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?

Grab a stick and give a whack!

Interesting piece by James Shanley in the Daily News today. No doubt, he's only going to increase the NRA's chances of winning this year's Political Pinata Award, but he's correct in what he's said.

While I still disapprove of the private meetings the individual NRA members had with Newburyport Development I've still maintained that I'm far less concerned than if the Planning Board had held similar meetings. This isn't because I trust the members of one board over the other, but rather the Planning Board is the entity overseeing Newburyport Development's construction of anything on the waterfront.

The NRA is merely an interested abutter, albeit quasi-public abutter that must adhere to open meeting laws. Hence my issue with the private meetings.

Anyway, according to Shanley,  the NRA apparently is set to release a "a financial analysis of multiple levels of redevelopment/public space, with the costs and benefits associated with each. The public is invited to attend to gain a better understanding of our process and to hear our initial findings about this important piece of property on the waterfront."

As I type this I already can hear the Masked Preservationist typing up another "Here we go again" screed, suggesting the NRA has lost its marbles.

I think the report deserves a fair hearing, and I'll try to make it over there after I've put the little bloggers to bed.

Show starts at 7 pm at the library.

BTW, in the spirit of disclosure, I would like to declare the I supported Shanley as a councilor, mayoral candidate and member of the NRA.

I like the guy, and we'll occasionally tip a beer or two as we plot the destruction of the Smurfs, the overthrow of Lollipop Land and new evil ways to snuff out all things good and pure. (Although I do forget of MP counts Shanley as an actual Dark Sider or just a Dark Sider minion like myself.)

Anyway, now you know my name AND my potential bias. Doesn't mean I'm not right though.

You've got issues

And I'd like to hear them. What concerns will drive your admittedly limited choices for city council this year?

I know all the ward seats are set, unless someone run's a valiant write-in campaign. But the at-large race is up in the air, and the 11-member city council consists of five at-large councilors. So the winners will hold great sway, particularly on matters like the proposed historic district.

I'll toss out a few.

Police cameras
Charter Review
Historic District

Give me more or expand on the above.

Sniff....Sniff

I smell a poll coming.

Since the election itself will be rather dull. I'll give readers (all two of them) the opportunity to approve or disapprove of our city council and mayor in a series of polls over the next few weeks.

I'll probably put up the candidates for at-large as well.

Question: Should I go with standard grades (A, B,C.) or just approve or disapprove? Any other suggestions?

Should I roll out my blinding wit?

"Armed Melee"

Well this certainly grabbed my attention this morning.

It was easier to dismiss the recent stabbing as a one off event, but something is clearly brewing here. Something a tad troubling.

By this thorough account in the Daily News, the police handled things quite capably. But the article warns of potential troubling coming this week and - I'm guessing - perhaps the rest of the summer.

I guess I was most troubled by the last line uttered by Mayor Holaday, who sounds a bit more like the mayor of Amity than the mayor of Newburyport.

Holaday stressed that people shouldn't think twice about visiting the downtown area, but added that parents should practice common sense after the end of scheduled events, typically around 10 p.m.
"When the concerts are over, it's time to bring the kids home and not linger in the downtown area," Holaday said.

Sound advice, to be sure, but not something you want to hear.

First Campaign Question of the Year

Here's an interesting piece by the Masked Preservationist. I'd love to hear what councilors have to say about this? Why not correct the ordinance?