Hey!

The anonymous name caller thinks you all behaved well last night. Way to go!

Sorry I missed it.

Newburyport: A Measure of Change

Wow. I haven't had time to watch the entire piece, but I wanted to post this as soon as possible.

I've seen hundreds of still photos of downtown Newburyport, but this film presents actual color video of what the city looked like prior to the urban renewal movement.

The description:

Lawrence Rosenblum's award-winning examination of the landmark decision to use historic preservation principles for the first time in Federal HUD projects. Uploaded to blip.tv with permission from Mr. Rosemblum.

Simply amazing. There will be a test on this, so watch and learn.

Last Call for Cans

Anyone else like to contribute? If so please email me at newburyportposter@gmail.com. I'll swing by your place tomorrow morning to pick up your contributions. How easy is that!?

It's here.

Saw the sizable Christmas tree being carted down High Street toward its inevitable home on Market Square.

What a Legacy

From the Daily News article on Former Mayor Richard Sullivan's passing.

The affable Newburyporter spent many years in public service; and prior to being mayor, he served three terms on the City Council, which included service as council president from 1974-78.
This was an era when neighborhoods were being restored, and plans for the waterfront were in development. His work among disparate stakeholders helped get projects done, observers remember.
Victor Tine, a long-time reporter with The Daily News, said that as a councilor, "He reached out to the Friends of the Waterfront and helped achieve some major advances, such as the creation of 'ways to the waterfront,'" a requirement that mandated any construction near the river allow for public access.
"He was a major factor in improvements relating to the central waterfront."
Bill Harris, an organizer of Friends of the Waterfront in the '70s, said, "Our group wanted access to the waterfront and Dick worked with us on it. It was his initiative (at City Hall) that helped us get it done."
Family members say that among his proudest accomplishments as mayor were the creation of the waterfront park, the construction of hundreds of units of elderly housing and laying the groundwork to purchase and protect land now known as Maudslay State Park.

Clearly, some sort of plaque is in order when an appropriate time has passed.

Again, condolences to all his family and many friends.

RIP

The City of Newburyport FB page is reporting that former Mayor Richard Sullivan passed away this morning. He was the father of newly elected Councillor-At-Large Dick Sullivan, former Mayor Chris Sullivan and former City Councillor Joe Sullivan.

Read a bit about him in the Daily News Port in Progress series. Look for his work on Inn Street here and here.

My condolences to the Sullivan family.

Let's Brag a Bit

Speaking of Ed Cameron, Dyke Henrickson's City Hall Notebook discusses his suggestion that the city needs more signage downtown to educated about its long history.

I still think - and I can't find the post where I mentioned it - that SOMEONE should incorporate the Daily News' Port in Progress series into our downtown, putting up plaques on individual buildings featuring the articles that give their histories during urban renewal.

We also should install one large plaque/sign on Market Square and line it with photos taken of the square during the 1950s, prior to the start of urban renewal.

Newburyport accomplished a great thing and few know about it. It's time to brag a little.

AAH!

Could Ed Cameron have found a picture of a more imposing CVS?

As I said earlier, I'm in favor of the project but I do agree this needs more consideration. These properties should be rezoned for business but the planning board needs to ensure that any new business has a neutral or perhaps even a positive impact on that intersection.

But it's wrong to keep these properties zoned residential just to keep the traffic down or - as some suggest - to keep CVS from opening. The market decides whether we need two of them, not the city.

Here's the Daily News write-up on Ari Herzog's reconsideration motion.

Who cares about apathy?

I do, that's who. My latest column on Newburyport Today.

Speaking of caring, I'd cleaning out the Family Utility Vehicle so we can fit lots of donated cans this Saturday morning. For those who are donating, just leave a bag out on your stoop around 9 am. The Salemi boys will drop by and grab them.

For those who want to donate, there's still time. Just shoot an email at Newburyportposter@gmail.com.

Thanks in advance.

Creeeeeaaak

Councillor-at-Large Ari Herzog is reopening the door the City Council had shut down last night.

Herzog, who voted against the measure last night, filed a motion for reconsideration with the city clerk this morning. This would enable the council to reconsider the measure at its Nov. 28 meeting.

Only a councilor who voted on the prevailing side can motion to consider. Herzog was one of five councilors to vote against the rezoning. Six voted in favor, but the measure failed because it needed a super majority of eight councillors.

My rationale for voting the ordinance down stemmed from meeting with Clipper Way residents and Atria Merrimack Place residents during the recent campaign season, who, despite not being direct abutters, are peripheral abutters who are naturally concerned about increased traffic if a proposed CVS pharmacy is built at the corner of Storey and Low.

That said, I’m open to discussing the issue further — and voting on the prevailing side, I filed this morning a notice to reconsider my vote.

Herzog isn't saying he'll switch his vote, just that he'd listen.

Tough Call

Well, the council rejected the proposal to rezone those residential properties near the corner of Low Street and Storey Ave. An approval would have paved the way (literally) for a proposed CVS and bank (although the exact businesses were never mentioned publicly) to be built in between the gas station and the entrance to Atria Merrimack.

Councillors voting against the measure cited traffic concerns, which is legitimate. The proposal supposedly would have placed the principal access on Low Street but that's still a busy intersection.

This was a tough call but I would have supported the rezoning. Putting aside the fact that the city would have been give some 25 acres of open space on the back of the property, I don't see how having those properties zoned residential benefits anyone.

The proximity to businesses and traffic has to have diminished the value of those properties, so the homeowner doesn't benefit. The city always could use a broader tax base so the city doesn't really benefit.

The only beneficiary of the rejection are the neighbors who feared the traffic that such a project - or any project - could bring.

But the Planning Board really should accept or reject a project on those issues. That's its job. City Councilors should maintain a bigger picture and recognize that smidge of residential property in a sea of commerce is an unfortunate byproduct of piecemeal zoning changes. (At least it seems to be, I don't know the history.)

Perhaps this was just another shot fired in discussions with the developer, who will further sweeten the pot enough to get a few councilors to swap sides. (The measure actually received six votes in favor, but it needed eight.) But if this is the end of this particular story someone should consider how the city wants to write the next installment. It's time to be proactive.

And I agree with the P. Preservationist. Good turnout last night.

Hey You

Yeah, you. You know who I'm talking about, the person who complains that critical zoning changes are done in the darkness of the night without a word being heard from the average Joe, Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane Q. Public. Those who insist that boondoggles are rushed through committee without any input from us real folks who won't see the financial windfill but will be most effected.

Well, that's usually tripe. This stuff happens in public, and you can learn all about it if you attend critical hearings like the one tonight at City Hall to discuss the possible rezoning of two parcels near the intersection of Low Street and Storey Ave.

I don't have particulars, but the plans - as far as I know - calls for the construction of a CVS right on Storey Ave, near the Atria Merrimack place. This can't be built without the City Council rezoning the property from residential to commercial.

And that's what the hearing tonight is about. It's posted, public and starts at 6 pm.

I know this is last minute. For the life of me I don't know why the Daily News isn't reporting on this. CVSs are lightning rods for controversy, and this is an important issue.

But P. Preservationist has posted a few times on this. Go here for his typically sober TAKE on things. (The guy's going to get carpal tunnel from plugging in all those format changes.)

Anyway, I'm rushing a bit here. I'm not suggesting that this is anything sinister. It is what is is, the city is beign asked to rezone two properties so someone can build a drug store on a busy roadway (with access via Low Street, apparently.) And we may get some open land in return. It may be a perfectly fair swap, but it still bears the public's review and input.

And that's what tonight is for.

The Next Challenge

Thank you to all for visiting this site from time to time. We got a record number of hits on Tuesday, Election Day, or close to a record, so it's nice to know that people still care.

But I'd like to ask you to give a little now. I'm going to try to serve as a virtual drop site for the Pennies for Poverty 100 Can Challenge.

Pennies for Poverty has launched a challenge to all businesses, organizations, schools and neighborhoods in Newburyport to collect 100 cans of non-perishable food by Thanksgiving to donate to the area food pantries. With the economy still on the downside, there are many families and individuals in Newburyport who have fallen below the poverty level or at risk of becoming victims of poverty. We are challenging every one to give a little to make a big impact. If we all donate a can or two, think of all we could feed.

Whether your candidate won or lost on Tuesday, we've all got a great deal for which we should be thankful. If you're inclined to give back a little bit, consider doing this it through this site (or through other venues if you prefer.)

Here's what I'm going to do. I put up poll in the left hand column. Indicate how many cans you'd like to donate, tell me where you'd like to pick them up by emailing me at Newburyportposter@gmail.com and I'll grab them next Saturday morning.

I'll arrange a drop off site if necessary.

One, two, five, 10 cans, it doesn't matter. Every bit helps.

Midas Touch

What's the one takeaway from yesterday's election?

I'm a force to be reckoned with, a kingmaker!

Look at my ballot. Connell .. BAM! O'Connor Ives ... BAM! Herzog...BAM! Cameron...BAM! I probably would have mentioned Steve Hutcheson too if he hadn't climbed about the local GOP Bullet Vote Train. Perhaps that would have given him the edge over Dick Sullivan, who overcame my lack of support to secure the fifth spot. (He also withstood a direct assault from the P. Preservationist who clearly doesn't have my CLOUT!)

I eventually also chose what was ultimately the winning side on the Charter. I'm happy for the commissioners and others who put so much work into getting it done. As I said yesterday, my yes vote came down to trusting folks on the commission (a few in particular but I won't name names.) I also recognized that if this thing went down in flames we might never see another review. At least now we know we can improve upon the document in 2023 (or 2011, I'm not sure when the clock starts ticking.)

The people clearly favored change in the charter, but it'd be a mistake to think all are comfortable with the lack of a recall effort. I truly believe that many see recalls as sort of a divine right and didn't know they wouldn't have the opportunity to correct a horrible mayor mistake.

Furthermore, I'd like to take a moment to draw a bit from the smackdown Denis Kennedy issued yesterday, which concluded...

... don't walk away and think the job is done. Take part in helping to make it work. The charter is just a framework for running the city. It's up to everyone to implement it and make it work. If that happens, the work of the charter commission will have been a success, despite the politics and name calling.

Amen. We can do better than 30%.

The Vote

Well, I voted. Things looked pretty quiet at Hope Church.

Quickly, Bruce Menin - one of the dissenting members of the Charter Review Commission - has come out in favor of the charter. Go here.

As for me, I voted for the damn thing. I guess  it came down to trusting the people who crafted it. But I had serious reservations. I didn't know how I was going to vote when I first walked through those church doors.

The Ballot

Well, here we are. Election day. Polls open at 7 am and close at 8 pm.

I'm not going to endorse any candidates, but I can tell you right now my ballot will include votes for ...

Mayor: I'll cast a vote for Mayor Donna Holaday - Yeah, I didn't support her two years ago, but I can't argue with results. She pushed through the paid parking and is working to build a consensus on the waterfront that makes sense. She earned a vote.

That's the key, she earned the vote. I generally would advise against voting voting for unopposed candidates simply because they're on the ballot UNLESS the candidate has earned your vote in some way.

I don't blame the Ward councilors or Mayor for running unopposed, but I think they should know just how deep their support really is. No one should get votes for just showing up.

I'm not one to complain about the councilor's $5,000 salary. I do think many work hard at what is essentially a part-time job, but I do think a portion of those funds could be used to reach out to people. (I'll take this moment to commend Bob Cronin for continuing to reach out to his Ward 3 constituents through emails and his blog. He's even asked folks to put up a few signs. I like that.)

Councillor-at-Large: Ed Cameron, Barry Connell, Katy O'Connor Ives and Ari Herzog will get four of my five votes for Councillor-at-Large. The first test positive on my political litmus test - Schools, Local Historic District, Waterfront. Herzog falls short on the waterfront, but the guy works hard and blogs often, giving us an insight into the city's operations. I'm not sure who will get my fifth vote, but it won't be Larry Guinta or Dick Sullivan as both oppose the LHD.

School Committee: I'll vote for the two incumbents, Bruce Menin and Nick DeKanter. I'm pretty sure I know whether I'll give my third vote to either Audrey McCarthy or Peter McClure, but I'm going to keep that to myself.

Ward Councilors: I'm a Ward 4 guy but I won't be voting for Tom Jones. I like Jones, and he's lived in the Ward his whole life so I'm sure he'll do fine. But he's not running for re-election as a Councillor-at-Large. The Ward 4 seat is a new role for him and, as far as I can tell, he's done nothing to explain why he's wants to represent Ward 4.  It did help him avoid a crowded at-large race, but that does not earn him my vote.

The Charter: Ugh. I just can't endorse this. I really, really, really wish there were a recall mechanism. I'm totally waffling on this vote. Game Time Decision. You folks are on your own.

Feel free to comment but the only true way to express your opinion is to get out and VOTE.

And More More on the Charter

So I told on Denis,

Steve Cole, chairman of the Charter Commission, and I have been emailing a bit lately. So after I published Denis comment I asked Steve to comment. Here's what he said.

---


At this point, I will say on behalf of the majority members of the Charter Commission, that the data from our 2010 Charter Commission Survey, is very reliable.  It was a short, well structured and analyzed survey.

I find NONE that rival it from any Massachusetts Charter Commission, current or in recent years, especially in terms of quantitative and qualitative controls.  The response rate of 34.8 % is reflective of the active and knowledgeable citizenry of Newburyport.  62.9% of the respondents have lived in Newburyport 11 years or more.

The data showed clear support for a 4 year term for mayor 60.6% to 25.4% with 8.5% neutral and 5.5% don't know.

And in 99 comments recorded verbatim noting, "longer term, or four year term", etc.  there was not one use of the word "recall" in any of these 99 comments.  For that matter, throughout all recorded comments in the survey, not once was the word "recall" used.

Finally, on a number of questions, especially the question on the budget: (Question 4) Currently, the budget is created by the mayor and presented to the council for approval and the council may only cut budget items and not add.  From my understanding this process works.

Respondents showed that 37.6 % Agree, 23.3% Disagree, 22.2 % Remain Neutral, and 16.9% Don't Know.  If you add the last two, neutral and don't know you have 39.1% which are essentially undecided.

Questions like this compelled the Commission to look for clear language in defining key processes like the budget process, and other fiscal procedures in Article 6, in order to address the large number of people who were neutral, or did not know enough to agree or disagree.

Such clarification of the charter language characterized the effort of this commission to create a charter that is easy to read and describes processes that are more understandable and transparent, and allow each citizen to learn how their government will work for all of the people of Newburyport, in our shared future.

And no matter what this Commission does or votes on, it is the voters who will decide whether or not the newly framed charter is accepted.

Please get out and vote, on Tuesday November 8, 2011.

Respectfully,

Steven P. Cole
Chairman, Newburyport Charter Commission

---

BU vs. Harvard. Our own little Beanpot tourney. Anyone from Northeastern or BC want to chime in?

More on the Charter

Denis Kennedy, friend and former colleague at the Daily News, sent this along today as a reply to my post on the charter. I opted to run it as a separate post.

Incidentally, I did offer to publish something from the pro-charter group. I received a copy of Hugh Kelleher's thoughtful "As I See It" in the Daily News. I'm not really permitted to run an entire newspaper article on my blog (although I doubt the News would care.) But it's just as easy to link to it here.(And along the side.)

A little bit of history, Denis was one of the charter commissioners who stepped in to take over when a few of the elected disappointments resigned from the commission. He did a great job, and I have tremendous respect for the job most of the commission members did in reviewing the charter. I truly believe their intentions are honorable, but I'm still not sure I can agree with the results as I said when the final proposal first came out.

---


I have remained publicly silent on the charter since we voted on it in late April.  As some may recall, I was one of the three who voted against it.  It was a very difficult decision, given that I played a big role in drafting the final language of the document as a whole and have the utmost respect for my fellow commissioners and their dedication to the city.  (I’m especially grateful that they let me ramble at our meetings…)  The insurmountable stumbling block for me was the mayor’s term: I remain convinced a four-year term is not the way to go in a city this size.  The fact that Mayor Holaday will win a second term after taking on tough issues in a two-year term, in my mind, illustrates that.  She got right to work, and  the voters are getting their chance to give her a biennial report card.

But I did not write this to argue for or against the ballot question.

I have avoided reading charter-related posts in any of the local blogs since May, when a local anonymous blogger -- whom we are both familiar with -- slandered a fellow commission member for his absence during the vote on recall, accusing him of some sinister motive that just wasn’t there and ignoring the member’s medical emergency.  I stepped back a bit then; I had hoped for a discussion of the charter on its merits, without any personal attacks or political grudges being aired.

Since then I have not campaigned for or against the charter, assuming that advocates on either side, especially those who had been so active in getting the question on the ballot, would step forward.   To some extent, that has been the case.  Some of my fellow commission members and others have done a commendable job drumming up support for the yes side.  Whether intended or not, however, this has been a low-profile campaign, with proponents apparently planning for a relatively small band of advocates to prevail in an election that will have an extraordinarily low turnout.

I don’t fault them for that; it’s a strategy that has paid off in many elections I have been around, taken part in and covered as a reporter.  But it is discouraging that the decision – whether yes or no -- on what is clearly the most significant change in Newburyport governance in decades will be made by a small minority of voters.

In a way, we as a charter commission could have helped. To help raise the profile of the question, we should have held a public forum in the last few weeks.  That would have been a good opportunity to hear comments from the public, answer questions about the final report that had just been mailed to every household, and quite honestly get a newspaper story.  I should point out that while we did have several hearings during the 18-month process, we held none after we passed the final draft.  In fact, we met only once, to approve minutes, since April, though we are technically still in existence until 30 days after the election.

I say this because I come away with the frustrating feeling that whatever side you’re on, there was no protracted, substantive public discussion of the final charter proposal in these last weeks:  No examination of the key role a finance department plays in municipal efficiency (pretty important).   No check to see how many cities have charters that are identical to Newburyport’s “antiquated” one (several). No review of how many cities have two- and four-year terms (the vast majority have two).  No comparison of how the Newburyport mayor’s salary compares to her counterparts (on the low side of the range, which is all over the map).

Instead, for many this decision will be based more on more personal factors, including: 1) feelings about some past mayors;  2) interpretations of why some mayors lost re-election and whether that was a function of the term length or other factors; 3) some people’s admiration of, or relationships with, some other municipalities and their mayors or city managers; 4) some people’s gut feelings about some high profile issues such as recall, in light of anecdotal evidence such as the situation with Mayor Lantigua in Lawrence.  And so on.

Not that there is anything improper about any of that.  To a voter, every election is viewed through a prism of personal experience and feelings.  Voting is largely a gut call.  I just come away with the sense that whether the charter is approved or not, it has been a frustratingly imperfect electoral process.  We as a city could have done better in having a productive public dialogue involving a greater number of people.

So I ask that whatever side of the question you’re on, in these remaining hours, dig out that white booklet that came in the mail two weeks ago, take the time to think about the question, and then get out and vote.  That’s how democracy works.  It will allow for a decision by the greatest number of voters and lend it legitimacy for the city to move forward -- regardless of which side you were on.

Denis Kennedy
Charter commissioner



---

To Denis's final point, just read the thing. It really isn't hard to follow. It's a well written document.

Out of Bullets

The concept of bullet voting isn't a new one.

In the at-large race, voters have the right to vote for up to five of the eight candidates. But they don't need to vote for all five. In the eyes of the bullet-minded folks, votes should only be cast for those candidates whose philosophies come closest to matching their own. They'll opt to vote for one, two or three candidates rather than all five.

I don't really have an issue with bullet voters. It's their ballot and they can use it as they see fit.

But - and perhaps this is unfair of inconsistent of me - I do have a problem with candidates who encourage people to bullet vote. I just find something distasteful about a political candidate using their stump, or political mailings, to discourage people to vote in any way.

Yet, that's what's going on. Former Mayor and City Councillor Al Lavender posted this item in the paper earlier this week. I've been told by a few people that the Newburyport Republican Committee is encouraging people to use only one or two of their votes in the upcoming, presumably to support only their candidates in this race.

I'm disappointed to see a partisan rift forming at the local level, and a bit surprised that political candidates would assign their names to the such divisive tactics.

As luck would have it, I'd already ruled out voting for one of the candidates based upon his stances on the waterfront and local historic district. But I had every intention to vote for the other - until now.

See what happens when you play with bullets?

Good points

He's not going to win their hearts and minds with this column, but P. Preservationist makes some good points.

So the Charter

This might be the toughest vote on the ballot.

As you may recall, I was an early proponent of the campaign to review the charter. I collected signatures on the petitions necessary to get the process started. I campaigned - albeit weakly - for the responsibility to serve on the Charter Review Commission. I didn't win.

And I stepped back, way back.

The review of the charter - the document that serves as a blueprint for the city government - underwent its first rigorous review in 90 years, and it was done in obscurity. I never attended a meeting or even a public hearing. I had diapers to change.

The process looked painful from afar and a few of the elected board members disappointed, but they were replaced with people who didn't. I congratulate and thank all who took part in this grueling effort.

So here we are, staring at the change we all knew was coming - the four-year mayor.

Oh sure, some people went into this process with the hopes of installing a city manager, but that was never going to happen. It was always going to be a four-year mayoral term.

So here we are.

But there's a problem - the lack of a device within the charter to turn that four-year term into a three-year term, two-year term or whatever abbreviation is necessary to remove an unworthy mayor from office, we're talking about the lack of a recall.

Supporters of the revised charter will point out the current charter doesn't include a recall provision either, but the two-year mayor term we currently employ serves as a built in recall. If someone's doing crap job after one term, they can be - and usually are - ousted.

Meanwhile, if a mayor is doing a good job they're likely to face any significant opposition - or any opponent at all as we're seeing in the current election.

But tacking on two additional years to the mayor's term eliminates that option.

In exchange, the additional two years delivers some stability and certainty to the mayor's position. This longer term, the supporters argue, gives the mayor the ability to execute on long-term projects and could possibly entice more people to run for the office.

Four years at a decent salary - the new charter calls for $98,000 - could attract people with legitimate management experience, municipal or otherwise, the supporters say.

In making that point, I'd say the supporters are probably right. A longer term and higher salary could deliver stability to the corner office which could be filled by someone with legitimate management experience. I'd vote yes next Tuesday if the issue were as simple as that.

But the lack of a recall does bother me.

Supporters of the changes (incidentally three of the nine charter commission members voted against the final package for various reasons)  will point out that the majority of people who filled out surveys said they favored a four-year term, and no one mentioned the need for a recall. That's probably true, but it's a specious argument.  I, for one, didn't think the insertion of a recall provision would be necessary to stage a recall. I'd just assumed it was a standard safeguard in municipal governments. I was ignorant.

So I'm a bit undecided. I expected to come out in favor of the charter revision, but the more I write the more questions I have.

I do think the proposed Charter changes do a great job in cleaning up the codification of our city government, and I'd be behind them 100% if the recall provision had been included. My favorite change to the charter is a requirement that the charter be revisited in 10 years to keep the document alive and vital.

There's a great deal of good to support. The question is do I reject the all the changes out of the fear that someday a complete incompetent will remain in the office one or two years too long because we didn't have a recall?

Or do I vote out hope, knowing I'm giving the next Mayor (the provision won't take place until 2014) the tools necessary to better manage the city.

I'm leaning heavily toward hope.

Congrats to Institution for Savings

I'm sure no place is perfect, but the Institution for Savings was rated the best place to work (among small employers) by the Boston Globe.

I'm glad I have my cash there.

Election Links Complete

All right, all the names to the right are linked either to blog posts (in the case of councilors) or Daily News profiles (of candidates for school committee.)

I've also linked to the relevant information about the Charter.

If I'm missing anything let me know, but there's enough there for everyone to get up to speed.

If anyone can tell me where to find links to Port Media's interviews I'd be happy to include them.

!!!

!!!

If there is one area in which the mayor's views have altered during her tenure, it appears to be in commercial construction on the waterfront.
She said she had been against development on the waterfront but now would consider divesting a portion of city-owned property in order to create the parks that people want.
Holaday said she "hasn't changed her mind" but is now open to compromise fostered by the consensus of city residents.

The Masked Preservationist must be more frosted than a cheap replacement window. I thought she'd been misquoted.

Bravo.

Barry Connell

Here's the short version.

Barry Connell and I agree on almost everything. He's three-for-three in the schools-waterfront-local historic district test. And furthermore, he was one of the rare critics of the installation of police cameras downtown.

Add the fact that he really seems to cheese off the more rabid Daily News commenters and you've got winner.

Read Connell's profile here.

Ari Herzog

Ari Herzog works hard and isn't afraid to mix it up with the often brutal Daily News commenters (please, they're not bloggers.....) or actual, bona fide bloggers who, you know, actually have blogs.

I like those qualities. But his stances on a few key issues continue to disappoint.

The principle disappointment, at least from my perspective, is the waterfront. On more than one occassion, Herzog has  tried to make a connection between our NRA lots and the Plains of Abraham in Quebec City. He mentioned it here at least once and raised it again in the Daily News profile on him.

Regarding the future of the waterfront, he said he does not favor more buildings near the river.

Herzog said that he admires the large open park in Quebec City known as the Plains of Abraham, and he said he would look at creative approaches to urban parks so residents and tourists can continue to enjoy the waterfront.

I mean just look at this place.

I simply don't see any connection between Newburyport and the Plains of Abraham goes unless you're talking about what they're baking at 11 Liberty Street.(Plus, you can find sweeping river views at Maudslay.)

I'm also a bit confused on his stance on the Local Historic District. At the candidates' forum two weeks ago, Herzog raised his hand in support of the LHD while accurately noting that there was no proposal to the council so there was nothing to really support.

He then penned this thoughtful post on his blog where he explained his thinking on the LHD, leaving me with the impression that he'd support it. In fairness, however, he never actually says he'd support the LHD. Rather he provided reasons why he - or someone- might support its passing next spring.

Still, I finished reading the post thinking he'd vote in favor, until I saw this portion of his Daily News profile.

On the issue of a proposed Local Historic District, he said that he is waiting to see how a proposed ordinance actually reads.
"A study on an LHD is being done, and then, that will go to council committees before it actually reaches the council," Herzog said.
"Nothing has come to the council yet, and I will look at it closely when I actually see a proposed ordinance."

All of that is true, but I wish Herzog would come out more strongly in favor of the PRINCIPLE of a historic district then simply add the devils are in the details. Perhaps he did convey that sentiment in the interview but that wasn't presented in the article.

UPDATE: Herzog did state his support for the LHD at the tail end of his blog post. My bad.

He supports the school project so we're all good there.

All in all, I'd like a little more assurance as far as the LHD goes. Our difference in opinions on the waterfront might be irreconcilable but that's life.

NRA Lots

NRA Chairman James Shanley offered some clarity on the NRA lots in a comment on the Steve Hutcheson post, but since they apply to every candidate I thought I'd call them out in their own post.

Hi Tom,
I would like to make a few points regarding the NRA property.
First, public access to the waterfront is guaranteed by the exiting Ways to the Water. These Ways, along with a yet to be built Way, are the result of a Court settlement.
The NRA recognizes this fact, and is supportive of the important function the Ways represent.
Second, the NRA property is filled tidelands, and as such is subject to the Chapter 91 license process, which covers public access of filled tidelands.
It is simply not true that by allowing any development, no matter how small, will result in a denial of public access to the waterfront.
As the NRA moves forward with its efforts to finish its mission, I hope you will continue to follow and report on our progress.

There are times when I wonder, what the hell are we really arguing about?

Michael Early

Mike Early earns passing grades on two of the big three - Local Historic District and Waterfront. (No mention of the schools in the Daily News' profile, but I seem to recall him favoring the Bresnahan building project.)

Putting those issues aside for a moment, any voter should give this profile in the Daily News (indeed all profiles) a good reading.

Ed Cameron

Here's Ed Cameron's profile.

It's wildly uninformative as far as issues go. But Cameron favors the school building plans, the local historic district and minimal development on the waterfront.

So, as I've stated in the past, he's got one of my five votes.

Catching Up

Work-required travel has kept me a way. Doing my best to catch up on the blog.

Steve Hutcheson

As a dad with two school aged kids, it's difficult not to like Steve Hutcheson. Just look at this profile in the Daily News.

"One of the most important things a community can do is provide a good education for its children," said Hutcheson, who before moving to Newburyport was involved in town government in Reading.
"We're at a point where we need a new school, and I am going to work hard to make that happen."
Hutcheson also supports renovations to the Nock/Molin school complex, which could come up for a vote in fall 2012.
He said that this is a good time to be building schools, since the state is in a position to pay about half the cost. In addition, interest rates are low and many construction companies are looking for major projects.

He also seems like a very nice guy.

Hutcheson and I are on the same page with the Local Historic District as well. But like with Katy Ives, Hutcheson fails to earn a perfect score on my political litmus test because of his position on the Waterfront. From the Daily News' coverage of the second candidates forum.

Hutcheson: He would like to see it mostly open, with much public access. The three-term councilor would like to see an improved park and a parking lot that "is no longer dirt."

Trouble is I don't know what "mostly opens" means. I'm not interested in having the entire lot covered with buildings. I don't believe anyone is, but I don't support the notion that the entire two parcels need to be converted to park.

Katy O'Connor Ives

Ah, Katy O'Connor Ives.

Two weeks ago, she wowed me at the candidate forum at Clipper Way, demonstrating a poise and ease of expressing herself that I hadn't previously seen. (To be fair, I haven't watched a council meeting in quite a long time.) I walked away intending to give her one of my votes.

Then, she impressed with her performance at the enjoyable ROOF Port Follies fund-raiser. Ives serenaded her tiny dog with a solid performance of Boy from Ipanema.

But then things went a bit south.  The profile of her in the Daily News, "Ives strives for waterfront access," included this troubling nugget.

"One of the most important priorities is access to the waterfront," Ives said. "There is such a rich history here, and city projects should be anchored in history."

I wondered how she defined Waterfront access? I think we're all in favor of maintaining an expanding the public's right along the river, particularly as Steve Karp decides what he'd like to do with his properties to the east and west of the NRA lots. As things stand, the public really has very limited access to the waterfront on Karp's property closest to the Route 1 bridge, unless you're dining at the Michael's or the Black Cow.

I'd hoped that was how she defined waterfront access, ensuring any future development on those lots restores the public's access to the river. But that might not be the case.

A few days later, the Daily News covered the second candidates forum with this article, "Candidates differ on waterfront's future."

Ives: She said that open land should be preserved, because the waterfront is a resource cherished by city residents. If a hotel is considered, it might be located "closer to the bridge" than to the east end of the city's public holdings.

Ives is a strong proponent of the Local Historic District and supports the project to rebuild the Bresnahan School, so she scores two out of three on my political litmus test. But I'm beginning to think she'd be against the placement of any buildings of the NRA lots. If so, we may have a problem.

Update: Ives called recently to explain her position and we're on the same page. No problem here. She's open to some limited building on the NRA lots.

p.s. I am intrigued by her proposal that the city take out a bond to pay for city's extensive sidewalk repairs. As Ives said at the forum, the state of the economy might help the city save money on costs as contractors compete for work. But before supporting such a measure I'd need to understand how we'll decide where the money is spent. Will there be a public body making decisions? Or a transparent formula we all can understand and accept?

On Fire

Another good one from Mary Baker Eaton.

Dick Sullivan Jr.

Dick Sullivan Jr. impressed me at last week's candidates forum until he declined to raise his hand when the Councillor-at-Large candidates were asked if they supported the Local Historic District.

I had hoped Sullivan's opposition was conditional, that he'd support an LHD in some manner. But today's profile in the Daily News eliminated that notion.

Sullivan said that he would be against a Local Historic District if proposed plans do reach the council next year.
"People have pride in their property, and we don't need a new level of bureaucracy when it comes to permits," he said.

Game over. I admired his stances on the schools and waterfront, but there are two many qualified candidates who do support the LHD to compromise.

I can't wait to see how he fares in the coming election. There was a time when the Sullivan name would carry someone into office. (This isn't Sullivan's fault, but roughly two thirds of the profile is spent talking about the Sullivan family including former Mayor Dick Sullivan.)

But I wonder if that's the case in today's Newby-buryport? Sullivan is a former fire firefighter and school committee member, so he's well connected in his own right. But a failure to finish in the Top 5 might say something about the make up of today's electorate.

See Edwin O'Connor's "The Last Hurrah."

Councillor Forum Tonight

Tonight is your best chance to see the eight councillor-at-large candidates for yourself. The festivities start at 7 pm at the Nock Middle School.

Candidates: Incumbents Barry Connell, Kathleen O'Connor Ives, Ari Herzog and Steve Hutcheson face four challengers Michael Early, Larry Giunta, Dick Sullivan Jr. and Ed Cameron, present Ward 4 councilor.

I attended last week's session at Clipper Way. It was informative, but I'd expect tonight's session to delve a little deeper into the issues.

A New Hope?

A week or so ago, I wondered if Mayor Holaday was backing off her believe that some development on the NRA lots was acceptable.

Dyke Hendrickson, in today's City Hall Notebook, isn't backing off the suggestion that she is.

One variable on waterfront development appears to be the agenda of Mayor Donna Holaday. She has said she is working with various stakeholders on the waterfront, including the representatives of mega-landowner Steve Karp. But she has been close-mouthed about what exactly is being discussed.
It appears that she wants to get a consensus on some kind of a plan before making her thoughts public.

Probably politically prudent to secure the ground before planting a flag.

More Bad News

I don't know what - if anything - this means for the Daily News, which is owned by the same company. But it can't be good.

No George Washington?

You all should definitely read this.

Larry Giunta

I always enjoyed sparring with Larry Giunta on his former Newburyport's Voice web site. His political leanings are different than my own, but I generally found him to be a reasonable fellow. So I was intrigued when he announced his intentions to run for City Council.

I generally DON'T* take party lines into consideration when voting local. I look more at the person and their positions.

Larry definitely passes the person test, but his positions and I have irreconcilable differences.

At last week's candidate forum, Larry indicated he did not support the Local Historic District. He was one of only two candidates who declined to raise his hands. Dick Sullivan Jr. was the other, but I wasn't sure if he opposed the concept or a district or the specifics of the ones being proposed. I'm assuming the former.

That was strike one.

Strike two came this morning when a profile on Larry in the Daily News suggesed he "supports an open waterfront."

Giunta said he will pledge to work to keep the waterfront open as a park for all to enjoy.

For me, that's strike two, which is really one strike too many in this competitive at-large race. I like Larry Giunta, but not enough to give him one of my five votes.

*Capitalized for emphasis since I originally left the word out.

A Welcome Voice

I'm happy to report I'm adding Newburyport Blog back to the blog roll you see down below.

I removed it a few months ago or so when I was doing a housecleaning of blogs that hadn't been updated over a time. At the time, Mary Eaton hadn't posted in months, and frankly seeing that depressed me.

But she is back, and I'll second the congratulatory tone over the MP's address.

And I'll add a personal note. From Day One, Mary's been a steady source of kindness and support for this blog. I appreciate that and am very happy to have her back on the scene.

Something to Consider

Fun Time!

That's right readers, it's another snicker-generating installment of "Find the Humor" in Tom's recent column on Newburyport Today.

A Back Track?

Well now I don't know what to think.

A few weeks ago, I wrote that I was pleased to see the evolution of Mayor Holaday's position on the waterfront after she was quoted as uttering the following at an NRA meeting.

Mayor Donna Holaday, attending as an observer, said that the days are over when residents of the city are opposed to any kind of development on the waterfront.
"This is a different community than it was 10 years ago; residents and boards in the city are ready to work together," Holaday said.
"Many people were initially against paid parking, but we worked together, and now, we have a system that is in operation."

But our waterfront-loving counterpart, the Masked Preservationist, hinted in a recent post that Holaday has suggested she was misquoted. He promised details later.

Yet I read in Monday's Daily News City Hall Notebook that some behind the scene-ing was going on to develop a plan.

On another issue, the development of the NRA's land adjacent to the waterfront will likely generate its requisite amount of controlled fury.
Mayor Donna Holaday has been working on her own consensus plan, meeting with numerous commissions and private interests to develop a scenario that all stakeholders can accept.

It seems like any consensus plan would call for some development on the waterfront. Otherwise, that wouldn't be much of a consensus.

So what's the real deal. Can't wait to find out.

p.s. I do agree with MP on one regard. In fact he beat me to the punch with his post. I like the tone Dyke Hendrickson has taken with City Hall Notebook. It might not sit well with those within City Hall, but that's  not really the point.

NED Might Take a Hit

The Lowe's story in Biddeford, Maine, visible to travelers on the Maine Turnpike, shut down this week, apparently due to lack of business.

New England Development - possessor of a Midas touch for most commercial projects - is the developer of the project, an article in the Portland Press Herald suggests.

Show Time?

Red Sox owner John Henry, who of course beat out our Lord and Master Steve Karp for controlling stake in the Sox nine years ago, might have helped turned the tide of fan resentment with an surprisingly candid and gutsy appearance on Boston radio station 98.5 (Point of interest:, Michael Felger, the lead host on the station's 2 pm to 6 pm, worked at the Daily News for a short time back in The Day.)

Anyway, the session brought me back to the fateful day - 43 months ago to the day, in fact - when Mr. Karp came to town, speaking before a full house at the Nock Middle School.

Just as I felt bolstered by frankness and honesty coming from John Henry today, I remember the high feelings I had about Karp back then.

I ended the blog post with ....

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.

I felt the same then as I did today. I had hopes the person who held all the cards (or marbles, or whatever) was not only playing the same game as I but was playing on the same team.

But such feelings are fleeting,and I now find myself wondering what the heck is going on downtown. The hotel plan moved from Karp's Western holdings to the East where an abuttor has effectively put it on ice.

Downtown vacancy is low, which is nice, but Karp's Newburyport Development doesn't seem content and now is targeting a genuine Newburyport landmark in Fowle's.

The whole area just seems stagnant.

Could the NRA actually be on a faster track to get something done? As laughable as it might be to suggest that, the group demonstrated some real progress at the last meeting including some much needed buy-in from Mayor Holaday herself.

Anyway, not sure what I'm looking for here. Just interesting that a little frankness and attention from John Henry might help turn public sentiment in his favor. I'm wondering if it's time for Karp and New England Development to offer a bit of the same.

Upcoming Election Events

Election Season is heating up from ice cold to tepid. Three upcoming candidate forums.

Tuesday, Oct. 18
School Committee: Three Seats Up for Grabs
Candidates: Incumbents Bruce Menin and Nick deKanter faces two challengers: Audrey McCarthy, a former at-large city councilor, and Peter McClure, a teacher and parent.
Time: 6:30 pm
Place: Program Room at the Newburyport Public Library.

Wednesday, Oct. 19
Councilors-at-Large: Five Seats
Candidates: Incumbents Barry Connell, Kathleen O'Connor Ives, Ari Herzog and Steve Hutcheson face four challengers Michael Early, Larry Giunta, Dick Sullivan Jr. and Ed Cameron, present Ward 4 councilor.
Time: 7 pm
Place: Clubhouse on Clipper Way

Tuesday, Oct. 25
Councilors-at-Large
Time: 7 pm
Place: Nock Middle School

Just a thought

 I wonder how many of the folks bemoaning the potential loss of Fowle's (hello self) stand opposed to the local historic district on the grounds that "no one should tell me what to do with my property." (hello not self.)

The possibility of losing the newsstand and restaurant irks me more every day ...

Finally got mine.

An Issue?

Well, I have nothing to add to the Daily News' rather sparse account of last night's historic district hearing. I missed it. Son had a doctor's appointment. The Mrs. had a conflict, and I sort of fell asleep when reading my kids stories.

Oh, and the Steve Jobs news slowed me down.

I arrived around 8:30 pm. The meeting was understandably over.

But my general take away. This could be the issue that helps sort out the Councilor-at-Large race, which is the only competition on next month's ballot.

I'm still not sure but the article inferred that the decision to accept or reject the district would be left to the next council, not this one.

If that's the case, it'll be worth finding out where the candidates stand on this.

Free Cash Update

The city is clearly managing this fiscal downturn better than it did in the 1990s. Thanks Ed.

Historic District Hearing Tonight

I understand people's opposition to the proposed to historic districts in general and, more specifically, the proposed historic district that would encompass 770 homes in Newburyport. Such opposition was laid out in a article that ran in yesterday's Daily News, but I couldn't find it on the web site. So go to this July article for details.

The complaints center primarily around loss of property owner rights. No one wants to be told what they can do with their own property, I get that.

But people speak as if they hold complete authority to do what they want on their own property, and they don't. We all abide by property line set backs, allowed uses  and other restrictions that we as a community have deemed to be acceptable to preserve communal harmony.

The city adopted restrictions against so-called "in fill" buildings to try to cram multiple homes on what had been single family lots. And, of course, down along the river, the city adopted the overlay district to ensure that developers (see Steve Karp) build something that fits into our downtown.

I see the proposed historic district as an extension of these existing regulations. The historic district would help ensure that nothing drastic is done - or hundreds of nothings are done - to diminish the unique historic appeal of our signature ways, High Street and Fedeal Street.

Take time to read the regulations for yourself. From my reading, the requirements aren't particularly onerous. They don't regulate interior work, paint color or every minute detail.

In fact, they merely confirm the role we all play in living in such a historic town - stewardship.

Meeting starts at 7 pm at the Belleville Church at 300 High Street.

Vote By Chocolate

Wondering if Winfrey's Fudge will come up with a candy named after every candidate (also surprised no nuts were used.)

Good Question

From Dyke Hendrickson's City Hall Notebook today...

On the subject of municipal projects, a couple of city councilors had a head-scratching moment when pondering the community's plans for future "enlightenment."
City officials have contracted with a consultant to advise it on the pros and cons of revamping the streetlight system.That consultant is George Woodbury. director of energy services for Republic ITS, a California-based consulting firm with offices in Boston.
Woodbury, who was described as a "one-man Wikipedia" because of his broad knowledge of lighting issues, made a presentation two weeks ago at which he said the city could save about $100,000 per year by buying its lights instead of renting them from local utility companies.
Woodbury provided a torrent of facts and figures as to why the city should move forward — preferably now — to convert to a new system.
Councilors voted to send the matter to committee.
But prior to a regular meeting of the council Monday night, councilors Greg Earls and Brian Derrivan noted with some consternation that Woodbury represents a commercial enterprise that promotes new lighting systems.
How objective could this consultant be?

It's a fair question. One that no doubt will be asked in subcommittee.

If this saves us money over the long haul, fine. But it's good to get everything on the table first.

A Seismic Shift

I felt a great disturbance in the Force...as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.
-Obi Wan

Funny, I didn't know why until this morning but I had a similar feeling on Wednesday night, except the millions were more like dozens of open waterfront supporters clinging to the Old Hope that erecting an open park on the NRA's waterfront lots is fait accompli.

I've only lived in the city for five years (and worked in it four more back in the 90s) but that's long enough to know that only fools pretend to know what's going to happen on those lots.

But Wednesday night's NRA meeting introduced a seismic shift in the city's political fault lines. The Daily News report on the meeting centered on the NRA's attempt to link with MassDevelopment in a bid to move the project forward.

For me, however, the real news could be found at the bottom of the article.

Mayor Donna Holaday, attending as an observer, said that the days are over when residents of the city are opposed to any kind of development on the waterfront.

"This is a different community than it was 10 years ago; residents and boards in the city are ready to work together," Holaday said.

"Many people were initially against paid parking, but we worked together, and now, we have a system that is in operation."

That's a remarkable statement coming from the one-time candidate who'd been declared the champion of open waterfront types. In fact, Holaday's waterfront stance was really the primary political difference between herself and her opponent, James Shanely, who favors some development.

Days after the election, Holaday openly declared that she'd fight for the open waterfront, which was something she felt the people wanted.

Something changed between then and now. Perhaps as mayor she's getting a sense of the broader electorate and seeing the softness of the open waterfront support. Or maybe it's just pragmatism. She's done an excellent job taking very reasonable steps to broaden the city's revenue base. She may just see that development on the waterfront lot as a means to that same end.

Whatever the reason, I applaud her. She's running unopposed but she'll get my vote in November.

So is this how it happens?

One or the principal complaints coming out of Nantucket about Steve Karp's ownership is the systematic elimination of restaurants that serve locals. In the eyes of critics, Karp's Nantucket caters more to visitors and tourists with high-end restaurants rather than businesses serving locals.

This complaint came to mind this morning when I read the Daily News this morning. Apparently, Newburyport Development is soliciting offers for the space currently occupied by the Fowle's newstand and restaurant.

In my eyes its be a shame to lose either place as its one of my favorite places to take friends visiting Newburyport for lunch. The interior is dark, but comfortable and uniquely Newburyport.

But Karp's gotta do what Karp's gotta do. In these difficult times resources must be maximized. Ann Lagasse is quoted in the article saying the current rent isn't an issue, but I do believe Newburyport Development takes a piece of the business as well so maybe they're looking for something that brings in more cash.

Or perhaps Newburyport Development wants to diversify its restaurant holdings by grabbing a signature spot on State Street, Newburyport's Restaurant Row.

Or this is just a regular part of the property management biz that previously went unnoticed because we didn't see these things on the Internet.

In any case, this place is always interesting.

Speaking of interesting, Karp was quoted in the Boston Herald saying the demand for luxury condos is down. He and other developers are opting to build apartments instead.

Not sure how that would impact Newburyport. On the same day, the Nantucket Inquirer and Mirror reported that Karp's New England Development would expand its White Elephant Hotel residences, which clearly cater more to tourists than residences.
.
I think Newburyport's market is more closely aligned with Boston than Nantucket but I don't know what this means for Karp's waterfront plans here.

Interesting Package

Today's Daily News boasts two or three stories addressing the important issue of quality and cleanliness of the Merrimack River, including an account from Hooksett, NH, the source of those annoying little plastic discs littering our shorelines.

I'm not sure if the articles were supposed to be seen as a package or not. If not they should have been. In either case, I enjoyed seeing the Daily News delve a little more deeply into a topic once again.

Atticus is Back in Town

Just a reminder that Tom Ryan and Atticus will be at Jabberwocky tonight for the local book launch. Reading starts at 7 pm.

For my interview with Tom just run a "Tom Ryan" search in the search field above.

I look forward to reading "Following Atticus."

If you're gonna buy it, buy local.

Street Light Discussion

The City Council will hold a special meeting tomorrow to discuss the proposal that the city acquire all of our telephone polls and street lights.

George Woodbury, the consultant hired to analyze the idea, has delivered a report to the mayor and the council that suggests the city could save between $57,000 to $87,000 per year, over the next three years if we were to acquire the lights. (I just pulled those figures from the summary. No time to parse them yet.)

The idea definitely is gaining some traction among city officials.

The meeting starts at 7 pm tomorrow in the auditorium.

If anyone wants to see the report shoot me an email and I'll try to accomodate. It's likely available in the city clerk's office as it's dated 7/30/2011.

Add: Far as I can tell no mention of shutting of street lights in the report.

Just Walk Away

I've got a great deal of admiration for the folks organizing the anti-IBEW rally mentioned in today's Daily News. I loved the signs. I have one on my yard, and the random sign-holders are nice. I toot the horn. I wave.

But  I just can't stop thinking this anti-IBEW rally is ill-conceived.

They've failed. They have zero credibility here and an equal amount of support. The post card was nice, but they could hold an ice cream social downtown and most folks would still hate them.

The softening of the campaign makes sense, but again, too little way too late. Perhaps if IBEW had opened with an actual labor message instead of disparaging comments about the quality of OUR hospital or its doctors (OUR neighbors in some cases) they might have had a shot. They could have appealed to our somewhat liberal nature and earned an audience, at least.

But they didn't. They went ugly, and they got ugly.

Let's face it. We love our hospital. My youngest was born there.The AJ cared for my older son when he broke his ankle. I take great comfort knowing I have a quality hospital just up the street from my house.

So IBEW faced a pretty steep climb even before they dug themselves in a hole. Even my kid asks why can't they just move on. (He was turned off big-time by the giant rat, way to wins hearts and minds IBEW.) They're clearly flailing about, looking for something to latch onto. I can't see these guys sticking around past the first snow fall if they continue to be ignored.

However, if we turn this into a pissing match they may have no choice except sticking around lest they seen as being chased out of town by a bunch of locals.

Maybe I'm wrong.  I do respect people who stand up against bullies. It's an important lesson to teach.

But so is walking away from a pointless fight.

Happy Anniversary!

Well, I published my first post four years ago today. Thanks to you all for being part of this.

Field of Honor

I haven't watched many 9/11 retrospectives show nor have I read much in the papers. I know and remember what happened 10 years ago.

But few things leave me feeling as I did that day as the Newburyport Field of Honor on the Mall.

I drove a bit ago just before sunrise. A series of spotlights partly illuminate the multiple rows of American flags. The combination of shadows, morning sky and steady breeze had me seeing quick images of people in the field of flags.

No one was there, but I'm sure someone was.

So well done.

The below photo was taken last year.

Taking a Ding for the Team

My first ticket. I parked for more than two hours on the east side of Green Street. T'was a fair call.

And you know what, I paid the fine and now park legally on Prince Place. I'm now motivated to keep the streets clear for short-term parkers.

Keep the Connector

I'm a bit late with this, but I suspect the City Council will be discussing the proposal to connect Moseley Woods and Maudslay at Monday's meeting.

Some background. At the last council meeting, the body approved a request from the city's planning department to use $45,000 in CPA funds to analyze and possibly design a trail connecting our two cherished woods.

The trail would run under the new Route 95 bridge and presumably would be connected somehow to the walkway/bikeway running above over the Merrimack River.

I thought this was a fantastic idea the moment I read it in the Daily News a few weeks back.

As it turned out, my wife and I hiked under the bridge a month or so ago during a walk in Moseley. We had designs on climbing the other side when we realized we wouldn’t be able to get back over easily, so we abandoned the effort and stayed on the eastern side of the highway.

So I can see how the project would make sense. A riverfront trail connecting the two parks would be a fantastic addition to our city’s trails, and the connection to Route 95 would be truly unique (once the new Whittier Bridge was built.) This would be yet another feature to enable our community to stand out.

I was surprised to see the idea met with some opposition in the city council. Councilors Tom Jones and Brian Derrivan raised the principal concerns. (They would ultimately be joined by Steve Hutcheson and Tom O’Brien in voting against the grant.)

Jones’ opened up questioning whether the money might be better spent building out the South End rail trail, and it was a good point. But the city’s planning head Andrew Port said the South End trail is important, but its pieces are largely in place, enabling the city to act on its own timeline.

The opportunity to consider building a trail connecting Moseley and Maudslay is tied to the plans to replace the Whittier Bridge. If the city wants to do it, it’s got to decide now or else a chance might be lost.

Point. Counterpoint.

Then the arguments against began centering on public safety. In short, councilors are concerned that creating a public space so far removed from … well .. everything will invite less than virtuous people to gather and do less than virtuous things.

It was actually an interesting discussion, one worth watching. Go over to Ed Cameron’s blog. He sets the whole thing up nicely.

So where are we? The council approved the request, but now it may reconsider the vote as two councilors who voted yes – Kathleen O’Connor Ives and Bob Cronin - asked that the item be brought back for another vote. During the meeting. Ives at least twice asked why the proposal couldn’t be referred to committee when questions came up about what abutting entities (the Moseley trustees and the water department) were consulted about the idea. I’m not sure what Cronin’s concerns are but I’d guess they’re in line with Jones and Derrivan’s.

Ed Cameron is openly soliciting feedback from voters, so here’s mine.

We’ve got an opportunity to add a truly unique walking and biking experience to our very walkable city (as the Masked Preservationist has noted in recent spot-on posts.) A trail connecting two parks with a bridge spanning the Merrimack would be a great addition, even greater if it ultimately connected with more trails on the other side of the river.

Is public safety a concern? Sure, a little bit. But it’s a concern everywhere and at all time. If we let such matters dictate what we do and don’t do we’d never try anything. We’d never have a rail trail. Hell, we’d never even have the MBTA station. (I recall critics wondering if the extension of the commuter rail would bring Big City crime to Newburyport.)

These concerns aren’t as far-fetched (although I thought Jones was reaching by invoking the scary – yet very singular – axe attack in Salisbury) but they’re not big enough to derail a worthwhile project like this one.

I'll be interested in hearing what the abutting parties have to say, but if no legitimate roadblocks are erected I hope the council acts on this out of hope and opportunity, not fear.

Will the School Project Be An Issue?

I'm still ramping up our campaign coverage here at the blog, but I did want to toss one quick question out there.  A few folks have identified the school building project as a huge issue in this fall's election, but I disagree.

Is there ANY candidate - and I'm referring to the only race in town, Councilor-at-Large - who is running a promise to vote AGAINST this project? I haven't head any yet, but it's still early in the season. I'd be surprised if anyone took that stance.

I agree this will be a tough campaign in the spring. I'm optimistic, and I think most people will be receptive to the idea, assuming nothing outlandish happens. But I know strange things happen once the curtain on the voting booth closes.

We should remember that the last debt exclusion question in 2008 nearly passed, and that was with very little campaigning by the proponents except for then Mayor John Moak. At the time, Moak blamed the state election laws for limiting the scope of the campaign.

I fault the state incredibly," Moak said, saying his hands were tied by campaign guidelines that prohibited him from sending out a mailer or letter to households explaining the question and detailing the proposal.
The city was also prohibited from including a summary with the question on the ballot, breaking down what a "yes" or "no" vote would mean.
"I can tell you that 60 people didn't know what this was about," Moak said last night, standing in the City Hall foyer. "Do you know how many people would have wanted a summary?"

I still don't understand what the issue was but I'm hopeful that if the school folks apply themselves they can get this done.

We need a new school.

Welcome

A hearty welcome to Newburyport Today readers. This is the blog I talked about. Please pardon our appearance during renovation (and the last gasp of school summer vacation.) It really gets quite titillating around here, I swear.

To my loyal reader(s), I've been invited to write a monthly column for Newburyport Today. The first went up today. Same theme as the blog, just a longer presentation. Please enjoy.

Once I'm smart enough to figure out how to hook up an RSS feed you may be able to read it here (while actually reading it there.) I don't know about such things.

Anyway, welcome again to the newbies and thanks to the diehards for their continued interest.

BTW, while I have your attention. I'm a big fan of the relaxation of the leash law, but a little message to dog owners at Cashman. KEEP YOUR DOGS OFF THE BIKE TRAIL! I don't mind slowing down a bit, but c'mon.

That is all.

Woe is Us

So can $1.5 million in free cash ever be problem?

It wouldn't seem to be the case. The city should be commended for running a bit in the black in these tough financial times, as the Daily News reports today. A surplus certainly beats a deficit as many other communities can attest.

But we wouldn't be us without looking at potential pitfalls.

Schools -  Ed Cameron mentioned the possibility of restoring some lost programs at the school. I'm not sure if the appetite is there, particularly since this money might be a one-time shortfall if tax receipts take a dip next year in a sagging economy. But what impact will this $1.5 million have on any override or debt exclusion votes for the new schools? Will people feel the city has enough to pay debts without more taxes?

Candidates - Anyone hoping to run on the platform that the city is fiscally mismanaged may have a hard time getting traction. The case would be much easier to make with a $1.5 million deficit.

Unions - Will public employee unions be emboldened to ask for more next time around. Union negotiations with Holaday have been largely uneventful - with the firefighters as the notable exception. Could that change?

Personnel - Does the city's decision to cut the part-time conservation commission agent seem an overreach now? I think the salary with that position was approximately $30,000. A surplus of this magnitude suggests that might have been money well spent. The deal to share a conservation agent apparently fell apart, according to the News.

Just some quick thoughts. I think city officials might have done themselves a favor by clearly spelling out what financial cuts/decisions have been made to bring this budget in line, such as personnel and program cuts. This would have made the surplus look more like the result of good management rather than good fortunate (and new revenue streams like the meals tax and, to a lesser extent, parking.)

But once the state certifies the existence of the cash I'm in complete agreement with the horde that we've got some infrastructure in woeful need of improvement. SIDEWALKS!

P.S. Cameron does a good job of putting the free cash total in perspective on his blog.

Got a Feeling

Back in 1997 when I was covering Newburyport City Hall, I thought I'd be writing the final chapter of the Water Front Saga when then Mayor Lisa Mead and Wannabe Hotel Developer Roger Foster agreed on a plan that that would pave the way for the hotel's construction.

I obviously was a bit naive.

Last week's NRA meeting gave me a similar feeling. The people present - while I agree not a guaranteed representative of the city at large - seemed receptive to the idea that we'd have to build on some of the waterfront to pay for the desired open space.

Today, the Masked Preservationist confirmed that the tide is turning with this little post, "The Final Word on the NRA, Paid Parking & The Waterfront."

If this is the best he's got.....

Next Step, No Step

I commend Councilors Tom Jones, Brian Derrivan, and Bob Cronin for bringing the city's case against the IBEW 103 union to a higher authority, as reported in today's Daily News.

I don't see how the AFL-CIO's Merrimack Valley Central Labor Council would intercede on the city's behalf, since IBEW protesters' behavior is inline with the Council's overall mission "to mobilize against anti-union employers, work on community issues, recruit and support candidates who champion working families, and organize grassroots political action to push for adoption of worker-friendly initiatives and policies on a national, state and local level."

Still, it was worth a shot.

But I'm not sure the councilors' refusal to accept an endorsement from IBEW is really any big deal. First of all, they're all running unopposed so the political risk is minimal. Second, where's the political value in such an endorsement since the community overall seems to have nothing but contempt for the group's tactics.

Are they also going to refuse to accept the endorsements of Derek Jeter and Rex Ryan?

Honestly, the best thing we all can do is just ignore the union guys until they go away, and they will. Every article published and letter written just adds fuel to fire.

They want to rent an office here? Fine. They want to stand on Market Square with the rat? Fine by me. They're not breaking any laws and they're certainly not garnering any support from the locals.

Not too shabby

From Bob Cronin's email update...

  Work continues on the city-side with sidewalk estimates, bids and needs assessments.  These are being assessed by the Mayor’s office and DPS, with input from Councillors.  So far this year the local option meal tax has garnered Newburyport just over $104,000.00.  One half is devoted to existing residential sidewalk repair or about $52K.  

Not a bad piece of change for sidewalks.

No Fighting?

I arrived at the NRA meeting an hour late last night. I worried that I might have missed some fireworks, but the Daily News article indicates that things went relatively smoothly.

I hope the Masked Preservationist wasn't disappointed by the lack of fisticuffs.

Nice Job

Here's a little shout out to my new Twitter connection Dave Rogers at the Daily News.

At some point yesterday he tweeted a question about the IBEW protesters, asking if they've been seen since the Verizon strike started. I'd wondered myself how the IBEW folks would interact with union folks with a genuine labor beef or if they might just clear out.

 He clearly asked that question to several folks and came up with this article. Nicely done.

Soft Support for Open Waterfront

By the way, James Shanley mentions a survey taking five years ago in his Daily News piece. I'm drawing a blank but that might have been taken before I moved to Newburyport (coming up on year five next month!). But the mention reminded me of an angry post I wrote early last month.

At the time, I thought the Masked Preservationist was calling me a Dark Sider. Hence the tone. He later would clarify his point suggesting that I was only a dupe or a patsy, not an actual Dark Sider.

I was going to clean it up and repost, but the tone makes me chuckle. Enjoy.


---
Since our friend the Masked Preservationist likes history so much, perhaps he could lay some on me.

The righteous plateau of the Dim Siders is constructed upon the various referendums (referenda for the smart folks) held over the years that have overwhelming public support for the NRA to be converted to parkland.

Trouble is, I'm having some trouble finding that overwhelming support.

The first place to look is 1987. I don't have a Hot Tub Time Machine, so I'll just refer to  Victor Time's Port in Progress piece on the sorry history of the waterfront lots.

Obstacles started popping up almost immediately. Rowe and a number of other advocates of public access to the Merrimack River had formed the Committee for an Open Waterfront and succeeded in placing a series of nonbinding referendum questions about development on the November municipal election ballot.
While pro-development candidate Edward Molin handily won the mayoral election, the nonbinding referendum questions showed local voters to be overwhelmingly opposed to waterfront development. A “no development” option captured 75 percent of the votes. Voters defeated an option for a “hotel-and-mixed-use” package by a similar margin. A “hotel-only” option was also defeated, but by a somewhat smaller margin.

I'll grant you the public's opinion was pretty clear in 1987. Great year by the way. I graduated high school that year, and Whitesnake was huge!

But grant me this. How many of those voters still reside in the city of Newburyport. Am I to believe public sentiment - indeed the public itself - might not have changed over the past two-and-a-half decades?

Well wait a minute you say, what about the surveys that went out with the 2000 census? (Just an aside, these questions do seem to coincide with Bushes getting elected to the White House.)

With their 2000 city census forms, Newburyport residents also received a questionnaire about what they wanted to see on their waterfront.

Close to 8,000 surveys were mailed, and 4,011 were returned, then-NRA Chairman Mary Lou Supple said.

Of those, 49 percent of respondents wanted a “park only” on the property. About 37 percent wanted “park and commercial” use, and 8 percent said “commercial only.”

In a separate mailing to business, 43 percent of 162 respondents wanted “park and commercial” use, 42 percent said “park only,” and 15 percent said “commercial only.”

To be clear, of the 4011 people surveyed ELEVEN YEARS AGO, less than half favored an open waterfront and nearly an identical amount wanted some level of development on the waterfront. (I'm guessing the missing 6% didn't register a vote, so we'll say "Don't know." I couldn't see any other explanation.)

Meanwhile, 58% of the businesses in town (Dark-siders, I suppose.) wanted some commercial development.

This poll was taken in 2000 when the dot.com dollars were still flowing and the United States wasn't embroiled -rightly or wrongly - in several different wars. The possibility of the US going through worst economic calamity since the Great Depression didn't seem possible.

In short, times were a lot easier back then. Optimism was cheap, and people were never asked to make difficult decisions.

But I'm supposed to assume that if the same question were posed today, in this age of cutbacks, layoffs and municipalities pondering bankruptcy that people would vote the exact same way?

That's nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.

So I need to ask two questions.

One, where is the overwhelming open waterfront support? I don't see it. Someone tell me what I'm missing.

Two, why is it heresy to suggest a King Solomon approach to this issue? We have two lots. Sell or develop one -- or small parts of both -- and use the proceeds to build a park on the rest. This inability to compromise is not conducive to progress.
--

That's it. Thoughts?