We're at the halfway point of the year. I thought I would review what were in my opinion the top six issues that percolated on Beacon Hill in Boston during the last six months, just for fun. Here goes:
6. Boston Common Activity
From March until December of last year, the City of Boston renovated the Parade Grounds on the Boston Common (roughly the area above the Boston Common Garage). Ever since that effort began, the rumblings about the proper use of the Boston Common have resonated. They have gotten pretty loud this year, probably at their loudest when the Boston City Council hosted a public hearing on the Common. Your latest update: Kudos to Boston City Councilor Mike Ross, who went to New York City recently to survey how Boston's rival city makes use of public areas. The creative juices are flowing. A cafe on Boston Common? A mid-afternoon hot dog and beverage near the frog pond? Why not.
5. Towing for Street Cleaning
Last year, Boston Public Works Chief Dennis Royer instituted the most aggressive policy on towing imaginable. With the use of outside contractors, he removed cars whenever he could, in all neighborhoods, when those cars were parked illegally. The good news? Street cleaners could reach the curb, and when that happens, the cleaners actually make a difference. The bad news? Dozens of neighbors had their cars towed, which is not a pleasant experience. The Boston City Council held two hearings, one earlier this year, to discuss whether the towing should be eased so as to reduce the burden. While I empathize with those whose cars are towed, the benefits outweigh the inconvenience. And I am happy the aggressive towing remains, thanks to Chief Royer and Mayor Tom Menino.
4. The Parade vs. the Primary
For two weeks ahead of the Super Bowl (where the Patriots played the Giants), downtown neighborhoods braced for a potential disaster. We learned that, at the request of the NFL, the Superbowl parade would be scheduled on the Tuesday following Superbowl Sunday, which in Boston would be the same day as the Massachusetts Democratic Primary. Unlike some previous contests, turnout for the primary was expected to be high. However, the planned parade route in Boston, if based on previous years, would potentially block polling locations (in particular the West End Library and City Hall, which are polling locations for Beacon Hill residents). The image aroused tales of a potential apocalypse. How could something as American as the Superbowl directly lead to a restriction of voting rights? In the end, there was one minor twist to the tale that saved us all. The Patriots lost the game. Do we have Eli Manning to thank for an event-free election day?
3. Phillips Street Park
Let's face it, Phillips Street Park, a tiny enclave of land tucked away on a residential street in Beacon Hill, looks tired. More importantly, the only drainage point in the park is the back yard of the home of Rajan Nanda and his wife. So the City of Boston appropriated money to renovate the park and fix the drainage issue. Easy enough, right? Well, as I was to learn, redesigning a public space that is within baseball-throwing distance of hundreds of residents is not as easy as one public meeting. Try four, as well as countless phone and in-person meetings, and a process that took well over a year. In the end, the design for Phillips Street Park is a compromise that pleases no one but benefits many. Kudos to Karin Mathiesen in Mike Ross' office, and to the City of Boston Parks Department, for their hard work over the many months.
2. The Storrow Drive Tunnel
I don't understand all the ins and outs of the Storrow Drive tunnel issue, but it goes something like this. Storrow Drive is falling apart, slowly but surely. To figure out how to fix it, the State (which owns the land) started a public process. The State told the public it was considering creating a bypass road into the Esplanade while the Tunnel was to be repaired. The Beacon Hill and Back Bay neighborhoods went crazy (and rightly so, in my opinion). A fellow board member on the Beacon Hill Civic Association threatened to tie herself to an Esplanade tree in protest. The State retracted the idea and the public process has stopped. From that point, it gets hazy in my recollection, but I have heard that there are repair efforts under way on a limited basis (i.e. at night when traffic is light) on the tunnel. Note to self: Don't mess with the Esplanade.
1. Suffolk University's Institutional Master Plan (IMP)
If you are at all surprised by the number one item on this list, you need a Beacon Hill 101 refresher course (maybe Suffolk would offer one?). I have never seen any other issue suck all of the oxygen out of public discourse more than this issue has over the past several months. It was a lesson in town-and-gown, NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) politics, and age prejudice all wrapped into one. In the end, the Beacon Hill Civic Association and Suffolk reached an agreement. Many of my neighbors and Suffolk officials spent several late nights to hammer out the deal. I look forward to working with Suffolk this Summer as we prepare for move-in day in September (for the past two years, I have walked the neighborhood with some friends who work at Suffolk and neighbors to welcome our new residents).
Fittingly enough, official word of the Boston Redevelopment Authority's approval of the Suffolk IMP reached my email inbox today. The last day of June. Six months of '08 down, six to go.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
True Blue
Tsongas ArenaJune 7, 2008
(Courtesy Rob Whitney)
I think "True Blue" should be the motto for the Democratic party in Massachusetts. Full disclosure: The shirt is a UCONN Husky shirt, and of course the University of Michigan has also adopted the "true blue" slogan.
I am sitting in the 2nd Suffolk section of the State Democratic Convention floor. To my right is Laura Sargent, and to my left is Fay Sliger. We were all delegates.
Anna's... Finally!
Cambridge and Garden Streets, BostonJune 23, 2008
It was the end of the biggest tease in Beacon Hill restaurant history. And it ended with little fanfare.
Anna's Taqueria opened two weeks ago on Cambridge Street, at the corner of Cambridge and Garden.
My friends and I had long given up on Anna's even having a place here. The producers of the city's best burritos announced several years ago their plans for a Beacon Hill establishment. It became a constant source of frustration.
I think we all just assumed that Anna's would never show up. And then, a text message from old roomie Blake letting me know, while I was traveling, that not only was the shop open, but free burritos were given to the first day's patrons.
I have a carnitas burrito with no salsa. Very tasty.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Round One: Wilkerson vs. Chang-Diaz
This past week the Ward 5 Democratic Committee, of which I am a member, hosted a forum for the two Democratic candidates running for the 2nd Suffolk Mass. Senate seat. After the forum, the committee endorsed the incumbent, Senator Dianne Wilkerson.
It was my first significant vote as a rookie member of the committee, and I decided to abstain. Further, I think the endorsement by Ward 5 is premature. This is going to be a very exciting race between Wilkerson and her opponent, Sonia Chang-Diaz, and it's way too early to pick a horse.
Prior to the meeting, I was leaning toward Chang-Diaz, but I decided to enter the forum with an open mind, given that I really do not know much about either woman. Here are my impressions on this race:
--- Both candidates are exceptional, and the 2nd Suffolk district is blessed to have them (even though turnout at the Sept. primary will likely be tiny).
---The forum last week identified only minor differences between the two candidates. Chang-Diaz and Wilkerson both believe that casinos in Massachusetts are a bad idea. Listening to the the forum, one heard a series of "I agree with that," or "Yes" from either side as the two "debated" the issues. Fellow committee members and I exchanged a note in the crowd that stated: "Is there anything that they don't agree on?" [Note: I spoke to the Chang-Diaz campaign on June 25, and they noted that Sonia Chang-Diaz opposes the Level 4 BU Bio Lab until there can be significant research that shows the lab will not pose a risk; Senator Wilkerson supports the Bio Lab.]
---Seniority is a somewhat loaded term. Senator Wilkerson has seniority in the Senate, however I debate how important this is. Senator Wilkerson has had her difficulties in the past, including forgetting to get her name on the ballot two years ago to defend her seat. By choosing to ignore these issues and approach this race with a level playing field, I feel that the Senator's successes over the past many years also should not sway my opinion.
Given these first two points, I would like to hear more from both candidates on issues that I care about, such as how they are going to keep young professionals and young families in Boston, and how they can encourage those residents to settle and contribute to Boston's communities.
--- Senator Wilkerson was better in the debate this past week (though Chang-Diaz did have excellent answers to the final two questions on health care and education), but Sonia Chang-Diaz, in my opinion, "wants it more." As "squishy" as this sounds, in recent races the style of the candidate has ultimately swayed my decision, whether that's good or not. Chang-Diaz spoke to me three times ahead of the meeting; whereas Senator Wilkerson called me once. Chang-Diaz talks of change; I think her campaign is better characterized as raw energy. You can see the energy when she talks (and she sometimes talks fast).
I remain undecided. And by virtue of my abstention in the recent Ward 5 meeting, I encourage others to come to their own opinions. We're still in the early days of this race.
I also hope this race will lead to a broader discussion on the role of a Mass. Senator in local campaigns. I had never seen Senator Wilkerson in person before the State convention two weeks ago. Contrast that to my State Representative, Marty Waltz, who I see all the time. Obviously, Rep. Waltz represents less people, but you'd think Senator Wilkerson would show up at (the very least) the high-profile meetings, such as the meetings regarding Suffolk University. Admittedly, the state's role in the Suffolk issue is non-existent, but that didn't stop Marty Waltz from being there.
It was my first significant vote as a rookie member of the committee, and I decided to abstain. Further, I think the endorsement by Ward 5 is premature. This is going to be a very exciting race between Wilkerson and her opponent, Sonia Chang-Diaz, and it's way too early to pick a horse.
Prior to the meeting, I was leaning toward Chang-Diaz, but I decided to enter the forum with an open mind, given that I really do not know much about either woman. Here are my impressions on this race:
--- Both candidates are exceptional, and the 2nd Suffolk district is blessed to have them (even though turnout at the Sept. primary will likely be tiny).
---The forum last week identified only minor differences between the two candidates. Chang-Diaz and Wilkerson both believe that casinos in Massachusetts are a bad idea. Listening to the the forum, one heard a series of "I agree with that," or "Yes" from either side as the two "debated" the issues. Fellow committee members and I exchanged a note in the crowd that stated: "Is there anything that they don't agree on?" [Note: I spoke to the Chang-Diaz campaign on June 25, and they noted that Sonia Chang-Diaz opposes the Level 4 BU Bio Lab until there can be significant research that shows the lab will not pose a risk; Senator Wilkerson supports the Bio Lab.]
---Seniority is a somewhat loaded term. Senator Wilkerson has seniority in the Senate, however I debate how important this is. Senator Wilkerson has had her difficulties in the past, including forgetting to get her name on the ballot two years ago to defend her seat. By choosing to ignore these issues and approach this race with a level playing field, I feel that the Senator's successes over the past many years also should not sway my opinion.
Given these first two points, I would like to hear more from both candidates on issues that I care about, such as how they are going to keep young professionals and young families in Boston, and how they can encourage those residents to settle and contribute to Boston's communities.
--- Senator Wilkerson was better in the debate this past week (though Chang-Diaz did have excellent answers to the final two questions on health care and education), but Sonia Chang-Diaz, in my opinion, "wants it more." As "squishy" as this sounds, in recent races the style of the candidate has ultimately swayed my decision, whether that's good or not. Chang-Diaz spoke to me three times ahead of the meeting; whereas Senator Wilkerson called me once. Chang-Diaz talks of change; I think her campaign is better characterized as raw energy. You can see the energy when she talks (and she sometimes talks fast).
I remain undecided. And by virtue of my abstention in the recent Ward 5 meeting, I encourage others to come to their own opinions. We're still in the early days of this race.
I also hope this race will lead to a broader discussion on the role of a Mass. Senator in local campaigns. I had never seen Senator Wilkerson in person before the State convention two weeks ago. Contrast that to my State Representative, Marty Waltz, who I see all the time. Obviously, Rep. Waltz represents less people, but you'd think Senator Wilkerson would show up at (the very least) the high-profile meetings, such as the meetings regarding Suffolk University. Admittedly, the state's role in the Suffolk issue is non-existent, but that didn't stop Marty Waltz from being there.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Salinas, California
I am wrapping up a long trip tonight for work that took me to Orlando, Florida last week and San Jose/ San Francisco this week. I had a chance this past weekend to catch up with my good high-school friend Adam and his wife Suzie. They live in Salinas, which is about an hour south of San Jose.
Adam and Suzie Gavalla and me
Frog & Peach Bar
San Luis Obisbo, California
June 14, 2008
On Saturday, June 14, we went to Hearst Castle, which is two hours south of Salinas. The castle was built by William R. Hearst of newspaper fame. After the trip to the castle, we went into San Luis Obisbo (Slo-town, as the locals call it) for dinner.
Adam and Suzie are doing great. No surprise. Adam has been talking about living in California since I met him in 1990.
Also during my trip to Salinas, I met an amazing man, Mags, or Mac. He's the father of one of Suzie's friends. He's 101.
Mac has amazing genes, and I was honored to meet him and talk to him. He emigrated to the United States in the 1920s, as part of a program offered by the U.S. government that awarded Filipinos dual citizenship if they agreed to serve in the U.S. military. It was great to see him light up when he spoke to people. I will never forget that.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Open Letter to Hillary Clinton Supporters
Dear Friends and fellow supporters of a Democrat for President--
I need you.
I have worked with some of you on previous campaigns, from local City Council elections to trips to Manchester in 2004. I have debated politics with you. I have learned from you. You are among the most gifted, politically attuned individuals I have ever known.
I understand you are upset and frustrated. I know that many of you worked 20-hour days for Senator Clinton. You made countless phone calls and drove many, many miles.
The media did a horrible job covering this race. After an endless series of broadcasts discussing momentum one way or another (when there wasn't any), the media were quick to declare a winner. The AP couldn't announce it fast enough the Tuesday of the final primaries in South Dakota and Montana, even before the necessary endorsements were made. The horse race distracted reporters from the realities of this election-- and the fact that our party did not have a nominee until Senator Clinton decided to suspend her campaign, not a moment before.
I offer you one piece of solace: Know that Senator Barack Obama cannot win in November without each and every one of you.
And for that reason, I humbly ask again for your help. The choice this fall has never been more stark, and the ramifications have rarely been more significant. I need your help to convince the country of what course is best.
I believe strongly that the Democratic party is better off after the primary season we've just had. And I believe our strong party can now best argue that our vision for the future is better than that of the Republicans.
Now, let's get to work, together.
I need you.
I have worked with some of you on previous campaigns, from local City Council elections to trips to Manchester in 2004. I have debated politics with you. I have learned from you. You are among the most gifted, politically attuned individuals I have ever known.
I understand you are upset and frustrated. I know that many of you worked 20-hour days for Senator Clinton. You made countless phone calls and drove many, many miles.
The media did a horrible job covering this race. After an endless series of broadcasts discussing momentum one way or another (when there wasn't any), the media were quick to declare a winner. The AP couldn't announce it fast enough the Tuesday of the final primaries in South Dakota and Montana, even before the necessary endorsements were made. The horse race distracted reporters from the realities of this election-- and the fact that our party did not have a nominee until Senator Clinton decided to suspend her campaign, not a moment before.
I offer you one piece of solace: Know that Senator Barack Obama cannot win in November without each and every one of you.
And for that reason, I humbly ask again for your help. The choice this fall has never been more stark, and the ramifications have rarely been more significant. I need your help to convince the country of what course is best.
I believe strongly that the Democratic party is better off after the primary season we've just had. And I believe our strong party can now best argue that our vision for the future is better than that of the Republicans.
Now, let's get to work, together.
Tribute: Tim Russert
George Stephanopoulos put it best this morning when he said that Tim Russert believed in an educated electorate, and he made us believe that too.
I met Tim Russert in October of 2004, when I was at a Boston bar following a Red Sox game. His son Luke was a freshman at Boston College. I told Tim (I joked with friends after meeting him that "Tim and I were close") that I admired how well he researched his interviews.
"Meet The Press" was the first show I ever recorded via Comcast DVR. It was a staple of my viewing each Sunday. And the reason was Tim Russert. He asked the questions that deserved answers-- and he asked them not in the "gotcha" style of a journalist looking to "trip-up" an interviewee. He asked them because he believed the answers would best inform the American public.
Tim Russert was a true American. Everyone who watched his show knew he was from Buffalo. He was authentic; a real-life manifestation of WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get).
There's no question I will miss Tim Russert. I remember that back just before I met him, I believe he had just interviewed President Bush from the White House-- a special interview that aired during the week and not on Sunday. I remember feeling relief when I heard Tim Russert was doing the interview. The nation was at war in Iraq. I did not trust Donald Rumsfeld. I knew Tim Russert would ask the questions that were important, and I knew I would leave with a clearer explanation of what was going on. I trusted Tim Russert; I always did.
I met Tim Russert in October of 2004, when I was at a Boston bar following a Red Sox game. His son Luke was a freshman at Boston College. I told Tim (I joked with friends after meeting him that "Tim and I were close") that I admired how well he researched his interviews.
"Meet The Press" was the first show I ever recorded via Comcast DVR. It was a staple of my viewing each Sunday. And the reason was Tim Russert. He asked the questions that deserved answers-- and he asked them not in the "gotcha" style of a journalist looking to "trip-up" an interviewee. He asked them because he believed the answers would best inform the American public.
Tim Russert was a true American. Everyone who watched his show knew he was from Buffalo. He was authentic; a real-life manifestation of WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get).
There's no question I will miss Tim Russert. I remember that back just before I met him, I believe he had just interviewed President Bush from the White House-- a special interview that aired during the week and not on Sunday. I remember feeling relief when I heard Tim Russert was doing the interview. The nation was at war in Iraq. I did not trust Donald Rumsfeld. I knew Tim Russert would ask the questions that were important, and I knew I would leave with a clearer explanation of what was going on. I trusted Tim Russert; I always did.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Scenes from the Democratic State Convention
Tsongas Arena Lowell, Massachusetts
June 7, 2008
I attended the Democratic State Convention today in Lowell, Mass. I voted for John Kerry to be the party's nominee for U.S. Senate-- in essence I voted that he be re-elected. Kerry won the endorsement of the party, but his challenger, Ed O'Reilly won enough of the vote to force a primary in September.
As a member of the 2nd Suffolk delegation, I had a very nice spot on the floor of the Tsongas Arena. I rode to Lowell on the commuter rail with Josh Dawson (pictured above), who is the 2nd Suffolk elected State Committee Man. He ended up being the "Teller" for our delegation, meaning he called out the roll and took the verbal vote from each delegate.
The convention was a lot of fun. It was great to chat with fellow Democrats, including Matt O'Mally, State Representative Marty Waltz, and Ward 5 Democratic Chair Rob Whitney, among others.
The two Democratic candidates for the 2nd Suffolk State Senate seat, Sen. Diane Wilkerson (incumbent) and Sonia Chang-Diaz, were among the delegates. I had a chance to speak to both of them. The Ward 5 Democratic Committee will consider its endorsement in that race at its next meeting on June 18. It's time for me to start researching my choice, and the conversations today were a good starting point. I can tell you that both candidates are very gifted, it will be a hard decision, and my fellow committee members and I are being careful in our research and will be careful with our choice. Watch this space; no doubt I will share my thoughts here.
Sonia Chang-Diaz at the Convention
One thing about Lowell: The commuter rail is great to get there, but the bus system-- especially on a Saturday-- leaves a lot to be desired. A group of about 20 delegates who arrived in Lowell on the commuter rail had to wait about 35 minutes for a bus. If we had only known the Tsongas Arena was a mere 15-minute walk away.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Suffolk and Beacon Hill: Is an Agreement Near?
Big developments this week on Beacon Hill with regard to Suffolk. The first part of this post is the facts as they currently stand. The second part is my opinion. I clearly differentiate the two sections below.
First, the facts. As noted in earlier posts, Suffolk University has filed an institutional master plan (IMP) with the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), and the BRA is accepting public comments regarding that IMP. The IMP is a detailed plan regarding Suffolk's growth and potential development, and the BRA requires the insitution to file it. During this comment period, which is dictated by the BRA, Suffolk has been in near-continuous discussions with the Beacon Hill Civic Association (BHCA). Suffolk was founded on Beacon Hill, and several of its buildings are located on Beacon Hill. Suffolk officials and Civic Association representatives are discusing an agreement between the two parties; in exchange Suffolk asks for the BHCA to support Suffolk's IMP.
As I have posted previously, the BHCA is concerned that the proposed development outlined in Suffolk's IMP (which covers ten years, by the way) will adversely impact the Beacon Hill neighborhood. The BHCA has been negotiating with Suffolk for a series of concessions from Suffolk that would mitigate the University's impact on the residential neighborhood.
Earlier this week, a negotiating team from the BHCA came to an agreement with Suffolk. However, that agreement is not technically accepted by the BHCA until the BHCA's Board of Directors votes to accept it. The next Board of Directors meeting is scheduled for this Monday. So we're currently in a limbo period, as the agreement is on the table and is waiting for final approval from the board.
A Boston Globe article this week would indicate that the agreement has been made and is behind us. In reality, the board still has to accept it, and the board meeting on Monday promises to be very contentious. Needless to say, Suffolk will be a hot topic of conversation this weekend around the neighborhood.
------- Now time for my opinion ----------
The Agreement Should Pass
Unfortunately, I will be out of town Monday night, traveling on business. As a BHCA board member, I support the current agreement on the table between the BHCA and Suffolk, and I would support it if I were able to attend Monday.
With the current agreement, Suffolk makes significant concessions to the neighborhood. Suffolk agrees not to build any building across almost the entire neighborhood, and the agreement places significant restrictions on what Suffolk can do with other buildings in the neighborhood. The agreement includes a process to ensure that Suffolk does not increase its student population beyond the figures noted in the IMP. It also includes a signficant pledge to try to house as many students as possible in dorms by the end of the IMP's 10-year coverage period.
Finally, Suffolk agrees to continue many of the programs it has instituted over the past few years to police and mitigate rowdy student behavior in the neighborhood.
On paper, Suffolk is making more concessions in the agreement than many other institutions in the city. To be fair, there is a reason for this. Suffolk does not have the best track record regarding adherance to previous planning documents. The student population at Suffolk has increased far more rapidly in the past few years than Suffolk had predicted.
Suffolk students live on Beacon Hill, and they play here. But they are also my neighbors. I have worked side-by-side with them during Beacon Hill clean up days. I have strung garland on lamp posts with them during the annual neighborhood decorating day. I recently spent time outside with them watching a total lunar eclipse. Always an optimist, I believe there's a way to harness the energy and ideas of these students to better the neighborhood. It would be a shame if they weren't here.
We cannot expect Suffolk to leave. But we certainly should expect them to take a proactive role in the neighborhood. I hope that Suffolk will continue to be active on Beacon Hill. I look forward to working with them in the many months that come.
First, the facts. As noted in earlier posts, Suffolk University has filed an institutional master plan (IMP) with the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), and the BRA is accepting public comments regarding that IMP. The IMP is a detailed plan regarding Suffolk's growth and potential development, and the BRA requires the insitution to file it. During this comment period, which is dictated by the BRA, Suffolk has been in near-continuous discussions with the Beacon Hill Civic Association (BHCA). Suffolk was founded on Beacon Hill, and several of its buildings are located on Beacon Hill. Suffolk officials and Civic Association representatives are discusing an agreement between the two parties; in exchange Suffolk asks for the BHCA to support Suffolk's IMP.
As I have posted previously, the BHCA is concerned that the proposed development outlined in Suffolk's IMP (which covers ten years, by the way) will adversely impact the Beacon Hill neighborhood. The BHCA has been negotiating with Suffolk for a series of concessions from Suffolk that would mitigate the University's impact on the residential neighborhood.
Earlier this week, a negotiating team from the BHCA came to an agreement with Suffolk. However, that agreement is not technically accepted by the BHCA until the BHCA's Board of Directors votes to accept it. The next Board of Directors meeting is scheduled for this Monday. So we're currently in a limbo period, as the agreement is on the table and is waiting for final approval from the board.
A Boston Globe article this week would indicate that the agreement has been made and is behind us. In reality, the board still has to accept it, and the board meeting on Monday promises to be very contentious. Needless to say, Suffolk will be a hot topic of conversation this weekend around the neighborhood.
------- Now time for my opinion ----------
The Agreement Should Pass
Unfortunately, I will be out of town Monday night, traveling on business. As a BHCA board member, I support the current agreement on the table between the BHCA and Suffolk, and I would support it if I were able to attend Monday.
With the current agreement, Suffolk makes significant concessions to the neighborhood. Suffolk agrees not to build any building across almost the entire neighborhood, and the agreement places significant restrictions on what Suffolk can do with other buildings in the neighborhood. The agreement includes a process to ensure that Suffolk does not increase its student population beyond the figures noted in the IMP. It also includes a signficant pledge to try to house as many students as possible in dorms by the end of the IMP's 10-year coverage period.
Finally, Suffolk agrees to continue many of the programs it has instituted over the past few years to police and mitigate rowdy student behavior in the neighborhood.
On paper, Suffolk is making more concessions in the agreement than many other institutions in the city. To be fair, there is a reason for this. Suffolk does not have the best track record regarding adherance to previous planning documents. The student population at Suffolk has increased far more rapidly in the past few years than Suffolk had predicted.
Suffolk students live on Beacon Hill, and they play here. But they are also my neighbors. I have worked side-by-side with them during Beacon Hill clean up days. I have strung garland on lamp posts with them during the annual neighborhood decorating day. I recently spent time outside with them watching a total lunar eclipse. Always an optimist, I believe there's a way to harness the energy and ideas of these students to better the neighborhood. It would be a shame if they weren't here.
We cannot expect Suffolk to leave. But we certainly should expect them to take a proactive role in the neighborhood. I hope that Suffolk will continue to be active on Beacon Hill. I look forward to working with them in the many months that come.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Opening the Cottage
Levanto Beach CottageSouth Lyme, Conn.
May 25, 2008
View from the front porch
David Levanto after pasta dinner
South Lyme, Conn.
May 25, 2008
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Ear Pain
I have a special relationship to my ears. I have had ear trouble my entire life. As a child, I would regularly suffer from middle ear infections. By the age of five I could pronounce "Amoxicillin" without even hesitating; that was the normal prescription when my ears would be in pain.
Ear infection pain is hell. There's no other way to describe it. Beyond the fact that the pain is a combination of a throb, a burn, and being poked by a needle, it frustrates you. You have the consistent belief that you can reach into your ear and cover the pain. Except it's on the other side of the ear drum. That doesn't stop you from trying, poking your finger into your ear as far as possible, only to come away disappointed each time.
As a kid, I had ear operations a number of times to insert "tubes." Literally the tube creates a tiny hole in the ear drum that relieves pressure on the inside of the ear, and allows fluid to drain straight outside. The tubes worked, except it meant you had to plug your ears when you swam to protect the vital inner section of the ear.
Needless to say, throughout life I have gotten pretty good at self-diagnosis. About eight or nine years ago, I suffered an ear infection while at work. I could tell. For me, besides the pain, when I have an ear infection I walk funny (an ear infection affects my balance). I calmly called my doctor, who was on call, and said, "I have an inner ear infection and need you to prescribe me some Amoxicillin." The doctor, who I had seen only twice since starting my job, was pretty amazed. He quizzed me for a bit about my condition (as if Amoxicillin is a controlled narcotic or something), until I finally said, "Trust me doc, I have been here before. I know my ears well."
I am not sure, in reality, why my ears are bad. I think it has to do with the development of the Eustachian tube, which is the passage way that connects the inner ear to one's nose (it's what is supposed to allow air to escape from the ear, serving the natural purpose of the artificial tube in the ear drum). I think my Eustachian tube is different from other adults. It doesn't stay clear as much. And when it's blocked, like after a fairly minor cold, my ears pay the price.
My ear history comes into play during what is becoming a fairly common part of my job lately. Flying. Flying is harsh on a person's ears, due to the change in air pressure on ascent and descent. This week, I had a trip to Austin, Texas, and over last weekend, my ears were blocked. I knew this was a problem. I had heard stories of people who blew out eardrums because their ears were blocked while heading in for landing.
I had talked to my ear, nose and throat specialist about this possibility. The flippant nature of his advice is something I will never forget. "Well, if you're ears are blocked, you shouldn't fly [Have you ever heard of anyone giving this excuse for not going on a trip?]. But if you must, then take some Sudafed, use nose spray a few hours before you change altitude, and we'll just hope for the best."
I was forced to hope for the best this past Wednesday and Friday, when I flew to and from Austin. Fortunately, the regiment my specialist prescribed worked. The flight to Austin was rather painful in flight, but the descent went fine. My jaws were rather sore on landing from how aggressively I chewed gum on the plane (chewing gum moves the jaw, which causes the Eustachian tube to open and equalizes the ears). Driving around Austin, my ears were not in pain, but they were sore, kind of like as if they were trying to figure out what I had just did to them.
By the way, my current primary care doctor tells me that Sudafed is not good to take, since it raises blood pressure. Sudafed and I have been friends since I was old enough to swallow. If my doctor is in the process of ending that relationship, them's fightin' words.
Ear infection pain is hell. There's no other way to describe it. Beyond the fact that the pain is a combination of a throb, a burn, and being poked by a needle, it frustrates you. You have the consistent belief that you can reach into your ear and cover the pain. Except it's on the other side of the ear drum. That doesn't stop you from trying, poking your finger into your ear as far as possible, only to come away disappointed each time.
As a kid, I had ear operations a number of times to insert "tubes." Literally the tube creates a tiny hole in the ear drum that relieves pressure on the inside of the ear, and allows fluid to drain straight outside. The tubes worked, except it meant you had to plug your ears when you swam to protect the vital inner section of the ear.
Needless to say, throughout life I have gotten pretty good at self-diagnosis. About eight or nine years ago, I suffered an ear infection while at work. I could tell. For me, besides the pain, when I have an ear infection I walk funny (an ear infection affects my balance). I calmly called my doctor, who was on call, and said, "I have an inner ear infection and need you to prescribe me some Amoxicillin." The doctor, who I had seen only twice since starting my job, was pretty amazed. He quizzed me for a bit about my condition (as if Amoxicillin is a controlled narcotic or something), until I finally said, "Trust me doc, I have been here before. I know my ears well."
I am not sure, in reality, why my ears are bad. I think it has to do with the development of the Eustachian tube, which is the passage way that connects the inner ear to one's nose (it's what is supposed to allow air to escape from the ear, serving the natural purpose of the artificial tube in the ear drum). I think my Eustachian tube is different from other adults. It doesn't stay clear as much. And when it's blocked, like after a fairly minor cold, my ears pay the price.
My ear history comes into play during what is becoming a fairly common part of my job lately. Flying. Flying is harsh on a person's ears, due to the change in air pressure on ascent and descent. This week, I had a trip to Austin, Texas, and over last weekend, my ears were blocked. I knew this was a problem. I had heard stories of people who blew out eardrums because their ears were blocked while heading in for landing.
I had talked to my ear, nose and throat specialist about this possibility. The flippant nature of his advice is something I will never forget. "Well, if you're ears are blocked, you shouldn't fly [Have you ever heard of anyone giving this excuse for not going on a trip?]. But if you must, then take some Sudafed, use nose spray a few hours before you change altitude, and we'll just hope for the best."
I was forced to hope for the best this past Wednesday and Friday, when I flew to and from Austin. Fortunately, the regiment my specialist prescribed worked. The flight to Austin was rather painful in flight, but the descent went fine. My jaws were rather sore on landing from how aggressively I chewed gum on the plane (chewing gum moves the jaw, which causes the Eustachian tube to open and equalizes the ears). Driving around Austin, my ears were not in pain, but they were sore, kind of like as if they were trying to figure out what I had just did to them.
By the way, my current primary care doctor tells me that Sudafed is not good to take, since it raises blood pressure. Sudafed and I have been friends since I was old enough to swallow. If my doctor is in the process of ending that relationship, them's fightin' words.
Avoid Getting Burned
In Austin, Texas this week for work, my co-worker and I drove by a church with a sign that said:
"Exposure to the Son helps you avoid being burned."
You got to love Texas. In reality, I really do like Austin quite a bit.
"Exposure to the Son helps you avoid being burned."
You got to love Texas. In reality, I really do like Austin quite a bit.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Sunday is Football Day
For the last seven years, I have played football on Sundays in the coed Boston Ski and Sports Club league. Not only is it good to be active at least one day of the week, but football Sundays are a good reason to catch up with friends.
Over the course of several seasons (I play in two separate seasons each year), friendly rivalries have developed. Today witnessed the latest chapter of the showdown between my team (called "The Beer is Always Cold" and the "Pocket Rockets."
After the game, we all went to Donahue's in Watertown to watch the first half of the Celtics vs. Cavaliers game.
Over the course of several seasons (I play in two separate seasons each year), friendly rivalries have developed. Today witnessed the latest chapter of the showdown between my team (called "The Beer is Always Cold" and the "Pocket Rockets."
After the game, we all went to Donahue's in Watertown to watch the first half of the Celtics vs. Cavaliers game.
Representatives from the "Pocket Rockets" vs."The Beer is Always Cold"
Donahue's Pub
May 18, 2008
It's perhaps fitting that we played to a draw on the field. Ties are allowed in my league.
Suffolk University and Beacon Hill
Each night the last week I attended at least one local civic meeting or event. The most important, in my opinion, was a public meeting hosted by the BRA on Thursday regarding Suffolk. I posted earlier that Senator John Kerry was to speak at the Ward 5 Democratic Committee meeting that night. Senator Kerry had to cancel, which allowed me to attend the Suffolk meeting instead.
To recap, Suffolk is currently writing a new Institutional Master Plan (IMP), an important document required by the Boston Redevelopment Authority to outline Suffolk's plans for development for the next ten years. Suffolk is discussing the plan and working through issues with a task force, organized by the BRA, of neighbors, city officials and Suffolk executives. Suffolk submitted its IMP for review in mid-April, and there is a sixty-day review period. The meeting this past Thursday was an opportunity for the public to give its feedback to the IMP and ask questions.
The reason Suffolk is causing problems is classic "town and gown." Many of Suffolk's buildings are on Beacon Hill. Suffolk students walk around the neighborhood, eat here and live here. Suffolk has grown quite a bit in the last five years or so, meaning more students are here. Some students are pretty bad neighbors.
Suffolk wants to continue to develop its facilities and programs, and it likes being located in downtown Boston. Many that live near Suffolk buildings feel that the institution has too much of a negative impact on the neighborhood. Some even believe Suffolk should sell its buildings on Beacon Hill and move away.
Here are my thoughts on the topic:
1) I have not been to every Suffolk meeting. I went to the public meeting Thursday, and previously went to a public meeting in late January. I can tell you one thing. Suffolk is trying very hard to work with the neighborhoods. I saw significant evidence that they are willing to compromise with Beacon Hill. They have proposed enlarging the current non-expansion zone in place on Beacon Hill to include, among other spots, the area where the 100 Cambridge building is and where the Bowdoin Street condominiums are. That's important to me.
2) Key to the debate is the definition of expansion. Suffolk currently has roughly 5200 students. Actually they record them as "full-time-equivalent" students-- or "FTE's"-- a number that is a tad lower than the actually student number. Suffolk currently has an enrollment of about 4800 FTE. Per the IMP, they want to stop growing at 5000 FTE. This means while the FTE number has grown significantly over the past five years, it's not going to grow that much more. It follows to me that the number of students around Beacon Hill is not going to increase much in the coming years.
Now there are a lot of hidden aspects to the FTE number, some of which I am still investigating. Like how much of the FTE number is commuter students, or students who don't need to live anywhere near the campus. If the commuter percentage decreases, it follows that more students will be living near the campus. In addition, Suffolk doesn't have a good track record holding to FTE promises made in previous IMPs. Suffolk acknowledges this and says it will stick to the number.
3) Are students *really* that bad? I live on the north slope of Beacon Hill, near many younger residents. I rent, and this side of the hill has more rental properties that are less expensive, relatively speaking. I hear loud parties all the time, because on Beacon Hill, we all live on top of each other. But I am not sure how many of the parties are actually students. Many are, I am sure. But how many are young professionals like me? Is the issue here one of working with students and enabling them to be better neighbors, or is it an issue of engaging younger, mostly single, residents? How are those two issues related? How much of the reaction to the Suffolk issue is really evidence of this larger issue?
I don't think Suffolk should move off of Beacon Hill. I think they have a place here. I appreciate what they've done to try to compromise with the neighborhood. There's rhetoric on either side. I can say at this point, if Suffolk agrees to enlarging the non-expansion zone and really agrees to cap its FTE growth numbers, I think they will have done quite a bit to limit the impact of their plans on Beacon Hill.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Beacon Hill Civic Association Board Meeting Monday
This Monday marks the end of my fifth year on the Beacon Hill Civic Association board. I have told the board's officers that I would like to continue for a sixth year, and I hope they will nominate me to serve the next term (each board member serves for a term of only one year).
The final meeting for this term is going to be busy. According to the board packet I received on Friday, the board will be voting on the fate of Phillips Street Park. The City of Boston intends to refurbish the park and has allotted money to do so. Over the last year, a public process has created a compromise design for the park. It includes a playground for children and an area for common use. It's not perfect, but it meets the needs of a huge variety of people, and I intend to support it on Monday. Given that I have been to all of the Phillips Street Park meetings, I am hoping that my opinions are valid.
Also at the meeting, board members will hear the latest related to Suffolk and the university's institutional master plan (IMP) process. From the packet, it appears that the board will be voting on the IMP at the next meeting in June. The timing is important here, since in June, we will be into the next board term and will inevitably have new faces among us. The next board is formally elected at the annual meeting, which is later this month.
Separately, I am planning to attend the Ward 5 Democratic Committee meeting Thursday. Loyal readers know I was elected to that committee in February per the results of the Massachusetts primary. Senator Kerry is expected to speak, and the ward committee will decide whether to endorse a candidate in the Presidential Democratic primary race.
All told, a nice week of civic involvement for me...
The final meeting for this term is going to be busy. According to the board packet I received on Friday, the board will be voting on the fate of Phillips Street Park. The City of Boston intends to refurbish the park and has allotted money to do so. Over the last year, a public process has created a compromise design for the park. It includes a playground for children and an area for common use. It's not perfect, but it meets the needs of a huge variety of people, and I intend to support it on Monday. Given that I have been to all of the Phillips Street Park meetings, I am hoping that my opinions are valid.
Also at the meeting, board members will hear the latest related to Suffolk and the university's institutional master plan (IMP) process. From the packet, it appears that the board will be voting on the IMP at the next meeting in June. The timing is important here, since in June, we will be into the next board term and will inevitably have new faces among us. The next board is formally elected at the annual meeting, which is later this month.
Separately, I am planning to attend the Ward 5 Democratic Committee meeting Thursday. Loyal readers know I was elected to that committee in February per the results of the Massachusetts primary. Senator Kerry is expected to speak, and the ward committee will decide whether to endorse a candidate in the Presidential Democratic primary race.
All told, a nice week of civic involvement for me...
Absolutely No Momentum
There's no difference between no momentum and "absolutely" no momentum. The term "absolutely" is a useless word, prime to be struck by my editing pen. But I mention it here for emphasis: The 2008 Democratic Primary campaign has shown absolutely no momentum for either candidate.
Obama voters have voted for Obama. Since Super Tuesday, this category includes African Americans, younger voters, and those who make more money and have completed college. Clinton voters have voted for Clinton. Since Super Tuesday, the Clinton voter is typically blue-collar and/or older. Clinton has also done well among women, unless they are African American, and her support in this category wanes among younger women and among women who've completed college (since that would overlap with a demographic favorable to Obama).
In contest after contest since early February, the make up of either candidate's support has not changed. Each primary is a census on a given state's make up against those demographics. We now know that the younger or college-educated Democratic audience in Indiana is almost the same size as the blue collar or older one.
I admire the fact that Democrats across the country have stuck to their hunches. They have not been swayed by talk of momentum (proof there hasn't been any). From a broader perspective, the way the media has covered this race is humorous. Under the no-momentum theory, a casual observer could have predicted a Clinton victory by ten points in Pennsylvania back in February. It's just the way the demographics in Pennsylvania fall, and the way the "Democratic census" in that state would work out. Yet the morning after, we heard pundit after pundit saying that Hillary had momentum. We heard it for a week.
Truth be told, the media are dieing to say that someone, anyone, has momentum. Because a horse race with no race is boring. After Pennsylvania, many reporters couldn't wait any longer, and proclaimed that Clinton had finally received the big "mo."
Except they were wrong. The results in North Carolina and Indiana are exactly as one would have predicted back on Super Tuesday, looking and the Democratic make-up in each state. At that time, you could have called North Carolina for Obama by a dozen and said Clinton would win Indiana by a couple.
But while the results showed no momentum, the media said the opposite: That Obama had momentum and the race was over. We heard Tim Russert say early Wednesday morning that we now know who the Democratic nominee will be.
While Obama might readily win the nomination, he has not picked up any momentum from Tuesday's victories. New polls today from West Virginia show Clinton extending her lead there. Using the theory of no momentum, let's make some predictions on how the remaining contests will unfold. To do this, I will look at the demographics of each state versus the results on Super Tuesday (yes-- results from early February). Here goes:
1) Clinton wins West Virginia by 24.
2) Clinton wins Kentucky by more than 20. Could even be 30.
3) Obama wins Oregon by 7.
4) Obama wins Montana by 9.
5) Clinton wins Puerto Rico by 12.
6) Obama wins South Dakota by 6.
Let's see if I am right.
It's important to call each primary what it is. They are not snap-shot polls of the electorate. They are reflections of the unique demographic mixes of each state. When Clinton wins West Virginia on Tuesday, it will not be because she has momentum and has won over voters, it will be because the group of voters that she appeals to will be much larger. We shouldn't read more into it than that.
Obama voters have voted for Obama. Since Super Tuesday, this category includes African Americans, younger voters, and those who make more money and have completed college. Clinton voters have voted for Clinton. Since Super Tuesday, the Clinton voter is typically blue-collar and/or older. Clinton has also done well among women, unless they are African American, and her support in this category wanes among younger women and among women who've completed college (since that would overlap with a demographic favorable to Obama).
In contest after contest since early February, the make up of either candidate's support has not changed. Each primary is a census on a given state's make up against those demographics. We now know that the younger or college-educated Democratic audience in Indiana is almost the same size as the blue collar or older one.
I admire the fact that Democrats across the country have stuck to their hunches. They have not been swayed by talk of momentum (proof there hasn't been any). From a broader perspective, the way the media has covered this race is humorous. Under the no-momentum theory, a casual observer could have predicted a Clinton victory by ten points in Pennsylvania back in February. It's just the way the demographics in Pennsylvania fall, and the way the "Democratic census" in that state would work out. Yet the morning after, we heard pundit after pundit saying that Hillary had momentum. We heard it for a week.
Truth be told, the media are dieing to say that someone, anyone, has momentum. Because a horse race with no race is boring. After Pennsylvania, many reporters couldn't wait any longer, and proclaimed that Clinton had finally received the big "mo."
Except they were wrong. The results in North Carolina and Indiana are exactly as one would have predicted back on Super Tuesday, looking and the Democratic make-up in each state. At that time, you could have called North Carolina for Obama by a dozen and said Clinton would win Indiana by a couple.
But while the results showed no momentum, the media said the opposite: That Obama had momentum and the race was over. We heard Tim Russert say early Wednesday morning that we now know who the Democratic nominee will be.
While Obama might readily win the nomination, he has not picked up any momentum from Tuesday's victories. New polls today from West Virginia show Clinton extending her lead there. Using the theory of no momentum, let's make some predictions on how the remaining contests will unfold. To do this, I will look at the demographics of each state versus the results on Super Tuesday (yes-- results from early February). Here goes:
1) Clinton wins West Virginia by 24.
2) Clinton wins Kentucky by more than 20. Could even be 30.
3) Obama wins Oregon by 7.
4) Obama wins Montana by 9.
5) Clinton wins Puerto Rico by 12.
6) Obama wins South Dakota by 6.
Let's see if I am right.
It's important to call each primary what it is. They are not snap-shot polls of the electorate. They are reflections of the unique demographic mixes of each state. When Clinton wins West Virginia on Tuesday, it will not be because she has momentum and has won over voters, it will be because the group of voters that she appeals to will be much larger. We shouldn't read more into it than that.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Tribute: Dr. Donald "Robbie" Robinson
Last summer the History Channel produced a series on the ten most important dates in American history you never heard of. Each episode focused on one event that had a profound effect on how we live today. For example, one episode was on the famous Einstein Letter, which many argue is the reason the United States developed the atomic bomb. And the rest is history, as they say.
If I were to put together my own list of the dates that have, to this point, most affected the course of my life, I would definitely mark down the random day in April 1996 that I met Dr. Donald "Robbie" Robinson. He and his wife were the directors of Boston University's Washington D.C. program, and my meeting with Dr. Robinson was a pre-requisite to being accepted into the program.
Based on that interview, Dr. Robinson not only accepted me into the D.C. program for the Fall of 1996, he recommended I be placed as an intern in the White House, where I would work for then Vice President Gore. I will never forget the unwavering confidence he had in me that day. Without his help, both in terms of that confidence, and his Rolodex, there's no way I would have interned in the White House.
No doubt during his more than 25-year tenure as the head of the D.C. program, Dr. Robinson personally affected the lives of hundreds of young Americans, not to mention, grew one of the most successful programs of its kind in the country.
I learned last week that Dr. Robinson passed away at the end of April at the age of 71.
If I were to put together my own list of the dates that have, to this point, most affected the course of my life, I would definitely mark down the random day in April 1996 that I met Dr. Donald "Robbie" Robinson. He and his wife were the directors of Boston University's Washington D.C. program, and my meeting with Dr. Robinson was a pre-requisite to being accepted into the program.
Based on that interview, Dr. Robinson not only accepted me into the D.C. program for the Fall of 1996, he recommended I be placed as an intern in the White House, where I would work for then Vice President Gore. I will never forget the unwavering confidence he had in me that day. Without his help, both in terms of that confidence, and his Rolodex, there's no way I would have interned in the White House.
No doubt during his more than 25-year tenure as the head of the D.C. program, Dr. Robinson personally affected the lives of hundreds of young Americans, not to mention, grew one of the most successful programs of its kind in the country.
I learned last week that Dr. Robinson passed away at the end of April at the age of 71.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Boston Civic Summit
I attended the Boston Civic Summit today. While I do enjoy any reason to visit the sparkling new Boston Convention and Exhibition Center, I was not expecting to spend most of the day there. The summit turned out to be a fairly good event.
The best measure of civic involvement in Boston is by counting people who vote. Turnout in Boston in November of 2007 was 14 percent (of registered voters). That's pretty bad. This year, turnout should be high, since we're in a Presidential year. Maybe it will even reach 60 percent (it was in the high 50s in 2004).
What I find ironic about this is that the great majority of issues I hear every day from Boston residents are local issues. Crime. Education. Picking up trash. These are issues that are not really addressed by the President of the United States. They are issues that are addressed by the Mayor and Boston City Councilors. Yet, turnout this November for the Presidential election could be three times as high as turnout will be in November 2009, when Boston will elect a Mayor and the entire slate of City Councilors. For the election that really matters for the issues my neighbors care about, no one will bother to vote.
In some ways I like that Boston has off-year municipal elections. Since so few voters actually go to the polls, the people who do vote are *really* important. Local candidates work very hard to figure out who they will be-- based on voting records for similar municipal elections. The flood of auto calls and literature I receive ahead of these elections is pretty impressive.
Back to the civic summit. In my opinion, the afternoon was better than the morning. I got a chance to chat with Adam Gaffin, who runs Universal Hub, about better ways for me to get his site Beacon Hill information, without causing extra work for him.
The lunch talk was outstanding. Dr. Thomas Sander, who is the Executive Director of the Saguaro Seminar at Harvard, discussed the need for social capital. The fact that social capital within neighborhoods is what creates trust and improves quality of life. The fact that cities with high social capital are just bound to be nice places to live. The fact that as residents we need to "bond" to neighbors who resemble us and "bridge" to neighbors who don't look like us.
The best part of the talk was at the end. Eva Webster, who's with the Aberdeen-Brighton Residents Association, made a passionate plea for all to bridge social economic classes in our neighborhoods. I hear her. Beacon Hill isn't exactly known for being diverse in this regard.
After the lunch talk, the 400+ participants held a town meeting of sorts. It was a little long, but the format resulted in a few near-term civic initiatives that should be goals for the entire civic summit:
Overall, I had low expectations for the event, and I was pleasantly surprised. It was refreshing to see so many people talking about ways to make Boston better without complaining all the time. The passion was contagious.
Michael Pahre files his report here.
The best measure of civic involvement in Boston is by counting people who vote. Turnout in Boston in November of 2007 was 14 percent (of registered voters). That's pretty bad. This year, turnout should be high, since we're in a Presidential year. Maybe it will even reach 60 percent (it was in the high 50s in 2004).
What I find ironic about this is that the great majority of issues I hear every day from Boston residents are local issues. Crime. Education. Picking up trash. These are issues that are not really addressed by the President of the United States. They are issues that are addressed by the Mayor and Boston City Councilors. Yet, turnout this November for the Presidential election could be three times as high as turnout will be in November 2009, when Boston will elect a Mayor and the entire slate of City Councilors. For the election that really matters for the issues my neighbors care about, no one will bother to vote.
In some ways I like that Boston has off-year municipal elections. Since so few voters actually go to the polls, the people who do vote are *really* important. Local candidates work very hard to figure out who they will be-- based on voting records for similar municipal elections. The flood of auto calls and literature I receive ahead of these elections is pretty impressive.
Back to the civic summit. In my opinion, the afternoon was better than the morning. I got a chance to chat with Adam Gaffin, who runs Universal Hub, about better ways for me to get his site Beacon Hill information, without causing extra work for him.
The lunch talk was outstanding. Dr. Thomas Sander, who is the Executive Director of the Saguaro Seminar at Harvard, discussed the need for social capital. The fact that social capital within neighborhoods is what creates trust and improves quality of life. The fact that cities with high social capital are just bound to be nice places to live. The fact that as residents we need to "bond" to neighbors who resemble us and "bridge" to neighbors who don't look like us.
The best part of the talk was at the end. Eva Webster, who's with the Aberdeen-Brighton Residents Association, made a passionate plea for all to bridge social economic classes in our neighborhoods. I hear her. Beacon Hill isn't exactly known for being diverse in this regard.
After the lunch talk, the 400+ participants held a town meeting of sorts. It was a little long, but the format resulted in a few near-term civic initiatives that should be goals for the entire civic summit:
- Establishing a civic association exchange program,
- Improving the after school mentoring and tutoring program,
- Enhancing the summer employment program for at-risk kids, and
- Creating a city-wide litter and anti-graffiti program.
Overall, I had low expectations for the event, and I was pleasantly surprised. It was refreshing to see so many people talking about ways to make Boston better without complaining all the time. The passion was contagious.
Michael Pahre files his report here.
In London an Undershirt is not Required
Covent Gardens, London April 27, 2008
Work sent me to London for nine days in April. Despite the fact we speak the same language, England and the United States are quite different.
1. In England, they don't wear undershirts. It is quite uncool to wear a white t-shirt under a button down, collared shirt. I wear one all the time, primarily because I don't think many appreciate seeing my chest hair or the sweat under my arms. In England, apparently these items show off virility. I can imagine the pheromones released on a hot summer day, when a virile man emerges from the underground and is dripping with sweat. And supposedly they are the civilized ones?
2. A cigarette is called a fag. This one I find particularly humorous. But perhaps more troubling is the fact they call erasers rubbers. I told everyone not to ask loudly for one in an American store.
3. There's no such thing as a shower curtain. Puzzling, but on my few occasions to London this is a common trait. The shower is really a nozzle that is useless unless it occupies one hand. More strangely, the only water barrier is a small, glass divider that only progresses less than half way down the outside of the tub. Water inevitably splashes all over the floor.
4. You are not fired in London. You are sacked.
5. You order "to take away," not "to go." I found it quite annoying that in any coffee shop, deli or even McDonald's, they ask you if you are eating in or "taking away," and they are incessant on the answer. Then I learned that London has an extra tax if you eat your food in an establishment, versus ordering it to go.
6. The overhead compartments in airplanes are called lockers.
7. Man flu. England is much less PC than the U.S. It's almost accepted that men can't handle pain as well as women. A co-worker of mine came down with a bout of the "man flu" while I was there, which is basically the flu, but apparently it's supposed to inspire more empathy because it's flu afflicting a man.
8. In the U.S., the sense of a nation is far more pronounced. OK, here's where I throw in my comparative political lesson. I was quite surprised that in London, there is more of a connection to England than the United Kingdom. After quite an argument with another colleague, I admitted that England is actually a country, as is Wales and Scotland. In London, they cheer for the English soccer team. I found the regional affiliations to be far more pronounced than in the U.S. When I was in central Europe in December, I did not see many German flags (many Bavarian ones, but no German).
This same barometer is applied to the U.K. I saw far more English flags than U.K. flags. Now this could be because I was in town during the week of St. George's day, but I think there is something more to it. Unlike my previous trips to London, this time I stayed away from the tourist hotspots and remained in the neighborhoods, so I think this observation carries more meaning.
9. One sunny day a week is just fine. In London, they must have found a cure for seasonal affective disorder. It was sunny for exactly one day. Luckily it was a Saturday, so I could enjoy it by taking the train to Brighton on the coast. The weather in London, like the local food, is horrible. Enough said.
My favorite place in London is officially the Punch & Judy pub in Covent Gardens. The pub isn't much-- it reminds me of a Boston college bar (I could even smell vomit inside). But the view is amazing.
1. In England, they don't wear undershirts. It is quite uncool to wear a white t-shirt under a button down, collared shirt. I wear one all the time, primarily because I don't think many appreciate seeing my chest hair or the sweat under my arms. In England, apparently these items show off virility. I can imagine the pheromones released on a hot summer day, when a virile man emerges from the underground and is dripping with sweat. And supposedly they are the civilized ones?
2. A cigarette is called a fag. This one I find particularly humorous. But perhaps more troubling is the fact they call erasers rubbers. I told everyone not to ask loudly for one in an American store.
3. There's no such thing as a shower curtain. Puzzling, but on my few occasions to London this is a common trait. The shower is really a nozzle that is useless unless it occupies one hand. More strangely, the only water barrier is a small, glass divider that only progresses less than half way down the outside of the tub. Water inevitably splashes all over the floor.
4. You are not fired in London. You are sacked.
5. You order "to take away," not "to go." I found it quite annoying that in any coffee shop, deli or even McDonald's, they ask you if you are eating in or "taking away," and they are incessant on the answer. Then I learned that London has an extra tax if you eat your food in an establishment, versus ordering it to go.
6. The overhead compartments in airplanes are called lockers.
7. Man flu. England is much less PC than the U.S. It's almost accepted that men can't handle pain as well as women. A co-worker of mine came down with a bout of the "man flu" while I was there, which is basically the flu, but apparently it's supposed to inspire more empathy because it's flu afflicting a man.
8. In the U.S., the sense of a nation is far more pronounced. OK, here's where I throw in my comparative political lesson. I was quite surprised that in London, there is more of a connection to England than the United Kingdom. After quite an argument with another colleague, I admitted that England is actually a country, as is Wales and Scotland. In London, they cheer for the English soccer team. I found the regional affiliations to be far more pronounced than in the U.S. When I was in central Europe in December, I did not see many German flags (many Bavarian ones, but no German).
This same barometer is applied to the U.K. I saw far more English flags than U.K. flags. Now this could be because I was in town during the week of St. George's day, but I think there is something more to it. Unlike my previous trips to London, this time I stayed away from the tourist hotspots and remained in the neighborhoods, so I think this observation carries more meaning.
9. One sunny day a week is just fine. In London, they must have found a cure for seasonal affective disorder. It was sunny for exactly one day. Luckily it was a Saturday, so I could enjoy it by taking the train to Brighton on the coast. The weather in London, like the local food, is horrible. Enough said.
My favorite place in London is officially the Punch & Judy pub in Covent Gardens. The pub isn't much-- it reminds me of a Boston college bar (I could even smell vomit inside). But the view is amazing.
Punch & Judy balcony Covent Gardens, London
April 27, 2008
I stayed in a "flat" rented by my company in Connaught Village near Marble Arch. There was a pub right across the street called the Duke of Kendall pub. Every Sunday, a wonderful old woman comes to the pub to play the piano, with wise gentlemen surrounding him to create a sing along. I have no idea what they sang, but the site mesmerized me. I took the picture below from the elevator lobby down the hall from the flat on my final day in London. Note it's raining.
Duke of Kendall PubConnaught Village, London
April 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
