cuckoo's Nest.) And I'm happy to report that I got what I asked for--the book I mean, not the Red Sox shirt.

I've only finished the prelude, which gives an rundown of the wave of immigrants who flooded into the city in the late 1800s and early 1900s, but I can report that this is an excellent book and a must read for anyone who professes to give a crumpet about this city.

I'm going to sound like even more of a know-it-all now, if that's possible.

Holiday Shopping Poll Results

Well,

Not sure how exactly to interpret the completely unscientific poll on shopping for the holidays downtown.

The fact that one out of five of the participants didn't buy a single item downtown isn't surprising. I actually thought it might be higher. (I'm assuming that readers from faraway didn't bother to participate.)

The good news would be that close to half of the folks taking part did the bulk of their holiday shopping downtown. I put myself in the 50% to 69% category, with the actual figure close to the top of the spectrum. We bought the rest of the items online. (My frenzied Friday shopping spree might have pushed us into the next bracket.)

So the results are good but they could be better.

UPDATE: I'd love to here from those folks who bought nothing or very little downtown. Tell us what kept you away.

Merry Christmas

This is a damn fine gift.

I could restate all the reasons cited in the article as to why connecting Cashman to the Waterfront makes sense. But here's the most important reason.

I walk that route all the time, and those walks will be infinitely more pleasant when this is done.

Man

I just wrapped up Christmas shopping at the Tannery.

I was walking down Liberty Street, just past Praelines when I looked up and WHAM!

Damn, Market Square looks nice with the snow and the tree and the lights.

I felt like George Bailey, without the drastic mood swings between suicidal leanings and raging euphoria.

Merry Christmas Bedford Falls.

More cool photos

On the Newburyport Blog.

Nantucket North--Post Game

So class let's thanks Stephen Tait for enlightening us about Karp's impact on Nantucket. Seriously, I thought the series had a strong finish.

I was particularly heartened to read that there are downtown merchants who recognize a chain store or two could add to the downtown. I sometimes think ordinances like the ones proposed underestimate the ability of our local merchants to compete against the big guys. These are smart folks who know what they're doing.

Anyway, back to the series. Interesting details on the Beinecke-Karp-Lagasse connection. Kudos again to Stephen for finding the right people to interview, like Ann Oliver, Beinecke's daughter. It added a lot to the story to have someone speaking on the late man's behalf.

So what did we learn? I'll offer some thoughts below. Feel free to add more on the comments.

Nantucketers are a rather arrogant folk. But I suppose people might think the same of us.

The Developer you know is always better than the Developer you don't know.

Karp's undertakings on the island and in Newburyport are very different.

His work on the islands seems to involve rehabbing (or destroying) older properties. Newburyport presents a very different scenario. His projects on Waterside West and, eventually, East will significantly alter the face of the downtown.

The longer I live here the more I realize just how big our downtown really is. Toss up some retail and hotel near the Route 1 bridge and he might spin the downtown off its Market Square axis. This is a big deal that goes beyond rents and hand-written signs in windows.

I'm not sure the chain store ban made a bit of difference in Nantucket. Just as I'm not sure it really would make a huge difference to Newburyport. More on this later.

I'm glad we have the Park Lunch and the Barking Dog.

I'm really thankful I don't live on an island. I think I'd go nuts.

Well, I'm stuck right now. Please join in.

Nantucket North-Chain Stores

I was a little underwhelmed by the Chain Store article in the series. I guess I'd hoped for some more meat but I can't exactly say what was missing. Perhaps some more talk of the process of passage.

Anyway, if you are interested in reading more on this subject. I do recommend the New Rules Project site. The group clearly advocates for restrictions on chain stores, but some of the studies like those done about neighborhoods in Austin, Chicago and San Francisco are interesting.

Type in "chain store study" in the search window and enjoy.

Nantucket North-Day 2

Again, a nice job by Stephen Tait. The guy clearly had a game plan going on and he's executing it quite well.

I had one issue with the article about the Jared Coffin house. The piece was fine, but I kept thinking one thing while reading the plight of an island of 10,000 people with no place to eat.

Couldn't someone else open a restaurant?

I mean, to hear Stephen tell it, there's a large number of folks standing around on that dairy farm of an island this winter with no place to grab a burger and a pint.

Hell, we're only a pad of butter and we've got several places in town and quite a few outside of town. (Barking Dog anyone?)

So if there are any entreprenurial restauranteurs out there looking for a new opportunity, you might want to consider opening a pub in Nantucket.

Okay

The below post is lame. I tried.

Oh So This Is How It's Going To Be...

Getting very little love from our island cousins. From today's "Heard Around Town" column in the Daily News

Is Stephen Karp good or bad for Nantucket? That's a question that the popular Nantucket Web site and forum, Yackon.com, just posed to its 1,288 members.

Eighty people responded to the very unscientific poll, with 27 percent saying he was good, 58 percent saying he was bad, and 13 percent saying "I don't know."

The Web site's host, Grant Sanders, posted the question after being interviewed by Daily News reporter Stephen Tait for a series of stories The Daily News is publishing about Karp this week. Karp is the largest landowner in both Newburyport and Nantucket.

Among the comments posted was this:

"Newburyport is lovely; but comparing it to Nantucket is like comparing a pad of butter to a dairy."

Ouch!

A dairy? The only similarities I see between Nantucket and a dairy is the unusually high levels of bullcrap.

I like the "Heard About Town" column, btw.

Am I nuts?

Or is this a really big deal?

NEWBURYPORT - The state has ordered the Newburyport Redevelopment Authority to clean up lead found in 1997 on its downtown waterfront land, or risk paying hefty fines.

The NRA, a five-member public board that for 39 years has owned the waterfront land known as the "dirt lots," is currently working on a plan to redevelop the land into a park and parking lots. There's about 420 parking spaces on the land now; a conceptual plan shows 240 spaces with an expanded park.

Tests performed on the land in 1997 found high levels of lead, and state regulations require additional soil testing and cleanup to be performed within one to three years. Those dates came and went with no action taken, leaving past and present NRA board members to explain how such an oversight could have occurred and to ponder how they will pay for the costly cleanup.

This strikes me as potentially high hurdle for any work being done on the waterfront. I know a great deal depends on the severity of the contamination, but I'd have to think that the contamination is pretty extensive giving the history of the water front.

To quote childhood hero Han Solo, "I've got a bad feeling about this."

Wow, that's a big poll

I may move it over to the side column in a day or so, kind of scary.

Anyway, I thought our discussion about the downtown lent itself to a poll question. I initially contemplated a question that asked you to identify whether you bought items at the mall, online or downtown. But I thought this the simplest way to go.

Reminder. You can cast more than one vote from different locations (work vs. home for example.) But why would you?

Makes Sense Now

You can see what it's called Green Street.

From the Newburyport Blog

Imagine those trees on a warm summer day.

We really could use an arborist in town.

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss

Prior to allowing my fingers to type down memory lane, I'd emailed Ann Lagasse.

I wanted her to know I was going to write a post on how merchants used to complain about the tactics used by Piper Properties, which were strikingly similar to those employed by Steve Karp in Newburyport.

Specifically, the merchants didn't like to be told when to open their stores. They also didn't like sharing their financial information. I can't blame them, but I guess there's a price of doing business on State Street.

Anyway, Ann replied this morning to the issue about store hours. She didn't address the financial part of the question but I did restate it so I might have more on that later today.

Her reply.

Thanks for the email and the opportunity to comment. Yes, we do have hours of operations in our leases why - first we want a year round downtown economy. We don't want seasonal businesses. Newburyport is a commercial business center that serves the area 12 months a year and we want merchants who understand that. In terms of hours, the good retailers are open more hours than described in our leases. We want merchants - not hobbyists running stores. The successful retailers are frustrated when their neighbors don't keep consistent hours. They know it hurts the downtown. Customers get mad and probably won't come back. In a chamber meeting probably 5 years ago, a long time merchant downtown (not our tenant) told the retail committee who was discussing downtown shopping hours - 50% of his sales occur after 5 o'clock. Good retailers get it !

Note: Ann didn't provide the name, but I did delete two words that would have identified the merchant. Only seemed fair.

So while Steve Karp's tactics in Nantucket might seem heavy handed to some. They won't be all that unfamiliar to merchants in town.

Thanks to Ann for taking time to reply.

By the way, what happened to the Nantucket North Series? I was a bit disappointed today.

This Has Nothing to Do with Newburyport.

It's just funny.

Holy Christmas

Ed Cameron has a new post

Nantucket North

The problem with reporters like Stephen Tait is that they're able to produce fair and compelling articles even when the principal subject of the piece--in this case Stephen Karp--won't talk to them.

Where's some good ole' media bias when you need it?

Seriously, Stephen did an excellent job on the first day's installments. I'm anxious to see tomorrow's paper.

A few quick thoughts on today's pieces.

If I were a retail shop owners downtown I certainly wouldn't enjoy reading "Karp's shadow looms over Nantucket." But I'm not. I'm a reporter who once wrote about our downtown so instead I felt a bit of nostalgia.

See, I could have written a nearly identical story a decade ago. The subject wouldn't have been Steve Karp but rather Chuck and Ann Lagasse who by that time had accumulated most of their downtown holdings.

It's funny. People tend to romanticize about the past a bit when a new perceived problem arises. With Karp in the picture, people long for the day when the buck stopped with Chuck and Ann.

But 10 or 12 years ago, business owners downtown complained off the record about the Lagasses' rising rents that forced out store owners downtown.

The also muttered about the Lagasses managing the downtown as if it were as shopping mall, asking business owners to open their books and share in their profits.

I don't remember if the complaints ranged to the Lagasses' dictating hours. (It would be interesting to hear if any property owners in the downtown do that.) But evening hours always were a sore spot downtown. I once received a hand written thank you from one notable downtown merchant because I'd noted in a column that the arrival of Starbucks meant one thing for the downtown--at least one business would be open past 5 p.m.

I'm not saying Karp's reported approach right or wrong nor am I suggesting the Chuck and Ann Lagasse did wrong by their tenants. I'm just noting the similarities. Now, it's quite possible that Karp will take this concept a lot further than Chuck and Ann supposedly did so Stephen's article is important.

Would such a structure be good for Newburyport? I don't know. If I were a business owner I certainly would want the ability to determine my own hours, but a little uniformity would be nice. But seven 10-hour days seems quite extreme. Seems like there's room for compromise.

As for Nantucket catering to the "superwealthy," this may be the Revere Boy in me talking but I never really saw the island as a blue collar vacationland. Again, Stephen did an excellent job telling the tales of those folks who feel left behind, and I can empathize.

But let's not pretend that Nantucket was Nantasket Beach. I guess I have a hard time telling the wealthy and the superwealthy apart.

I recognize that sounds a bit glib. But I just think there are larger societal forces at here than just Steve Karp. Our society is creating more wealthy people. Are they going to Nantucket because he caters to them? Or is he catering to them because they go to Nantucket?

Maybe a little bit of both.

Chain Stores-The Studies II

So what are my issues with the study laid out in the previous post?

First, the sample size. Eight companies? Is that truly a representative sample of all independent businesses? I'd question whether eight companies are even an accurate representation of Mid-Coast Maine companies.

Second, the comparisons. Can we really compare Mid-Coast Maine to Newburyport?

The report states that 53% of the dollars spent remain in Maine. Well, Maine is huge. If you're in Mid-Coast Maine you can't get out of Maine for a very long time. Stands to reason your dollars will be concentrated there.

That’s not the case in Newburyport? First, we have some border issues. I’d be willing to be a number of Newburyport store owners live in NH or Maine. They’re employees or their vendors might as well, so wouldn’t this impact that in-state or “local” percentage just a bit?

(BTW, what if the vendors are based out of state. What happens to a dollar going to advertising in the Daily News? Does it stay in Newburyport go back to Birmingham, Ala.? Not throwing stones here. Dow Jones owned the news when I worked there.)

Third, the lack of participation from the chains. I recognize that they researchers did the best they could. But without actual data from the companies it’s difficult to accept that we’re comparing apples to apples. Of course, that’s precisely why the chain stores wouldn’t participate.

The dynamic is similar to Karp’s reluctance to talk with the Daily News (or the Undertoad at the time). If he’s not providing information we should get the information ourselves. The researchers had to do the same thing. But newspaper articles have the luxury of preventing incomplete pictures. They’re not cited as irrefutable data points in an argument. The same can’t be said for studies. In fact, here’s a footnote listed in another study.

In the reports cited in the prior footnote, for example, local spending per $100 of operating expense varied from $30 to $80 for locally-based firms and $9 to $40 for chain stores.

As you can see, the numbers swing wildly.

Finally, and this is my biggest issue. The report operates under a false assumption, the idea that we only have X amount of dollars going into all retail stores in this community, and that we’ll always have X amount of dollars going into this community.

If that were the case, comparing percentages makes perfect sense. But what if a chain store—perhaps an extension of the Kittery outlets or some other high quality series of stores—brings in new traffic. Even if the 53% vs. 14% ratio holds true, we’d be getting 14%s that we’re not currently getting. And I’d be willing to bet more 53%s as well as our local shops benefit from the new traffic.

Proponents of the ban likely will point to studies showing that chain stores don’t draw new traffic but rather draw from customers who are buying from local stores. There’s truth to that. A BJ’s Wholesale or a Wal-Mart isn’t going to draw new people to locally owned shops in a community’s downtown.

But that’s not what we’re talking about here. No one is going to build a BJ’s on the waterfront or anywhere downtown.

What could come downtown are recognizable brand names that come with a following, and with that following will come customers who have never been to Newburyport before.

Isn't that exactly who we're trying to attract?

Chain Stores--The Studies

Back to the Chain Store talk. I'm eager to see what the News reports on Nantucket's handling of things.

So, unlike the Barnstable study cited in the previous post, the "Economic Impact of Locally Owned Businesses vs. Chains: A Case Study in Midcoast Maine" directly tackles the locally-owned vs. chain store issue.

Not surprisingly, things don't look so good for chains.

First, the Objective: In the words of the report:

We wanted to find out, if a local store makes $100 sale, what happens to that $100? How much goes to pay local employees and local suppliers, thereby creating additional economic activity in the region. How much goes to out-of-state suppliers, thereby leaving the Maine economy? If that $100 is spent instead at a big-box retailer, does more or less of it stay in the local economy?

Now, The methodology: The analysts convinced eight locally owned businesses in Rockland, Camden and Belfast to share their economic on their revenue and expenditures for 2002. According to the report, the companies sold a range of goods and had been in business anywhere from five years to 40+ years. They reported $5.7 million in sales during 2002 and employed 62 people.

The researchers then compared this to data they collected on chain or big-box stores. According to the report, researchers relied on "published information on employment and property tax revenue for one of its local stores; statements made by company officials about the volume of inventory, supplies, and services purchased in the state; statements made by company officials about local charitable contributions; and national sales data."

Finally, the results.

As we've read in several articles, the study suggests that the eight companies surveyed spent, on average, 53% of their revenue within the state while chain stores spent only 14% of their revenue within the state. It also presents data that suggests local firms are more charitable then chains.

So what' are my problems? They're coming up.

Good News

The Daily News finally did what had to be done. It sent Stephen Tait down to Nantucket to talk directly with the people there about how Karp has impacted their island.

I'm not sure what the result is. I haven't had time to read today's installment of "Nantucket North" but I'll get to that later today. I already have some thoughts on what little I have read.

But one thing is clear. Karp could have been way ahead of this entire story by just giving the News a half hour of his time. I'll never understand why he wouldn't submit to an interview with the local paper of record.

Such an interview probably wouldn't have impacted these articles one way or another, but now the first printed impression of his Karpship will be "Karp's shadow looms over Nantucket" and "Catering to the `superwealthy.'"

Oh this will sit well with us locals.

Anyway, can't wait to read it. Kudos to the News for finally getting it done. It's going to be fun week.

Incidentally

Salvation Army Capt. James Purvis says their toy supply is a little low. Anyone interested in giving can contact 978-465-0883 or email nbptsalarmy@verizon.net.

Ring, Ring, Ring

I had a great Friday night spending three hours ringing the Salvation Army bell on Inn Street, near the tot lot.

I learned three things.

1) People are very nice.
2) It really does mean a lot when you stop to toss a little money in the bucket, even your spare change. So for those folks who told me they contribute to every bucket keep doing so.
3) Invitation Night rocks the house. I was shocked. I always thought these nights were largely ceremonial, a Chamber of Commerce creation. But the downtown was absolutely humming. I'd say one out of five people were carrying shopping bags so folks were buying.

If you've ever thought of ringing the bell you should do it. It's a very nice experience.

Great Photos

At the Newburyport Blog.

Amen

Letter in the Daily News.

Chain Store Talk

I'm disappointed that I haven't been able to deliver these pieces with more consistency. They take more time than I initially thought. Plus I'm dealing with a few seemingly minor but still rather distracting issues.

I'll get back on track shortly. Thanks for your patience.

Little River

There's an interesting discussion forming in the previous post. The talk centers around my closing concerns about the Little River project. Admittedly, I need to get some more information on the project before I comment further.

But one of the questions I--and apparently many other people have had--center around Newburyport's ability to provide water and sewer to the project. But others also question whether we should provide the water even if we have it given that the businesses in the project would compete with our own.

I'm less enamored with that argument. I think it's a reasonable one, but something about the notion of using water as a protectionist device against a potentially exciting project doesn't sit well with me.

But the question of supply is a legitimate one. The Current has an article on this very question. See it here.

More recently, the Daily News has a report on the projected demands for the project being less than originally anticipated. Yes I did emphasize projected as they are merely that, projections.

Water obviously is a very important issue so both articles and the comments are worth checking out.

Ban Talk--Where Does The Dollar Go?

This is pretty damning point.

•Approximately 70% of an independent’s revenue stays in the city vs. 15% of a chain’s revenue.

But is it true?

It sounds outrageous to me, but every statistic has an origin. So I examined the reports put forth by the SupportNBPT group.

Frankly, I didn't see the connection between other reports and our situation in Newburyport. I did, however, find some other reports that might have been worth citing. I'll get into those in a later post.

As for the two put forth by the SupportNBPT group, the far more comprehensive is the “Fiscal Impact Analysis of Residential and Nonresidential Land Use Prototypes” prepared by Tischler & Associates Inc. for the town of Barnstable.

Excellent analysis of the municipal costs associated with the various types of housing and commercial enterprises. Please check it out. (It’s 22 pages but worth a look particularly the graph on page 17.) The report concludes that of all commercial development types examined-- Business Park, Office, Shopping Center, Big Box, Specialty Retail, Hotel, Restaurant, Fast Food—that specialty retail is by far the most beneficial to a community.

The idea being the infrastructure costs associated with Business Parks, Big Box stores, etc. offset the tax revenue gains. (Hotel use, incidentally, appears to be a wash. Something to keep in mind when we're building on the Waterfront.)

I agree with this concept 100%.

But what I don’t see is the problem. We have specialty retail downtown, and we’ll continue to have specialty retail even after Karp builds what he’s going to build (if he ever builds it.) The report—as far as I can tell—doesn’t differentiate between locally owned specialty retail or small specialty retail chain stores. It merely identifies specialty retail as the most beneficial use.

I can understand this point. But we're not considering a big box store downtown. We're talking about ownership, and I can’t see that mentioned in this report.

Everyone should read this report to better understand the impact that the Little River project in Newbury might have on our area. In my eyes, that's a bigger threat to our downtown shops than any moderately sized chain store along state street would be.

Next: The Mid-Coast Maine Report

Thoughts on the Ban--Is it a ban?

As I noted earlier, I'd like to break my thoughts on the proposed chain store ban so they're easier to read and, frankly, to write.

I wasn't quite sure how, but the response from the SupportNBPT.com folks provided the perfect framework.

So, in the next series of posts I'll take on the points made to bolster the ban.

So here we go.

The first question is the most obvious one, is this a ban or isn't it. (Okay, two questions.

From the SupportNBPT folks:

Tom, the ordinance submitted is not a ban on chain stores. It is simply a mechanism to allow the community to have some input into what is done with our City. The ordinance can always be overridden to allow another chain store. Without the ordinance we have no say. Fowles could be taken over by Friendly’s; the Fitness Factory could become a Borders and the Grog could become a Chiles. This could all happen overnight.

Putting the fear mongering aside for a moment(nothing in this town happens overnight), I say...

I can't see how it isn't a ban.

Let's just examine the ordinance. Here is the ordinance, feel free to print it out and follow along at home.

The proposed ordinance states its purpose clearly.

The purpose and intent of this Ordinance is to regulate the number and location of formula businesses in order to maintain the City’s unique character, the diversity and vitality of the City’s commercial districts, and the quality of life of Newburyport residents.

So the ordinance is designed to regulate the number and location of formula businesses. In reading that, one might think the ordinance introduces some mechanism that could be used to give the public a voice in where these businesses are located or even how many will be permitted. John Well alludes to such a thing in his reasonable column in today's News. Perhaps a hearing in which the pros and cons are presented, and an appointed board (or perhaps the City Council) would then decide if the business was appropriate. (Frankly, I can't see how someone determines what is appropriate and what isn't, but hey...)

But I can't find such a mechanism.

Instead, the ordinance goes on to advise all city departments and commissions to defer to the following regulations in their review of applications for "building licenses, a building permit application, a conditional use permit, an application for occupancy or a design review..."

And number one on the list of regulation is...

A.No new formula establishments other than ones already operating at the time of adoption of the ordinance are permitted to operate in the downtown/waterfront area.

So how isn't that a ban? Furthermore, those chain stores already in town wouldn't be permitted to expand by much.

The one bit of flexibility I see is in the definition of chain or formula stores.

"Formula Retail" for the purpose of this ordinance, means a type of retail sales activity or retail sales establishment, including restaurants, and excluding business types listed in paragraph B, which, along with ten (10) or more other retail sales establishments, maintains any one of the following features: a standardized array of merchandise, a standardized façade, a standardized décor and color scheme, a uniform apparel,standardized signage, a trademark or service mark.

The ordinance goes on to give more explicit descriptions of the features.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, any company with 10 or more stores (or nine other stores I can't really tell) and/or has a consistent line of products and decor wouldn't be permitted to open a store downtown.

But those with fewer than 10 (or 9 stores)would be allowed.

So I guess this is NOT a ban on chain or formula if you consider stores like JL Coombs and Native Sun to be chain stores. Those businesses would be allowed to locate in Newburyport under the ordinance.

But let's be honest. When most folks think chain they're thinking Gap or Anthropologie, and by my reading those stores wouldn't be permitted under this ordinance.

So in my mind, this is a ban. I'm eager to hear if my reading is wrong.

If you have a few minutes

I got an email from a Newburyporter now in college. She asked questions that some of you might like to answer. Feel free to email me or answer in the comment box.

My name is Sarah Turchin, and I'm a college student who grew up in Newburyport. I am writing about Newburyport's Master Plan for an environmental psychology class. I have some general open-ended questions about the creation of the plan and its present use, and I'm also interested in people's personal opinions about Newburyport's development in general. There are a lot of questions, obviously feel free to answer only the ones you have something to say about. Thanks so much for your time!

Questions:

The Master Plan states that the biggest priority for the city is public parking. Do you agree with this? Why or why not? If not, what do you think the biggest priority[ies] for the city should be?

Do you agree with the Master Plan's desire to convert the parking area next to the Firehouse into open space? How do you think the city will support the increasing need for parking?

If you're familiar with the Master Plan, do you agree with its initiatives? Do you think they are currently being implemented as planned?

How do you think the city should balance the need for open space with the increasing amount of people moving to Newburyport?

What do you think about creating "Local Historic Districts" to protect historically significant neighborhoods?

Do you support an increase of business in the Industrial Park? Why or why not?

The Master Plan calls for the city to have 10% of housing in the city be affordable (by state standards) by the year 2010. Do you think this is feasible? Why or why not?

What would you change about the Master Plan?

The motto of the Master Plan is "Shaping our Future, Honoring our Past", do you think Newburyport is achieving this? Why or why not?

The guiding principles for the plan are "environmental quality, economic vitality, and social equity". How do you think the city is/is not balancing these elements?

How do you think Newburyport can support an increase in tourism and immigration to the city while still preserving its historical foundation?

Do you think the Master Plan/future of the city finds a common ground for people who were born and raised in Newburyport and those who are recent immigrants to the city?

The Master Plan states that the "vision of Newburyport in 2020 is not much different from the city of today? How do you reconcile this notion with the recent purchase of land by develop Stephen Karp? And with the increase in property rents that have caused local retailers to have to relocate?

Do you think Newburyport has adequate public transportation within the city?

Finally, what are your general fears and hopes for Newburyport's future?

Support NBPT Replies

First, a housekeeping issue. Work and life has kept me away from actively blogging the past few days. I'll get back to my "Ban the Ban" posts over the weekend.

Second, I got a reply to my first post from supportnbpt.org. Thanks to them for the reply. I'll address these comments in upcoming posts and welcome their participation.

Tom, the ordinance submitted is not a ban on chain stores. It is simply a mechanism to allow the community to have some input into what is done with our City. The ordinance can always be overridden to allow another chain store. Without the ordinance we have no say. Fowles could be taken over by Friendly’s; the Fitness Factory could become a Borders and the Grog could become a Chiles. This could all happen overnight.

The Libertarian argument says we can do whatever we want with our property. Would you like to see a ten story Marriott in place of Oldies? As a member of the supportNBPT/Buy Local Committee, I would like to share some of the facts we’ve learned while researching other cities and towns that have banned chains.

•Approximately 70% of an independent’s revenue stays in the city vs. 15% of a chain’s revenue.
•Chains can pay higher rents. An influx of chains will increase rents throughout the city and push independents out.
•Independents give back more to the community in various charitable ways. A perfect example is our three local banks who contribute heavily to the community.
•Tourists come here for our waterfront and our specialty shops and restaurants. If they want to shop at chain stores, they can go to their local indoor mall. Why drive to Newburyport?
•Chains have the corporate backing to heavily advertise and offer hefty discounts that independents cannot afford – again pushing them out.
•And yes, chains will change the character of Newburyport, just as aluminum siding would on a house in the middle of Fruit Street.

Lagasse, Karp and a Hotel on the Waterfront

In Provincetown.

The worst kept secret is revealed. The Karp is out of the bag.

The Provincetown Banner quotes Chuck Lagasse as saying Steve Karp is definitely part of bid to buy Provincetown's Fisherman's Wharf, and they might just build a hotel on top of it.

A decision on whether to purchase Fisherman’s Wharf should be made around the end of this year, and Lagasse said he plans on traveling to Provincetown this month to continue his due diligence. In addition to Lagasse, his wife Ann and Boston-based developer Steven Karp are also partners in the potential Fisherman’s Wharf purchase, he said.

Karp is a real estate billionaire who, among other projects, has been instrumental in the high-end redevelopment of Nantucket. Karp and the Lagasses are partners in a major redevelopment project on Newburyport’s waterfront, which includes multiple marinas. As part of that project, Lagasse said earlier that one of the first priorities would be to find a hotel partner to agree to come to that city.

“He [Karp] is a very knowledgeable and sensitive guy to be involved. I’m proud of our team and proud of our track record,” Lagasse said.

So there you go.

Ban the Ban

This may not be a popular position with some, but I don’t see a need to ban chain stores.

In fact, I think such a thing might do more harm to the downtown than good.

Before I get into my reasons,let me just say I admire the Buy Local folks. This is an important discussion, and I’m willing to listen to any counter argument. In fact, I offer up this space for a rebuttal to anyone from the group who wants to tell me why I’m wrong.

Furthermore, I'm actually a buy local guy. Tendercrop. Eureka. Greta's. Joppa Foods. Jabberwocky/Book Rack. You name it. When I can, I do buy local. (UPDATE: Add The Natural Dog. Love that place.)

Now, let’s get into the particulars. In fact, I’m breaking these many thoughts up into several posts (three or four I guess) so stay tuned.

My first--and unfortunately probably weakest reasoning--is my philosophical opposition. The notion of telling a property owner who they can and can’t do business with crosses the line for me.

I recognize that we sometimes sacrifice our ability to make personal choices for a common good or for our community.

We obviously have zoning and we should. We have the historic district and we should.

We also zone against use. Fine, we don’t want to have a Jiffy Lube on Broad Street. I get that. Makes sense.

In both cases we’re asking property owners or owners of historic homes to bend toward the will of the community. In some cases they bend a little bit, some cases a lot.

I understand why some true libertarians--not posers like myself--oppose the idea of any restrictions, but these limits or guidance make sense to me. Assuring appropriate land usage and preserving our historic buildings strengthens the community.

But I see a difference between all that and the chain store ban. It’s one thing to tell someone no vinyl siding on that historic treasure or please no strip malls on Malboro Street. It’s quite another to say, yes a sub shop is allowed in that spot, but you aren't allowed to operate that sub shop.

Those arguing in favor of a ban justify such a statement by suggesting that a chain store damages the community as a whole. But I haven't seen any evidence that the introduction to chain stores downtown has been detrimental.

In fact, I'd argue that even with the presence of a few more chain stores the downtown is stronger today than it was 10 years ago. I have more choices for coffee, despite having a Starbucks in the most visible spot downtown. I see more women's clothes stores, even with Talbots filling the slightly out-of-the way Strand.

In short, I don't see the damage that's been done.

Perhaps I could ignore my very narrow libertarian streak if I thought chain stores were a threat to the downtown, but I don't. I've seen the data that supposedly supports this notion and I have to say, I'm not convinced.

I'll address my doubts in an upcoming post.

There you have it folks

Polls have closed.

Nearly two thirds of the 42 participants want to see some type of appropriate development on the NRA lots. Another 14% are open to the idea and only one-fifth are aginst it.

Sounds like a mandate to me.

I do wish we had wider participation. I could have worded the question a bit better I suppose, but I think it conveyed the spirt of the discussion.

Thanks to all who voted.

More coming today on Chico's and The Man. Bad work week.

Poll is closing

The NRA poll closes in 13 hours. Why 13? I have no idea. The poll was supposed to run until midnight. Apparently, I didn't specify which midnight I had in mind. Hawaii maybe? Alaska?

Anyway, we need a few thousand more folks to make this a representative sample. So get on it.

More on the chain stores later. Mary Eaton has yet another excellent post today. (She's got a few in fact, but I'm referring to her take on the chain stores.)

I just happen to disagree with her. More later.

Chico's Link

BTW, someone sent me the link to the News' Chico's story yesterday. I ultimately did find it on the Web site, but it was under the BUSINESS tab which is waaay at the bottom.

Still, it didn't come up when I searched the archives so I don't know what to tell you.

More on this later.

Get out and Vote--Or Else

Since my flashing the blue snow emergency lights on election day idea didn't get any traction, he's another winner.

Hand out the KI pills at the polling station immediately after folks slip the ballot into the machine.

From the Stephen Tait in The News....

NEWBURYPORT - It's time to refill those potassium iodide prescriptions.

The state is handing out fresh supplies of the iodide, also called KI, to residents within the Emergency Planning Zone, a 10-mile area around the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station. The thyroid-blocking tablets help increase survival rates in the event of an emergency radiation leak at the plant.

Newburyport has enough tablets for about 20 percent of the city's population and the state will provide more if those run out.

Residents can pick up the tablets - which are free - at the city Health Department from 8:30 to 10 a.m. Mondays and Wednesdays and from 6:30 to 8 p.m. Thursdays.

The tablets are being issued to replace those given out in 2002 and should be stored in a dry, cool environment.

Aargh

I was going to post a link to the Newburyport Daily News' article on Chico's potentially coming to town but I can't find it on the Web site. I initially thought the site just hadn't been updated (which would have shocked me enough) but then I recognized a few other articles from today's Page 1. (Click here for earlier post.)

So it was left off, inadvertently or intentionally. If it's the former, I understand, if it's the latter, I've got to wonder. Is this some way of driving readers to buy the paper? If so, I think it's an ill conceived plan.

We'll wait and see.

So instead of riffing on Chico's I'll go with my plan B, welcoming the Clipper Ship back to the masthead. I was a reporter at the Daily News during the redesign that introduced the ship to the top of Page 1.

I had absolutely nothing to do with the effort so I can say with all humility thought I always thought it was a very nice touch. (In fact, I think I still have the T-shirt we were given during the redesign.)


Anyway, the new--or rather old--look came along with a letter from the Daily News' new publisher, Shelia Smith.

Starting this week, you will notice some changes in The Daily News.

We are a local paper, proud to be a part of Greater Newburyport. Our goal is to bring you the local news, people and events of Newburyport and its 10 surrounding towns every day.

Toward that end, we will be revamping our business page coverage to focus entirely on Newburyport-area businesses, and we will add more local news to the front page of the paper. To fit more local news, we will no longer carry our "Onceover" at the bottom of the page. The "Onceover" dates from a time when it was difficult for people to get national and international news; those days are gone with the advent of the Internet. It's clear from the feedback that we receive that the vast majority of our readers want to see more local news in the paper, and so we would like to honor that request.

Lastly, the banner across the top of the front page has been returned to a more traditional look that we feel better reflects who and what we are. We have changed the lettering in our name and returned the clipper ship on our banner to greater prominence - after all, this is "The Clipper City," the city where Donald McKay, the greatest of American clipper designers, got his start. Though he eventually moved to Boston to build his most famous ships, Newburyport is where he chose to be buried.

In the coming weeks you will see other additions. For example, we will be presenting a more informative and colorful package of local weather, travel weather advisories, tide charts, and marine forecasts.

Welcome news. I have to admit, when I first heard the paper was getting its own publisher I wondered why. Seemed a bit of overkill for a paper of this size. We had one publisher (a very nice guy) for three or four papers back in my day, and that was plenty.

But if this is the outcome then, "here here." Newspaper folks keep rightly wringing their hands about the future of their industry. I think the large regionals like the Boston Globe will face some deep cuts in circulation. But local papers like the news can thrive by being just that--local papers. Hyperlocal in fact.

As a reporter, I assumed a readers in Newburyport would enjoy a well-written, well researched piece about an event in Newbury or Rowley, even if it didn't affect them directly.

I was wrong.

What I do want to read is everything I can about my own community. I understand if you need to toss in some news from other communities to even things out, but gimme local, local, local.

And I'm sure an reader in Amesbury is thinking the exact same thing.

So this is good news for the Daily News. I heard about one of the features they were planning to add to the business page (my old stomping ground), and it sounds like winner. Let's hope it's part of a larger trend.

Oh, I'd love a new Web site if you could. I find this one a little clunky.

Nevermind, here's the guest post

This is the guest post. I'm putting it up tonight and extending the vote by a couple of days. Let's see what happens.

From the man himself, James Shanley who got this dialogue started. (See "Oh No He Didn't" Series to the right.)

Even its current state, the central waterfront is, from an urbanist's perspective, a Dead Zone. The part of it that is actively used, at least for some of the year, is the thin strip along the waters edge: the Board-walk. Excluding Market Landing Park, which is only heavily used for July and August, the Central Waterfront is a storage area. People will use the Ways to the Water to access the part they are most interested in using, which is the board-walk. The rest is something to get through. In my opinion, this will not change whether its an "attractive parking destination" or "attractive park".

One of the challenges we face with both Waterfront West and Waterfront East, is that they are for all intents and purposes cut-off from the core downtown by the undeveloped central waterfront. At one time in our city's history, the central waterfront was developed, and the city flowed from the water to the core, and vise versa. We need to re-establish that connection. Not to do so runs the risk of developments that become entities/destinations unto themselves instead of a seamless continuation of the core. While still providing needed tax revenue, this could have some not so good effects on the core city.

How do we do this? Limited, human scaled development, sited perpendicular to the river, with a mix of retail (especially food), office and residential. Even as few as three or four structures carefully sited so as to maximize views/ways to the river, would do a lot to stimulate the area, and make the West/East parcels connect to the core. Development along the easterly edge of Waterfront West should be sited so that the focus is towards the downtown, not towards Route 1. Get people looking/moving towards the core.

What makes cities work is density and people. Opens space and parks are good things, but they do not posses inherent goodness. Neither do buildings, but properly juxtaposed they can change an area from something to get through, to a place that you never want to leave.

Poll Closes Tonight

Stay tuned tomorrow for some analysis and a guest post.

Important Message

Tom Ryan checks in. Please click and consider.

Why a referendum wouldn't really work

Mary Lou Supple, former chairperson of the NRA, is kind enough to submit some guidance about why a binding referendum on the waterfront wouldn't work. It's simple really and one I should have noted immediately given my earlier questions about what role the mayor play's in Waterfront development.

The reason why there can be no binding referendum on the final disposition of the NRA waterfront property is because the City does not own the property; the NRA owns it.

The rationale for creating redevelopment authorities was to take the development out of the political process. And this worked fairly well when the NRA was selling off lots for redevelopment. It had a large cash flow, paid director and staff. Right now, there would be a hotel, and the city would be subsidizing the hotel's parking had the 1990 LDA with Roger Foster not been challenged by a new NRA board after 3 members resigned.

That contract, declared null in 1999 by Judge Richard Welch because its benefits to the developer were not in the public's best interest, and that HUD had said it would not approve it. Despite HUD's disinterest in the matter later, their approval was necessary at the time the contract was signed. The LDA would allow Foster to purchase the property at a 70% discount on the appraised value and require the NRA, at its own cost to build and maintain a parking lot for the hotel on the West Lot.
Foster would pay the NRA (and subsequently, the City after the NRA disbanded), $35,000 a year for parking. The debt service on the cost of building that parking lot would be many times the payments Foster would make. The City would be required to maintain it, and yet the public could not use it. (Unless the hotel did not need it.? I think that meant when it was empty and no one worked there. I admit I never fully understood what was called "flex" parking.)

After the land was again unencumbered, the NRA sent out the 2000 survey in order to find out what the will of the people was and attempt to carry it out. Anything other than selling the lots to a developer, which is still an an option for the NRA, would require a partnership with the City. That's where the idea that the City owned this property arose. It does not, and a referendum on use of a property it does not own is unenforceable. The City might as well attempt a binding resolution on the use of Karp's land.

What the City COULD do is a binding resolution on what it would be willing to give the NRA to fund a Park or another use of the waterfront. The problem there is that, if the public voted to fund a park, the City would be obligated to fund it. If the public voted to fund another use, the NRA could simply refuse to accept the funds, because it owns the land.

Now, here's an interesting idea. What if at some point the concept of a park went forward and the city holds an Proposition 2 1/2 override vote to see if people want to pay for the costs associated with maintaining the park.

That would be the ultimate binding referendum.

Karp or No Karp

That is the question.

I was surprised to read the headline announcing the the Lagasses and Karp are teaming up to buy Provincetown's Fisherman's Wharf.

Obviously, his participation wouldn't be surprising. In fact, Karp has been rumored to be involved in the acquistion since the announcement was made. But until I read the Comment article they were just that unconfirmed rumors.

The article is sourced well. It quotes Chuck and Ann Lagasse extensively, although neither is quoted saying the Karp is involved.

Meanwhile, the chairman of Provincetown's Board of Selectmen is quoted as saying, “Lagasse and Karp have the means and the expertise. That’s good news.” Now, she's not quoted as saying Karp is directly involved, but that's the implication. She also might have said so in unquoted portions of the interview.

I emailed Ann Lagasse asking her if Karp is indeed involved in the deal. Her reply.

At the moment the Provincetown purchase is still being investigated and the ownership/partnership (if bought) is not defined yet. I think we have 120 days to do due diligence. Will New England Development be part of the deal?- they have expressed interest but again there is nothing firm.

So that's where we're at. Ask me to bet my house, and I'd wager it on New England Development being part of the deal. But the official word is Karp & Co. aren't part of the package--yet.

By the way, here's a little background on the piece of real estate the Lagasses and (perhaps Karp) are purchasing. Apparently, the pier is used to park up to 200 cars during the summer season. But read this article first.

I once contemplated writing a joke post suggesting that Newburyport settle the park vs. parking dispute by parking our cars on piers or floats. But somebody's already doing it.

Truth is stranger than crappy humor, I guess.

Chico's Coming to Town?

Mary Eaton has a blog post that apparently confirms an item the Current had yesterday. The chain store Chico's is moving into the former Water Street lot that housed Newburyport Lighting.

To be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I've generally supported the idea of some chain stores coming to town. However, I didn't really have Chico's in mind when I was making those comments.

I'll refrain from saying much more until I actually see the store. UPDATE: Here's the link.

Poll Comment

Happy to have Tom Ryan visit us in the comment column of the post below.

He raises an interesting idea about a binding referendum, but I sometimes I do wonder if referendums are the right way to make these decisions.

They sound nice in theory. And, hey, I love Democracy as much as the next guy, but in the the end I wonder if the campaigns that preceded such a vote would further divide the community, if that's even possible.

I also wonder if folks could shake hands, congratulate the winners and then move forward.

Seems to the the more natural solution would be to have an influential leader or leaders who could unite these visions--somehow--and sell the a single project to everyone. But we haven't seen that happen yet.

Until it does, I like the idea raised by John Macone in the News:

There have also been requests that the dialogues that Port In Progress has opened be extended and expanded. Issues like the future of the waterfront, the downtown, the balance between preservation and development, and the impact of gentrification have all been raised. We would like to help see this dialogue continue through public forums, opinion pieces and follow-ups to our series. If you would like to be a part of this, please let us know by e-mailing me at jmacone@ecnnews.com

Also, I'm told there are groups experienced in mediating disputes and breaking stalemates.

Perhaps this just invites more talk, but who knows someone might actually say something that is agreeable to everyone.

Wouldn't that be neat.

More Poll Stuff

Mary Harbough was nice enough to answer my question as to why few open waterfront folks or park advocates were participating in the poll. Here's her point.

Why have I not responded to your poll? As a central waterfront park advocate, I find that the poll options do not express my views. If you were at the NRA's recent meeting, you'll know that many park advocates think a simple cafe, a bad-weather/summer-shade pavillion with hot chocolate and lemonade, or even a hot-dog stand would be just fine, as part of the park. A glass or open-sided pavillion tucked into the southwest corner of the east lot could also be a revenue-generating performance venue. Many of us also think it would be nifty if the lawn behind the Custom House were used for museum exhibition/expansion. The point is not that a park can't have any buildings, the point is that the buildings are there because they serve a park function. A park is about people coming together in a free and lovely outdoor setting. When Waterside West and "Waterside East" are developed, many more people will be using the park, and the small existing park is already overused. Newburyport's identity is bound to the river. We need access and space to be able to enjoy it.

I didn't want this comment to go unaddressed because it's an important one.

The proposal put forth by James Shanley--and supposed by others--goes well beyond an isolated structure or two that supports the function of a park. Instead, advocates of developing the lots see an opportunity to extend the downtown to the river, inviting all the human traffic and commerce that goes with it.

Green spots could be part of this, but they wouldn't be the keystone of the development. Buildings and businesses would be. (NOTE: I edited this last paragraph a bit. I may have overstated the extent of desired development.)

So here's my take. If I held a similar view, I'd likely vote for either of the negative offerings, either "I don't think so" or "No bleeping way" depending upon the strength of your stance.

Thanks again to all those who have participated (and commented.) Looks like we're hitting a wall at 35 votes, which is too bad.

More Newspaper Stuff

Community Newspaper Holdings, owner of our own Daily News, once again is mentioned prominently in talk about Dow Jones selling its Ottaway community newspapers.

Buy Local-Nantucket Style

A word from a buy local advocate in Nantucket. The K-man is featured prominently.

Sorry for the short posts. Busy work week.

Combined Karp Coverage?

Hmm, perhaps Community Newspaper Holdings Inc.--the Daily News' parent company--will buy the Nantucket Inquirer & Mirror and combine all Karp coverage.

Incidentally, Dow Jones' Ottaway group owned the Daily News prior to selling out to the Lawrence Eagle Tribune Co., which in turn was acquired later by current owner Community Newspaper Holdings.

BTW, there's a new comment under the "New Comment" entry below.

New Comment

On the second installment of "Oh No He Didn't." The anonymous poster seconds Bruce Menin's, hell, I'll just paste it here.

Amen to that Mr Menin. More density downtown is a good healthy sustainable solution. Cities are more efficient than suburban or rural communities RE:energy use. We should think of Newburyport as somewhat 'undersized' By that I mean that our fixed costs can support a larger amount of variable costs, thus lowering cost/unit of service delivered. A number 'over 55 'residences on newly allowed extra floors downtown would be a net revenue plus for the City with very little incremental cost.

She/he raises an interesting point about whether this is the most sustainable solution. Is a green waterfront the most responsible use of the land?

Again, I'm surprised by the lack of response from the open waterfront folks.

There's still time. Get out the vote.

More Waterfront Stuff

Mary Eaton posts again at the Newburyport Blog on the question of what to do with the Waterfront lots. She gets some straight poop from Mary Lou Supple, former NRA chairperson. Plus a link from an actual survey. Worth a look.

The Poll-Vote Early and Often

Incidentally, one thing about the Blogger polling system.

I can't explain this with any degree of certainty. I'm sure it involves cookies, and not the good kind.

But the Blogger polling program supposedly only permits you to vote once. However, I've noticed that if I access the blog from different Internet Service Providers I'm given the opportunity to vote again.

So I voted once from the in-laws house over the weekend. When I got home on Saturday, the Blog appeared as if I'd never voted.

I haven't done so, and I'm guessing that 90% of the people checking out the poll also haven't done so.

But since I can't fix this little bug, the only fair thing to do is reveal it to all.

So if you're really desperate to sway the outcome you may want to grab your laptop and access the wireless signals available at Plum Island Roasters, Nutcracker and our other fine establishments downtown.

But house rules say one vote per visitor.

Thanks for the Memories

A nice sign off of the Port in Progress series by the Daily News today.

John Macone delivered a nice piece on the ever-changing character of Newburyport while Victor Tine knocked another one out of the park with some thoughts on the tasks left undone.

Kudos to those individuals who came up with the idea and executed on the series. It isn't an easy thing to do. It's even more difficult to keep the content interesting.

There were only one or two Monday papers that left me wondering if there were any topics left at the bottom of the barrel. I feared the series would die a slow, painful death but inevitably the following weeks delivered.

Now, Monday mornings just won't be the same.

Looking forward to the Port in Progress Book. I may just have to buy a coffee table to rest it upon.

Poll-Day Three

Well,

Hope you all had a good Thanksgiving.

In the spirit of the most favoritest of holidays, I'd like to thank Mary Eaton for alerting her readers to the poll. The more voters, the merrier.

I must say, I'm still a bit suprised at the outcome so far. Of the 19 people who voted, only one has registered any sort of reservations. I expect that to change shortly, but who knows.

To Mary's point that she feels this issue already has been settled, I can certainly understand that position. As I noted previously, I shared the same sentiments when James Shanley first shared his thoughts.

But clearly he's not alone. There is a significant number of people--I'm not willing to say majority--who believe neither park nor parking is the right way to go. At this point are they the most expedient? Perhaps. But is either right for the city? I'm not so sure.

I'm familiar with the history. Victor Tine wrote two excellent articles for the Port in Progress series. I also foolishly thought I was writing the final chapter on Roger Foster's fight in 1997 when I covered City Hall for a short-time. He and then Mayor Lisa Mead came up with a plan that appeared to green light the project.

How wrong was I?

So, I'll agree the idea of developing the NRA lots is a long shot. A mixture of parking/park seems to be the more likely arrangement. But I learned one thing back in 1997 when I smugly thought my words would be among the final ones about the decades old confrontation: Just when you think this story is over, someone goes on to write another chapter (or two or three or four...)

Please spread the word, email the poll to as many interested people as you like. Polls are open until Sunday.

Poll-Day One

Interesting first 10 votes cast so far in the poll. Nine of the 10 say this should happen with the holdout suggesting he or she is leaning toward the idea but needs more info.

I recognize this is a small sampling. We'll see what happens Monday when people break out of their holiday slumber.

But if this pattern holds the readership of this blog isn't nearly as progressive as I thought. It's that or my definition of a progressive doesn't hold water. (Course Shanley himself is supposedly a progressive and he started all of this.)

So, we'll see if the open waterfront folks show up or if the pro-development folks do a superior job of getting out the vote.

Karp in the News

Just a few quick hits regarding Mr. Karp.

The Globe on Friday had piece by Daily News Alumnus James "Jamie" Vaznis on the rush of development in the suburbs. The article centers chiefly on New England Development's plans for Westwood Station.

The Daily News Tribune of Waltham ran an article a few weeks ago on some zoning changes being contemplated in Newton to accomodate another Karp project.

UPDATE: Why is the second article noteworthy? It'll be interesting to see if the Waterside Group requests any changes to zoning covering Waterside West or East. No idea whether they will or won't.

The Poll is up.

I figured it might be a wild, crazy and completely unique idea to poll people on what they'd like to see on the waterfront, specifically is any level of development on those lots a good idea?

Ward 3 Councilor James Shanley thinks so as does every person who has taken time to comment and shoot emails. I'm rather surprised that no one from the open waterfront side has spoken up. Perhaps now they will.

So, if you think some development on the waterfront is prudent and even appropriate but you're afraid to speak up at the NRA meetings the this is your chance.

And if you think this idea is so completely whacked, once again, this is the time to say something.

Finally, if you know someone who would enjoy the question pass it along.

This poll will be as binding as all the other surveys that have been conducted throughout the years.

Thanks for taking part and, again, Happy Thanksgiving.

Case your wondering...

I removed the Salvation Army links. I couldn't find subsequent articles on the Daily News site.

Won't be posting much if at all over the weekend. Will try to get the poll on the Waterfront up for Monday morning.

Happy Thanksgiving, my favoritest of holidays.

Oh No He Didn't, The Conclusion

So should we consider developing a portion of the NRA lots as James Shanley suggests?

Hell yes.

I admit, this might be seen as a bit of a flip-flop on my part. I've classified myself as an open waterfront guy, but I've always advocated an active, busy waterfront as opposed to a pastoral, passive waterfront. I've consistently been against parking, which I think would be the worst possible waste of this precious resource.

As someone pointed out in an email, if we want to hold true to the historical dynamics of this city, then the waterfront was once the crux of our commerce, the very heart that pumped the city's economic blood. (Now I have Starship's "We Built This City on Rock and Roll" echoing in my head. Crap.)

I initially thought I'd be satisfied with an open Waterfront that had a playground (an idea that got COMPLETELY trashed by the hearing vote a few weeks ago)or some other less permanent use, perhaps a farmer's market or marketplace that moved in an out with the seasons.

But all that would leave a barren wasteland for 9 months of the year (and I'm being generous.) Some have proposed a skating rink, but I couldn't see that adding more than another two months.

A small bit of development--a row of buildings running perpendicular to the river--would deliver year-round energy to these parcels. Plus, it would better fit the characteristics and the nature of this city.

Think of the downtown. Where do people congregate, lay about, sit and people watch. The boardwalk is one obvious answer, but the year-round focus point of human activity is Market Square, a bricked over bit of open space. People are drawn there by the comfort and vitality that even Market Landing Park lacks. Admit it, Market Landing Park is rarely crowded with revelers even on the warmest summer day.

As beautiful as Market Landing Park is, I can count on one finger how many times I packed a picnic and plunked down on the grass to enjoy the river this past summer, my first here as a husband and dad.

How many times have I enjoyed a bench in Market Square. No idea. Maybe a dozen. More telling. How many times have I sat in or outside Plum Island Roasters? I can't even guess. Literally too many to count.

What's the real point. As a city dweller, I honestly see myself enjoying the waterfront lots if they're integrated into the downtown rather than just left open as token representation of the parks that line the downtown and the city's borders. This isn't New York, where people need Central Park as a reminder that something other than humanity populates this earth.

Plus, I'll admit it, as a taxpayer, the extra dough wouldn't hurt. I don't understand how we'll pay for the construction and maintenance of a park of this magnitude while still stemming the bleeding at the schools and (somehow) building and maintaining a senior center.

So let's start a discussion. Perhaps it's too late. The NRA already seems to be moving down a path of a park and parking combination. But the city waited this long, what's a few more years.

Amen

Look, I recognize I'm on a James Shanley kick right now. But I'll stop talking about the guy when he stops making sense.

Here's his letter in today's Daily News.

Letter: Time to stop subsidizing parking in Port

To the editor:

Former City Councilor Ralph Ayers was spot-on in his recent letter to the editor regarding paid parking.

Bluntly put, we do not have free parking in Newburyport. We have subsidized parking. The streets, municipal parking lots and, in an indirect way, the NRA property, are all owned by the taxpayers of Newburyport. Three or so decades ago we as a community chose, rightly, to bear the cost of the terminus of a transportation system: the automobile. Now is not then, and we cannot, must not, continue to give away and bear the cost of the inherent value of our shared municipal property. The time for change is now.

One need not look too far afield to find sister communities that require payment for use of their streets and lots. Portsmouth, N.H., Rockport and Northampton all have paid parking, and none have tumbleweeds rolling down Main Street. As anyone who has visited these communities knows, the opposite is vibrantly true. I firmly believe that paid parking is responsible citizenship, and even more importantly, creates parking space turn-over, which promotes local, sustainable economic activity. This is critical for our current and future prosperity.

The time has come for us to fairly assign the cost of automobile storage to the proper party: the user. Newburyport taxpayers can no longer absorb that cost. Our needs are many and great. The technology of paid parking is sophisticated, flexible and visually unobtrusive. The time for paid parking is now. Let us work together to do what must be done.

JAMES G. SHANLEY
Ward 3 councilor
Newburyport

I actually had started to put together a post praising Ralph Ayers for his letter but got distracted by something else. But kudos to both him and Shanley for raising this very important point.

Guess what: our parking isn't free.

In fact, it's worse than not free. It's costing us money. You could argue that dollars spent on upkeep and maintenance could be better spent on our kids and seniors. But the clear and indisputable argument is this city is leaving money on the table by not charging for parking.

This has got to stop. Even if we never construct another parking space in the downtown, we should be charging those folks who use the ones we have just as we charge people to use the compost facility, play high school football, or install a hot water heater. (Seriously, I had to get a permit to install a new hot water heater.)

So let's hold off on blaming state funding formulas, unions and salaries for a second and take a long look in the mirror. We're not doing everything we can to raise revenue for the city until we start charging for parking. We only have ourselves to blame for that one.

Quick Post, III

I advise folks to check out Bruce Menin's post on this issue. It's the second item down. He asks some excellent questions that need to be answered.

It's Snowing Out

This Eyewitness Weather Report brought to you by Newburyport Posts.

Incidentally, I'm wearing a parka and standing along Route 128 while typing this post just to add a level of credibility to my report.

Quick Post, II

I honestly have no interest in pitting the city union's against the city or fostering a taxpayer vs. city worker fight. There's no sense in it. Frankly, I didn't vote for the override to save the jobs of city workers. I did so to save the services they deliver to our children.

If someone told me how we could eliminate positions but maintain or add to services, I'd have to consider it. This is the world in which we live.

But I did want to link to an letter that ran in today's Daily News. It gave a counter-argument to the Daily News' editorial that I linked to yesterday.

Plus, there are two thoughtful comments on the original post.

Salvation Army

FYI, the Daily News has start running its articles telling the tales of people who need help for the holidays. I'll include the links to the right if anyone is interested in helping out.

Newburyport Posts has nothing to do with this effort so if you do want to donate use the info in the articles.

This Explains So Much

I always wondered how this bit of ugly slipped through the renewal project.

Quick Post

Life has taken over, so I'll continue more on the Shanley conversation/poll sometime in the next few days.

But in the spirit of providing something semi-fresh, I'd like to second Mary Eaton's thoughts in her blog today. In fact, I had intended to write something similar last week after the Daily News blasted the city's unions for not signing up to the state's health care program.

To be sure, I wish it could have happened. The city certainly needs the money. But I do think folks sometimes are inclined to take the, "You work for us," sentiment a little to far when it comes to municipal employees.

They're people, and their first responsibilities lie with their families. I'll be honest. If I wasn't convinced the health plan being offered by the state offered my wife and kids the same level of protection as the existing health plan I'd be reluctant to sign on myself, not without more info.

Now, if the conversation develops--as it just may--into a "accept this health plan or watch (fill in the number here) of your coworkers get laid off," my reluctance might wane. But the conversation hadn't reached that point yet as far as I could tell.

Furthermore, a switch in health plans is a major concession for unionized employees. They'd be taking a pretty big bargaining chip off the table by agreeing to the health plan switch without discussing pay or other benefits. These discussions should come during collective bargaining talks, in my uneducated opinion.

I recognize un-unionized private sector employees don't always have the same choices. We're more likely to get a letter that says, "Here's your new health plan," suck it up.

But union folks don't pay their monthly dues for nothing.

So I'm willing to withhold my resentment for the time being. Now, if this dance is repeated before the next deadline then there will be plenty of blame to go around, starting with the mayor and trickling right on down to every last union member.

As far as I'm concerned, the clock is ticking. The mayor and union heads need to get on it .... now.

JL Coombs opens...Again

This press release ran on MaineToday.com announcing the opening of J.L. Coombs' Newburyport story.

For those who care about these things, you can see why reporters often ignore press releases. This release--dated Nov. 15--says the store will open when, in fact, it opened over a month ago.

Why not just say the store has opened? Or why not issue the release back in October? It's a small matter, maybe, but the truth is a good thing.

Anyway, I know some folks have a problem with the store, saying its too high-end or reflects a movementof selling high-end goods. I don't have that same problem and I could see myself buying a shoe there in the future. I like a good shoe. I walk a lot and have big feet.

UPDATE: I also agree with Jabberwocky owner Sue Little's comments in this Daily News article. We're lucky to have stores to fill vacancies.

I do have one teensy complaint though...

I went in there a week ago because I need a new shoelace for my relatively new shoes. I saw the same exact shoe in the store so I figured I could pick up a shoelace there.

I was told by the nice enough clerk that they don't sell shoelaces. How is that possible?

Anyway, here's the release. I thought this line was interesting.

Continuing in the tradition of the town, J.L. Coombs is a family-owned and locally run business catering to residents and tourists

Someone is paying attention.

J.L. Coombs opens 7th store in Downtown Newburyport Ma.

Freeport, Maine - Maine-based retailer J.L. Coombs, specializing in fashion/comfort shoes and apparel will open a new store on Market Square in downtown Newburyport, Ma. Carrying lines such as Ecco, Dansko, Uggs, Timberland, David Meister, Clarks, Cole Haan, Donald Pliner, and Arche, the store stocks a variety of price-points and classifications.

Continuing in the tradition of the town, J.L. Coombs is a family-owned and locally run business catering to residents and tourists. Other J.L. Coombs locations in the region include Portland and Freeport, Maine, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and Daher's of Andover. Spoil Me Rotten, a distinctive women's boutique is located in Portland, Maine.

A Grand-Opening celebration is scheduled for the weekend of November 16th-18th beginning with a ribbon-cutting ceremony on Friday the 16th at 10 am to be attended by Mayor Moak and other key members of the community.

Oh No He Didn't, II

So there I was, sitting with James Shanley at Plum Island Roasters. A first, he reminded me a bit like a World War II Japanese soldier who'd been holed up on a remote island with no idea the war was over. After all, many wars had been fought over the right to develop those parcels, and by all measures those opposing development have won.

Victor Tine presents a Ken Burnsian chronicling of these various battles as part of the Daily News' Port in Progress series. Here is Part One. Here is Part Two.

Coming back to Newburyport after a decade away, it appeared to me that the front-line has shifted away from developing the waterfront. Now the trenches had been dug on either side of the question, "How much Park. How much Parking?"

The idea of developing the parcels, to me, was dead. It's clear that lawyers were the only ones making money on development proposals.

But Shanley doesn't see it that way, and he says he's not alone. (Judging by the initial comments and emails generated by my first introductory post, I'd say he's correct.)

In our talk, Shanley noted that the NRA didn't seize those lots through eminent domain to be park or parking lots. Indeed, they were suppose to be part of the larger redevelopment going on downtown, a commercial connection between the river and Market Square.

I could go on recalling the meeting, but Shanley, in response to an email that Bruce Menin sent to both of us after the first post, lays out his position nicely. Why don't I just let him take it from there.

I was a very vocal advocate for the City spending CPA funds to purchase open space on the outskirts of town. This makes sense for many reasons, ecological and quality of life being the most prominent. But to save what must be saved, you need to build what must be built. Density is the other side of the open space coin. We have been kidding ourselves into believing otherwise.

Bruce is correct in his assertion that historically the waterfront was heavily developed. Its spelled out nicely in the study of Newburyport called Port and Marketplace (sic. I later learned its called Port and Market). Even though we are not shipping goods out of the waterfront, it still is a major economic driver for Newburyport. The trouble is that we have been viewing it through the lens of July and August. The rest of the year, much of what could be generating tax revenue, economic activity, and equally important, daily human interaction lies fallow. Car and dock storage is a very poor use of land that could be helping us meet our challenges.

What challenges? Well, money. The city is strapped for cash. Shanley says the city must maximize the value of the holdings we have, and the waterfront property is extremely valuable. A parking lot certainly doesn't do this, even if we ever did adopt a paid parking system.

As for creating a larger park, Shanley says the city doesn't have the cash on hand to maintain a park of this size. We have enough trouble maintaining the parks and playgrounds we do have. (I was surprised to learn that most of the playgrounds in town were built with private funds. Yet another reason to love this community.)

Shanley makes a great deal of sense. Yet, I was surprised this opinion still exists in our polarized political landscape, a rare third point-of-view in a city where you're either progressive or conservative; pro- or anti-override, or favor putting parking or park along the waterfront.

Shanley says many in town want a third option. He may be right. Perhaps that's why the city has had trouble reaching a consensus all these years. "There are many others (who support this idea,)" he wrote. "But they have been worn down by the issue. I intend to keep speaking out, so that maybe those who are at least willing to have a conversation about the waterfront being something other than a park or parking will feel safe to do so."

Next post: Is he right?

Also, you know we're going to have to have a poll on this thing. Warm up the browsers and dust off the mouse pad. Check in on Monday.

Oh No He Didn't

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I enjoy hearing James Shanley speak at meetings.

First, he speaks well. Second, he makes sense. Third, his positions typically mirror my own. (Yes, two and three are inextricably linked.)

So imagine my surprise when, a few weeks ago at the NRA's public hearing on the waterfront, I found myself having no idea what the hell he was talking about.

To set the scene, the NRA had just rolled through its Powerpoint presentation and opened the floor to comments. Not surprisingly, a slight majority of the comments (like 99.99 to .01) denounced the plan as having too much parking. The collection of politicians and candidates--the only folks wearing jackets and ties--had to rush to get their words in. They they were due to attend the Newburyport Mothers Club's candidates forum at another location.

Shanley was among the well-dressed fast talkers.

But, unlike the others, Shanley didn't talk about park space. Instead, he talked about economic engines. Instead of crediting or criticizing the NRA for its King Solomon-inspired proposal, Shanley said the NRA good intentions were being misspent, that this wasn't the right time for this project. That the land was too valuable to the city.

To be clear, he was using complete sentences that expressed lucid thoughts. But without some further context I couldn't believe what I was hearing. The NRA lots as a economic rather than aesthetic engine?

A few days later I emailed Shanley asking him to expand on his thoughts because I couldn't quite grasp his point. He graciously offered to do so, admitting he had rushed through his comments at the NRA meeting. He said he'd given similar testimony to the the NRA members before so he didn't feel the need to go into great detail in that setting.

So we met at Plum Island roasters, sort of Ground Zero for the Waterfront, and he explained his position further.

Shanley isn't in favor of park or parking. Nope. He'd like to see some commercial and mixed use development somewhere along the waterfront lots.

Interesting, more in the next post.

Karp Kernal

Something else I didn't know about Steve Karp. He's on the board of Suffolk Downs.

Think that will grab some mindshare over the next couple of years?

Personally I'm not a big fans of the casino plans. I grew up about a mile from Suffolk Downs. We could watch the races from my kitchen window. I just don't see a "destination casino" revitalizing that area, and I LOVE destination casinos.

That said, wouldn't a Merrimack Riverboat Casino be an interesting addition to Waterside East or West.

A Growing Empire?

The Daily News has a story today about Chuck and Ann Lagasse's purchase of Fisherman's Wharf in Provincetown, but they're a little too slow in getting the article up on their Web site so check out the news in the Provincetown Banner.

I'll update with the News link later on. I've got no real insights on this at this point other than I was surprised by the news.

Makes you wonder though if City officials from Provincetown, Nantucket and Newburyport ought to meet somewhere in the middle (maybe a cafe in the new Pinehills Village in Plymouth) to compare notes. It would appear they're all facing similar, albeit not identical, issues.

This is good news

Was happy to read this in the paper this morning. Nothing against Tom O'Brien. I don't know him and can't offer opinion one on his time as council president but I've gotten to know James Shanley and his dog, Lucky, a bit, and I like them both.

Plus he was kind enough to serve as a sounding board when I pondered an Ives-like run for School Committee. At the time, no one else had stepped forward so I was thinking, Why not? The insights of James and a few others showed me the only thing tougher than running for school committee is being on the school committee. (Note, an email prodded me to edit that text a bit. In short, Shanley laid out the clear pros of cons of running and serving on the school committee. It wasn't right for me at this time. Maybe someday.)

I'd rather be blogging (at this point and time.)

If Shanley were elected president, I expect things from this council. In my conversations and on the council floor Shanley seems to make a lot of sense (which is one way of saying his positions largely mirror my own.)

More on these expectations later.

Stupid Question

One of the things I enjoyed most about being a reporter is you have a license to ask a stupid question.

At my time at the Daily News, I covered so many things I knew absolutely nothing about: fishing, hunting, Title V septic system regulations, invasive water weeds, boating...etc., etc., etc.

So, the only way to get enough info to put some words to paper was to ask stupid questions. The recipients of such questions usually didn't mind. They accepted that you were..well ignorant...about their area of expertise and they were eager to straighten you out. More often than not it worked. The only time I recall getting outed as an idiot was when I wrote that a hunter pointed his rifle at a flock of Canada Geese. It was actually a shotgun. Big difference.

So sue me, I grew up in the city. We hunted for parking spots.

I'm sure you know where this walk down memory lane is now headed. I have a stupid question about the politics in the city. Two stupid questions, actually.

What is a progressive?
What is a conservative?

I obviously know the larger meanings of such terms, but they are tossed around so easily in this city by politicians, bloggers and, well, I'm sad to say, myself, and I'm not really sure how they apply to the politics in our fair city.

The questions first came to me when I was reading Stephen Tait's article on the new council in yesterday's news. The article included this:

Three of the incoming members - at-large councilors Donna Holaday and Kathleen O'Connor Ives and Ward 4 winner Ed Cameron - are tabbed as more "progressive," or liberal-leaning politically. Councilor Barry Connell described those three wins as a "boost" for "progressive government."

Brian Derrivan, the new Ward 5 councilor, will join those three as the freshman members.

Moak, who is considered by many to be more conservative in his political ideals, said he doesn't know why he's been tagged with that characterization.

"That is the peg people put on me all the time, that I'm conservative," he said. "I don't know how true that is."

I guess I don't know either. That's why I'm asking. Here's my attempt at identifying progressives and conservatives. Tell me if I'm wrong. I'll use the Daily News' candidate questions as a guide.

A progressive is someone who...

thinks there should be fewer than 250 parking spots on the NRA lots.
favors historic districts.
would support an override.
opposes the practice of crotch-snif...er drug-sniffing dogs on Inn Street.

So a conservative obviously....

hopes to see more than 250 spaces.
opposes historic districts.
opposes overrides.
is okay with the sniffing dogs.

I recognize this breakdown is far too simplistic, but I'm honestly having a hard time defining conservatives and progressives. Is there a clear set of ideal assigned to each group? Or are we sort of working with a Potter Stewart type of classification. I can't define a progressive/conservative but I know them when I see them.

Or is this simply a way of saying: These guys are new to town and these folks have lived here forever and then some.

Any help would be appreciated.