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.
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?
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?
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?
