Top Stories-Vol. I

Last week was filled with last minute shopping, shoveling, wrapping, cleaning and, finally, celebrating. I hope every one of you enjoyed whatever holiday you celebrate. I'm a Christmas guy, and we had a mostly excellent day.

I did manage to post the Top story poll to the right. It's a cliche question, I know, but one I thought was worth tossing out there.

I haven't voted yet. I'll save it for the last few days, but if I had to vote today I admit it'd be a tough call to make.

It's interesting how the year played out. I'll review the many issues over the next few posts.

STEVE KARP COMES TO TOWN: I'd say Steve Karp was clearly the story of the year in the first four or five months of 2008. The speculation and worry drove everyone a bit bonkers. Hell, even the Daily News kicked in some dough to buy Stephen Tait a ferry ticket to Nantucket.

The March meeting was THE single biggest event of the year, forget about Yankee Homecoming. But he grew largely irrelevant as the year passed and the economy sag. He's still out there, no doubt, but I'm sure he'll be sitting on the money making enterprises along the waterfront for the next few years.

DEBT EXCLUSION FALLS SHORT: This was clearly the biggest story that wasn't. In this blogger's humble opinion the mayor's campaign for the override was feeble. At several times I asked no on in particular--and sometimes people in particular--if he really wanted the thing to pass.

His retail sale approach made sense if it was done in concert with a larger, more headline driven campaign. But that never happened. Instead, the front pages of the paper were filled with headlines about squabbles over city contracts and solar deals.

Still, the damn thing almost passed. I might be wrong but I firmly think it would have passed if the mayor helped create a larger political movement. And I'm sorry I have no patience for blaming the state because the required wording on the ballot was so confusing. The ballot requirements have been in place for years and should have been part of the entire equation.

Oh, and I won't be voting for it if the city seeks and received special permission to send out "informational" fliers on the city's dime. I don't think that's proper use of city funds.

CLAM SHACK: Okay, this one isn't a winner but I thought it was worth a mention. At least it gives me the opportunity to ask a few questions, again:

1. Does some or all of the Clamshack sit on city land?
2. If yes,how is this legal?

Personally, I don't care if the fellow lives there or not. But if that is city property I'd like to see either a) him buy the land he needs from the city at some price or b) an explanation from the city as to how we can allow a privately owned structure to rest on city land. That just seems like an immensely dangerous precedent, particularly after reading about all the small scale land takings by residents along the city's rail trail in a recent Liberator.

Take a long, deep sniff

One of my favorite movies of all time is "The Paper."

Lots of reasons why. I happened to be working at the Daily News when I first saw it. At the time, I thought I wanted to be Michael Keaton's Henry (God what is his last name), a rough and tumble reporter at an edgy newspaper. At least I admired folks like that. But as the movie rolled on I saw qualities of his life I knew I didn't want and, frankly, probably couldn't handle.

So the movie is important to me. But I also value it because of the script, a cascade of snappy lines that you might miss the first, second or third time through but eventually you'll catch every word that was said, and you'll enjoy a well-earned laugh.

One of the more prominent lines, and one we use frequently around the household is, "Sometimes you can just smell a horrendously shitty day on the way, can't you?"

Perfect. Just perfect. We all know the distinct stink of a coming shit storm. (I'm growing to really like the term.) And sometimes it makes the ordeal a little more tolerable if we just accept the doom-filled forecast and ride the storm out with the only smile we can muster.

I know. What the hell am I talking about. Okay, here's my point.

I admire the approach the mayor's taking toward figuring out the budget problem. I have some questions that I'll ask--and hopefully will get answered--as the process moves along. But overall it seems like a reasonable plan to restoring some lost services, steadying the fiscal ship, and even putting us on a good course for the future.

[Add: the mayor is likely to seek a debt exclusion, which is a temporary tax, rather than a true override, which is permanent. So I'm referring to the potential debt exclusion vote. Please read the DN article.]

But I think I smell a horrendously shitty fall election coming. I might be wrong. I hope I am, but I've got a feeling this override election will be a tough one.

A few reasons why:

People are scared: Jobs are getting cut. Banks getting bought. People are losing homes. If we're not actually in a recession this certainly feels like one. In fact, this reminds me a whole lot of the early 1990s when I graduated college uncertain if I'd ever find a decent job. In short, people won't part with their money too easily at all, and it's hard to blame them.

Presidential Politics: No matter who the Democrats finally decide upon, this election will be ugly and divisive. Folks like myself who wonder how our current president could have been any worse will shake our heads at the thought at a continuation of Bush policies. Supporters of McCain, whom I mostly like, will ask how the hell I can trust anybody but McCain during this time of global strife. Whatever your position, this is going to stir up some hard feelings that we'll carry to the polls.

The Water Bill Fiasco: Yes, it's an enterprise fund. Yes, the dollars lost or regained won't help the school police or highway department. But people don't make that distinction. Depending upon how the meter reading falls, folks will either feel they've been hosed by the city (pun intended). Or that they're neighbors are water rustlers. Either way, I can see people deciding they'll issue their protest by not voting for any sort of override or debt exclusion.

The City Council: Don't get me wrong. I love the current council. I was overjoyed back in November when Cameron, Ives, Holaday & Co. swept into office (while mourning Gary Roberts, of course.) The politics of the council majority largely match my own, so I'll feel represented. (I guess I'm also a "progressive.") But I don't know how many "me's" there are out there. Certainly there were enough to elect the current board, but there are number of "not-me's" out there as well. They will have some representation when the council votes on whether or not to have an override, but I'm not certain there will be enough to give them the sense their voice has been heard. (Mary Eaton put forth a similar theory months ago. I'm just applying it to the override.) So they'll speak rather loudly at the ballot box, and many from the "me" group may vote along with them if they're at all bothered by the above three points.

Old vs. New: Gillian Swart hit upon this point today on her blog. I won't get into details because I'd be commenting on a blog that's commenting on a blog. But she was disappointed to find out there is a stronger townie element to Newburyport than she had thought. This group generally resents--or regrets--what's happened to Newburyport over the past 20 or 30 years. Not everyone is bitter. Mary Eaton wrote thoughtfully on the subject a bit ago. But I've also read comments where "true Newburyporters" blame newcomers--sorry carpetbaggers--for seizing control of the city and running it into the ground. In the same breath we're accused of never leaving the confines of our highly valued homes to be part of the community. That's tough to do. Apparently, someone established a cut off date that neatly and easily determines whether or not your opinions should matter. If you lived here before the date, you're defending a way of life. Move to town after the date and you're a troublemaker. To those folks I offer a hearty...whatever.

(Hackett! That was Henry's last name.)

I'm sure we can find some other reasons. I considered adding blogs to the list. I think we've got five or six already and, well, this isn't really hard to do. I could see a few more popping up pushing forth one agenda or another. Done well, and we'd all benefit. But if folks start tossing blog bombs we could be in trouble.

So there we are. I hope I'm wrong. I just fear it's going to be too easy to slip into anger and answer calls for "outrage." We can turn a fiscal problem into our own little civil war. Supporters of any override measure will be accused of wanting to force our senior citizens from their homes. Opponents will be told they hate children.

It doesn't need to be that way. I think the mayor's proposal--with its reliance on a debt exclusion to pay off existing and new city debt--might be able to muster broad support. I'll personally be shooting for some good old fashioned civil discourse.

Am I nuts? (on this matter, not in general.)


-

Over the Override

I voted in favor of the override.

It's been suggested that such an admission could hurt my chances of getting elected to City Council (if I were running.)

So it bears repeating.

I voted in favor of the override.

But so what? This city seems inordinately obsessed with last May's override. Apparently, some voters are using the override as a litmus tests to measure the value of the candidates on the ballot.

Hogwash, if you ask me.

I mean it was an election, not an ethic war. I’ve got a kid. I thought the School Committee and Lyons made a good case and took some concrete steps by consolidating the schools. So I voted for it. This doesn’t mean I want people to lose their homes. I’d be completely in favor of excusing the most needy from paying the tax or giving them an abatement.

And I recognize that most of the people who voted against it don’t hate kids or want our educational system to crumble. They either didn’t have the means to pay or faith in the city to spend the money well. I get it. That’s fine.

So let’s move on. Even with the thrashing defeat I thought the override was a worthwhile effort. It set everyone on the same page. Furthermore, it saved us from carrying around a giant “What If” around while trying to cobble together the best schools we can. People didn't have to wonder "What if we'd gone for the override."

The election aligned everyone’s expectations and brought them to a common ground. I think that’s valuable, which is why I hate it when someone suggests the override was a “waste.” Elections are never wastes. They're THE most important part of the governing process.

The most galling part of last Spring's drama was the debate over whether the city should spend $17,000 on an election involving our schools. I recognize times are tough, but the request for the override came from a body that spends half this city’s budget and services thousands of its residents.

Yet, some actually questioned whether or not people should be permitted to vote because we couldn’t afford it? Or—and this one is even worse—some councilors questioned whether to have the vote because they'd already polled a handful of constituents and didn’t think the measure would pass.

That drove me nuts. Confession time. I was at the first City Council meeting where the override was discussed, and I might have rolled my eyes. I can't be sure as I wasn't watching myself at the time. But eyes might have rolled.(I was standing way and the back so perhaps my rolling went unnoticed.)

But I wasn't rolling at those who didn't support the override. I rolled at those people who didn't support having an election.

To future councilors, I only ask that Democracy be allowed to function. I’ve lived here a year and I’ve only seen one group request a special election. So I don’t think this is a line item that has gone out of control. Find the cuts somewhere else.

But that’s the past. I still haven’t decided who gets my votes in next month’s election but I can tell you their position on the override won’t come into play. I’ll be looking for the kind of people Mary Eaton Baker describes in her blog post today—folks who hold their core beliefs dear, respect the positions of others, and find some common ground so we can move forward. (Came upon Bruce Menin's excellent post just this afternoon.)

And I suspect some of those people actually voted against the override.