Yesterday, my state representative, Marty Walz, resigned her seat to take a position with the Massachusetts Chapter of Planned Parenthood. To say this news was a surprise is a massive understatement. Representative Walz was re-elected just this past November, and as recently as earlier this week she was active on her Facebook page, posting data to support a cause she believes is right for her constituents.
But alas, Representative Walz's seat will be open soon, which means a special election to fill her seat. Numerous would-be successors are contemplating a run to replace her. Some of them are my friends, which will no doubt put me in an awkward situation very soon. And the issues the candidates will address are equally personal to me.
Former House Speaker Tip O'Neill said, "All Politics is local," and the politics of a Boston state representative cannot get any more local. A state representative's district in Boston includes fewer constituents than any other elected office (including Boson City Councilor).
To those considering running for Representative Marty Walz's seat, here are the big issues needing your immediate attention. I apologize that these issues have such as Boston tilt, given the district includes part of Cambridge, but it's the reality based on where I live.
1) A downtown neighborhood school.
With the recent attention to Mayor Menino's school section reform committee, and competing initiatives from Councilor Connolly, the first question to any candidate for Rep. Walz's seat will be: "Do you support the need for a downtown neighborhood public school?" Heck, given how almost everyone downtown wants a neighborhood school, the follow-up question might end up being the first question: "How are you going to make a downtown neighborhood school happen?"
A few neighborhoods that currently do not have a public school, the West End, Back Bay and Beacon Hill, all fit nicely and neatly in Rep. Walz's district.
Merely advocating for a downtown school overlooks the far more complicated and important challenge of making Boston's schools better, which I agree is probably the City's number one priority. If you build a local school downtown, how do you decide who gets to go there? Certainly it cannot just be for kids living downtown. And how does the provincial issue of a downtown school address the need to make all of Boston's schools more community-centric?
While the issue of schools is primarily one for the City and not the state, the local state representative can use the position to be a strong advocate for the community.
2) Potential elimination of the BRA.
Many progressive voters in Rep. Walz's district don't like the Boston Redevelopment Authority. They will eagerly vote for a candidate supporting the BRA's destruction. But the BRA isn't going anywhere, and the popular answer overlooks the larger issue of transparency with regard to Boston development.
If you really ask people why they don't like the BRA, they tend to point to transparency. The irony of course is the BRA exists to make the development design process as transparent as it can be, given that no project will earn 100-percent support of all affected constituents.
3) The casino.
In my opinion, there hasn't been enough talk about how a casino built in East Boston will affect economic activity in Back Bay. I saw first hand how a casino can have a dramatic, negative impact on local business, based on my formative years growing up in Connecticut. Per state law, only East Boston gets to vote on whether a casino should be built there, which dramatically under-represents the impact the casino will have on other Boston neighborhoods. Large droves of would-be Newbury Street shoppers will go to the casino instead of downtown. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain wrong. Therefore, downtown interests must be weighed within the casino debate, and the state representative for Back Bay and Beacon Hill needs to lead this advocacy.
4) Institutional expansion
Beacon Hill is surrounded by big entities hoping to get bigger. Suffolk University and Mass General are two examples. Some of my neighbors believe the mere presence of these institutions is detrimental to the neighborhood. Certainly left unchecked, their desires could run afoul to the best interests of residents. However, it would be equally detrimental if the institutions picked up and left. There has to be a balance.
***
I have been to many local political debates where the oratory stays high level. Candidates will uniformly talk about clean parks, safe streets and good schools. But in the upcoming special state representative race, the devil is in the details. Many voters will look for black and white answers to one or more of the issues above as a litmus test for their vote. I fear that many of my fellow residents will ignore the nuanced nature of each of issue, casting aside candidates who consider alternatives to a downtown public school, for example, or those who try to extend an olive branch to local organizations like Suffolk.
I admit it will be hard for me to vote for a candidate who supports the casino. But I will try to avoid a litmus test in this race. From what I am hearing so far, I might have several candidates to evaluate.
To the candidates, now is the time to study up.
Showing posts with label Marty Walz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marty Walz. Show all posts
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Why Casinos are bad
I really hope my state representative, Marty Walz, votes against the casino bill that is before the Massachusetts House this week. And should the bill pass that legislative body, I hope my state senator, Sonia Chang-Diaz, will vote no if she's given the chance.
Casinos are bad for local economies, and I base my opinion on personal experience. I was born in southeastern Connecticut when what is now Foxwoods was merely a bingo hall. In the early 90's, the region bore the brunt of that time period's recession.
While a young kid, the defense industry fueled much of the economy in southeastern Connecticut. The sign across the Thames River in Groton still reads, "The Submarine Capital of the World." Problem is, you don't need submarines in a post Cold War era. And you don't need the parts that supply them, either.
In the midst of the economic malaise that affected my friends and family, there arose a wonder in the Connecticut woods. Foxwoods promised jobs, and it brought them. Make no mistake about it, casinos do produce jobs, and Foxwoods created them at a time when they were so desperately needed. Sound familiar?
Except I don't live in southeastern Connecticut today. To put it frankly, there isn't much happening there beyond the casinos. It took a herculean effort a few years back by the region's U.S. Congressman to save the U.S. Sub Base along that same Thames River. Many argued that its shuttering might have been a final economic straw for the region, and I agree with them.
The problem with destination casinos (which is what the Governor and others are arguing for) is that they try very hard to be destinations. I did a report when I was a senior in high school that discussed, in part, the psychological manipulation on display within Foxwoods. There are no clocks. There are few windows. There's a lot of bells and whistles (literally), generating excitement and adrenaline. The whole atmosphere is intended to do one thing---keep people there.
And Foxwoods and nearby Mohegan Sun have succeeded. Between the "wonder of it all"---the restaurants and live entertainment and sporting events and all those darn chances to win---it's no wonder that those that go decide not to leave.
One of my friends went to Foxwoods late last year. She explained how to save cost, she was going to stay in nearby Mystic, rather than on the grounds of the casino. Now, I love Mystic. My parents live there. My brother operated a marine business there, and his wife works there. Mystic is a great Connecticut town, and prior to the opening of the casinos, it was the main tourist attraction in the region. Not any more.
Someone asked my friend where she was going to go to dinner when she was in Connecticut. "I don't know," came the reply. "Probably somewhere in the casino."
To which I suggested: "Why not go out to dinner in Mystic?"
The story of my friend best exemplifies why I don't like casinos. From an economic perspective, casinos do not to contribute to the surrounding communities, but rather take from them.
The wonder in the Connecticut woods still is the wonder contained to the Connecticut woods. The nearby city of Norwich, economically depressed since I was born, is still economically depressed. It's downtown is as empty as when I was a kid. The restaurants of Mystic still receive their best business during the summer from out-of-state beachcombers, not from casino traffic (this is based on a first-hand interview with a waitress). It pains me to write this; Connecticut will always have a very special place in my heart.
Speaking of "wonders," I wonder what we all could have come up with to help spur economic activity over the past three years had we not spent so much time worrying about casinos. My concern is that a casino in Massachusetts will have the same effect as Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun in Connecticut. Why would a visitor to a casino near Boston want to go into the city? Why would they want to peruse shops on Newbury; visit an historic site downtown, or experience the city's varied neighborhoods?
For non-economic reasons, my dad hates gambling. He doesn't even buy lottery tickets. I have gambled from time to time, and I have had a great time visiting Las Vegas with friends on a couple of occasions. Notwithstanding, I am sure my distaste for casinos is somewhat influenced by my dad. Regardless, my opposition to casinos in Massachusetts is driven largely by what I experienced as a kid. I think my reasons are economic. And beyond the jobs casinos can create, I worry that the economic consequences of Massachusetts casinos would be harsh.
*** UPDATE: I heard from Jamie Hellen, Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz's chief of staff, that she will vote against any bill for expanding gambling. Yay Sonia!
Casinos are bad for local economies, and I base my opinion on personal experience. I was born in southeastern Connecticut when what is now Foxwoods was merely a bingo hall. In the early 90's, the region bore the brunt of that time period's recession.
While a young kid, the defense industry fueled much of the economy in southeastern Connecticut. The sign across the Thames River in Groton still reads, "The Submarine Capital of the World." Problem is, you don't need submarines in a post Cold War era. And you don't need the parts that supply them, either.
In the midst of the economic malaise that affected my friends and family, there arose a wonder in the Connecticut woods. Foxwoods promised jobs, and it brought them. Make no mistake about it, casinos do produce jobs, and Foxwoods created them at a time when they were so desperately needed. Sound familiar?
Except I don't live in southeastern Connecticut today. To put it frankly, there isn't much happening there beyond the casinos. It took a herculean effort a few years back by the region's U.S. Congressman to save the U.S. Sub Base along that same Thames River. Many argued that its shuttering might have been a final economic straw for the region, and I agree with them.
The problem with destination casinos (which is what the Governor and others are arguing for) is that they try very hard to be destinations. I did a report when I was a senior in high school that discussed, in part, the psychological manipulation on display within Foxwoods. There are no clocks. There are few windows. There's a lot of bells and whistles (literally), generating excitement and adrenaline. The whole atmosphere is intended to do one thing---keep people there.
And Foxwoods and nearby Mohegan Sun have succeeded. Between the "wonder of it all"---the restaurants and live entertainment and sporting events and all those darn chances to win---it's no wonder that those that go decide not to leave.
One of my friends went to Foxwoods late last year. She explained how to save cost, she was going to stay in nearby Mystic, rather than on the grounds of the casino. Now, I love Mystic. My parents live there. My brother operated a marine business there, and his wife works there. Mystic is a great Connecticut town, and prior to the opening of the casinos, it was the main tourist attraction in the region. Not any more.
Someone asked my friend where she was going to go to dinner when she was in Connecticut. "I don't know," came the reply. "Probably somewhere in the casino."
To which I suggested: "Why not go out to dinner in Mystic?"
The story of my friend best exemplifies why I don't like casinos. From an economic perspective, casinos do not to contribute to the surrounding communities, but rather take from them.
The wonder in the Connecticut woods still is the wonder contained to the Connecticut woods. The nearby city of Norwich, economically depressed since I was born, is still economically depressed. It's downtown is as empty as when I was a kid. The restaurants of Mystic still receive their best business during the summer from out-of-state beachcombers, not from casino traffic (this is based on a first-hand interview with a waitress). It pains me to write this; Connecticut will always have a very special place in my heart.
Speaking of "wonders," I wonder what we all could have come up with to help spur economic activity over the past three years had we not spent so much time worrying about casinos. My concern is that a casino in Massachusetts will have the same effect as Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun in Connecticut. Why would a visitor to a casino near Boston want to go into the city? Why would they want to peruse shops on Newbury; visit an historic site downtown, or experience the city's varied neighborhoods?
For non-economic reasons, my dad hates gambling. He doesn't even buy lottery tickets. I have gambled from time to time, and I have had a great time visiting Las Vegas with friends on a couple of occasions. Notwithstanding, I am sure my distaste for casinos is somewhat influenced by my dad. Regardless, my opposition to casinos in Massachusetts is driven largely by what I experienced as a kid. I think my reasons are economic. And beyond the jobs casinos can create, I worry that the economic consequences of Massachusetts casinos would be harsh.
*** UPDATE: I heard from Jamie Hellen, Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz's chief of staff, that she will vote against any bill for expanding gambling. Yay Sonia!
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Major Step For Cleaner Neighborhoods
Laura Sargent in Representative Marty Waltz's office emailed me this week to tell me great news. Governor Deval Patrick has signed into a law a bill that will help make Boston streets cleaner.
Now, those of you who read this blog know that one issue I am fairly passionate about is trash. When I first became a member of the Beacon Hill Civic Association back in 1999, I was asked shortly thereafter to represent younger Beacon Hill neighbors on the infamous "trash committee" (which is now called the City Services Committee). Spending one night each month talking about creative ways to make Beacon Hill's streets cleaner became, I admit, somewhat addictive.
Given the time I have spent studying the issue, I hope you will trust that I do have some insight into how the streets could be cleaner. Last year, I wrote a post that outlined three main initiatives that would help significantly.
1) Towing on street cleaning days. Street cleaning only works if cars are not in the way of the street sweeper. That's why Mayor Menino administration's maximum enforcement of posted street sweeping signs is so important. Move your cars, neighbors!
2) Switching to 2 + 2. We have three days of trash pick up on Beacon Hill. That means trash is on the sidewalk far too often. I suggest moving to two days of pickup, plus an additional day of recycling (with trash pick up and recycling happening on the same day).
3) This is the issue that Laura phoned me about. The law that is now in place (whoo hooo!) will allow the City to better penalize trash scofflaws. The City will now be able to put in place procedures that attach unpaid trash violation fines to a property's tax bills. This will give those violations weight. It will also wake up absentee landlords throughout the city (building owners who rarely visit their properties and check on their tenants).
Kudos to all who helped the "green ticket" law become a reality, including Representative Marty Walz, Representative Aaron Michlewitz, Mayor Menino and his administration, and the Boston City Councilors who supported this effort. Thank you all!
Now, those of you who read this blog know that one issue I am fairly passionate about is trash. When I first became a member of the Beacon Hill Civic Association back in 1999, I was asked shortly thereafter to represent younger Beacon Hill neighbors on the infamous "trash committee" (which is now called the City Services Committee). Spending one night each month talking about creative ways to make Beacon Hill's streets cleaner became, I admit, somewhat addictive.
Given the time I have spent studying the issue, I hope you will trust that I do have some insight into how the streets could be cleaner. Last year, I wrote a post that outlined three main initiatives that would help significantly.
1) Towing on street cleaning days. Street cleaning only works if cars are not in the way of the street sweeper. That's why Mayor Menino administration's maximum enforcement of posted street sweeping signs is so important. Move your cars, neighbors!
2) Switching to 2 + 2. We have three days of trash pick up on Beacon Hill. That means trash is on the sidewalk far too often. I suggest moving to two days of pickup, plus an additional day of recycling (with trash pick up and recycling happening on the same day).
3) This is the issue that Laura phoned me about. The law that is now in place (whoo hooo!) will allow the City to better penalize trash scofflaws. The City will now be able to put in place procedures that attach unpaid trash violation fines to a property's tax bills. This will give those violations weight. It will also wake up absentee landlords throughout the city (building owners who rarely visit their properties and check on their tenants).
Kudos to all who helped the "green ticket" law become a reality, including Representative Marty Walz, Representative Aaron Michlewitz, Mayor Menino and his administration, and the Boston City Councilors who supported this effort. Thank you all!
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Good News From Beacon Hill Winter Dance
I slipped into my (rented) tux last night and attended the Beacon Hill Winter Dance, organized by the Beacon Hill Civic Association. This year's gala shifted locations to the new Mandarin Hotel in Boston's Back Bay (last year the venue was the Liberty Hotel on Beacon Hill).
It was great to see so many familiar faces. In addition to numerous fellow BHCA board members, including Lori Bate, Ania Camargo, Steve Young, Meghan Haggerty, Colin Zick and others, I ran into State Representatives Marty Walz and Aaron Michlewitz.
Representative Michlewitz had great news from the current House session. The House passed the infamous green ticket law, which will allow municipalities to enhance enforcement efforts for certain local rules. In Boston, this would mean the city could connect trash and other violations (which are noted by the issuing of "green tickets") to a property's tax bill. A bill including this local-option provision passed both the House and Senate a little over a year ago but suffered the fate of a "pocket veto" by the Governor, who let the bill sit on his desk.
As I have written about in this space in the past, better enforcement of green tickets is absolutely essential for making the city's streets cleaner. To this point, green ticket violations are largely ignored, especially in densely populated areas of the city, such as Beacon Hill, where many property owners of large buildings live elsewhere and are not often held accountable for the actions of their tenants.
Rep. Michlewitz says he expects the Senate to pass the law soon, and the Governor has indicated he would sign it. Bravo to both Representatives Michlewitz and Walz for their support of this effort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
