Jake Auchincloss, Jess Barton and Lynn LeBlanc — the three declared challengers for Newton’s two Ward 2 At Large Aldermen/Council seats — were guests on Charlie Shapiro’s Newton Newsmakers program on NewTV
Note: NewTV is aware that there are some audio problems with this recording and are in the process of correcting them.
This kind of content is a much fairer way to cover the election, rather than unevenly offering space to certain candidates to fill up with “observations from the campaign trail” which are understandably brimming with self-promotion and thus better suited to their own campaign websites. IMHO.
I’m glad Charlie did this, I certainly learned some things about the candidates and I had no hesitation posting it. But Michael, I wouldn’t exactly classify this as fair given that two candidates were excluded.
Plus we know that the host has a similar positions to the candidates, at least regarding Austin Street.
Who Charlie has on his talk show is up to him. But “fair”? Not the word I’d choose.
To be honest, I think the 3 of them will cancel each other out. I guess none of them can really say that Austin Street works, since the incumbents are obviously for it. But thus far, not really impressed with any of the 3.
There is no indication on the program of my feelings towards that specific project, although I do agree with what they said.
It is more than fair to invite the crop of new candidates on to introduce themselves. It was not a debate.
@Charlie. True. But given that you have articulated a position elsewhere it would have been “fairer” to the audience to disclose it.
Greg, I also thought it was unfair overall to Jess Barton. Luke got some great airtime though. He also submitted a resume summary with a picture, which was often on the screen.
But yes, sort of an echo chamber of anti-development.
@Greg-
Perhaps we should extend that logic to blog moderators, newspaper reporters, and all TV hosts of any type? Hmmm.
@Charlie: Ho ho ho. I realize you aren’t an actual journalist, you just play one on TV. But yes, I prefer the model we employ here where my Village 14 colleagues and I do make our opinions public, while also moderating. In fact, that’s precisely what I’m suggesting you should have done.
As for newspaper reporters? (And I mean actual reporters not opinion columnists.) Reporters should not be offering a public opinion about an issue they’re covering. So no, different logic there.
@Mark: Charlie has made his views about Austin Street known here on Village 14.
I just finished watching this episode. In full disclosure, my studio is mentioned at the beginning and end of the program but we provide no financial support and on this particular episode I did not volunteer my time due to other commitments.
Sooo, speaking as a Newton citizen par average, I have met 2 out of these 3 candidates including one who knocked on my door while canvasing. I enjoyed listening to them speak a bit more in-depth. I appreciate the mention that there are people in Newton who actually are not rich. I found the same thing in my travels, particularly in 2002 and 2012.
Because I do not get out much these days socially, I have not had the pleasure of speaking with Charlie at great length about politics or the city for, sadly, quite some time. I am not aware of his feelings regarding Austin Street or development in general nor did I get a sense of any of that from watching this piece. I appreciated his efforts to bring some well-meaning challengers literally to the table and give them much needed exposure.
Greg, point taken – admittedly I hadn’t watched the video, since I don’t live in Ward 2 and I’ve got little interest in Austin St. other than a strong hatred of parking lots.
I was actually applying my characterization of “fairness” to the fact that a multi-candidate forum was covered/mentioned by V14, with a foundation having been laid for intelligent discussion, which ended up teaching me some things I hadn’t known.
I’ve since gone back and watched the show, which was quite good.
May I make a modest proposal that the Newtonville parking lots be plowed into the Pike and the resulting infill be turned into a floral glen with abutting rapid transit service? Is there any chance that might happen in the next 100 years?
The audio issues were worked on this evening, and it is anticipated that it will fully available tomorrow sometime.
Thursday evening at 630 is when I’m told the first airing on TV Wil be. It’s entirely in the hands of NewTV.
Thank you to all who are taking an interest.
@Greg.
Thanks Greg. I’ll have to rummage around and find them at some point.
Charlie-Is it safe to say that you will be providing the same opportunity to Susan Albright and Marcie Johnson?
@Jane-
I can’t promise that at this time, but there are also a number of other programs on which they could potentially appear produced by other hosts. Ken Parker has a very good program that airs in prime time, for example. The great thing about NewTV is everyone has equal access to the channels. Anyone can create and host a show. In fact, any candidate could even produce their own program and have the entire half hour to themselves.
Can you explain why you will not be offering Susan Albright and Marcia Johnson the same opportunity that you offered to three other candidates?
@Jane-
No, because I didn’t say that. The topic of the show was new candidates. I do shows that personally interest me. I am fascinated that the Austin St project may have motivated several people who never expressed any interest in elected office to actually run.
That was the story to me. The incumbents were not the story in my opinion. If they do something particularly interesting or “different”, they might become a story I’m interested in telling.
I would strongly suggest that anyone who’s running for office contact the various independent program producers and get as much exposure as they can. Or start your own show. It might be a small audience, but my guess is just about everyone who watches any NewTV Channel votes.
Charlie, this was an excellent segment of Newton Newsmakers (minus the NewTV audio problems in the last 4 minutes)! Thank you for doing this. I found it informative for many who may not know the current volatile issues before the Newton Board of Aldermen. I have known Lynne LeBlanc for many years and highly respect her ethics, honesty and intelligence. Although I have spoken with both Jake or Jess on the telephone, have met neither in person. I was very impressed with Jess’ clear understanding of the immediate issues before the Board and City of Newton and glad to see that Jake is taking the initiative to meet with Newtonians and find out what is important to them.
It was of no surprise to me to see Reibman taking pot shots at Charlie and his journalist approach to the candidacy of these entrants into Newton’s political arena. Please apologize to Charlie and thank him for the excellent pro-bono work he continues to do for our city.
As for including the incumbent candidates in the discussion, in a one-on-one conversation I asked Alderman Johnson what her thoughts were on the Austin Street proposal. Her response was very cloistered as she explained she did not feel it was ‘ethical’ to share with me her thoughts on the Austin Street proposal since the the board is still in the public hearing stages. (Alderman Lennon and I had an clear conversation about his position on the proposed reuse of this public resource.) If Johnson chooses to hold her positions on this and other controversial issues close to the cuff, it will make for a very limited discussion in the 2015 municipal election process.
I have no idea what happened but I would not blame Alderman Johnson if perhaps she was reluctant to speak with Janet Sterman, since Sterman is famous for failing to grasp nuance. For example, I said I was glad Charlie decided to have these candidates on his program and, afterall, I’m the guy who posted it. (I also said I didn’t think it was necessarily “fair” but it’s his program and his prerogative but like I said Sterman doesn’t get nuance)
I also wouldn’t be surprised it she’s misinterpreting President Lennon’s comments too, since I’m sure he knows that there are possible ethical and legal ramifications for the city if any of our aldermen take a firm stand on this specific Austin Street proposal prior to the completion of the hearing and committee process.
@Janet-
Thanks for the compliment.
I’m looking forward to the LWV debate in August. I hope the moderator (who is typically brought in from another town) is tough and follows up enough to get true answers from all candidates. As much as I think the LWV does an excellent job with debates, history shows that the LWV moderators have been quite passive.
I think including Jenn Adams is an excellent choice as co-moderator. She knows essentially everything that’s happening in the city, she’s totally unbiased (which is extremely rare around here!), and she’s never afraid to hold people’s feet to the fire. When she hears bull****, she politely calls people on it. I hope they invite her again.
It’s true that the alderman should not take a position–one way or the other–prior to the close of the public hearing on any application for a special permit (a duty observed most often in the breach, unfortunately, when aldermen stake out their position opposing a project). But 23 aldermen, past and present, including most of the current board, already took a position supporting redevelopment of the site when they approved the surplusing of the Austin Street lot and the MU4 zoning amendment that was intended to allow mixed use, transit oriented development.
Did anyone else missed the apology and thank you to Charlie Shapiro from Herr Reibman? Nothing to miss, because there STILL isn’t one.
This shmegegge Reibman chooses to insult me while nominating himself the maven of ‘nuance’ (as well as ethical journalism).
@Janet-
Thank you again for the kind thoughts. I don’t feel the need for an apology from anyone. People spar with others in their own ways. Neither Mr. Reibman nor I are currently employed as journalists, and hence it is for the love of discussion that we do what we do.
@Charlie
I am devoid of understanding how being nasty to blog participants does anything but prove Reibman to be a bully as well as a shmegegge.
The web version is still awaiting sound repair, but it appears from the NewTV web site:
http://www.newtv.org/programming/community/full-schedule/
…the program will air with full sound and in its entirety a couple times this weekend, at least.
Saturday
01:30 PM
Sunday
08:30 AM
…and for those who never take a holiday off from public discourse, you can even watch an old program with the then-newly-elected SC members from last year.
From the Archive: Saturday at 02:00 PM
Happy 4th everyone. G-d Bless America, and thank you to each and every person whose service helps to keep us all safe and free. More than ever, they need our support and gratitude!
Since the special permit is already in process, having a platform that is against it, as all 3 contenders in the Ward 2 at large contest do, is just pandering for votes from those who didn’t want any development. If the board finds that questions are answered suitably and necessary compromises are accomplished, and the project fits within the guidelines for the MU4 zone, they will vote to approve it. If not, they won’t. This proposal was designed to fit within the zoning parameters and is supported by the Mayor. It’s too late to just be “against it.”
The only thing these candidates should be doing concerning Austin Street is offering solutions to what they see to be problems with the project on the table now, such as suggestions about how parking could best be handled during construction.
@janet – I have to say I find your comments just really cryptic and bizzare. What exactly are you complaining about with this one:
“I am devoid of understanding how being nasty to blog participants does anything but prove Reibman to be a bully as well as a shmegegge.”
Greg is a pretty direct and relentless guy, but I don’t get what you’re complaining about here. How did he harm or insult you? If you really feel he is a cruel and nasty (insert your insult of choice here) and don’t like how he handles this blog, feel free to go elsewhere, or start your own, it might cost you all of $10 a month, and you can say whatever you want. Since you and Charlie Shapiro seem to have such a close relationship, you could split the bill and it would only set you each back $5 a month! But please don’t strain everyone’s credibility by the crocodile tears about how you are being so abused and insulted – spare me. I can assure you that no one is fooled by your posturing and inflammatory rhetoric, except perhaps yourself, and of course, Charlie.
HLD – what’s with the gratuitous swipe at Charlie? Did you miss the part where he said “I don’t feel the need for an apology from anyone” and “it is for the love of discussion that we do what we do”? Or was that just some “posturing and inflammatory rhetoric” on your part?
For the record, I’m perfectly happy with the management and structure of Village14. It’s topical, and current, and has community value. Remember, for every one person who actually posts, there are likely hundreds (if not more) who read those posts. The reason most will never post is usually because they see blogs as a ‘low’ form of discourse. Perhaps that’s something to keep in mind when posting. That being said, I am convinced that just about every elected official in Newton who knows how to use a computer keeps an eye on what’s said here once in a while.
The Austin St project and the overarching topic of the appropriate level of development and village input into decisions is what matters here. This is probably one of the most important discussions the city could be having.
So perhaps the discussion could be elevated back to something relating to the positions of the candidates, and the value they bring to the process ?
What Chatlie said
Thanks Charlie.