Making Blight Homeless in Springfield...

It seems that code enforcement and homelessness are buzzing around Springfield's digital universe recently. Well, not wanting to be left out of the fray, it seems fitting that I should give comment on the issue.

The New England Rogue Journal, in a recent blurb, detailed how Springfield has the laws on its side when it comes to curbing blight and homelessness. The Journal's observation hits the mark quite well. Springfield, between its own laws, and no particularly important contravening court opinions, has the advantage to combat crumbling homes and homelessness. However, it has been unable to for some time.

Blight is an issue that may require a bit more out of the box thinking. Again, perhaps through a home-rule petition, the city could seek the power (if it does not already possess it) to take properties that sit derelict for so long. If the property is falling apart, yet paid up on taxes, the loss of the meager revenue should not stop the city. However, rather than just have more junk land on its hands, the city should coordinate with neighborhood associations that can work to improve the property and then get it back to the market.

Here's how it could work. If a property owner does not keep their land up, the city eventually seizes it. Then it turns it over to the neighborhood association that then, perhaps through its own resources or via a line of credit from a local bank, cleans and renovates the property. Then the property goes to market. Once sold, the city, which in the renovating period, agreed to suspend collection of taxes for the property, gets its money plus any costs from the seizure. The rest of money will be used to payoff the renovation costs. Anything left over may be taken by the city for blight reduction efforts or channeled into another similar project within the same neighborhood.

Such an effort would need to begin in the city's healthier neighborhoods. Not for snobbish reasons, but because therein exists the money and frankly, less blight. Once its on its feet, the program could move into the more stubbornly blighted areas.

A strong will is necessary to make plans like this happen. The same is true for homelessness. As much has been said about this, I will keep my opinion brief. Basically, we can't end it. The first step to solving a problem is to recognize reality. It is a task that is beyond us. We can seek to curtail it. The city needs to regulate social service agencies or at least control where they may go through zoning. Place them within reach of public transportation to be sure, but they need not be in the heart of downtown or next to the Hall of Fame. Sadly, as one poster on Urban Compass insinuated (NoPolitician), these agencies are run largely by people from the suburbs. Their interests are split from that of the city and that too is a problem. In addition, the inner workings of city government are often lobbied from without the city's borders. No doubt power brokers and money men from outside the city attempt to peddle influence within city hall to the benefit of their own community. We'll get more into that when the municipal elections get closer.

For the moment, that seems not to be a problem. The Control Board keeps influence away from the suburbs as much as it does from the city itself. Charles Ryan, though surely possessing his own cadre of "backers" appears to not be bought. Right now we need to focus on innovation and working with a neighbors to solve problems that affect us all.

Murray and the East...

Ending weeks of speculation, Senate President Robert Travaglini is expected to resign the Senate Presidency and his seat tomorrow. His departure from the Senate will send ripple throughout Massachusetts as the balance of power in Boston shifts once again.

His replacement, expected to be Senator Therese Murray or Plymouth, will take her place within the triumvirate of power on Beacon Hill, which includes the House Speaker, Salvatore DiMasi and the governor, Deval Patrick.

However, the rise of Murray, who will be the first woman to lead either house of the General Court, will also upset the political character of the Statehouse as a whole. Patrick and DiMasi are decidedly left of center in the political spectrum, as indicated by the Globe. Travaglini is more moderate. He has been a bulwark against overtaxing business in the Bay State. He went up against DiMasi during the Universal Health care debate opposing an additional tax on businesses. Murray, however, reportedly sided with Travaglini on that issue. Nonetheless, she holds more liberal stances on social issues, more in line with DiMasi.

DiMasi stands opposed to Patrick's corporate tax hikes. Perhaps no longer having Travaglini as a foil on taxing issues may encourage DiMasi to show more restraint. On the other hand, DiMasi is on the record opposing giving municipalities local option taxes, claiming taxes are too high already. Murray has given no recent statements on the issue. DiMasi and Murray will remain more centrist than the governor given cool receptions to tax hikes and opposition to expansion of gambling statewide.

Murray's ascendancy has implications out West, too. Sen. Stephen Buoniconti has cultivated a very strong relationship with Travaglini. The status of his relationship with Murray, current Chairperson of the Senate Ways & Means committee, is unknown. Springfield's other Senator, Gale Candaras, only took office in January. Travaglini's exit may shake up area politics just as the current Senate President entrance had done. Prior to taking the Senate Presidency, Senator Linda Melconian was Majority Leader. After Travaglini's election in 2003, she no longer held that position. Murray's position on the Control Board and other Springfield related issues could steer the debate on these issue.

In any event, while Therese Murray is certainly a Beacon Hill insider, she is not from Boston, which makes a difference. Plymouth is far enough away from Boston to not be called part of Boston, if you know what I mean. It is far more Cape Cod than anything else. If we're lucky and Murray is as Progressive as she is liberal, she could be the key to breaking state's inertia on several fronts and put this state back on track. Then again, I have been wrong (or idealistic) before.

Who's Representin(g)...

Today's Republican put an interesting spin on a lingering issue in Springfield: Ward Representation.

No matter which side of the fence you sit on, one must find this argument becoming quite amusing. According to the Republican, Judge Ponsor, the Federal Judge in the Voting Rights lawsuit, questioned the nature of the plaintiffs' proposal as it would create FIVE majority white districts out of NINE. Now, I'm pretty good at counting and five is a majority. This assumes everyone votes as a block as if Springfield has a volatile history of racial tension like say Boston ca. 1973? Either way, in whose hands does the power lie?

Ultimately, this entire problem comes down to voting. If all of the minorities in the city voted, this city could have a black or Hispanic mayor and majority on the council. However, they do not and I am taking the extreme and condescending view that all minorities think and vote alike. In my estimate, the plaintiffs in this case are doing the same. Do they expect all blacks/Hispanics to vote with one voice for the candidates that match their ethnicity without looking at the issues and the qualifications of the candidates? Its kind of a tacit form of voter intimidation. Again, this assumes all minorities in the new wards show up to vote. Perhaps the plaintiffs in this case could explain to me how Hispanics do not make up a majority in the Holyoke City Council given that they hold significant influence in the city. It is said to be the largest Puerto Rican city in the lower 48.

Then we come to the next inevitable question. Is there ANY guarantee that those elected from the minority wards will be of that minority? NO. Whites may still live in those wards and may still run for office. Perhaps if they resonate with the voters white or minority they could win. Or more cynically, the minorities may not vote in significant numbers to overcome the votes of whites. We could have the same problem.

I also have to take exception with comments made by some involved with this case. State Rep. Cheryl Coakley-Rivera testified in this case and claimed that her electoral success is due to her being half Irish. Well, while being part Irish in Springfield is certainly a plus regardless of what the other half is, I doubt that it was what made Coakley-Rivera a success. Until recently, I only thought of her as Cheryl Rivera, no Irish hyphenation. I frankly did not even know (or care) that she was part Irish. I'm sure that many in her district felt the same, especially since many in her district have no connection to Eire or any other Caucasian nation. This blog endorsed her for public office because of her tireless advocacy for the city, not her ethnicity. I'm am positive that those who put her in office the first time were of the same mind.

It may be time to pursue a smaller ward plan as currently before the legislature. It carries the risk of empowering old time "ward bosses," however. However, this lawsuit, which I feel stands to only benefit a very select ambitious few, only serves to stratify the city. It pulls it apart at a time when we so desperately need unity. Nonetheless, I stand firm to the saying that "decisions are made by those who show up." If you don't like who's at the party, then its time to make your appearance. It's never too late.

Political Will at the Heart of Budget Issues, Economic Growth...

I apologize to my readers for being AWOL for so long. I simply am going through a scholastic meltdown and frankly blogging is actually a distraction from homework.

I can't bring myself to talk about anything specifically Springfield today as the news is dominated by the tragic apparent Murder-Suicide yesterday. Instead, I will focus on something a little more (or a little less depending on perspective) upbeat: the budget!

Gov. Deval Patrick has of course submitted his budget to the Legislature will it will be refined and repackaged and made to look as they want it. What "they" want is hard to say. Compiling a multi-billion dollar budget with the input of 200 minds and or at a minimum 102 (assuming a minimum majority in both houses) is an arduous task. It will, despite Patrick's best efforts, be riddled with giveaways, political favors, patronage, and Massachusetts own brand of pork-barrel spending. Make no mistake Springfield does get a seat at the buffet, but seriously, do we really need any more decorative lighting? I'd rather hire another police officer for a year or two.

The legislature needs to carefully plug the hole. However, it should at all costs not be done with new taxes. I was mostly on the fence about Patrick's tax plan until Scott Lehigh of the Boston Globe cautioned against the plan. He cited higher business costs in general and recent hikes in unemployment insurance adding to businesses' overall burden. In other words, that the Bay State ranks towards the bottom of corporate taxation (40th and not 47th, as Patrick claims) means little if everything else is expensive. Therefore, I am inclined to agree. While I love lashing out at big business, I believe that their under taxed nature exists primarily at the Federal level, especially when one takes into account the giveaways big business gets in contracts, grants, and sweetheart land-use deals. That does happen in Massachusetts, too, but Massachusetts cannot be arrogant and assume that just because we've got Boston we're going to be all right. Another article in the Globe noted the competition from other major cities which are developing potent health care systems. They could seriously challenge Boston. Sad truth is, Harvard may not be able to save us this time.

So extra taxing is out, or at least needs to be curtailed. With that goes the capacity to dole out local taxing powers. I am not interested in railing against Patrick's proposed meals tax again, but simply note that it will hurt cities like Springfield, Lowell, Brockton, etc the most. Boston, despite Menino's insistence to the contrary, will be hurt too, though not as badly. If any such action is taken, we should adopt the New Jersey method and have the same tax across the board, but have it split with the municipality.

The only other option is cuts. We cannot cut local aid if we are going to prohibit local option taxes. We have a new health care plan to pay for, so nothing there. Roads are falling apart, so nothing there. Hmmm. What's left? Patronage. We need to have a culling of state offices and a reduction of duplicate services. I know its tough, but it is also necessary. While I am aware of the realities of politics in Massachusetts, I hope that the power brokers can, as I have hoped before, recognize that the old-world politics of the past cannot work as before. Tough choices need to be made, if only to preserve the power brokers' power. What power is left if the state loses more Congressional representation (we are doomed to lose at least one in 2010, probably from Western Mass despite the fact that we are one of the few areas that hasn't been stagnant, although Boston did successfully fend off an inaccurate estimate)? Without righting this ship we may lose even more in 2020. What money is left for political favors if big business splits and leaves old and graying communities in their wake? It is a matter of sheer political will and less myopic thinking.

Can we do it? I don't know. It has to start with the Legislature and if they can't do it, we need to starting doing it at the polls.