an Ice Cream shop?
Well, no. But the word around the boats is that Plum Island Roasters will be getting a ice cream-scooping neighbor. Ann Lagasse says the lease isn't finalized but she is in talks with someone who would run an ice cream shop out of the Hilton's building.
And yes, that someone is a local.
Obviously, more changing is a coming. But this certainly is a nice short-term solution.
Friday, March 28, 2008
High Street Master Plan
For those who haven't seen it, read it or even heard about it, this is a document worth checking out. It's quite comprehensive and pretty damn smart, in my humble opinion.
Find the plan on this Historic High Street web site, and enjoy the old photos.
Find the plan on this Historic High Street web site, and enjoy the old photos.
Ugh. Snow
Not a lot of time today so some quick hits:
First, let me apologize for the Signs of Spring item below. I actually considered checking the forecast before writing it, but didn't think it was necessary.
Second, I was all set to play blogger-in-the-know this morning by reporting I ran into Ann Lagasse and some NED folks, including project leader Tony Green, at Plum Island Roasters yesterday afternoon. But I had no idea that Green had likely just completed an interview with Stephen Tait. Read it here. Good piece. Not a lot on the particulars but I'm sure his philosophies on maintaining views will jibe with a lot of folks.
The article is another bit of clear evidence that NED's public relations effort is in full-force. And I'm not using public relations as a pejorative. It what it is. NED knows it needs to relate to the public, that being us. This is a good thing. (In fact, after the big Karp meeting a woman came up and introduced herself to me as the PR liason for I swear she said Newburyport Development Corp. So the game is on.)
Incidentally, during my chat with Green, I put in another plug for a Philbrick-style store in Newburyport. This would be my third counting this blog post.
He seemed agreeable to the idea, but I'm sure he's skilled at masking any "oh enough already" feelings as outsiders like myself offer their own brilliant suggestions.
Finally, the irony of the Newburyport Chamber of Commerce having its annual dinner in Georgetown (previously Salisbury) has never been richer. Steve Karp, the man who may finally build a space large enough to hold sizable gatherings in this city, will be the keynote speaker at the chamber.
.
First, let me apologize for the Signs of Spring item below. I actually considered checking the forecast before writing it, but didn't think it was necessary.
Second, I was all set to play blogger-in-the-know this morning by reporting I ran into Ann Lagasse and some NED folks, including project leader Tony Green, at Plum Island Roasters yesterday afternoon. But I had no idea that Green had likely just completed an interview with Stephen Tait. Read it here. Good piece. Not a lot on the particulars but I'm sure his philosophies on maintaining views will jibe with a lot of folks.
The article is another bit of clear evidence that NED's public relations effort is in full-force. And I'm not using public relations as a pejorative. It what it is. NED knows it needs to relate to the public, that being us. This is a good thing. (In fact, after the big Karp meeting a woman came up and introduced herself to me as the PR liason for I swear she said Newburyport Development Corp. So the game is on.)
Incidentally, during my chat with Green, I put in another plug for a Philbrick-style store in Newburyport. This would be my third counting this blog post.
He seemed agreeable to the idea, but I'm sure he's skilled at masking any "oh enough already" feelings as outsiders like myself offer their own brilliant suggestions.
Finally, the irony of the Newburyport Chamber of Commerce having its annual dinner in Georgetown (previously Salisbury) has never been richer. Steve Karp, the man who may finally build a space large enough to hold sizable gatherings in this city, will be the keynote speaker at the chamber.
.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Confession Time
I bought a coffee at Starbucks this morning.
I know this goes against my Buy Local creed. But, well, I was getting into the office very, very early this morning, and my usual haunts were closed. And the warm lighting and deep green sign looked so inviting.
And they were serving Espresso Roast....
So I bought the coffee. But I did not drink it, I swear. Nor did I eat the Petite Vanilla Bean Scone.
I've already recited 10 "Buy Locals" and finished five readings of the Formula Business "Don't call them Chain Stores" Restriction "Not a ban" Ordinance. I hope that's enough.
.
I know this goes against my Buy Local creed. But, well, I was getting into the office very, very early this morning, and my usual haunts were closed. And the warm lighting and deep green sign looked so inviting.
And they were serving Espresso Roast....
So I bought the coffee. But I did not drink it, I swear. Nor did I eat the Petite Vanilla Bean Scone.
I've already recited 10 "Buy Locals" and finished five readings of the Formula Business "Don't call them Chain Stores" Restriction "Not a ban" Ordinance. I hope that's enough.
.
Welcome to the Blogohood
It appears the lure of untold riches and endless glory has drawn another blogger to the market. Gillian Swart, formerly of The Current, now offers her insights at Port Reporter Unlimited.
Newburyport Posts, in response to this new competition, is instituting a "Read Nine Posts and Get the Tenth for Free" program. Remember to get your cards punched.
You'll find Port Reporter over at the Blog list to the right.
.
Newburyport Posts, in response to this new competition, is instituting a "Read Nine Posts and Get the Tenth for Free" program. Remember to get your cards punched.
You'll find Port Reporter over at the Blog list to the right.
.
Signs of Spring
I'm wondering if this is the first time the Sox have opened the season before the Capt. Red has been launched. I'm sure this is documented somewhere.
In either case, both have happened so spring MUST officially be here.
(BTW, if I weren't such a luddite you'd be staring at a photo of the Capt. Red backlit by a very nice sunrise. But I still can't figure out how to download photos off my camera phone so just use your imagination.)
.
In either case, both have happened so spring MUST officially be here.
(BTW, if I weren't such a luddite you'd be staring at a photo of the Capt. Red backlit by a very nice sunrise. But I still can't figure out how to download photos off my camera phone so just use your imagination.)
.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Bike Lanes
A loyal reader noted that the number of comments to this blog have been dwindling a bit lately. That's fine. I think we're all a bit Karped out.
This person advised that today's article in the news about the Master Plan for High Street, particularly the call for making the bike lanes more permanent might generate a little heat.
To this I say, you gotta be kidding me. I'm sure I come off as a Newbie jerk, but is anyone out there still opposed to the bike lanes on High Street?
The street is more than wide enough. Bikers, including me, use the lanes frequently. And the bikers aren't the ones creating any dangerous conditions. It's the drivers who see High Street as an unofficial extension of Route 95. That needs to be dealt with. I live on a North End street off of High Street. If I'm going to some place near the traffic circle, I'll sometimes take the river route on Merrimack and hop onto Route 1 just so I don't have to cross a lane of traffic. People are nuts.
I've never read the plan. (Mary Eaton is the expert here.) I'm sure there will be some elements I don't like. But I'm on board with what's listed here.
I question how we might pay for all of this, but it's good to start with a plan.
This person advised that today's article in the news about the Master Plan for High Street, particularly the call for making the bike lanes more permanent might generate a little heat.
To this I say, you gotta be kidding me. I'm sure I come off as a Newbie jerk, but is anyone out there still opposed to the bike lanes on High Street?
The street is more than wide enough. Bikers, including me, use the lanes frequently. And the bikers aren't the ones creating any dangerous conditions. It's the drivers who see High Street as an unofficial extension of Route 95. That needs to be dealt with. I live on a North End street off of High Street. If I'm going to some place near the traffic circle, I'll sometimes take the river route on Merrimack and hop onto Route 1 just so I don't have to cross a lane of traffic. People are nuts.
I've never read the plan. (Mary Eaton is the expert here.) I'm sure there will be some elements I don't like. But I'm on board with what's listed here.
The master plan is much more than bike lanes. It includes a number of visual changes to improve the character of the street, slow down traffic and increase safety, Holaday and Shanley said. Changes include installation of textured crosswalks, new signs, curb-cutting, sidewalk repair and planting dozens of new trees.
I question how we might pay for all of this, but it's good to start with a plan.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Crow's Lane
I haven't spent any time at all discussing the ongoing problems at Crow's Lane landfill. I suppose development talk comes easier to me and it's a bit more sexy than the noxious smell of eggs and burnt matches.
But the folks who do have to endure this day-in-and-out have my complete sympathies. I can't imagine living under these conditions and losing the feeling of safety and comfort that should come with being home.
Certainly the situation warrants more attention from EVERYONE, including this blog.
That point was driven home with an article in the Daily News in which state officials say the owner of the landfill had "manually and intentionally" shut down the device used to disperse the odors.
The state doesn't go as far as saying the shut down was retribution for the city issuing another cease-and-desist order. But, in the article, the city's health agent, Jack Morris, suggests that is exactly the case.
I'm afraid I don't have much to add at this point. Just raising the issue.
Also, Jim Stiles wrote a letter to the editor a few weeks back on this very subject. Worth the read.
.
But the folks who do have to endure this day-in-and-out have my complete sympathies. I can't imagine living under these conditions and losing the feeling of safety and comfort that should come with being home.
Certainly the situation warrants more attention from EVERYONE, including this blog.
That point was driven home with an article in the Daily News in which state officials say the owner of the landfill had "manually and intentionally" shut down the device used to disperse the odors.
The state doesn't go as far as saying the shut down was retribution for the city issuing another cease-and-desist order. But, in the article, the city's health agent, Jack Morris, suggests that is exactly the case.
I'm afraid I don't have much to add at this point. Just raising the issue.
Also, Jim Stiles wrote a letter to the editor a few weeks back on this very subject. Worth the read.
.
Enough may be enough
I never did take the opportunity to introduce myself to Steve Karp. No real reason. He seemed like an approachable guy. I didn't avoid him. But I hate waiting in lines for anything. Plus, I sort of like the relationship as it stands now. I'm sure we'll meet eventually.
But I did sneak at the end of the line to ask a question, risking the Wrath of Nancy Colbert who dutifully tried to preserve enough time for the informal Q&A after the meeting.
My question was this. Or an awkwardly phrase version of this: Every time I see a property go up for sale on the waterfront I think to myself, Oh, Karp will buy that one. Yet you haven't. Do you intend to expand your real estate holdings here. (I'm taking enormous artistic license with the paraphrase.)
Karp sort of stared at me. I couldn't tell if he hadn't heard me or didn't like the question. But he answered saying New England Development would always be open to adding properties if the terms were attractive.
But he went on to say that hoped another developer or two would follow his lead and take on some of those projects.
Could it be that Karp has had enough? I don't have exact counts on how much he owns downtown. I think the Daily News suggested 20% of the storefronts. During his presentation Karp flashed a map of NED's holdings. He owns a lot, but not close to everything.
So why hasn't he acquired more when properties like the Bennett & Co. building, Mike's Sub or even Davis Auto Parts have come up?
It might be as a simple as the asking prices being too high. Perhaps he'll wait until the real estate market settles.
Or maybe he recognizes any additional acquisitions would come at a political and public relations cost.
But I wonder whether NED has reached a tipping point. Perhaps it fears owning too much of the downtown would leave it vulnerable if things ever went south locally.
Hard to say. Karp's entities own 75% or so of the storefronts in Nantucket, so he's not afraid of taking big bites. But Newburyport may truly be a different nut to crack.
I guess if I were to bet I'd say the asking prices might be the primary reason. But I'm sure the other two come into play as well.
But I did sneak at the end of the line to ask a question, risking the Wrath of Nancy Colbert who dutifully tried to preserve enough time for the informal Q&A after the meeting.
My question was this. Or an awkwardly phrase version of this: Every time I see a property go up for sale on the waterfront I think to myself, Oh, Karp will buy that one. Yet you haven't. Do you intend to expand your real estate holdings here. (I'm taking enormous artistic license with the paraphrase.)
Karp sort of stared at me. I couldn't tell if he hadn't heard me or didn't like the question. But he answered saying New England Development would always be open to adding properties if the terms were attractive.
But he went on to say that hoped another developer or two would follow his lead and take on some of those projects.
Could it be that Karp has had enough? I don't have exact counts on how much he owns downtown. I think the Daily News suggested 20% of the storefronts. During his presentation Karp flashed a map of NED's holdings. He owns a lot, but not close to everything.
So why hasn't he acquired more when properties like the Bennett & Co. building, Mike's Sub or even Davis Auto Parts have come up?
It might be as a simple as the asking prices being too high. Perhaps he'll wait until the real estate market settles.
Or maybe he recognizes any additional acquisitions would come at a political and public relations cost.
But I wonder whether NED has reached a tipping point. Perhaps it fears owning too much of the downtown would leave it vulnerable if things ever went south locally.
Hard to say. Karp's entities own 75% or so of the storefronts in Nantucket, so he's not afraid of taking big bites. But Newburyport may truly be a different nut to crack.
I guess if I were to bet I'd say the asking prices might be the primary reason. But I'm sure the other two come into play as well.
Karp's Stance
One of the more resonating criticisms coming from Steve Karp's presentation a few weeks ago centered around his apparently unwillingness to resolve the city's traffic and parking problems.
So, to those who were disappointed he didn't drop a bag of money on the Nock Middle School floor to pay for our infrastructure needs I offer this bit of solace.
The negotiations have begun.
I'm not saying Karp will pay for everything, particularly any parking problems created by the greening of the Waterfront--if that happens--but New England Development will pay for somethings if they want to get the project done. For example, NED will have to pay for improvements on infrastructure near Route 1 and Merrimack. No question.
Just how much is a matter of negotiations, which is why it's so important to ensure that the general public never loses interest in the project. I have to think a having dozens of interested--and perhaps a bit critical--voices at the table will only strengthen the city's hand.l
Just how much? Well, take a look at this Globe article on the Westwood Development. We shouldn't expect this type of cash as that project is larger, but perhaps we can use this as the starting point for our negotations.
.
So, to those who were disappointed he didn't drop a bag of money on the Nock Middle School floor to pay for our infrastructure needs I offer this bit of solace.
The negotiations have begun.
I'm not saying Karp will pay for everything, particularly any parking problems created by the greening of the Waterfront--if that happens--but New England Development will pay for somethings if they want to get the project done. For example, NED will have to pay for improvements on infrastructure near Route 1 and Merrimack. No question.
Just how much is a matter of negotiations, which is why it's so important to ensure that the general public never loses interest in the project. I have to think a having dozens of interested--and perhaps a bit critical--voices at the table will only strengthen the city's hand.l
Just how much? Well, take a look at this Globe article on the Westwood Development. We shouldn't expect this type of cash as that project is larger, but perhaps we can use this as the starting point for our negotations.
.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Hmmm
The Daily News is trailing only Steve Karp in our poll.
Since I rarely, if ever, hear a kind word uttered about our local paper, except in those increasingly frequent instances when I'm muttering to myself, I gotta wonder....
Is there a silent majority out there? Am I feeling some love for the News?
Since I rarely, if ever, hear a kind word uttered about our local paper, except in those increasingly frequent instances when I'm muttering to myself, I gotta wonder....
Is there a silent majority out there? Am I feeling some love for the News?
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Karp Plan Revealed
For those who missed the Karp meeting last week, I managed to copy his plans for the Waterside West lot. Well, it's a possible proposal. One of 70-something, supposedly.
Gaze upon the illustration and you'll see why folks are so excited.
Well, his version looked a little more professional.
Preaching to the Choir
A thoughtful commentary in the Daily News today, and by "thoughtful" I mean it jibes with what we've been saying here (well James Shanley has said and I've been agreeing) about missed opportunity of the waterfront parcels.
Last Week, according to Lord T-Dex
Here's the first installment of The Dexters, see above post. Feel free to disagree and participate in the adjacent poll. The following are based on a poll of one. Me.
I'll try to do this once week.
Steve Karp: He probably could have scored a five but I'm trying to be tough in this first go around. Let's face it. He kicked butt on Thursday. Did he alleviate all concerns? Of course not, as several city councilors have stated clearly, the devil will be in the details. However, before Thursday meeting, Karp himself was seen as the devil. So this is a definite improvement. What could have he done to earn five Dexters? Hard to say. Some concrete plans would have been nice. A few heartfelt promises to alleviate concerns of traffic, parking and affordable housing would have been welcome. Or maybe he could have pulled an Oprah and given everyone in the audience a new car.
Nancy Colbert: The city's planning director shared the stage with Karp for most of the evening. She stood tall during the question and answer period giving the distinct aura that the city's point person on the development along the waterfront is up to the task.
John Moak: With the success of the meeting he helped orchestrate, our mayor would have been in line for four-and-a-half Dexters. However, he opted to fight an unnecessary fight for the city council's short but private meeting with Karp. We won't get into the details again. But his argument against posting the meeting didn't help his cause and left some wondering why it was so important to be "polite" to the city's largest landlord. Still, he deserves a great deal of credit for getting the meeting together.
Larry McCavitt" He gets a full Dexter or so for taking a stance against the private meeting, but the Ward 1 Councilor's campaign against Karp likely will take on some water after Thursday's meeting. I still hope he's vigilant in ensuring that Karp abides by Chapter 91 laws, but Karp's presentation could work to diminish the fears that McCavitt has stirred up. Bottomline, Karp's strong showing took a big stick out of McCavitt's hands. BUT, we haven't even seen a plan or started the process. There's plenty of time left for worrying.
I'll try to do this once week.
Steve Karp: He probably could have scored a five but I'm trying to be tough in this first go around. Let's face it. He kicked butt on Thursday. Did he alleviate all concerns? Of course not, as several city councilors have stated clearly, the devil will be in the details. However, before Thursday meeting, Karp himself was seen as the devil. So this is a definite improvement. What could have he done to earn five Dexters? Hard to say. Some concrete plans would have been nice. A few heartfelt promises to alleviate concerns of traffic, parking and affordable housing would have been welcome. Or maybe he could have pulled an Oprah and given everyone in the audience a new car.
Nancy Colbert: The city's planning director shared the stage with Karp for most of the evening. She stood tall during the question and answer period giving the distinct aura that the city's point person on the development along the waterfront is up to the task.
John Moak: With the success of the meeting he helped orchestrate, our mayor would have been in line for four-and-a-half Dexters. However, he opted to fight an unnecessary fight for the city council's short but private meeting with Karp. We won't get into the details again. But his argument against posting the meeting didn't help his cause and left some wondering why it was so important to be "polite" to the city's largest landlord. Still, he deserves a great deal of credit for getting the meeting together.
Ed Cameron: Friend, neighbor and freshman councilor scored big points for being one of two councilors to boycott the private Karp meeting. He got a front page photo on the Daily News to boot.
Daily News: The News did its job well in publicizing the complaints of Councilors McCavitt and Cameron. It's easy to suggest those of us who were worried about the appearance of the private meeting were giving into paranoia, but I prefer the term vigilance. I don't think John Moak would admit it, but the News probably did Karp and the City a favor by opening up every aspect of Thursday's meeting. As for the coverage, I initially hoped for more articles leading up to the day but the one-day coverage was probably sufficient. And the video was a nice touch to next day coverage.
Buy Local Folks: Strange choice perhaps. First, I've disagreed with their proposed ordinance. Second, they didn't get up to ask their questions on Thursday. But I'm guessing the reason they didn't is Karp already addressed them in his comments. Since they started the "Buy Local" discussion by themselves they deserve recognition
Daily News: The News did its job well in publicizing the complaints of Councilors McCavitt and Cameron. It's easy to suggest those of us who were worried about the appearance of the private meeting were giving into paranoia, but I prefer the term vigilance. I don't think John Moak would admit it, but the News probably did Karp and the City a favor by opening up every aspect of Thursday's meeting. As for the coverage, I initially hoped for more articles leading up to the day but the one-day coverage was probably sufficient. And the video was a nice touch to next day coverage.
Buy Local Folks: Strange choice perhaps. First, I've disagreed with their proposed ordinance. Second, they didn't get up to ask their questions on Thursday. But I'm guessing the reason they didn't is Karp already addressed them in his comments. Since they started the "Buy Local" discussion by themselves they deserve recognition
Larry McCavitt" He gets a full Dexter or so for taking a stance against the private meeting, but the Ward 1 Councilor's campaign against Karp likely will take on some water after Thursday's meeting. I still hope he's vigilant in ensuring that Karp abides by Chapter 91 laws, but Karp's presentation could work to diminish the fears that McCavitt has stirred up. Bottomline, Karp's strong showing took a big stick out of McCavitt's hands. BUT, we haven't even seen a plan or started the process. There's plenty of time left for worrying.
Chuck and Ann Lagasse: They promised that Karp was a good guy who was listening. That's how he came off. So they deserve some kudos.
City Council: I recognize I'm coming at this from a biased position, but I would have enjoyed seeing a few more councilors say, "No Thanks," to the Karp meet-and-greet. This was one of the stranger open meeting arguments that I've ever seen. The only vocal opposition of the closed meeting came from two members of the board. Meanwhile, the board members themselves were never asked to defend the decision. They left those unpleasantries to the mayor.
Chamber of Commerce: I'm not entirely sure where this is coming from. I realize the Chamber didn't have any direct, public role in last week's proceeding but I guess that's the point. It seems like the voice of the business community could be a little louder in this discussion, be it addressing the issue of Karp's ownership or tackling the Buy Local or parking issues. I'm not sure what the chamber might say, but I wish it would say something.
Essex County District Attorney: I hate to take issue with the folks charged with prosecuting, but I still disagree with the interpretation of the open meeting law. I don't see how an elected body can be directed to attend a meeting in a closed setting without tripping the posting requirement. Perhaps I've walked interrupted too many "social discussions" between elected officials just before a scheduled open meeting.
Chamber of Commerce: I'm not entirely sure where this is coming from. I realize the Chamber didn't have any direct, public role in last week's proceeding but I guess that's the point. It seems like the voice of the business community could be a little louder in this discussion, be it addressing the issue of Karp's ownership or tackling the Buy Local or parking issues. I'm not sure what the chamber might say, but I wish it would say something.
Essex County District Attorney: I hate to take issue with the folks charged with prosecuting, but I still disagree with the interpretation of the open meeting law. I don't see how an elected body can be directed to attend a meeting in a closed setting without tripping the posting requirement. Perhaps I've walked interrupted too many "social discussions" between elected officials just before a scheduled open meeting.
Karp Critics:Not a good week for those looking to hate on Karp. I've been puzzled by some of the criticisms coming out of the meeting. Karp is trying to force an unsustainable hotel down our throats. Excuse me? I'd bet $10 that he wants nothing to do with a hotel, but the city is insisting on it. Furthermore, I know some folks weren't satisfied with how he answered questions about the lack of affordable housing or the changing character of Newburyport. But I'm not sure what else he was supposed to say. He says he'll work with the city on these issues, but we--through our elected officials--need to tell him what is expect of him. I thought his answers were spot on. The ball is in our court. For instance, Nancy Colbert says 10% of any housing developed along the water must be classified as affordable. That helps, but the public needs to continue to insist strongly that he meets those requirements and more. But, in short, last week wasn't a good one for believers in "secret plans" and nightmares of Nantucket North.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Introducing The Dexters
All right,
This is either the first installment of an immensely new popular feature at Newburyport Posts, the introduction of a widely ingored feature or a one-time effort that never really amounted to anything.
So, introducing THE DEXTERS!
Each week or so, this space will offer up one blogger's assessment of the type of week local folks, groups, etc.
Outstanding, couldn't be better
Very good, but not perfect
A Fine Week
Not bad but they've had better
Ewww
Whoa, don't step in that
Look for the first installment soon. Feedback, as always, is appreciated.
This is either the first installment of an immensely new popular feature at Newburyport Posts, the introduction of a widely ingored feature or a one-time effort that never really amounted to anything.
So, introducing THE DEXTERS!
Each week or so, this space will offer up one blogger's assessment of the type of week local folks, groups, etc.
Outstanding, couldn't be better
Very good, but not perfect
A Fine Week
Not bad but they've had better
Ewww
Whoa, don't step in that
Look for the first installment soon. Feedback, as always, is appreciated.
Friday, March 14, 2008
More
For less ebullient and more reasoned commentary on Karp's talk, check out the Daily News here and here. The second link goes to a Dan Atkinson article. I suspect the Daily News sent their cop reporter to the meeting hoping a hockey game might break out. But alas, he walked away with a crowd reaction story.
I find it ironic that friend, neighbor and Ward 4 Councilor Ed Cameron gets the Page 1 photo with Karp given that he was one of two councilors who spoke up against the private meeting with the entire City Council.
The local blogs appear to be quiet with the exception of Peter McLelland, the former UnderToad contributor. He has the audacity to compare Steve Karp's visit to George Washington's a couple of centuries ago.
Ridiculous, I say. Washington wasn't even close to being a billionaire.
p.s. The Daily News was there shooting video so watch for something on their Web site.
Here it is. The video seems to get stuck at 3:50 but if you move the counter past the 3:50 mark and then back again it gets it restarted.
Unfortunately, the auditorium is pretty dark. Daily News should spring for an infrared camera.
I find it ironic that friend, neighbor and Ward 4 Councilor Ed Cameron gets the Page 1 photo with Karp given that he was one of two councilors who spoke up against the private meeting with the entire City Council.
The local blogs appear to be quiet with the exception of Peter McLelland, the former UnderToad contributor. He has the audacity to compare Steve Karp's visit to George Washington's a couple of centuries ago.
Ridiculous, I say. Washington wasn't even close to being a billionaire.
p.s. The Daily News was there shooting video so watch for something on their Web site.
Here it is. The video seems to get stuck at 3:50 but if you move the counter past the 3:50 mark and then back again it gets it restarted.
Unfortunately, the auditorium is pretty dark. Daily News should spring for an infrared camera.
It's Out of Here
Damn.
Steve Karp absolutely hit one out of the park last night.
I'm not talking "deep shot to left field lands in the net" sort of out of the park. No way. His performance last night was a "make him pee in a cup to check him for steroids" kind of homer. Check his bat for cork too. It was out of here. Never a question.
The evening started off well. Karp stood close to the front doors, waiting for people as they entered the building. Some filtered by while others waited in line to say hello, shake his hand, provide a thought or two.
Karp may have made the drive to Newburyport from Newton, but he played the congenial host last night. Hell, they were even providing coffee, cookies and bottled water. (I think it was on New England Development's dime.) He came ostensibly to listen to the concerns of the people in this city, but it became clear during the evening that Karp has been listening all along.
Before you suggest that my goodwill can be bought for a cookie, I didn't take a snack (although I did have a coffee and still am sipping my bottle of Fiji water as I write this.) I enjoyed the presentation of NED's early vision on Newburyport, which I'll get into later. But in my eyes what really won the evening for me was the final segment of Karp's talk.
Rather than open immediately to questions, Karp presented a list of questions he's heard on "the street." I can't say for sure that he's collecting all these complaints, but someone on his staff is taking notes about our fears and concerns. Time will tell whether or not they'll address them, but at least they're hearing you.
So here is Karp's Q&A with himself. I did my best to quote directly and paraphrased when I knew I couldn't.
Why is this taking so long?
"One thing we've learned after doing this for 35 years is that you don't present a plan that doesn't work," he said. He understands that people are anxious to see what New England development is going to do. "I assure you. There is no secret plan. We needed to understand the character of the community.
Are we trying to create another Nantucket? (Believe it or not this was the first time he uttered the word Nantucket in his 25 minute presentation.)
"This isn't Nantucket and I think we appreciate that. I think because of the fact we developed a lot of Nantucket we get complaints about things we built in 1785 (drew some laughs), and they may not like the fact that we may have painted some door red. But the HDC (Historic District Commission) told us we could paint it red or red. Those things happen. This is a different place, a different market. Nantucket is a seasonal resort and during the 1990s things got a little bit out of control. Values went a little crazy. We built a golf course that attracts peopel from all over the U.S. It has an airport which is the second busiest airport in New England during the summer. Lots of private jets. There are lots of private jets that come in and it's become a very affluent community. We didn't create that. We're in the middle of that."
"We're not trying to make this another Nantucket, nor would we be foolish enough to force another Nantucket on you. We may take some of the best of Nantucket. Then it's your decision to tell us whether you like them or not. And we'll try to work on that together."
What about Parking?
"You have to address that, not us. We can work with you. It's something that we've talked about for a long time ...I think we’ll all benefit" from a parking plan. As for a parking garage, he acknowledge there are questions about locatoin and who would pay for a structure. Perhaps New England Development and the city could share costs. "We're open to all those things. We’ve done them before. We’d like to do them here and we're hopeful we can work in a way that is beneficial to all of us and that would be beneficial to the entire downtown.
Will New Retail Be Dominated By National Chains?
"The character of downtown is not something that works for national chains. I'm not saying they can't be here...but we're not trying to flood the downtown with them. We would lose the value of the downtown and we'd lose the value of our own properties. We can't compete with regional shopping centers in Newburyport. But we think economic growth helps the merchants that are here, and the more people we can bring" the better for all downtown businesses.
"Look at the sales of the stores and restaurants in the summer months. And look at them in January. They're not great. They have to average out. It's a very hard business to run." You have to add and remove staff depending upon the season. "If we could even that out and encourage people to come to the downtown it would benefit the rest of the merchants."
Will the Marina cater to only Luxury Yachts?
"This is like the Nantucket question ... without [local boats] you're going to lose the character that has been created here over such a long time. It'd be a shame to turn our back on that."
Will the city be involved in the development process?
"I can’t tell you this any more sincerely. This is you're process not ours. The city and its officials have an opportunity to be involved." That includes planning board, conservation commission, Mass Highway and other permitting boards.
What about Traffic?
"You have to help yourself to solve the problem. We can't do it by ourselves. People in other communities if they can't get into this downtown and they can't park in the downtown they won't come. Nantucket choked itself a bit in the summer with not enough parking and not enough access."
How about public access to the Waterfront?
"There will be public access and public benefit." He said details would be worked out with the state, but there could be "walk way construction across the waterfront when that's in our control." He said view corridors would be part of the final plan, providing views of the river from Merrimack Street.
What about Pedestrian Access?
"We value Newburyport. We’re probably developing 20 different areas from Washington DC to Bangor Maine and we've developed in downtowns. We developed a block in Sante Fe with lots of similarities" with concern about historical preservation.
"But we value Newburyport. We’ve made a decision to put our effort, our money our time here because we think is a very special place and we think we can add to the vitality and still keep the historic character.
"We can’t do it by ourselves. We have to do it together. I like that there are so many people here. I hope you contine to come. I hope you contine to participate, I think if you do participate you will be very happy with what’s done for a long time to come."
I'm not sure if my scribblings do the segment justice, but I think they suggest that Karp isn't some far-off nobleman who will storm into town one day with armies of lawyers and builders to implement his plan.
The guy gives every appearance of wanting to be part of what Newburyport is, and what it could become. He concedes he can't please everyone, but last night he asked folks to speak loud and clear about what we want to see happen down along the water.
People in this town certainly have no problem speaking their mind. But now we can do so with an idea that Karp is actually listening.
Perhaps this will work out afterall.
.
Steve Karp absolutely hit one out of the park last night.
I'm not talking "deep shot to left field lands in the net" sort of out of the park. No way. His performance last night was a "make him pee in a cup to check him for steroids" kind of homer. Check his bat for cork too. It was out of here. Never a question.
The evening started off well. Karp stood close to the front doors, waiting for people as they entered the building. Some filtered by while others waited in line to say hello, shake his hand, provide a thought or two.
Karp may have made the drive to Newburyport from Newton, but he played the congenial host last night. Hell, they were even providing coffee, cookies and bottled water. (I think it was on New England Development's dime.) He came ostensibly to listen to the concerns of the people in this city, but it became clear during the evening that Karp has been listening all along.
Before you suggest that my goodwill can be bought for a cookie, I didn't take a snack (although I did have a coffee and still am sipping my bottle of Fiji water as I write this.) I enjoyed the presentation of NED's early vision on Newburyport, which I'll get into later. But in my eyes what really won the evening for me was the final segment of Karp's talk.
Rather than open immediately to questions, Karp presented a list of questions he's heard on "the street." I can't say for sure that he's collecting all these complaints, but someone on his staff is taking notes about our fears and concerns. Time will tell whether or not they'll address them, but at least they're hearing you.
So here is Karp's Q&A with himself. I did my best to quote directly and paraphrased when I knew I couldn't.
Why is this taking so long?
"One thing we've learned after doing this for 35 years is that you don't present a plan that doesn't work," he said. He understands that people are anxious to see what New England development is going to do. "I assure you. There is no secret plan. We needed to understand the character of the community.
Are we trying to create another Nantucket? (Believe it or not this was the first time he uttered the word Nantucket in his 25 minute presentation.)
"This isn't Nantucket and I think we appreciate that. I think because of the fact we developed a lot of Nantucket we get complaints about things we built in 1785 (drew some laughs), and they may not like the fact that we may have painted some door red. But the HDC (Historic District Commission) told us we could paint it red or red. Those things happen. This is a different place, a different market. Nantucket is a seasonal resort and during the 1990s things got a little bit out of control. Values went a little crazy. We built a golf course that attracts peopel from all over the U.S. It has an airport which is the second busiest airport in New England during the summer. Lots of private jets. There are lots of private jets that come in and it's become a very affluent community. We didn't create that. We're in the middle of that."
"We're not trying to make this another Nantucket, nor would we be foolish enough to force another Nantucket on you. We may take some of the best of Nantucket. Then it's your decision to tell us whether you like them or not. And we'll try to work on that together."
What about Parking?
"You have to address that, not us. We can work with you. It's something that we've talked about for a long time ...I think we’ll all benefit" from a parking plan. As for a parking garage, he acknowledge there are questions about locatoin and who would pay for a structure. Perhaps New England Development and the city could share costs. "We're open to all those things. We’ve done them before. We’d like to do them here and we're hopeful we can work in a way that is beneficial to all of us and that would be beneficial to the entire downtown.
Will New Retail Be Dominated By National Chains?
"The character of downtown is not something that works for national chains. I'm not saying they can't be here...but we're not trying to flood the downtown with them. We would lose the value of the downtown and we'd lose the value of our own properties. We can't compete with regional shopping centers in Newburyport. But we think economic growth helps the merchants that are here, and the more people we can bring" the better for all downtown businesses.
"Look at the sales of the stores and restaurants in the summer months. And look at them in January. They're not great. They have to average out. It's a very hard business to run." You have to add and remove staff depending upon the season. "If we could even that out and encourage people to come to the downtown it would benefit the rest of the merchants."
Will the Marina cater to only Luxury Yachts?
"This is like the Nantucket question ... without [local boats] you're going to lose the character that has been created here over such a long time. It'd be a shame to turn our back on that."
Will the city be involved in the development process?
"I can’t tell you this any more sincerely. This is you're process not ours. The city and its officials have an opportunity to be involved." That includes planning board, conservation commission, Mass Highway and other permitting boards.
What about Traffic?
"You have to help yourself to solve the problem. We can't do it by ourselves. People in other communities if they can't get into this downtown and they can't park in the downtown they won't come. Nantucket choked itself a bit in the summer with not enough parking and not enough access."
How about public access to the Waterfront?
"There will be public access and public benefit." He said details would be worked out with the state, but there could be "walk way construction across the waterfront when that's in our control." He said view corridors would be part of the final plan, providing views of the river from Merrimack Street.
What about Pedestrian Access?
"We value Newburyport. We’re probably developing 20 different areas from Washington DC to Bangor Maine and we've developed in downtowns. We developed a block in Sante Fe with lots of similarities" with concern about historical preservation.
"But we value Newburyport. We’ve made a decision to put our effort, our money our time here because we think is a very special place and we think we can add to the vitality and still keep the historic character.
"We can’t do it by ourselves. We have to do it together. I like that there are so many people here. I hope you contine to come. I hope you contine to participate, I think if you do participate you will be very happy with what’s done for a long time to come."
I'm not sure if my scribblings do the segment justice, but I think they suggest that Karp isn't some far-off nobleman who will storm into town one day with armies of lawyers and builders to implement his plan.
The guy gives every appearance of wanting to be part of what Newburyport is, and what it could become. He concedes he can't please everyone, but last night he asked folks to speak loud and clear about what we want to see happen down along the water.
People in this town certainly have no problem speaking their mind. But now we can do so with an idea that Karp is actually listening.
Perhaps this will work out afterall.
.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Thank You
Lost in all this discussion is an official thank you to Steve Karp for coming up and city officials--including Mayor Moak--for orchestrating the visit.
Here's the Daily News' pregame piece.
It's a nice start. Let's keep it positive.
Here's the Daily News' pregame piece.
It's a nice start. Let's keep it positive.
An Official Opinion
Well, apparently the ruckus raised over the private meeting between the City Council and Karp is over. The grip-and-grin will now be public, as it should have been from the start.
But I want to get front-and-center the fact the the District Attorney's office disagrees with my interpretation of the law.
This seems a bit sketchy to me, but they'd be the one prosecuting.
I maintain that sort of loophole could be exploited by less than trustworthy officials.
And I'll state emphatically--again--that I don't think that was the case here. I think he intentions of the Mayor and Council are honest and honorable.
But if you're telling the entire council to gather someplace so they can meet a very important person in town. That should be posted.
But the folks with the law degree and the power disagree. So there.
But I want to get front-and-center the fact the the District Attorney's office disagrees with my interpretation of the law.
Tom Donovan, special counsel to the District Attorney's office, said Open Meeting Law regulates any meeting in which there is a quorum, or a majority of a given board. But not all quorums are in violation of the Open Meeting Law, he said. To be in violation, the board must also discuss business.
"You need a quorum plus deliberation" to be in violation, Donovan said.
When asked if shaking hands, introducing one party to another and making small talk is deliberation or business, Donovan said: "I don't think that would be considered business."
This seems a bit sketchy to me, but they'd be the one prosecuting.
I maintain that sort of loophole could be exploited by less than trustworthy officials.
And I'll state emphatically--again--that I don't think that was the case here. I think he intentions of the Mayor and Council are honest and honorable.
But if you're telling the entire council to gather someplace so they can meet a very important person in town. That should be posted.
But the folks with the law degree and the power disagree. So there.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Plug Pulled?
A commenter suggested Mayor Moak pulled the plug on the private meeting idea. If this is the case I'd like to thank him. I think it's a wise move and for the best.
Obviously, I can't verify the accuracy of the statement. I suppose we'll see tomorrow.
Obviously, I can't verify the accuracy of the statement. I suppose we'll see tomorrow.
Moak Joins Casino Effort
Weird coincidence. I don't normally read Steve Bailey's columns. I mean I should. He's great, but I just don't.
But I did this morning because I hate the idea of bringing casinos to Massachusetts. So does Bailey and he raises some serious questions here. (I am, btw, a fan of casinos.)
I had thoughts of posting something on the blog, but didn't really see a Newburyport connection. Until I got a friend from an email with the following taken from a Boston Globe article:
A month ago, Mayor Moak told the Globe he was holding off on his support until he is sure that "all communities get a fair share" of any revenues generated.
I guess he got those assurances.
Me, I'm still not convinced the potential revenue doesn't come at a much higher cost. I realize times are tough and we can't rely on local property taxes. But the unintended costs of casinos just worry me.
But I did this morning because I hate the idea of bringing casinos to Massachusetts. So does Bailey and he raises some serious questions here. (I am, btw, a fan of casinos.)
I had thoughts of posting something on the blog, but didn't really see a Newburyport connection. Until I got a friend from an email with the following taken from a Boston Globe article:
Meanwhile, the Massachusetts Coalition for Jobs and Growth announced this morning that three new mayors and a prominent union have joined their campaign to support the governor's casino proposal.
The new members include Mayor James Harrington of Brockton, Mayor Mark P. Hawke of Gardner, Mayor John F. Moak of Newburyport, and the Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts, a union representing over 12,000 union fire fighters across the Commonwealth.
“For too long, Massachusetts has been losing revenue to other states; now it’s time to harness that growth for the Commonwealth,” said Harrington of Brockton. “We need more jobs with good wages and benefits — not to mention increased funding for local aid.”
A month ago, Mayor Moak told the Globe he was holding off on his support until he is sure that "all communities get a fair share" of any revenues generated.
I guess he got those assurances.
Me, I'm still not convinced the potential revenue doesn't come at a much higher cost. I realize times are tough and we can't rely on local property taxes. But the unintended costs of casinos just worry me.
What's My Beef?
I had just started to write this post when Scissors offered a very insightful comment.
Good question. First off, I concede the spirit of the open meeting law is bent now and again in the name of expedience, convenience and well, laziness. Public officials are human. It happens. I know. It doesn't make them dishonest or bad public officials.
But here's my beef. Access.
I, as a taxpayer and voter, had every right to attend that fundraiser you mention. I just needed to excercise my free speech by forking over the entrance fee (or sneak in through a back doors.) Once inside I had access to anyone there. The only thing keeping me out of the gathering would be my own reluctance to kick in cash. The only barrier to my participating in those conversations would be my sense of propriety or manners.
But in the case of tomorrow night's meeting my right to participate will forcibly taken away from me by the closing of an office door. I have no recourse. No way to access this meeting of a public body.
That shouldn't happen.
There has been a lot of amateur interpretation of the open meeting law. Back in the day at the Daily News, I would have placed a call to Bob Bender at the District Attorney's office. I probably still could although I'm not sure Bob Bender is there any more. I'm sure there is an equivalent.
But let me add my own "I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV" opinion to the law, which you can read here.
Here's the so-called exception:
Well, this isn't a chance meeting. But the fund-raising Scissors mentions certainly could fit that description.
In this case, the mayor is inviting the City Council and only the City Council to this meeting. So we have to look at the "social meeting at which matters relating to official business are discussed so long as no final agreement is reached."
Quite simply, this isn't a social meeting. It's a business call. Suggesting that they'll only talk about baseball and grandchildren doesn't turn a planned meeting between the city's largest landowner and the city's political powers into a back yard BBQ or a chamber of commerce cocktail reception. As a member of the public I feel the public has the right to hear their conversations.
There are simple solutions. I don't see a legitimate reason why the council couldn't meet-and-greet in the same room as the regular folks. At least I, as voter and taxpayer, would have the option of arriving early and listening in or not.
Or, at the very least, why can't the door to the private office be left open for any interested member of the public to participate.
I'll stress this point again. I don't think anyone is being dishonest here. I truly believe the Mayor simply wants to put the influential parties together. And I understand why the councilors want to get to know these folks. I get it. (I don't, however, feel doing otherwise would be "impolite.")
I just don't think we can take intentions into account when it comes to enforcing open meeting laws and ensuring open government.
.
I've been to a number of paid political fundraisers where the mayor and a majority of the council members were in attendance (including McCavitt) and have overhead political discussions as well as general chit-chat. Why is no one outraged by that practice rather than an informal meet and greet where no money is exchanged ?
Good question. First off, I concede the spirit of the open meeting law is bent now and again in the name of expedience, convenience and well, laziness. Public officials are human. It happens. I know. It doesn't make them dishonest or bad public officials.
But here's my beef. Access.
I, as a taxpayer and voter, had every right to attend that fundraiser you mention. I just needed to excercise my free speech by forking over the entrance fee (or sneak in through a back doors.) Once inside I had access to anyone there. The only thing keeping me out of the gathering would be my own reluctance to kick in cash. The only barrier to my participating in those conversations would be my sense of propriety or manners.
But in the case of tomorrow night's meeting my right to participate will forcibly taken away from me by the closing of an office door. I have no recourse. No way to access this meeting of a public body.
That shouldn't happen.
There has been a lot of amateur interpretation of the open meeting law. Back in the day at the Daily News, I would have placed a call to Bob Bender at the District Attorney's office. I probably still could although I'm not sure Bob Bender is there any more. I'm sure there is an equivalent.
But let me add my own "I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV" opinion to the law, which you can read here.
Here's the so-called exception:
This section shall not apply to any chance meeting, or a social meeting at which matters relating to official business are discussed so long as no final agreement is reached. No chance meeting or social meeting shall be used in circumvention of the spirit or requirements of this section to discuss or act upon a matter over which the governmental body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.
Well, this isn't a chance meeting. But the fund-raising Scissors mentions certainly could fit that description.
In this case, the mayor is inviting the City Council and only the City Council to this meeting. So we have to look at the "social meeting at which matters relating to official business are discussed so long as no final agreement is reached."
Quite simply, this isn't a social meeting. It's a business call. Suggesting that they'll only talk about baseball and grandchildren doesn't turn a planned meeting between the city's largest landowner and the city's political powers into a back yard BBQ or a chamber of commerce cocktail reception. As a member of the public I feel the public has the right to hear their conversations.
There are simple solutions. I don't see a legitimate reason why the council couldn't meet-and-greet in the same room as the regular folks. At least I, as voter and taxpayer, would have the option of arriving early and listening in or not.
Or, at the very least, why can't the door to the private office be left open for any interested member of the public to participate.
I'll stress this point again. I don't think anyone is being dishonest here. I truly believe the Mayor simply wants to put the influential parties together. And I understand why the councilors want to get to know these folks. I get it. (I don't, however, feel doing otherwise would be "impolite.")
I just don't think we can take intentions into account when it comes to enforcing open meeting laws and ensuring open government.
.
This Isn't Helping
Yikes, we might be entering molehill into mountain territory. But hey, I'm not the one who made the molehill. Perhaps I'm helping with the mountain a little bit, but so be it.
But today's follow up to the private meeting between Developer Steve Karp and the City Council didn't exactly help clear the air. First, the Daily News got in touch with Ward 4 Councilor Ed Cameron (Friend and neighbor) and he told them he's not coming to the private meet-and-greet as well. I disagree with Ed's assertion that the meeting doesn't violate the open meeting law, but I agree with his overall point to Stephen Tait.
He's right.
What's going to go further erode that confidence is John Moak's condemnation of Larry McCavitt as a "bully." I don't know Larry McCavitt. I met him only once about 10 years ago. But as an observer of the scene I don't see a vigilant--or even over vigilant--councilor as a bully. I see him or her as doing their job. Frankly, I'm not that worried about Steve Karp getting bullied. He can handle himself.
Looking beyond the name calling, the mayor's comments demonstrate that he and I have a different interpretation on the role of government in this matter.
In John Moak's defense, what's particularly sticking in my craw is the paraphrasing of his belief that McCavitt "uses government and laws to press people into compliance." But the direct quotes from the mayor seem wholly consistent with paraphrased point.
Well, I certainly hope McCavitt uses government and laws to press people into compliance." That's the entire point of government isn't it?
I'm all for people making a living as long as our government officials ensure that the will of the people--as represented in the bylaws and zoning written and approved by our representatives--is enforced. No doubt, John Moak feels the same way. I suspect he'd like to retract or rephrase those comments.
Perhaps Larry McCavitt does have a particular issue with Steve Karp. It's more likely he's got heightened concern about anyone looking to build along the water. I don't know but I don't really care. As long as he's working with the laws I don't really have too much of an issue.
The irony of course is the private meeting was supposed to work toward ironing out potential personal conflicts. But the effort connect names with faces has done nothing to improve that relationship.
And it has also created a controversy and a fight when one wasn't really necessary.
Still, I'm looking forward to a productive meeting tomorrow night. Let's keep things positive. I don't really blame Karp for any of this unless he's insisting on this private meeting.
But today's follow up to the private meeting between Developer Steve Karp and the City Council didn't exactly help clear the air. First, the Daily News got in touch with Ward 4 Councilor Ed Cameron (Friend and neighbor) and he told them he's not coming to the private meet-and-greet as well. I disagree with Ed's assertion that the meeting doesn't violate the open meeting law, but I agree with his overall point to Stephen Tait.
Ward 4 Councilor Ed Cameron said he also will not attend the session, arguing a private meeting does not send the right message to the public.
He also said he doesn't see the point in meeting with Karp and New England Development if the councilors cannot ask the development team questions about its intentions.
"I just don't think it is a good use of time for council," he said. "I don't see the need for a social gathering. I'm not looking to make friends. I'm looking to do the city's business. This sort of private reception is not going to give people confidence about the process."
He's right.
What's going to go further erode that confidence is John Moak's condemnation of Larry McCavitt as a "bully." I don't know Larry McCavitt. I met him only once about 10 years ago. But as an observer of the scene I don't see a vigilant--or even over vigilant--councilor as a bully. I see him or her as doing their job. Frankly, I'm not that worried about Steve Karp getting bullied. He can handle himself.
Looking beyond the name calling, the mayor's comments demonstrate that he and I have a different interpretation on the role of government in this matter.
Moak said McCavitt's opposition is little more than a bullying tactic to get his way.
"He is a bully," Moak said. "He tries to use his interpretation of the law to bully people into things he wants them to do."
The mayor said McCavitt uses his tactics "constantly" in situations ranging from economic development to planning issues. But Moak said "when it comes to (Karp and waterfront-related) issues, it is so obvious."
Moak said McCavitt uses government and laws to press people into compliance.
"I don't care what it is: Larry McCavitt likes to try to bully people into being fearful," he said. "The world isn't all about government. The world is about making a living and having government as part of it. Government is not the only thing that drives our existence."
In John Moak's defense, what's particularly sticking in my craw is the paraphrasing of his belief that McCavitt "uses government and laws to press people into compliance." But the direct quotes from the mayor seem wholly consistent with paraphrased point.
Well, I certainly hope McCavitt uses government and laws to press people into compliance." That's the entire point of government isn't it?
I'm all for people making a living as long as our government officials ensure that the will of the people--as represented in the bylaws and zoning written and approved by our representatives--is enforced. No doubt, John Moak feels the same way. I suspect he'd like to retract or rephrase those comments.
Perhaps Larry McCavitt does have a particular issue with Steve Karp. It's more likely he's got heightened concern about anyone looking to build along the water. I don't know but I don't really care. As long as he's working with the laws I don't really have too much of an issue.
The irony of course is the private meeting was supposed to work toward ironing out potential personal conflicts. But the effort connect names with faces has done nothing to improve that relationship.
And it has also created a controversy and a fight when one wasn't really necessary.
Still, I'm looking forward to a productive meeting tomorrow night. Let's keep things positive. I don't really blame Karp for any of this unless he's insisting on this private meeting.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Not a good idea
I'm dealing with a mess of the morning that involved a ride to Logan and back. Plus a deadline, but I did want to issue one quick comment.
What the heck?
I'm referring of course to the private meeting between the City Council and Steve Karp prior to the public gathering. Read about it here. (BTW, why does the headline in the paper say "meet privately" and the web article says "in secret?" It's not a secret. It's in the paper, after all.)
The meeting has been arranged by the Mayor, according to the article.
First off, I'd say this absolutely constitutes a violation of the open meeting law. This isn't a social gathering. Karp isn't coming to town to make friends. He's here to talk business. Even if the dialogue at this point is an informal, it's still a business call.
So just post the damn meeting. What's the big deal? Oh right, then the public would be allowed in.
And that's the point! I'm sure the councilors will abide by the bizarre suggestion that they "adhere strictly to the rules that this is a social gathering to personally meet members of New England Development without deliberation and specific questions regarding business." But I'm a fairly reasonable person when baseball isn't involved. Others might not be so kind. Why raise questions?
Also, if they can't talk business what will they discuss? The weather? Whether Josh Beckett really hurt his back or is he just ducking out of a trip to Japan? The traffic on Route 1 in Saugus at 5:30 p.m.? But what is the point of meeting Karp and the team if they can't talk about the waterfront, even indirectly
I'm not suggesting there's anything dishonest going on. I'm sure those councilors attending, and not all are, have the best intentions. I'm not worried about a secret deal getting done or anything of the sort. But is this kind of meeting really necessary? As a voter, I don't need our councilors to privately meet Steve Karp. Quite the contrary, I'd rather they keep an arm's length so any proposal can be viewed in a dispassionate way. Or, if there is a bias, make sure it's tilted toward the voters.
Plus, I suspect city councilors would have been rushed to the front of the receiving line once the actual meet and greet starts. And I would have been fine with that. Shove the planning board up there too. I get it.
But I dispute the notion that strict adherence to the open meeting law would confine a councilor to their home in fear of bumping into five or six others in a social setting. It's one thing to bump into each other at a chamber breakfast, where members of the public, if they're chamber members, are free to come and go. It's quite another to intentionally collect in a small room with the most powerful man in town. No matter how short a visit.
One councilor suggests as a major land owner Karp is a constituent and the council should be allowed to meet with constituents. Karp isn't a constituent by my definition or any one else's.
In short, Karp and his team don't vote in this town.
I'm still going into the meeting with good feelings and high hopes. But this one is a bit of a head scratcher. It might be wise to post it or pull the plug.
What the heck?
I'm referring of course to the private meeting between the City Council and Steve Karp prior to the public gathering. Read about it here. (BTW, why does the headline in the paper say "meet privately" and the web article says "in secret?" It's not a secret. It's in the paper, after all.)
The meeting has been arranged by the Mayor, according to the article.
First off, I'd say this absolutely constitutes a violation of the open meeting law. This isn't a social gathering. Karp isn't coming to town to make friends. He's here to talk business. Even if the dialogue at this point is an informal, it's still a business call.
So just post the damn meeting. What's the big deal? Oh right, then the public would be allowed in.
And that's the point! I'm sure the councilors will abide by the bizarre suggestion that they "adhere strictly to the rules that this is a social gathering to personally meet members of New England Development without deliberation and specific questions regarding business." But I'm a fairly reasonable person when baseball isn't involved. Others might not be so kind. Why raise questions?
Also, if they can't talk business what will they discuss? The weather? Whether Josh Beckett really hurt his back or is he just ducking out of a trip to Japan? The traffic on Route 1 in Saugus at 5:30 p.m.? But what is the point of meeting Karp and the team if they can't talk about the waterfront, even indirectly
I'm not suggesting there's anything dishonest going on. I'm sure those councilors attending, and not all are, have the best intentions. I'm not worried about a secret deal getting done or anything of the sort. But is this kind of meeting really necessary? As a voter, I don't need our councilors to privately meet Steve Karp. Quite the contrary, I'd rather they keep an arm's length so any proposal can be viewed in a dispassionate way. Or, if there is a bias, make sure it's tilted toward the voters.
Plus, I suspect city councilors would have been rushed to the front of the receiving line once the actual meet and greet starts. And I would have been fine with that. Shove the planning board up there too. I get it.
But I dispute the notion that strict adherence to the open meeting law would confine a councilor to their home in fear of bumping into five or six others in a social setting. It's one thing to bump into each other at a chamber breakfast, where members of the public, if they're chamber members, are free to come and go. It's quite another to intentionally collect in a small room with the most powerful man in town. No matter how short a visit.
One councilor suggests as a major land owner Karp is a constituent and the council should be allowed to meet with constituents. Karp isn't a constituent by my definition or any one else's.
Citizen residing within the district of a legislator.
A resident of a legislator's district.
One that authorizes another to act as a representative on his/her behalf.
A constituent is someone who can or does appoint or elect (and often by implication can also remove or recall) another as their agent or representative.
In short, Karp and his team don't vote in this town.
I'm still going into the meeting with good feelings and high hopes. But this one is a bit of a head scratcher. It might be wise to post it or pull the plug.
Hmmm
There are some weird camera-like devices on the traffic lights at the intersection of Low Street and Storey Ave. Any idea what they are? And are they new? Have I missed them this entire time?
Update: A FONP sent us the answer. I guess I've been keeping my eyes on the road.
Update: A FONP sent us the answer. I guess I've been keeping my eyes on the road.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Philbricks
Visited Philbricks the "Whole Foods" style shop up in Portsmouth yesterday. Nice place and it got me wishing that we had a more comprehensive natural food store in Port.
Tendercrop and the Natural Grocer are great, but wouldn't it be fantastic if they and other locals could partner up to offer a larger store downtown.
Maybe Karp would kick in the capital to make it happen.
.
Tendercrop and the Natural Grocer are great, but wouldn't it be fantastic if they and other locals could partner up to offer a larger store downtown.
Maybe Karp would kick in the capital to make it happen.
.
Buy Local, Part II
I neglected to post the second part of the Current's Buy Local series, so here it is.
A solid effort offering multiple perspectives. The majority of the business owners interviewed appreciated the effort but didn't necessarily support the bylaw banning(I initally typed buylaw. Seems more fitting) chain stores from downtown for many of the reasons previously stated: a few Gaps here and there might draw more business to downtown.
But I was struck by one seemingly innocous comment by one shop owner.
“We enjoy the tourist trade, but we count on local customers to keep us in business.”
Really? That's actually quite startling because the majority of people I talk to about downtown don't shop in our local stores. They may hit local restaurants, but not local stores.
And I always got the sense the local stores were okay with that. The Chamber of Commerce seems focused more on finding ways to bring new people and new money to town. There's wisdom in that for sure, but as we've discussed, the notion of buying locally owned and locally made products is increasingly popular.
The chamber should be seeking to capitalize on that.
So one has to give a lot of credit to the Buy Local group. They not only got this discussion going, but if I'm not mistaken they're the ones who got a "Buy Local" sticker in every shop downtown. I know they're only stickers, but the message is a strong one.
Perhaps the chamber ought to reach out to the group to help broadcast it.
.
A solid effort offering multiple perspectives. The majority of the business owners interviewed appreciated the effort but didn't necessarily support the bylaw banning(I initally typed buylaw. Seems more fitting) chain stores from downtown for many of the reasons previously stated: a few Gaps here and there might draw more business to downtown.
But I was struck by one seemingly innocous comment by one shop owner.
“We enjoy the tourist trade, but we count on local customers to keep us in business.”
Really? That's actually quite startling because the majority of people I talk to about downtown don't shop in our local stores. They may hit local restaurants, but not local stores.
And I always got the sense the local stores were okay with that. The Chamber of Commerce seems focused more on finding ways to bring new people and new money to town. There's wisdom in that for sure, but as we've discussed, the notion of buying locally owned and locally made products is increasingly popular.
The chamber should be seeking to capitalize on that.
So one has to give a lot of credit to the Buy Local group. They not only got this discussion going, but if I'm not mistaken they're the ones who got a "Buy Local" sticker in every shop downtown. I know they're only stickers, but the message is a strong one.
Perhaps the chamber ought to reach out to the group to help broadcast it.
.
Mayors and Blogs
Interesting article in the Globe this morning about mayors who blog. When executed well it sounds like a great idea, although most of them sound like places to post boring press releases.
I'd like to see this in Newburyport. But not just the mayor. Why not have regular communications from public safety, schools, even teachers and students. Granted there are some risks, but there's no better way of getting a message out.
One line in particular struck me although it had nothing to do with Newburyport.
Hard to believe everyone doesn't have a computer in his or her office these days.
I'd like to see this in Newburyport. But not just the mayor. Why not have regular communications from public safety, schools, even teachers and students. Granted there are some risks, but there's no better way of getting a message out.
One line in particular struck me although it had nothing to do with Newburyport.
Mayor Thomas M. Menino, who doesn't have a computer in his office, does not have a blog.
Hard to believe everyone doesn't have a computer in his or her office these days.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Tables Are Nice, But...
The notion of setting up tables outside our downtown retaurants is a nice one. Yes, I think it will provide a nice, open feel to the downtown. I'm a little worried about space, but we'll make due.
However, is this really an idea that will sell Newburyport?
I'm not too sure. But here's one that would, in my biased opinion. Plus, this brilliant concept would go hand-in-hand with the open table format.
Cover the downtown in a wireless Internet signal. (Full disclosure, my brother suggested this to me a while ago.)
I mean how cool would that be? We could market the downtown as being open to the Internet and all its charms. Folks could sit on sidewalk tables while doing work, keeping in touch with friends, doing research on the delightful item they just saw in one of our stores.
Yes, some folks will linger. But I think its short-sighted to worry about that. The positive marketing will far outweigh any negatives.
.
However, is this really an idea that will sell Newburyport?
I'm not too sure. But here's one that would, in my biased opinion. Plus, this brilliant concept would go hand-in-hand with the open table format.
Cover the downtown in a wireless Internet signal. (Full disclosure, my brother suggested this to me a while ago.)
I mean how cool would that be? We could market the downtown as being open to the Internet and all its charms. Folks could sit on sidewalk tables while doing work, keeping in touch with friends, doing research on the delightful item they just saw in one of our stores.
Yes, some folks will linger. But I think its short-sighted to worry about that. The positive marketing will far outweigh any negatives.
.
Taxes and Fees
Back to the Revenue Task Force report.
The report does a nice job of answering a relatively simple question: What are the sources of city tax dollars, and how do they compare to so-called comparable towns (Ashland, Bedford, Holliston, Ipswich, Lynnfield, Melrose, Newburyport, North Reading, Swampscott and Wakefield.)
These are all FY06 figures.
According to the report, on average, property taxes account for 75% of General Fund revenues for those comparable communities. Newburyport tax payers shoulder a higher burden with 80%.
On a per capital basis, Newburyport taxes are higher than average, roughly $2,060 vs. $2,024. I can’t figure out how to publish a chart here so go to page 23 on the report. The $36 difference means we pay approximately $627,000 more in taxes than folks in the comparable communities.
However, before you go screaming, aha!
Newburyport collected $24 fewer dollars per capita in licenses, permits & fees AND $27 less per capita on charges for services. This amounted to $960,000 fewer dollars into the city’s coffers in 2006. (One caveat, I don't know how user fees at schools play into this.)
So are we overtaxed for our properties or undercharged for our services? I've maintained that it's the latter, particularly when it comes to parking, and the data seems to back that up.
It will be interesting to see if the mayor and city council have the desire and political will to address any fee inequities. After all, the city could use the $300,000 that's apparently going uncollected.
Raising fees isn't a decision made by a ballot box so this can't be passed onto voters, at least not directly. The final word comes from banging of a gavel or the signing of some document at the corner office of City Hall.
Those same voters, however, might have a thing or two to say the next election cycle.
To be fair, I'm sure some will point out that the current breakdown is fair. Fees are considered a regressive tax as higher and lower income folks pay the same amount. It can be argued that the folks with a nicer home can afford to pay more for an equal share of city services.
But if we lean too heavily on property taxes people who are house rich but cash poor may get squeezed from their homes. Plus, is that fair?
More coming from the report.
.
The report does a nice job of answering a relatively simple question: What are the sources of city tax dollars, and how do they compare to so-called comparable towns (Ashland, Bedford, Holliston, Ipswich, Lynnfield, Melrose, Newburyport, North Reading, Swampscott and Wakefield.)
These are all FY06 figures.
According to the report, on average, property taxes account for 75% of General Fund revenues for those comparable communities. Newburyport tax payers shoulder a higher burden with 80%.
On a per capital basis, Newburyport taxes are higher than average, roughly $2,060 vs. $2,024. I can’t figure out how to publish a chart here so go to page 23 on the report. The $36 difference means we pay approximately $627,000 more in taxes than folks in the comparable communities.
However, before you go screaming, aha!
Newburyport collected $24 fewer dollars per capita in licenses, permits & fees AND $27 less per capita on charges for services. This amounted to $960,000 fewer dollars into the city’s coffers in 2006. (One caveat, I don't know how user fees at schools play into this.)
So are we overtaxed for our properties or undercharged for our services? I've maintained that it's the latter, particularly when it comes to parking, and the data seems to back that up.
It will be interesting to see if the mayor and city council have the desire and political will to address any fee inequities. After all, the city could use the $300,000 that's apparently going uncollected.
Raising fees isn't a decision made by a ballot box so this can't be passed onto voters, at least not directly. The final word comes from banging of a gavel or the signing of some document at the corner office of City Hall.
Those same voters, however, might have a thing or two to say the next election cycle.
To be fair, I'm sure some will point out that the current breakdown is fair. Fees are considered a regressive tax as higher and lower income folks pay the same amount. It can be argued that the folks with a nicer home can afford to pay more for an equal share of city services.
But if we lean too heavily on property taxes people who are house rich but cash poor may get squeezed from their homes. Plus, is that fair?
More coming from the report.
.
Nice Props
The figures on housing won't sit well with everyone, but Newburyport,SEED and Buy Local folks got a nice and well-deserved mention in a Boston Magazine piece. I also like the mention for local farms.
It's worth noting that Karp has his fingers on two of the towns mention in the article, "The Best Places to Live 2008," with the other being Plymouth, not Nantucket.
I'm glad Haverhill got a plug as well for its efforts to restore the downtown. The article drew comparisons to Newburyport. We'll see. We, of course, enjoy the benefits of aggressive federal-funded programs of the 1970s, the likes of which we'll probably never see again.
.
It's worth noting that Karp has his fingers on two of the towns mention in the article, "The Best Places to Live 2008," with the other being Plymouth, not Nantucket.
I'm glad Haverhill got a plug as well for its efforts to restore the downtown. The article drew comparisons to Newburyport. We'll see. We, of course, enjoy the benefits of aggressive federal-funded programs of the 1970s, the likes of which we'll probably never see again.
.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Details Set
According to the Daily News' Around the Town item (more on this later), the details for the Karp meeting at the middle school have been announced.
Meet and greet starting at 6:45 p.m. (I have envisions of this turning into the receiving line from hell.)
The the presentation @ 7:15 p.m. and then....
Questions and answers. This should be fun.
I wish the school had wireless. I could blog live.
Meet and greet starting at 6:45 p.m. (I have envisions of this turning into the receiving line from hell.)
The the presentation @ 7:15 p.m. and then....
Questions and answers. This should be fun.
I wish the school had wireless. I could blog live.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
An Extra Set of Eyes
I still can't find the link to yesterday's lead story in the Daily News, "Councilor Set to Fight Marina Plan."
The councilor is Larry McCavitt, and the marina belongs to the Waterside group aka Steve Karp and the Lagasses. We wrote about McCavitt's opposition to expansion of the marina behind the Black Cow a month or so ago.
No time to revisit the details of the case. But in yesterday's News Stephen Tait writes that McCavitt is positioning himself to be an enormous thorn in the side of the Waterside Group. His main contention--at least at the moment--is that by adding to the marina the developers are trying to develop the Waterside parcels piecemeal. He'd prefer they present an comprehensive vision for the waterfront.
Hmm. I'm really of two minds here. On one hand, I'm told that under our zoning Karp & Co. really have no legal responsibility to present a big picture here. They could develop piece-by-piece if they so choose. But I have the feeling they're not going to go that route. Just a gut feeling. But Karp seems to prefer doing large, interwoven projects in other towns.
But I'm really glad McCavitt is on top of this. Perhaps he is fear monger as some in the article suggested, but he wouldn't be selling if folks weren't buying. People are worried. Mayor Moak says the planning department can handle it. I suppose it can, but I'm glad to see another pair of eyes on this project.
As an aside, Chuck Lagasse didn't exactly bolster the case with his statement about the state encouraging waterfront development of marinas.
I suppose get his point, but I'm not really interested in ponying up a seasonal fee to park my beach chair on the dock. I just want to be able to walk along the river unimpeded by gates and fences.
.
The councilor is Larry McCavitt, and the marina belongs to the Waterside group aka Steve Karp and the Lagasses. We wrote about McCavitt's opposition to expansion of the marina behind the Black Cow a month or so ago.
No time to revisit the details of the case. But in yesterday's News Stephen Tait writes that McCavitt is positioning himself to be an enormous thorn in the side of the Waterside Group. His main contention--at least at the moment--is that by adding to the marina the developers are trying to develop the Waterside parcels piecemeal. He'd prefer they present an comprehensive vision for the waterfront.
"I believe their unstated goal is to wrap up the edges before they get to the back of it," McCavitt said, referring to Waterside West. "By then it's too late.
"If we don't get a comprehensive look at the development we'll get nickeled and dimed," he said.
Hmm. I'm really of two minds here. On one hand, I'm told that under our zoning Karp & Co. really have no legal responsibility to present a big picture here. They could develop piece-by-piece if they so choose. But I have the feeling they're not going to go that route. Just a gut feeling. But Karp seems to prefer doing large, interwoven projects in other towns.
But I'm really glad McCavitt is on top of this. Perhaps he is fear monger as some in the article suggested, but he wouldn't be selling if folks weren't buying. People are worried. Mayor Moak says the planning department can handle it. I suppose it can, but I'm glad to see another pair of eyes on this project.
As an aside, Chuck Lagasse didn't exactly bolster the case with his statement about the state encouraging waterfront development of marinas.
"Who could envision a more public situation?" Lagasse said. "These aren't owned slips. They can be rented by the month, by the season by anyone in the public."
I suppose get his point, but I'm not really interested in ponying up a seasonal fee to park my beach chair on the dock. I just want to be able to walk along the river unimpeded by gates and fences.
.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Labels
Blog housekeeping note. I added labels along the bottom right hand column. As the number of item grows I'm having a difficult time providing direct links to all relevant items. So feel free to scan the list for relevant entries.
.
.
Nice Start
Incidentally, I thought this was a worthwhile excercise by the council. I'm sure it gets them better focused but it also gives me an idea where the interest of each councilor lies.
.
.
Shanley to the NRA?
Well, we're all in a tizzy over here.
I mean, the News today suggests that James Shanley, city council president and author of the Shanley Plan, is under consideration for the soon-to-be open seat on the Newburyport Redevelopment Plan. (I would link to the Daily News article but I can't find it on the g--d-mned web site.)
In the article today, Shanley notes that he wouldn't look to rock the boat too much. But he'll certainly bring a fresh and critical perspective to apparent chosen plan, which still isn't a plan but rather a concept or a conceptual plan or something.
The wide open waterfront folks probably winced a bit at the news as they want nothing to disrupt their vision for a sea of green along the Merrimack, particularly as its coming more clearly into focus.
I doubt Shanley will be carrying a monkey wrench with him to NRA meetings if and when he's appointed. But I'm willing to bet he'll have some reasonable questions.
Now, a blast from the past, the Shanley Plan as it ran in this post way back. BTW, that term is ours and ours alone. I haven't heard our City Council Plan slip into third-person self-references. I doubt he'll start now.
Plus, his plan isn't even a plan. It's a concept or an idea. See, he'll fit in nicely on the NRA.
For more on this discussion, click on the James Shanley label along the lower left.
I mean, the News today suggests that James Shanley, city council president and author of the Shanley Plan, is under consideration for the soon-to-be open seat on the Newburyport Redevelopment Plan. (I would link to the Daily News article but I can't find it on the g--d-mned web site.)
In the article today, Shanley notes that he wouldn't look to rock the boat too much. But he'll certainly bring a fresh and critical perspective to apparent chosen plan, which still isn't a plan but rather a concept or a conceptual plan or something.
The wide open waterfront folks probably winced a bit at the news as they want nothing to disrupt their vision for a sea of green along the Merrimack, particularly as its coming more clearly into focus.
I doubt Shanley will be carrying a monkey wrench with him to NRA meetings if and when he's appointed. But I'm willing to bet he'll have some reasonable questions.
Now, a blast from the past, the Shanley Plan as it ran in this post way back. BTW, that term is ours and ours alone. I haven't heard our City Council Plan slip into third-person self-references. I doubt he'll start now.
Plus, his plan isn't even a plan. It's a concept or an idea. See, he'll fit in nicely on the NRA.
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.
For more on this discussion, click on the James Shanley label along the lower left.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Revenue Task Force Report-Teacher Salaries
I'm not a teacher basher.
I've got great respect for the profession. I may occasionally covet their summer vacations, but I recognize the work can be difficult if it's done right. I don't resent them their salaries, particularly because of the level of education that we require these folks to have (and the school loans that go with those educations.) If we want to get bright minds to teach our kids, we must pay reasonably well or lose them to better-paying professions.
Despite this still deep respect, I was struck by one item on page 20 of the Revenue Task Force Report. The chart--a fairly typical line graph you'll find done in an Excel document--compared Newburyport's average teacher salary with the group of comparable communities used throughout the report. (Ashland, Bedford, Holliston, Ipswich, Lynnfield, Melrose, North Reading, Swampscott and Wakefield). The chart presents annual average teacher salaries since fiscal year 2002.
I was surprised to see the line representing Newburyport's average teacher salary never fell below the state average. The info on the chart contradicted the explanation I've always heard about the reasoning behind the significant salary bump in the 2002 teacher contract. As I was told, the school committee, reacting at least partly to a state Department of Education report that the city's teachers were among the worst paid teachers in the state, negotiated a generous contract that bumped up salaries to competitive levels. In my eyes this is a sound strategy to keep our best teachers in house.
But here's the problem. That apparently wasn't true. From the report:
Yikes. So when the school commmittee negotiated the 2002 contract to remedy the problem of rock-bottom teacher salaries our teachers actually were getting paid above statewide average? That's not going to play well, nor should it.
The little note ends with this...
It certainly should. If I'm painting an incorrect picture of the situation I hope someone will let me know. The report correctly notes that things like layoffs of less experienced teachers can cause the average to rise as their smaller salaries are cut from the equation, and I'm told Newburyport has cut more than 70 full-time positions over the past five years.
But my reading of the report, particularly the statement mentioned above, leaves me with the impression that the discrepancy isn't the result of layoffs. Sounds like the school committee got ahold of some bad DOE information.
.
I've got great respect for the profession. I may occasionally covet their summer vacations, but I recognize the work can be difficult if it's done right. I don't resent them their salaries, particularly because of the level of education that we require these folks to have (and the school loans that go with those educations.) If we want to get bright minds to teach our kids, we must pay reasonably well or lose them to better-paying professions.
Despite this still deep respect, I was struck by one item on page 20 of the Revenue Task Force Report. The chart--a fairly typical line graph you'll find done in an Excel document--compared Newburyport's average teacher salary with the group of comparable communities used throughout the report. (Ashland, Bedford, Holliston, Ipswich, Lynnfield, Melrose, North Reading, Swampscott and Wakefield). The chart presents annual average teacher salaries since fiscal year 2002.
I was surprised to see the line representing Newburyport's average teacher salary never fell below the state average. The info on the chart contradicted the explanation I've always heard about the reasoning behind the significant salary bump in the 2002 teacher contract. As I was told, the school committee, reacting at least partly to a state Department of Education report that the city's teachers were among the worst paid teachers in the state, negotiated a generous contract that bumped up salaries to competitive levels. In my eyes this is a sound strategy to keep our best teachers in house.
But here's the problem. That apparently wasn't true. From the report:
In 2003, data published by the DOE indicated that the average salary for Newburyport teachers placed them in the bottom 10% statewide. Based on this data, the School Committee negotiated a contract to align teacher salaries with competing districts. In January 2008, the DOE published adjusted salary figures (shown above) which pushed the average FY02 Newburyport teacher salary above the statewide average.
Yikes. So when the school commmittee negotiated the 2002 contract to remedy the problem of rock-bottom teacher salaries our teachers actually were getting paid above statewide average? That's not going to play well, nor should it.
The little note ends with this...
While this information was not available to the School Committee before the most recent contract was negotiated, it should be considered in the current round of negotiations.
It certainly should. If I'm painting an incorrect picture of the situation I hope someone will let me know. The report correctly notes that things like layoffs of less experienced teachers can cause the average to rise as their smaller salaries are cut from the equation, and I'm told Newburyport has cut more than 70 full-time positions over the past five years.
But my reading of the report, particularly the statement mentioned above, leaves me with the impression that the discrepancy isn't the result of layoffs. Sounds like the school committee got ahold of some bad DOE information.
.
Revenue Task Force Report
Quite an opener.
Findings
Ay caramba.
Findings
The task force members unanimously agree that:
1) Newburyport currently does not have funds to sustain the level of municipal services currently being provided.
2) Costs continue to rise at approximately 5% annually with revenues limited to a 2½ % local property tax increase plus the dollars generated from new growth and local aid from the state and federal government.
3) The city does not anticipate a significant increase in state or federal assistance this year.
Ay caramba.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Friends from Afar
-
-
-
-
A Confession6 years ago
-
Nokia Lumia 925 Review8 years ago
