Want State Rep. Marty Walz's Seat? Read Here First

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.

In Boston, All Politics is SUPER Local

This is where I show my ignorance of Boston political history, for I learned last week that there was a time in Boston when all city councilors were at-large city councilors. The current city council make-up-- nine district councilors and four at-large councilors-- has been in place only since 1982. Prior to that, the council had nine members, all of whom represented the entire city.

District city council representation is vital to the city. I have written in the past about how Boston is a city of neighborhoods, and I have enjoyed meeting residents from other neighborhoods to learn about their homes, their favorite restaurants, and what conditions are like throughout Boston.

To be sure, my concerns about Boston are shared by residents in all the neighborhoods I have seen. We all care about safe streets and better schools. We all worry about economic development and jobs in the city. However, each specific neighborhood has its micro-specific issues that are unique. And that's why district city councilors are so important.

A micro-specific issue on Beacon Hill and in the Back Bay is trash. And neighbors in those areas have been very creative on how to keep streets clean. One idea being tossed around is whether certain downtown neighborhoods really need three days of trash pick up. Trash is picked up three days a week in my area of Beacon Hill, which means trash is on the streets three days a week. Considering refuse is put outside the night before pickup, that's a lot of time to have trash at the curb.

My neighbors and I see reducing the number of trash pick up days as a way to make streets cleaner by reducing the amount of time the trash is at the curb. It makes sense to us, and it makes sense to our district city councilor, Mike Ross, who has been supportive of our investigation of the issue. To be clear, Councilor Ross hasn't decided if he wants to reduce a day of pick up, and neither has the Beacon Hill Civic Association. It would be a major change for the neighborhood, so we're all still looking into it.

Removing trash pick-up days to make streets cleaner seems counter-intuitive, especially those who don't follow micro-specific neighborhood issues. Take the at-large Boston City Council candidates. At the "First in the City" City Council forum in June, hosted by Boston's Ward 5 Democratic Committee, the candidates were asked about the possibility of removing a day of trash pick up. A few of the candidates, most notably former City Councilor Michael Flaherty, reacted with near abhorrence. Mr. Flaherty said he would strongly oppose removing a day of pick-up, noting that it would be part of his efforts to keep Boston clean.

To be fair, Mr. Flaherty has not been involved in my discussions, so he doesn't understand that removing a day of pick up can actually make the streets cleaner. Mr. Flaherty has been out of the game for a year or two following his unsuccessful bid for Mayor, so he has some catching up to do. At the same time, it has to be hard for at-large city councilors to understand every micro-specific neighborhood issue in the city. One could make the argument that that's the place for district city councilors.

Information is a Scary Thing

Make no mistake about it, I am a Democrat. However, I am not afraid to talk about what the other side thinks, and why they advocate the way that they do. My friend Tom once said a long time ago that he liked how I would express my belief, but then I would back up and say why the other side feels the way that they do---even noting when my adversaries in a political debate had good points.

We're overwhelmed with information nowadays, and sometimes that's not a good thing. We all spend so much time catching up to the information that we sometimes forget the pig picture.

The recently ended debt-limit debate in Washington is a case in point. What I find amazing, in hindsight, is that at some point, several months ago, we all decided that additional debt was a bad thing, and now was the time to fix the issue. The elections last fall convinced us that the growing debt meant uncertainty for business. The voters sent representatives to Congress that were hellbent on reducing the size of government and shrinking government spending. The debt ceiling debate presented the best opportunity to make the voters' sentiment heard.

The only problem is that, heading into the debt ceiling debate, there was no sign-- at all-- that our debt was having a negative impact on the economy. Investors around the world, including large foreign governments already possessing large quantities of U.S. debt, were willing to buy more of it, and with incredibly cheap costs to the U.S. But we were convinced that we needed to stop taking on the debt-- and now.

The truth is, debt isn't the biggest issue we all face right now. It's the crappy economy, and more specifically, the fact that so many are out of work. Yet when one Congressman tried to make the point that the debt is not a concern right now (that creating jobs, instead, was) he was eviscerated by the media. Somehow, even the jobless have been convinced that reducing the size of government will help them get jobs more so than a government that is actively helping them find a job.

Truth be told, we Americans just decided to dramatically cut government spending at a time when the government seems to be the only entity willing to spend. Consumer spending is down. Consumer confidence is in the toilet. No one is buying a house, and even fewer are building houses (an exception being my parents). Companies are spending-- a little-- but most are hoarding the cash they have.

With the government now cutting back spending, I am not sure who is going to pick up spending as a result. The impact will be felt hardest by the individual states, who are dependent on federal spending to make up for tax revenue deficiencies (keep in mind that unlike the feds, state governments can't just print more money to bail themselves out).

We got what we voted for when the debt ceiling compromise was passed. I hope no one is surprised that the markets tanked in response.

It's Michael Flaherty Against the World

The Boston Courant related it to the Iowa Caucuses, and one city council at-large candidate called it the "bell weather" of this election cycle. A forum for at-large Boston city council candidates packed a Back Bay community room this past Tuesday, kicking off the 2011 election season with a nice burst of interest.

My ward committee, the Boston Ward 5 Democratic Committee, hosted the forum, which drew six of the seven candidates-- Incumbents Stephen Murphy, Felix Arroyo and John Connolly; and challengers Michael Flaherty, William Dorcena and Sean Ryan. Only Ayanna Pressley-- also an incumbent-- couldn't make it, and she had a very acceptable reason. Her mom is very, very sick.

Numerous outlets, including Universal Hub, Dorchester Reporter, Boston Courant and The Boston Phoenix, have written about the forum, so mostly to get things off my chest I add my own observations:

1) This race is Michael Flaherty vs. the world. Flaherty was an at-large city councilor until two years ago, when he decided to run for Mayor (and was defeated by Mayor Tom Menino by a large margin). Now Flaherty wants his old job back, and it's clear the incumbent councilors are not in his favor. Councilor Connolly was the most direct, basically telling the audience at the forum that the current slate of at-large city councilors was the best slate since the current City Council makeup was introduced. Flaherty followed by noting he is "beholden to no one." To me, Flaherty seemed a bit off during the night.

2) The First Church in Boston doesn't have air conditioning. The forum's venue, the First Church in Boston, became quite warm during the event. It also didn't help that the room was packed.

3) The three candidates who earned the ward committee's endorsement all contacted members directly. Ward 5 dems endorsed Connolly, Arroyo and Pressley. Arroryo sent committee members a letter. Connolly called members ahead of the forum, and Pressley both made calls and submitted a letter that was read aloud to the membership.

For the record, I cast my endorsement votes (as a member of the committee) for Pressley, Connolly, Arroyo and Murphy (the four incumbents).

Thanks to all who made the forum an overwhelming success!

"First in the City" City Council Forum Tuesday

If you look at elections as happening in four year cycles, this year's election should be a sleeper. There are no federal or even state elections on the ballot. The only elected officials voters will choose this fall are the city councilors who will represent them in the City of Boston.

Then former City Councilor Michael Flaherty decided to run, and the race suddenly got interesting. Flaherty was an at-large Boston City Councilor, and then two years ago he decided to run for Mayor (and got trounced by Mayor Tom Menino). Now, Flaherty wants his old job back.

Who am I kidding? In reality, this year's election is still a sleeper. The Flaherty vote provides the only real drama. Truth be told, most people don't care about local elections, which is sad, since the local officials tend to have the most impact on issues that people actually care about: crime, education, and affordable housing, to name a few. The people who do vote this year will be special; not many will go to the polls. If you say you are voting, I guarantee you will get special attention from those running for city council in Boston.

Certainly this election season really matters for the four incumbent at-large city councilors, who would like to keep their jobs despite Flaherty's decision to run. For that reason and for those candidates, this Tuesday's "First in the City" City Council candidates' forum is very, very important.

My ward committee, the Boston Ward 5 Democratic Committee, has a history of hosting the first city council candidates' forum for at-large candidates every two years. This year's forum promises to upstage the event's all-ready significant legacy. David Bernstein of the Boston Phoenix will be the moderator. Boston Neighborhood Network will tape the event to broadcast it at a later date on COMCAST cable. Reporters from the Beacon Hill/Back Bay Patch, Universal Hub and the Dorchester Reporter, among other outlets, are poised to cover the event.

If you would like to go, the forum starts this Tuesday, June 21 at about 7 p.m. at the First Church in Boston, which is at 66 Marlborough Street (corner of Marlborough and Berkeley Streets) in the Back Bay neighborhood of Boston. The forum will be an hour long. All seven of the presumed candidates for at-large city council have confirmed to the committee that they will be there: John Connolly, Ayanna Pressley, Felix Arroyo, Stephen Murphy, Will Dorcena, the previously mentioned Michael Flaherty, and Sean Ryan.

I have been a member of my ward committee for three years now, so I have some free advice for the candidates. Two simple suggestions:

1) Show up. Certainly the members of my ward committee have their quirks, but the group assembled Tuesday will be comprised of very motivated, active voters. If you impress, you will earn volunteers and donors... maybe even an endorsement by the committee, which brings other benefits given the committee's sizable bank account. As State Treasurer Steve Grossman reminded me last weekend, it was Woody Allen who said, "Ninety percent of life is just showing up." That could not be more true on Tuesday. I know there are members of my committee who will literally write off candidates that don't bother to appear at events like this.

2) Make your thoughts local. The forum is being hosted by the Ward 5 Democratic committee, so make sure you know geographically what Ward 5 includes and cater your comments to the concerns of that geography. We're talking Beacon Hill, Back Bay, Chinatown, part of the South End and part of Fenway. If you talk about trash, keep in mind that we don't have room downtown for large trash receptacles. If you talk about crime, remember that Fenway Park rests inside the ward. I know this sounds simple, and I know it sounds like I am preaching, but you don't know how many times candidates have appeared before the group and talked about their experiences in South Boston or West Roxbury. Not gonna work. As Speaker O'Neill said, "All politics is local."

To the candidates, thank you for agreeing to be at the "First in the City" City Council candidates forum. I am looking forward to it. Good luck.

Newton Mayor Setti Warren

Mass. State Democratic Convention

Lowell, Mass.

June 4, 2011

Scary Scott Brown: Episode 1

I did not vote for Senator Scott Brown, but I respect that he is the current junior Senator from Massachusetts, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. At first, I was ok with some of the moves he made. He voted to pass the jobs bill, proposed by the President and other Democrats, shortly after he took office. Better yet, he was authoritative about his vote, which he delivered early in that roll call.

But this week I saw a very scary side of Scott Brown. His latest proposal would allow the United States to strip citizenship from anyone, without a hearing, if it is believed that person is a terrorist or is aiding terrorists. It is one of the most ridiculous, anti-American proposals I have ever heard of. To put it in perspective, as "The Massachusetts Liberal" points out, even Glen Beck says the proposed law is unconstitutional.

Citizenship is a cherished right, and certainly it comes with responsibilities. However, there is a constitutionally outlined process that allows the U.S. government to strip someone of its citizenship. It's called treason, and it's punishable by death. However, in the spirit of our democracy, treason must be tried in federal court. The law proposed by Brown and his equally delusional counterpart, Sen. Joe Lieberman, would allow the government to strip citizenship without trial-- without a hearing, even.

Jim Braude provided a simple example of the law's ludicrous nature during yesterday's "Jim and Margery" Show on 96.9 WTKK-FM. As he put it, certainly in the past many Irish Boston residents supported the efforts of some of the groups in Northern Ireland who were pushing for independence from the U.K. By certain definitions, those groups were terrorist organizations, meaning under the law proposed by Scary Scott, contributors to the groups could be stripped of their U.S. citizenship.

What bothers me even more is that I think, deep down inside, both Sens. Brown and Lieberman know their law doesn't have a chance to pass Constitutional muster. They made the proposal for two reasons. First, they can tell their constituents they mean business. A caller to "Jim and Margery" yesterday said, "It's about time we grew some balls." Those callers are, of course, Scary Scott's base, and they can cry liberal foul when the law is challenged by the lefties.

Second, and this scares me the most, by proposing the law, Scary Scott can "compromise" by "settling" with a second proposal that is perhaps not nearly as aggressive--but still strips Americans of there liberties. The second proposal would be like a much more powerful Patriot Act. It may or may not pass the Constitutional test, but that doesn't matter to the New England Senators. At that point, they would have tried not once, but twice, to pass a law that "simply cracks down on those citizens whose actions would indicate they don't want their citizenship anyway."

Scary, scary stuff, people.

Why Scott Brown Won

Congratulations to Massachusetts Senator-Elect Scott Brown. He is a smart, capable politician, and I hope he will be a great Senator.

For the past few days, I have been listening to many political pundits note how it took "the perfect storm" for Senator Brown to win. His opponent, Martha Coakley, had the institutional advantage. Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-to-1. This is Massachusetts, for heaven's sake. There hasn't been a Republican Senator here since... well I can't remember. And finally, we're talking about Senator Kennedy's seat. Why would voters elect someone who would counter the late Senator's life-long mission---universal health care?

For the final debate of the campaign, held yards away from the Kennedy Library on the campus of UMASS Boston, organizers asked David Gergen, political strategist and former aide to Presidents both Republican and Democrat, to moderate. The choice seemed strange to me. Certainly Gergen is politically smart. I have listened to his wise commentary many a night on CNN. However, Gergen is a political insider. I doubt he spent time talking to large numbers of Massachusetts voters before the debate. Like other analysts (and on many occasions, me), he gets caught up in the political horse race at the expense of commenting on the pulse of the public.

David Gergen, in my opinion, sealed the victory for Scott Brown during the debate. At the very least, the moment encapsulated why Brown won.

In asking Brown a question about the health care debate in Washington, Gergen turned to face Brown and, rather incredulously, noted "you're talking opposing health care reform as a Senator from Massachusetts... [dramatic pause and with emphasis] Ted Kennedy's seat."

"With all due respect," Brown quickly retorted. "This is not Ted Kennedy's seat, nor anyone else's seat. This is the people's seat."

I admit that many Massachusetts Democrats feel safe on this side of the "Blue Curtain." We often speak with hubris about the Democratic majority here. And while I don't really think that hubris showed in this race (except perhaps breeding complacency), that hubris certainly was portrayed by the media.

Gergen's question was in some ways offensive to all Massachusetts voters. I am a Democrat, but that doesn't blind me in the ballot box. I would imagine most other Democrats are not similarly naive to the issues and debates of any given race. The days of the party lever are over. Better than 20-percent of Democrats voted for Scott Brown this past Tuesday. I bet many of them were swayed by Gergen's hubris; they might have voted for Brown to spite the moderator and all others who feel Democrats here are naive to the challenges facing our country.

Everyone is hurting right now. Democrats understand that as much as anyone. I haven't enjoyed reading stories in Newsweek and BusinessWeek that say workers in my generation should look forward to years of less and less benefits and longer and longer hours, without wage increases that match inflation. We are frustrated.

Enter into this environment an election in which everyone-- including David Gergen-- just assumes Ted Kennedy's seat will go to a Democrat. The populist frustration boiled over, among independents and many Democrats.

Enter into this environment a candidate, Martha Coakley, who until the final weekend just didn't really seem to be working very hard.

Enter into this environment a candidate, Scott Brown, who jammed his schedule---meeting with regular voters---and whose pick-up truck symbolized the common person.

The perfect storm in Massachusetts was created by universal frustration and a reaction to the conventional wisdom---that because Massachusetts is a blue state, it doesn't matter. That this election doesn't matter. That the voters don't matter.

Well, we matter. And even though I voted for Martha Coakley, there's no doubt the nation was listening even to me this past Tuesday. Fundamentally, it's just another example of how our democracy is indeed working.

My Choice is Martha Coakley

It's probably not a surprise to regular readers that I am voting for Martha Coakley on Tuesday to be the next U.S. Senator from Massachusetts. Over the past week, the temperature in the race has risen many degrees. One cannot watch a local news program without encountering numerous ads for Coakley and her opponent.

I had originally not planned to write this post; but given how the race as turned out, I feel compelled to state my reasons for supporting the Attorney General, despite the fact that I did not vote for her in the Democratic primary last month.

1) Massachusetts universal health care is not enough. While we enjoy nearly universal health-care coverage in Massachusetts, we suffer from industry wide problems, including the uncontrollable rise in health-care costs. The most attractive provisions of the health-care bills in Congress protect all of us from loss of insurance if we get sick, and they forbid insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. Those provisions are not a part of the Massachusetts heath care overhaul. A vote against Martha Coakley is a vote against health-care reform so desperately needed.

2) Martha Coakley agrees with many of my international priorities. Certainly there are still those in Afghanistan that mean us harm, but the fight against terrorism is not as black-and-white as simply targeting countries or regions. Coakley believes that the right answer isn't always to send in troops. The right answer is to target our efforts based on good intelligence and recognize that this effort is truly global in nature.

3) Martha Coakley is tough. As Attorney General she's represented Massachusetts, returned money to the state's taxpayers, and remained committed to her core values. This is not a party sock puppet. Martha Coakley will stand up for what she believes in.

Tuesday's election is serious. Many of my fellow Massachusetts residents are upset. But they should not let that anger cloud their judgement about what's best for the state. And what's best is to make Martha Coakley our next U.S. Senator.

The Mission Hill Road Race

Nothing like a nice 3.2 mile run to start off the weekend. I joined a few hundred others who ran the Mission Hill Road Race this morning. I accomplished my two goals-- I finished; and I didn't hurt myself.

Part of Team Menino at the Mission Hill Road Race (I am in the center)
Outside Kevin Fitzgerald Park, Mission Hill, Boston
September 19, 2009

Neighborhood Meeting on Beacon Hill Crime

A recent spate of robberies on Beacon Hill led to a crime meeting, hosted by the Beacon Hill Civic Association, at the Firehouse on Mt. Vernon Street tonight. I attended along with at least 50 or 60 of my neighbors. Boston Police Captain Bernard O'Rourke, Sargent Tom Lema, the BHCA's Paula O'Keefe, and City Council President Mike Ross were at the head table and addressed the recent incidents.

Some very interesting points from the meeting:

o There are indications that the perpetrators of recent robberies on Beacon Hill (there have been four this year) are members of the new MVP (Most Violent Prophet) gang of high school students. The Boston Police Department has been tracking this group, which tends to focus on the Downtown Crossing area. In the case of the Beacon Hill incidents, it is possible that members of this group came to Beacon Hill.

o Capt. O'Rourke referred to cell phones--especially iPhones and Sidekicks--as a kind of currency for younger individuals. He called them big "status symbols." In many cases, the perpetrators see someone talking on an iPhone and steal the phone from behind.

o While crime overall on Beacon Hill is down this year, compared to last year, there is a sense of unease in the neighborhood of late, certainly represented by those who attended the meeting. Unlike previous robberies in the neighborhood, which were isolated incidents, the recent robberies are unsettling because they could be connected to the issues in Downtown Crossing.

o The best advice I heard from Captain O'Rourke: Most people can sense when "something is wrong" on their street--when people are congregating that "just don't belong"--and residents should not hesitate to dial 9-1-1.

o The most alarming thing I heard came from one of the owners of Charles Street Liquors, who noted that he regularly thwarts shoplifters (he said once a week someone attempts to steal something from his store). In almost all cases, he doesn't call the police, primarily because he often is able to retrieve the stolen merchandise. For this reason, it's pretty clear the neighborhood crime statistics (for shoplifting, at least) are low. The stats are only for crimes that are actually reported. Given that Captain O'Rourke makes changes to patrols based on the data, I find that very worrisome.


Of note, also at the meeting were City Councilor Sal LaMattina and the newly minted Democratic nominee for the 3rd Suffolk Mass. House seat Aaron Michlewitz.

Race to Fill Sal DiMasi's Mass. House Seat

There is a political race under way in downtown Boston.

Several candidates are filing nomination petitions to fill the vacant 3rd Suffolk State Representative seat, a position left open by the resignation of former House Speaker Sal DiMasi. The primary to pick party candidates for the seat is on May 19, and the special election is on June 16. This is not a municipal election, so there will be a primary (not a preliminary).

I do not live in the 3rd Suffolk Representative district. However, I am a member of the Ward 5 Democratic Committee, and one precinct of Ward 5 is in the 3rd Suffolk (It's precinct 1, which encompasses Bay Village and part of Chinatown). The Ward 5 Democratic Committee is planning to host a forum and take an endorsement vote in the race. For that reason, I do plan to pay close attention, and I of course will post my thoughts on this blog.

What's great about democracy though, is that while I will have an opinion, it doesn't really matter, since I don't have a vote. If you live in the district, you are far more important than I am (and rightly so). Within Boston, the 3rd Suffolk House District includes a large portion of the South End, Chinatown, Bay Village, a small sliver of Beacon Hill, and a portion of the North End. If you live in one of these neighborhoods and are curious if you are in the district, drop me a note and I can clarify it for you.

The slate of candidates running for the seat is long, which is good. Competition leads to better representation. Among the candidates I have seen noted (listed alphabetically):

o Ryan Higginson
o John Keith (He left a note on my blog this past week)
o Aaron Michlewitz (He was at my Beacon Hill Civic Association meeting this past week)
o Susan Passoni
o Lucy Rivery (She was as at my Beacon Hill Civic Association meeting this past week)
o Brian Ross
o David Trumbull (A Republican, so he doesn't affect my Ward vote)

Adam Gaffin has done a great job, as usual, following this race over at Universal Hub.

Mayor Menino Greets Younger Residents in West Roxbury

Tom Menino greets a Boston resident

West on Centre

West Roxbury

Boston, Mass.

February 22, 2009

Boston Mayor Tom Menino stopped by West on Centre in West Roxbury today to meet with younger Bostonians, an event promoted through the blossoming Mayor fan groups on Facebook.

The Mayor was non-committal at the event about whether he would run for re-election, saying only that in the coming weeks there will be an announcement as to whether he is in, or not.

Sam Yoon Enters the Boston Mayoral Race

Here we go.

Three candidates have now declared they will run for Mayor of Boston, as current Boston At-Large City Councilor Sam Yoon announced his intentions today. He joins his colleague Michael Flaherty and South End businessman Kevin McCrea as announced candidates. Assuming all three candidates get enough signatures when candidate papers are filed in April and May, there will be both a preliminary and general election in the fall to pick the Mayor.

Of course, the current Mayor, Tom Menino, has not announced whether he will seek re-election.

Yoon is a young city councilor with a promising career, but there should be emphasis on the word "young." I have significant concerns about his lack of experience, and I hope citizens will not be swept up in the current trend of change to overlook the need for experience in today's difficult times. (See my earlier post discussing the slippery slope of political "change.")

Big Issues of 2009 Already Taking Shape

Only a few days after posting my own thoughts on the big Beacon Hill issues to close out 2008, and we're already getting a peak at the issues that face us to start 2009.

1) A neighborhood school downtown. A story in the new edition of the Beacon Hill Times talks about a new community movement afoot in the West End to build a new public elementary school as part of Government Center Garage proposed project. The story in the Times includes a photo of West End parent Chiara Rhouate, who is apparently leading a group called The Coalition for Public Eduction: Expanding Quality Education for Downtown Neighborhoods, which already has the support of new President of the West End Civic Association, Duane Lucia.

It will be interesting to see if the new group gains support from parents on Beacon Hill, who no doubt are still recovering from a campaign to bring a public school to their neighborhood. A few years ago, some Beacon Hill neighbors pressed the City to convert a former Emerson dormitory on Brimmer Street into a public school. The City opposed the idea, and today that building is a private school.

The issue of a neighborhood school raises a lot of emotions that often overshadow the very nature of the Boston Public School system, something even I don't fully grasp. But I know enough to understand that even with a local elementary school, parents are in no way guaranteed that their children will attend there. The Boston Public School system uses a lottery to determine the schools children will attend.

2) The deterioration of Downtown Crossing. A post on Universal Hub best summarizes concerns about crime in the Downtown Crossing area, given the economic crisis and the fact that many retail storefronts along Downtown Crossing streets are empty. Gunfire in broad daylight last Friday has risen the recent concern.

You can bet I will be watching both these issues closely in the weeks to come and will be adding my own thoughts as I learn more about them.

It's Time to Vote: Things to Remember

I authored an article on voting for the Beacon Hill Times, on behalf of the Beacon Hill Civic Association, that will appear next week. It's below in its raw, unedited form. I figure it might provide some tips to those voting in Massachusetts on November 4.

NOTE: These tips apply to Massachusetts voters only (more specifically Boston). Rules might vary in other states.

------------------------------------

Beacon Hill, it's time to vote. Beyond the civic reasons, many people in various levels of government pay close attention to who votes. By voting, we increase our voice to our elected officials.

That being said, below is a list of eleven tips related to the voting process. On Beacon Hill, we vote at one of three voting locations, depending on which part of the hill you live on: City Hall, The West End Library on Cambridge Street, and at the Firehouse on Mount Vernon. As noted below, your voting location depends precisely on where you live.

Here goes:

1) Polls are open from 7 a.m. until 8 p.m. on Tuesday, November 4. That's more than twelve hours to find the time to vote. Boston election officials are expecting a huge turnout. Lines are not too common, believe it or not, except at the beginning of the day. And if you are in a line, make friends with your neighbors.

2) Don't forget to read the entire ballot. Obviously, there is a lot of excitement this year to vote in the Presidential race. However, there are other items on the ballot that are of significance to Beacon Hill voters. For example, three ballot questions have spiked quite a bit of debate, including Question 1, which if passed would eliminate the state income tax. Roughly 2/3 of the neighborhood also has a contested State Senate race on the ballot.

3) For absentee ballots, don't forget proper postage. One stamp will not suffice to mail absentee ballots to City Hall. Correct postage is is 59 cents, and to be safe, affix two regular first-class stamps.

4) If you make a mistake at the voting booth, you can request a new ballot. Voters sometimes make mistakes. They misread a ballot, or they drop their pen, and it leaves a stray mark. If this happens, you can ask the warden in the polling location or an assistant for a new ballot. They will mark your original ballot void and give you a new one.

5) If they say you can't vote, don't just walk away. Polling officials have received elaborate instructions on what to do should a voter arrive who is not listed on their voting lists. No polling official wants to deny you the right to vote. They can call Boston City Hall for you. Depending on the rules, you are allowed to cast a ballot provisionally even if you are not listed on the voter roles. You made the effort to get to the polling location; don't leave unless your ballot is cast.

6) Don't wear any political buttons, t-shirts, etc. into the polling place. Technically, you are not allowed to advertise for anything related to the election, including candidates, positions on ballot questions, etc., while you are inside the voting booth. You are allowed to bring in notes and other information to help you vote the way you'd like.

7) Volunteers outside cannot block your way into the polling place. It is completely legal for individuals to stand outside the voting booth, hold signs, advocate for a candidate or position, and to give you literature. However, they cannot harass you. If you had trouble getting to the voting location, tell the warden inside. Their job is to protect your right to vote.

8) If you suddenly are going to be out of town on election day, you can vote in person at City Hall during normal business hours the week before the election. Typically you have until noon the day before the election, and the Elections Department is even willing to make special appointments. Call the Elections Department for more information at 617-635-3767.

9) "Where do I vote?" is a very common question. Your polling location is specific, because it relates directly to where you live. You cannot vote in any other location. Period. Not anywhere else in Boston, and certainly not anywhere else in another city or town. If you are concerned about where you should vote, call the Elections Department at 617-635-3767 and they will tell you. There is also a very simple way to look up your own information through the City of Boston website (http://www.cityofboston.gov/elections/voter/). You can use the website to verify your registration and your polling location.

10) If you are in line when the polls close at 8 p.m., you still have the right to vote. If it's 7:59 when you arrive, and you see a line, don't walk away. The warden will look at the line when the polls close and will mark the spot at the end of the line. Remember, the warden wants you to vote, and if you are in line, they are happy you are there.

11) Take your time. You can spend as much time as you want inside the polling place and reading your ballot. If anything is confusing to you, ask the warden.

Enjoy the experience. Remember, every election is historic in its own way. Be a part of it!

Endorsement: Senator John Kerry

A week from today I head to Lowell for the Massachusetts Democratic State Convention, where I will represent the second Suffolk district as a delegate.

At the convention, delegates will be asked to nominate a candidate for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Senator John Kerry, whose term expires in early 2009. I will vote to nominate Senator Kerry.

While this may not be a surprise to many who are not even sure there's a choice this year, it comes after a week of research that included conversations with both Senator Kerry and his Democratic opponent, Ed O'Reilly. My reasons for supporting Senator Kerry are as follows:

1) Cape Wind. Ed O'Reilly does not support it. Senator Kerry is still undecided, depending on the outcome of a study into the environmental impact of the project. I support Cape Wind, and believe it should have been approved long ago. The opposition to the project is based on the legitimate claims of many who live near the proposed off-shore wind farm or will be affected by it. However, their claims are significantly overridden by the potential benefits of the project. A wind farm, whether privately operated or not, is the type of alternative energy project that the United States should be investing in and promoting. While I wish Senator Kerry would support the project, at least he doesn't oppose it.

2) I am fine with Senator Kerry's position on the Iraq war. Ed O'Reilly sees this as a wedge issue; in particular, Senator Kerry's vote in favor of the resolution that ultimately (but not explicitly) led to the war. In reality, Senator Kerry was one of the first Senators to vote on a timeline for U.S. troop withdrawal. He made a commitment at a meeting with convention delegates today to continue to oppose funding for a long-term presence in Iraq. I actually am not completely in favor of a deadline for withdrawal, and I think the larger issue in play is the U.S. relationship with the world, and the fact that we need to change the way the world looks at us (John Edwards words, not mine). Regardless, I trust Senator Kerry on this issue and am not swayed by Mr. O'Reilly's points.

3) Senator Kerry is not complacent. I am not a fan of Democratic convention delegates picking nominees. While I am proud to be a convention delegate, true democracy demands that all Democrats have a say in who the party nominee is. This naturally means I would support Ed O'Reilly. If he receives 15 or more percent of the delegates at the convention, then party rules dictate there will be a primary. And with a primary all Democrats have a chance to vote to pick the nominee.

Except I don't see a reason for a primary this year, because Senator Kerry is as engaged as he always has been in the causes of Massachusetts. Having already established that, on the issues, I think he's the better candidate, I don't see a reason to extend this process any further. To go further, as Senator Kerry noted today, Democrats have a huge chance to make gains in the Senate and House, and he can help in that effort. I see no reason to deter from that effort by forcing a primary. While I would never, ever call a primary a distraction, the choice for Massachusetts Democrats this year is just too overwhelmingly clear to delay the selection of our pick.

I enjoyed meeting Ed O'Reilly this week and appreciated his hospitality. I trust he is a great man and a fantastic attorney. But I see no reason this year to take the junior Senator seat away from John Kerry.

The Road to Denver

I have never been to Denver. Well, I have been to the airport, but not to the city. This August is looking like a great time to go.

Yesterday, a large group of my Democratic neighbors in the Massachusetts 8th Congressional District elected my good friend Nikko Mendoza to be a delegate to the Democratic Convention, which is in Denver this year in late August.

It was a long but exciting day, and another lesson for me in democracy. A few general observations:

-- The Bunker Hill Community College has a grilled cheese sandwich vending machine. The caucus I attended last night was in a BHCC auditorium. In the main lobby, where I was greeting caucus-goers with other Nikko supporters, a hot food vending machine offered the cheesy treats along with french fries and pizza. Curiosity overtook me. I tried a grilled cheese. Not horrible, but I am not about to buy one of the machines for my apartment.

-- We Democrats know how to demonstrate the chaotic side of the process. I remember watching some of the Iowa caucuses on TV. The Republican caucuses seemed neat and orderly, with people sitting in chairs and casting votes by dropping a paper in ballot box slots. Pretty uneventful TV. The Democratic caucuses were kind of like a cross between an organizational PTA meeting and a baseball game. Organized chaos, perhaps. The caucus yesterday at the BHCC was organized chaos. Matt O'Mally, one caucus organizer and recognized party member, wasn't even listed on the voter registration lists. Despite this, I was disappointed that many attendees got upset. As Democrats, we should know by now that we excel at organized chaos (See: Texas prima-caucus [Prima-Caucus is a new word for me!]).

-- I really like the community side of politics. It was truly great to see local Charlestown neighbors coming out to support John "Jack" Kelly, who was running on the same slate as Nikko. (Jack grew up in Charlestown). The community feel of the event was overwhelming, and great to see. I have often said that Boston is a city of neighborhoods, and it was great to spend a day in an adjacent neighborhood to where I live.

After the caucus, I went to the Mission on Mission Hill, where I ran into some Obama supporters just exiting their 8th Congressional Caucus. Unlike the Hillary caucus, which ended on one ballot, the Obama caucus went on forever.

I am also very proud of Nikko. She really deserves to be a delegate, as I have written earlier, and it's great to see her recognized for her efforts.

P.S. For anyone who really is interested, Nikko won with 85-percent of the votes cast. As I screamed after the results were announced "LANDSLIDE."

P.P.S. It's great to see extensive coverage of the caucuses yesterday in today's issue of Boston's hometown newspaper, The Boston Globe, given that the events were the big political news in the city of the last month. (For those who can't read my tone, the Globe didn't cover them at all.)