Tuesday, March 08, 2016
In January I contacted a local news organization to write an article on their behalf about how the City of Boston was disposing of Winthrop Square Garage downtown. They readily agreed and I spent a few weeks doing research and interviews. This is the story that I wrote:
WINTHROP GARAGE
The Citizens of Boston own Winthrop Square Garage downtown and it is likely the most valuable asset that will be disposed of on their behalf during Mayor Walsh’s inaugural term. Recently the City Council on request of the Mayor voted to give the property away to the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) with an open ended agreement that doesn’t specify the time of performance, the fees to be charged, or the amount the Citizens are to receive. The parcel is currently a shuttered parking garage, but it is extremely valuable because a large tower of up to 700 feet is envisioned for the property. Estimates for the value of the property given at City Hall testimony last summer run from a low of 10 to 15 million given by the head of the BRA, to 100 million in the Boston Herald to a high of 200 million given by citizen activist Shirley Kressel. The City has it currently assessed at 30 million dollars. Land (not including the building) for similar towers such as the Hancock Tower is assessed by the City at roughly 150 million dollars.
The Mayor ran on a platform of reforming the independent BRA. Once elected he had an independent audit done which found poor fiscal controls and record keeping at the agency among other issues. Regardless, the administration came to the conclusion approximately a year ago that no City agency had the expertise to sell this parcel of land and so gave the property to the BRA without up front renumeration to the Citizens of Boston. The BRA then started soliciting proposals and eight major developers expressed interest. Because the BRA is an independent agency it is not subject to the same competitive bidding laws that the City of Boston would be if they sell the property. These laws spell out how the property must be sold and the proceeds given to the Citizens. The BRA may sell or lease the land to whomever they choose whether a high bidder or low bidder in a possibly politicized process and extract whatever fees and costs they want, for as long as they want before turning over the remainder to the Citizens.
After the administration turned the property over to the BRA, activist Shirley Kressel wrote a letter to the City pointing out that there is a legal process that must be followed before property owned by the Citizens of Boston, especially one that might be worth almost a billion dollars when finished, is disposed. Most importantly the Boston City Council, whose main function under the Boston City Charter is to be a fiscal watchdog on the executive branch, must vote to approve a transfer of the property. So last summer the Mayor sent an order to the City Council to have the transfer voted on and approved.
There was a Boston City Council hearing in June where the City testified that it didn’t have the capability to sell the property, the head of the BRA testified that they could and should sell the property that they thought was worth 10 to 15 million dollars, and Mrs. Kressel and others testified that the property is worth much more than that and that the City should retain ownership of the property and control of the assets. At most, it was suggested to use the BRA as an agent to sell the property on behalf of the Citizens of Boston instead of giving the BRA ownership and control of the parcel.
In August the City Council Committee on Economic Development chaired by Councilor LaMattina held a publicly noticed working session to discuss the matter. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was put together for this meeting. The contract (MOU) essentially states that the City will give ownership to the BRA, the BRA can do whatever they feel is best for the property, structuring the lease or sale of the property however they want, they can take any and all fees that they want, there is no timeline for them to do what they want, and when they are done with this process they will turn over whatever net proceeds there are to the City’s General Fund, where the money can be used for any purpose. The councilors had a number of questions for the BRA such as how much are their fees going to be, how much is the property worth, etc. The BRA explained to the Committee that the BRA thought it best that they do NOT do an estimate of how much the property will be worth because if the City Council and the Citizens of Boston knew how much their property was worth before they gave it away to the BRA it might affect the bidding for the property by the 8 major developers. The working session ended with the Committee requesting the BRA provide the councilors with information and answers to questions.
Over the next few months, through the November election, apparently unbeknownst to other City Councilors and the members of his Economic Development Committee, Councilor LaMattina met with the administration and BRA lawyers and revised the MOU. The outline remained the same: The BRA would be given ownership and control of the property, they could do whatever they want, for as long as they want, take whatever fees they deem necessary, and when they are done they will turn over whatever is left to the Citizens of Boston General Fund. The changed MOU “identified, tasks, costs and expenses that will likely be necessary”. These include site work, structural investigation, surveys, demolition, environmental remediation, utility work, and much office work and analysis. In other words, this-quasi governmental agency that is not in the building business, will act as the initial general contractor to prepare the property for further development. All of their costs and management fees would come out of the net proceeds of the property given to the Citizens of Boston. None of the contracts they award nor people they hire are subject to state and city procurement laws.
Councilor LaMattina checked with City Council President Linehan, whose district the property is in, to see if he was okay with the MOU and he got the approval for the deal from Councilor Linehan. Allegedly no one else on his Committee knew about his negotiations with the City and the BRA, as there were concerns that if a majority of the members of his Committee were involved with the negotiations they would have to be done in public in accordance with the Open Meeting Law where other councilors and the Citizens of Boston could scrutinize the deal. The Committee on Economic Development never held another public meeting or discussion on the topic.
On either the afternoon of December 8, 2015 or the morning of December 9, 2015 each City Councilor received a thick packet of documents and the revised MOU. The packet did not contain an estimate of the value of the property or any estimate of the BRA’s fees as requested by numerous councilors. The City Council held their weekly meeting Wednesday December 9 at noon. No public notice was given so that the Citizens of Boston would know that this valuable asset was going to be voted away that day. The MOU was never publicly distributed nor put on the City’s website where the Citizens of Boston could see the deal they were entering into through their legislative agents the Boston City Council.
Near the end of the meeting, the next to last one of the 2015 year, after the election was over, the matter was brought up from the “Green Sheets” for consideration. The “Green Sheets” is a Boston City Council parliamentary device used to bring up any matter from the previous year, at any time, without public notice that it would be brought up at that particular meeting. This is done under the auspices that if the matter had been brought up sometime in the last year, then the public has been properly notified, and they should know that the City Council might vote on it sometime in the future. Even, such as in this case, if it had not been voted out of Committee, had been negotiated in private with the BRA and the executive branch, and the document being voted on had been changed from the document seen in public four months prior at the working session.
Councilors LaMattina and Linehan spoke in favor of the deal and talked of how they held the BRA’s “feet to the fire” with this deal which was much better than other deals they had negotiated before. Despite the fact that the other Councilors had just received the packet and the revised MOU within the last few working hours, that the questions they had sought answers for in the August working session were not answered, there was not a single question about the deal asked by any of the 13 City Councilors. All of the male caucasian councilors plus Michelle Wu voted for it, all of the African American councilors voted against it. The vote was 10 - 3 and the property was voted away.
Or was it? Activist Shirley Kressel who was involved in the largest winning Open Meeting Law lawsuit against the Boston City Council (full disclosure: I was one of the three plaintiffs in that case) was paying attention to these machinations and filed an Open Meeting complaint with the Boston City Council asserting that the process did not follow state law. As this article is being written the Council and Mrs. Kressel are in legal proceedings about how to rectify the situation.
Over a two week period I (on behalf of the news organization) attempted to contact all 11 City Councilors who are on the body this year who were there last year. (There are 2 new City Councilors this year). We requested in writing: "Who negotiated the deal?”, "How much they thought the parcel was worth?”, "When they thought the Citizens of Boston would get their money from the deal?”, and "How much they thought the fees from the BRA would be?” Eight councilors declined to respond, one told us off the record a value of $30 to $70 million dollars, another council staffer told us off the record the process was ‘Very corrupt’. Only Councilors Wu who voted for the deal and Councilor Tito Jackson who voted against the deal responded. Councilor Wu indicated she did not know about the negotiations, would not offer her opinion of the value of the property, did not know what the BRA fees would be, or when the money would be realized. She did write that she cares about affordable housing and looks forward to having this money go towards that much needed endeavor. Councilor Jackson said he thought the property was worth $30 to $70 million dollars and voted against the deal saying: “I was not presented with enough information to vote in the affirmative. There are several process and procedures questions I have. I want to make sure the citizens get the most value for the property."
No one at City Hall would tell me (or the news organization) who was involved with the negotiations. The Councilors either did not know or refused to answer. The BRA’s press agent said that they only provided lawyers to the executive branch to help in the negotiations and referred us to the Mayor’s press office. As of the deadline for this article no one in the Mayor’s office responded to our question. It was only from the legal proceedings of the Open Meeting Law complaint of Shirley Kressel that we were able to discover that only Councilors LaMattina and Linehan negotiated this deal in secret. The deal that not one of the other City Councilors had a question about on behalf of the Citizens of Boston.
After I sent this article in to my editor, they told me it was "good work" and that they would publish it the following week after they did some fact checking. That was 3 weeks ago. Since that time they have not responded to my numerous phone calls or emails. That is why I am sending it to UniversalHub as I think it is an important story for the citizens to know about. Especially on a day when hundreds of students took the time to protest against cuts to their education funding.
My sources now tell me that the BRA is planning on taking this property by eminent domain from the City of Boston in the very near future. They allegedly are going to take it for the reason of clearing up the title, even though the City of Boston currently owns it and the City clears title by taking land. They are planning on issuing an RFP (Request For Proposals) perhaps as early as next week with a quick time frame envisioned to award the property to a selected developer. The project would be designated as a “Demonstration Project” the same designation that was given to the Yawkey Way deal with the Boston Red Sox which is currently under legal challenge. At issue is whether the BRA violated the State Competitive Bidding Law Chapter 30B, and whether the BRA had the right to take ownership by declaring the booming area next to Fenway Park as blighted. (https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/07/16/blight-yawkey-way-judge-says-way/rZd0V1XtbjTaOdTVE0c6gI/story.html)
If the BRA takes the property by eminent domain it will completely circumvent the legal transaction from the Boston City Council having any input on the deal whatsoever. It would be a very interesting move to make just as the Boston City Council is currently debating whether to extend the urban renewal powers of the BRA which includes continuing to give the BRA eminent domain powers over large sections of the City. This eminent domain power can be used by the BRA without approval from either the legislative or executive branches of the government. In other words, they can use eminent domain without any public oversight through their elected officials. The BRA has been meeting with members of the City Council in private to lobby them to
extend the BRA urban renewal powers.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
City Council on trail tomorrow morning in Suffolk Superior Court
The hopefully final hearing in the 6 year plus McCrea v. City Council case will be tomorrow morning at Suffolk Superior Court,
room 304.
Expected to testify for the defense is councilor Ross, being called by the plaintiffs is councilor Murphy, councilor Feeney and City clerk Rosaria Salerno.
The council has already plead guilty on all counts, this is a hearing to determine the consequences of their actions.
room 304.
Expected to testify for the defense is councilor Ross, being called by the plaintiffs is councilor Murphy, councilor Feeney and City clerk Rosaria Salerno.
The council has already plead guilty on all counts, this is a hearing to determine the consequences of their actions.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Final hearing in McCrea et al V. Flaherty and the City Council postponed
We were supposed to have the final hearing in the McCrea v. City Council case this Wednesday at 9 am in Suffolk Superior court. However, a trial is going on longer than expected and so the case has been postponed until a date we can mutually agree upon.
Also, in case anyone was wondering, I am NOT running for City council this year.
I will try and update the blog once we have a new final hearing date. Councilors Ross, Feeney and Murphy and City Clerk Rosaria Salerno are possibly going to testify about how the City council now acts more transparently.
Also, in case anyone was wondering, I am NOT running for City council this year.
I will try and update the blog once we have a new final hearing date. Councilors Ross, Feeney and Murphy and City Clerk Rosaria Salerno are possibly going to testify about how the City council now acts more transparently.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
The End of What we know as America?
Here is the last column from Bob Herbert of the NY Times. Very powerful. However, the NY Times and writers should look in the mirror when they support people like Barack Obama who clearly are part of this agenda, instead of other credible candidates such as Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich. The Times is part of the problem, and engages in the tax break shananigans
of which he complains.
So here we are pouring shiploads of cash into yet another war, this time in Libya, while simultaneously demolishing school budgets, closing libraries, laying off teachers and police officers, and generally letting the bottom fall out of the quality of life here at home.
Welcome to America in the second decade of the 21st century. An army of long-term unemployed workers is spread across the land, the human fallout from the Great Recession and long years of misguided economic policies. Optimism is in short supply. The few jobs now being created too often pay a pittance, not nearly enough to pry open the doors to a middle-class standard of living.
Arthur Miller, echoing the poet Archibald MacLeish, liked to say that the essence of America was its promises. That was a long time ago. Limitless greed, unrestrained corporate power and a ferocious addiction to foreign oil have led us to an era of perpetual war and economic decline. Young people today are staring at a future in which they will be less well off than their elders, a reversal of fortune that should send a shudder through everyone.
The U.S. has not just misplaced its priorities. When the most powerful country ever to inhabit the earth finds it so easy to plunge into the horror of warfare but almost impossible to find adequate work for its people or to properly educate its young, it has lost its way entirely.
Nearly 14 million Americans are jobless and the outlook for many of them is grim. Since there is just one job available for every five individuals looking for work, four of the five are out of luck. Instead of a land of opportunity, the U.S. is increasingly becoming a place of limited expectations. A college professor in Washington told me this week that graduates from his program were finding jobs, but they were not making very much money, certainly not enough to think about raising a family.
There is plenty of economic activity in the U.S., and plenty of wealth. But like greedy children, the folks at the top are seizing virtually all the marbles. Income and wealth inequality in the U.S. have reached stages that would make the third world blush. As the Economic Policy Institute has reported, the richest 10 percent of Americans received an unconscionable 100 percent of the average income growth in the years 2000 to 2007, the most recent extended period of economic expansion.
Americans behave as if this is somehow normal or acceptable. It shouldn’t be, and didn’t used to be. Through much of the post-World War II era, income distribution was far more equitable, with the top 10 percent of families accounting for just a third of average income growth, and the bottom 90 percent receiving two-thirds. That seems like ancient history now.
The current maldistribution of wealth is also scandalous. In 2009, the richest 5 percent claimed 63.5 percent of the nation’s wealth. The overwhelming majority, the bottom 80 percent, collectively held just 12.8 percent.
This inequality, in which an enormous segment of the population struggles while the fortunate few ride the gravy train, is a world-class recipe for social unrest. Downward mobility is an ever-shortening fuse leading to profound consequences.
A stark example of the fundamental unfairness that is now so widespread was in The New York Times on Friday under the headline: “G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether.” Despite profits of $14.2 billion — $5.1 billion from its operations in the United States — General Electric did not have to pay any U.S. taxes last year.
As The Times’s David Kocieniewski reported, “Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore.”
G.E. is the nation’s largest corporation. Its chief executive, Jeffrey Immelt, is the leader of President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. You can understand how ordinary workers might look at this cozy corporate-government arrangement and conclude that it is not fully committed to the best interests of working people.
Overwhelming imbalances in wealth and income inevitably result in enormous imbalances of political power. So the corporations and the very wealthy continue to do well. The employment crisis never gets addressed. The wars never end. And nation-building never gets a foothold here at home.
New ideas and new leadership have seldom been more urgently needed.
•
This is my last column for The New York Times after an exhilarating, nearly 18-year run. I’m off to write a book and expand my efforts on behalf of working people, the poor and others who are struggling in our society. My thanks to all the readers who have been so kind to me over the years. I can be reached going forward at bobherbert88@gmail.com.
of which he complains.
So here we are pouring shiploads of cash into yet another war, this time in Libya, while simultaneously demolishing school budgets, closing libraries, laying off teachers and police officers, and generally letting the bottom fall out of the quality of life here at home.
Welcome to America in the second decade of the 21st century. An army of long-term unemployed workers is spread across the land, the human fallout from the Great Recession and long years of misguided economic policies. Optimism is in short supply. The few jobs now being created too often pay a pittance, not nearly enough to pry open the doors to a middle-class standard of living.
Arthur Miller, echoing the poet Archibald MacLeish, liked to say that the essence of America was its promises. That was a long time ago. Limitless greed, unrestrained corporate power and a ferocious addiction to foreign oil have led us to an era of perpetual war and economic decline. Young people today are staring at a future in which they will be less well off than their elders, a reversal of fortune that should send a shudder through everyone.
The U.S. has not just misplaced its priorities. When the most powerful country ever to inhabit the earth finds it so easy to plunge into the horror of warfare but almost impossible to find adequate work for its people or to properly educate its young, it has lost its way entirely.
Nearly 14 million Americans are jobless and the outlook for many of them is grim. Since there is just one job available for every five individuals looking for work, four of the five are out of luck. Instead of a land of opportunity, the U.S. is increasingly becoming a place of limited expectations. A college professor in Washington told me this week that graduates from his program were finding jobs, but they were not making very much money, certainly not enough to think about raising a family.
There is plenty of economic activity in the U.S., and plenty of wealth. But like greedy children, the folks at the top are seizing virtually all the marbles. Income and wealth inequality in the U.S. have reached stages that would make the third world blush. As the Economic Policy Institute has reported, the richest 10 percent of Americans received an unconscionable 100 percent of the average income growth in the years 2000 to 2007, the most recent extended period of economic expansion.
Americans behave as if this is somehow normal or acceptable. It shouldn’t be, and didn’t used to be. Through much of the post-World War II era, income distribution was far more equitable, with the top 10 percent of families accounting for just a third of average income growth, and the bottom 90 percent receiving two-thirds. That seems like ancient history now.
The current maldistribution of wealth is also scandalous. In 2009, the richest 5 percent claimed 63.5 percent of the nation’s wealth. The overwhelming majority, the bottom 80 percent, collectively held just 12.8 percent.
This inequality, in which an enormous segment of the population struggles while the fortunate few ride the gravy train, is a world-class recipe for social unrest. Downward mobility is an ever-shortening fuse leading to profound consequences.
A stark example of the fundamental unfairness that is now so widespread was in The New York Times on Friday under the headline: “G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether.” Despite profits of $14.2 billion — $5.1 billion from its operations in the United States — General Electric did not have to pay any U.S. taxes last year.
As The Times’s David Kocieniewski reported, “Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore.”
G.E. is the nation’s largest corporation. Its chief executive, Jeffrey Immelt, is the leader of President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. You can understand how ordinary workers might look at this cozy corporate-government arrangement and conclude that it is not fully committed to the best interests of working people.
Overwhelming imbalances in wealth and income inevitably result in enormous imbalances of political power. So the corporations and the very wealthy continue to do well. The employment crisis never gets addressed. The wars never end. And nation-building never gets a foothold here at home.
New ideas and new leadership have seldom been more urgently needed.
•
This is my last column for The New York Times after an exhilarating, nearly 18-year run. I’m off to write a book and expand my efforts on behalf of working people, the poor and others who are struggling in our society. My thanks to all the readers who have been so kind to me over the years. I can be reached going forward at bobherbert88@gmail.com.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Another great column in the Times about what America Needs---Education
Education has been on my mind this week. One of my workers who recently spent 3 years in maximum security prison in MA got his G.E.D. after working with me, studying, getting his own place and with help from ABCD. Congratulations! It is a long road, but we need to get ourselves going.
The Boston Public Schools are atrocious, I try and hire kids who attend these schools all the time. We can't sugar coat it, we have to do something about it, but the leadership in our city is not there.
Some food for thought:
For me, the most frightening news in The Times on Sunday was not about North Korea’s stepping up its nuclear program, but an article about how American kids are stepping up their use of digital devices: “Allison Miller, 14, sends and receives 27,000 texts in a month, her fingers clicking at a blistering pace as she carries on as many as seven text conversations at a time. She texts between classes, at the moment soccer practice ends, while being driven to and from school and, often, while studying. But this proficiency comes at a cost: She blames multitasking for the three B’s on her recent progress report. “I’ll be reading a book for homework and I’ll get a text message and pause my reading and put down the book, pick up the phone to reply to the text message, and then 20 minutes later realize, ‘Oh, I forgot to do my homework.’ ”
Josh Haner/The New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman
Go to Columnist Page »
Related
Times Topic: Arne Duncan
Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (20) »
I don’t want to pick on Miller. I highlight her words only because they’re integral to a much larger point: Our unemployment today is not only because of the financial crisis. There are some deeper problems. If we’re going to get more Americans back to work, we will need more stimulus from the U.S.G. — the U.S. government — from the top down. But we will also need more stimulus from the P.T.A.’s — the Parent Teacher Associations — from the bottom up.
The deeper problems fostering unemployment in America today can be summarized in three paragraphs:
Global competition is stiffer. Just think about two of our most elite colleges. When Harvard and Yale were all male, applicants had to compete only against a pool of white males to get in. But when Harvard and Yale admitted women and more minorities, white males had to step up their game. But when the cold war ended, globalization took hold. As Harvard and Yale started to admit more Chinese, Indians, Singaporeans, Poles and Vietnamese, both American men and women had to step up their games to get in. And as the education systems of China, India, Singapore, Poland and Vietnam continue to improve, and more of their cream rises to the top and more of their young people apply to Ivy League schools, it is only going to get more competitive for American men and women at every school.
Then, just as the world was getting flattened by globalization, technology went on a rampage — destroying more low-end jobs and creating more high-end jobs faster than ever. What computers, hand-held devices, wireless technology and robots do in aggregate is empower better-educated and higher-skilled workers to be more productive — so they can raise their incomes — while eliminating many lower-skilled service and factory jobs altogether. Now the best-educated workers, capable of doing the critical thinking that machines can’t do, get richer while the least-educated get pink slips. (We used to have a receptionist at our office. She was replaced by a micro-chip. We got voice mail.)
Finally, just when globalization and technology were making the value of higher education greater than ever, and the price for lacking it more punishing than ever, America started slipping behind its peers in high school graduation rates, college graduation and global test scores in math and critical thinking.
As Education Secretary Arne Duncan put it to me in an interview, 50 years ago if you dropped out, you could get a job in the stockyards or steel mill and still “own your own home and support your family.” Today, there are no such good jobs for high school dropouts. “They’re gone,” said Duncan. “That’s what we haven’t adjusted to.” When kids drop out today, “they’re condemned to poverty and social failure.” There are barely any jobs left for someone with only a high school diploma, and that’s only valuable today if it has truly prepared you to go on to higher education without remediation — the only ticket to a decent job.
Beyond the recession, this triple whammy is one of the main reasons that middle-class wages have been stagnating. To overcome that, we need to enlist both the U.S.G. and the P.T.A. We need teachers and principals who are paid better for better performance, but also valued for their long hours and dedication to students and learning. We need better parents ready to hold their kids to higher standards of academic achievement. We need better students who come to school ready to learn, not to text. And to support all of this, we need an all-society effort — from the White House to the classroom to the living room — to nurture a culture of achievement and excellence.
If you want to know who’s doing the parenting part right, start with immigrants, who know that learning is the way up. Last week, the 32 winners of Rhodes Scholarships for 2011 were announced — America’s top college grads. Here are half the names on that list: Mark Jia, Aakash Shah, Zujaja Tauqeer, Tracy Yang, William Zeng, Daniel Lage, Ye Jin Kang, Baltazar Zavala, Esther Uduehi, Prerna Nadathur, Priya Sury, Anna Alekeyeva, Fatima Sabar, Renugan Raidoo, Jennifer Lai, Varun Sivaram.
Do you see a pattern?
The Boston Public Schools are atrocious, I try and hire kids who attend these schools all the time. We can't sugar coat it, we have to do something about it, but the leadership in our city is not there.
Some food for thought:
For me, the most frightening news in The Times on Sunday was not about North Korea’s stepping up its nuclear program, but an article about how American kids are stepping up their use of digital devices: “Allison Miller, 14, sends and receives 27,000 texts in a month, her fingers clicking at a blistering pace as she carries on as many as seven text conversations at a time. She texts between classes, at the moment soccer practice ends, while being driven to and from school and, often, while studying. But this proficiency comes at a cost: She blames multitasking for the three B’s on her recent progress report. “I’ll be reading a book for homework and I’ll get a text message and pause my reading and put down the book, pick up the phone to reply to the text message, and then 20 minutes later realize, ‘Oh, I forgot to do my homework.’ ”
Josh Haner/The New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman
Go to Columnist Page »
Related
Times Topic: Arne Duncan
Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (20) »
I don’t want to pick on Miller. I highlight her words only because they’re integral to a much larger point: Our unemployment today is not only because of the financial crisis. There are some deeper problems. If we’re going to get more Americans back to work, we will need more stimulus from the U.S.G. — the U.S. government — from the top down. But we will also need more stimulus from the P.T.A.’s — the Parent Teacher Associations — from the bottom up.
The deeper problems fostering unemployment in America today can be summarized in three paragraphs:
Global competition is stiffer. Just think about two of our most elite colleges. When Harvard and Yale were all male, applicants had to compete only against a pool of white males to get in. But when Harvard and Yale admitted women and more minorities, white males had to step up their game. But when the cold war ended, globalization took hold. As Harvard and Yale started to admit more Chinese, Indians, Singaporeans, Poles and Vietnamese, both American men and women had to step up their games to get in. And as the education systems of China, India, Singapore, Poland and Vietnam continue to improve, and more of their cream rises to the top and more of their young people apply to Ivy League schools, it is only going to get more competitive for American men and women at every school.
Then, just as the world was getting flattened by globalization, technology went on a rampage — destroying more low-end jobs and creating more high-end jobs faster than ever. What computers, hand-held devices, wireless technology and robots do in aggregate is empower better-educated and higher-skilled workers to be more productive — so they can raise their incomes — while eliminating many lower-skilled service and factory jobs altogether. Now the best-educated workers, capable of doing the critical thinking that machines can’t do, get richer while the least-educated get pink slips. (We used to have a receptionist at our office. She was replaced by a micro-chip. We got voice mail.)
Finally, just when globalization and technology were making the value of higher education greater than ever, and the price for lacking it more punishing than ever, America started slipping behind its peers in high school graduation rates, college graduation and global test scores in math and critical thinking.
As Education Secretary Arne Duncan put it to me in an interview, 50 years ago if you dropped out, you could get a job in the stockyards or steel mill and still “own your own home and support your family.” Today, there are no such good jobs for high school dropouts. “They’re gone,” said Duncan. “That’s what we haven’t adjusted to.” When kids drop out today, “they’re condemned to poverty and social failure.” There are barely any jobs left for someone with only a high school diploma, and that’s only valuable today if it has truly prepared you to go on to higher education without remediation — the only ticket to a decent job.
Beyond the recession, this triple whammy is one of the main reasons that middle-class wages have been stagnating. To overcome that, we need to enlist both the U.S.G. and the P.T.A. We need teachers and principals who are paid better for better performance, but also valued for their long hours and dedication to students and learning. We need better parents ready to hold their kids to higher standards of academic achievement. We need better students who come to school ready to learn, not to text. And to support all of this, we need an all-society effort — from the White House to the classroom to the living room — to nurture a culture of achievement and excellence.
If you want to know who’s doing the parenting part right, start with immigrants, who know that learning is the way up. Last week, the 32 winners of Rhodes Scholarships for 2011 were announced — America’s top college grads. Here are half the names on that list: Mark Jia, Aakash Shah, Zujaja Tauqeer, Tracy Yang, William Zeng, Daniel Lage, Ye Jin Kang, Baltazar Zavala, Esther Uduehi, Prerna Nadathur, Priya Sury, Anna Alekeyeva, Fatima Sabar, Renugan Raidoo, Jennifer Lai, Varun Sivaram.
Do you see a pattern?
Sunday, October 03, 2010
Great column by Friedman in the NY Times
A friend in the U.S. military sent me an e-mail last week with a quote from the historian Lewis Mumford’s book, “The Condition of Man,” about the development of civilization. Mumford was describing Rome’s decline: “Everyone aimed at security: no one accepted responsibility. What was plainly lacking, long before the barbarian invasions had done their work, long before economic dislocations became serious, was an inner go. Rome’s life was now an imitation of life: a mere holding on. Security was the watchword — as if life knew any other stability than through constant change, or any form of security except through a constant willingness to take risks.”
It was one of those history passages that echo so loudly in the present that it sends a shiver down my spine — way, way too close for comfort.
I’ve just spent a week in Silicon Valley, talking with technologists from Apple, Twitter, LinkedIn, Intel, Cisco and SRI and can definitively report that this region has not lost its “inner go.” But in talks here and elsewhere I continue to be astounded by the level of disgust with Washington, D.C., and our two-party system — so much so that I am ready to hazard a prediction: Barring a transformation of the Democratic and Republican Parties, there is going to be a serious third party candidate in 2012, with a serious political movement behind him or her — one definitely big enough to impact the election’s outcome.
There is a revolution brewing in the country, and it is not just on the right wing but in the radical center. I know of at least two serious groups, one on the East Coast and one on the West Coast, developing “third parties” to challenge our stagnating two-party duopoly that has been presiding over our nation’s steady incremental decline.
President Obama has not been a do-nothing failure. He has some real accomplishments. He passed a health care expansion, a financial regulation expansion, stabilized the economy, started a national education reform initiative and has conducted a smart and tough war on Al Qaeda.
But there is another angle on the last two years: a president who won a sweeping political mandate, propelled by an energized youth movement and with control of both the House and the Senate — about as much power as any president could ever hope to muster in peacetime — was only able to pass an expansion of health care that is a suboptimal amalgam of tortured compromises that no one is certain will work or that we can afford (and doesn’t deal with the cost or quality problems), a limited stimulus that has not relieved unemployment or fixed our infrastructure, and a financial regulation bill that still needs to be interpreted by regulators because no one could agree on crucial provisions. Plus, Obama had to abandon an energy-climate bill altogether, and if the G.O.P. takes back the House, we may not have an energy bill until 2013.
Obama probably did the best he could do, and that’s the point. The best our current two parties can produce today — in the wake of the worst existential crisis in our economy and environment in a century — is suboptimal, even when one party had a huge majority. Suboptimal is O.K. for ordinary times, but these are not ordinary times. We need to stop waiting for Superman and start building a superconsensus to do the superhard stuff we must do now. Pretty good is not even close to good enough today.
“We basically have two bankrupt parties bankrupting the country,” said the Stanford University political scientist Larry Diamond. Indeed, our two-party system is ossified; it lacks integrity and creativity and any sense of courage or high-aspiration in confronting our problems. We simply will not be able to do the things we need to do as a country to move forward “with all the vested interests that have accrued around these two parties,” added Diamond. “They cannot think about the overall public good and the longer term anymore because both parties are trapped in short-term, zero-sum calculations,” where each one’s gains are seen as the other’s losses.
We have to rip open this two-party duopoly and have it challenged by a serious third party that will talk about education reform, without worrying about offending unions; financial reform, without worrying about losing donations from Wall Street; corporate tax reductions to stimulate jobs, without worrying about offending the far left; energy and climate reform, without worrying about offending the far right and coal-state Democrats; and proper health care reform, without worrying about offending insurers and drug companies.
“If competition is good for our economy,” asks Diamond, “why isn’t it good for our politics?”
We need a third party on the stage of the next presidential debate to look Americans in the eye and say: “These two parties are lying to you. They can’t tell you the truth because they are each trapped in decades of special interests. I am not going to tell you what you want to hear. I am going to tell you what you need to hear if we want to be the world’s leaders, not the new Romans.”
It was one of those history passages that echo so loudly in the present that it sends a shiver down my spine — way, way too close for comfort.
I’ve just spent a week in Silicon Valley, talking with technologists from Apple, Twitter, LinkedIn, Intel, Cisco and SRI and can definitively report that this region has not lost its “inner go.” But in talks here and elsewhere I continue to be astounded by the level of disgust with Washington, D.C., and our two-party system — so much so that I am ready to hazard a prediction: Barring a transformation of the Democratic and Republican Parties, there is going to be a serious third party candidate in 2012, with a serious political movement behind him or her — one definitely big enough to impact the election’s outcome.
There is a revolution brewing in the country, and it is not just on the right wing but in the radical center. I know of at least two serious groups, one on the East Coast and one on the West Coast, developing “third parties” to challenge our stagnating two-party duopoly that has been presiding over our nation’s steady incremental decline.
President Obama has not been a do-nothing failure. He has some real accomplishments. He passed a health care expansion, a financial regulation expansion, stabilized the economy, started a national education reform initiative and has conducted a smart and tough war on Al Qaeda.
But there is another angle on the last two years: a president who won a sweeping political mandate, propelled by an energized youth movement and with control of both the House and the Senate — about as much power as any president could ever hope to muster in peacetime — was only able to pass an expansion of health care that is a suboptimal amalgam of tortured compromises that no one is certain will work or that we can afford (and doesn’t deal with the cost or quality problems), a limited stimulus that has not relieved unemployment or fixed our infrastructure, and a financial regulation bill that still needs to be interpreted by regulators because no one could agree on crucial provisions. Plus, Obama had to abandon an energy-climate bill altogether, and if the G.O.P. takes back the House, we may not have an energy bill until 2013.
Obama probably did the best he could do, and that’s the point. The best our current two parties can produce today — in the wake of the worst existential crisis in our economy and environment in a century — is suboptimal, even when one party had a huge majority. Suboptimal is O.K. for ordinary times, but these are not ordinary times. We need to stop waiting for Superman and start building a superconsensus to do the superhard stuff we must do now. Pretty good is not even close to good enough today.
“We basically have two bankrupt parties bankrupting the country,” said the Stanford University political scientist Larry Diamond. Indeed, our two-party system is ossified; it lacks integrity and creativity and any sense of courage or high-aspiration in confronting our problems. We simply will not be able to do the things we need to do as a country to move forward “with all the vested interests that have accrued around these two parties,” added Diamond. “They cannot think about the overall public good and the longer term anymore because both parties are trapped in short-term, zero-sum calculations,” where each one’s gains are seen as the other’s losses.
We have to rip open this two-party duopoly and have it challenged by a serious third party that will talk about education reform, without worrying about offending unions; financial reform, without worrying about losing donations from Wall Street; corporate tax reductions to stimulate jobs, without worrying about offending the far left; energy and climate reform, without worrying about offending the far right and coal-state Democrats; and proper health care reform, without worrying about offending insurers and drug companies.
“If competition is good for our economy,” asks Diamond, “why isn’t it good for our politics?”
We need a third party on the stage of the next presidential debate to look Americans in the eye and say: “These two parties are lying to you. They can’t tell you the truth because they are each trapped in decades of special interests. I am not going to tell you what you want to hear. I am going to tell you what you need to hear if we want to be the world’s leaders, not the new Romans.”
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Friday, April 02, 2010
Martha Coakley announces new Open Meeting Post
Your browser may not support display of this image. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Office of the Attorney General
ONE ASHBURTON PLACE
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108
(617) 727-2200
(617) 727-4765 TTY
www.mass.gov/ago
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MEDIA CONTACT:
March 31, 2009 Emily LaGrassa
(617) 727-2543
ATTORNEY GENERAL MARTHA COAKLEY NAMES ROBERT NASDOR TO LEAD OFFICE’S NEW DIVISION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT
New Division will Focus on Education and Outreach as AG’s Office
Assumes Responsibility for Open Meeting Law Enforcement
BOSTON – Attorney General Martha Coakley has named Robert Nasdor as the Director of her office’s newly-created Division of Open Government. In this role, Nasdor will oversee the Attorney General’s Office’s work to enforce and provide education and training on the state’s Open Meeting Law. On July 1, 2010, the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) will assume responsibility for enforcement of the Open Meeting Law (OML) from the state’s District Attorneys, who previously enforced the law as it pertains to municipal bodies.
“The recent changes to the Open Meeting law provide for greater transparency and clarity—both of which are hallmarks of good government,” said Attorney General Martha Coakley. “Our office’s approach to enforcement of the Open Meeting Law will focus on education and training, and it is our hope that if all local government officials understand the law, we will prevent violations. Bob is a seasoned attorney whose career has focused on public interest advocacy and he shares my commitment to open government. I am confident that he will bring top-notch leadership to this new division and will be a great resource for municipal officials.”
Nasdor, a Sudbury resident, is a graduate of Rutgers University School of Law. He previously served as the Legal Director at the National Center on Homelessness & Poverty in Washington, DC, where he directed the law and policy agenda for this national homeless legal advocacy organization. From 1997 through 2005, Nasdor served as the Executive Director of the Legal Assistance Corporation of Central Massachusetts, directing a 20-attorney civil legal services program serving 3,500 low-income clients annually.
Under Ethics Reform legislation enacted in 2009 the AGO will assume responsibility for all enforcement of the OML. Previously, the AGO was responsible for enforcement of the OML as it pertains to state boards and committees, while the state’s 11 District Attorney’s were responsible for enforcement of OML as it applied to municipal and county boards and committees. In order to allow for more consistent enforcement and to provide for more training
and education of municipal and county officials, all enforcement was transferred to the AGO, effective July 1, 2010.
Recognizing that most OML violations are the result of a lack of awareness or understanding of the law, the Attorney General’s new Division of Open Government will focus on providing training and educational resources to public officials who are subject to the OML. The Division of Open Government will provide training through two key means:
1. Online: The AGO will develop a comprehensive website that will provide updated OML guidelines, links to the OML and the AGO’s regulations, links to the advisory opinions and hearing decisions that we will be issuing, and other educational materials and resources.
2. In-person: The new division will also conduct in-person, regional trainings. In addition, the AGO will also continue to accept requests to speak from associations representing municipal officials, city managers, city solicitors/town counsel and city/town clerks, and other officials subject to the OML, as well as the news media.
The new division’s goal is to be a recognizable and readily accessible resource for officials, the news media, and the public.
Because the AGO has the authority to issue binding interpretations of the OML—something that the District Attorneys did not have—the AGO will be able to help officials avoid violating the law by providing guidance before action is taken. The AGO will provide both formal and informal guidance to municipalities and other officials. For example:
* Officials and other interested parties can ask for a written opinion from the Division of Open Government, which will apply the OML to a specific set of facts.
* The Division of Open Government will be able to respond to questions and concerns posed by local officials over the phone.
In addition, the AGO plans to issue procedural and substantive regulations that will help to fill in any gaps in the OML and respond to issues that arise.
Office of the Attorney General
ONE ASHBURTON PLACE
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108
(617) 727-2200
(617) 727-4765 TTY
www.mass.gov/ago
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MEDIA CONTACT:
March 31, 2009 Emily LaGrassa
(617) 727-2543
ATTORNEY GENERAL MARTHA COAKLEY NAMES ROBERT NASDOR TO LEAD OFFICE’S NEW DIVISION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT
New Division will Focus on Education and Outreach as AG’s Office
Assumes Responsibility for Open Meeting Law Enforcement
BOSTON – Attorney General Martha Coakley has named Robert Nasdor as the Director of her office’s newly-created Division of Open Government. In this role, Nasdor will oversee the Attorney General’s Office’s work to enforce and provide education and training on the state’s Open Meeting Law. On July 1, 2010, the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) will assume responsibility for enforcement of the Open Meeting Law (OML) from the state’s District Attorneys, who previously enforced the law as it pertains to municipal bodies.
“The recent changes to the Open Meeting law provide for greater transparency and clarity—both of which are hallmarks of good government,” said Attorney General Martha Coakley. “Our office’s approach to enforcement of the Open Meeting Law will focus on education and training, and it is our hope that if all local government officials understand the law, we will prevent violations. Bob is a seasoned attorney whose career has focused on public interest advocacy and he shares my commitment to open government. I am confident that he will bring top-notch leadership to this new division and will be a great resource for municipal officials.”
Nasdor, a Sudbury resident, is a graduate of Rutgers University School of Law. He previously served as the Legal Director at the National Center on Homelessness & Poverty in Washington, DC, where he directed the law and policy agenda for this national homeless legal advocacy organization. From 1997 through 2005, Nasdor served as the Executive Director of the Legal Assistance Corporation of Central Massachusetts, directing a 20-attorney civil legal services program serving 3,500 low-income clients annually.
Under Ethics Reform legislation enacted in 2009 the AGO will assume responsibility for all enforcement of the OML. Previously, the AGO was responsible for enforcement of the OML as it pertains to state boards and committees, while the state’s 11 District Attorney’s were responsible for enforcement of OML as it applied to municipal and county boards and committees. In order to allow for more consistent enforcement and to provide for more training
and education of municipal and county officials, all enforcement was transferred to the AGO, effective July 1, 2010.
Recognizing that most OML violations are the result of a lack of awareness or understanding of the law, the Attorney General’s new Division of Open Government will focus on providing training and educational resources to public officials who are subject to the OML. The Division of Open Government will provide training through two key means:
1. Online: The AGO will develop a comprehensive website that will provide updated OML guidelines, links to the OML and the AGO’s regulations, links to the advisory opinions and hearing decisions that we will be issuing, and other educational materials and resources.
2. In-person: The new division will also conduct in-person, regional trainings. In addition, the AGO will also continue to accept requests to speak from associations representing municipal officials, city managers, city solicitors/town counsel and city/town clerks, and other officials subject to the OML, as well as the news media.
The new division’s goal is to be a recognizable and readily accessible resource for officials, the news media, and the public.
Because the AGO has the authority to issue binding interpretations of the OML—something that the District Attorneys did not have—the AGO will be able to help officials avoid violating the law by providing guidance before action is taken. The AGO will provide both formal and informal guidance to municipalities and other officials. For example:
* Officials and other interested parties can ask for a written opinion from the Division of Open Government, which will apply the OML to a specific set of facts.
* The Division of Open Government will be able to respond to questions and concerns posed by local officials over the phone.
In addition, the AGO plans to issue procedural and substantive regulations that will help to fill in any gaps in the OML and respond to issues that arise.
Mike Ross's Citizen Committee announced
Mike Ross announced in January that he is putting together a citizens committee on how Boston can be better. His announcement says the committee is full of innovators who have brought fresh energy and ideas to Boston.
I contacted Mike and the chairperson Ed Glaeser expressing my interest in the committee, but I didn't make the cut.
I was interested that in the announcement it noted that committee person Klare Allen is a resident of the Boston Housing Authority, but it doesn't mention where any of the other people live. I wrote the following note to Councilor Ross, I'll let you know what response I get:
Dear Mike,
I was disappointed that you weren't interested in having me on your committee. I had spoken to ChairPerson Glaeser about it and he thought I might be able to add something to it. Anyway, I wish you and the city well with it. I would suggest saving libraries or having a real long term plan and discussion about libraries would be a great way to make a great city.
I have one question. In your announcement it mentions that Klare Allen is a resident of the Boston Housing Authority. I have met Klare and I know she is a poor black woman. I also notice that the announcement doesn't mention where any of the other people live. Is there a particular reason that you only identify where poor black women live? I'd appreciate it if you would update your announcement and
let everyone know where all the appointees live. I know you care about equality and transparency.
I look forward to your response.
Kevin McCrea
Mike Responds:
It was to highlight that she lives in public housing - yes - that is important to me, and I hope to the public, that a member who lives in public housing is on this committee because this isn't just about CEO's and academics - that our city is strong enough to attract talent internationally, but lift up talent who currently lives here. She and I spoke.
Hope to see you at the meeting, and we will produce more complete bios.
Mike
I contacted Mike and the chairperson Ed Glaeser expressing my interest in the committee, but I didn't make the cut.
I was interested that in the announcement it noted that committee person Klare Allen is a resident of the Boston Housing Authority, but it doesn't mention where any of the other people live. I wrote the following note to Councilor Ross, I'll let you know what response I get:
Dear Mike,
I was disappointed that you weren't interested in having me on your committee. I had spoken to ChairPerson Glaeser about it and he thought I might be able to add something to it. Anyway, I wish you and the city well with it. I would suggest saving libraries or having a real long term plan and discussion about libraries would be a great way to make a great city.
I have one question. In your announcement it mentions that Klare Allen is a resident of the Boston Housing Authority. I have met Klare and I know she is a poor black woman. I also notice that the announcement doesn't mention where any of the other people live. Is there a particular reason that you only identify where poor black women live? I'd appreciate it if you would update your announcement and
let everyone know where all the appointees live. I know you care about equality and transparency.
I look forward to your response.
Kevin McCrea
Mike Responds:
It was to highlight that she lives in public housing - yes - that is important to me, and I hope to the public, that a member who lives in public housing is on this committee because this isn't just about CEO's and academics - that our city is strong enough to attract talent internationally, but lift up talent who currently lives here. She and I spoke.
Hope to see you at the meeting, and we will produce more complete bios.
Mike
Thursday, April 01, 2010
My editorial against closing libraries
This printed in these weeks edition of the South End News.
Recently it has been reported that there is an emergency fiscal "crisis" with the Boston Public Libraries and that 10 of the 26 branch libraries may have to be shuttered. But, the numbers do not add up, and there is no real emergency. The crisis is one of honest government, proper planning, and responsible investigative journalism.
First the numbers: according to the Boston Globe, the library budget this year is 41.1 million dollars, for which it is reported there is a 3.6 million dollar shortfall, which is about nine percent. The announced response to this is to close 38 percent of the branch libraries? Clearly, more than meets the eye is going on here. Three million, six hundred thousand dollars is less than two tenths of one percent of the 2.4 billion dollar City budget, and hardly rates as a crisis forcing us to board up public institutions without a proper vetting of how important they are to our civic life.
As thoroughly explained in the enlightening book "Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, governments and politicians have moved away from being honest with their citizens by creating false "crises" to force "reforms" on people that they could not do democratically. In a debate last year, Mayor Menino trumpeted the fact that he had not closed one library during our national economic meltdown. I pointed out that he had indeed closed the Kirstein library, and he retorted that it just moved to Copley Square. Will he use the same logic for these 10 branch libraries? He certainly didn’t run on a platform of closing 40 percent of our civic institutions. Closing libraries is the modern equivalent of book burning, as Adrian Walker’s bank robber subject John McGrath so aptly put it this week.
I believe the media is most to blame for this state of affairs. Why aren’t they asking these basic financial questions? As I and others such as the Municipal Research Bureau and the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation have been pointing out for years, we have an unsustainable financial model, especially when it comes to pensions and health care for government workers. This didn’t just happen in the last month, and it is no excuse to ram the shuttering of all these libraries down our throats without an honest, transparent analysis and discussion of our long-range civic goals and priorities. Last year at this time, City Hall was telling the press that we were facing 900 school layoffs and 200 police layoffs. As I wrote last year, this was again another fake "crisis" and was just being used to scare the populace so that the politicians looked good when they cut far fewer jobs, or none as in the case of policemen. I am saying it here now: the City of Boston is not going to close 10 libraries this year, City Hall is not being honest with the citizens, and if I am wrong I will personally donate $50,000 for books to the library system. I believe for the media to have their own sustainable economic model, they need to start doing their job and asking these questions, instead of asking where Tom and Gisele were last night.
We espouse that we are the Athens of America, but the recent news would suggest otherwise. We are talking about closing schools and closing libraries because of lack of money, but yet when two convenience store clerks are murdered the politicians are quick to come up with funds and proposed rules for requiring security cameras. I feel I am living more in Oceania than in Utopia. Yet the facts again point out the fallacy in their thinking. Surendra Dangol was killed in a convenience store with a security camera; it took 20 days to arrest his alleged killer. Gerardo Serrano was killed in a convenience store without a security camera; it took only four days to arrest his alleged killers. I didn’t hear a single politician ask about the cost of those proposed cameras and rules. It takes real leadership to say to a shocked and grieving public that to make a just and safe society we need to spend more on libraries and schools, and less on security cameras.
What is the solution? First of all, pray for Mother Nature to give us $7.5 million during this Easter season. What do I mean? Well, with help from Councilor Ayanna Pressley’s office I have figured out that we budgeted 15 million dollars for snow removal this year, and thankfully, we have only spent $7.5 million so far. So, if we can somehow make it through to Easter without breaking out the plows we will have a pot of gold that can help us survive the "crisis" for another year while we have a well-thought-out discussion on the future of libraries in Boston.
Mayor Menino has been talking about using eminent domain downtown; he could take back Heyward Place and put the $2 million his friend collects for parking fees tax free back into City coffers. We could ask why we are giving $30 million in tax breaks and grants to Liberty Mutual, or perhaps ask their CEO Ted Kelly to at least make a 3.6 million contribution from his $27 million dollar salary to the libraries in exchange for those credits. Most important of all, perhaps, we should ask how the taxpayers got put on the hook for $800 billion in TARP debt, but we couldn’t get 3.6 million dollars for libraries?
When my mother was working a full-time job and raising her three children on her own, we didn’t have money for a TV, let alone childcare. She had us go to the library after school and wait until she could pick us up. I sat for hours safely reading, learning, and imagining wonderful things. I wouldn’t want any child in Boston to lose out on that same sense of wonder, safety and potential that is enclosed within each and every library because of a dishonest, fake "crisis."
Kevin McCrea is a South Ender and former candidate for Mayor of Boston.
Recently it has been reported that there is an emergency fiscal "crisis" with the Boston Public Libraries and that 10 of the 26 branch libraries may have to be shuttered. But, the numbers do not add up, and there is no real emergency. The crisis is one of honest government, proper planning, and responsible investigative journalism.
First the numbers: according to the Boston Globe, the library budget this year is 41.1 million dollars, for which it is reported there is a 3.6 million dollar shortfall, which is about nine percent. The announced response to this is to close 38 percent of the branch libraries? Clearly, more than meets the eye is going on here. Three million, six hundred thousand dollars is less than two tenths of one percent of the 2.4 billion dollar City budget, and hardly rates as a crisis forcing us to board up public institutions without a proper vetting of how important they are to our civic life.
As thoroughly explained in the enlightening book "Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, governments and politicians have moved away from being honest with their citizens by creating false "crises" to force "reforms" on people that they could not do democratically. In a debate last year, Mayor Menino trumpeted the fact that he had not closed one library during our national economic meltdown. I pointed out that he had indeed closed the Kirstein library, and he retorted that it just moved to Copley Square. Will he use the same logic for these 10 branch libraries? He certainly didn’t run on a platform of closing 40 percent of our civic institutions. Closing libraries is the modern equivalent of book burning, as Adrian Walker’s bank robber subject John McGrath so aptly put it this week.
I believe the media is most to blame for this state of affairs. Why aren’t they asking these basic financial questions? As I and others such as the Municipal Research Bureau and the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation have been pointing out for years, we have an unsustainable financial model, especially when it comes to pensions and health care for government workers. This didn’t just happen in the last month, and it is no excuse to ram the shuttering of all these libraries down our throats without an honest, transparent analysis and discussion of our long-range civic goals and priorities. Last year at this time, City Hall was telling the press that we were facing 900 school layoffs and 200 police layoffs. As I wrote last year, this was again another fake "crisis" and was just being used to scare the populace so that the politicians looked good when they cut far fewer jobs, or none as in the case of policemen. I am saying it here now: the City of Boston is not going to close 10 libraries this year, City Hall is not being honest with the citizens, and if I am wrong I will personally donate $50,000 for books to the library system. I believe for the media to have their own sustainable economic model, they need to start doing their job and asking these questions, instead of asking where Tom and Gisele were last night.
We espouse that we are the Athens of America, but the recent news would suggest otherwise. We are talking about closing schools and closing libraries because of lack of money, but yet when two convenience store clerks are murdered the politicians are quick to come up with funds and proposed rules for requiring security cameras. I feel I am living more in Oceania than in Utopia. Yet the facts again point out the fallacy in their thinking. Surendra Dangol was killed in a convenience store with a security camera; it took 20 days to arrest his alleged killer. Gerardo Serrano was killed in a convenience store without a security camera; it took only four days to arrest his alleged killers. I didn’t hear a single politician ask about the cost of those proposed cameras and rules. It takes real leadership to say to a shocked and grieving public that to make a just and safe society we need to spend more on libraries and schools, and less on security cameras.
What is the solution? First of all, pray for Mother Nature to give us $7.5 million during this Easter season. What do I mean? Well, with help from Councilor Ayanna Pressley’s office I have figured out that we budgeted 15 million dollars for snow removal this year, and thankfully, we have only spent $7.5 million so far. So, if we can somehow make it through to Easter without breaking out the plows we will have a pot of gold that can help us survive the "crisis" for another year while we have a well-thought-out discussion on the future of libraries in Boston.
Mayor Menino has been talking about using eminent domain downtown; he could take back Heyward Place and put the $2 million his friend collects for parking fees tax free back into City coffers. We could ask why we are giving $30 million in tax breaks and grants to Liberty Mutual, or perhaps ask their CEO Ted Kelly to at least make a 3.6 million contribution from his $27 million dollar salary to the libraries in exchange for those credits. Most important of all, perhaps, we should ask how the taxpayers got put on the hook for $800 billion in TARP debt, but we couldn’t get 3.6 million dollars for libraries?
When my mother was working a full-time job and raising her three children on her own, we didn’t have money for a TV, let alone childcare. She had us go to the library after school and wait until she could pick us up. I sat for hours safely reading, learning, and imagining wonderful things. I wouldn’t want any child in Boston to lose out on that same sense of wonder, safety and potential that is enclosed within each and every library because of a dishonest, fake "crisis."
Kevin McCrea is a South Ender and former candidate for Mayor of Boston.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Editorial which could be written for Mass. and Boston
When the Legislature convened its fiscal session a year ago, Louisianians expected lawmakers and Gov. Bobby Jindal to streamline the state's bloated bureaucracy without crippling our future.
The Times-PicayuneLouisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.What we got instead was a one year fiscal Band-Aid.
So lawmakers begin this year's session Monday facing an even worse fiscal outlook. Despite $248 million in mid-year cuts, they may need to trim as much as $400 million more from this year's budget. Then, they have to slash another $1 billion in expenditures to balance the 2010-2011 budget.
To say that lawmakers will have to make hard choices is an understatement. Yet they must find the vision to look ahead and pass reforms that help stabilize the state's finances for years to come and end the current cycle of jagged cuts that are eviscerating vital services.
To that end, Louisiana has to significantly reduce its number of state employees and slow down the growth of salaries and benefits, which are asphyxiating the state's budget.
Despite significant efforts by the Jindal administration to trim the bureaucracy, Louisiana has more than 100,000 state workers. That's unsustainable. This session, the governor and lawmakers must pass serious measures to cut that number, such as state Treasurer John Kennedy's unsuccessful proposal last year to eliminate 15,000 jobs over three years. That would save hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
The state also needs to reform a structure that for years has led to automatic pay raises for most state workers. Last year, 98 percent of classified state workers got a pay hike. The number is down to 61 percent this fiscal year, and that's progress. But giving pay increases to six of every 10 state workers is still jaw dropping in the face of monster deficits and while most Louisianians are seeing their income drop or stagnate.
Legislators shouldn't buy the old argument that state workers deserve special treatment because they earn less than their private counterparts. That's just not true, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. The department said private employees nationwide earned $27.42 in salary and benefits per hour worked in December, while employees of state and local governments got $39.60 in salary and benefits per hour worked the same month. The complete report is on the Web site of the department's Bureau of Labor Statistics, at www.bls.gov.
Another fallacy is that the public sector needs to pay more to attract or retain employees. But governments are not having trouble filling positions, in great part because people are attracted to the relative stability of public work compared to the private sector.
Lawmakers also need to reform the state's pension program to adjust it to our new fiscal reality and to place it more in line with the benefits most Louisiana workers receive. That means revising provisions that let some state workers retire with almost full benefits at a very young age. Those terms were created decades ago, under more auspicious fiscal conditions and lower life expectancy. It's also unfair to ask taxpayers, many of whom don't have traditional pension programs anymore, to finance much better benefits for state workers, especially in the current economic climate.
Even these reforms would not be enough. Lawmakers also should make it easier to spread the pain of deficits, by expanding the governor's ability to make budget cuts across the board and at higher percentages than now allowed. Legislators and Gov. Jindal also need to have a frank discussion about repealing constitutional restrictions that have left higher education and health care exposed to disproportionate cuts.
Of course, Louisianians expect lawmakers not to make matters worse. Ignoring warnings of fiscal disaster, the Legislature last year passed unaffordable tax breaks, including a repeal of the Stelly tax plan that is helping balloon this year's deficit and will hurt state government for years.
Yet some lawmakers are still in fiscal wonderland. They have filed numerous bills that would exponentially increase deficits for state and local governments, including proposals to raise the already generous homestead exemption. Another ill-conceived measure, by Rep. John Alario of Westwego, would raise the state supplemental pay to most police officers, sheriff deputies and firefighters. Those employees provide important services, but their salaries and benefits seem competitive enough already. And every penny in additional pay has to be cut from other services, mostly education and health care, that have already been severely affected.
Most Louisianians appreciate the gravity of our fiscal situation and the need to publicly evaluate our state's priorities while protecting our future. Some lawmakers do as well, judging by some of their recent statements on the matter. They should not let this session go by without major fiscal reforms.
The Times-PicayuneLouisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.What we got instead was a one year fiscal Band-Aid.
So lawmakers begin this year's session Monday facing an even worse fiscal outlook. Despite $248 million in mid-year cuts, they may need to trim as much as $400 million more from this year's budget. Then, they have to slash another $1 billion in expenditures to balance the 2010-2011 budget.
To say that lawmakers will have to make hard choices is an understatement. Yet they must find the vision to look ahead and pass reforms that help stabilize the state's finances for years to come and end the current cycle of jagged cuts that are eviscerating vital services.
To that end, Louisiana has to significantly reduce its number of state employees and slow down the growth of salaries and benefits, which are asphyxiating the state's budget.
Despite significant efforts by the Jindal administration to trim the bureaucracy, Louisiana has more than 100,000 state workers. That's unsustainable. This session, the governor and lawmakers must pass serious measures to cut that number, such as state Treasurer John Kennedy's unsuccessful proposal last year to eliminate 15,000 jobs over three years. That would save hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
The state also needs to reform a structure that for years has led to automatic pay raises for most state workers. Last year, 98 percent of classified state workers got a pay hike. The number is down to 61 percent this fiscal year, and that's progress. But giving pay increases to six of every 10 state workers is still jaw dropping in the face of monster deficits and while most Louisianians are seeing their income drop or stagnate.
Legislators shouldn't buy the old argument that state workers deserve special treatment because they earn less than their private counterparts. That's just not true, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. The department said private employees nationwide earned $27.42 in salary and benefits per hour worked in December, while employees of state and local governments got $39.60 in salary and benefits per hour worked the same month. The complete report is on the Web site of the department's Bureau of Labor Statistics, at www.bls.gov.
Another fallacy is that the public sector needs to pay more to attract or retain employees. But governments are not having trouble filling positions, in great part because people are attracted to the relative stability of public work compared to the private sector.
Lawmakers also need to reform the state's pension program to adjust it to our new fiscal reality and to place it more in line with the benefits most Louisiana workers receive. That means revising provisions that let some state workers retire with almost full benefits at a very young age. Those terms were created decades ago, under more auspicious fiscal conditions and lower life expectancy. It's also unfair to ask taxpayers, many of whom don't have traditional pension programs anymore, to finance much better benefits for state workers, especially in the current economic climate.
Even these reforms would not be enough. Lawmakers also should make it easier to spread the pain of deficits, by expanding the governor's ability to make budget cuts across the board and at higher percentages than now allowed. Legislators and Gov. Jindal also need to have a frank discussion about repealing constitutional restrictions that have left higher education and health care exposed to disproportionate cuts.
Of course, Louisianians expect lawmakers not to make matters worse. Ignoring warnings of fiscal disaster, the Legislature last year passed unaffordable tax breaks, including a repeal of the Stelly tax plan that is helping balloon this year's deficit and will hurt state government for years.
Yet some lawmakers are still in fiscal wonderland. They have filed numerous bills that would exponentially increase deficits for state and local governments, including proposals to raise the already generous homestead exemption. Another ill-conceived measure, by Rep. John Alario of Westwego, would raise the state supplemental pay to most police officers, sheriff deputies and firefighters. Those employees provide important services, but their salaries and benefits seem competitive enough already. And every penny in additional pay has to be cut from other services, mostly education and health care, that have already been severely affected.
Most Louisianians appreciate the gravity of our fiscal situation and the need to publicly evaluate our state's priorities while protecting our future. Some lawmakers do as well, judging by some of their recent statements on the matter. They should not let this session go by without major fiscal reforms.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Some positive thanks!
I called up Ayanna Pressley's office to get some financial information. They were very polite, and got back to me about a week later with the information I requested. I wrote an editorial for the Boston Globe about what a farce the closing of the libraries is, but they seem to have ignored it.
Anyway, it might seem as if I'm bashing politicians here all the time, so I'd like to say something positive about one who has lived up to her campaign process of "access".
I am still waiting for a call back from Councilor Connolly on why he thinks the Open Meeting Law is restricting his work as he told a group in Brighton. It has only been 3 or 5 months.....
Anyway, it might seem as if I'm bashing politicians here all the time, so I'd like to say something positive about one who has lived up to her campaign process of "access".
I am still waiting for a call back from Councilor Connolly on why he thinks the Open Meeting Law is restricting his work as he told a group in Brighton. It has only been 3 or 5 months.....
Monday, March 22, 2010
wooohoooo!
Here I am getting blisters on my palms and trying out my new gppro camera, thanks to raoul and our team usa hovercraft shirt!
morning in Baja
This trip has been the most physically grueling I've taken. We get up at 6:30, eat and are on the road at 7:30, we ride until just before the sun starts to set, with just a lunch break over the Baja 1000 course. Today will be the 6th and final day of riding. We started out with 6 riders, and by day 4 we were down to just me and the two guides, the others all needed time off, including an ex-police officer about my age, in excellent physical shape. The three amigos rode like the wind down the pacific coast, often at top gear 3/4 throttle through sand, rocks, washboard dirt roads and through rivers. No fun at all.
I picked up a bug somewhere and was fighting that off for the last two days, I feel a bit better this morning after 6 delicious steak tacos. Mexico is muy tranquillo (very calm) and everyone is nice, the kids line up at the side of the roads to give us high fives as we come into the tiny towns along the way.
Looking forward to Cabo tonight, 1000 miles of dirt trails in 6 days deserves a drink!
Friday, March 19, 2010
having no fun at all in baja
amazing scenery, toughest trails ever, we were supposed to do 210 miles today and ended up doing 67 in 11 hours, leaving five guys stranded in the desert mountains with no water. An almost potentially dangerous situation.
Saw a mexican eagle, a rattlesnake, and some men with bravado fall by the wayside.
viva mexico!
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Petition to save the Libraries--please sign up
There is a petition drive underway to try and stop the
> closing of a number of Boston Public Library branches,
> including locally, the Fields Corner Branch. The Dorchester
> Reporter has a fuller description of the issue.
>
> http://www.dotnews.com/2010/neighbors-stir-support-library-branches
>
> Also, the Globe reported on the public hearing last week.
>
> http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/03/09/rankings_to_decide_fate_of_libraries/
>
> I am collecting signatures via email for the petition
> drive. If you would like me to add your name, please respond
> to this email and say that you want to added, and give you
> full name and address (for example):
>
> Please add my name to the petition:
>
> John Doe
> 123 Main Street
> Dorchester, MA 02122
>
> I will attach hardcopies of any emails that I receive to
> the petition sheet I submit, so that your source email will
> be confirmation of wanting to be on the petition.
>
Mike Cote
> closing of a number of Boston Public Library branches,
> including locally, the Fields Corner Branch. The Dorchester
> Reporter has a fuller description of the issue.
>
> http://www.dotnews.com/2010/neighbors-stir-support-library-branches
>
> Also, the Globe reported on the public hearing last week.
>
> http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/03/09/rankings_to_decide_fate_of_libraries/
>
> I am collecting signatures via email for the petition
> drive. If you would like me to add your name, please respond
> to this email and say that you want to added, and give you
> full name and address (for example):
>
> Please add my name to the petition:
>
> John Doe
> 123 Main Street
> Dorchester, MA 02122
>
> I will attach hardcopies of any emails that I receive to
> the petition sheet I submit, so that your source email will
> be confirmation of wanting to be on the petition.
>
Mike Cote
Thursday, March 11, 2010
city council hearing on giving liberty mutual 16 million in tax breaks
shirley kressel has a post at blue mass group:
My comment:
I don't know when people are going to wake up that our business and political priorities are contrary to what is good for the majority of the citizens.
The leaders and executives at Liberty Mutual don't need libraries, they live in communities that value education and libraries, not the inner city neighborhoods of Boston. If they do live in Boston, you can be sure that they are relatively close to Copley which will always be there.
What they do need is even more money for their pockets, and few well placed contributions to candidates is well worth the return on investment. I believe John Keith at Universal Hub did the research and showed that Liberty Mutual executives gave about $16,000 to Mayor Menino last year, what is that rate of return? $16,000 to 16 million?
This tower will be near the corner of Berkeley and Columbus the old Salvation Army building. Blighted? Hardly.
But then again, the Mayor signed off on nearly 6 million in tax breaks a year for 1 Beacon Street because it is in a blighted area. Perhaps being 180 steps away from so many lawmakers at the State House makes an area blighted.
My comment:
I don't know when people are going to wake up that our business and political priorities are contrary to what is good for the majority of the citizens.
The leaders and executives at Liberty Mutual don't need libraries, they live in communities that value education and libraries, not the inner city neighborhoods of Boston. If they do live in Boston, you can be sure that they are relatively close to Copley which will always be there.
What they do need is even more money for their pockets, and few well placed contributions to candidates is well worth the return on investment. I believe John Keith at Universal Hub did the research and showed that Liberty Mutual executives gave about $16,000 to Mayor Menino last year, what is that rate of return? $16,000 to 16 million?
This tower will be near the corner of Berkeley and Columbus the old Salvation Army building. Blighted? Hardly.
But then again, the Mayor signed off on nearly 6 million in tax breaks a year for 1 Beacon Street because it is in a blighted area. Perhaps being 180 steps away from so many lawmakers at the State House makes an area blighted.
Sunday, March 07, 2010
Margery Eagan outlines the facts!
Margery Eagan in the Herald today finally outlines the facts of a recent study showing how government workers make more than the private sector, especially when health and other benefits are included.
When I was in Las Vegas a few weeks ago as a birthday present from my wife, we went to Denny's on Sunday morning because they give you a free breakfast on your birthday. (Yes, I am always trying to save money. If its free it's for me!) Our waitress was clearly exhausted as she was rushing around to a packed house. She looked to be in her 30's with braces. When she got to our table she apologized in advance and told us she was tired, we empathized with her. She said she was a nurse and had done 3 straight night shifts but she had to do this shift at Denny's as well.
I don't know why, but I started to get angry and sad, and literally a tear came to my eye, and I thought of: Steve Murphy. These politicians just don't understand how hard average citizens are working just to try and make ends meet. A women works as a nurse and then works at Denny's on weekends clearly to pay her bills?? Meanwhile, all last year Steve Murphy goes from campaign stop to campaign stop telling everyone how much he loves his job and then 2 months after getting elected he is off running for a statewide office? Amazing.
When I was in Las Vegas a few weeks ago as a birthday present from my wife, we went to Denny's on Sunday morning because they give you a free breakfast on your birthday. (Yes, I am always trying to save money. If its free it's for me!) Our waitress was clearly exhausted as she was rushing around to a packed house. She looked to be in her 30's with braces. When she got to our table she apologized in advance and told us she was tired, we empathized with her. She said she was a nurse and had done 3 straight night shifts but she had to do this shift at Denny's as well.
I don't know why, but I started to get angry and sad, and literally a tear came to my eye, and I thought of: Steve Murphy. These politicians just don't understand how hard average citizens are working just to try and make ends meet. A women works as a nurse and then works at Denny's on weekends clearly to pay her bills?? Meanwhile, all last year Steve Murphy goes from campaign stop to campaign stop telling everyone how much he loves his job and then 2 months after getting elected he is off running for a statewide office? Amazing.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Update on McCrea v. Flaherty: Don't believe the City Council!!
Believe it or not, the McCrea v. Flaherty case is still not over, nearly 5 years after it began. We were supposed to go to court in February but the presiding judge was busy.
We asked the City Council if they would allow us to video tape the hearing. You will see councilors such as Mike Ross and John Connolly talking about how they care about transparency and how they are making sure that the BRA boards have to be videotaped.
But, when it comes to their own transparency????? NO, NO, NO. They wrote a letter to the court explaining why it was important that they and their attorneys were not videotaped while they were explaining to the court about how transparent they are!!!!
And, of course, the court decision came back in their favor. So, in a court case about how important transparency is, the City Council and the Courts have acted against such a horrible thing as someone quietly standing to the side and video taping the procedures. I'm so proud of our democracy!
You can't make this stuff up!
We asked the City Council if they would allow us to video tape the hearing. You will see councilors such as Mike Ross and John Connolly talking about how they care about transparency and how they are making sure that the BRA boards have to be videotaped.
But, when it comes to their own transparency????? NO, NO, NO. They wrote a letter to the court explaining why it was important that they and their attorneys were not videotaped while they were explaining to the court about how transparent they are!!!!
And, of course, the court decision came back in their favor. So, in a court case about how important transparency is, the City Council and the Courts have acted against such a horrible thing as someone quietly standing to the side and video taping the procedures. I'm so proud of our democracy!
You can't make this stuff up!
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Greetings from Nicaragua
I have had a lovely few days here in Nicaragua. I am thinking of opening a motorcycle dealership here because it is less corrupt than Boston. I cleared some land with a couple of locals and a chainsaw for a friends project, met with his builder and laid out the new buildings, and talked about how we can make it as ecologically friendly as possible, such as solar hot water heaters, recharging rain water, using grey water to irrigate the garden, etc.
I was out surfing with my friend who i was staying with and his girlfriend. we had a perfect quarter mile long beach to ourselves. just at dusk an oliver riddley turtle came ashore and i got into a foot race with a local with a machete to save the turtle. i was able to convince the gentleman that it would bring him good luck to let the 100 pound turtle go, and back into the surf i directed him. i love turtles, and to see one hacked up on a perfect evening would be terrible.
ive been staying in total surf shack. we have a composting toilet out side, one tap of running water for dishes which hadnt been done for eons until i washed them this morning. i havent had a shower since i left the states 5 days ago, just making frequent trips into the ocean to swim, surf, and body surf. played soccer with the local kids on the beach, and bought some souvenirs for friends back home.
it turns out that this weekend was motorcycle weekend, so about 300 bikers and i enjoyed the beach side shacks, the ac-dc coverbands, and the dancing and the drinking and the partying went on well past when i went to bed at 3 am, after helping two american girls get rides on motorcycles with guys who knew how to ride, and werent drunk!
It has been very relaxing, and the people are friendly, and you really get a sense of how much we use and waste in the western world. do we really need a wii, a flatscreen, 3 cars, movie theaters, etc. why not get out for a hike, play some ball with the locals and be exhausted leading to a good nights sleep!
still, cant wait to get home to see Dr. Lora!
many young folks here, very idealistic, very fed up with the futility of governments. they are starting eco tours, trying to save parklands, and trying to educate and enpower locals. very rewarding.
hope everyone is doing well in boston, i watched the usa lose to canada in hockey in a room full of canadians (tons of them here) so i was happy for them.
adios!
I was out surfing with my friend who i was staying with and his girlfriend. we had a perfect quarter mile long beach to ourselves. just at dusk an oliver riddley turtle came ashore and i got into a foot race with a local with a machete to save the turtle. i was able to convince the gentleman that it would bring him good luck to let the 100 pound turtle go, and back into the surf i directed him. i love turtles, and to see one hacked up on a perfect evening would be terrible.
ive been staying in total surf shack. we have a composting toilet out side, one tap of running water for dishes which hadnt been done for eons until i washed them this morning. i havent had a shower since i left the states 5 days ago, just making frequent trips into the ocean to swim, surf, and body surf. played soccer with the local kids on the beach, and bought some souvenirs for friends back home.
it turns out that this weekend was motorcycle weekend, so about 300 bikers and i enjoyed the beach side shacks, the ac-dc coverbands, and the dancing and the drinking and the partying went on well past when i went to bed at 3 am, after helping two american girls get rides on motorcycles with guys who knew how to ride, and werent drunk!
It has been very relaxing, and the people are friendly, and you really get a sense of how much we use and waste in the western world. do we really need a wii, a flatscreen, 3 cars, movie theaters, etc. why not get out for a hike, play some ball with the locals and be exhausted leading to a good nights sleep!
still, cant wait to get home to see Dr. Lora!
many young folks here, very idealistic, very fed up with the futility of governments. they are starting eco tours, trying to save parklands, and trying to educate and enpower locals. very rewarding.
hope everyone is doing well in boston, i watched the usa lose to canada in hockey in a room full of canadians (tons of them here) so i was happy for them.
adios!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
