Joe Finn, president and executive director of the Massachusetts Housing and Shelter Alliance, is not happy with Newton Mayor Setti Warren’s decision to put the kibosh on the Engine 6 housing process for previously homeless individuals. In his blog and in an email, he questions Warren’s logic and suggests that the decision was political. This is definitely worth reading.
Here’s an excerpt that stands out:
How many homeless men or women will die in shelter or on the streets while he tries to formulate the ‘smart and sensible way’ toward just housing for the poor?
and…
I may be naïve, but I yearn for the likes of Mayor Mann who knew that at times things have to be done simply because they are the right thing to do.
Can we rewind the film, insert Chik-fil-a as the conflict and see how this one plays?
Are we expecting the “Director of Housing and Shelter Alliance” to dance for joy with the result? No. Should we expect Ward 5 residents to breathe a sigh of relief after an ill-planned project was almost shoved down everyone’s throat with very little notice was halted (at least temporarily until all concerns and conflicts are addressed)? YES. Warren is to be commended.
Somehow I got on the Massachusetts Housing and Shelter Alliance email list and received two messages from them just today – both with a very political mission pitting the “good guys” against the “bad guys”. In my opinion, this group will not be a positive resource in helping Newton solve our issues of our homeless population. Right now we need to avoid people who want to use this situation to advance an agenda, however worthy it may be.
I am a complete supporter of the Engine 6 Project, have written, called, spoken out about it, but this second email was really off putting in its tone and I’ve unsubscribed from their list.
@Jane, as unpleasant as it might be, you could stay on their email list to know what they’re saying?
Someone put me on the list without consulting me. Why would I stay on an email list I didn’t want in the first place?
Jane, I forwarded you a copy of the email from the Massachusetts Housing and Shelter Alliance in response to your very nice email to the aldermen declaring your support for affordable housing for homeless people at Engine 6. I don’t know who put you on their email list, but it was not I.
Thanks for the clarification, Ted. I appreciate it.
This is not the black and white issue that everyone seems to try to make it out to be. I agree with Jane that, as much as I support affordable housing, the recent mailings that play on extreme emotions is not leaving a good taste in my mouth.
I am rather disappointed with some of the letters I’ve received from the Waban residents regarding their reasoning for opposing the development. It seems to reflect some lack of understanding and perhaps experience which projects such as the one proposed. Newton would NOT be paving any new ground here. This type of housing project has been successfully created and administered in other communities similar to our own. However that doesn’t mean there are not real issues specific to this site that still need to be ironed out or at least clarified for a project that is proposing to spend $1.6M of taxpayer money.
Asking for more time is neither unreasonable nor unprecedented. Perhaps the process needs to be a bit more streamlined, but many of our affordable housing projects have taken a while to get through.
Having Pine Street Inn, another non-profit dedicated to addressing the issues of lower income housing and more specifically the needs of the homeless, come into Newton should be seen as welcome company for the Newton based CANDO organization. It has always concerned me that we have only one non-profit organization that has been able to build affordable housing projects in Newton. I prefer to see affordable housing projects developed and run by non-profit organizations like the Pine Street Inn than a private commercial developer. I prefer to see HOME and CDBG and CPA funds go toward supporting the efforts of an organization like the Pine Street in, than in the pockets of a for profit developer who has options of making money in the private sector.
At the moment, I support Mayor Warren’s caution. However, I encourage the city to do everything to try to expedite (without skipping any steps) the process. Calling off the public hearing seems to be an unnecessary delay in the project and I hope it gets rescheduled soon.
This space would be ideal for residents with severe physical challenges. It’s next to the hospital which reduces transportation costs for medical appointments down to a minimum. The hospital facility is also a welcoming place for those w disabilities with lots of regular activities including physical activities. Putting chronically homeless out there w nothing else close but a golf course is not the best purpose. Regroup and improve on this one. Stop pointing fingersvery generous citizens, calling them intolerant. If the subject matter was a new Burger King, the same alderman would be fighting to retain the residential feel of this very fragile real estate situation where a very small home w no yard currently is about $800k. The cost of failure is way too great. You could educate Waban about this type of group home with a live-in housemaster — but you could never educate the new home buyer base. Never
@Greer. Your statement is a virtual home run. It should help calm the fears and passions and open the door to a reasonable and compassionate solution. I cannot believe that Pine Street would allow anyone into this facility who would threaten the safety of people in Waban or other parts of Newton.
Greer, a couple of corrections.
First, CANDO is not the only non-profit to receive CDBG, HOME and CPA funds to create affordable housing. SEB recently received grants from the city to create 10 affordable housing units in Auburndale. In the past other organizations have also received local, state and federal funds to create affordable housing in Newton.
Second, CANDO receives CDBG and HOME funds from the city because it is Newton’s designated Community Housing Development Organization, or CHDO. A “CHDO” (pronounced “CHO-DOE”) is a Community-Based Housing Development Organization–a special status which the government grants to nonprofit community organizations engaged in housing development activities that benefit low and moderate income families. To become a CHDO, an organization must apply to its local city or county government (if the organization is located in an urban area), or the state (if the organization is located in a rural area).
Dave and Hoss are right on the mark.
Let’s take some deep breaths and be thoughtful. This can be done in a better way.
Hoss, the issue of support for once homeless people is an important one. I spoke last night with a member of Newton Congregations, which includes churches and temples throughout Newton and advocates for affordable housing for low to moderate income families and homeless people. These faith-based communities are willing to provide some of the basic support for once homeless people who would live in Engine 6. This can come in the form of mentoring as well as donations of essentials like basic furniture, dishes, curtains, etc. People who are homeless need these basics since generally they have to be able to carry virtually everything they own. Engine 6 would also have support staff living in one of the units, available 24/7 to provide assistance and make sure that residents are doing what they need to do to live up to their obligations and lift themselves out of homelessness.
But everyone would know this if the Mayor had not cut off public discussion at the community meeting scheduled for last night by scuttling the project. This sends a very unfortunate message. It is already hard enough to create affordable housing even with broad-based support, particularly in Newton where real estate is so expensive. By failing to engage the community and show his support, the message to non-profits is that the city will not make it any easier to create affordable housing, particularly for people who were homeless. Just as importantly, however, it reinforces the negative perception that Newton is an elitist community made up of 1%-ers.
When President-Elect Kennedy addressed the state legislature before leaving for Washington, DC, he told them “to whom much is given, much is expected in return.” He also quote from a sermon by John Winthrop, given to fellow Puritans abroad the Arbella before they set foot in the new world, in which he said they were as a “city upon a hill” and that “the eyes of the world are upon us.” What he meant was that we must lead by example, and that we will be judged not only by how we treat the most fortunate, but also how we serve the least among us. Newton is an affluent city where most people never have to worry about having a roof over their heads. But there are already homeless people among us. Permanent affordable housing is key to ending homelessness, but it won’t happen unless the city’s leaders are willing to stick their necks out.
THM — Every line of the statement you addressed to me could stand on it’s own, it’s not relating to the comment I made. The image of what Waban is can only be learned by dealing with non-profits that help the poor, seeing who is on the ground helping, who is on the board, and who is behind them with contributions — it’s Waban at a rate that may be equaled but I doubt exceeded. The preaching is informative — “upon the hill” was used many times including by Ronald Reagan so it’s certainly a good one.
There is a huge misunderstanding if anyone thinks formerly homeless are not currently in bona fide affordable housing in Waban today. They are. This is not an issue that should be evaluated by emotions alone, the impact on the potential resident is important. Also important is a very fragile real estate environment, one worth billions no doubt. One should not govern based on emotions alone — even on very popular subjects.
It’s really disheartening to see people try to trade on the NIMBY aspect of this debacle or create some false moral standard by which we now must abide.
Forget about whether Waban wants this or not. The question we should be asking is whether the City of Newton believes that this is the best use of its funding to help a vulnerable population? If we have vulnerable people in this City (we do), then what about them? Why would we not prioritize these people?
Second, when did other cities and towns become responsible for those in Boston? If the new operating ethos is that we are all our brothers’ keeper, then should we expect Weston to help us with our vulnerable population? Why stop with Boston’s homeless? Maybe we should hold Setti responsible for not saving victims of domestic or sexual abuse? What about war veterans with PTSD? Marathon bombing victims? Setti, where art thou?
Maybe we should. But if we do, I would hope that we would be discussing the real issue, which is whether a project like this is well-conceived, not rushed, and effectively communicated to the public. I would hope that the goal would be consensus, not division. Further, if people actually do care about affordable housing, then how about talking about a project that could go forward? Complaining about one that is not going forward does not really help anyone. That is, if that is actually the point of this exercise.
The letter bothers me. I really feel that Engine Six could be the future home for residents seeking affordable housing or for the disabled. I saw that the Pine Street Inn was willing to compromise, but the level of understanding withint the community needed more than 21 days. The community didn’t say NEVER. . . . the community wanted more information. If something was moving next to me, that wasn’t a single family home I would want more information.
Austin Street has been in the public eye for years. Engine Six popped up. We all need to be more tolerant of each other’s opinion and we are each entitled to have our opinions.
Bill, even if I agreed with everything you said, h0w did cutting off the public discussion by blocking the project prematurely further a much needed, albeit difficult conversation?
On the merits, federal CDBG, HOME and ESG funds are for providing affordable housing for low to moderate income individuals and families and the homeless. If that is not the best use for them in Newton, then perhaps the Mayor should turn those funds down and let other deserving communities have them. And believe it or not, there are homeless people right here, right now, in Newton. They are just invisible to some people.
Ted: Why continue a conversation — one that was tearing a community in half — when the project was not going forward?
And you know full well that the Mayor supports affordable housing. He has spent most of his career on it. Why are you implying that he would not want to help the vulnerable in Newton, especially after he just said that he would prefer to do just that? Yes, you may disagree with him on some issues. This may be one example. But to imply that he is not committed to affordable housing because he does not meet your purity test is unfair and wrong.
To quote JFK: “What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.”
Wow, Bill. That JFK quote is EXACTLY what I’ve been trying to say in my debates with Ted on other issues, regardless of what side we are on.
Tolerance doesn’t mean agreeing on everything or on anything. It means understanding that there are people who have a legitimate position on both sides, and “tolerating” the differences. It doesn’t mean we have to accept them or be in each others faces about it. It means “live and let live”. Ted is just plain on the side of intolerance most of the time, because in his arrogance he thinks that anyone who disagrees with him MUST be wrong, and he uses stale hate speech against his opponents.
As I’ve already said, I’m not crazy about any of the candidates, but for sure Setti would get my vote over Ted.
Bill/Ted- Just curious, how many affordable units went up in these past 4 years?
It’s too bad this discussion didn’t occur before the override. I guess people knew all this time that there are people struggling in our community and instead of making tough decisions, your solution was to increase their taxes. Kudos.
Well, guys, whether the Mayor’s decision comes back to bite him in the end only time will tell. I know that the Mayor very much wants the Austin Street parking lot to be developed with a mixed use that includes affordable housing, and is going to choose a developer and seek a special permit from the Board of Aldermen soon. At the Austin Street meeting last night, one of the first questions was “since the Mayor stopped Engine 6 and asked for workshops on affordable housing, shouldn’t we put Austin Street on hold as well.” You reap what you sew.
*sow*
I watched a public mtg in another town this week and the speaker wished the council cancer. Retaliation and words of ill will on any level is childish and totally not something worth encouraging,
Dear Jane:
I am very sorry to hear that you received an unwanted email from the Massachusetts Housing and Shelter Alliance. It is MHSA’s policy to only add individuals to our email list when they express interest or sign up at one of our events. Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] with your email address, and I will confirm that you are added to the “Do Not Mail” list. Occasionally individuals will receive emails from us that are forwarded by others, and in those cases, the “unsubscribe” link will unsubscribe the person who originally forwarded the email. I am more than happy to confirm for you that your email address was indeed the one that was removed.
Again, I apologize for any errors.
Sincerely,
Caitlin Golden
Director of Public Relations & Community Engagement
Massachusetts Housing and Shelter Alliance
Bil Brandel –
I think you answered your own question – because it was tearing a community in half, its important that the whole city have that conversation and decide what our collective policies, rules, procedures are and then use them. Otherwise this will be the template for every future difficult housing issue.
To me, the way that this played out is the worse possible outcome. The project effectively got shouted down before any of the perfectly reasonable and valid questions could be answered or dealt with. Would/could those issues have been dealt with to the neighbor’s satisfaction? Nobody knows.
The only thing we know today about our housing policy that we didn’t know yesterday, is that the best way to stop something you don’t like is make a lot of noise and the city will cave – before ever getting to the specifics of the objections.
Also, you said –
This project had nine beds I believe. Do you think there aren’t nine total homeless people in Newton? We’ve had two of them just in my little neighborhood in the last year. The better question would be “why do we expect Boston to deal with homeless people but not us”.
Caitlin – No problem at all. In fact, a poster asked why I didn’t want to remain on the list. The reason is it’s my personal email and as you can well imagine, I’ve done a lot of unsubscribing in the last election year. Thank you for you for the work you do on behalf of people in need of suitable housing. J
Jerry: To your point, if there are 9 homeless people in Newton, then why aren’t we providing shelter to them? Why are we not taking care of our own? And if we do, should it be $2 million for 9 people? Is this type of housing the right answer to the right problem? In my view, that is what should be getting discussed.
As for why the plan was pulled, I strongly disagree with your assessment that it was undone by NIMBY. Most plans here get done through very calm channels. This plan was ill-defined, ambiguous and rushed. *That* is what was making it contentious. People in Waban are not intolerant. They just want to know what is actually going to happen.
Once pulled, the Mayor had an obligation to cancel that meeting. There was no plan to discuss.
My gawd, the level of ignorance of homelessness and where monetary help comes from is shocking. Where in Boston do we find a group of Boston homeless? Where in Newton to do question our contribution to help? There was nothing at all in this specific proposal that would draw those questions. Nothing. The questions drawn were about a GROUP HOME for chronically homeless men who had, through a revolving door at Pine St Inn, shown they could not navigate traditional gov’t aide and independent living. Asking who owns any indigent situation under our gov’t is not anyone’s question.
Jerry Reilly said it well.
What Jerry and Shawn.
What Jerry and Shawn said
@Bill Brandel
I’m afraid you lost me Bill. This was a proposal to provide shelter for the homeless. We will not provide it because the project was just shut down. As far as I know, Newton has no other housing of this type for chronically homeless.
Agreed, and now thank to the decision to shut down the project before the public meeting with Pine Street, all of the questions that were raised by those Waban residents last week will not be answered.
Jerry: The Mayor said in his statement that the City would focus its resources on helping vulnerable people here in Newton. New projects do get proposed. If they have merit, they move forward.
I’m done with the circle logic on the meeting.
Have a good weekend.
Bill – you are done with the circle logic because the only ones in the circle are you, the mayor and the money bags. The rest of us wanted an open and honest discussion.
Have a GREAT weekend.
Bill, I don’t know where you have been, but I have been to a lot of meetings on affordable housing proposals or proposals that include affordable housing over the past 30 years. By and large, people are civil but some are not. In all the years I have been doing this, I have never been to a single meeting where there was not some opposition, especially when it concerns homelessness and people with disabilities. People are afraid of change, the unknown, and, yes, sometimes they harbor stereotypes about the kinds of people who live in affordable housing that cloud their opinions and their judgments. A 40B development in my neighborhood which is finally completed will be offering a lottery to eligible prospective homeowners in the very near future. The first neighborhood meeting I attended was very tense, and the dialogue between neighbors and the property owner was testy at times.
But my larger point still stands: our society has many difficult questions concerning abortion rights, equal marriage, LGBTQ rights, etc. that can be just as contentious and the debate every bit as rancorous as Engine 6. Should we stop having those conversations? No. There has been calm, reasoned leadership from the ward aldermen on this, and particularly from Ald. Crossley who moderated the discussion. Progress was being made. It is too bad it was cut off midstream and postponed to a date uncertain before the community could get some closure on it.
Finally, the fallout from the Mayor’s decision is already having what I assume are unintended consequences. Check out the Newton Patch story on the city’s presentation concerning the proposed Austin Street mixed use project at a community meeting in Newtonville. Here is a relevant excerpt:
The Mayor made a bad decision cutting off discussion, and I wish he would reconsider.
Ted: I wish you would reconsider continuously fanning this controversy and move on to something more constructive.
Move forward, Ted.
Bill, the inconvenient truth is that the Mayor held up CPA funding for Veterans House, which provides housing for homeless veterans and their families, without any discussion at all. He didn’t release the funds until the Department of Revenue told him he had to. The city’s annual action plan identifies a need for permanent housing for the very population that Engine 6 is intended to serve. The Mayor never attended a single community meeting in Waban and made the decision to pull the plug on Engine 6 while he was attending a four-day conference in Las Vegas. I think the Mayor has a lot to answer for. So I am not ready to move on. Neither, thankfully, is Metro West Collaborative.
Bill,
This is Ted’s issue. This support’s Teds claims and people that believe like Ted are allowed to keep this an issue up until the end.
Bill is afraid that his Best Friend the Mayor might be muddied by this issue. So he wants THM to stop talking about it.
Bill – maybe you can call your friends at the Globe – they seem to be doing some great reporting about it. Maybe you can tell them that the Money Bags want them to move on to something else too. And while you are at it maybe you can get ahold of the Waban Group that has formed in support of this project for the Homeless in Waban and tell them to Move on too.
We wouldn’t want anything to hurt the Mayor Re-election chances now would we.
Ted: So that’s what this is? Your disappointments with the Mayor? Usually people run on something that has to do with improving the lives of the many they intend to lead.
Ted, I have not agreed with each and every decision that the Mayor has made. But overall, he has been an outstanding mayor. For this reason, Tom Menino, a champion of many progressive causes, including affordable housing, supports him. At his kick-off event, Governor Patrick spoke eloquently of Setti, and Steve Grossman was very supportive as well. Our last congressman supported Setti’s efforts, and I assume our new one will as well.
Most people know that Setti Warren has made Newton a better place to live. He has improved its services while solidifying its financial standing. And he has done this without unnecessary divisiveness.
Just remember that as you drag this and what ever else out, you help nobody. There are better goals in public service.
Bill – when is Barack coming to Newton to campaign for Setti?
Too Bad Deval and Tom dont live in Newton – last time I checked they couldn’t vote for him.
Bill,
When do we get to hear from the Mayor? Having you as a mouthpiece is nice, I think you’re great, but when does the Mayor join the conversation? I’d like to hear his defense directly from him.
Ted: Is the Veteran’s House the Can-Do CPA project in Auburndale? If so, I thought the Mayor made it clear why he was holding that project up – because they failed to make it fully accessible and the Mayor believes it is paramount that any project receiving city/state/federal funds should at the very least provide accessibility to all.
I do not disagree with your stance on the Mayor’s decision to voice his concerns about the project in Waban. I think the timing was bad. But I do not think the Mayor deserves the vitriolic comments he has received from affordable housing advocates. He has always been a big proponent and supporter of affordable housing and I believe he continues to be.
Does anyone know all the affordable units that came into the city in the past 4 years. Has Any?
Amy nice to hear from you (and Bill).
Tom, are you questioning whether any affordable housing has come into the city during Mayor Warren’s term? Off the top of my head I know of a development with 10 units (home ownership) that were added in Auburndale about a year and a half ago.
Tricia, right I’m asking whether affordable housing has come in during the Mayor’s term. If his supporters are going to tout him as the affordable housing king, there should be a record of what’s come in. So, we have 10 units in Auburndale. Anythingelse?
The reason why I question this, is because when I ran for Mayor 8 years ago, all 3 candidates (including Mayor Cohen) campaigned on the fact that Newton had 7.8% affordable housing. Now, I am hearing the current rate is between 7.5-7.6%.
I am sure there are many factors (and I think Ted addressed this at some point on another thread) but the most obvious issue is simply an overall increase in market rate housing. For example, a market rate development with 5 new houses went in a couple of blocks away, plus 2 more in another, at about the same time.
Tom Sheff — I found that the annual HUD inventory sheets which are on both the HUD site and the ma.gov site are very easy to digest.
Tom – Is a developer who pulls the 40B card in order to put in a development that would otherwise not work still fall in this category? Because there is at least one in West Newton and Auburndale that fits this category – but I would not count it toward the Mayor having any involvement – it was actually the For Profit Developer that had to get around the zoning and then puts unit as supposedly affordable in order to get around the City Rules.
So I would be Very careful in this analysis – 40B IMHO doesn’t count in the Mayors column.
Tom – According to reporting I did during that election, the percentage of affordable housing stock was 7.3 percent. It’s still reasonable to question why it hasn’t increased very much, but you should probably find out what it was when Mayor Warren took office, not what it was eight years ago.
I have another question for you: Four years ago, you were Setti Warren’s biggest advocate on the TAB blog. What happened?
Gail,
I guess we used the wrong data 8 years ago. I absolutely remember we all used 7.8%, but the mind is the first to go.
My reason for running is simple. When I first signed up for the Warren train he made 3 specific, but vague promises that in my mind he has yet to keep. Maybe I have a higher expectation than most, but I feel duped.
He said the obvious one was that he was going to be here after 4 years. Very simple promise and although his body is here, I don’t believe his mind is. We all know he’ll pick up and leave us as he’s already tried to do it the first chance he has. In this issue, his word doesn’t matter since he already promised this and we all know how close he got to leaving us. I know he’s here, but he really isn’t. So, some people can give him that one, thats OK, I don’t. He’s promised that everything will be on the table and tough decisions have to be made. Pensions and Liabilities haven’t been touched. Setting up a bank account and putting $20,000/month in it, isn’t doing anything. Pensions are still growing in the $10’s of millions. Our schools, in my opinion, are still declining. We need more teacher development, all day kindergarten, better tutors for struggling family so they even up with kids of wealthy families, etc.
Of course more recently housing and traffic has come into play, I don’t agree with him on. I can’t tell you how many people are upset with him over the traffic at cypress and Beacon. Whether they forgive him by November or not is another story.
Everyone praises him for two main thing, zero based budgeting, saving the city $5 million, but no one can tell me where that money has gone and the second issue we praise him for is the city employees contracts. The Mayor has backended those contracts so the city employees get huge benefits the last year to make up for their loss early on.
I think it says a lot that both Ted and I are in this race, because we truly were two of the earlier supporters. Now we see stuff that makes us unhappy and I can’t speak for Ted, but the override put me over the top, it was enough for me.
Most of these are issues people don’t see unless you pay close attention.
I’m not in this race to badmouth him, just to let people know there are other ways to run a city.
@amysangiolo, the Mayor withheld the funding for Veterans House without even allowing any public process at all to take place. Please allow me to explain.
The issue of accessibility was thoroughly discussed when Veterans House came in for both CDBG and CPA funding in the first place. This was a rehab of an old two-family that is on a steeply graded lot. The Commissioner of Inspectional Services inspected the house and determined that it would cost up to $100,000 to make it accessible, over and above the amounts already approved for the project. As with Engine 6, the Newton Housing Partnership and Planning & Development Board recommended approval of CDBG funds, and the Community Preservation Committee recommended a grant of CPA funds for Veterans House, which the Board and the Mayor approved.
Previously Newton did not have a single unit for homeless veterans and their families in Newton. CAN-DO’s Veterans House took advantage of the Department of Housing and Urban Development – VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) Program, which is a joint effort between HUD and VA to move Veterans and their families out of homelessness and into permanent housing. By leveraging the HUD-VASH program with CDBG and CPA funds, CAN-DO’s Veterans House now provides affordable housing for two formerly homeless veterans and their families.
Even though the Board of Alderman and the Mayor both approved the CPA funding, the Mayor decided to withhold those funds after a single citizen–who has opposed every other CAN-DO project–raised the accessibility issue with the Disabilities Commission just before CAN-DO was about to start construction. Without notice to anyone, including CAN-DO, the Board of Aldermen or the public, the Mayor unilaterally refused to release the funds. Under the CPA law, only the Board of Aldermen can grant CPA funds. The Mayor could veto that grant, in which it would go back to the Board of Aldermen to vote whether to overrule the veto. Here, the Mayor had actually already approved the CPA grant for Veterans House without objection. I challenged his refusal to release the COA funds and it was only after the Department of Revenue advised him that he had no authority to do so that the Mayor released those funds.
As a result of this concern over accessibility, the Mayor, Scott Lennon and I, along with city staff, the Disabilities Commission and housing affordability advocates, met to discuss guidelines for future public funding of affordable housing. The Mayor backed away from his initial position that 100% of affordable housing had to be accessible to receive public funds for affordable housing. Working with the developer and the city, instead of against each other, the next CAN-DO project, which was in a renovated multi-family that was on a level lot, included an accessible unit on the first floor. The city has affordable housing guidelines that now consider accessibility as one factor, but not the only factor, in decisions to use public funding.
My point is, when the Mayor–or any leader–actually sits down to talk with the stakeholders to better understand the issues, he comes away with a better understanding and makes better decisions. That did not happen with his initial decision to withhold CPA funds for Veterans House, and he never engaged the community on Engine 6, letting the burden fall on the aldermen from the ward. Then, when the aldermen were making progress with the developer and the neighborhood, the Mayor pulled the plug and ended the discussion. It would have been far better to have had that discussion with an eye toward reaching some sort of a resolution than to simply stifle any further conversation about it.