The News, not surprisingly, came out against the idea. After I glanced the headline I initially dismissed it as merely another expression of the News' conservative editorial stance on, well, everything.
But then I did what any interested citizen should do: I read it.
And the editorial raises a good point. Why the hell are we considering paying someone to lobby for us when we've elected so-called representatives in government to do the job? Doesn't this seem unnecessary?
From the editorial:
The argument in favor of hiring the firm, whose president, Howard Marlowe, spoke last week to a group at the Plum Island Taxpayers and Associates Hall and to the Newbury Finance Committee, is pretty well summed up by Newbury Selectman Joseph Story. "This is his specialty," Story said. "There's an awful lot of merit to getting someone who knows which hoops to jump through and which hoops not to jump through."
Yes, there is. But isn't that what the region's congressional delegation is for? Aren't actual legislators, like Sixth District Congressman John Tierney along with Sens. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, supposed to be more familiar with legislative "hoops" than a lobbyist? Isn't that one of the reasons they were elected - to represent the interests of their constituents?
This is an excellent point, and it's one that John Tierney and other politicians shouldn't be missing. I can think of no bigger blot on a Congressman's record than having constituents who may lose their homes feeling that they have to hire a lobbyist to get help from their own government. (No doubt, our elected politications would take much of the credit if/when the necessary aid does arrive.)
Initially, I thought this might just be the price of doing business. Perhaps it is, but now I also see it as a case of double-dipping. We're not only paying the representatives, but now we're going to pay folks to communicate our needs to representatives.
Let me be clear. I do see the wisdom of the idea. I recognize the need and I do believe that Plum Island is a vital part of both Newbury and Newburyport. This isn't their problem. It's our problem.
I also recognize the lobbyist, Howard Marlowe of Marlowe & Co., gets results. They're on his Web site. So if he's successful he'll have earned his money. (I have to admit, though, a vision of The Music Man's Professor Harold Hill's "Trouble in River City" flashed into my head as I read the account of his visit to Plum Island.)
But the idea of taking $30,000 to $40,000 away from Newbury and Newburyport to pay for a service we should already be getting bugs me. And, if we decide it's necessary, than that's a troubling statement about our representation.
11 comments:
Tom,
Having attended both meetings regarding the erosion problem on PI, it all boils down to funding.
A member of Congressman Tierney's staff attended the meeting and the Congressman has been involved in securing partial funding. While I agree that our congressional delegation needs to become more involved, lobbyists can have a role as well. They often have contacts on key committees such as appropriations of which MA has a single member - John Olver who represents central/western MA.
Apparently, he's bringing home their bacon:
OLVER ANNOUNCES FINAL CONGRESSIONAL CLEARANCE OF OVER $2 MILLION FOR UMASS - AMHERST PROJECTS more
OLVER ANNOUNCES FINAL PASSAGE OF OVER $10 MILLION FOR VARIOUS NORTH WORCESTER COUNTY PROJECTS more
OLVER ANNOUNCES $5 MILLION FOR BERKSHIRE COUNTY AND CUMMINGTON IN FY 2008 FEDERAL SPENDING PACKAGE more
OLVER ANNOUNCES FINAL PASSAGE OF OVER $2.5 MILLION FOR VARIOUS FRANKLIN COUNTY PROJECTS more
While I dislike paying a lobbyist, sometimes the end justifies the means....
I'd like to comment on runswithscissor's comment, While I agree that our congressional delegation needs to become more involved...
With 36 communities under Congressman Tierney's belt and an approximate 15-person Massachusetts staff, it's not so simple to say he should be more involved. It's near impossible for him and his staff to track every local issue. Moreover, in my opinion it should not be a federal official's role (nor a state official's, for that matter) to set local policy; that's why we have elected and appointed local officials.
There's nothing wrong with hiring a lobbyist, but how many communities have the financial backing for this effort? If a group of citizens want to band together and hire a lobbyist, so be it; and the locality can work in tandem through more traditional means.
When you consider Tierney is in his 6th term, he clearly has enough accomplishments and support or he would have been voted out after one term. No?
My first reaction is that $40,000 seems like short money, and that the PI folks should be able to come up with it on their own. I assume there are a couple of hundred houses that might be at risk, so it would only cost each of the a couple of hundred dollars. Why don't they just do it?
Jeez Ari,
I thought I was harder on Tierney than Scissors.
This isn't policy. This is protection and restoration of our shoreline. I think it's a Federal issue.
Furthermore, I'm willing to bet one-third of those 36 communities within his district are seashore communities so this should be an big issue for him. Huge.
Has he done a good job? I honestly have no idea. It's so hard to unseat an incumbent congressman, let alone a Democrat, whether they're kicking butt or coasting.
I'll assume he's doing a great job. And, in this case, he may be trying his very best.
I just say having two of his communities hiring a lobbyist on such a critical issue--which goes beyond losing a few houses--doesn't reflect very well on him.
To Scissors--I'd hope after six terms Tierney would have those relations with those key committee members as well.
Ari,
I wasn't singling out Tierney, the jetty and channel are the responsibility of the Federal Government - our entire delegation should be involved in this.
To Tom,
Tierney has only been able to get funding for 1/2 the dredging project, so maybe he needs to work on his contacts.
To Dick,
I'll be sure to remember that when it comes time to vote for a school override - just a few hundred per family, I'm sure they can manage themselves. Or the waterfront park, I'm sure downtown residents can pick up the cost.
The water and sewer infrastructure is now the responsibility of the Nbpt W&S commission, guess who pays if it gets damaged ?
The $18K requested is one year's tax revenue on two houses - seems like short money to protect the tax base.
Be aware that Haverhill is also pursuing a dredging project for the Merrimack River, one that involves a '100 year dredge' in order to reopen the *entire* river from Newburyport to Haverhill for expanded use. The Plum Islanders ought to contact the City of Haverhill's harbormaster to investigate working together.
Question, how clean is the sand dredged from that far up river? Is it beach worthy?
Not a knock on those communities, but the river obviously has gone through some tough times.
A couple of things:
1) Because of the flushing effect of the river the bottom sediment in communities like Haverhill, Groveland, etc, is as clean or (in some locations) *cleaner* than in the Newburyport end of the river.
2) Most of the bottom is not sand, per se, but loose gravel. It's planned that dredged material will be used for a landfill capping project.
3) The river is home to an endangered species of sturgeon. This has tossed a monkey wrench into the dredging and may, in fact, effect the PI dredging as well.
4) The Army Corp of Engineers has already started study work on the major dredging project; the Plum Island folks really, really need to contact the Army Corp and see about rolling their needs into the current project rather than toss money at a lobbyist. A combined, larger project has a much better chance of receiving an earmark.
Interesting stuff. Thanks Carrot.
1)The Haverhill sediment is likely to be of incompatible grain size for beach nourishment.
2) The Army Corp of Engineers already has permits for dredging the mouth of the river - what they don't have is funding for dredging and permits/funding for beach nourishment.
3) The Corp is required by law to dispose of the dredged sand using least cost method(currenly near-shore disposal). They can use those funds for beach nourishment if some entity picks up the incremental nourishment costs of about $400K.
4) The Corp also needs $2.5 - $3 million to repair the jetties.
5) In addition to addressing immediate needs, the lobbyist will also attempt to secure recurring funds for regular dredging/beach nourishment programs.
6) If Newbury/Nbpt engage in an active beach management program, PI will then qualify for FEMA funding for beach maintenance.
The Haverhill (and Amesbury, and Merrimack, and Groveland) dredging project certainly will not help the PI beach situation*. BUT, paradoxically it's easier to obtain money for large projects than small projects; Haverhill has been told this directly by the Army Corp of Engineers and a few elected officials. It might make more sense for communities on the river to work together on projects like this rather than break them up into smaller projects with a lesser chance of being funded.
*Given the topographics of Plum Island, Global Warming powered storms and the projected sea level rise from Greenland melting down, I'm fairly confident that this will not be the last time the beach at PI is threatened.
Post a Comment