More Mayoral Mutterings...

In the past two weeks, I have received two comments on my blog, which for me is exhilarating, as it is a rare occurrence. The first you can read under "Making Blight Homeless..." The second, I did not publish under the entry in response to which it was posted. My reasoning being that I wished to respond more appropriately than I could by simply posting a reply.

Here is the entry AS IS:

"As there will be an election and as the City will need to b governed adults
have no choice but to vote, but to decide but to act. Your column seems to say
sitting on the sidelines or not either endorsing or advocating an alternative is
a point of pride. Sorry no who currently lives in that city has that same
luxury. Charlie Ryan is the best option there is, no one stands nearly as tall
in the city right now. He may not be your ideal, but your posting itself
endorse s him as the best alternative, which in the end is what real politics is
about, not the perfect choice but the best available choice."

Now, if one can get past the loose control of the keyboard, a crime I myself am often guilty of, I would like to make a few points. First of all, it is only April. WMassP&I has plenty of time to endorse a candidate. Second, there is no pride whatsoever in not endorsing anybody. I am just keeping my options open. To that end, as this is simply a blog that is published by a college student, I am under no obligation to air a direct endorsement anyway. I vote, and thus my obligations are fulfilled. In that sense, I am unimpressed by those who think they are taking some kind of stand by not voting. Third, sadly, friends, many Springfield residents do take that luxury of choosing no one (not voting) and I hold them as accountable as those who voted for officials complicit in the current situation. Finally, I agree. Politics is about choosing the best candidate, even if he or she is not your ideal. I am not a fool or idealistic neophyte.

In other news...Domenic Sarno is probably running for mayor. According to the Republican, Councilor Sarno is making an "exciting" announcement at St. Anthony's Hall, the same place Ryan announced his third 21st Century run. Sarno's tenure goes back to 2000. At that point, most of the damage that left us in the current situation had been done. Nonetheless, business as usual did carry on for another three years thereafter. To get a better handle on the situation, it would be nice to research City Council votes and dig up some more dirt on Sarno. In addition, we need to have a clearer picture on what his views about the Control Board are. Whoever the mayor is, they need to understand the good the Board has done and not necessarily be in a rush to abolish just, well, just because, as the reason for many seems to be. The mayor needs to work with it and not against it.

Of course this is all speculation. We will not know Sarno's true intentions until May 1. Until then...

Still Kicking and Ready for One Last Hurrah...

Well he's made it official. Springfield Mayor, Charles Ryan, has announced that he is running for re-election. According to the Republican, Ryan at age 79, will once again seek the top slot in the city this November.

His campaign will likely focus on a laundry list of solid accomplishments made possible largely by the Control Board. After a recent hospital scare, Ryan appears undaunted by the prospects of another campaign even joking through the announcement that he knew Caleb Rice, the city's first mayor upon Springfield becoming a city.

For many, Ryan run was probably not altogether surprising. The recent moves of politicians throughout the area provide the most compelling evidence of this. Brian Lees sudden, last-minute, and ultimately successful decision to run for Clerk of Courts is the best evidence so far. Whether Lees had any inside information is impossible to know. More likely, he made a judgement call based on the actions of the mayor.

To his credit, Ryan had long kept his intentions close to the breast. Outside of his family and closest confidantes, Ryan remained tight lipped about whether he would run; just as he had done in 2005. The only hint that most could find was his mention of his hospitalization not affecting any decision to run. In retrospect, that was tantamount to an announcement.

With Ryan in the race, the race will likely be a snoozer. Many of the most interesting candidates have already said they will not run if Ryan does (Hint: Look for 2009 to be one hell of a campaign, hopefully). He will very likely have an opponent, but frankly I doubt that he or she will be any stronger than Thomas Ashe was in 2005. In addition, despite seeing Charles Ryan as one of the architects of the Control Board, many also see him as the only person who can act as ambassador between the city and Board. Certainly the President of the City Council can and does take on that role too, but the mayor has a special position of working with Executive Director Phil Puccia. Furthermore, the jury was still out on the Control Board in 2005. In 2007, there is little doubt that the Control Board's efforts, however painful for some (union contracts, trash fee), has yielded results.

It may be premature to talk about Ryan's legacy, but ultimately history will have no choice, but to be kind to Charles Ryan. The Control Board itself, and possibly the State Legislature/Governor, will probably take the brunt of any negative assessments of this period in the city's history. Certainly his tenure in the 21st century as mayor will outshine his earlier one in the 60's. In 2003, I oppose Ryan's candidacy and advocated for Linda Melconian. I called Ryan out of touch and figured his administration would do little to fix the situation. I was neither right nor wrong. His administration, by itself could do nothing, but he was able to appeal the Legislature for help, however meager. I again opposed the Control Board, but discovered over time that there was no alternative. Ironically, it was the electorates choices in the past, which in retrospect were far worse than Ryan, that made the Board necessary.

I am hardly ready to endorse Charles Ryan for Re-election. The 2005 election was my first chance to vote and I did not vote for Ryan (nor Ashe). However, unlike some people (my former city employee grandmother for one) I am willing to hear what he has to say and consider that Ryan's return may have been one of the better thing that happened to this city in recent memory.

Photo from Valley Advocate*

Still Here...

Good Evening, folks.

Just wanted to hope anybody who's still reading (or attempting to) hasn't completely given up on me. I've been swamped with homework and real work. I'm hoping to get back to full blogging mode very soon. In the meantime, I encourage you to thumb through past entries for some entertainment. Just don't leave! LOL.

Anyway, thanks for your support. WMassP&I will be up and running 100% very soon.

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.

Springfield is Booked...

At long last, a settlement between the Springfield Library and Museum Association and the City of Springfield has been reached. From the looks of it, the city is the big winner and the Association does not appear to giving much up.

First and foremost, the Central Library will remain the Central Library...for the foreseeable future. While the city can opt to relocate, they have a twenty-five year lease and, if I'm interpreting the news correctly, have a right to one in perpetuity in five year increments as long as they stay there. For library afficiados like myself, this is key. The Springfield Central Library is to Springfield what the old, yet fully functional, libraries in New York and Boston are to those cities. It does not matter that it is a Carnegie library, rather because it is an awesome building in which to have a library. Lots of the new artsy, modern libraries are cool, but simply do not fit, in my view, what a library should be. It should be majestic and awesome, to match the feeling of gaining knowledge.

The Association will also grant the city the right to take title of the four branch library still owned by SLMA. This is not a huge deal, as they were trying to unload them anyway. However, this will assure that the city can maintain the branches that it has without worrying about leases for another four buildings.

After the Central Library's news, the best part was totally unexpected. City residents will be able to go to the museums FREE OF CHARGE. Harkening back to the good old days when local banks were numerous and local contributors' pockets deep, are fully open to the public. In exchange the city is also upping its annual contribution to the Association by $200,000 to $1.3 million. While I would like to see improvements to exhibit, namely in the Science Museum, that can be saved for the city's flusher times. In any case, as only one piece of good news out of many for the city (see Urban Compass), things may deffinately be looking up.

Incidentally, this entire situation of a City-run library system and ultimately this agreement started and ended with Charles Ryan. He was not mayor at the time that he led a revolt against the truncated library hours following massive state aid cuts. However, it did signal his return to the city's center stage. With this issue settled, it may seem fitting that this will be his last term as mayor. Just a little musing there. In any case, future generations will remember him for this and not just the Control Board. I'm not saying they'll be raising any monuments to him in the Quadrangle either, but who knows?

However, the results are tangible. Having a city-run library, though initially opposed by some, including my former librarian grandmother, has had its benefits. Branches are open more, and the library is controlled by the city rather than the Association, which typically favored the museums over the library. The Association for some time was dominated by the suburbs, which had their own libraries. Following the separation, fears arose over the status of the Central Library. However, with the issue settled and part of the Association's board guaranteed to be Springfield residents, the city and Association might be able to finally get their acts together and remember whom they serve...the community.

High Office, High Fashion...

Renovation from Square One...

The key to reviving Springfield and making it stand on its own is the maintenance, restoration, and in some cases, resuscitation of the city's neighborhoods. However, downtown's restoration is among the most costly and most complicated in the city.

In my view, as well as the view of other prominent politicians, the renovation of Union Station is essential. However, in recent years the project has stalled, casualty to the seemingly endless black hole of municipal corruption. The project would be dead were it not for the advocacy of Cong. Richard Neal and the inevitable answer of what to do with the unspent moneys remaining.

The need is obvious. The Amtrak station today, though humble and efficient, limits the rails' potential. I speak not of the planned commuter rail, which I support only guardedly. Annual Amtrak ridership hovers around 115,000. I think there is room for growth if Amtrak spruces up the New Haven-Spfld line and we get better Boston connections. The bus station is a disgrace. If you're into olfactory punishment, walk in there and take a big whiff. You will then understand and hopefully come over to my side. The current renovation, however, calls for bizarre arrangements, which include a ramp for buses up to track level (why?), negotiations with CSX (good luck), and private investment (long since vanished). It appears that this project was ill conceived and ill managed. Large multimillion dollar government projects can and do succeed. Well planned and well-designed, if a little over budget and behind schedule, the new federal courthouse will be completed in less than a year.

Union Station, if it is to ever see glory again, must start over. Certainly I am no engineer and I cannot offer cost estimate for the proposals I am to lay out here. However, the debate needs to begin quickly so it can end and move on to real work and progress. I apologize in advance to the crudity of these images*.

Above is a Google Map/Satellite hybrid of the area surrounding Union Station. I have added color coded overlays to the map to indicate alterations that would be made to the station and to the street scape.

To begin as is marked in red, Frank B. Murray Street would be made one-way and closed to traffic excluding buses. Intercity buses and city buses could enter from either direction on Main Street following an alteration to the median between the "Arch" and Liberty Street. Buses would then pull into the station's former loading docks that face the street, as seen here in a photo from The Rogue Journal. That area is also marked with a red faded cloud to the left of the word "bus docks." Buses would exit following a new road, also in red, that would dump onto Liberty Street. Just below that red cloud over the old cargo docks is a yellow bubble. If the docks may be insufficient as is, following a slight demolition of part of the station now flush with the sidewalk, more bus gates could be added. In green, to the immediate left, I have indicated the only place where I believe private property taking may be necessary. This would only be needed if widening Frank B. Murray becomes necessary to facilitate bus movements. Finally, I have indicated in orange, the path of a smaller, simpler ramp to carry buses over part of the property of the current bus terminal to Frank B. Murray, eliminating buses' need to compete with Main Street traffic. This part of the proposal is optional, but has the benefit of allowing Frank B. Murray to be physically closed from Main Street and prevent hapless drivers from wondering into the path of buses. Peter Pan could sell or develop the old terminal, but keep the garage. An air walk indicated in purple, would cross Main Street and connect to new development on the plot formerly occupied by the Hotel Charles.

With most of Frank B. Murray cut off to passenger cars, a new way to circulate private automobile traffic to the station must be developed. The blue oval that connects Frank B. Murray, Liberty, and Dwight Street denotes where a road could be built to drop-off passengers. The larger oval also represents the boundary for a new park. The smaller oval, which would probably be ideal as it feeds into current traffic arrangements better, preserves the new park, and still allows efficient circulation into and out of Union Station. The final piece of the puzzle is on Lyman Street. The current station entrance would be maintained and used as the station's taxi stand. While private automobiles would be discouraged from picking up and discharging passengers there, it would not be prohibited.

Most of these plans are exterior and street modification, but these also seem to be the ones that are holding up the project most. Current interior renovation plans will probably be sufficient. I would encourage Amtrak to maintain their current facility, but expand into the main building. Ticketing and baggage would move into new facility, while the smaller track level waiting room could remain. Amtrak Police might serve their mission best by remaining at track level. Main waiting facilities would be in the station, however. In addition, high level platforms should be built for at least part of the platform length to accommodate easier boarding. High level platforms are a problem for freight trains so this would be need to be taken into consideration. In exchange for track and bridge maintenance in and around Springfield, I would offer Amtrak its space rent-free. To be fair the same would be offered to Peter Pan. Hopefully retail business would support the building's general operation.

As has been said before, the unfortunate part of the situation is that Union Station faces away from most of downtown. Indeed, as far back as the 1940's, the entrance on Lyman street, facing most of what was then and still is downtown, saw the bulk of foot traffic. However, with the improved traffic flow, it is possible that downtown may see an expansion north and make better use of the space between the railroad and 291. Union Station can be the starting point at integrating the two bisected regions of downtown.

Like no other, this project represents the city: stuck in neutral amid controversy and corruption. Its success is a must for a wider downtown and city revival.

*Please email wmasspi@yahoo.com for a better quality picture of the map.

Oh, no. 0-8!: Will the Real Mitt Romney Please Stand Up...

One-time Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney announced this week in Michigan that he was running for president of the United States. Meanwhile back in good ol' bleeding heart liberal Massachusetts, Bay Staters responded with shock and disbelief. Allow me to qualify. Bay Staters living under a large and soundproof rock responded in that way. Surely one would need to be a complete and utter fool to think that Romney declined to run for reelection as Governor for any other reason.

Although a Bay Stater, and this blog's main focus being "Western" Bay State politics, I am going to overlook the cynical, though probable, notion that Romney used us all as a giant step stool for the Presidency. Certainly there is precedent in other states AND it could be argued that Romney, may have declined to seek the presidency in 2008 against a Democratic incumbent (John Kerry?), had he prevailed in 2004.

However, whatever Romney's motives, plans, and schemes, the biggest problem with a Mitt Candidacy is deciding who Mitt Romney is. Is it the son of the late former Michigan Governor? Is it the man who "saved" the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics? Is it the venture capitalist who captured the Corner Office that same year? Is it the governor who presided over the introduction of Gay-marriage, a National political convention, universal health care legislation, and fiscal crisis? Is it the man who stood up after the Big Dig tunnel collapse and took command? Or is it somebody totally different?

These myriad descriptions are often in conflict with each other. Romney ran as a social moderate, or at the very least, a tolerant social conservative. Then came gay marriage. However, this may have been too much for his social conservativeness to stomach. However, he veered right on gay-adoption, sex-ed, and more. Romney made decisions, at least as I am sure he saw it, as a pro-business pragmatist, vowing to not raise taxes and cut the income tax. Yet, he raised fees for many, many things. He fought to end redundancies in state government (i.e. Boston Municipal Court, Turnpike Authority, Metropolitan District Commission, etc) with varying success. However, this attack on such agencies, which I find proper, could be dismissed as a politically motivated attack on traditional venues for Democratic patronage.

Once out there in the world, which was before his last year in office began, Romney began to mingle with the right to develop an image as the anti-McCain for the right of the Republican party. Nonetheless, he has had difficulty gaining credibility for being conservative enough. Perhaps the right feared he's feigning conservatism to win the nomination then swing to the center, opposite of his 2002 gubernatorial campaign. Yet, after the Republican bruising and delicious defeat last November, Romney's arm hasn't been around the right so much. After all, Bush and the GOP's old party line is no longer en vogue. Diehards like Sam Brownback, also running for the GOP nod, maintain the fanaticism. Not Romney.

I fully intend, barring unforeseen and unlikely circumstances, to check the box of the Democratic ticket for President. However, despite all his subterfuge, the only Republican running whose administration wouldn't scare me is Romney's. I would add Giuliani, but I can't picture the party nominating him. I believe that Romney is far more moderate than recent actions suggest. Still to the right of the man running for "gov'nah" in 2002, but otherwise centrist and open to working with all parties, unlike some Commanders-in-Chief. McCain, who will get his own place here, is not nearly as moderate as his reputation suggests.

Oh and Romney's a Mormon. I don't care and neither should anybody else. However, it does add just another persona for us to cull from the others.

Not Boarding Up Yet...

Surprise, surprise. The Springfield Finance Control Board (FCB), will endure for another year. Much to this blogger's relief, the municipal election will not be such that councilors engage in a footrace as to which FCB policy they will reverse first. Whether it is right or not, the strategy is counter-productive.

However, while I reluctantly welcome this development, I cannot help but wonder why it took Patrick so long to say he's going to keep up to status quo for another year. As it stands, he has signaled no particular interest in restructuring the city's payback of the state loan, the composition of the board, or the unrest about the FCB lack of public speak out. He expressed his desire for Springfield to stand on its own, as if he were the only one, or at least the first one suggesting the idea. I am pretty sure that Presidential ambitions aside, Romney wanted that, and members' questionable ability of finding Springfield on a map notwithstanding, the entire Statehouse wanted/wants that as well. However, since I support the move, I will be a good little Democrat and reserve my attacks against the governor until we disagree about something. Don't worry, it won't be long.

Now, as we move into what may be the last chapter of the board, it is decision time. Council President Walsh, though hoping the City Council would regain its power, may try to act as an ambassador for the City Council via her seat on the FCB. That her Council Presidency will be under the FCB for it entirety, makes her moves difficult to predict. However, she will likely steer the FCB to develop a more substantive transition process for when the inevitable restoration of home rule occurs.

The legislature has decisions to make, too. They could decide to act unilaterally and extend or abolish the board themselves. However this seems unlikely. Other than getting its money back from the loan, the legislature by and large does not seem to care about the board, and will probably accede to whatever Gov. Patrick decides...at least when it comes to the board's length. The legislature WILL need to decide what it wants to do about repayment. Assuming he sticks around for the long-haul, Senate President Travaglini, having a good relationship with WMass Senators, will put the issue up for debate, forcing the House to do the same. While from a purely provincial and myopic point of view, forgiving the debt would be wonderful, I do not find it to be productive. Extending the repayment schedule is the fairest way to go about the debt. It gives Springfield a chance to get its act together, but also encourages, in fact demands, responsibility. I do believe, that as a gesture, the state should forgive the amount of loan borrowed for the cost of the FCB including Puccia's salary and staff, studies, and other costs directly attributed to the board.

Hey, if for no other reason the city has a 375th birthday coming up in four years. Hopefully, by then the city's will be looking to some nice presents to open up like a stable economy, fair local aid, good jobs, and not just bills.

Trash-Politics...

Well that was fun, huh? All that mudslinging and legal wrangling over the trash fee only to result in...a trash fee? It would appear that the trash fee opponents got what they wanted as all reports say they've claimed victory. But what was really won? Frankly, I haven't a clue.

This blog, I hope was clear, opposed the trash fee on principle. However I know that the alternative is continuous fiscal malaise and I pray to the almighty that one day the city will have the financial wherewithal to discontinue the fee. Therefore, I have found that accepting it is the only solution in the short-term.

So the question really is, what did these righteously indignant (sarcasm) property owners including Representative Cheryl Coakley-Rivera really accomplish? The city will be able to implement the fee this summer. It will be no less, but unlikely more, than $90. Documentation of alternative service, as necessitated by state environmental law, will be necessary for the city to accept a resident's non-pickup of garbage; most citizens will be hard pressed to find a cheaper alternative to the city's pickup, however. The agreement makes no mention of the "taxing" nature of the fee, which the plaintiffs complained about first. Given Judge Constance Sweeney's focus on the intimidatory nature of the fee, in violation of Emerson College v. City of Boston, the plaintiffs probably realized their original argument was legally dubious. Sweeney was hopefully aware of the potential statewide implications of her ruling and encouraged a settlement. The city did knock down some of the barriers to utilizing private hauling, but by and large the fee stands.

The cynic would have thought that Coakley-Rivera's actions were part of an elaborate attention-getting plot in preparation for a mayoral run. However, she has dismissed getting into the race being a witness in the Ward-Representation lawsuit. In addition, Coakley-Rivera does not need to manufacture events to get attention. She is, mostly for the good, I'd like to think, a well-known figure citywide.

So, for now, I urge the Control Board, whether in its last throes of life or simply as Churchill said the "end of the beginning," and Executive Director Puccia to find alternatives to the fee, or at least form a long-term plan that allows it to be phased out in due time.

Boston Beat: Truth in Advertising...

Undoubtedly, anybody worldly enough to be reading this blog must have heard about the scare Boston experienced this week over the strange little lit signboards scattered across the area, advertising the Cartoon Network show Aquateen Hunger Force. This little ad campaign, known as guerrilla advertising because people are hired to simple place the ads all over, was performed in metropolitan areas nationwide. However, only Boston had the scare.

Commentators have noted that this whole thing belies a generation gap between teen/twenty-something age group and their parents/elders. The fans of the show, described primarily, but not exclusively as the "stoner set," often found the whole hullabaloo funny. It is unlikely that panicked at all when confronted with the little lighted figures from the show. In fact, many have commented that the response in Boston, however good, was an overreaction.

There is some good in knowing that Boston and State police were able to respond quickly, efficiently, and do so with, despite traffic and MBTA tie ups, a minimum of fuss. I rode the T to purchase a train ticket that day and knew nothing about the slowdowns. I did not hear about it until the next day in Globe. However, others, myself included, believe that this represents a double edged sword. It is EXCELLENT that people are vigilant. The jerks who placed these signs in Boston and elsewhere should have told police about them, if not discreetly, as this type of ad campaign could violate permitting laws. However, it is also a commentary about paranoia. When does vigilance become paranoia? When does paranoia dismiss all reason and common sense? These are important questions we must be prepared to ask.

Now the two twerps accused of this thing, inappropriately termed a hoax by officials, deserve what is coming to them. As stated, they did not alert authorities about placing these ads, they stayed quiet during the turmoil, and the smug little bastards laughed their way through a makeshift press conference. In addition, unlike in the other cities, they placed them in places (bridges, tunnels, etc) which seem to be targets for attacks anyway. Peter Berdovsky and Sean Stevens, from certain sources, were not simply laughing out of fear. Contrary to what one of their grandparents said, the very much thought the situation hilarious. Needless to say, for the sake of appearance, one of the suspects lawyers issued a statement expressing their client's regret.

Turner Broadcasting, the owner of Cartoon Network admirably stepped forward and agreed to compensate state and municipal authorities for the cost of the operations. All told it will probably cost between 1 and 2 million dollars. But hold your applause. Turner will make that back, if it has not already, simply from boosted viewership of the show. Controversy breeds interests, and while inflated numbers will be soft, advertisers (ironically), will pay up to put their junk on Aquateen. Some sources suggest one ad buy, before the incident, for the show cost about $750,000 or roughly what the city of Boston estimates its response costs were.

In that same vein, despite the fact that Turner will make off like bandits from this, the state and city should not be greedy and attempt to induce some pain and suffers ancillary damages. Everybody should just be happy that their response was effective. Ask Turner for the cost of the response. They'll hand it over willingly. Turning this into a legal battle benefits nobody. The taxpayers will end up the losers that way. Turner already did the adult thing by apologizing. In a society that rarely acts like that, we don't need to antagonize further.

Pension Security, Equality...Today...

Today's Globe featured an editorial expressing support for some mild pension reform. After William Bulger, the brother of FBI-wanted James "Whitey" Bulger, successfully got his pension boosted due to some add-ons, there has been something of a cry for change in how the state calculates pensions. Springfield has seen its own ups and downs with pension laws between Paula Meara's golden parachute, which arguable was just to get rid of her, and excuse me while I bilk more money out of Springfield citizens after I retire/keep working* Kathleen Pellegrino.

Government pensions are a hot-button issue across the country as more and more boomers head toward retirement and liabilities pile up. In addition, as is my understanding, while a number of private pensions go up, they are actually better funded and to some extent better protected due to Federal regulations. Just as federal law cannot dictate state employee law, neither can it directly dictate state pensions, except where they step into the wider net of financial services.

The state has an approximately $3.8 billion pension shortfall. Now, that may seem like a lot of money, and it is. But it is also only 18.5% of the entire pension liability for Massachusetts. Compared to the potentially catastrophic shortfall in NYC, estimated to be as high as $49 billion, we're kind of lucky. However it will require us taking a look at the system as a whole.

However, starting small and starting with keeping ridiculous add-ons from being the responsiblity of our children, me included is a good first step. Treasurer Cahill supports legislation, which would only look at salary when determining pension payout. State Senate Minority Leader Republican Richard Tisei suggests a more expansive reform which would cap a potential annual pension at around 93,000 grand, I assume adjusted as needed according to inflation.

However, this proposal, as the Globe points out, is probably dead on arrival. Cynically, because it is a GOP idea it will not pass. Because the Globe's editorial board cannot make such outrageous claims, as I can, they note that unions will oppose any measure that curtails potential pensions. However, I would challenge the unions to produce any member who could ever hope to collect a pension as sweet as $93,000 annually.

Frankly, everybody needs to be adult about the situations with our pensions and wider fiscal situation. Amazingly, though admittedly with a gun to both their heads, union contracts were negotiated after a long Mexican standoff in Springfield. I congradulate the municipal unions for recognizing that the choice was not between getting what the city offered and what their members wanted. Rather it was between what the city offered or more layoffs and less benefits anyway.

Responsible negotiation on Beacon Hill and elsewhere is the only way we can guarantee that we can pay the pensions that workers have earned. The alternative is broken promises for everyone. Taxes won't help, but only drive more people away compounding the problem. It's easier to convince voters you're taxing them for a road or "T" service, than for a pension. We shall see.

*(Sarcasm/personal opinion)

One Little, Two Litte, Three Little Congressmen...

John Kerry will never be President of the United States. While he did come out of the election of 2004 in a condition that did not preclude another run, as 2008 was largely seen as Hillary's year, gaining the nomination became much more difficult. His gaffe about getting stuck in Iraq killed any remaining hope.

There is, however, another side to this story, namely that he will run for the Senate again in 2008. While it would certainly be possible for him to run for president, fail, and then run for Senate, this would likely have angered the Congressman-in-waiting who one day hope to become Senator. We saw this when discussions began when Kerry was running for president. Half the state Congressional delegation was making plans to run.

Kerry's decision to run for Senate again has implications for the Congressman drooling, including Mike Capuano, Jim McGovern, Stephen Lynch and others, over the prospect of a promotion. I'm sure som Reps were rooting for a Kerry Presidential campaign, or a quiet retirement. With Kennedy winning a new term and in office until AT LEAST 2013 that day is delayed at least that long. The Boston Globe spoke today about how Kerry's action keeps Congressman and state officials in stasis. Frankly, the Congressman have more to wait for as only 3 real promotions exist, Governor and the two Senate seats. State reps can run for lesser statewide offices and, while the last open seat was in 2000, its more likely a House Rep will retire than a Senator.

But, I'm blabbering on. Many, as the Globe article notes, like Congressmen Barney Frank and Marty Meehan are more content to stay put having cushy Committee Chairs after 12 years of minority status. Area Congressmen Richard Neal and John Olver were, to my recollection, the only two Mass. Reps who categorically dismissed interest in Kerry's seat.

While certainly I cannot predict the future, no Congressional seats in Massachusetts will open up anytime soon. The sole exception would be Cong. Olver's seat. While he certainly could run again and this blog would support him, his health may prohibit another run. His seat is unique as, while the third and sixth Mass districts have had Republicans Reps as recently as 1997, this region of Mass is most likely to sway to the GOP. Growing cities like Westfield, whose State Rep and Senator are Republicans hold sway the Mass First. The only other potential shakeup, likely will not occur until 2012, the first election after reapportionment. We will regrettably lose one seat after the 2010 Census.

As I do not see Richard Neal retiring, a day I will lament, before then (Boland represented Springfield for 35 years), any redistricting will probably compensate for the potential GOP slant of WMass and incorporate liberal bastions of Springfield and Northampton in the First Mass District. That assumes a First and Second merger. However redistricting elsewhere in the state may change the Massachusetts electoral math.

Kerry's Senate campaign also poses a problem for the state GOP. They can be competitive in statewide races by winning moderate voters, as Gubernatorial victories have shown. Only because our Senators are political juggernauts has this not happened for Senators. As the Globe article notes, a weakened Kerry will face a strong GOP challenger, but nothing like Weld's '96 challenge. Kerry will win. The GOP, which faces an uphill battle with specially gerrymandered Congressional seats anyway, could only win an open House seat. Current incumbents are too popular. Weak incumbents would probably cede their seat in the primary.

So there you have it. Kerry's decision has enormous repercussions in Massachusetts! In 2008, things will stay the say the same!

*Click on maps to view

A Statement for the Lack of Union for and in Washington...

Tonight, the President of the United States gives his first State of the Union to a Democratic Majority Congress. While I could easily rip apart what will likely be a sad attempt for the president to appear by bipartisan, I decided instead to comment on a little piece of State of the Union gossip.

According to the Washington Post, newly elected Mayor Adrian Fenty of the District of Columbia has declined to sit with Laura Bush during the SotU. I cannot blame him I have never been a fan of Laura Bush. Ever since her comment on being a "desperate housewife," however playful and this carton by the Oregonian's Jack Ohman, I was all done with her. It struck a chord with me, as I can relate to the woman in the picture. She is truly desperate with bills, job loss, and many other forces beyond her control.

Certainly, Fenty is not declining to sit with the First Lady over a nearly two-year old cartoon. Officially, politics have nothing to do with it. Well, make that party politics. Fenty, who made this an issue in his campaign for mayor, chose sitting as a guest of Speaker Nancy Pelosi over the President's ambivalent to skeptical position on the issue of the District's voting rights in Congress.

As many do not know, or perhaps care, Washington, DC our nation's capital, has no voting representation in Congress. Despite having a population that exceeds Wyoming by more than 50,000, the city only has its voice heard during Presidential Elections. Eleanor Norton Holmes, Washington's delegate to Congress, can only vote on committees, very much like the Resident Commissioners from Puerto Rico and elsewhere. However, unlike Puerto Rico, DC is subject to all federal taxes. Giving them a block of votes in the Electoral College was likely just a nod to this fact.

Before Congress is a bill that would grant Washington the right to vote without the messy and thus far disastrous attempts through an amendment process. The bill would permanently up the number of Reps in the House to 437, which is good because the number set EIGHTY years ago is grossly out of date. Utah, which felt cheated during reapportionment last time, would get one seat and the District would get the other. Granting the district voting power in the Senate, which the GOP would not support since the Senators would almost certainly and always be Democrats, would likely need a Constitutional Amendment.

The alternative is to grant the district statehood. Aside from raising the ire of Rhode Island for losing the "smallest state" distinction, this creates a problem. If a state, the government capacity to exercise control over the nation's capital is curtailed. Washington should remain, to some extent under the control of the Federal Government. The government needs to retain the flexibility to exercise control over the land where embassies and federal agencies sit, while exercising discretion over vetoing issues that have nothing to do with federal government.

Eventually and ideally, an amendment may be passed; it would retain its special distinction as a District and a city within the United States, which more than any other belongs to all Americans. However, it would also provide the same voting powers in the Senate and House like any other state in the Union possesses.

Oh, No. 0-8!: Is the Nation Going to Hill?...

Well, it is official. Hillary Rodham Clinton, former First Lady and Junior Senator from New York is starting up a Presidential Exploratory Committee for 2008. Translation: She's running. While such a move by Barack Obama is a little more ambiguous given his intention to make a final decision in February, I'm pretty sure that this is Sen. Clinton's long awaited and definitive move toward a candidacy.

I'm not just starting a campaign, though, I'm beginning a conversation -- with you, with America. Because we all need to be part of the discussion if we're all going to be part of the solution. And all of us have to be part of the solution.

-Sen. Hillary Clinton in her video message.

Sen. Clinton has played this one very well. She has said nothing and needed to do little in order to run. Just by being the Senator from New York, she made history and stayed in the spotlight. She was the first former First Lady to run for office and not since Eleanor Roosevelt had a Presidential wife had any significant post-White House political career.

In a number of ways, Clinton has among the best resumes for becoming President. She has a history of forging bipartisan relationships in the Senate and served on the Armed Services Committee. As First Lady, she was a Full Fledged Presidential advisor and the most influential First Lady since, again, Eleanor Roosevelt. Her career goes even further back as a lawyer for Congress during the Watergate Hearings.

However, Hillary also stirs up controversy. She did vote for in favor of going into Iraq, a vote which was predicate on untrue, if not phony, intelligence and while the President held Democrats in a political headlock (the vote was taken just before the '02 Midterms). In addition, for all the good will she has cultivated among Republicans in the Senate, her place as a more or less member of the Clinton Administration stirs up the ire of Anti-Clintonists everywhere. What Democrats often say is, "Sure, she can get the nomination, but can she win?"

The truth is, nobody knows. Against our one-time Governor Mitt Romney, probably. While Romney has a lot going for him, at least in terms of National Politics, he's a pipsqueak next to Hillary Clinton. Against McCain, Clinton has to hope America realizes how conservative ol' John is. Then there is the truly pie-in-the-sky possibility of a Rudy Giuliani campaign. If on some distant planet he won the GOP nomination and she won the Dems nod, we'd have the brawl everybody expected for Senate in 2000.

Personally, I believe that Sen. Clinton has already made history and would wield far greater power as the Senator from New York for the foreseeable future. Unless she loses, which she may, that is now unlikely. The truth is, however, this is her only shot. She did not run, wisely, in 2004. While certainly not impossible for her to run in 5, 9 years hence, the odds are against her both with age and political atmosphere in 2012 and 2016, respectively.

Not running in 2004 is the opposite of what Sen. Obama is doing, now. She was where he is now, ironically enough from Illinois her home state. As stated before, I want to see Barack Obama become president. However, it is a mistake for him to go into it without another election to the Senate and without even finishing his first term.

The press has decided, somewhat cynically, but not entirely inaccurately, that this is a race between Clinton and Obama. Were this a one-person runaway, we'd have some wiggle room for an unknown, like say Bill Clinton in '92, to get in. If in 2008, Clinton and Obama stay at each others' throats for a while, other candidates will be drowned out. If one or the other bows out early, a hanger on may develop some press attention and money and pull an upset. Frankly the political math is impossible to predict for two reason: we do not yet know who's running for the Dems' nod and we don't know who the GOP front man will be.

Either way, with only a few possible and unlikely exceptions, this blog and its webmaster will support the Democratic Nominee. With how much passion and exuberance is yet to be determined.

Age is Just a State of Mind...

This is what I keep telling my grandmother and, increasingly, my mother as well. However, nobody needs to tell that to Charles Ryan, who ironically was a neighbor of my grandmother's when he was mayor. While, I have never been a big political supporter of Ryan, I admit that history has borne him out of a lot of things, like the need for the Control Board. We'll get back to that.

Anyway, after reading the transcript from the press conference at his house on Heather Brandon's Urban Compass, I have reaffirmed my faith in the "chronologically challenged" as I often say in a half-mockingly PC description. Certainly, as the state's most senior mayor, Charles Ryan can be held up as a poster child against Ageism, yes a real and growing problem.

While not driving me to jump on his campaign bandwagon, which still may or may not happen, I was delighted to hear Ryan's opposition to casinos in Springfield. He described the negative effects well:

Casino gambling, whatever economic spin it might have, is also a one-way ticket to poverty for a lot of people, to shattered lives. I follow closely the effects of casino gambling in Connecticut. You hear about all of the money that some rich guy, who nobody seems to know—casino gambling means they get your money, and they keep your money. But also, we have women walking into the Thames River, and committing suicide, because they have a destroyed life. To really go down that route, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with the assets we have, the strengths we have, I think is a bad trip. And I agree with the morning editorial in the [Republican] that says that so far as anybody in Springfield's thinking about it, it's adding gasoline to fire. I mean it's just crazy.

He also reiterated support for a Control Board extension, playing down Lt. Governor Tim Murphy's comments at AIC last week. While I'm not for the three year extension he suggested, necessarily, I do admit that having the Control Board around a bit longer is a good thing, especially with its Economic Development successes, namely Performance Food Group, in its pocket. However, in a nod to Kateri Walsh's comments to me about democratically elected officials determining Springfield's fate, I think that something needs to be done to include them more. If for no other reason, it will provide for a smoother transition down the line.

In other news, Barack Obama officially started an exploratory committee to run for President. See Oh, no, 0-8: Obama for my take on that.

I swear to God, the next entry will be about something else in Springfield besides, the mayor, Control Board, or the City Council or maybe a state/national issue. Maybe a new serial in Oh, no. 0-8 or Boston Beat. The good thing about blogs is that its okay to take your cue from someone else, a la Urban Compass, but sometimes you need something else. After all, as announced yesterday, Western Mass Politics and Insight is Springfield and the World.

(*Photo from Heather Brandon's Urban Compass)

Springfield and the World...

As most I am sure do not know, Springfield and the World has been this blogs unofficial slogan since signing on. Since I have yet to get access to a powerful editor like Adobe Photoshop, I've yet to make the logo to go along w/ it. However, after reading Heather Brandon's recent post, I felt that now was a good time to bring this up.

In her post, she describes how Springfield, like the rest of the nation, if not the world, suffers from older leaders from bygone eras, get rich quick schemes from city officials, and general economic malaise.

Springfield is not alone. Many old guard politicians from the past remain hanging on or behind the scenes directing the show. Unable to answer today's questions or solve today's problems they force their communities to swallow the status quo. Charles Ryan is not exactly the same. He acutely saw that fixing Springfield was beyond his capabilities or at the very least, he knew the inertia in city government would stymie his efforts. Nonetheless, Ryan is the oldest mayor in Massachusetts and among the oldest in the country. I do not wish to speak ill of him as he may be ill and out of respect for his grandchildren who were classmates of mine. I just want to see some fresh faces.

Apparently, Councilor Domenic Sarno is bring back to the table the prospect of gambling. It was an awful idea when Mayor Albano proposed it years ago and remains as such now. I hold no particular opposition to gambling in general and frankly oppose many of the puritanical vestiges stitched into our legal framework. However, thinking it will bring in any appreciable revenue to Springfield is naive. It will spark other weak cities like Holyoke, Lawrence, and more to do the same diminishing gaming in Springfield as any kind of out-of-region draw. In addition, Detroit and Philadelphia both have sought gaming. Detroit, though far worse off than Springfield in a number of ways, has not been able to pull itself into any better long-term fiscal position. Most importantly, these developments, while profitable to their owners, will not and cannot compete with Atlantic City, Las Vegas, Foxwoods/Mohegan Sun, and the various smaller gaming towns sprinkled throughout the South. The hope, and naivete, comes from drawing people away from those established gaming edifices. Instead, it will only draw in locals who cannot afford to gamble and bring with it more problems. For every dollar the city gleans it will likely have to spend at least as much on social services geared to addicted gamblers. This assumes the city gleans much from it at all.

As for economic malaise, that is too complicated to really get into now. I will restate my previous position that economic development needs to be targeted by region and not with a one-size fits all (universally Boston's size) bill. Economic malaise is a national issue and at the risk of sounding like an alarmist, must be resolved with real ideas or we will experience an era of hardship and disrepair not seen since the Great Depression.

From my remote outpost here at school, I have tried and will continue to lobby legislators for Springfield's cause. Perhaps, and I say this tongue in cheek, they will see that wisdom does come from the mouth of babes.

Springfield's survival or fall is a reflection of the future for our state, our country, and our world.