Congrats and Good Luck

I stopped by Plum Island Roasters today and learned it was Joyce and Sam's last day as owners. Good luck to them both and thanks for establishing one of the cooler establishments in town.  I'd also like to offer an equal bit of good luck to new owner Bruce Vogel.

He doesn't speak for me.

I'm not quite sure what brought on the confessional post by my masked colleague, P. Preservationist. But I'm not apologizing for nothing.

Perhaps he was referring to our blogging City Councilors, but I don't see informing the public as their primary responsibility. If it were every city councillor would be required to have a blog (hmm, there's an idea.)

If you'd like to be better informed, start reading the paper and making a few phone calls. I've got kids to care for and a job to do as well, but I make the time (probably at the detriment of my health.)

And please do keep reading this blog. I'll give you up-to-the-minute information, but finding that minute might take me a while.

Remember, you read it here first.

Okay, maybe I didn't report the particulars, like the name of the business, the type of business or the buyers, but I hinted way back when that Plum Island Roasters had been sold. I just didn't bother chasing down the details. (And I just forgot to ask Sam the few times I saw her at the coffee shop.)

The Daily News mentioned the transaction today. However, the article focuses almost exclusively on Praelines changing hands (another favorite.) It's odd that the News doesn't mention the buyer of PI Roasters. I'd heard it was a former city councilor, but we'll leave it at that.

So remember, if you're hungry for vague mentions of rumored deals delivered in a manner that's of no practical benefit whatsoever, this is the place.

Journalism 101

First lesson, you absolutely can't go wrong with a headline like this:

Report: Chief gave cash for sex


Wow.
 
Second, when asked why your paper seem to focus on the negative, tell people, "We don't write about the thousands of airplanes that land safely."
 
That old adage came to mind on Monday when the Daily News reported on a verbal tussle at a Charter Review Commission meeting earlier this month. You can get the details in the article, but the thrust of the dispute centered around a member's concerns that the board won't meet a pending deadline.
 
I've got no complaints about the article or the publishing of the article. Just seems a shame that this board has been meeting regularly - up to two nights a week, could go to three - and this is what gets the press. But the Review Commission might be the city's equivalent of the high school chess club. Charter reviewing doesn't make for gripping copy or put fannies in the high school stadium seats.
 
But the committee is moving forward since last November when they were elected.
 
They added two quality people as replacements for departing members Bruce Vogel and Bruce Brown. I don't know Paul Bevilacqua that well, but he's impressed me at every meeting. I do know Denis Kennedy from our days at the Daily News and I was happy he sought and got a seat on the commission. Denis not only brings a high degree of experience working with municipalities a a reporter, state official and now a consultant. But he also brings a healthy dose of constructive skepticism to the process as his vote against recommending that the mayor serves a four-year term suggests.
 
Whatever the commission recommends, it will face a great many skeptics - some not so healthy.
 
If you're interested in what they're up ask them yourself. The commission is holding its next public hearing tomorrow night at 7 pm in Room 118 at Newburyport High School.

And Parking Passes

Well, the City Council adopted a fee structure for paid parking in downtown Newburyport. Don't ask me to rely who voted how because frankly I'm still a bit confused by the series of votes. And I clearly wasn't alone.

So rather than put out some crap information I'll just hold back until I can get this all sorted out.

(Add: Councilor/Blogger Ari Herzog does a nice job of recapping the night here.)

It's safe to say that I would have lost my initial bets, but that performance is entirely consistent with my blackjack career. I like to play but I lose - a lot.

Here are the facts:

* Resident Parking Fees were dropped from $50 to $5. Mayor Holaday attended the meeting and suggested she could work with $10 for residents and $5 for seniors.

The council instead went with $5 for residents and $0 for any resident over 65. No problem on this end, except that City Clerk Richard Clerk estimated the built in administrative cost of issuing each permit would be roughly $10 (overall costs of running the clerk's office is $40 and hour, processing a permit will take about 15 minutes). But no one pushed hard on this point so I'm willing to wait and see what the impact is.

* The council discussed a prorated permit for seasonal employees but ultimately left the decision in the hands of City Clerk Richard Jones whose office manages parking enforcement.

* The council created a revolving "Downtown Paid Parking Account" where the revenue from the parking program will be stored. The revenue will go toward maintaining the program, paying shares to the NRA and Waterfront Trust, and not less than $50,000 per year toward the "general stewardship, care, maintenance, and improvement of downtown's public infrastructure and other capital projects.

The council needs to consider the program again at its next meeting to make it official. The second readings typically are formalities, but we'll see what happens. The next meeting is Feb. 7.

Panera

A source tells me Panera is hoping to open its Storey Ave. doors March 1. I'm less excited about its arrival then before, at least as a consumer. I'll still try to buy local. But I'm pleased as a taxpayer and resident. Good to have some new life up there.

Paid Parking Wars: A New Hope

Hmmm, chance paid parking will pass there may be.

Ward 4 Councilor (friend, neighbor) Ed Cameron sent out an email this morning with a link to a parking blog post and the suggestion that he'll be pushing for a reduction for the residents free, which now is currently pegged at $50. Councilor-at-Large Katie Ives, at Thursday night's hearing, also proposed such a change, saying she wouldn't support paid parking without it. Ward 6 Councilor Tom O'Brien said he could support the paid parking plan if the residents fee were reduced or eliminated.

The fee could go as low as $5, but councilors want to make sure the city recoups its costs for printing, distributing and enforcing the stickers.

I don't have a major beef with this, as long as it doesn't undermine the fundamentals of the parking program. I'd hate for the city to lose money, and I'm not sure if anyone has a handle on what impact the lower resident fee will have on the city's take.

I haven't looked closely enough at the figures to know whether or not that's the case. I know the initial proposal projected that a small number of residens would buy the $50 permit, but that could change if the fee is $5 or so.

I do find it odd that a parking permit could cost less than the fee for a dog license. One could easily argue the former is much more costly to the city than the latter but politics is nothing if not imprecise.

By my math, the lower resident fee could bring Ives and O'Brien into the Yes column (and I'm guessing Cronin as well), giving the proposal the necessary majority. Councilor-at-Large Ari Herzog, in his own blog, also suggested that while he still has questions he shouldn't have been placed in the no column in my last post so he may also answer "Aye" at tonight's council meeting.

Be there or watch it on TV.

Anticipating a no vote

If I were a gambling man, and I do enjoy dabbling in a wee bit of blackjack from time to time, I'd wager that Mayor Holaday's paid parking plan is dead.

This is a gut bet. I'm not consulting the cheat card in my left breast pocket or counting cards. I'm just working off my impression of the city council's behaviors and attitudes during last Thursday's sparsely attended hearing.

I spoke in favor of the parking plan. (I spoke poorly I might add, speaking extemporaneously in public is not a strong suit. Should have prepared.) I can't offer much more than The Daily News article and agree with the "mixed" label applied in the headline.

So here's how I see it going down.

YES

Ward 1 - Allison Heartquist
Ward 2 - Greg Earls
Ward 4 - Ed Cameron
CAL - Barry Connell



NO
Ward 3 - Bob Cronin*
Ward 5 - Brian Derrivan
Ward 6 - Tom O'Brien
CAL - Ari Herzog*
CAL - Katie Ives
CAL - Tom Jones
CAL - Steve Hutcheson

* Cronin says he's undecided but my gut says he's leaning toward no. Same with Ari Herzog, who wrote in his blog that he still has questions that need to be answered. I wrote about this last month and I still think he's going to vote no.

Katie Ives said she'll vote against it unless resident parking permits are reduced to near zero (or the cost of a sticker.) No doubt this will win her points with parking skeptics. The question is will the council amend the plan to reduce the fee from $50 to $5. As was mentioned at the hearing, this could completely skew the financials of the parking plan since residents - who account for a considerable percentage of the parkers downtown - would be parking for free.

Again, this is politically attractive to many. And perhaps it's a first step to get SOME parking plan adopted. But it might be too big a tweak to make the entire package workable.

The council is voting tomorrow night. The public has the right to speak so take the opportunity to have your voice heard. But be prepared.

Parking Meetings Tonight and Monday

Well reports on the death of the parking plan certainly were exaggerated, or at least premature.

You regular readers know I firmly believe we need to institute paid parking downtown. This is another logical step toward diversifying the city's revenue stream, taking a bit of the load off property owners. This isn't a Newburyport-centric struggles. Municipalities across the state and nation are wrestling with means of compensating for revenue short-falls.

I know many feel they already pay for parking through taxes, but there's no precedent for such thinking. Permits cost money. Licenses cost money. Schools now come with school fees. Our taxes do pay for the bulk of services, but they don't and can't cover everything.

But the best part of the paid parking plan is it will draw some revenue from our visitors, who will still come. In my travels people ask me where I live and when I tell them the reply usually is, "Oh, I love Newburyport." In expressing the rational behind their love no one - not a person - mentions free parking. Visitors probably are shocked that parking is free when they visit.

I concede this is a divisive issue, as Ward 3 Councilor Cronin notes in today's Daily News article. Perhaps one of the more compelling issues facing  the council in some time. This is why I suspect the measure won't pass. I'm not sure the majority councilors believe strongly enough in the concept to go against paid parking opponents, but I may be surprised. Right now I think Cronin and At-Large Councilor Ari Herzog are the swing votes. Herzog, btw, posted an item on his blog suggesting the privatization of parking. The paid parking discussion has moved way beyond this point, so if this is something he'd seriously like to pursue I don't see him supporting the currrent paln.

In any case, you should consider attending tonight's meeting. I couldn't find a time in the Daily News article but I believe it's at 7 pm. The council will here all comers before taking the first of two votes (if the first is an affirmative) at Monday night's meeting.

Bob Cronin is also conducting a survey on this site.

Go, do something. Make your voice heard.

Post from the NYC

The Newburyport Youth Commission is looking for some new members. The next meeting is Tuesday January 11 at 6:30 pm at the Kelley School (new entrance around back). The commission willl be talking about goals for the coming year, a rubber duck derby fundraiser going on this April at the Mall, and Nancy Earls will be giving an update about the Learning Enrichment Center's work.

Notable Note from Ari Herzog

Please be advised the Neighborhoods and City Services Committee will meet Monday, January 31 at 6:30 p.m. in the city council chamber to continue discussion of our December 13 meeting regarding the subject of amending city ordinances to allow dogs to run off-leash in four city parks.


The meeting will end prior to 7:30, when the full council meets.

I can not say at this point whether or not there will be a committee vote, as it depends on the committee.


Thanks,

Ari

Parking Deal

So is this a better deal?

The City Council didn't want to pay the NRA an annual $75,000 fee to the NRA for the use of its lots. So last night, according to the Daily News, the mayor's office negotiated a deal with the NRA that will allow the agency to keep all the revenue generated by 250 of its spots with the remaining 120 being reserved for resident and employee parking.

The city will pay for the meters, keep the fees from the employee and resident permits and also fines from any tickets.

Sounds okay, but I wonder if the NRA - which was quite happy with the previous arrangement - will make out better in this new deal.

I acknowledge this is as basic as a parking formula can get, but it seems reasonable. But if ever NRA spot produces an daily average of $1. It will take 300 days for the NRA to reach $75,000.

So is $1 a day per spot a reasonable estimate? I don't know.

Happy News Segment

Handsome News Guy: Well, the news from Pakistan is increasingly grim. but here's a chirpy local angle. Over to you, Cindy Lou!

Thanks Matt! We were excited to hear former Daily Newser Paul Beckett on the WSJ.com the other day giving a first-hand account of the assassination of Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer. Paul, who preceded Tom Salemi as business guy/Newbury-Rowley reporter at the paper, is now chief of the Wall Street Journal's South Asia Bureau. Paul actually created the twice weekly business page at the News before leaving the paper, allowing Salemi to drive the feature into the ground.

Thanks Cindy Lou. By the way, whatever become of Tom Salemi?

No one knows for sure, Matt. But rumor has it he might be blogging. But I must stress that can NOT be confirmed.

Ooo, let's hope not. Now over to Mindy with the weather!

Can we get our $800 back?

Honestly, what a mess. The mayor finally agrees to release a draft of the plan that shows which street lights she and the Energy Advisory Committee suggest should be shut off. And it comes with this caveat in today's Daily News article.

Holaday said she has recognized some glaring problems with the maps not keeping with the criteria for shut-offs set by the Energy Advisory Committee. She said she was concerned that publicly releasing the maps would cause alarm among residents.

"I estimate that about 90 percent of the streetlights marked are wrong," Holaday warned in a note accompanying the electronic maps. "So, I passed ward sections of these maps to city councilors and asked that they review and return to me by Dec. 13 with their corrections and recommendations."

Holaday said councilors have not yet made their recommendations. The city paid $800 to a consultant to make the maps, said Andrew Flanagan, the mayor's director of policy and administration.

$800 and it's almost completely in accurate? I feel like I'm missing something, but that's how this entire process of shutting off the street lights seems to be going.  I just can't figure this out. Is this a cost-saving measure or an energy savings measure? Both sound nice but at what price?

And how are we going to evaluate the impact of this fairly if we can't know with a great deal of confidence what street lights will be dark in the dead of winter when I'm walking home from work on the street rather than along our dangerous decrepit sidewalks?

Lastly, I don't know if this issue is linked or "de-linked" with the plan to purchase poles. The mayor says linked, one reader says de-linked. But I'm siding with the skeptics on the council. I see a utility company trying to unload some aging and increasingly obsolete infrastructure.

I'm willing to have my mind changed. But I wonder about this, if the city stands to save $100,000 a year by purchasing the poles, why is National Grid willing to sell them? Doesn't it stand to make $100,000 less? Why the charity? We certainly can't buy poles from a competitor.

The answer may be simple, so go ahead, someone make me look foolish.