Tomorrow is go time for the mayoral primary and I’m still struggling. The three candidates for mayor are three genuinely good people, each of whom would serve Newton well as mayor. (If you want to complain that I’m ignoring four other candidates, read this and then beat me up in those comments.) I hate to choose among them, but they only let you darken one circle.
For some good internal blog governance reasons, I’m not going to include my final selection. (I may in the comments.) Rather, here’s the framework for my thinking. If you can tell from this post how I’m leaning, I haven’t adequately captured how conflicted I am.
All three
Much of my difficulty with choosing among the three real candidates is that they all seem to care about the things that matter to me: transportation, housing, village revitalization, education. They have all, by different paths, come to embrace Complete Streets. They all know there’s an urgent need to provide more affordable housing, and that housing and village revitalization go hand-in-hand. They are all deeply committed to a strong public school system.
All three seem to think that being Mayor of Newton would be hot-snickety. While I can imagine any of the three doing a fabulous job and then being encouraged to move on to higher office, I think we can take their collective word that they don’t view mayor as a stepping stone. They are running because they want to make Newton better.
Scott Lennon
Scott’s been preparing for this job his whole adult life, in the positive sense.* Over his alderman/councilor years, he’s lived city government, developed the policy skills, and gained the leadership experience to be an effective mayor. I imagine a strong manager, comfortable operating the levers of the mayor’s office. Scott is a terrific politician who would likely be able to build coalitions.
My concern with Scott is that he may be more prone to political compromise than to strong policy outcomes. The next mayor needs to be willing to set some priorities that may not be immediately popular. His (and Ruthanne’s) unwillingness to commit to an override, for instance, is not a sign that he’s willing to take a political hit for the right outcome.
Also weighing against Scott: he’s a dude. All else being equal, we should elect a woman. After a kazillion years of white men and one African-American man, let’s see how a city runs when a woman’s at the wheel.
Bottom line: Newton will be in strong, capable hands with Scott, but we might not progress as much.
Amy Sangiolo
Amy has said two things that distinguish her. One, she’s willing to commit to an override. Two, she’s going to reset the priority of the roads program from condition to design. It’s not just that those are the right positions, they are positions that indicate a woman who’s confident in her knowledge of the city and its needs and is going to make a difference on day one.
My experience of Amy, going back to several months working closely to shape the Chestnut Hill Square special permit, is someone who sweats the details and pushes for better. She knows there’s more to be gotten from developers. I know that’s not everyone’s perception of Amy, but I stand by my firsthand experience. And, she’s wicked smart, in a low-key way.
My concern with Amy is that she has historically given more weight to local opponents than to the larger city interests than I would like. And, she is not as natural a leader as Ruthanne or Scott.
Bottom line: Amy is most likely to jump out of the gates, making things happen … as long as there isn’t too much neighborhood pushback.
Ruthanne Fuller
I get giddy watching Ruthanne in the forums, rattling off policy detail after policy detail. Her command of the issues is awesome. And, she gets it (see above). What’s truly impressive is that she didn’t start where she’s ended up. She has been listening and absorbing. There is no question that she would be a formidable intellectual presence in City Hall.
I love that Ruthanne frequently makes an incredibly important point: we need more planners in City Hall.
What concerns me? When I hear her cite the need for a master plan for each village center, I want to scream. We. Have. So. Many. Plans. And, the planning process isn’t going to cure what ails us: folks deeply divided about how we should approach the future. Another Newton Centre Task Force isn’t going to get to a unified vision any more than the last one. We need a strong point-of-view. And, her unwillingness to commit to an override is disappointing, especially given what she correctly identifies as the costly things we need to do, like hire more planners.
Bottom line: All the right outcomes, but maybe not in the first term.
*This is not the case of someone who has been positioning himself for the next job as soon as he’s in the first job. If you think of public service as a craft, Scott has been developing his craft.
Excellent post Sean. You’ve really summed up many of the issues (strengths and weaknesses) that I’ve been struggling with. We’re so fortunate to have this choice before us and I look forward to a really substantive discussion once the field is narrowed.
All 3 are terrific, if they win.
Even if they don’t win (and one won’t), they are still terrific, Tom!
Sean – thanks for the excellent summary. I wish we had ranked ballots for primaries! I have a strong order of preference, and wish I could choose which 2 I want on the final ballot. We are lucky to have such a strong field this year – my only regret is that, no matter who wins, I will be sorry to have lost the other two from the City Council.
@Sean
Good post.
Disagree strongly on the lack of need for a master plan for the village centers. What exists right now that tells us where we should have more high-density development and how much?
It feels like this is being made up as we go. (I’m pretty sure that’s actually the case.) And to me, it feels that only certain parts of the city are truly on the radar for high-density development. I’d like to see that be more prospective and transparent. I don’t think that’s the case right now.
Paul,
I guess what I would like to see is something a little less open-ended. I’d like to see the mayor provide a vision and let the community respond. I’d like her to say something like: I want to put 200 new housing units in Newton Centre and I’d like to see a certain mix of families, seniors, and young professionals, with a certain ratio of affordable and market-rate. Now, community, where should we put them?
My heart feels I should vote for Sangiolo. She’s passionate, compassionate, genuine and funny. She’s a maverick and her history of respectfully challenging the status quo would serve her and us well.
My brain thinks I should vote for Fuller. She’s smart, analytic and really digs deep before making decisions. Our budget process and our infrastructure challenges would be in great hands.
My gut says, whoa, how about Lennon? He has the most relevant managerial experience and does a great job managing disparate egos on our city council. I envision our city employees really producing under him.
I like your categorization, Greg.
I’m going with my heart (though my brain and gut are okay with it, too). Amy gets my darkened oval.
I only know two of the mayoral candidates well (Amy and Scott), and I know of Ruthanne’s contribution to the CAG. I think that Newton would be well-served by all. However, to Sean’s point, Amy is not only intelligent and passionate, but she is also highly principled, transparent, collegial and (perhaps a bit too much) humble about her accomplishments.
Back when we were called aldermen, I worked closely with Amy on a number of initiatives during some difficult times for Newton. She has proven time and again that she has the ability to work the process and get things accomplished – not a trivial achievement in a strong Mayor system. She knows the process, understands the politics and can achieve consensus.
For example, anyone going to the Waban or Auburndale branches today should be thanking Amy for that. That effort involved not only understanding policy, process and gaining consensus from the Board and constituents, but also getting the Mayor — who felt compelled to shutter those branches — to buy into her alternative concept. Not easy.
We are electing a Mayor, a leadership position that requires an inherent sense of fairness and strong political skills. Consider the record. I will be voting for Amy Mah Sangiolo today.
Since all three front runners have spent years on the City Council/Board of Aldermen, part of my decision is based on how often each of them stood out on issues that matter to me. Not just voting records, but taking the lead, making statements, working to accomplish things. In my mind, there’s no contest – I’m voting for Amy.
Another example of Amy’s leadership is getting the original Tree Preservation Ordinance passed, so developers cutting trees would have to plant, or pay for, replacement caliper inches of trees. Until Mayor Warren restored the Forestry crew and budget, the Tree Preservation Fund was virtually the only source of fund for tree planting and preservation pruning. (The operating budget was only sufficient to pay for contractors to remove dead & hazardous trees.) And payments by Chestnut Hill Square into the Tree Preservation Fund were the source of funds to buy the bucket truck, log truck and other equipment needed to restore the Forestry crew. Without all that, we’d be in even more of a street tree deficit situation now.
Then when developers were evading the ordinance by, for example, requiring sellers of houses to cut down all the trees as a condition of sale, so the developer could have a clear cut lot for a teardown without having to pay for new trees, Amy led the effort to tighten the ordinance to close the loopholes, getting everyone on board so that the revision passed overwhelmingly.
And I think Amy is also the most honest when it comes to the city’s near term fiscal situation. All three councilors have access to the same information; they’ve all been there for multiple terms. There are no magic bullets, and if Scott and Ruthanne are truly unsure about whether an override would be necessary in their first term, as they say, I don’t think they’ve adequately explained how they would avoid it.
I’m sure that Amy Sangiolo for whom I voted yesterday was a staunch supporter of the village libraries in Waban and Auburndale, but I’d like to think that my successful budget amendment requiring the city to leave the existing collections in both branches so that the neighborhood groups in both villages would have something to build on, which they’ve done very successfully had something to do with the success of the Waban Library Center and the Auburndale Community Library. Amy and I share a commitment to grassroots community action and I’m proud to have supported her’ I will miss her active input on the Zoning and Planning Committee where I believe she served for her entire time as an Alderman/Councilor.
City Councilor/former Alderman Brian Yates