Why I'm voting for James Shanley

I've done a horrible job blogging on this election, which is too bad because I was really looking forward to the discussion. I don't like posting this on election eve, but I didn't want the season to slip by without fulfilling my long-promised reasons for endorsing James Shanley. Well, there's really only one.

I think we need him.

I disagree with the Current's endorsement, suggesting now is the time more suited for a candidate like Donna Holaday, someone who knows the inside and the outside of a ledger and can pull together a tight budget. To me, that would be the defensive position to take at a time when we need to show a strong offense.

We need a mayor who is looking beyond the squabbles of today and yesterday. Someone who recognizes the status quo just isn't working today. A person who is willing to lead folks toward possibilities they hadn't previously considered.

Shanley did that for me two years ago. We were attending one of the NRA's public hearing about the waterfronts, specifically asking what features should be included in the Cecil Group's plan for a waterfront park. Having just arrived to the city a year earlier, I attended the meeting thinking the battle over the waterfront parcels had been fought and won. The waterfront would be open; it's just a question of what we rest upon this openness (openicity?).

Skating rinks. Tot lots. Art displays. one after another suggestions for park features. Then Shanley stood up and reminded the NRA that the waterfront lots were economic engines that shouldn't be left in idle.

I couldn't believe what I'd heard. Someone actually suggested publicly that the lots be built upon. I thought these issues were settled in the 90s when Roger Foster finally abandoned his hotel bid (or had it abandoned for him), but someone had the guts to bring it up again.

We met for coffee later and his argument was convincing. We can't afford to maintain wide open green space. We need tax revenue. This city needs to maximize our resources if we're going to survive, thrive and restore some of the school programs and services that have been cut over the years.

A park, in my opinion, isn't the most practical or even the most attractive use of that space.

I know the surveys and so-called consensus that has built after 40 years supposedly wants an open waterfront. My question is this. Why isn't anyone using the park we currently have? A month or so ago back, we four made our way down to the Farmer's Market just before closing. We did our shopping, ambling through the crowds that still filled the Tannery parking lot and filling our shopping bags with vegetables, peaches and cider doughnuts. The place was packed, alive and a joy.

Lunch was next so we wandered over the Abraham's, grabbed some sandwiches and made our way to the Waterfront Park for a picnic. One might expect the place to be jamming in the middle of a glorious Sunday afternoon but that one would be wrong. The place was empty, a few families here, a napping waitress there, but the park was a quiet contrast to the bustle of the downtown and the Tannery, with the only exception being the boardwalk and walkways that guided people around the green space. In my opinion, this state isn't unusual. I never see crowds enjoying the grass we do have. The park always looks empty to me.

Having just returned to Newburyport a few years ago, I can testify that people "out there" don't think pastoral riverside retreat when they think of Newburyport. Quite the contrary, they think State Street, restaurants, shops and boardwalks. They want vitality. So do I.

In my opinion, people who have lived in this city forever-plus overstate the importance of the park in the ability to draw visitors to town. Most of the visitors to our fair city have parks in their own towns (admittedly without a river), what they don't have is our historic downtown.

As I write this the temperature is sagging into the 40s. I wonder how man people will be using that park this weekend or the weekend after that? How can we commit such a massive parcel of our downtown to be used for a handful of concerts and a three or four months of pleasant weekend afternoons?

To be clear, I'm not talking about building on the entire waterfront. I think we should extend the park on either side, but we should complement the open space with life, vitality and a return of the commerce that made and makes this city great.

This is the vision James Shanley laid out a few weeks after that 2007 meeting when we met at Plum Island Roasters. He never accepted authorship of the idea. (I'm told it was Nick Cracknell, the former planning director, but not sure.) But he sold it.

Anyway, at the time, I thought he was mildly nuts. I compared him to a WWII Japanese soldier who'd been holed up on a tropical island and didn't know the war was over, but I listened and I came to appreciate the vision behind the point of view, and I also appreciated the guy who was willing to stand up at a meeting filled with people who dreamed of parkland and state a completely contrary position.

I think he's consistently been willing to push for unpopular ideas that he thinks will work. He wants paid parking without free parking on the street, a system Donna Holaday seems to favor. I agree with James that the free parking will only undermine the paid parking system, causing people to drive around looking for "free" spots and adding congestion. He wants to develop a parking management program first before considering a parking garage. Again, at this time when government dollars are drying up we need to be prudent so this makes sense to me. (Jim Roy, a garage backer, had a great exchange with him in a recent Liberator.)

I think the time has come to settle these issues: the waterfront, paid parking. These programs, if executed well, all promise to bring revenue back to the city when we most desperately need it. Do we need a mayor who shows a propensity for counting the dollars or generating the dollars. I'm favoring the former, and I see James Shanley as that person.

I'll echo every other publication and blogger who has expressed an opinion on this matter. We're enormously lucky to have two capable candidates, and I'd be pleased to call Donna Holaday mayor. But I truly think James Shanley is the right candidate for this time, and that is why I'm voting for him.

Thanks.

p.s. Crazy day tomorrow, not sure how deeply I can get into comments until Wed.

Worth Noting

Stephen Tait's notebook also offered a little more detail on Patrick's visit to Newburyport, which we discussed below.

Patrick's visit was in part to meet with supporters in a closed-door meeting at the Plum Island Roasters and to meet with Costello at his Green Street office.

It also came with a few laughs.

At one point during a tour of downtown when crossing Merrimack Street, Patrick's State Police security detail went into the road to stop busy afternoon traffic and allow the governor and his group — which included Mayor John Moak and Council President James Shanley — to cross unfettered.

"I could get used to this," Moak said. "Usually I have to check four times before crossing

I'm not trying to read too much into this grouping. But it's worth noting that Mayor Moak may nominate James Shanley to an opening seat on the NRA. Gov. Patrick needs to accept the appointment.(I think I have that right. I can't find the original article in the News.)

So it's agreat that Shanley--an unenrolled voter who therefore isn't on any of the "Nice" lists in the Democratic party machine--got some decent face time with the Governor.

Shanley to the NRA?

Well, we're all in a tizzy over here.

I mean, the News today suggests that James Shanley, city council president and author of the Shanley Plan, is under consideration for the soon-to-be open seat on the Newburyport Redevelopment Plan. (I would link to the Daily News article but I can't find it on the g--d-mned web site.)

In the article today, Shanley notes that he wouldn't look to rock the boat too much. But he'll certainly bring a fresh and critical perspective to apparent chosen plan, which still isn't a plan but rather a concept or a conceptual plan or something.

The wide open waterfront folks probably winced a bit at the news as they want nothing to disrupt their vision for a sea of green along the Merrimack, particularly as its coming more clearly into focus.

I doubt Shanley will be carrying a monkey wrench with him to NRA meetings if and when he's appointed. But I'm willing to bet he'll have some reasonable questions.

Now, a blast from the past, the Shanley Plan as it ran in this post way back. BTW, that term is ours and ours alone. I haven't heard our City Council Plan slip into third-person self-references. I doubt he'll start now.

Plus, his plan isn't even a plan. It's a concept or an idea. See, he'll fit in nicely on the NRA.

Even its current state, the central waterfront is, from an urbanist's perspective, a Dead Zone. The part of it that is actively used, at least for some of the year, is the thin strip along the waters edge: the Board-walk. Excluding Market Landing Park, which is only heavily used for July and August, the Central Waterfront is a storage area. People will use the Ways to the Water to access the part they are most interested in using, which is the board-walk. The rest is something to get through. In my opinion, this will not change whether its an "attractive parking destination" or "attractive park".

One of the challenges we face with both Waterfront West and Waterfront East, is that they are for all intents and purposes cut-off from the core downtown by the undeveloped central waterfront. At one time in our city's history, the central waterfront was developed, and the city flowed from the water to the core, and vise versa. We need to re-establish that connection. Not to do so runs the risk of developments that become entities/destinations unto themselves instead of a seamless continuation of the core. While still providing needed tax revenue, this could have some not so good effects on the core city.

How do we do this? Limited, human scaled development, sited perpendicular to the river, with a mix of retail (especially food), office and residential. Even as few as three or four structures carefully sited so as to maximize views/ways to the river, would do a lot to stimulate the area, and make the West/East parcels connect to the core. Development along the easterly edge of Waterfront West should be sited so that the focus is towards the downtown, not towards Route 1. Get people looking/moving towards the core.

What makes cities work is density and people. Opens space and parks are good things, but they do not posses inherent goodness. Neither do buildings, but properly juxtaposed they can change an area from something to get through, to a place that you never want to leave.

For more on this discussion, click on the James Shanley label along the lower left.

Nevermind, here's the guest post

This is the guest post. I'm putting it up tonight and extending the vote by a couple of days. Let's see what happens.

From the man himself, James Shanley who got this dialogue started. (See "Oh No He Didn't" Series to the right.)

Even its current state, the central waterfront is, from an urbanist's perspective, a Dead Zone. The part of it that is actively used, at least for some of the year, is the thin strip along the waters edge: the Board-walk. Excluding Market Landing Park, which is only heavily used for July and August, the Central Waterfront is a storage area. People will use the Ways to the Water to access the part they are most interested in using, which is the board-walk. The rest is something to get through. In my opinion, this will not change whether its an "attractive parking destination" or "attractive park".

One of the challenges we face with both Waterfront West and Waterfront East, is that they are for all intents and purposes cut-off from the core downtown by the undeveloped central waterfront. At one time in our city's history, the central waterfront was developed, and the city flowed from the water to the core, and vise versa. We need to re-establish that connection. Not to do so runs the risk of developments that become entities/destinations unto themselves instead of a seamless continuation of the core. While still providing needed tax revenue, this could have some not so good effects on the core city.

How do we do this? Limited, human scaled development, sited perpendicular to the river, with a mix of retail (especially food), office and residential. Even as few as three or four structures carefully sited so as to maximize views/ways to the river, would do a lot to stimulate the area, and make the West/East parcels connect to the core. Development along the easterly edge of Waterfront West should be sited so that the focus is towards the downtown, not towards Route 1. Get people looking/moving towards the core.

What makes cities work is density and people. Opens space and parks are good things, but they do not posses inherent goodness. Neither do buildings, but properly juxtaposed they can change an area from something to get through, to a place that you never want to leave.

Poll-Day Three

Well,

Hope you all had a good Thanksgiving.

In the spirit of the most favoritest of holidays, I'd like to thank Mary Eaton for alerting her readers to the poll. The more voters, the merrier.

I must say, I'm still a bit suprised at the outcome so far. Of the 19 people who voted, only one has registered any sort of reservations. I expect that to change shortly, but who knows.

To Mary's point that she feels this issue already has been settled, I can certainly understand that position. As I noted previously, I shared the same sentiments when James Shanley first shared his thoughts.

But clearly he's not alone. There is a significant number of people--I'm not willing to say majority--who believe neither park nor parking is the right way to go. At this point are they the most expedient? Perhaps. But is either right for the city? I'm not so sure.

I'm familiar with the history. Victor Tine wrote two excellent articles for the Port in Progress series. I also foolishly thought I was writing the final chapter on Roger Foster's fight in 1997 when I covered City Hall for a short-time. He and then Mayor Lisa Mead came up with a plan that appeared to green light the project.

How wrong was I?

So, I'll agree the idea of developing the NRA lots is a long shot. A mixture of parking/park seems to be the more likely arrangement. But I learned one thing back in 1997 when I smugly thought my words would be among the final ones about the decades old confrontation: Just when you think this story is over, someone goes on to write another chapter (or two or three or four...)

Please spread the word, email the poll to as many interested people as you like. Polls are open until Sunday.

Oh No He Didn't, II

So there I was, sitting with James Shanley at Plum Island Roasters. A first, he reminded me a bit like a World War II Japanese soldier who'd been holed up on a remote island with no idea the war was over. After all, many wars had been fought over the right to develop those parcels, and by all measures those opposing development have won.

Victor Tine presents a Ken Burnsian chronicling of these various battles as part of the Daily News' Port in Progress series. Here is Part One. Here is Part Two.

Coming back to Newburyport after a decade away, it appeared to me that the front-line has shifted away from developing the waterfront. Now the trenches had been dug on either side of the question, "How much Park. How much Parking?"

The idea of developing the parcels, to me, was dead. It's clear that lawyers were the only ones making money on development proposals.

But Shanley doesn't see it that way, and he says he's not alone. (Judging by the initial comments and emails generated by my first introductory post, I'd say he's correct.)

In our talk, Shanley noted that the NRA didn't seize those lots through eminent domain to be park or parking lots. Indeed, they were suppose to be part of the larger redevelopment going on downtown, a commercial connection between the river and Market Square.

I could go on recalling the meeting, but Shanley, in response to an email that Bruce Menin sent to both of us after the first post, lays out his position nicely. Why don't I just let him take it from there.

I was a very vocal advocate for the City spending CPA funds to purchase open space on the outskirts of town. This makes sense for many reasons, ecological and quality of life being the most prominent. But to save what must be saved, you need to build what must be built. Density is the other side of the open space coin. We have been kidding ourselves into believing otherwise.

Bruce is correct in his assertion that historically the waterfront was heavily developed. Its spelled out nicely in the study of Newburyport called Port and Marketplace (sic. I later learned its called Port and Market). Even though we are not shipping goods out of the waterfront, it still is a major economic driver for Newburyport. The trouble is that we have been viewing it through the lens of July and August. The rest of the year, much of what could be generating tax revenue, economic activity, and equally important, daily human interaction lies fallow. Car and dock storage is a very poor use of land that could be helping us meet our challenges.

What challenges? Well, money. The city is strapped for cash. Shanley says the city must maximize the value of the holdings we have, and the waterfront property is extremely valuable. A parking lot certainly doesn't do this, even if we ever did adopt a paid parking system.

As for creating a larger park, Shanley says the city doesn't have the cash on hand to maintain a park of this size. We have enough trouble maintaining the parks and playgrounds we do have. (I was surprised to learn that most of the playgrounds in town were built with private funds. Yet another reason to love this community.)

Shanley makes a great deal of sense. Yet, I was surprised this opinion still exists in our polarized political landscape, a rare third point-of-view in a city where you're either progressive or conservative; pro- or anti-override, or favor putting parking or park along the waterfront.

Shanley says many in town want a third option. He may be right. Perhaps that's why the city has had trouble reaching a consensus all these years. "There are many others (who support this idea,)" he wrote. "But they have been worn down by the issue. I intend to keep speaking out, so that maybe those who are at least willing to have a conversation about the waterfront being something other than a park or parking will feel safe to do so."

Next post: Is he right?

Also, you know we're going to have to have a poll on this thing. Warm up the browsers and dust off the mouse pad. Check in on Monday.

Oh No He Didn't

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I enjoy hearing James Shanley speak at meetings.

First, he speaks well. Second, he makes sense. Third, his positions typically mirror my own. (Yes, two and three are inextricably linked.)

So imagine my surprise when, a few weeks ago at the NRA's public hearing on the waterfront, I found myself having no idea what the hell he was talking about.

To set the scene, the NRA had just rolled through its Powerpoint presentation and opened the floor to comments. Not surprisingly, a slight majority of the comments (like 99.99 to .01) denounced the plan as having too much parking. The collection of politicians and candidates--the only folks wearing jackets and ties--had to rush to get their words in. They they were due to attend the Newburyport Mothers Club's candidates forum at another location.

Shanley was among the well-dressed fast talkers.

But, unlike the others, Shanley didn't talk about park space. Instead, he talked about economic engines. Instead of crediting or criticizing the NRA for its King Solomon-inspired proposal, Shanley said the NRA good intentions were being misspent, that this wasn't the right time for this project. That the land was too valuable to the city.

To be clear, he was using complete sentences that expressed lucid thoughts. But without some further context I couldn't believe what I was hearing. The NRA lots as a economic rather than aesthetic engine?

A few days later I emailed Shanley asking him to expand on his thoughts because I couldn't quite grasp his point. He graciously offered to do so, admitting he had rushed through his comments at the NRA meeting. He said he'd given similar testimony to the the NRA members before so he didn't feel the need to go into great detail in that setting.

So we met at Plum Island roasters, sort of Ground Zero for the Waterfront, and he explained his position further.

Shanley isn't in favor of park or parking. Nope. He'd like to see some commercial and mixed use development somewhere along the waterfront lots.

Interesting, more in the next post.

This is good news

Was happy to read this in the paper this morning. Nothing against Tom O'Brien. I don't know him and can't offer opinion one on his time as council president but I've gotten to know James Shanley and his dog, Lucky, a bit, and I like them both.

Plus he was kind enough to serve as a sounding board when I pondered an Ives-like run for School Committee. At the time, no one else had stepped forward so I was thinking, Why not? The insights of James and a few others showed me the only thing tougher than running for school committee is being on the school committee. (Note, an email prodded me to edit that text a bit. In short, Shanley laid out the clear pros of cons of running and serving on the school committee. It wasn't right for me at this time. Maybe someday.)

I'd rather be blogging (at this point and time.)

If Shanley were elected president, I expect things from this council. In my conversations and on the council floor Shanley seems to make a lot of sense (which is one way of saying his positions largely mirror my own.)

More on these expectations later.