Reportedly, Alderman Ted Hess-Mahan was caught off-guard when Village 14 broke the news Friday that the five-term alderman at-large would be challenging Mayor Setti Warren in his bid for re-election. According to Hess-Mahan, he’s still getting organized and has yet to form a campaign team. Based on the reasons he articulated for running, he clearly hadn’t refined his message when the news broke. Ted is definitely smart enough to know that he needs a more compelling platform than his desire to require a strategic plan and change policy around awarding affordable housing grants. Whatever his reasons for running, Hess-Mahan needs to state them in a way that doesn’t make his entry into the race look gratuitous. Otherwise he risks looking either petty or just plain suicidal.
Unless, of course, he wins. In which case his decision to run is brilliant because he’ll have beaten everybody else who wants to be mayor by four years.
Or maybe a win for Hess-Mahan will be defined by not losing by a large margin. If he gets his name out there now, is he getting a head start on the 2017 mayoral race?
Ouch, Gail. My next exclusive goes to the Newton TAB. 😉
I am not a THM fan however I am wondering if Gail is trying to railroad his campaign before it even starts.
Gail you should be careful you might even have me feeling so bad with your reporting on Ted’s Mayoral Campaign that I might even vote for him.
Come on Ted, I’m not telling you anything you don’t know! Remember — you worked on Setti Warren’s campaign for mayor, and that was when he was unknown. You know what you have to do to beat him. Like I told you, I think it’s great that you’re doing this. But let’s not pretend it’s going to be easy.
Yes, Gail, I do, and I am trying to be a good sport. As you also know, this is a marathon and not a sprint.
Answer me this: how many other mayoral candidates from Newton spend as much time contributing to Village 14? 😀
Hey Gail – Chill out! We know you scooped the guy on his campaign announcement, so kudo’s and a feather in your cap, but maybe you could just chill for a few minutes and let the guy get himself organized. As I like to say in moments of high angst: CALM down . Take a break. Eat a cookie!
Ok, ok. I confess that the news junkie in me can get a little overexcited. But it’s the middle of June and Ted could find himself in a preliminary in three months.
I don’t know, Ted, you might have competition among mayoral candidates who contribute to Village 14. But, hands down, you still win the best blogger award among elected officials!
Gail, I just saw that Tom Sheff is thinking about entering the race. Good on him. As I have told you before, he is earnest, sincere, and just bleeds Newton. And, he is a frequent contributor to the local blog-o-sphere, so I guess I have some competition now.
While running for office, I also have to continue doing my job. For over a year, now, as the chairman of the Land Use Committee, I have been presiding over the review of the proposed Riverside Station mixed use/transit oriented development, which hopefully will be concluded by the end of July and voted on by the BOA in August. It has consumed literally hundreds of hours of my time attending neighborhood meetings, meeting with staff, meeting with local, state and federal officials, working with the developer and the design team to prepare for meetings, meeting with peer reviewers and consultants, talking to neighbors and businesses who will be affected, etc. The list goes on and on. On top of it all, the BOA has gotten more special permit applications this year than it has in a very, very long time, which bodes well for the economic future of Newton but has also increased the burden on me and my committee. Long story short, I am committed to finishing the work I started while embarking on a bold new adventure for me.
One thing I can promise is that this campaign is going to be interesting and, for my part at least, all about the issues and not about personalities.
It was really the Tab that Gail “scooped.” I’m sure they weren’t too happy about that. As to Ted’s “strategy,” I’m curious about the thought involved with running for two different offices at the same time. That doesn’t strike me as a particularly good strategy. But I’m sure Ted has thought it through.
As a resident of Ted’s ward, I am not pleased with his decision to run for both offices. We, for whatever reason, are unable to attract candidates. I would love for him to stay on – he is bright, compassionate, passionate…..but, should he be elected mayor, where does that leave us in ward 3? I don’t know….running for both offices just doesn’t sit right by me. Personally, I won’t vote for him for either office. He needs to commit to one and give it his all. Setti learned his lessson – Ted should take heed.
Seriously, what is the big deal about running for both offices? Ted has been a great alderman, and if he is unsuccessful in his mayor’s race I’d welcome him back to that role. If folks in his ward admit that he was a good alderman, why would they object to him running for both offices and thus increasing his chance to remain the ward’s representative? Do they feel spurned? Is there someone better on the horizon I don’t know about?
That said, if you DON’T like Ted, it is completely understandable, but then just come out and say you won’t ever vote for him for any office.
I can understand minding him running for both if there were a full slate of alderman candidates. Given that he actively tried to drum up other candidates, I’d think unhappiness should be aimed at the lack of political involvement in your ward rather than at Ted not wanting to see the seat unfilled.
@fig– I like Ted, and I’d be likely to vote for him, [although I’m keeping a completely open mind]. My comment was about the “strategy” of running for both offices. I think it’s a bad strategy that makes it look like he’s not planning to win the mayor’s race, and wants the board seat just in case. In an earlier post, I equated that to a pilot wearing a parachute. Not the best way to make passengers feel comfortable getting on the plane.
Add me to the “anxious to understand why” category too.
In the TAB article today, Hess-Mahan criticizes Mayor Warren for not offering a residential exemption; for the way he’s handled Austin Street so far; and for too many vacancies at City Hall: Important issues, no doubt, but I bet they wouldn’t take away a dozen votes total from our very well-like, very engaged, mayor.
Two old expressions come to mind: “Elections are a referendum on incumbents” and the one about “the devil you know.” If Hess-Mahan’s campaign is going anywhere, he’s not only going to have to define what he’s about but what’s wrong with Setti Warren. Not easy. Arguably, not even possible.
I will NEVER vote for THM. Why? Two reasons. Issues AND Personality.
I look at Ted running for both offices in a different light: it seemed very apparent from one of his previous posts that he has tried — hard — to find candidates to run for the W3 seats, to no avail. He knows that, win or lose, W3 would be without the representation it needs, so now he is running for both spots so that at least if he loses, his neighbors can still trust in his guidance on the BOA.
My point is this: if people in W3 stepped up and decided to run, I believe Ted would withdraw his candidacy for the BOA and focus exclusively on the Mayor’s race. This belief makes me totally comfortable with him running for both seats (full disclosure: I’ve never actually been uncomfortable with this ‘Lyndon’s Law’ of politics), because I see it as less of a ‘pilot-with-a-parachute’ and more a ‘picking-up-an-extra-burden’.
p.s., Ted: if I’m putting words in your mouth here, please forgive me.
Greg Reibman — Didnt the referendum on the incumbent occur the first week of March? (Actually, three of them)
Actually I think a mayor who is able to convince a majority of voters to trust him with up their hard earned cash (after being understandably skeptical about doing so last time with a different mayor) may be similarly inclined to want him around to spend it.
Good point, Hoss. I don’t mean this as a criticism of the mayor, because I’ve agreed with his tax policy. But any mayor who raise taxes 7 times in 4 years is vulnerable.
I just returned from an interview with Jenn Adams at NewTV in which I tried in the limited time allowed to answer the important question about running for two offices. I apologize in advance for a very long post to explain my reasoning.
This is a gut wrenching decision. I love the job I have and would truly miss it (obviously I would miss it less if I were the Mayor). At the same time, I and a number of others have been trying to recruit candidates to run for AAL3 for two years or more without success.
The good news is that I have met a lot of bright, compassionate, articulate, energetic, enthusiastic potential candidates. I wish any number of them would run and I would be proud and happy to serve alongside them.
The bad news is that everyone I have talked to, and there have been quite a few, has had entirely legitimate reasons for not running. The most frequent answer is that they do not have the time to commit to doing the job they way they would want to do it, whether because they have small children, elderly parents, a demanding job, a job that takes them out of town a lot, or other obligations that would make it hard for them to run, let alone serve. Others say the time just isn’t right, either because they have started a new job, have too many other commitments, or are trying to build a business or professional practice that they just cannot take time away from until it is up and running well. Still others say being an alderman just isn’t right for them, or would prevent them from doing business in Newton because of state ethics laws, such as architects who would have to get permits from the city, and just cannot afford to take the hit.
Some have suggested the problem is apathy. Based on the admittedly small sample of people I have met, many of whom are just as new to Newton as I was when I first ran and won elective office, that is simply not the case.
Native Newtonian, a vacant office would force a special election (although I have docketed a proposed charter amendment that would make it optional). I am not 100% sure what happens if no one runs in the race, although I expect it will go to the person with the most write-in votes. In any given year, that could be Mickey Mouse or Underdog, so not a sure thing there. But I fully respect yours and Mike Striar’s feelings about this, and the lack of viable candidates leaves me with a painful dilemma.
One last thought, which I shared with both Emily Costello at the TAB and Jenn Adams at NewTV. Newton is about to embark on a private/public partnership to develop the Austin Street parking lot in Newtonville with a mixed-use development that will alter the face of Newtonville for generations, not to mention create traffic, parking and other headaches while it is under construction. The ward aldermen, the planning department and the Joint Advisory Planning Group, consisting of resident volunteers who met with planners to discuss the redevelopment of this city-owned property in the heart of Newtonville, have worked for several years now on plans for the future of this site. To date, this has been an entirely open, transparent and inclusive process. When it came to allowing developers to bid on the site, however, the Mayor’s office chose a process shrouded in secrecy with a team of evaluators meeting behind closed doors, using undisclosed criteria to evaluate the various proposals and make recommendations to the Mayor, who has the final say on which developer and design will be chosen.
If there is anything I have learned after 10 years on the Board of Aldermen, including 8 years on Land Use and 4 years as chairman of Land Use, a project this big, with this great an impact, which is likely to be very controversial, must be thoroughly vetted not only by local officials but also by the public, and particularly the neighborhood that will be most heavily affected. The loss of parking during construction as well as traffic, and all the other disruptions that come with a major construction project, could hurt both residents and businesses in the area. Even if the project turns out to be a boon to at least some local businesses after completion, it may well put a number of other people out of business both during and after construction.
As Chairman of Land Use, I have overseen the special permit process for the largest proposed mixed use developments in Newton in recent history, including both Chestnut Hill Square and Riverside Station. As I noted previously, these projects have consumed literally hundreds of hours of my time making sure they are thoroughly vetted before the Board of Aldermen votes. And I think my committee and I have done a pretty good job, if I do say so myself. Not everyone likes every aspect of either project, and others don’t like anything at all, but almost everyone seems to appreciate that the Chestnut Hill Square development is a tremendous improvement over the blighted Omni Foods site, especially now that Wegman’s has agreed to open a store there. But that would not have happened if it had not been for the foresight of the development team, the law department and myself when we drafted the board order, giving CHSq the flexibility to be able to accommodate the reallocation of square footage to increase the grocery store space to where Wegman’s was willing to sign up for this site.
What Riverside and CHSq have in common is that the developers took their conceptual plans to the aldermen, the neighbors, local, state and federal officials and other stakeholders to get their feedback. From the initial design phase in 2002, CHSq took over 8 years to come to fruition. Riverside Station–which the MBTA has sought to develop since the early 1980s, would never come as far as it has without having gone through many iterations over the last four years, including numerous neighborhood meetings, a stringent design review process in the planning department, a conceptual review last summer in the Land Use committee, and a special permit process that has involved three nights of public hearings and multiple working sessions thus far, and should be completed sometime in July with a vote in August by the full board. Both proposals went through many iterations and changes before they were ready to file for special permits. While both projects are imperfect in the eyes of many–many of the neighbors still think both projects are too large while the planning department and a number of the aldermen think they are both too small–getting buy-in from the public is an essential part of the process.
While I would love to take credit, the reason that CHSq passed the board unanimously is that the entire process from beginning to end was open, inclusive and transparent and the project itself was, in fact, shaped by and in response to public feedback. For some there is still a lot not to like (Route 9 construction and the reconfiguration of Newton Centre among others), but consensus was reached because everyone involved understood and was involved in the process. My sincere hope is that we get nearly as much consensus on Riverside at the end of the day.
Contrast that process with the Austin Street process. A few weeks ago, a public neighborhood meeting was held to discuss improvements to Walnut Street in Newtonville. Naturally, no one wanted to talk about Walnut Street unless and until the Austin Street project was discussed. And when some of the public learned about the evaluation and recommendation process taking place behind closed doors, they were understandably unhappy. Under pressure from the ward 2 aldermen and myself, the planning department is going to hold a public meeting to discuss the Austin Street project and the evaluation team’s recommendations in late June. My understanding is that the Mayor plans to make a decision in July and then have the developer file for a special permit application in January based on the design chosen. The Land Use Committee will review and recommend whether to approve the special permit next term.
Five months may seem like a long time, but as CHSq and Riverside show, it may take many months or even years to develop and get approval for a design, through many, many iterations and changes, particularly one this big and potentially controversial, to the point where it can be approved by the Board of Aldermen. As I always tell my committee, we have to vote on the project before us, not the one we wish we had before us. If enough people are unhappy enough with the proposal, i.e., if there is little or no buy in at all from the public, the project just won’t be approved. Thus, in order to make this whole process work, Newton either needs a Mayor who thoroughly understands the special permit process, or a Land Use chairman who thoroughly understands the process, or both. Right now, with all due respect to the Mayor, I do not believe his office understands the process the city and the developer need to go through well enough to get even close to getting something passed. Which is just one more reason that, at this point, I feel the need to run for both offices even if I can only serve in one of them.
OK, now about Austin Street and more specifically Chestnut Hill Square and Riverside.
In my view, both those projects are less than they could be precisely because the very public process (and considerable clout/influence/interference/meddling from the aldermen in each respective ward) watered down their potential.
I fear that will happen again here. Of course, we don’t know yet. But isn’t it possible that the process the mayor is using gets us closer to the project that “we wish we had before us”? Even if not, is it at least a sincere attempt to do so?
@Greg, I just saw your last post. You could be right, but I just don’t think it is right not to have a contested race for the highest office in the city, and since no other experienced, credible candidate has stepped up, I threw my hat in the ring. Even if I cannot peel off a bunch of votes with the issues you raised, it would still be worth it to me, and I would humbly suggest the rest of Newton, to at least have the conversation. You are focusing on the horse race. That’s fine. I am focused on the ways things get done and a different vision for Newton’s future.
@Paul Jones, no need to put words in my mouth. As you can see from the above post, I have plenty of them. 😉
@Ted: Guilty and, honestly, feeling a little guilty about it. I applaud your interest in having a thoughtful debate about important issues. Thanks for being willing to subject yourself to an even higher level of ridicule than you’ve already endured over the years. I mean that.
I realize that every candidate has to utter the obligatory “I wouldn’t be in it if I didn’t think I could win” (and hope some donors and supporters will believe him) even when, deep down inside, he or she knows their chances are less than slim. (And when they insist “No, no, I really believe it,” they end up looking a lot less smart than they are.)
As many regulars here know, politics, election strategy and horse races fascinate me. (And, yes, I do enjoy those blog polls: In fact, aren’t you surprised that I haven’t posted one yet?) I’m looking forward to this and the productive debate that I hope your candidacy sparks. Thanks for running.
There’s a bit of skilled drama here — if THM ran for Mayor only, the void of a candidate would be filled, if not by one brave patriot, many, many (Lyndon LaRoche himself might find an apartment). Ted is selling himself short if he believes he’s not the two ton elephant (bear?).
Like water, candidates choose the easiest entrance — and it’s plugged.
I should add that there’s nothing evil in hedging…
I think Ted just made the Guinness Book of Newton Records with the longest post ever to be put on a blog. Gerard used to come close.
The original question was “What will the Hess-Mahan mayoral campaign strategy look like?”
I’m guessing that, based upon his civic involvements and his postings here, he’ll kick off his campaign with a gay pride parade that will route itself skillfully by every elementary school in Newton just as the kids are being dismissed, and then by all the most socially conservative churches and synagogues just when their religious services end, with all the marchers carrying rainbow signs with his name on them in iridescent lettering. In Newton, that would probably get him a lot of votes.
THM – I hope you still have that Buck Fush t-shirt to wear in Barry’s parade.
Campaign slogan suggestion:
Ted Hess-Mahan: He knows his sh*t.
OK, shorter. Why I am running 2 races: 1) Newton deserves a contested Mayoral race with at least two credible and experienced candidates; 2) No one else has actually stepped up in the AAL3 race; and 3) without someone who really knows his…stuff…about the special permit process in the Mayor’s office or chairing Land Use, the proposed redevelopment of three major city-owned properties, including Austin Street parking lot in Newton, the old Newton Centre Library, and the old Parks & Recreation Department on Crescent Street could easily go to hell in a handbag.
@Barry, it is not my style to taunt other religious people and ridicule their beliefs, even when I strongly disagree with them. It is my style to march in a Pride parade.
The answer in debate as to why the political arbitrage can be handled by 1) easily enough and with high fives; but 2) not so easily w/o a scientific try, and 3) sounds… Ted-ish.
When is this debate? This is Gr8!
Questions for Ted about campaign financial protocol:
Is a candidate running for two positions required to raise separate funds for each position? Two separate accounts, treasurers, etc? Or is there one slush fund that can be used for either position at the candidates discretion?
The end of the year 2012 Campaign finance report shows liabilities of $3692. Will you make a serious effort to raise funds and have a real campaign?
Most importantly, will you have an open bar at campaign events?
Max,
If you were implying that the t-shirt about Bush would bother me because I was a Bush supporter, which you assume because I am in opposition to the weird thinking on this blog, think again. I didn’t like Bush. I liked some of what he did, and in the past it’s come up on the blogs. But, in comparison, Obama is a disaster. No doubt he’ll go down as the worst president in history, even had he not been faced with all his current scandals which demonstrate both his dishonesty and his incompetence as a leader. He’s a great basketball player, a seemingly good husband and father, and looks good in a suit. Not enough to lead the strongest superpower in the world.
Ted being in a gay parade wouldn’t bother me either. It’s what you expect from a mayor in Newton. That’s what troubles me. He’s just kind of an extreme example of that kind of thinking.
“Ted being in a gay parade wouldn’t bother me either. It’s what you expect from a mayor in Newton.”
@Barry Cohen, I’m terribly curious: what, if anything, do you like about living in Newton?
Lisap,
Newton is a very nice place. My wife grew up here. My kids grew up here. It’s pretty. Without the social indoctrination, the schools are good, the teachers are dedicated, the kids are generally intelligent and good for one’s own kids to grow up with.
There are a lot of people in Newton with good values. But, for the most part they don’t involve themselves in politics. As a result, the politics of the city have been hijacked by a committed group of left-leaning weirdos like Ted, who themselves are intelligent but are driven by politically-correct values in a non-thinking way. Voter turnout is generally low, and well-organized political groups can control the results.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned pretty well in my long life it’s that people can be convinced of anything. You just need to say it in the right way and associate it with something that people do accept in an intelligent way. My simple conclusion, if you don’t mind my waxing philosophical here, is that today is a product of a big transition that began in the ’60’s. I don’t know how old you are, but I was there.
Two big changes occurred, one good, one bad. Civil rights and drugs. The problem is that the correction of injustice against black people led many people, infused with drugs and philosophizing by their lava lamps, to conclude that anything a white heterosexual male oppressor did was wrong. So, we have the obnoxious hate groups associated with radical feminism and GLBT, and then, in their drugged stupors and infused with bleeding-heart liberalism which wants only to make people not feel bad, at any expense, the other radical ideas of assisted suicide, which will lead to euthanasia, legalization of marijuana which will lead to decriminalizing any drugs, atheism, which has no fundamental values, legalization of abortion, which is now close to infanticide, sexual promiscuity leading to a breakdown of marriage and family, and……
Anything else you want to know?
@Barry, thank you – and I do mean that very sincerely. I appreciate your candor and while I do not always agree with you, I do not always disagree with you either. I appreciate your perspective.
PS – I believe you have a few years on my age, but, to paraphrase Jane Austen, with three teens “you can hardly expect me to own it.” 😉
@Barry – You mention a whole series of different issues with proponents on both sides for a whole host of reasons, many of them quite personal and considered. Its seems downright odd to list a half dozen very distinct issues and then write off everyone who disagrees with you.
You seem to be saying that the only reason anyone could disagree with Barry Cohen on any issue that you care about is because they are drug-addled. I’m hoping you were just getting carried away a bit while writing, otherwise it’s one strange worldview.
Jerry,
If you don’t think drugs have infused themselves into our society, all kinds, black market and prescription, then you are living in a cave somewhere. And it isn’t the whole problem, but it generates a different way of looking at things and a susceptibility to the kind of indoctrination that one wouldn’t accept normally. That doesn’t mean that everyone with what I consider destructive ideas is stoned. But that a lot of the thinking and justification emerged from cloudy-headed thinking and then spread like a kind of plague into a larger segment of society.
And the list of issues may have many different proponents, but, I think you’ll find that we have morphed into a highly polarized society, where one side has adopted a whole syndrome of values, without gray areas, that are in my opinion self-destructive. The other side, my side, I think, adopts some of these values and not others, and generally sees gray areas and will accept part, but not all of what the radicals are promoting. That applies to all the issues I listed and many more. And, yes, there are some in opposition that are equally simple thinkers and see no gray areas.
If you think the ability to see gray areas is “a strange world view”, then you have a strange world view.
@Barry – No, I think the ability to see gray areas is a healthy view. I also think its healthy to recognize that good people with competent minds and strong morals may sometimes support different positions on various issues that I feel strongly about.
Jerry,
Please. I’m adamant about certain things. That doesn’t mean that others don’t have strong morals, by their own definition, or competent minds, as Ted does. And it doesn’t mean that there aren’t a lot of people who think and do just fine, even those who think that at times some of what I oppose is the best choice. But, I’m troubled by what I see as a breakdown in social values, first in Europe, which is becoming a serious mess, and now in the US, which is following in their footsteps. Yes, I have a problem with a society that is generally focused on pleasure and self-indulgence, with legalizing recreational drugs, with expanding casino gambling, with killing babies just prior to birth because they are an interference with ones life, with killing the sick and elderly because their value to society is questionable, with people either not having or abandoning their families because they are absorbed in their own self-gratification, and so on. I’m also troubled by a society that thinks the answer to all its problems is in the hands of the government, and rejects self-reliance and independence, with its attendant downsides at times. You are free to debate with me, but I suggest you seriously consider who here has the “strange world view”.
Barry – What part of my view are you questioning? I didn’t question any of the specific opinions you mentioned, only the dismissing of everyone who disagreed with you on any of these issues as drug-addled.
Are there drug issues in this country? of course.
Does drug use explain people supporting gay rights? or atheism? You lost me there.
Jerry, the society is in trouble, in a huge number of ways, some of which I listed here, and many of which people like Ted support, and you want to obsess on one point I made that you disagree with. If you think this is a debating technique that will work for you, I’m not interested.
@Barry – I was just responding to what your wrote.
OK
Jerry,
My point about the onset of drug usage being coincident with the onset of our descent into paganism, as evidenced by all the changes I’ve mentioned, is a theory. Drug usage may be a cause, it may be a symptom, and it may be something that just happened. It’s not important to debate it. We are where we are, and to me that is the problem. If you want to debate one of the issues we face as a society, which does include progressively legalizing more and more drug usage, that is reasonable. Debating whether or not drug usage caused it is a waste of my and your time, and is, in my opinion, a diversion meant to distract from these issues that we face.
Barry Cohen — If we threw you into Mr Peabody’s way-back machine, your same speech could be used in most any era. You’re seeing an era of openness where personal subjects are discussed and presented without shame (mostly, kinda sorta). If that’s uncomfortable, well, have no fear because we will loop back into a 1950’s (America) soon enough, life works that way.
Barry –
In my lifetime, the country seriously ratcheted up the penalties for drugs in the 1970’s War on Drugs. In the 1980’s we ratcheted up the penalties for crack cocaine. Since then, the laws have remained largely unchanged with the result that we imprison more of our own citizens that any country in the world. We are #1, beating out the most oppressive governments you can think of. What sets our incarceration rates apart from the rest of the world is that we imprison large numbers of drug offenders as criminals that other countries treat as a public health issue.
As far as I know, the ONLY effort to legalize/decriminalize any drug is the current effort with marijuana – so where is this – “progressively legalizing more and more drug usage”?. I can certainly understand someone disagreeing with that policy but I’m having a hard time grasping the idea that our society is somehow coming apart at the seams because of our libertine attitude towards drugs.
Disclaimer: the opinions above should probably be discounted because I’m a pagan-atheist.
Hoss,
In a way you are correct. The pendulum will swing back for sure, as society realizes how far off track it has gone. I said that before in another blog. But that doesn’t mean that the all points on the pendulum are equally desirable. Where we are now is in my opinion self-destructive, which is why I speak against it. Not just SELF-destructive, but supporting things like assisted suicide, unrestricted abortions, easy access to gambling, easy access to drugs, etc., is destructive to others.
Well, the total exclusion of those things by governance will without any doubt hurt both of us.
Jerry,
You have a real thing about drugs, don’t you?
We could stop the flow of drugs tomorrow if, as a society, we supported it. But emotionally we don’t. Cigarette use is way down because it’s frowned upon and restricted almost everywhere. We support that as a society.
LOL !!! – You started this discussion by saying that gay rights, feminism, abortion , euthansia, infanticide, sexual promiscuity, and the breakdown of marriage are all driven by the increased drug use that started in the 60’s. … and you say I have a real thing about drugs ???!!!????
OK – I’ll tune out now and we can return this thread to Ted Hess-Mahan’s campaign strategy
Jerry,
You’re correct. Let’s get back to Ted. That’s the real problem here.
I have to hand it to Barry, he really knows how to put things in a way that I have to agree with in total
I am fed up with political correctness in the country. Besides, if you know me, I never shy away from “calling a spade a spade”
Yes we do know you.
Janet –
I know that you don’t care much for political correctness but I’m just checking to see if you know that some people could be offended by the expression “calling a spade a spade,” because it does, in fact, contain offensive words.
Only Gail can bring it to the gutter level. I guess 99.9% of us thought Janet was referring to what is written below.
To call a spade a spade
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To “call a spade a spade” is to speak honestly and directly about a topic, specifically topics that others may avoid speaking about due to their sensitivity or embarrassing nature.
Actually, Joanne, I was responding to the concerns of a blogger who had requested that it be removed for fear of offending people in the community. If that’s your definition of gutter level, you set your bar very high.
Janet, I didn’t realize that the PC Police has taken issue with a well-known saying that even has its own online encyclopedia reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_call_a_spade_a_spade
I don’t like how the PC Police has made it off limits to say certain things lest it offend some “victim group”. I find it interesting (as former Alderman Paul Colletti would say) that so many left-wingers show what open-minded liberals they are by referring to things they don’t like as “offensive”.
@Jerry. “Pagan-Atheist” I don’t think I have heard the word “pagan” used in I don’t know how many years. Suddenly you and Barry are both using the term in two separate posts within a week of each other. Pagans always had an undefined time of it in the Catholic Church I grew up in during the 50’s. There were the bad Roman pagans who threw Christians to the lions, but there were also good pagans like those in Africa who didn’t know any better and many of those did have a chance to be saved if the African Mission Fathers could get to them in time. But the lowest place in Hell was reserved for the Unitarians which is ironic because the Unitarian Church in West Newton is the only place that has Sunday vespers featuring some of the best Latin church music from the Middle Ages and Renaissance.
Joanne, welcome to the new post-American America, where everyone gets offended by everything.
Up there ^ is a question from Terry Malloy. Answer anyone??
Joanne – Language evolves and changes over time. The words Janet used at the end of her post has morphed from its original literal meaning to a racially offensive expression.
Jane, thanks for saying what I was trying to say in a much more direct and explicit manner. I wasn’t trying to criticize Janet, as was automatically assumed by Joanne and Joshua. I was trying to point something out to her. In hindsight, I should have done it privately.
@Terry. Is this idle curiosity or an offer to host?
It’s interesting to me in regard to certain ideas that have been accepted as axiomatic for eons. Most people still accept most of them. The example I debate with T H-M, our mayoral candidate, often, concerns my idea, axiomatic for generations, that same sex relations are not normal and not to be given the status of a male-female relationship. Now, in the short span of about 10 or 20 years, some parts of some societies have decided that this isn’t so. So, now, if one, like myself, believes this thing that has been axiomatic for eons, I am branded as a “hater”, a “bigot”, “homophobic”. The venom directed at those who never made the decision to adopt the new idea is vicious. Ted personifies this. It’s not that it’s not their right, in America, to think as they please. It’s that they now vilely don’t accept an opinion unlike their own. This is what’s wrong and too many people, especially a segment of the Newton population, buy into this.
Think what you want, but the “hate group” is YOU, and the “hate speech” is coming from YOU. And I don’t want a mayor who thinks this way.
“have morphed”
Gail, you can get off the cross anytime, we are going to need that wood…
I never thought of Janet’s expression in racial terms. It’s another example of political correctness run amok. Someone decides that a word or expression has a new meaning and if you didn’t know it or buy into it, you’re guilty of offensive speech.
This whole thread should fit under the Tag: Blame Hess Mahan.
This is truly the Village Idiot’s Blog.
Marie, not idle curiosity, my vote is for sale to the candidates with the best (read that: OPEN) bar.
Jane- of course “language evolves and changes over time”, but only a shallow and illiterate society ignores historical meaning for passing fads. Gail completely disregarded the context of Janet’s comment in favor of jumping on her for Gail’s supersensitivePC interpretation (is that your super power Gail?). Notice that Greg understood the context.
Gail- required summer reading Philip Roth’s “The Human Stain”.
BACK TO THM:
Any answer to my question of 6-12 (copied below)?
Questions for Ted about campaign financial protocol:
Is a candidate running for two positions required to raise separate funds for each position? Two separate accounts, treasurers, etc? Or is there one slush fund that can be used for either position at the candidates discretion?
The end of the year 2012 Campaign finance report shows liabilities of $3692. Will you make a serious effort to raise funds and have a real campaign?
Most importantly, will you have an open bar at campaign events?
Terry – I’m not ignoring historic meanings of the expression, but if the “passing fad” is in the present, then that’s significant. You like the expression? Then go for it – throw it around – but just remember, you don’t get to control how it’s received.
Jane,
What’s correct today, Friday, June 14? Negro, colored, Afro-American, African American, person of color, black? You know, you can’t hold all people responsible for not keeping up with certain peoples’ changing terminology.
The real thing to respond to is whether or not the person meant what was said as an offense. Janet certainly didn’t and neither I nor most people here interpreted it that way. I interpreted a “spade” as a gardening tool.
People who think like you are creating so much conflict in this country that it’s pathetic.
I find Terry Malloy’s question to be particularly important not just in this context, but as a question of process. There are certain campaign contribution limits for each campaign. If a person holds two campaigns in the same year, can individuals/entities wishing to contribute contribute to both? Can funds transfer between to two in the same way a campaign might contribute to another campaign?
I tried to look this up myself and find the contribution rules to particularly complex. In one Section (MGL CH55, Section 5) individuals seeking office are of course required to organize a committee. In this context, are the following words:
” No candidate shall give his consent to more than one such committee.” The most likely means that someone can’t have more than one committee for the same office. But it doesn’t seem recognize that someone might want to run for more than one office.
So, Hoss you’re a lawyer? (Not sarcastic, actually curious).
The real question is THM: Open Bar or not?
Tom Sheff — no, just thought Terry’s question was very interesting because instinctively there should be a iron curtain in the way funds are separated and contribution limits are enforced.
Hoss, you just happen to have an extra copy of MGL CH55 Sec 5 Hanging around? LOL
@Terry Malloy, I have consulted Patricia Jacobson, the Director of Auditing at the Office of Campaign and Political Finance, regarding campaign finance reporting requirements. Based on my conversation with her, here is my understanding:
A municipal candidate can only have one campaign committee even if s/he is running for two offices. If my committee raises campaign funds for the Mayoral race, it must file a paper copy of the last campaign finance report filed with the Elections Commission. My committee will need to file a change of purpose form (Form P 101) to notify OCPF, so that it will receive notices from OCPF when filings are due. It will then need to file reports electronically with the OCPF. My committee can keep its bank account at the Village Bank. If I were forming a new campaign committee, I would also need to file a new Statement of Organization (Form 101). I would prefer to ride the horse I came in on, so I do not plan to do that. I was also advised that my committee may specify whether funds were raised or expended for the Mayoral race or the Aldermanic race, but is not required to do so. In the interest of full disclosure, I plan to have my committee specify which funds were raised or expended and for which purpose (i.e., Mayoral or Aldermanic campaign). This is not a “slush fund.” So if you or anyone wants to send along a campaign contribution, just let my committee know which race you want my committee to spend it on.
The current liabilities of my committee were loans from me between 2003 and 2007, which are disclosed in the report. My committee did not actively seek to raise campaign funds for the past few years because I had no opponent. Yes, my committee will make serious efforts to raise campaign funds this election. As to your open bar question, I would like to kick off my campaign with a family friendly event, in which case the answer would be “no.”
I can assure you that I am trying to be as diligent and prudent as possible in order to comply with the elections and campaign finance laws, and will do my best to ensure that everything my committee and I do is open and above board.
Thanks for the response Ted. It’s interesting that candidates are not required to specify which campaign the funds were donated to or expended on. Kudos to you for your pledge of transparency.
Unfortunately, you fail the open bar litmus test for the Terry Malloy blessing. However, if you buy rounds and promise to open the City Hall Bar in the Mayor’s office, there is room for negotiation-admittedly the dulcet call of wild leaf blowers may make conversation difficult.
I think THM is saying that his statement of organization will continue to define the purpose as the Alderman At-Large committee (“Committee to Reelect…”), and the Commonwealth will allow those funds to be used for a Mayoral run?
Greg said:
I could try to give a short answer, but I can only speak in sound paragraphs, as opposed to sound bites.
Politics is the art of compromise. CHSq started out as a grand project. The recession resulted in a less ambitious program. Neighborhood opposition, including a threat of suit from the Brookline and Newton neighbors over the Florence Street entrance, left the developer with a choice. NED opted for the path of least resistance, and now we are going to have a Wegmans, restaurants, retail, a parking garage, and someday, maybe, residences on a blighted site formerly occupied by a vacant grocery store and an office building that burned down in a tragic fire. And still NED got sued by the Chestnut Hill Mall/Atrium, which threatened to hold up the project. We also got millions of dollars worth of needed infrastructure and roadway improvements on and around Route 9 (once the construction is completed). Could it have been “better” in the minds of some? Sure. But it would probably still be a blighted property because there was no way 2/3 of the aldermen would have supported it with all that neighborhood opposition.
Riverside Station? The EDC wanted, what, 1 million+ square feet of office/retail/residential? The neighborhood, actual a coalition of three neighborhood associations, Riverside Center, and various property owners on Grove Street wanted next to nothing. So, there was a compromise. Is it the perfect combination of office/retail/residential? Perhaps not. But perfect for whom? You, for example, may have liked a high-rise residential and office building, maybe two office buildings, plus a retail component to rival The Street. But the office and retail uses are traffic intense, and you have to ask yourself whether you would want to live down or across the street or face backups to Lower Falls and Auburndale center, especially on Red Sox game days. While the development may not be as dense as intense as some would like, the developer has also agreed to provide a multi-million dollar community center, a rain garden, access to a platform overlooking the Charles River, build a new T garage, provide an egress for trucks out the rear parking lot of the Hotel Indigo, shared parking for overflow at Indigo events, a dog park (!), roadway improvements, access for future bike and pedestrian routes over rail trials, traffic studies for target intersections in the area, millions of dollars for the city’s inflow&infiltration remediation for the city’s sewers, and the list goes on.
I guess I am saying that it is all in the eye of the beholder. And that politics is the art of the possible.
I am already hearing from neighbors and aldermen who do not think there is enough parking required by the bid the city put out, or that the residential/commercial component is too dense, or that traffic and parking impacts have not been taken into account for Austin Street. The neighboring residents and businesses will have to bear the burden of the decisions that are made. That is not to say the city should capitulate to every demand, rather, that legitimate concerns should be considered and addressed and accommodations or modifications made to the design to improve the project. Sort of like reaching the Pareto Optimality.
Here is a case study about a mixed use/transit oriented project in CA that illustrates my point. The transit authority’s original plan would have been an eyesore and a blight on the neighborhood, and offered little in the way of benefits. Through years and years of engagement with the community–a predominantly working class Latino neighborhood–they achieved something that everyone could love. To me, it illustrates the ideal in terms of forging a partnership between the public, developers and the government and producing a mutually beneficial outcome. Who knows? Maybe when I am Mayor, we can achieve something like this in our community. 😉
Um, er, Ted – I think you forgot to motion for an additional 3 minutes of blogging… or you suffer from blogorrhea.
I know, Janet. I need Imodium TH-M.
Riverside = Traffic Oriented Development
@Nathan, you make a very pithy observation. Unlike many transit-oriented developments, Riverside is a terminus rather than a hub for public transit. Consequently, by definition, it connects cars (and bikes and pedestrians) to public transportation.
Ted, thanks for the compliment. Just calling a spa.. er, club, a club.
Riverside is only a terminus because we cannot envision it to be otherwise. I hoped it would be a destination, serviced largely by transit.
Blog on TH-M!. Being of the verbose school myself at times, I always enjoy your lengthy comments.