Last Call for Cans

Anyone else like to contribute? If so please email me at newburyportposter@gmail.com. I'll swing by your place tomorrow morning to pick up your contributions. How easy is that!?

It's here.

Saw the sizable Christmas tree being carted down High Street toward its inevitable home on Market Square.

What a Legacy

From the Daily News article on Former Mayor Richard Sullivan's passing.

The affable Newburyporter spent many years in public service; and prior to being mayor, he served three terms on the City Council, which included service as council president from 1974-78.
This was an era when neighborhoods were being restored, and plans for the waterfront were in development. His work among disparate stakeholders helped get projects done, observers remember.
Victor Tine, a long-time reporter with The Daily News, said that as a councilor, "He reached out to the Friends of the Waterfront and helped achieve some major advances, such as the creation of 'ways to the waterfront,'" a requirement that mandated any construction near the river allow for public access.
"He was a major factor in improvements relating to the central waterfront."
Bill Harris, an organizer of Friends of the Waterfront in the '70s, said, "Our group wanted access to the waterfront and Dick worked with us on it. It was his initiative (at City Hall) that helped us get it done."
Family members say that among his proudest accomplishments as mayor were the creation of the waterfront park, the construction of hundreds of units of elderly housing and laying the groundwork to purchase and protect land now known as Maudslay State Park.

Clearly, some sort of plaque is in order when an appropriate time has passed.

Again, condolences to all his family and many friends.

RIP

The City of Newburyport FB page is reporting that former Mayor Richard Sullivan passed away this morning. He was the father of newly elected Councillor-At-Large Dick Sullivan, former Mayor Chris Sullivan and former City Councillor Joe Sullivan.

Read a bit about him in the Daily News Port in Progress series. Look for his work on Inn Street here and here.

My condolences to the Sullivan family.

Let's Brag a Bit

Speaking of Ed Cameron, Dyke Henrickson's City Hall Notebook discusses his suggestion that the city needs more signage downtown to educated about its long history.

I still think - and I can't find the post where I mentioned it - that SOMEONE should incorporate the Daily News' Port in Progress series into our downtown, putting up plaques on individual buildings featuring the articles that give their histories during urban renewal.

We also should install one large plaque/sign on Market Square and line it with photos taken of the square during the 1950s, prior to the start of urban renewal.

Newburyport accomplished a great thing and few know about it. It's time to brag a little.

AAH!

Could Ed Cameron have found a picture of a more imposing CVS?

As I said earlier, I'm in favor of the project but I do agree this needs more consideration. These properties should be rezoned for business but the planning board needs to ensure that any new business has a neutral or perhaps even a positive impact on that intersection.

But it's wrong to keep these properties zoned residential just to keep the traffic down or - as some suggest - to keep CVS from opening. The market decides whether we need two of them, not the city.

Here's the Daily News write-up on Ari Herzog's reconsideration motion.

Who cares about apathy?

I do, that's who. My latest column on Newburyport Today.

Speaking of caring, I'd cleaning out the Family Utility Vehicle so we can fit lots of donated cans this Saturday morning. For those who are donating, just leave a bag out on your stoop around 9 am. The Salemi boys will drop by and grab them.

For those who want to donate, there's still time. Just shoot an email at Newburyportposter@gmail.com.

Thanks in advance.

Creeeeeaaak

Councillor-at-Large Ari Herzog is reopening the door the City Council had shut down last night.

Herzog, who voted against the measure last night, filed a motion for reconsideration with the city clerk this morning. This would enable the council to reconsider the measure at its Nov. 28 meeting.

Only a councilor who voted on the prevailing side can motion to consider. Herzog was one of five councilors to vote against the rezoning. Six voted in favor, but the measure failed because it needed a super majority of eight councillors.

My rationale for voting the ordinance down stemmed from meeting with Clipper Way residents and Atria Merrimack Place residents during the recent campaign season, who, despite not being direct abutters, are peripheral abutters who are naturally concerned about increased traffic if a proposed CVS pharmacy is built at the corner of Storey and Low.

That said, I’m open to discussing the issue further — and voting on the prevailing side, I filed this morning a notice to reconsider my vote.

Herzog isn't saying he'll switch his vote, just that he'd listen.

Tough Call

Well, the council rejected the proposal to rezone those residential properties near the corner of Low Street and Storey Ave. An approval would have paved the way (literally) for a proposed CVS and bank (although the exact businesses were never mentioned publicly) to be built in between the gas station and the entrance to Atria Merrimack.

Councillors voting against the measure cited traffic concerns, which is legitimate. The proposal supposedly would have placed the principal access on Low Street but that's still a busy intersection.

This was a tough call but I would have supported the rezoning. Putting aside the fact that the city would have been give some 25 acres of open space on the back of the property, I don't see how having those properties zoned residential benefits anyone.

The proximity to businesses and traffic has to have diminished the value of those properties, so the homeowner doesn't benefit. The city always could use a broader tax base so the city doesn't really benefit.

The only beneficiary of the rejection are the neighbors who feared the traffic that such a project - or any project - could bring.

But the Planning Board really should accept or reject a project on those issues. That's its job. City Councilors should maintain a bigger picture and recognize that smidge of residential property in a sea of commerce is an unfortunate byproduct of piecemeal zoning changes. (At least it seems to be, I don't know the history.)

Perhaps this was just another shot fired in discussions with the developer, who will further sweeten the pot enough to get a few councilors to swap sides. (The measure actually received six votes in favor, but it needed eight.) But if this is the end of this particular story someone should consider how the city wants to write the next installment. It's time to be proactive.

And I agree with the P. Preservationist. Good turnout last night.

Hey You

Yeah, you. You know who I'm talking about, the person who complains that critical zoning changes are done in the darkness of the night without a word being heard from the average Joe, Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane Q. Public. Those who insist that boondoggles are rushed through committee without any input from us real folks who won't see the financial windfill but will be most effected.

Well, that's usually tripe. This stuff happens in public, and you can learn all about it if you attend critical hearings like the one tonight at City Hall to discuss the possible rezoning of two parcels near the intersection of Low Street and Storey Ave.

I don't have particulars, but the plans - as far as I know - calls for the construction of a CVS right on Storey Ave, near the Atria Merrimack place. This can't be built without the City Council rezoning the property from residential to commercial.

And that's what the hearing tonight is about. It's posted, public and starts at 6 pm.

I know this is last minute. For the life of me I don't know why the Daily News isn't reporting on this. CVSs are lightning rods for controversy, and this is an important issue.

But P. Preservationist has posted a few times on this. Go here for his typically sober TAKE on things. (The guy's going to get carpal tunnel from plugging in all those format changes.)

Anyway, I'm rushing a bit here. I'm not suggesting that this is anything sinister. It is what is is, the city is beign asked to rezone two properties so someone can build a drug store on a busy roadway (with access via Low Street, apparently.) And we may get some open land in return. It may be a perfectly fair swap, but it still bears the public's review and input.

And that's what tonight is for.

The Next Challenge

Thank you to all for visiting this site from time to time. We got a record number of hits on Tuesday, Election Day, or close to a record, so it's nice to know that people still care.

But I'd like to ask you to give a little now. I'm going to try to serve as a virtual drop site for the Pennies for Poverty 100 Can Challenge.

Pennies for Poverty has launched a challenge to all businesses, organizations, schools and neighborhoods in Newburyport to collect 100 cans of non-perishable food by Thanksgiving to donate to the area food pantries. With the economy still on the downside, there are many families and individuals in Newburyport who have fallen below the poverty level or at risk of becoming victims of poverty. We are challenging every one to give a little to make a big impact. If we all donate a can or two, think of all we could feed.

Whether your candidate won or lost on Tuesday, we've all got a great deal for which we should be thankful. If you're inclined to give back a little bit, consider doing this it through this site (or through other venues if you prefer.)

Here's what I'm going to do. I put up poll in the left hand column. Indicate how many cans you'd like to donate, tell me where you'd like to pick them up by emailing me at Newburyportposter@gmail.com and I'll grab them next Saturday morning.

I'll arrange a drop off site if necessary.

One, two, five, 10 cans, it doesn't matter. Every bit helps.

Midas Touch

What's the one takeaway from yesterday's election?

I'm a force to be reckoned with, a kingmaker!

Look at my ballot. Connell .. BAM! O'Connor Ives ... BAM! Herzog...BAM! Cameron...BAM! I probably would have mentioned Steve Hutcheson too if he hadn't climbed about the local GOP Bullet Vote Train. Perhaps that would have given him the edge over Dick Sullivan, who overcame my lack of support to secure the fifth spot. (He also withstood a direct assault from the P. Preservationist who clearly doesn't have my CLOUT!)

I eventually also chose what was ultimately the winning side on the Charter. I'm happy for the commissioners and others who put so much work into getting it done. As I said yesterday, my yes vote came down to trusting folks on the commission (a few in particular but I won't name names.) I also recognized that if this thing went down in flames we might never see another review. At least now we know we can improve upon the document in 2023 (or 2011, I'm not sure when the clock starts ticking.)

The people clearly favored change in the charter, but it'd be a mistake to think all are comfortable with the lack of a recall effort. I truly believe that many see recalls as sort of a divine right and didn't know they wouldn't have the opportunity to correct a horrible mayor mistake.

Furthermore, I'd like to take a moment to draw a bit from the smackdown Denis Kennedy issued yesterday, which concluded...

... don't walk away and think the job is done. Take part in helping to make it work. The charter is just a framework for running the city. It's up to everyone to implement it and make it work. If that happens, the work of the charter commission will have been a success, despite the politics and name calling.

Amen. We can do better than 30%.

The Vote

Well, I voted. Things looked pretty quiet at Hope Church.

Quickly, Bruce Menin - one of the dissenting members of the Charter Review Commission - has come out in favor of the charter. Go here.

As for me, I voted for the damn thing. I guess  it came down to trusting the people who crafted it. But I had serious reservations. I didn't know how I was going to vote when I first walked through those church doors.

The Ballot

Well, here we are. Election day. Polls open at 7 am and close at 8 pm.

I'm not going to endorse any candidates, but I can tell you right now my ballot will include votes for ...

Mayor: I'll cast a vote for Mayor Donna Holaday - Yeah, I didn't support her two years ago, but I can't argue with results. She pushed through the paid parking and is working to build a consensus on the waterfront that makes sense. She earned a vote.

That's the key, she earned the vote. I generally would advise against voting voting for unopposed candidates simply because they're on the ballot UNLESS the candidate has earned your vote in some way.

I don't blame the Ward councilors or Mayor for running unopposed, but I think they should know just how deep their support really is. No one should get votes for just showing up.

I'm not one to complain about the councilor's $5,000 salary. I do think many work hard at what is essentially a part-time job, but I do think a portion of those funds could be used to reach out to people. (I'll take this moment to commend Bob Cronin for continuing to reach out to his Ward 3 constituents through emails and his blog. He's even asked folks to put up a few signs. I like that.)

Councillor-at-Large: Ed Cameron, Barry Connell, Katy O'Connor Ives and Ari Herzog will get four of my five votes for Councillor-at-Large. The first test positive on my political litmus test - Schools, Local Historic District, Waterfront. Herzog falls short on the waterfront, but the guy works hard and blogs often, giving us an insight into the city's operations. I'm not sure who will get my fifth vote, but it won't be Larry Guinta or Dick Sullivan as both oppose the LHD.

School Committee: I'll vote for the two incumbents, Bruce Menin and Nick DeKanter. I'm pretty sure I know whether I'll give my third vote to either Audrey McCarthy or Peter McClure, but I'm going to keep that to myself.

Ward Councilors: I'm a Ward 4 guy but I won't be voting for Tom Jones. I like Jones, and he's lived in the Ward his whole life so I'm sure he'll do fine. But he's not running for re-election as a Councillor-at-Large. The Ward 4 seat is a new role for him and, as far as I can tell, he's done nothing to explain why he's wants to represent Ward 4.  It did help him avoid a crowded at-large race, but that does not earn him my vote.

The Charter: Ugh. I just can't endorse this. I really, really, really wish there were a recall mechanism. I'm totally waffling on this vote. Game Time Decision. You folks are on your own.

Feel free to comment but the only true way to express your opinion is to get out and VOTE.

And More More on the Charter

So I told on Denis,

Steve Cole, chairman of the Charter Commission, and I have been emailing a bit lately. So after I published Denis comment I asked Steve to comment. Here's what he said.

---


At this point, I will say on behalf of the majority members of the Charter Commission, that the data from our 2010 Charter Commission Survey, is very reliable.  It was a short, well structured and analyzed survey.

I find NONE that rival it from any Massachusetts Charter Commission, current or in recent years, especially in terms of quantitative and qualitative controls.  The response rate of 34.8 % is reflective of the active and knowledgeable citizenry of Newburyport.  62.9% of the respondents have lived in Newburyport 11 years or more.

The data showed clear support for a 4 year term for mayor 60.6% to 25.4% with 8.5% neutral and 5.5% don't know.

And in 99 comments recorded verbatim noting, "longer term, or four year term", etc.  there was not one use of the word "recall" in any of these 99 comments.  For that matter, throughout all recorded comments in the survey, not once was the word "recall" used.

Finally, on a number of questions, especially the question on the budget: (Question 4) Currently, the budget is created by the mayor and presented to the council for approval and the council may only cut budget items and not add.  From my understanding this process works.

Respondents showed that 37.6 % Agree, 23.3% Disagree, 22.2 % Remain Neutral, and 16.9% Don't Know.  If you add the last two, neutral and don't know you have 39.1% which are essentially undecided.

Questions like this compelled the Commission to look for clear language in defining key processes like the budget process, and other fiscal procedures in Article 6, in order to address the large number of people who were neutral, or did not know enough to agree or disagree.

Such clarification of the charter language characterized the effort of this commission to create a charter that is easy to read and describes processes that are more understandable and transparent, and allow each citizen to learn how their government will work for all of the people of Newburyport, in our shared future.

And no matter what this Commission does or votes on, it is the voters who will decide whether or not the newly framed charter is accepted.

Please get out and vote, on Tuesday November 8, 2011.

Respectfully,

Steven P. Cole
Chairman, Newburyport Charter Commission

---

BU vs. Harvard. Our own little Beanpot tourney. Anyone from Northeastern or BC want to chime in?

More on the Charter

Denis Kennedy, friend and former colleague at the Daily News, sent this along today as a reply to my post on the charter. I opted to run it as a separate post.

Incidentally, I did offer to publish something from the pro-charter group. I received a copy of Hugh Kelleher's thoughtful "As I See It" in the Daily News. I'm not really permitted to run an entire newspaper article on my blog (although I doubt the News would care.) But it's just as easy to link to it here.(And along the side.)

A little bit of history, Denis was one of the charter commissioners who stepped in to take over when a few of the elected disappointments resigned from the commission. He did a great job, and I have tremendous respect for the job most of the commission members did in reviewing the charter. I truly believe their intentions are honorable, but I'm still not sure I can agree with the results as I said when the final proposal first came out.

---


I have remained publicly silent on the charter since we voted on it in late April.  As some may recall, I was one of the three who voted against it.  It was a very difficult decision, given that I played a big role in drafting the final language of the document as a whole and have the utmost respect for my fellow commissioners and their dedication to the city.  (I’m especially grateful that they let me ramble at our meetings…)  The insurmountable stumbling block for me was the mayor’s term: I remain convinced a four-year term is not the way to go in a city this size.  The fact that Mayor Holaday will win a second term after taking on tough issues in a two-year term, in my mind, illustrates that.  She got right to work, and  the voters are getting their chance to give her a biennial report card.

But I did not write this to argue for or against the ballot question.

I have avoided reading charter-related posts in any of the local blogs since May, when a local anonymous blogger -- whom we are both familiar with -- slandered a fellow commission member for his absence during the vote on recall, accusing him of some sinister motive that just wasn’t there and ignoring the member’s medical emergency.  I stepped back a bit then; I had hoped for a discussion of the charter on its merits, without any personal attacks or political grudges being aired.

Since then I have not campaigned for or against the charter, assuming that advocates on either side, especially those who had been so active in getting the question on the ballot, would step forward.   To some extent, that has been the case.  Some of my fellow commission members and others have done a commendable job drumming up support for the yes side.  Whether intended or not, however, this has been a low-profile campaign, with proponents apparently planning for a relatively small band of advocates to prevail in an election that will have an extraordinarily low turnout.

I don’t fault them for that; it’s a strategy that has paid off in many elections I have been around, taken part in and covered as a reporter.  But it is discouraging that the decision – whether yes or no -- on what is clearly the most significant change in Newburyport governance in decades will be made by a small minority of voters.

In a way, we as a charter commission could have helped. To help raise the profile of the question, we should have held a public forum in the last few weeks.  That would have been a good opportunity to hear comments from the public, answer questions about the final report that had just been mailed to every household, and quite honestly get a newspaper story.  I should point out that while we did have several hearings during the 18-month process, we held none after we passed the final draft.  In fact, we met only once, to approve minutes, since April, though we are technically still in existence until 30 days after the election.

I say this because I come away with the frustrating feeling that whatever side you’re on, there was no protracted, substantive public discussion of the final charter proposal in these last weeks:  No examination of the key role a finance department plays in municipal efficiency (pretty important).   No check to see how many cities have charters that are identical to Newburyport’s “antiquated” one (several). No review of how many cities have two- and four-year terms (the vast majority have two).  No comparison of how the Newburyport mayor’s salary compares to her counterparts (on the low side of the range, which is all over the map).

Instead, for many this decision will be based more on more personal factors, including: 1) feelings about some past mayors;  2) interpretations of why some mayors lost re-election and whether that was a function of the term length or other factors; 3) some people’s admiration of, or relationships with, some other municipalities and their mayors or city managers; 4) some people’s gut feelings about some high profile issues such as recall, in light of anecdotal evidence such as the situation with Mayor Lantigua in Lawrence.  And so on.

Not that there is anything improper about any of that.  To a voter, every election is viewed through a prism of personal experience and feelings.  Voting is largely a gut call.  I just come away with the sense that whether the charter is approved or not, it has been a frustratingly imperfect electoral process.  We as a city could have done better in having a productive public dialogue involving a greater number of people.

So I ask that whatever side of the question you’re on, in these remaining hours, dig out that white booklet that came in the mail two weeks ago, take the time to think about the question, and then get out and vote.  That’s how democracy works.  It will allow for a decision by the greatest number of voters and lend it legitimacy for the city to move forward -- regardless of which side you were on.

Denis Kennedy
Charter commissioner



---

To Denis's final point, just read the thing. It really isn't hard to follow. It's a well written document.

Out of Bullets

The concept of bullet voting isn't a new one.

In the at-large race, voters have the right to vote for up to five of the eight candidates. But they don't need to vote for all five. In the eyes of the bullet-minded folks, votes should only be cast for those candidates whose philosophies come closest to matching their own. They'll opt to vote for one, two or three candidates rather than all five.

I don't really have an issue with bullet voters. It's their ballot and they can use it as they see fit.

But - and perhaps this is unfair of inconsistent of me - I do have a problem with candidates who encourage people to bullet vote. I just find something distasteful about a political candidate using their stump, or political mailings, to discourage people to vote in any way.

Yet, that's what's going on. Former Mayor and City Councillor Al Lavender posted this item in the paper earlier this week. I've been told by a few people that the Newburyport Republican Committee is encouraging people to use only one or two of their votes in the upcoming, presumably to support only their candidates in this race.

I'm disappointed to see a partisan rift forming at the local level, and a bit surprised that political candidates would assign their names to the such divisive tactics.

As luck would have it, I'd already ruled out voting for one of the candidates based upon his stances on the waterfront and local historic district. But I had every intention to vote for the other - until now.

See what happens when you play with bullets?

Good points

He's not going to win their hearts and minds with this column, but P. Preservationist makes some good points.

So the Charter

This might be the toughest vote on the ballot.

As you may recall, I was an early proponent of the campaign to review the charter. I collected signatures on the petitions necessary to get the process started. I campaigned - albeit weakly - for the responsibility to serve on the Charter Review Commission. I didn't win.

And I stepped back, way back.

The review of the charter - the document that serves as a blueprint for the city government - underwent its first rigorous review in 90 years, and it was done in obscurity. I never attended a meeting or even a public hearing. I had diapers to change.

The process looked painful from afar and a few of the elected board members disappointed, but they were replaced with people who didn't. I congratulate and thank all who took part in this grueling effort.

So here we are, staring at the change we all knew was coming - the four-year mayor.

Oh sure, some people went into this process with the hopes of installing a city manager, but that was never going to happen. It was always going to be a four-year mayoral term.

So here we are.

But there's a problem - the lack of a device within the charter to turn that four-year term into a three-year term, two-year term or whatever abbreviation is necessary to remove an unworthy mayor from office, we're talking about the lack of a recall.

Supporters of the revised charter will point out the current charter doesn't include a recall provision either, but the two-year mayor term we currently employ serves as a built in recall. If someone's doing crap job after one term, they can be - and usually are - ousted.

Meanwhile, if a mayor is doing a good job they're likely to face any significant opposition - or any opponent at all as we're seeing in the current election.

But tacking on two additional years to the mayor's term eliminates that option.

In exchange, the additional two years delivers some stability and certainty to the mayor's position. This longer term, the supporters argue, gives the mayor the ability to execute on long-term projects and could possibly entice more people to run for the office.

Four years at a decent salary - the new charter calls for $98,000 - could attract people with legitimate management experience, municipal or otherwise, the supporters say.

In making that point, I'd say the supporters are probably right. A longer term and higher salary could deliver stability to the corner office which could be filled by someone with legitimate management experience. I'd vote yes next Tuesday if the issue were as simple as that.

But the lack of a recall does bother me.

Supporters of the changes (incidentally three of the nine charter commission members voted against the final package for various reasons)  will point out that the majority of people who filled out surveys said they favored a four-year term, and no one mentioned the need for a recall. That's probably true, but it's a specious argument.  I, for one, didn't think the insertion of a recall provision would be necessary to stage a recall. I'd just assumed it was a standard safeguard in municipal governments. I was ignorant.

So I'm a bit undecided. I expected to come out in favor of the charter revision, but the more I write the more questions I have.

I do think the proposed Charter changes do a great job in cleaning up the codification of our city government, and I'd be behind them 100% if the recall provision had been included. My favorite change to the charter is a requirement that the charter be revisited in 10 years to keep the document alive and vital.

There's a great deal of good to support. The question is do I reject the all the changes out of the fear that someday a complete incompetent will remain in the office one or two years too long because we didn't have a recall?

Or do I vote out hope, knowing I'm giving the next Mayor (the provision won't take place until 2014) the tools necessary to better manage the city.

I'm leaning heavily toward hope.

Congrats to Institution for Savings

I'm sure no place is perfect, but the Institution for Savings was rated the best place to work (among small employers) by the Boston Globe.

I'm glad I have my cash there.

Election Links Complete

All right, all the names to the right are linked either to blog posts (in the case of councilors) or Daily News profiles (of candidates for school committee.)

I've also linked to the relevant information about the Charter.

If I'm missing anything let me know, but there's enough there for everyone to get up to speed.

If anyone can tell me where to find links to Port Media's interviews I'd be happy to include them.

!!!

!!!

If there is one area in which the mayor's views have altered during her tenure, it appears to be in commercial construction on the waterfront.
She said she had been against development on the waterfront but now would consider divesting a portion of city-owned property in order to create the parks that people want.
Holaday said she "hasn't changed her mind" but is now open to compromise fostered by the consensus of city residents.

The Masked Preservationist must be more frosted than a cheap replacement window. I thought she'd been misquoted.

Bravo.

Barry Connell

Here's the short version.

Barry Connell and I agree on almost everything. He's three-for-three in the schools-waterfront-local historic district test. And furthermore, he was one of the rare critics of the installation of police cameras downtown.

Add the fact that he really seems to cheese off the more rabid Daily News commenters and you've got winner.

Read Connell's profile here.

Ari Herzog

Ari Herzog works hard and isn't afraid to mix it up with the often brutal Daily News commenters (please, they're not bloggers.....) or actual, bona fide bloggers who, you know, actually have blogs.

I like those qualities. But his stances on a few key issues continue to disappoint.

The principle disappointment, at least from my perspective, is the waterfront. On more than one occassion, Herzog has  tried to make a connection between our NRA lots and the Plains of Abraham in Quebec City. He mentioned it here at least once and raised it again in the Daily News profile on him.

Regarding the future of the waterfront, he said he does not favor more buildings near the river.

Herzog said that he admires the large open park in Quebec City known as the Plains of Abraham, and he said he would look at creative approaches to urban parks so residents and tourists can continue to enjoy the waterfront.

I mean just look at this place.

I simply don't see any connection between Newburyport and the Plains of Abraham goes unless you're talking about what they're baking at 11 Liberty Street.(Plus, you can find sweeping river views at Maudslay.)

I'm also a bit confused on his stance on the Local Historic District. At the candidates' forum two weeks ago, Herzog raised his hand in support of the LHD while accurately noting that there was no proposal to the council so there was nothing to really support.

He then penned this thoughtful post on his blog where he explained his thinking on the LHD, leaving me with the impression that he'd support it. In fairness, however, he never actually says he'd support the LHD. Rather he provided reasons why he - or someone- might support its passing next spring.

Still, I finished reading the post thinking he'd vote in favor, until I saw this portion of his Daily News profile.

On the issue of a proposed Local Historic District, he said that he is waiting to see how a proposed ordinance actually reads.
"A study on an LHD is being done, and then, that will go to council committees before it actually reaches the council," Herzog said.
"Nothing has come to the council yet, and I will look at it closely when I actually see a proposed ordinance."

All of that is true, but I wish Herzog would come out more strongly in favor of the PRINCIPLE of a historic district then simply add the devils are in the details. Perhaps he did convey that sentiment in the interview but that wasn't presented in the article.

UPDATE: Herzog did state his support for the LHD at the tail end of his blog post. My bad.

He supports the school project so we're all good there.

All in all, I'd like a little more assurance as far as the LHD goes. Our difference in opinions on the waterfront might be irreconcilable but that's life.

NRA Lots

NRA Chairman James Shanley offered some clarity on the NRA lots in a comment on the Steve Hutcheson post, but since they apply to every candidate I thought I'd call them out in their own post.

Hi Tom,
I would like to make a few points regarding the NRA property.
First, public access to the waterfront is guaranteed by the exiting Ways to the Water. These Ways, along with a yet to be built Way, are the result of a Court settlement.
The NRA recognizes this fact, and is supportive of the important function the Ways represent.
Second, the NRA property is filled tidelands, and as such is subject to the Chapter 91 license process, which covers public access of filled tidelands.
It is simply not true that by allowing any development, no matter how small, will result in a denial of public access to the waterfront.
As the NRA moves forward with its efforts to finish its mission, I hope you will continue to follow and report on our progress.

There are times when I wonder, what the hell are we really arguing about?

Michael Early

Mike Early earns passing grades on two of the big three - Local Historic District and Waterfront. (No mention of the schools in the Daily News' profile, but I seem to recall him favoring the Bresnahan building project.)

Putting those issues aside for a moment, any voter should give this profile in the Daily News (indeed all profiles) a good reading.