The Good Gatzby

So suddenly I'm Nick Carraway? From our blogosphere neighbor, P. Preservationist....

Believe it or not (thankfully), most people come to this City to thoroughly and richly enjoy all that it offers.     Most people are more in tune with Tom Salemi’s Blog rather than a hard-hitting activist site like mine.     While I’m out tripping and cursing on the broken sidewalks, the rest are tipping another glass of fine wine and enjoying a tasty meal at our many restaurants. 

Our time-fighting crusader says he's taking one for the rest of us happy go-lucky folks by fighting so hard for the things, big and small, that make this community so special. And he's right. I'm glad he's out there raising some complex isssues.

I admire his blog. He's often right (which means I agree with him. Take today's post for example.) He's got a really firm grasp of many of the complex issues facing our city. And damn if he isn't prolific.

His site also is a treasure trove of information, although the presentation could be better. His old site was a mess. I'm hopeful his new format will be cleaner.

But I have trouble rallying behind his words at times because I find him to be unreasonable at times. Perhaps that's his intent, but he's not going to get the support his posts warrant without some adjustments. So I'm taking a great deal of liberties to suggest a few other changes to deliver his message more clearly.

First, lose the anonymous tag. I know his secret identify as do most people he writes about. And if they don't they can easily ask around and find out. I never found any of his posts to be controversial enough to warrant an alias.

Second, drop the name-calling. Divisive tags like "dark-siders" and "light-siders" only dilute the message. As Tom Ryan knows, I firmly believe we all have elements of light and dark side. I don't think it's wise to force us to choose sides.

Third, tone it down a little. How does Donna Holaday become Bryon Matthews II by having windows replaced at the Emma Andrews Library. I haven't really seen her "my way or the highway" approach, but I'm not intimate with the details. But if you're going to make the charge, maybe some more evidence. I also don't think it's fair to assign the plans to demolish the downtown to Matthews, but I can't find my Port in Progress book right now. (I do, however, know for a FACT that Terminator II was not better than the first. Empire Strikes Back would have been a better example.) He's also assigned a few other nicknames to people that aren't accurate or fair.

That's it. Just some feedback from a loyal reader. Well, my chardonnay simply MUST be chilled by now. Time to go enjoy life.

 Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and a Joyful New Year. Thanks for sharing this wonderful community.

Common Census

Is it possible for an article to be both revealing and unsurprising? I'd say so.

Check out this morning's interesting piece by Victor Tine in the Daily News on how Newburyport's changed over the past 10 years. The numbers suggested our community - as measured by median values - is richer, older, more stable, better educated and owners of considerably more valuable homes.

With the exception of home prices and household income, the percentage increases were reasonable small. But all of this will confirm the belief of those who see the community becoming too upscale.

Anyway, great paper today.

Santa Clones

By the way, what are the origins of the Santa parade held this weekend and the tree lighting/arrival held just after Thanksgiving. Does one predate the other?

I came upon the end of the Santa parade last night and saw the big guy atop the fire truck. Cool, but I still think the Coast Guard boat provides a better entrance.

It got me thinking .I wonder if we see Santa too much these days. As a kid, I made one trip a year to see Santa at Jordan Marsh (Mahsh) at Downtown Crossing. We'd look in the window, walk the common, etc., etc. I have some great memories.

Now it seems like Santa is everywhere, which in itself isn't a bad thing. But does too much Santa take away a bit of the magic?

In my mind, Santa is like Jaws: the less you see him the more real he seems.

And please, no Grinch cracks. I love the holiday. Merry Christmas.

Redevelopment Regrets

John Lagoulis turns in another Saturday gem in today's Daily News. But as much as enjoyed the historical perspective I found his personal insight on the demolition of Unicorn Street to be most compelling.

The bathhouse on Unicorn Street was torn down in 1968. In my opinion, it should have never been demolished. It is a piece of history that will never return. It is something that can never be repeated. I liken it to the Jacob Perkins historical mint/printing mill on Fruit Street, which has been restored.

The City of Newburyport replaced the bathhouse on Unicorn Street with a parking lot and a new view of the river. It was sacrificed for a parking lot and no one stepped forward to save it. This historical building slipped through our fingers so to speak.

When I saw that the Unicorn Street bathhouse had been torn down, it affected me deeply. These bathhouses dated back to George Washington's days. They were built of brick and were strong and well constructed. If they could talk, they would have told us many interesting stories. The city's bathhouses were a historical link to our past, and I believe they were possibly the only ones left in America.

I believe many human errors and rather quick and hasty decisions were made by the then redevelopment groups of this city in tearing down the bathhouse. Sadly, during the redevelopment days, it seems many individuals did not bother to take time to foresee the historical value of the bathhouses, among other things in those days, and work to preserve them.

The total, physical demolishment of bathhouses, combined with what appears to be an erasure of the bathhouses (and other properties of historical value) from local literature, should never have occurred. Wouldn't you agree?

It's an opinion not often heard in these parts. Our beautiful downtown came at a price - too high a price - for many who watched it happen.

Parking is Not Dead Yet

Well, one of the benefits of not having time to post earlier this week is I stop myself from looking like a complete idiot. Or more of a complete idiot if you're so inclined.

On Tuesday morning I would have declared parking dead, just as the Daily News did in its headline. I just didn't think the NRA was inclined to lower its asking price, particularly after hearing the revenue number they brought in each year from parking, over $100g each year after management expenses. The city seemed to be getting a good deal at $75,000.

But the NRA has since struck a concliatory tone and seems open to talking further, according to the Daily News. And Mayor Holady, to her credit, isn't giving up. Bob Cronin also suggested in his statement at Monday meeting suggested discussions would continue.

So this thing might go forward afterall.

But I have three concerns:

Short-term: I fear that some councilors who are dead set against paid parking at any price are using the terms of the deal to justify their votes against. Brian Derrivan, to his credit, has come out and said he's against paid parking. I think his position is the wrong one, but I admire him for stating it so bluntly. I do wonder if others on the council share his opposition and will find reason to vote against paid parking no matter the terms.

Medium-term: I'd be surprised if anyone legitimate runs against Holaday this year, but the closer implementation of this gets to the election the less likely it's going to happen. As it is, I wonder if the meters and signage could be in place by the summer time.

Long-term: After hearing NRA member Patty Dorfman state how much the agency is bringing in each year I started to salivate. What happens is a paid parking plan goes through - with the NRA lots included - and it's a booming success, bringing in hundreds of thousands to the city. Where will be the incentive to do anything more with the NRA lots if they prove to be such parking cash cows? Sure we can move the spaces to a parking garage, but we'll have to pay debt service for the construction of the garage. In four or five years, or whenever a garage came to fruition, that might be seen as a budget cut after we've grown accustomed to that revenue.

Just some thoughts...

As an aside, Bill Plante had an interesting piece today.

Well now I feel just terrible.

My outrage was unfair and unwarranted.

Pay-to-park plan dies in committee
NEWBURYPORT — Editor's Note: Due to some technical problems, this story did not appear on Tuesday's Daily News website. Several readers have asked that it be posted on our Website, and it appears here as published in Tuesday's edition.

I sincerely apologize.
I'd still like my 75 cents, however.

Man this guy is prolific

Our Time-Fighting Crusader the Masked Preservationist provides a useful glossary of local terms. I couldn't finish the entire list, but it seems complete.

Good People

A "friend of mine" forgot his wallet in Ganesh after making a Christmas purchase.

He traced his steps back there a few hours later to find it waiting for him.

So thanks, on behalf of my friend.

Parking Thoughts

to come.

But here's a link to Gillian Swartz' take on the Council meeting. I'd link you to the Daily News's article as well, but they played cutesy with the Web site this morning and didn't put the article up.

Which pisses me off a bit because they also didn't deliver the paper to my house this morning so I had to buy it.

You owe me 75 cents, John Macone.

Add: I should note that my delivery person is great. Not sure what happened today. I'm bothered more by the failure of the web site that my subscription fee helped to create.

Newburyport Posts Productions Presents

The State of the City's Paid Parking Plan

Is Paid Parking Dead?

According to this morning's paper, the Mayor is now down to five confirmed yes, a crucial drop from the six she said she had on Friday.

So, what councilors are going to vote for the parking plan? I have no blinking idea.

I'd be shocked if Ed Cameron didn't, and I certainly hope he does since he's my councilor.

As I stated previously, I believe we do need paid parking in this town and I'm confident it won't impact downtown businesses at all. Unfortunately, this parking plan is far from perfect since it only charges for the lots and not street parking. I suspect this will lead to increased traffic problems as visitors trawl for spaces.

I don't really know how the rest will fall. But here's the guess and offerings from our local "experts" - ie. the anonymous posters on the Daily News site.

Councilors Connell, O'Brien and  Earls as likely supporters. Those sound like legitimate picks, although Earls' Ward 2 voters will be directly impacted by the parking changes. I don't know how that will weigh in his decision but seems like a yes.

I'd say Katie Ives is a yes. I haven't talked with her but her progressive street cred would seem to put her in the yes category. Likewise, Steve Hutcheson is probably a negative as I see him more in the conservative/Republican camp.

So this leaves us with Ward 1 Councilor Allison Heartquist. I never met her, and don't know her. But my gut puts her in the yes category. No real reason why other than she works for Mayor Kezer in Amesbury and she strikes me as one would be open to a parking plans.

If she does vote yes, this leaves us with Councilor Ari Herzog as the swing vote. In fact, in the aformentioned Daily News forum, he declared himself to be on the fence.

And I'm guessing he'll vote no.

A no vote would seem to be consistent with the rationale he put forth for opposing the meal tax earlier last month. Read his post.  (By the way, I commend those councilors like Herzog who maintain blogs and use these forums to explain their decisions. As a voter, it's nice to know the extent of the thought that goes into these decisions.)

In his post, Herzog cited the fact that "nearly 40% of the city's households are living in poverty" as his primary reason for opposing the meals and lodging tax.

"I voted the way I did to improve their lifestyles."

I didn't completely see the logic in his point. I understadn that he didn't want to require those 40% to pay more even the slightest bit more (7.5 cents on a $10 meal) than they already do. (By the way, the stat comes from Pennies for Poverty. I have no reason to doubt it although it does sound high. But the troubling food stamp news in today's Daily News certainly supports the statement.)

But I'm guessing people living below the poverty line might not eat out as frequently as those who can afford to do so (or at least think they can afford to so.) In fact, I'd be willing to bet nearly all of the new taxes paid out would come from the 60% above the poverty line. And that doesn't take into consideration the dollars paid by out-of-town visitors, well to do or not. thought that was one of the more attractive elements of the tax, but as I stated in a previous post, I do understand those who are vehemently opposed to any new taxes.

Yet, that 40% will see the benefits of the tax increase: better sidewalks upon which to walk; better schools to send their children and a city that's less dependent on real estate taxes, which would ease the burden on their tax bills or the tax bills of their landlords, which I hope would make their rent more affordable.

So I could envision a scenario where people below the poverty line might have seen benefits from a tax they could mostly avoid.

I suppose the same might be said about parking. People could choose not to park downtown.

But someone who works downtown will be forced to fork over a portion of their income to a parking meter or a parking pass if they want to hold onto their jobs. Or their employer will pay for a permit, taking money away from potential pay hikes.

I do think this fee/tax is potentially more onerous than whatever might have been collected through a meals tax.

So if he's to be consistent, I can't see how Ari Herzog will support it...or any future tax/fee hike for that matter, but there are complexities to every issue.

So parking might be done? We shall see.

Where Has Tom Been

Okay, our time-fighting Masked Preservationist literally made me laugh out loud with this one.

No, I've no plans to die, although I suppose very few people do. In fact, I haven't felt this good in a long time.

I spent the past year relearning how much work a new baby can be, particularly one with chronic ear infections. I also had an unpleasant visit from the Herniated Disc Fairy, which laid me up for a good four or five months. My mind was not where I wanted it to be for public venting.

I'm grateful to the voters for not electing me to the Charter Commission as I would have had little time to spare. However, I still would have been more productive than a few of the folks who did get elected.

But I'm back. It took a friend's suggestion that I had quit blogging to relight the fire. The fire feels good.

Now, to MP's point. His critique is valid. I may be a bit too cavalier in my assessment of the impact of the meals tax and parking, but that doesn't make me wrong. (I'll admit that I thought the meals tax already kicked in, but the fact I didn't know it hasn't demonstrates that the impact will be barely noticeable.)

I see both almost as a matching contribution like we used to get in our 401(k)s. Yes, I'll be contributing money to the city but so will people who until now have contributed nothing directly to our city - the tourists.

And I honestly don't think they'll mind one bit.

Note

Just an aside, I shouldn't have been completely surprised by yesterday's news that Haley's would start selling Abraham's bagels. This appeared in one of the articles on the meal tax back in July.

Linda Garcia, owner of Abraham's Bagels and, as she told the group last night, now a co-owner of Haley's Ice Cream, said customers don't understand the rise in the meals tax.

I should pay closer attention.

Burgers, Bagels and Parking

So, since the city council voted to adopt the local  .75% meals tax, we've seen two new restaurants preparing to open and now the highly awesome creation of Haleybraham's, the combination of Haley's and Abraham's at the Route 1 site of the former.

How can this be?

The tax was supposed to decimate the local restaurant scene. Diners would flock to Amesbury, Salisbury and Newbury to satisfy their culinary cravings. Yet, Newburyport thrives.

In my opinion, doom-and-gloom projections always diminish the value of an argument. I understand and respect those who are simply against any and all taxes. They'd prefer to see cuts on the expense side and I get it. I sometimes think those people see opportunities for savings that don't actually exist, but their preferences are valid.

I'd say the same goes for parking. A paid parking plan will not deter people from coming downtown. Visitors to every place worth visiting are accustomed to paying for parking. People who hold up shopping malls and other small towns as examples of free parking only prove my point. Visitors to Newburyport aren't going to choose a shopping mall over Newburyport because of the parking. They're two entirely different experiences.  It's a day at Fenway versus a night at the movies.

Yet, that is the canard tossed our way. What's really at play is this. First, people just don't want to pay to park. I get it. I prefer free parking myself, but as I've said in the past, paid parking simply makes sense for a local economy driven largely by tourists (as does the meals tax, btw.)

Which takes me to the second point - our's is a local economy driven by tourism. Many in this town don't want to accept this. Instead, they complain about the tourists, see them as nuisances, and wish them to go away. That's all fairly benign behavior, although I'm not sure why people work so hard to make themselves unhappy.

But, in my opinion, that philosophy goes too far when it stands in the way of sound economic policy, and that is precisely what paid parking is.

This Haley's-Abraham's experiment will prove the point. The Route 1 site will have free parking, but I doubt the lines will get any shorter on Liberty Street.

Parking: Where would the money go?

Mayor Holaday showed a bit of bravado this morning by publicly predicting the parking plan will pass. In a hopeful tone, she told the Daily News she already has the six votes she needs, we'll see if they hold until Monday night.

I found a few interesting points in the article. The one that jumped out immediately was the Mayor's plans for the estimated $500,000 paid parking could generate.

Claiming a possible $500,000 in revenues can be earned once the city pays to install the $178,000 pay-to-park machines in the parking lots included in the plan, Holaday has put forth the argument that the time is ripe to look at parking as a revenue source.

"We're already hearing about another 4 percent cut in local aid," said Holaday, who sees the plan as a means of strengthening the city's internal revenue sources to pay for things that residents care about but have been cut amid budget shortfalls at the state level.

She listed foreign language at the middle school among the programs that could be funded with dollars paid for through the paid- parking plan, and the upkeep of city infrastructure that's been falling apart in recent years because of a lack of funds — sidewalks primary among them.

"To be able to use a revenue stream that is not directly tapping into every resident in the city, like property taxes do, is essential," Holaday said.

Wait? No mention of a waterfront park? Jim Roy, a huge Holaday supporter, just last week identified the "entire thrust of her program" to be "financing improvements to the waterfront that a majority of citizens here want to proceed."

So which is it? I'm certainly in favor of the former. We've got too many immediate needs that are currently going unmet. If the measure passes I hope any monies raised are spent on necessities rather than luxuries.

Next: Parking, who's going to vote for it?

We've Won a Major Award!

I have no idea if this has been in the papers. I just wanted to run the photo.

Mayor Donna Holaday will join with school officials and executives from Ameresco, Munro Solar, and Canadian Solar to commemorate Nock Middle School’s solar PV project with a $1,500 donation. The project, one of the largest municipal solar photovoltaic installations in the Commonwealth, produces 502 kW of clean, renewable electricity. Recently, the Ameresco project was nominated for and received an award as part of the “Win with Canadian Solar” contest, available to companies that have completed installations that use Canadian Solar’s modules. As part of the prize, Ameresco was awarded $500 from Canadian Solar for its work at the Nock Middle School, which Ameresco will donate to the City of Newburyport. Additionally, Ameresco and Munro Solar, a subcontracting partner on the project, will each donate an additional $500, bringing the total donation to $1,500

I have no idea where the money will go.

Lighten Up the Leash Laws

So this dog park discussion is interesting.

Let me say upfront. I think an actual enclosed park would be the best approach, but I'm not sure where we'd put one. I never thought I'd write this, but some anonymous posters on the Daily News article actually had some constructive thoughts on this subject. Worth checking out.

(One thought, can we get the state to fence off a small piece of Maudslay for the park?)

But without a dog park in place, I think the next step is loosening the regs a bit on leashes. The plan laid out here seems ambitious. I'm not sure we need four different sites, but it's a good starting point. Gives the Council some wiggle room to look tough and talk them down to two.

I don't believe such a move will really have a great impact on the parks. Most people who need to have their dogs off leash are already doing so. This isn't going to spark a flood of canines to our parks.

But here's a separate thought on this subject. The article says Mayor Holaday charged the ad hoc committee with finding a solution, and I commend her for doing  so. (Not surprisingly, a poster on the article disputes this.) But assuming this is the case, could this be the Mayor's crowning accomplishment for her first year in office if parkign goes down in flames?

I suppose the parking garage site would be another, but that's not going to work without a parking plan.

Good Stuff

I meant to post this morning, but better late...

Today's Daily News was a hell of a good paper. Victor Tine's report on the disappearance of the Great Salt Marsh was chilling and disappointing, and the snow shoveling piece was timely and interesting.

And the article on the diggings at the waste water treatment plant have been fascinating (as ridiculous as that sentence just sounded in my head.)

Anyway, this post is as lame as the paper was good. But I just wanted to give a little love.

Awwww

The generosity of the people in this city never ceases to impress.

BTW, heard a rumor that a reasonably high profile eatery has been sold. I'll try to confirm details when I have a free second (hah!), but if I don't, and someone else does, remember, you almost sort of heard it hear first....kind of.

Good Grades for Kerble

I've quickly grown to like Superintendent Marc Kerble.

I've never met the guy so I base my opinion on what I'm reading in the paper. But I feel the guy has done an admirable job of getting out there and serving as a public face for the school department, something that was sorely needed in my opinion.

He even posts regularly on Facebook (or has someone capable doing it) so he's made himself virtually available, at least.

His predecessor Kevin Lyons seemed more aloof and withdrawn. Perhaps he was stinging from the public beating over his decision to close to Kelley School or maybe that was just his style. No knock against the fellow, he was obviously skilled.

So far, Kerble has done a nice job presenting himself and now you can read his message in the Daily News. And his plan here.

Again, I know it's too early for final - or even mid-term grades - but he's made a nice impression.

Deep Thoughts....

I do love living in Newburyport at this time of year ...


The tree-lighting...

Invitation nights ...

Santa's arrival on the Coast Guard ship ....

The festive decorations festooning our picturesque and federal government-funded downtown...

But man, oh man, this time each year makes me wish I lived in a house with some damn closets so I could more easily find the stuff that kept me warm last winter.

Ah well, to history.

Have You Seen George?

The son of a loyal reader has lost his Curious George sidekick. If you see a stray monkey lying around please let me know.

That is all.

And more parking

Jim Roy goes on the offensive in letter in today's Daily News. I disagree with his assessment. I don't think the council is nitpicking. As I said previously, I think this parking plan is flawed. I'm not sure a flawed parking plan is better than no parking plan.

I also wish we could divorce paid parking from paying for a waterfront park. I know that was the plan at one time, but the monies are needed elsewhere...schools and yes, sidewalks (or maybe we should call it infrastructure.)

Heck, we're talking about shutting of a good percentage of lights in the town to save money but we're going to shovel money into a new park?

Anyway, good to see Jim's writings again. I miss The Liberator.

More on Paid Parking

Ward 4 Councilor/Friend/Neighbor Ed Cameron has an interesting parking related post on his blog.

Ed may need a lighter font. It's a bit difficult to read.

Dog News

Councilor-at-large Ari Herzog has an interesting update on efforts to accomodate city dog owners here. Meanwhile, Brookline may institute a fee for dog owners who use that town's many dog parks. Worth a read.

I can't say I'd be opposed to such a user fee, but I have to ask why are dog license fees for? Shouldn't that money go toward dog-related programs?

Parking Plan Endangered

I'm gonna try to get my blog going on....

The Daily News surprised me a bit this morning with the headline, "Mayor's Parking Plan in Jeopardt." I thought all systems were go for the paid parking plan after the city negotiated agreements with the NRA and Waterfront Trust.

But the council has concerns and I'm not sure they're unfounded. Read them here.

My surprise diminished as I read the article, not only because of the council's stated concerns. I also have my own misgivings.

I do believe we need to charge for parking downtown. We simply are leaving much-needed money on the table by not charging our visitors and residents a reasonable fee to park downtown.

But I never was a fan of Mayor Holaday's inconsistent plan to to charge for parking in the lots while leaving the streets free. Drivers are like water, they'll search far and wide for the path of less resistance (or in this case cost) if its easily available. I felt this plan would lead to increased cruising downtown and excursions into our neighborhoods, which would have led to a hodge podge of resident-only parking restrictions.

I'm not sure why on-street parking wasn't included from the start. I suspect it was a bid to soften any opposition to the plan by assuring residents that they could still park downtown for free, at least on the street. But the overall plan struck me as a half-hearted effort to institute paid parking.

Looking forward to seeing what the full council does.