Jeff Barnard for City Council!

I would vote for his tax plan.  It makes sense, and it rewards behavior that the City of Worcester desperately needs.

I've never met Jeff, but seeing that his blog is always full of well thought out ideas, he's probably too qualified and too smart to enter politics.  I can still write him in though, despite Bill Eddy's disapproval.

2010 is going the be the year of Dual Tax Rate and Affordable Housing debates.  I hope all involved remember that we are in the middle of a recession and budget crisis created by the same bad ideas.  New ideas like Jeff's make sense and might actually work!

The slow, churning inevitabiltiy of government.

I noticed two new No Parking signs across from my apartment Tuesday afternoon.  We've needed them due to a bunch of new people moving into the neighborhood, all with cars, and most with limited off street parking.  There are days where a small car can't get through the bend on Courtland St.

So I wondered when this request was made.

The request was made by Thomas Moore on 8/11/09.  It was referred to the Traffic and Parking Committee.

On 10/14/09, the Traffic and Parking Committee approved the request and referred it to the City Council.

On 12/1/09 the City Council approved the request with a vote of 11-0.

On 1/12/10 the signs were installed.

I wonder when the first ticket/tow will occur?

Random T&G links

Clive McFarlane had an excellent bit of satire today in the T&G.  I can't wait to see the howling from City Hall over this bit!

What took so long?  It's 2010!  No wonder the Republican 'leadership' in Congress doesn't have a health plan yet!

What took so long II?  It took three years to strip Finneran of his law license after he pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice?  For anyone who complains that Massachusetts is dominated by one party, Tom Finneran is the perfect example of how that analysis is flawed.  In any other state Tom Finneran would be a Republican.  His ideas, actions, and agenda while Speaker of the House were all conservative.

Under the headline Study: Newspapers still a step ahead in local news I found this gem at the very end of the article:

"For whatever reasons, the study found that fewer local stories are being published by the Sun and six other newspapers that cover the Baltimore area. The list includes other general-interest publications such as The Washington Post and the Towson Times and specialty publications such as the Baltimore Business Journal.

The change came into sharp focus in July when Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley proposed deep cuts in the state's budget. There were 26 stories published on the subject by the Baltimore-area newspapers monitored during the weeklong study, as well as the AP and other publications around the country. The last time Maryland announced substantial budget cuts in 1991, there were 83 stories published in a comparable weeklong period, according to the study.

Jarvis contends that less original coverage doesn't necessarily translate into less information for readers, because the Web has enabled more people to post comments and links to other material that illuminate.

"Journalism today isn't just about the production of content," he said. "It's about where we can all add value."

 What a waste of time and ink to borrow that propaganda piece from the AP.  Perhaps the editors at the T&G should have devoted that space to actual local coverage.  It's also very amusing that the study focused on The Baltimore Sun, which was taken down by former Sun reporter David Simon in the fifth season of The Wire.  (If you haven't watched The Wire yet, go rent it- it's one of the best written shows in the history of television.)

Two articles diverged on the Internet....

I've mentioned my ambivalent feelings about InCity Times before on this blog. (I'm not the only one.) Rosalie Tirella's latest articles best represent what a crapshoot that paper can be.

On the occasion of Joe O'Brien's inauguration as our symbolic weak mayor, Rosalie goes off on a rant that is unhinged at best. I'm amazed- she somehow manages to portray Joe as a racist good ol' boy based on events he had nothing to do with on a School Committee search he wasn't part of. Why does she retroactively accuse him of a crime he never committed....because he didn't sit down for an interview with her after she asked Barbara Haller to ask him for an interview.

Here she covers an issue that would likely be uncovered anywhere else. While it is covered in her usual angry, accusatory style, she points out how difficult it is to be poor and marginalized. That's the kind of stuff I want to read!

What would Barbara Haller do?

This item in the paper really got me fired up this morning. Eleven hours later I'm still fuming.

Why tear down houses when there are so many families and individuals at Abby's House, Friendly House or the Mustard Seed who could benefit from a home?
This whole situation was created by the poisonous 'debate' created by the T&G and our City Council in reaction to drunk, rowdy Holy Cross students and the 'need' for a PILOT program.

Every cliche has been thrown into the ring regarding the neighborhood surrounding Holy Cross. It's been characterized in the local paper as rich spoiled brats vs. hard working taxpayers. What hasn't happened is a reasonable dialogue where solutions are possible.

The partying isn't a recent development. It's been going on for years. But to me, it always seems as if the issue gains traction around elections, when it is an easy story for the paper and a winning 'issue' for the City Council to score easy publicity. If the City of Worcester and the WPD can't figure out how to contain a few apartments that are rented by absentee landlords to party prone college students, then how are we supposed to fix the difficult problems facing the City?

As acting president of Holy Cross from 1998-2000, Frank Vellaccio worked with the City to address the problem of off campus partying. Nine years later, nothing has changed, and it won't change until the City cracks down on off campus activities, and Holy Cross helps. What incentive does Holy Cross have to be a good neighbor when a good, decent man like Frank Vellaccio is dragged through the mud in the local paper?

Tearing down houses around Holy Cross isn't going to solve the party problems, unless the College plans on buying all of College Hill and creating a bombed out neutral zone. Holy Cross is a dry campus. All of the party problems are off campus. And because the only parties are away from where the students live, the parties are much louder and rowdier.

I went to Vassar College, which was the exact opposite of Holy Cross. It was secular, very liberal, and very lenient in its policies regarding alcohol and parties. In my four years there, you could always find a party on campus. There were rarely any parties off campus because the students weren't forced off campus to find a good time. The local bars didn't have hordes of underage students pounding down their doors for the same reason. Because the students were partying where they lived and actually had to pay fines for any damage to their dorms and rooms, the parties weren't loud, destructive or all encompassing. If you wanted a quiet weekend or a party, you could find either, no problem. I never had to worry about loud parties on my hall every Wednesday night, nor did I ever wake up to a bombed out hallway on a Sunday morning.

I know Holy Cross will never relax their policies on alcohol due to the religious nature of the school. Perhaps this could all be avoided if there was any sort of night life near Holy Cross, or even a viable public transportation system that operated past 9PM to ferry students to downtown and the bars. I'd suggest turning the vacated three deckers into transitional housing for the homeless, but that's been vetoed in the past by the Mayor's Task Force on Homelessness. Instead of tearing down buildings, Holy Cross could extend their support of Dismas House to the vacated three deckers. Maybe the College could collaborate with Friendly House or Abby's House to provide homes for Worcester residents and a service program within the community for their students. Then we could see how colleges and cities can help each other, and leave any references to PILOT behind.

"With the debate on the verge of violence- or worse, of being turned over to committee" - Tom Robbins

Item 13b on tomorrow's City Council Agenda earns this quote from Tom Robbins.  (Side note- I waited too long to reread Still Life With Woodpecker.  There are so many memorable quotes and good chuckles in its pages that make me tempted to do an quotes column just like Bill Simmons.)

Five pieces of property will be added to the Montvale Historic District if the City Council votes in favor.  Two weeks ago they voted 9-2 to advertise the expansion with Councilors Clancy and Eddy dissenting.  I'm not sure if a vote to advertise will guarantee a vote to adopt the changes.  I hope not.  Liz Todd is one of the owners of 1 Montvale, and her plea for help was posted on Nicole's blog back in December.

I find it interesting that Mr. Crowley (savior of the New Year's Firework Display!) can use his seat on the Historical Commission to influence affairs in his neighborhood.  Having a personal interest in the outcome should be reason enough to recuse himself from the Historical Commission vote.  That hasn't happened in the two sagas regarding the 'historic' tennis court (well documented here on Wormtown Taxi.)

I hope that the City Council recognizes that the current expansion has no reason to come before them and soundly rejects the expansion.  I doubt they will, so I will end with another fantastic Tom Robbins quote:

"Tunnel vision is a disease in which perception is restricted by ignorance and distorted by vested interest.  Tunnel vision is caused by an optic fungus that multiplies when the brain is less energetic than the ego.  It is complicated by exposure to politics.  When a good idea is run through the filters and compressors of ordinary tunnel vision, it not only comes out reduced in scale and value but in its new dogmatic configuration produces effects the opposite of those for which it originally was intended."

The world is a litter box....

Sometimes the problem with a democracy is the people that want to participate. Sarah Palin is a perfect example.

So is this petition that will come before the City Council on Tuesday. I can just imagine the lively debate this will stir up. Never mind the Montvale imbroglio- I want to hear Rick Rushton wax eloquently about the hazards of cat poop.

This is what happens when you put cats on leashes:



I'm going to have to go check this petition out. That's right down the street from me.

More from the City Square website...

From the Worcester section:

"The city's entertainment venues include Foothills Theater"

Unfortunately, not anymore. Update the site much?

-----
From the residential section:

"CitySquare is restoring vibrancy to Downtown Worcester. This new, refined urban lifestyle makes Worcester a great place to work and live- at much more reasonable prices than Boston." -Roberta Schaefer, Executive Director, The Research Bureau.

Yes Roberta, Boston has an empty downtown mall also.

-----

The News Section was last updated on 04/29/09.

Privatize this, Part 3!

Here's a quote from  U.S.PIRG's website regarding PPPs and how the public needs to safeguard themselves:


"The city should ensure that any future privatization deals adhere to the following principles:

• The public should retain control over decisions that affect the broader public interest.
• The public must receive full value so future revenues are not sold off at a discount.
• No deal should last longer than 30 years because of uncertainty over future conditions, because the risks of a bad deal grow exponentially over time, and because long contracts transfer unnecessary control to the concessionaire.
• Contracts should require state-of-the-art maintenance and safety standards instead of statewide minimums.
• There must be complete transparency to ensure proper vetting of privatization proposals.
• There must be full accountability in which the elected legislative body must approve both the authority to negotiate a deal and any terms of a final deal.

 In addition, the city should adopt procedural safeguards for future privatization proposals that include the following:

• A minimum waiting period of 30 days between publication of the final terms of a privatization agreement and a vote (45 days for privatization of assets or services valued at more than $50 million).
• Competitive, transparent bidding for all professional services provided during the privatization process and for the privatization contract itself.
• Disqualification of city councilors from voting on privatization proposals when they have received campaign contributions from companies that bid on a given asset or performed professional services related to privatization. The Mayor’s office should similarly reject contributions from such companies and publicize contributions received for a defined period prior to the decision to consider privatizing an asset.
• Thorough, independent analysis of the valuation of assets proposed for concession agreements along with a comparison of privatization with other alternatives (including the option of bonding against future revenues with the same schedule of user fee increases without a private lease or transfer of ownership).
• Prompt public disclosure of all documents related to privatization bids.
• Clear directions for how proceeds from the sale will be allocated, along with the development of tools to enable the public to track spending of proceeds from privatization over time. These tracking tools should be integrated into a city wide budget transparency Web site that would enable citizens to have “one-stop” access to all city expenditures.
• Timely public disclosure of all documents relevant to a privatization proposal, including posting of such documents on a publicly accessible Web site.

Finally, to bolster confidence, trust, and transparency in government, Chicago should follow the example of a growing number of cities and states that provide detailed and up-todate searchable information about government contracting and expenditures on-line.

Specifically, the city should create a one-stop, comprehensive, on-line database that would enable citizens to obtain information on contracts, the current status of city accounts, special tax breaks, fee services accrued, economic development subsidies and city budgets. The Web site should provide summary information and enable residents to drill down to detailed information on city payments, including the city’s check register. The Web site should also retain previous years’ data for comparison."

I hope our City Council, City Manager, and local newspapers keep this in mind as this debate progresses.  I know I will.

Privatize this, Part 2!

It's been 18 days since I posted this, and 21 since Mike O'Brien's speech. (And more than a years since he first proposed the idea.) Nicole has blogged about it twice, including emails to city officials.

I feel like Keith Olberman's closing speech throughout the Bush Administration.

Today, Worcester Magazine's Jeremy Shulkin broached the subject of selling the City's parking resources.  I'm tired, cranky and don't really want to write about this, but here goes the quick quick version until I have more time and energy.

-Mr. Shulkin mentions that Harrisburg, PA had an offer for $215 million and rejected the deal. He also mentions discontent in Washington D.C. and Chicago regarding ticketing policies and high prices. Why doesn't he go into detail about these cities? Is it the limitation of the print media? Or is it because this seems to be a largely pro-privatization piece?

-Mr. Shulkin relies extensively on Rick Norment, the Executive Director of the National Council for Public-Private Partnerships to discuss the benefits and drawbacks of privatization.

-The NCPPP is an organization that relies on the existence of privatization (or their euphemism of Pubic-Private Partnerships). Where is the voice from the other side? How can Mr. Norment be the only expert quoted in this article?

Here's a few reasons why people mistrust privatization.

Eight links, minimal effort, three searches on Google that took nanoseconds and then some reading.

Where's my red pen?

I know ink and pages are limited in the T&G, but couldn't we get a more substantial article with actual details?

Here's what I mean:
"Mr. Rushton and Councilor-at-Large Joseph M. Petty opposed the lowest residential tax rate and offered a set of alternative tax rates that were less odious for business property owners, but both motions were soundly rejected."

-What was the alternative tax rate? I was working, so I couldn't attend the meeting. When I pick up the paper in the morning, I'd like that detail please. Nick Kotsopoulos has quotes from four councilors in the article, but couldn't print the details of the Rushton/Petty plan? I'm so glad that he quoted this gem from Mike Germain: “(the) economy is in such a mess."



Thanks. I hadn't noticed.  This is why ideas like Nicole floated are happening across the country.

Councilor Santa Claus, Updated.

I received a prompt reply from Bill Eddy regarding yesterday's post regarding a special election for a vacancy.

"1 & 2. Yes, candidates would have to collect the usual number of signatures (300 at-large, 100 district). In the event of a vacancy, the council would set an election date (90 days) with a signature filing date (between 30 & 45 days).

3. In the unlikely event of a vacancy, the city would incur the cost of an election from general funds. While we are attempting to fill a Charter void by having a process in place, it is worth some perspective. Since the inception of this current Charter in 1987, we have had 17 district councilors represent five districts. Of the 17, we have had 1 mid-term vacancy (1990). We have had at-large and school committee vacancies, but have never gone beyond ballot candidates which would trigger the special election scenario we propose."

Too bad the T&G couldn't be bothered to print the details.

Sacrifice

I applaud the fiscal restraint and sacrifice, but wouldn't it be nice if our City Council rescinded the raises they gave themselves a few years back in the name of sacrifice?

And wouldn't it be nice if the taxpayers didn't pay for a city vehicle plus insurance for an employee who makes over $180,000? What other city employees have this perk, and how much would we save if the City Council eliminated this sort of perk?

And does any one else think it is a coincidence that this story appeared in the paper the same day the Council voted on the tax rate?

City Councilor Santa Claus, your time is up!

City Councilor Bill Eddy promised to change the City Charter after this November's election, and today the T&G reported that he is one step closer to amending our City Charter.

“Some might say we are trying to correct a problem that doesn’t exist, but I look at it as filling a void left in the charter.” said District 5 Councilor William J. Eddy, committee chairman.

Speaking of voids, I searched the City website for information regarding his order, and found this. When you click on attachments, you get this.

I'd like a few more details, please.

-Will the candidates have to collect the same number of signatures that they would in a regular election?

-Do they have 90 days to pull papers and collect signatures, or is there a smaller window of time?

Tonight I sent out an email to Councilors Eddy, Petty and Toomey. I'll post any details they share when I get them.

Registered Candidates

I have a few questions about changing the City Charter to only allow eligible registered candidates to fill a vacant position. This is mostly in response to the public comments made by Bill Eddy at the 11/17/09 City Council meeting and on Mike and Brendan's discussion during 508 #93.

-Will we prevent a last minute write in/sticker campaign from happening during a general election? The beauty of a democracy is our ability to vote for whomever we choose, not just from the slate of candidate(s) who choose to run, have the assets, time and staff.

-What happens in an instance like the 2008 13th District race? Bob Spellane faced a last minute challenge from John Mahoney after details regarding Rep. Spellane's personal and campaign finances become public. What if something like that happens in a city race, and some voters decide to challenge a registered candidate after the deadline for registering as a candidate?

2008 Results, 16,360 votes cast
Spellane: 7861 (48%)
Mahoney: 4916 (30%)
Write in: 191 (1%)
Blank: 3392 (21%)

Mahoney's sticker campaign materialized in the last two weeks leading up to the election, and 30% of the votes cast were for him. If you add in the other write ins and blanks, 52% of voters didn't want Spellane as their representative. Should we disenfranchise a large percentage of voters because their candidate didn't register and get enough signatures?

-I believe that the signature drives needed for a campaign is a blessing and a boon. Yes, it keeps frivolous candidates off the ballot, but it also acts as an impediment to citizen participation in government. Voter apathy and our two party system creates a government that only answers to the machines and interests that support their candidacy, and not the whole electorate.

-If there aren't any registered candidates, what happens in a year where we are facing budget shortfalls and we need to hold a special election to fill the seat? Where will the money come from?
----
On a final note, I would suggest that our elected officials finish their terms and not use our city government as a stepping stone to bigger and better things. Then we wouldn't have to worry about Frank Raffa and his last minute campaign.

And for the record, I know who finished after Bill Eddy....I voted for them, and they are qualified!

Privatize This!

I was at Worcester Local First's Networking Party at Commerce Bank on Main Street. The City Manager spoke and addressed his ten points of interest for the business community.

The point that caught my attention was his future goal of privatizing some city services, namely the garages and parking meters. He hopes to sell the managing rights (and future profits) in exchange for a one time fee to help the city through our current fiscal crisis.

I know we're facing a huge budget shortfall for the next few years, but let's not start privatizing services. The track record for privatization is terrible.

Worcester drivers will end up paying more for parking for however many years the deal is in effect while the city gets a one time fee. Will it be enough?

Where was the T&G with this news nugget? "Your search for parking privatization resulted in 0 articles."

Post Election Blues

Another Worcester election down, and yet another confusing result. Perhaps it's because we have such a low voter turnout, but once again I'm baffled.

Whenever I talk to people about Worcester and its elected officials, they complain. Taxes, lackluster service from its departments, a lack of planning, a lack of foresight, take your pick- people complain. The attitude in this city falls somewhere between a fatalistic acceptance of our mediocrity to optimism that it will get better and we can make Worcester into what we hope it can be.

The past few years in Worcester haven't been the greatest. There's a giant void downtown where CitySquare isn't. City services have been drastically cut. City workers have been laid off. Future layoffs and more budget cuts are imminent. No one will ever yield to oncoming traffic or pedestrians in rotaries or Kelly Square. Our pools and parks are crumbling or shuttered. Our daily newspaper is slowly disappearing page by page. Potholes and cracked sidewalks are everywhere. We still have a statue of a boy spooning a turtle on our Common and no one knows what the story is behind it (seriously- if anyone can find the real origins of Turtle Boy, the next few beers are on me.)

Things certainly haven't improved during the past two years of this Council's tenure, and we voted them all back into office!!!! (With the exception of Gary Rosen, who didn't seek re-election.) The only thing that changed was our mayor, a ceremonial position with very little power.

I don't get it.