ABN Blog

Finally, an explanation of Menino's approval ratings

info@abnboston.org — 2008-05-26T12:53:39-04:00

All the folks I know are scratching their heads, wondering why Mayor Menino has such high approval ratings. I thought it was because the average bear has no clue what he's doing.

But I think the Boston Globe's Sunday piece on Menino's park coffee-klatches gives us a more profound insight. An older guy who's been Dunkin' with Tom for years had no complaints: "Where else can you go to get a coffee, a doughnut and a plant? You get something back for your taxes, right?"

Maybe Alexander Pope said it best in 1727: "Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed."

bioterror labs proliferate nationally

info@abnboston.org — 2008-04-24T13:12:56-04:00

While the little Safety Net group keeps its tiny brave finger in the huge biolab dike of Boston, bioterror labs are springing up all over the country. A Newsweek report last December, and this week in the Seattle PI, tell an alarming story of this epidemic of research labs and the accidents emanating from them. We are increasingly victims of our own fears.

In a democracy, people get the mayor they deserve...

info@abnboston.org — 2008-04-23T10:44:37-04:00

So, is this the best we can do? The Boston Globe reports that Mayor Menino is wildly popular, especially among women. He gets high marks for trash pick-up and keeping the streets and parks clean; but a lot of that work is done by frustrated residents, who join his community clean-up brigades, or just hire private companies to clean up around their block. He attributes his popularity to his work on health issues (??) and, amazingly, on the public schools, which are still, after 15 years of his reign, marked by seriously uneven and racially skewed quality -- even with all the private money he lures into them for after-school and other special programs.

He knows that he gets a lot of mileage just by showing up, getting around, meeting folks, talking to them. But he talks to people he wants to talk to; he doesn't necessarily meet with people who want to meet with him. The Safety Net group fighting the bioterror lab has tried for six years.

I've tried too, last time in 2004 when he was ordering his departments to allow the unlawful tear-down of the historic Gaiety Theatre. I was at the front desk begging the secretary for an emergency meeting to tell him the demolition scaffolding was up, and he should halt the work because a community development group wanted to rehab the Theatre and build housing above. He happened to come out of his office, and I told him. He smirked, "Really? The scaffolding is up?" and walked away. The secretary told me to send in a letter requesting a meeting; the waiting time was six months. The Gaiety's graveyard is still a rubble-filled pit; no theater, no housing, no taxes, no jobs -- all of which would have been achieved by the proposed community project. When I later put in a Public Record Request to get information on his relationship with the property owner, he ignored the Request totally; not even a NO. This is the real Mayor Menino.

When I get to ask him questions in public, he never faces the problem head-on, but says what he wants to say and moves on. He won't debate during elections; he doesn't have press conferences; he doesn't appear at community meetings where people are contesting controversial issues, like development or institutional expansion -- he uses the BRA as a shield for that. He's been "negotiating" with the police and fire departments for 15 years, and finally the FBI has to come in to investigate. I'm wondering what it takes to interest the FBI...

He won't talk about unfair property taxes; he won't admit that he gives away our capital budget to the BRA by giving it valuable City land.

I don't ask to meet with him any more, because it's a one-way conversation in each direction. Either he doesn't understand, or he knows but doesn't care.

I once asked a group of black community residents why they support Menino, since their neighborhoods and schools are treated so shabbily. They answered that they are used to getting so little from politicians that the bit of attention he shows them is enough to get their votes. Maybe that's true of most other people, too.

The way to cook a frog, the saying goes, is to put it in cold water and turn up the heat very gradually. It seems that a whole lot more damage can be done before Bostonians, right here in the cradle of democracy, will jump out of the pot and make better use of their power.

Councilor Ross protects the common -- by commercialization

info@abnboston.org — 2008-03-20T21:01:19-04:00

We now have a Special City Council Committee for the Boston Common. I knew I should get worried. And Mike Ross is the chair. More worried.

At a hearing (which I missed but the Boston Globe reported) on March 19, Toni Pollak, Parks Commissioner, announced that large grass-trampling gatherings should no longer be allowed on Boston Common, but should be held on City Hall Plaza.

Perhaps she is unaware that we citizens no longer own City Hall Plaza, since 1996, when the Boston Redevelopment Authority took it from the City of Boston by eminent domain, free of compensation, on the instructions of Hizzoner, her boss. The BRA is preparing to develop its valuable acreage, which is why Menino keeps talking about moving City Hall to revitalize the waterfront. Yes, the Mayor and our whole City government are being evicted, the latest victims of the BRA's urban renewal bulldozer, just the way the denizens of Scollay Square before us were thrown off their land back in the 1960's to carry out the Government Center Urban Renewal Plan -- which authorized their removal in order to build: yes, a Plaza for the people! As Paul McCann (with the BRA since its genesis in 1956) put it at a City Council hearing held, of course, AFTER the taking was all done: "It didn't work out, so it's now "blighted" and we took it again." This time, the BRA entered into a joint venture with a bunch of developers calling themselves The Trust for City Hall Plaza (remember them?) to build a hotel and garage on the Plaza -- and that, Trust chief Norman Leventhal informed me, "was just the beginning." The upshot: if we make the Plaza our democratic meeting arena, we're at the mercy of the BRA. Think about that.

But it wasn't just the grass. There were complaints about trash and noise that "damage what residents, colleges, and businesses in the area consider to be their front yard." Now NIMBYs won't let the Boston Common be the Common. We really have to teach civics in school again. What is wrong with these people?

Most alarming: For some reason, the discussion seems to have turned from protecting the green to raking in the green, and Councilor Ross opined that "cafés, restaurants, and other commercial ventures might be a good replacement for large-scale events." Of course! Commerce is pretty much the same as democratic assembly, except for the doorman in front and the bill at the end. Customers are citizens -- even better, right? Sure keeps out the poor and homeless, and good riddance, I say! The public realm is no place for 'em! And Ross responded to Tom Kershaw's complaint that he can't make enough money on Common land with his skating business on our Frog Pond, and would now like a liquor license for a night club. The alcohol prohibition on the Common, Ross offered, should be reconsidered, in the service of the restaurant business, and started planning a junket to New York's Central Park to check out the Tavern on the Green.

People, we're sending soldiers into gunfire every day to (reportedly) fight for democracy. The important part of democracy isn't what happens in the voting booth, but what happens when citizens gather, rub elbows with all kinds of their fellow human beings, and talk amongst themselves on common ground.

Let's look at reinforced grass techniques, rotating meeting spaces, or maybe a paved gathering area in the park, Commissioner Pollak, before we evict ourselves from our grassy common ground as we did from our paved one. And let's remember, Councilor Ross, the difference between the public and private realms, and why it matters.

What the BRA learned from China

info@abnboston.org — 2008-03-03T14:17:28-05:00

A few weeks ago, the Boston Globe reported that the Boston delegation recently visiting Shanghai were alarmed to hear government officials, accompanied by loud martial music, talk about deciding on a development plan for an area and saying that "the plan is law." They don't need to go to Shanghai to hear such talk. The BRA (together with the perma-mayor) decides to make developers' proposals the law all the time. The BRA has four mechanisms to do it that provide no legal recourse for the public: Institutional Master Plans, Urban Renewal Areas, Planned Development Areas, Chapter 121A agreements (which also waives taxes). If none of those apply to specific projects, it simply changes existing laws to match the proposals. The BRA writes our zoning law, and takes the liberty of rearranging or dispensing with it as it wishes. It calls this approach "dynamic zoning."

The BRA's director of planning is quoted as commenting that Boston could take a lesson from China's "quick and decisive action." On the contrary, the Chinese should come here for autocracy lessons. The main difference is that we don't play music.

Does Boston really need a Mayor?

info@abnboston.org — 2008-03-03T14:03:04-05:00

Tom Keane asks this question. His reasons for a "no" answer ignore many of the real powers the mayor has, powers over taxes and development, whom to subsidize, whom to serve, whom to hire. In fact, City Hall is full of non-Civil Service hacks, hired as "temporary" or "provisional" employees at his constant whim. The departing library director cited Menino's hiring pressure.

Keane says that politics is passe, and Menino's staying power is thanks to his efficiency, his good housekeeping, which is all people care about. Do you agree?

The real question is: Does Boston need THIS mayor? What do you think? Should we dispense with the election charade and just hire a manager? Will that muck out the stables?

The real state of the city

info@abnboston.org — 2008-01-12T17:21:40-05:00

OK, it turns out that we don't have our constitutional right to free speech and assembly unless the Mayor says it's ok. Since he's unlikely to smile upon permits for public demonstrations at his annual State of the City address, we have to create our own forum for "virtual demonstration."

Here it is.

Get yourself an anonymous free e-mail account at yahoo.com or hotmail.com, and let's hear what you think the State of the City is these days! Remember -- anonymous means you're safe: NO ONE WILL KNOW YOUR NAME. And you can get multiple free accounts and write under any number of names or codewords.
Speak up -- or prepare for a fifth Menino term.

Fire-fighting job - nepotism hires

info@abnboston.org — 2008-01-05T15:54:04-05:00

City Council President Maureen Feeney was the central enabler in a state-city collusion that pushed two (and possible a third) unqualified applicants for firefighter jobs to the top of the list, as reported by the Boston Globe. This meta-nepotism, an insider favor within the great family of Dorchester, is despicable for several reasons, including racial discrimination against better-scoring candidates, and endangering the public safety with incompetent first responders. This is exactly what the civil service hiring process was invented to prevent.

Even Councilor Mike Flaherty and Mayor Tom Menino thought it stank -- at first; but Madame President got it passed, and they both signed on. State Senate President Therese Murray was apparently the initial instigator, and the erstwhile Rep. Brian Wallace sponsored in the House, enlisting the help of some rookie Rep. from Everett who was just trying to build up credits on a sure thing, for future trades.

This nefarious piece of legislation became law in only six weeks; there are worthwhile bills languishing in the Council and the state legislature for months and years. It's reassuring to see that our electeds all have their priorities straight.

Most depressing is Governor Deval Patrick's collaboration. Here was our great hope for good government, with yet another flunk in the ethics report card.

It's bad enough that family members are given priority for hiring in the fire department, where merit alone should govern a decision affecting life and death. Now we get a glimpse of the inside game played by our elected officials. Apparently, public safety, life and death, aren't as important as family favors for our politicians at all levels.

Remember this next election time, people.

Friendly Hire

info@abnboston.org — 2007-11-29T23:03:16-05:00

Re: Mayor Menino's alleged hiring of cronies for library jobs, as reported in the Globe:

I've heard similar allegations from staff of other City departments, although I didn't see any proof. If you know of any such, please post here.

Safe Homes

info@abnboston.org — 2007-11-29T22:24:19-05:00

So, the Boston Police Department is proposing a program -- "Safe Homes" -- for Dorchester and Roxbury, which would let them go into people's homes, based on rumors, and do searches for guns their kids may be harboring. With any luck, they'll run into some drugs or other evidence of criminality -- after all, we're talking black people in Dorchester and Roxubury, right? -- and get to lock those young rascals up for a good long time.

I wonder if this would also work for nice white areas, like the towns where all those inexplicable mass student killings are going on -- where people are shocked, SHOCKED at such violence, violence that's so...so "urban," as they say. Let's also be sure to make Safe Home programs for all those areas where the white buyers of those "ghetto"-bought drugs live, out in the 'burbs; we gotta save them from themselves, too, right? And Southie, what about Southie, drugs and havoc: more warrant-less searches!

Oh, no, I guess not.

This initiative (together with Councilor Rob Consalvo's bullet-direction detectors) is a perfect use of public money, which might otherwise be wasted educating these youngsters, cleaning up their neighborhoods, giving their parents credit to start up local businesses (instead of subsidizing millionaire developers building luxury enclaves for billionaire clients) and otherwise giving them hope of a decent, productive life as an alternative to gang activity. Excellent work, Mayor Menino. Great public policy to deal with those people. You are truly the "neighborhood mayor"!

Democracy in Boston: Another voter-less election

info@abnboston.org — 2007-11-09T12:45:25-05:00

Low voter turn-out isn't due to apathy, contentment, or complacency. It's due to resignation and helplessnes and frustration.

We need:

--Elimination of the BRA, which stole the City Council's legislative role and then legislated away citizens' legal recourse, and cannibalizes our tax base and our capital assets; fifty years of black-box government is more than enough.

--Term limits, because the incumbent advantage costs us more in fresh talent than it yields in wise elder-statesmen

--Charter reform, which chisels away the few remaining Council powers

--More elected offices and fewer mayorally appointed positions; there's one person stacking all the boards, committees, etc.

All powers are now in the executive branch, which uses the BRA's ill-gotten legislative powers to make everything that's illegal, legal. Absent two of the three branches of government, we do not have a democracy. We desperately need diffusion of power -- and that would be true even with a more capable mayor.

Voters feel it. There is no hopeful, energetic civic life; there is only "politics as usual," an insider game played by a permanent oligarchy, funded by all-powerful real estate and other corporate interests.

The media are complicit, in their obsequious support of a deeply flawed mayor and their blind-eye endorsements of city councilors who do nothing. There is plenty to reveal about all our officials, and about the way City Hall works; but there is no one to do it.

I can't imagine how we will make Boston, the cradle of democracy become a banana republic, a democracy again. Another revolution, perhaps.

Menino gets his way in the legislature

info@abnboston.org — 2007-11-07T13:53:59-05:00

Mayor Menino has whizzed through the legislature his bill to block the Governor's two-year tax relief proposal (see previous blog entry). Now it's up to the Governor to stop it and demand an amendment, to include his relief plan. Since the tax issue is so complicated for ordinary residents to appreciate, and he's probably under a lot of pressure from big commercial owners, he may just give up and sign it. If YOU want tax relief next year, call Menino (617-635-4500), and call Patrick (617-725-4005), and tell them you won't be fleeced again to cut big businesses' property taxes.

Mayor Menino’s Bill Blocks Governor’s Residential Tax Relief

info@abnboston.org — 2007-11-05T17:00:30-05:00

A story is appearing in many local newspapers, titled “Report warns of higher tax rate.” As written, the story would lead residents to think Mayor Menino is trying to give homeowners tax relief. It is important for residents to understand that this is not entirely accurate – and that we have an opportunity to get some relief now, but only if we take action immediately.

To fill our property tax levy every year, residents must pay whatever commercial property owners don’t pay. So if commercial taxes fall, the amount of the shortfall shifts to homeowners and renters.

The recent recession sharply reduced commercial property assessments, especially on office towers. To prevent an impending 40% jump in residential taxes, a law was passed in 2004 to raise the existing cap on the commercial tax rate, which was 175% of the basic rate, to 200%, to increase the commercial tax yield. Although officials wanted a permanent increase, the business interests forced a “deal” – a temporary increase, rolling the commercial tax cap back down to 175% by 2008, thus raising residential taxes each year. In fact, residential taxes have risen by 78% since 2003, while most commercial properties will be paying less in 2008, after inflation, than they did seven years ago, and the commercial tax rate is the lowest since 1991.

To give residents some relief from the falling commercial tax rate, Governor Deval Patrick has filed legislation to freeze the commercial tax rate at its current level, 183%, for two more years, instead of letting it continue to roll back to 175% next year as slated by the 2004 law. Menino is trying to deprive homeowners of Patrick’s two-year tax relief, which would save residents an estimated $70 to $90 million, 8% a year, in taxes.

Menino filed a bill (House 3119) to repeal the 2004 law. His bill is backed by the Municipal Research Bureau, which is a powerful corporate lobby, not a city government watchdog as commonly believed, nor a “Boston-based research company” as the story describes them. The 2004 law would drop the tax cap back to 175% next year, but his repeal would require that drop and keep it down, precluding Patrick’s two-year freeze. The Bureau’s director, Sam Tyler, admits in one of the versions of the story: “The urgency of passing the [Mayor’s] legislation …is that there are the bills pending that would keep it up at 183%.” It is urgent -- for the big businesses, who don’t want pay more, at 183%, to give residents some relief.

Menino’s bill would help residents in one way: it would repeal two harmful “dirty tricks” slipped into the 2004 legislation by business interests after the original “deal” was set. The first trick drops the commercial tax rate down to 170% in 2009 – lower than the pre-existing 175% -- permanently shifting more of the city’s tax burden from businesses to residents. The second, and far more devastating to residents, permanently prevents the mandatory residential portion of the tax burden from ever going back down from its highest level, no matter how low housing prices go or how high commercial values go. This portion used to be 30% of the total levy; it is already up at 42%.

This second provision was worded very ambiguously, so the meaning has just become evident as several municipalities were prevented from lowering their residential taxes despite rising commercial assessments. Many officials are angry that business interests used the residential relief law to take advantage of residents – who are already exploited by our lopsided tax system.

With the dirty tricks exposed, the businesses are offering to repeal them -- if they can also block Patrick’s residential relief by repealing the rest of the 2004 law. That’s the new “deal.”

Menino need not squash Patrick’s two-year tax relief to repeal the dirty tricks. He could easily write his bill to accomplish both. But the business lobby is strong, while residents don’t understand enough to fight back. So the Mayor can safely save the business interests millions of dollars at residents’ expense by blocking the Governor’s relief, while courting residents’ support for the bill as a repeal of the dirty tricks – which should never have been enacted in the first place.

Why isn’t he doing his best for the over-burdened home taxpayers?

Contact Mayor Menino (617-635-4500) (mayor@ci.boston.ma.us) and tell him you want the dirty tricks repealed AND the 183% two-year commercial tax freeze enacted.

Then, tell him you want what he promised -- a total “overhaul” of the tax system -- not a “band-aid,” as he called the 2004 law when he testified for it, so that all property owners pay their fair share. Residents shouldn’t have to carry the tax load for everyone else.

Organized Crime: Together We Can!

info@abnboston.org — 2007-09-24T18:16:57-04:00

I guess that's what Deval Patrick meant. We can continue to give away $500 million in loopholes, and who knows how many millions in pointless tax breaks to corporations, and then call for saving our crumbling roads and bridges by taking over the vice businesses. Like the ghetto guys that turn to selling drugs because we've exported, or de-educated them out of, any viable means of self-support, politicans have given away our own honest revenues and now, fearing another taxpayer backlash, are exploiting the poor, who can't try to get ahead of their lot by gambling at stocks and bonds so they gamble at slots and cards, with much worse odds, and no Federal Reserve to bail them out. Hey, it's voluntary, so why not cash in? Our Great White (um, Black) Father is now setting us up in the racket; he just has to beat those other colored folks, the Indians, to the punch. The proud Indian tribes, whose restitution for almost complete decimation at white hands is to do for white society what is considered unclean but unavoidable.

It would be one thing if our officials decided to decriminalize and regulate gambling for the protection of those who need it and to take the crime out of it (as they should do with drugs), and to impose ordinary taxes on casinos, as businesses who have to pay their fair share for public services. It's a totally different thing for the government to become an investor in gambling, to have an incentive to increase it and entice people to do it -- the lottery spends a lot of money on advertising. Why not become equity partners in drugs, tobacco, alcohol, guns, prostitution -- these are all things people will keep on buying, legal or not, and why not grow the business here, so we can use the loot to pay for our schoolchildren's education, and our roads, and our ...whatever's the next victim of public neglect. Our public officials will be meta-pushers, the end will justify the means, and we can set aside some of the money to "repair" the resulting damage -- broken homes, spouse and child abuse, destitution and bankruptcy. That seems fair, right?

This is not what I was expecting when I voted for Deval Patrick, and encouraged others to do so. I was duped, I admit it. The gambling decision is the last straw, after many development policy disappointments, conflict-of-interest revelations, closed-door deliberations, expanded corporate tax giveaways, etc. I tuned back into politics because I believed in him. I told him: the "triumph of hope over experience."

Never mind.

Biolab hearing is ignored by the daily papers

info@abnboston.org — 2007-09-23T13:10:43-04:00

Neither the Boston Globe nor the Boston Herald thought it newsworthy that hundreds of people packed Faneuil Hall last Thursday night to express their views on the biolab worst-case risk assessment ordered by the court -- an assessment that hadn't been done even though the funding was awarded, the project was approved, and the building is almost entirely built. Fortunately, the South End News covered it.

NIH, which made the award, also prepared the assessment report -- a clear conflict of interest. The cover letter and introduction are unprofessionally biased, praising the lab and stating the need for it. An objective scientific report doesn't do that. NIH presented computer modeling of fictional scenarios that conclude there was no more danger from escaped pathogens if the lab is in a densely populated area than in exurban locations -- although all the other biolabs were sited in sparsely populated areas.

An independent scientific panel should have been established to prepare this risk assessment. My testimony was that it still should be. I think independent scientists might come up with a different result. There is too much at stake to take a chance; the court ordered a worst-case risk assessment, and I think the community should demand one.

Write Klare Allen at safetynetrox@yahoo.com for more information. Comments to NIH must be e-mailed (nihnepa@nih.gov) or postmarked in mail (Valerie Nottingham, HIH, Building 13, Room 2S11, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892) by Nov. 12, 2007. You can also request a copy of the report.

Trash talk again

info@abnboston.org — 2007-09-23T12:52:58-04:00

After reading Councilor Mike Flahterty's op-ed in the South End News about towing for street cleaning, I wrote to him and to my District councilor, Mike Ross, suggesting research into cleaning trucks with vacuum hoses to clean around cars, or hiring personnel to do monthly hand-cleaning, to keep the gutters and drains clean without fining and towing our long-suffering residents and visitors. I cc'd ABN members, and got back a message from a North End resident, saying:

"In the North End and a few other neighborhoods, the City collects trash three times a week. Poor trash disposal and collection, I believe, is the main reason we have filthy streets. The tourists are not the problem (or much of it), as many like to think. Current city regulations allow trash to be on the streets from 5:00 PM to 7:00 AM the next day, or longer. Collection crews start pick-up at 7:00 AM. So, trash, including poorly bagged or unbagged, can be on the streets of the North End for up to 14 hours, three times or week, or 42 hours a week. That provides full-time "employment" and a bit of overtime for trash pickers and rodents.

Some of us have proposed limiting the hours, say from 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM, with collection starting at 9:00 AM. I believe that would not be a problem for 95% of residents. Others could find someone else or some other means to dispose of their trash. But the City is loathe to go there. City officials try to ignore/avoid the subject at meetings, or they use excuses such as "that would take changing city law, and that could take years." Until we put restrictions and enforcement on the manner and time for trash disposal, I don't believe that hoakies or vacuum equipment will be able to keep up with the mess. Even the mechancial street sweeping's benefit lasts only until the next trash collection day (which could be the very next day!).

One other thing. Street sweeping and parking restrictions have existed in every city and most towns for many years, and they work. They don't work in Boston because we allow our streets to be used for long-term parking. In the North End, it is common for residents to leave their cars in one spot on the street for a week or more. That practice will even greatly hinder hoakie and vacuum efforts. I know, because I have participated in many street cleaning campaigns. It is very tough to remove litter and sand from gutters where cars are parked continuously.

I think the solution lies in a combination of tighter trash disposal regulations and parking restrictions that allow crews to get to the curb."

I've also heard many complaints about the disposal by the trash trucks of materials carefully put out for recycling.

Let's collect some recommendations for this whole trash/recycling/street-cleaning issue so we can have a productive Council hearing. Anyone know a better way that other cities handle these services? Policies? Equipment?

Biolab's too dangerous for NYC -- but not for Boston??

info@abnboston.org — 2007-09-18T22:04:20-04:00

CRITICAL BIOLAB OPEN HEARING

On Thursday September 20 at 7 PM at Faneuil Hall there will be a hearing on the State Court's mandated restudy by NIH of the Biocontainment Lab 4 in Boston.

You may testify if you wish, so be there early - but it is not necessary to testify.

The NIH report is over 300 pages long, but there will be a flyer with summary and talking points at the door.

While NIH's siting criteria for BSL4 labs include the absence of substantial community opposition, they have been ignoring the community response to this lab for almost five years.

Senators Clinton and Schumer in New York have just announced their opposition to siting a BSL4 lab on Plum Island in Long Island Sound. Their reason: it's too close to New York City! It's time our Senators defended our right to be safe and secure in our community. It's time for NIH to acknowledge and respond to our opposition.

Deval's gambling decision

info@abnboston.org — 2007-09-15T13:16:34-04:00

If Deval Patrick makes it a YES on gambling, he should announce it in a public school classroom, to the lucky beneficiaries of the government's gambling business.

"Hi, kids, I've done my homework, and I've decided to bring in more gambling -- yes, on top of the lottery! -- so we can pay for your books and teachers, "slots for tots," as they say, because it's way easier than cutting out the billions of dollars in tax breaks and loopholes for big fat corporations. Hey, anyone here have a parent who likes to gamble? Anyone lost your house or your college tuition yet? No? Well, my little friends, don't worry, that'll all become much easier now; why make folks go all the way to Connecticut, right?

And you should consider starting to gamble soon too, because it's good for the state, and good for your school! But not till you've done your homework!

Keep up the good work, young winners and losers of tomorrow, we're here for you! Together We Can!"

Developers will soon become city governments

info@abnboston.org — 2007-07-13T22:47:49-04:00

It's not enough to just manipulate and subvert the government. Now developers want to actually BE the government!

A bill (Sen. 146) is being rushed through the state legislature that would let big land-owners/developers petition their municipalities for designation as "Local Improvement Districts" -- "bodies corporate and politic" that could do most things city/town governments can do, but without the accountability, transparency, and state oversight. Each new municipality -- complete with its own seal! -- could issue tax-free bonds, collect property assessments (i.e., taxes) from its neighbors to pay them off, get private and possibly public land taken for its developers by eminent domain, use the taxpayer subsidy to build whatever they define as "infrastructure." This could include parking garages, private shuttle bus systems, sports, arts and recreational (casinos? stadiums? golf courses?) facilities, dedicated highway ramps, and so on.

Yup, a new property tax, this time imposed on the neighbors of big landowners for infrastructure the big guys want, free from the limits of Prop 2 1/2!

Taxation without representation: Long ago, it got Bostonians to take serious action. Last year, public outrage shamed the legislature into backing off. This year -- we need to fight back again.

If this sounds like something you'd want to help stop in its anti-democratic tracks, read my column in the South End News.

Then, call or e-mail your legislators, whose contact info you can find here.

Tell them to demand a big public hearing.

Tell them to talk to Speaker Sal DiMasi and Senate President Therese Murray and ask them to stop this privatization of the government.

Tell them to VOTE NO if this bill comes to a vote!

Don't wait. Contact them NOW. This bill has already been approved by its Committee, and is in the Joint Bonding Committee; it could go out for floor vote any time before the session end July 31, and IT WILL PASS -- if the legislators don't hear from YOU..

Tell them: Vote no on Chapter 40T. It lets profit-seeking developers replace our democratic government and impose a stealth property tax to subsidize thier projects.

Another stellar Council hearing with the BRA....

info@abnboston.org — 2007-06-19T20:02:37-04:00

After waiting two years for a chance to question the BRA at a budget hearing (last year's Ways and Means Chair, Rob Consalvo, is the son of a former BRA employee), a handful of Councilors showed up.

Little if any homework was done in preparation, an hour was ripped out of the middle by a press photo-op with the Mayor and his new School Superintendent, and NO ONE asked the BRA why it keeps stealing our land. Madame President never returned from the press conference to ask her urgent questions.

I was allowed to give a five-minute hurried comment in the midst of it all, and I told the Councilors to order the Mayor to come before them, as allowed by the City Charter, to explain why he's giving away our land and money to the BRA, and why he's laundering tax giveaways to developers through the BRA, when he can't find the money for schools, parks and libraries -- or even street cleaning. My suggestion didn't exactly catch fire.

I told BRA Director Paul McCann, who was smirking smugly as he walked out, that self-congrats weren't necessary -- he was taking candy from a baby. He laughed and said, "Oh, they just love us."

Campaign season heats up in September. If we don't hold these lazy, careless and incompetent feet to the fire, we deserve what we get.

And the winnah of the District 2 city council election is....

info@abnboston.org — 2007-05-17T23:12:13-04:00

.....the Mayah, Tom Menino! Yes, once again, the Mayor's hand-picked candidate is elected, with the help of his vast machine, and the City Council's supermajority Menino Nine-O remains intact, ready to rubber-stamp his every order.

Isn't there something illegal about the Mayor picking the City Council? Something Consitutionally wrong, like "breach of separation of powers"? Abuse of power in getting all those tax-payer-salaried City Hall employees to work for him and his chosen candidates? Is there a lawyer in the house?!?

Menino was quoted in a newspaper as saying that he didn't endorse either candidate, and his organization just does what it wants. 'nuff said.

There is no hope for democracy in Boston. It's not just the "strong mayor, weak council" problem. We have no checks and balances. We don't have three branches of government. We only have an executive branch. The legislative branch, sidelined in 1960 by the BRA's stealth take-over of planning and zoning, gets paid (i.e., pays itself) handsomely to remain out of the way. The judicial branch is largely fended off by the BRA's clever legal shenanigans that shield its dealings from lawsuit, and by the council's inability to hire a lawyer. If we want to resurrect democracy here, in its cradle, we'll need a major restructuring -- and an electoral revolt. If we just sit on our duffs and take it....we can't complain. In a democracy, people get the government they deserve.

For the most part, the press has a giant blind spot on Boston electoral politics. Few in the media have pondered the outcome of this race -- how it happened and what it really means. But one good piece on Boston's political idiocy just came out; read the Keohane article in Boston Magazine, and laugh and weep....

Wikipedia on the BRA and Mayor Menino

info@abnboston.org — 2007-05-02T23:46:24-04:00

I found the following Wikipedia entry on the Boston Redevelopment Authority! If you think some more accurate information is needed, you should go to the Wiki website and add it! Note the last paragraph. I'll say a "citation is needed"....!

PS There's an entry on Mayor Thomas Menino that may need a little editing, too....

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Boston Redevelopment Authority is a planning and development agency in Boston. The BRA was established by the Boston city council and the Massachusetts legislature in 1957. Its primary goal is to work with Bostonians, business and developers in order to provide direction for development in the city of Boston.

The BRA's statutory authority was set forth in the Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 121B, section 4 in 1957 and Chapter 652, section 12 in 1960. Its broad development authorities include the power to buy and sell property, the power to acquire property through eminent domain, and the power to grant tax concession (under MGL chapter 121A) to encourage commercial and residential development.[1]

The BRA works in the housing and business sectors. It is currently undertaking development projects such as a parkway being developed atop the Big Dig, opening up the waterfront to pedestrians. The BRA owns real estate throughout the city and sells this when an attractive plan for the use of the property is submitted and approved. This is can be seen in the "East Boston Municipal Harbor Plan" where BRA owned properties along the waterfront are currently being developed[2] and Fort Point Channel development.

One of the first projects the BRA took on was the demolition of the west end or the Scollay Square area and building of Government Center [3]. The finished project which includes Boston City Hall is considered an eyesore and the large brick plaza as an uncomfortable place to be.[4]

Overall though, the work that the BRA has done in Boston has been positive.[citation needed] In 1968 the BRA took on the renewal of Faneuil Hall Market Place which was slated to be demolished. This project has been attributed to bringing life back into the then debilitated Boston downtown. [5]

[edit] References

1. ^ http://www.cityofboston.gov/bra/HomePageUtils/about_us.asp
2. ^ http://www.cityofboston.gov/bra/Planning/PlanningInitsIndividual.asp?action=ViewInit&InitID=13
3. ^ http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~fup/password/downtown.html
4. ^ http://www.celebrateboston.com/strange/governmentcenter.htm
5. ^ http://www.tbf.org/uploadedFiles/greathitsweb.pdf

City Council budget hearings begin

info@abnboston.org — 2007-04-23T19:30:13-04:00

The FY2008 budget hearings are starting. The budget is online. The schedule is available on the abnboston.org home page. Go, or watch on TV, and speak up; it's your money.

Note the BRA hearing on Tuesday, June 19, 2:00-5:00.

Please attend if you can; testify and/or write in comment letters. This is your money.

Remember, though, that the budget has nothing to do with your taxes, because the Mayor and City Council are determined to raise your tax rates to the maximum allowed by Prop 2 1/2, even if the budget were cut! If you ask for budget cuts, either say where you'd like the money to go instead -- or demand that our tax levy -- that's your taxes -- be cut commensurately.

The only "department" that directly affects your taxes is the BRA, and the BRA does that not by affecting expenditures but by affecting collections -- that is, by giving away huge and unneeded tax breaks to big developers, by ignoring the ridiculously tiny PILOT payments made by institutions when the BRA can negotiate for more at development approval time, and by holding billions of dollars worth of real estate itself and paying not a cent in property tax.

Boston Bound--forum on Boston's rights as a city

info@abnboston.org — 2007-04-23T13:53:36-04:00

To hear a discussion of Boston's powers over development planning and taxation, come to:

Boston Bound: A Comparison of Boston's Legal Powers with Those of Six Other Major American Cities

Thursday, April 26 at 8:30 a.m.
10th floor, The Boston Foundation, 75 Arlington St.

Welcoming Remarks by Mary Jo Meisner, Vice President for Communications, Community Relations and Public Affairs, The Boston Foundation

Summary of Findings by Gerald E. Frug, Louis D. Brandeis Professor of Law, Harvard Law School and
David J. Barron, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

Remarks by The Honorable Timothy P. Murray, Lieutenant Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts and
The Honorable Thomas M. Menino, Mayor, City of Boston

Moderator
Paul S. Grogan, President and CEO, The Boston Foundation

Panelists
Geoff Beckwith, Executive Director, Massachusetts Municipal Association

Lawrence S. DiCara, Partner, Nixon Peabody

Edward L. Glaeser, Glimp Professor of Economics and Director, Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston

Lisa C. Signori, Chief Financial Officer, City of Boston

Kirk Sykes, President and Managing Partner, Urban Strategy America Fund

A public forum co-sponsored by The Boston Foundation and The Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston.

To reserve a seat, please call 617-338-4390 or email rsvp@tbf.org. Seating is still available.

MetroFuture -- a regional planning exercise for all of us

info@abnboston.org — 2007-04-23T13:41:57-04:00

MetroFuture: This Way to a Greater Boston Region

Tuesday, May 1 at 8:00 a.m.
Grand Ballroom, Hyatt Regency Boston, Financial District, One Avenue de Lafayette (Downtown Crossing)

Join 500 residents from across Metropolitan Boston at a May 1 Boston College Citizen Seminar, and be part of the planning for your community and your region! At this Seminar for the Metropolitan Area Planning Council's MetroFuture project, we will unveil the plan to guide Metro Boston's growth through 2030, and identify action steps that the region can take, over the coming months and years, to make the plan a reality.

Register at http://www.bc.edu/schools/csom/cga/citizen/rsvp/, or call 617-552-0904. The event will take place at the Hyatt Regency Hotel (former Swissotel) in downtown Boston. Complimentary breakfast will be available at 7:30 a.m., and the program will begin at 8 a.m. Visit www.MetroFuture.org to learn more.

BU Biolab case taken over by Supreme Judicial Court

info@abnboston.org — 2007-03-23T12:07:48-04:00

The state Supreme Judicial Court took the Biolab case from the Appeals Court, recognizing the importance of this issue. Klare Allen and her Roxbury Safetynet group, Alternatives for Community and Environment, and their colleagues and attorneys inspire us to keep fighting for what's important -- NEVER GIVE UP! Whether the community wins or not, at least this issue will get the serious attention it deserves, and will not be pushed through under the radar by its political and financial beneficiaries.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/03/23/sjc_to_hear_arguments_on_construction_of_bu_biolab?p1=email_to_a_friend

SJC to hear arguments on construction of BU biolab

By Stephen Smith, Globe Staff | March 23, 2007

The state Supreme Judicial Court will decide whether construction of a high-security research laboratory in the South End should continue, the latest twist in the ongoing fight to block the Boston University project.

In an action made public yesterday, the state's highest court said it would directly hear the controversial case, bypassing an appeals court that had been scheduled to consider the matter. The SJC set a hearing for September, seemingly expediting the legal process by eliminating one step.

Ten neighbors of the lab, already under construction on Albany Street, sued in state court to block the facility, where researchers will work with the world's deadliest germs. They also sued in federal court, blasting BU for locating the lab on its medical campus, near a densely populated neighborhood with a significant number of low-income and racially diverse residents.

Last August, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Ralph D. Gants ordered further environmental review of the $178 million project but did not halt construction.

BU appealed Gants's ruling, an appeal that was scheduled to be heard next month. But yesterday, the SJC, without explanation, issued a notice that it was taking the case.

"Generally, that means that it views the case as something that either has an important legal issue or is of general public significance," said Douglas Wilkins , the Anderson & Kreiger attorney who is representing the residents.

It is not unusual for the SJC to hear a case directly, and Wilkins said that its action should not be interpreted as favoring one side or the other.

BU spokeswoman Ellen Berlin said the university welcomed the court's action.

"We are pleased that this important project is receiving this important scrutiny from the Supreme Judicial Court," Berlin said.

The facility, known as a Biosafety Level-4 lab, has provoked controversy since the moment it was proposed in January 2003, with a fervent contingent of scientists, environmentalists, and community activists protesting at every turn. After their objections failed to stop the project at the city or state level, opponents turned to the courts.

Foes of the lab hailed the decision by the high court to resolve the case. "Finally, the residents are going to be heard," said Klare Allen , one of the residents suing to stop construction.

Stephen Smith can be reached at stsmith@globe.com.

Deval Patrick fails the public on waterfront rights

info@abnboston.org — 2007-03-20T11:42:16-04:00

As you may recall from the Fan Pier design process, Chapter 91 of the State laws, the Waterfront Act, places restrictions on private development on Commonwealth tideland areas; according to the public-trust doctrine for such areas -- even if they are filled tidelands -- any development has to serve a "public purpose," and private benefit has to be secondary to public benefit in any non-waterdependent project.

Development on such lands requires a license from the state, and the licensing process assures that certain protections are obeyed, e.g., height near the water, that public benefits are provided to prevent privatization of the public land, e.g., access paths (like the Harborwalk) and publicly accessible ground-floor uses, and generally that the public receives appropriate compensation for the profitable use of the public land, e.g., open space, civic and cultural amenities. The licensing process provides for public hearings so the community has a voice in the project design and public benefit decisions, and creates an enforcement mechanism for developers' commitments.

Some years ago, the Dept. of Environmental Protection decided not to include so-called "landlocked" tidelands (separated from the waterfront by a public way) in its jurisdiction for licensing private development on public-trust tidelands. (I don't know the reason, but I understand that there was some "compromise" with developers, rather than any underlying fact or principle involved.)

The state Supreme Judicial recently made a ruling on a community lawsuit (against the large NorthPoint tidelands project, mostly in Cambridge and partially in Boston) that DEP had had no right to abdicate its power for public protection on landlocked tidelands because the public's rights can only be retained or given away by the public's representative, the legislature. The ruling restored the licensing process to these areas.

It is a rare opportunity to recover public rights to public assets, and re-instate the public's voice. And the experience with the Fan Pier project and many others has shown that the public process actually improves final designs, and deprives developers of very little if any profitable building space while providing much long-term benefit to their communities and their own vicinities.

But instead of seizing this opportunity to expand public rights, Governor Deval Patrick has filed legislation that would authorize the DEP's exclusion of these tidelands from the licensing process!

Why is he doing this?

Well, Patrick recently appointed two of the NorthPoint developer's lawyers to major state positions. Dan O'Connell, who was a development executive (and investor) in this project and others on the seaport, is now the Director of Housing and Economic Development. Greg Bialecki, formerly an attorney for NorthPoint, Fan Pier, and other projects potentially affected by this ruling, is Patrick's "ombudsman" to act on behalf of developers to achieve "expedited development" statewide. These development promoters and their firms were also major campaign contributors to Patrick's campaign.

Whether this is Deval Patrick's own idea of promoting community and environmental interests, or he is letting insider deals drive his public policy, this is an extremely alarming direction for our new governor to take.

Unfortunately, he has been doing other things that show he is more concerned with "economic development" as corporate welfare, rather than with community and environmental protection and economic assistance to the truly needy.

Please contact your legislators and tell them to defeat his bill, H3757. Also tell them to defeat a bill by Rep. Michael Rodrigues, H847, that would reduce all public benefit on tidelands to a single item, Facilities of Public Accommodation (the publicly useable ground-floor uses mentioned above) in only 25% of the ground floor area.

I expected better from our new Governor. You should, too.

Rappaport/Kennedy School program

info@abnboston.org — 2007-02-20T14:30:16-05:00

Events by the Rappaport Institute and the Kennedy School of Government's Taubman Center for State and Local Government.

For more information on any of these events, please contact Cara Cappello at 617-495-5140.

******

Sprawl - No Longer a Dirty Word?
Monday, March 5, 12:00 noon
Taubman BC, 5th Floor Taubman Building, 15 Eliot St.

Robert Bruegman, Professor of Art History, Architecture and Urban Planning
University of Illinois at Chicago, author, Sprawl: A Compact History

******

Tough Choices or Tough Times: Rebuilding American Schools for the 21st Century
Monday, March 19, 5:00 p.m.
Bell Hall, 5th Floor Belfer Building, 15 Eliot St.

Thomas Payzant, former superintendent, Boston Public Schools, member of The New Commission on Skills of the American Workforce, and senior lecturer, Harvard Graduate School of Education Commentary by Thomas Kane, Professor of Education and Economics, Harvard Graduate School of Education

Co-sponsored by the Kennedy School?s Program on Education Policy and Governance, the Taubman Center for State and Local Government and the Graduate School of Education?s Project for Policy Innovation in Education

******

Full Disclosure: The Promise and Perils of Transparency
Wednesday, April 11, 12:00 noon
Taubman A, 5th Floor Taubman Building, 15 Eliot St.

Archon Fung, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Co-director, Transparency Policy Project
Mary Graham, Research Fellow, Taubman Center for State and Local Government, Co-director, Transparency Policy Project David Weil, Associate Professor of Economics, Boston University, Co-director, Transparency Policy Project

******

Government Failure in Urban Transportation and the Case for Privatization
Tuesday, April 24, 12:00 noon
Taubman AB, 5th Floor Taubman Building, 15 Eliot St.

Clifford Winston, Senior Fellow, Economic Studies, The Brookings Institution, co-author, "On the social desirability of urban rail transit systems," forthcoming in the Journal of Urban Economics, and "The effect of government highway spending on road users? congestion costs," Journal of Urban Economics, November 2006

******

Expanding the Talent Pool: Kevin White and the Encouragement of Public Service
Friday, May 4th, 12:00 noon
Kennedy Room, Charles Hotel Conference Pavilion, One Bennett St.

Panel Discussion featuring:

U.S Representative Barney Frank, former chief of staff for Boston Mayor Kevin H. White
Paul Grogan, president and CEO, The Boston Foundation and former special assistant to Mayor White
Micho Spring, chair, U.S. Corporate Practice, Weber Shandwick Worldwide, and former Deputy Mayor of Boston

Other panelists to be announced

Co-sponsored by the Taubman Center for State and Local Government and the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston

RSVP required to Polly O'Brien at 617-495-5091 or
polly@rappaportinstitute.org

Felix Arroyo files City Planning Board proposal

info@abnboston.org — 2007-01-29T20:54:41-05:00

At-large Councilor Felix Arroyo has, in the first session of the year, filed for a hearing on creating a City Planning Board.

We haven't had a Planning Board since the BRA got it abolished, simply by sneaking the following sentence into unrelated legislation in 1960:

The city planning board of said city is hereby abolished, and all property of said city in the custody of such board and all appropriations of said city for the use of said board are heraby transferred to and vested in the authority; and all persons appointed by said board are hereby transferred to, and made employees of, the authority.

The BRA took it over specifically to evade public oversight through the City Council, and make sure planning would never get in the way of developers.

Obviously, it's a conflict of interest to be an advocate for developers and also a planning agency, which is supposed to review development projects with the overall well-being of the city in mind. No other city in America let an urban renewal authority take over their planning and zoning. Everywhere else, the renewal authority has to come before the City Council to ask for approval, like any other developer.

The zoning ordinance that implements planning is legislation, and in all other municipalities of Massachusetts -- and the rest of America -- puts it into the hands of the legislative branch -- the City Council. In fact, this is the most important responsiblity of a City Council -- to approve the laws ruling land use, and to oversee the planning for the city as a whole; in this context, Council's role in budget oversight can be properly informed. Here, the BRA elbowed the City Council out of the way, and does whatever it wants. We all have seen how that works.

This is not just about the BRA's power -- it's about whether we have a real City Council, and planning/zoning that is publicly accountable through it -- accountable to us, the citizens.

So, prepare to testify or write comment letters. This will be your chance to change the system -- to take the planning/zoning of your city from a 'quasi-public" authority and put it into a totally public body of government. If you don't like what they do, you can vote 'em out -- or at least call 'em up and talk to 'em, for heaven's sake.

I'll let you know as soon as I find out when the hearing is scheduled. I'm trying to get it held in the evening, so more people can come.

State aid won't help Boston's property taxes

info@abnboston.org — 2007-01-23T17:58:42-05:00

Although some municipalities may get relief from increased state aid, Boston's residential property taxes have not been driven up by state aid cuts and won't be reduced by increased aid. Our property tax levy is set by simply increasing the previous year's levy as allowed by Propostion 2 1/2, a maximum of 2.5% annually (plus new growth). We always tax to the max. More state aid, lottery money, local-option taxes -- none of these would have any effect on property taxes; they'd just provide additional money for the City to spend.

Similarly, increasing services cannot further raise our property taxes -- although the Mayor likes to threaten higher taxes to silence citizens' demands -- and slashing services will not decrease our taxes.

Boston's growing residential tax burden is driven by several factors:

1) The assessment method for large commercial properties doesn't capture their full and fair market value as required by law, steadily running at about 50% of market value, while housing assessments have risen from 70-80% to 92%-95% of market value.

2) The tax formula protects commercial owners by putting a ceiling on the their overall tax burden (at most, 70% of the levy), but puts residents at risk by setting only a floor on their tax burden (at least, 30% of the levy).

This system forces residents' tax rates up to pay any shortfall in commercial taxes that result when commercial assessments decrease. But resident don't enjoy the same benefit if housing assessments fall; commercial owners are protected by their ceiling, and once that's reached, residential rates are raised to yield the remaining portion of the levy.

3) Over half the city's land is tax-exempt. The value of exempt institutions' property totals about $12 billion, almost half of that of the taxable commercial property sector, and institutional expansion is escalating, taking taxable land off the tax rolls (but leaving the previous value in the levy). They pay only $10 million a year instead of the $90 million they should pay in PILOT, using the rule-of-thumb of 25% of normal taxes.

4) The City gives huge tax breaks to developers based on false "blight" certifications by the Boston Redevelopment Authority, costing us perhaps $100 million in lost taxes annually. These breaks last for decades, long past any possible justification for assisting development, and are even transferred to new buyers, to no purpose at all.

5) The City doesn't tax the BRA's vast property empire, worth, I estimate, over $2 billion ($60 million in taxes lost).

As to Mayor Thomas Menino's quest for local-options taxes: a meals tax might generate $16 million a year; if he thinks we need more money, he could gain far more by ceasing to give away, at no charge, hundreds of millions of dolllars worth of City property to the BRA (e.g., City Hall Plaza, worth $400 million), and take back what he's given.

The Feeney Defense: Committee actions are minor clerical chores

info@abnboston.org — 2007-01-19T01:03:10-05:00

I posted the following on Joe Heisler's "Talk of the Neighborhoods" blog after his interview with Maureen Feeney:

On your Jan. 2 show, newly elected City Council President Maureen Feeney spoke about the pending Open Meeting Law suit against her Committee regarding its action on the pay raise Ordinance the Mayor filed last March.

It's important for the voters to know the other side of the story.

A Committee Report on the Ordinance, making major amendments and recommending Council passage, was approved by a majority of four of her Committee members. A majority "in favor" is required by Council Rules for an Ordinance to go to the Council floor for action.

The four members voted, not by sitting down in a meeting, but by individually communicating to her staff their "concurrence" with the Report. Serial communications among body members to arrive at a decision is a violation long established by case law. Using staff messengers as "gloves" doesn't remove the fingerprints.

Councilor Feeney, during her testimony, admitted that they voted, but told the court that it was not a vote on the substance of the ordinance. The Councilor's testimony was that the Committee members never deliberated, never discussed this controversial pay raise proposal with her or with each other between March 8 and the day they voted on May 2, and were merely providing a courtesy nod to her to bring to the Council floor her report, written solely by herself as the Chair, without any input from them.

Committee votes on Committee reports, she and Vice-Chair Stephen Murphy said, are just a housekeeping task, like a decision to order office supplies, a trivial head-count to bring the matter back to Council without regard to the substance, so public witness isn't required.

The judge asked what she'd do if most members voted against the Chair's report. She responded that she could bring it to the Council floor as a "Minority Report" -- an option that's not available in the City Council Rules and indeed would violate the Rules requiring majority approval prior to Council action.

The facts are these:

1) It's not just "housekeeping" when a committee takes action on legislation. Indeed, in this case, there were actually important amendments made to the original bill (including a pay raise for the City Clerk, a job in which Councilor Feeney has been quoted in the press as saying she has an interest). That they spoke individually, through intermediaries, calling it a "concurrence" instead of a "vote," doesn't change the basic fact: a majority of her committee took an action on the matter before them. A concurrence by a majority IS a meeting.

2) If this vote was, as Councilor Feeney insists, just a head-count of members agreeing to let the measure go to the Council for vote, that's a procedure required to be done right on the Council floor, according to Council Rules. It's called a "roll call vote," and a majority has to approve -- in public.

3) The Councilors are already changing the Rules to end Committee voting via individual votes sent to the chair. This procedure of voting without getting together in quorum was evidently contrived to skirt the Open Meeting Law, and has now been exposed.

Committee actions are the backbone of any body's work, because that's where the body's fact-finding, analysis and deliberation happen (or, in the Boston City Council, where analysis and deliberation doesn't happen, as we learned from the City Councilors' testimony). Whatever they do in those actions has to be witnessed by the public, including, as in this case, amending legislation and sending it for Council vote with a recommendation for passage. Isn't that self-evident?

The Councilors' defense of trivializing the work of Council Committees in order to deny the requirement for public witness, is a disheartening and cynical message to send to their constituents.

It's disappointing that they spend thousands of taxpayer dollars fighting lawsuits rather than taking a positive attitude and improving their transparency. It's especially wasteful when they've already begun Rules reform; their September 11, 2006, hearing on proposed Rule changes is most interesting, and a recording can be viewed via the Council website.

Unfortunately, then-President Michael Flaherty was still seeking, even at that reform hearing, mechanisms by which the Council could discuss issues "internally."

Our Councilors just have to honor the words introducing their personal copies of the Open Meeting Law: "The public's business must be done in public."

Posted at 10:21 AM
Monday, January 8, 2007

Show Me the Money

info@abnboston.org — 2007-01-02T16:07:40-05:00

We won't be having monthly meetings this month and for the near future. Instead, we will be bringing our Show Me The Money presentation to the neighborhoods, and training community residents in giving the show to their neighbors. As we go along, the Show will add material from community comments.

We will post the SMTM slides on the website after testing with a presentation or two.

The first is tomorrow night 7:00 pm, Tubman House/United South End Settlement, at 566 Columbus Ave (near Mass Ave). Please come if you can.

There are three general issues addressed by the presentation that have to do with where our money comes from and goes, and how our development is de-controlled at our expense. We will focus on the BRA, the property tax structure, and the budget.

We will present some ideas for remedial action on all three, and we want to add suggestions from YOU as we go along.

You can also join the Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods at the presentations.

Northeastern sprawls again

info@abnboston.org — 2006-12-19T21:43:49-05:00

Northeastern University's off the reservation. They're spreadin' out. And out. And out. It's a dorm-fest.

If you've ever suffered from Institutional Sprawl, come to the BRA hearing on Thursday, hear what's going on in Roxbury, and help that community defend themselves against college colonization!

A few hundred million taxpayer dollars more for the BRA

info@abnboston.org — 2006-12-19T21:42:00-05:00

Mayor Menino's at it again. He's going to "enliven" the far-distant waterfront with a government office building, and leave City Hall Plaza, conveniently located in the center of the transit system, to the good judgment of the BRA and its eager squadrons of office- and luxury-condo-tower developers.

What is this about, really? Well, guess who owns City Hall Plaza? The City, you say? Think again. It's the BRA. Yes, the BRA took it by eminent domain -- AGAIN -- in 1996, this time from YOU. And the Mayor waived compensation, so the BRA got it for free. Now, whatever it's sold or leased for -- the BRA gets all that money.

And -- how convenient! -- the BRA happens to be the development regulatory agency of the city, so they'll make sure that land is made as valuable as possible -- by permitting the biggest possible development.

The BRA happens also to have a Joint-Venture Agreement with the so-called Trust for City Hall Plaza -- a group of developers -- to build a hotel and garage on the Plaza. They always intended to fill it up with buildings, and apparently, now's the time.

Estimates of the land value for what they are likely to build run at $400 million. FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS! While you have fund-raisers to buy school equipment and maintain your park.

Call the mayor and your city councilors and tell them you won't stand for this! Your services are being cut, your taxes are skyrocketing, and the mayor is giving away hundreds of millions of dollars --plus the profits from an over-sized development -- to the BRA.

Deval Patrick holds public meetings

info@abnboston.org — 2006-12-02T17:05:01-05:00

The Patrick/Murray Transition Team is holding public meetings on various issues. Here is the link to the schedule. Go to as many as you can, and become part of the solution!

Today's Boston Globe on our "Show Me the Money!" show

info@abnboston.org — 2006-11-26T15:22:54-05:00

The Globe printed a great piece today on our forthcoming campaign to expose and eliminate the BRA!

But before we take the "Show" on the road, we're going to add more about the property tax problem. We'll discuss why homeowners and renters are carrying the weight of sky-high office towers and burgeoning institutions on their backs, and what residents have to do to shift the crushing tax burden back to those who aren't paying their fair share.

The New Boston public schools: privatized and gentrified

info@abnboston.org — 2006-11-26T15:00:21-05:00

Mayor Menino and his School Committee have succeeded in abdicating from their obligation for public education. Where the new gentry are moving in, they just raise their own money, and let the City off the hook. And now, the donors are worrying about diversity -- alas, they can't seem to recruit enough poor families of color into the school!

What's going to happen to schools in neighborhoods that can't raise millions of dollars by making generous donations and tapping their professional contacts? They will be third-world holding pens for the economically doomed.

We are recreating (reinforcing, actually) the urban-surburban split right here, within the city limits. No need for white flight; move the private money around and the people will follow.

This is what will happen to all our public services, if our elected officials have their way. It's already happening in parks -- see previous blog. If you can afford a decent community, make one. The rest of you will get what you obviously deserve....

But .....where do our huge property tax payments go, as the City provides less and less...?

Parks abandoned to beg for charity

info@abnboston.org — 2006-11-26T14:57:41-05:00

I attended a Civic Parks Alliance conference on October 21 titled, "Partners in Parks: Building a Movement." As a landscape architect, I was happy to see all those dedicated advocates for public open space.

But there was, as usual, a basic assumption that we shouldn't expect to get enough government support for parks. We've all heard the excuses: Public budgets are too tight. Park maintenance is too expensive and government can only do "the basics" so we'll have to fund-raise privately for anything more. Parks are abandoned by the government because people and public officials see parks as "frills."

So, we focus on figuring out how to get private resources to support our public realm -- corporate donations, foundations, private philanthropy, "Friends groups," fundraising, user fees and volunteer work.

This is exactly what politicians want us to do: Resign ourselves to losing what we're entitled to as taxpayers and citizens, or step in and pay for things ourselves if we care about them -- and can afford it. It's a false choice, and we shouldn't accept it.

Don't let them off the hook!

If we do, we're headed for a two-tier public realm: Pretty and neat where businesses benefit financially from "good corporate citizenship" and where wealthy residents can afford to protect their safety, aesthetics, environment and property values. Shabby and neglected where there are no tourists to embarrass the politicians, no corporations looking for "good-will" marketing, and people are too busy wrestling with issues of survival, like living wages, education, medical expenses, drugs and crime.

People keep saying that the private sector has to step in and protect our parks, because the public officials won't. Well, they certainly won't if they see that we will.

They've already learned that they can ignore services for poor and powerless people and still stay in office.

And now they're learning that they can ignore services for the new urban gentry, who don't need to spend time begging officials for services; they can just buy their own.

Amazingly, Steve Burrington, Commissioner of Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, said that, after years of neglected parks in urban areas, the "unaffordability of housing in cities" is actually "promising for parks." Translation: Gentrification is the way to get good parks. Displacement of low-income people, who can't make up for government negligence, is an acceptable trade-off.

Look around: it's not only about parks. Parents and teachers are having to pay out-of-pocket for school supplies, activity fees, bus fees -- the City even has a website where teachers can beg for donations! Trash removal and street clean-up are increasingly becoming the responsibility of residents and businesses expected clean up and to “adopt” City trash cans. Transit -- for a select few -- is being privatized by institutions' shuttle bus systems. Even planning is privatized in Boston; the BRA has developers funding their own planning studies!

If we ever want to get our parks properly funded as public domain, we have to ally with advocates for other services to hold our politicians accountable. Let’s not compete with each other for a public pie that’s being shrunk on us.

We can't keep "chasing a receding tide," as one of the conference speakers described private efforts to cover the gap as public investment slides away. We have turn the tide.

The problem is not lack of money; the government isn't impoverished and incompetent -- the myth that politicians use to excuse their abdication. They have the money and can hire the expertise -- just as private friends and conservancies do.

But they choose to create a shortage, a "strategic deficit," as the Reaganite neo-cons call it, by giving away the treasury in corporate welfare, "business incentives," patronage and cronyistic deals, no-bid contracts, and other "waste, fraud and abuse" that is hard for us to find out about.

We have to make it our business to expose those leaks. ABN is now working on a comprehensive inventory. If you have any tips, send them in. We’ll check them out.

We have to tell the mayor and the governor that they owe us our public services, and we won't take a shrug and turned-out pockets for an answer any more. We can only do that if we can confront them with our knowledge of where our money is really going.

'Trow da bums out!'

info@abnboston.org — 2006-11-10T09:41:57-05:00

So this is what democracy looks like! What an election day it was!

Politicians have to be held accountable. Public services has to be an honorable profession. Governments must serve the public interest. Corruption is unacceptable.

This sounds sort of quaint these days, but this election showed that the fundamentals of democracy still lie there, in our hearts, even if we've all but given up on getting them.

And the way to get decent public servants -- aside from flooding them with e-mails and calls when they try something they shouldn't -- is to let them know that election time is accountability time.

But it won't be accountability time unless we do some basic reforms.

The first is to stop the buying and selling of our government. We have to get the legal bribery of campaign contributions out. So we have to force them to pass public campaign financing laws. In Massachusetts, we even voted to do that in 1998, and they repealed it in the dead of night.

And the reason they could get away with that is that the legislature has exempted itself from the "sunshine laws," the Open Meeting and Public Record Laws it wrote for other government bodies to obey. So our lawmakers can hash out these deals and ram them through on voice votes and no one even knows what's happening. So the second thing we have to do is this: The legislature must be made subject to the "sunshine laws."

Third, we need term limits for all offices. No one is so good that power doesn't corrupt them eventually. No one is so smart that s/he can't be replaced. In Massachusetts it's almost impossible to "t'row da bums out" -- we have a 98% incumbent re-election rate. (Boston may be even worse!) Working in secret on behalf of big-money donors, they keep themselves in power forever.

It's not democracy if we go to the voting booth -- and there's no viable choice. So: Fourth, we need to allow free expression of more political choices. We need "Instant Run-off" voting. Almost half of the state's registered voters are not enrolled with a party! They vote reluctantly for Democrats or Republicans -- or drop out of voting altogether because they want something different, and have no way to demand it at the polls without "throwing away" their vote or worrying about handing victory over to the mainstream candidate they want least -- the so-called "Nader" effect. Instant Run-off lets voters rank their candidate choices, and automatically re-assigns their votes to the next choice if the first doesn't have enough to win. With Instant Run-off, you could have voted for Ross, or Mihos, to send a message, and ranked your preferred Dem or Republican second to make your vote count. Independents will have a lot more influence on the D or R agenda if they can bring in the winning margin. I wonder how the independents would have done under Instant Run-off...we'd have seen the true support for their platforms. The initiative for "ballot freedom," or "fusion voting," described in our 10/29 blog posting, didn't pass. But it was on the right track. Now it's time to start an initiative for Instant Run-off, which gives the independents their own candidates and their own voice.

So, now that we've flexed our electoral muscle and seen its power, let's put it to use and get what we need -- with the help of the public offficials, or without it.

Public Record Law

info@abnboston.org — 2006-11-06T21:00:00-05:00

Have you ever put in an information request to a City or State agency under the Public Records Law (it's the state version of the federal Freedom of Information Act)?

If you have, you know how hard it is to get information out of our government, especially if it concerns the actions of elected officials. But with a few specific exceptions, you are entitled to those documents. And you should get them within ten business days.

But to conceal inconvenient truths, government officials and staff find ways to evade the Law. They invalidly claim exceptions, they delay, or they just stonewall and don't answer at all. Instead of waiving the costs to citizens, as the Law encourages, they may threaten to bill you for thousands of dollars for "searching" the information, and charge $.50 a page instead of the $.20 the law allows (the BRA and the City Clerk do this).

You can appeal for help to the State Supervisor of Public Records, Alan Cote, in the Secretary of the Commonwealth's Office. But it takes a long time, and if an official just ignores the request, the Supervisor's hands are tied -- Attorney General Tom Reilly has interpreted the Law in a way that undermines the State's ability to force disclosure. Peter Caruso and Robert Ambrogi are lawyers experienced in PRL cases and knowledgeable about reform efforts; we might invite them and Cote as guest speakers at an ABN forum on this subject. If you have advice to document seekers on how to deal with reluctant officials, please post it here.

The Supervisor and Secretary of State Galvin, together with a couple of legislators, have introduced legislation to reform the law, but without success so far; we need to push reform legislation this session. And one major reform will be especially important and especially difficut: removing the legislature's exemption from the law!

Un-trashing the city

info@abnboston.org — 2006-11-01T09:20:00-05:00

A recent letter in the South End News reveals a City strategy to privatize our trashcanization -- Mayor Menino is gradually removing many City trash cans unless somebody is willing to adopt them.

He's assuming that residents and businesses will get fed up enough with the City's negligence to just pay for services themselves -- this while our property taxes soar.

This has also been happening with parks:

Parks officials are doing more with less, something Commissioner Antonia Pollak calls creative management. She has been forced to rely more heavily on the private sector and the good will of committed residents to take over stewardship of neighborhood parks. The number of volunteer parks groups has grown from 60 to 87 during the past five years.

Have you noticed any removals of trash cans? Have you had to adopt any? What does it cost you?

What should we do about this hidden tax increase?

Ballot Question 2: Fusion Voting

info@abnboston.org — 2006-10-29T23:55:00-05:00

On November 7, we'll have three ballot questions to vote on.

Question 2 is "Ballot Freedom," also called "fusion voting."

Many people would like to vote for a third-party candidate -- to send a message about what they want, even if that candidate can't win -- but they are afraid to throw away their vote, or to be a "spoiler," threatening the victory of the mainstream candidate they prefer and inadvertently helping the candidate they want least (think Nader or Gore vs. Bush).

It's something like run-off voting, where voters rank their preferred candidates and their vote is automatically transferred to their choice with the greatest number of votes. Instant run-off is better because the party platform is more specifically articulated by a party candidate. But right now, we have a chance to vote for fusion, and it's a start toward more political representation across the spectrum.

With fusion voting, different parties can support the same candidate, but the vote numbers show where the support came from, giving the independents some real power in shaping the winner's agenda. It's a tool for coalition building and focusing campaign energy and resources on a candidate that would be more specifically accountable to all of those who vote him/her into office.

It's all very well explained at www.massballotfreedom.com.

Fusion voting isn't an experiment; it has a long history, and is still used in several states. I think it's a great way to bring out more voters, because they know that their vote will say what they mean.

Does anyone know of a down side to it?

Community policing --by institutions?

info@abnboston.org — 2006-10-28T17:49:00-04:00

From Kathleen Devine, Fenway resident:

Earlier this week, I was walking my beagle along The Fenway while thinking about our new police chief, Ed Davis, and his stated commitment to community policing. Community policing likely means different things for different Boston neighborhoods.

While pondering what it might mean for the Fenway, I came upon what was formerly a public alley between Hemenway Street and The Fenway, now blocked off by bright blue steel and concrete bollards and a substantial swinging metal gate, all locked up with a “Northeastern University Police” wooden blockade to complete the picture. The concept of institutional expansion has taken on an entirely new aspect. In addition to gobbling up real estate, the institutions are now creating their own, private municipal infrastructure.

The citizens of Boston now pay for both an under-manned city police force, while also subsidizing the private police forces of tax exempt institutions.

How is it that Northeastern University Police has become the “community police force” in my neighborhood? How did they acquire the right to patrol the streets of the Fenway and block off neighborhood alleys? Over the past ten years Boston’s public parks have become virtually privatized by the City’s failure to fund Parks and Recreation. Will the same process of de-funding now privatize public safety?

In the streets of the East Fenway (Massachusetts Avenue to The Fenway and Boylston Street to Huntington Avenue), if your sleep is being disrupted by a rowdy party at 3 AM on Saturday, a call to Boston Police Area D-4 will bring you to someone who will tell you to call Northeastern Police. A call to NU Police will direct you back to D-4. The Boston Police will tell a caller that they don’t have sufficient manpower to send a patrol car out. The NU Police will claim they don’t have jurisdiction.

The only entity with great clarity in this matter is the Assessor’s Office. They KNOW they want your property tax bill to be paid no matter how little policing you receive in return.

And what about those bright blue bollards? I checked with the City of Boston’s Assessing On-Line. Northeastern University owns the adjacent Melvin Hall, which they describe on their website as a “quiet dorm, with an emphasis on healthy living.” The opposite side of the alley entrance is a private apartment building. The Assessor’s on line map shows the blocked off entrance as a public way. So why is it that Northeastern has taken over control of the access?

This will mean a trip to the City’s Public Improvement Commission Office at City Hall and some further investigation into how this “privatization” of a public way came to be. You can rest assured that there will be no repercussions for NU if it turns out that they acted without permission. The motto of most local institutions is “Better to ask forgiveness than permission.”

Witness the taking of 15,000 square feet of City park land by the Forsyth Institute and the transformation of that land into paved parking. The penalty for that misdeed was the approval by Parks and Recreation to just give it to them. You pave it; it’s yours, I guess. And perhaps that will be the same with “community policing”. You put your patrol cars on the streets and the streets are yours for the taking.