Newton Villages Alliance recently endorsed a slate of aldermen candidates for this fall’s at-large elections: Lynne LeBlanc (Ward 2), Julia Malakie and Jim Cote (Ward 3) and Brian Yates and Chris Pitts (Ward 5). Although there is also an at-large contest in Ward 8 and a Ward 1 contest, none of the challengers or incumbents there have noticeably aligned themselves with the NVA’s no-growth mantra.
But that’s not case in Ward 2 where two other challengers — Jake Auchincloss and Jess Barton — both oppose the Austin Street project, although for different reasons. I’ve explored why Auchincloss may not have earned the NVA endorsement earlier. But what about Barton, who from all I’ve read and heard, seems to share NVA positions (and would certainly be preferable to the group over incumbent Aldermen Albright and Johnson)?
Am I misreading Barton’s positions? Or perhaps did NVA decide strategically to put all its energy into bullet voting LeBlanc onto the ballot?
It would be great to hear what Barton thinks about this and now that we know who the NVA leaders are perhaps they’ll weigh in as well.
And it would be great to hear from Barton supporters. If I was a betting man, I’d wager that she will be the candidate who is eliminated following Thursday’s preliminary. What should readers here know about Barton before we go to the polls this week?
I think it’s bullet balloting. I rarely use that technique and only reluctantly. I understand the reasoning and mathematics behind it, but dislike leaving even a single vote by the curb.
Which is another reason I’d like “none of the above” as possibility too rather than leaving blank. (Though that doesn’t apply in this particular race).
I will be voting for Jess.
I am also deciding between Auchincloss and LeBlanc for my second vote.
Why am I voting for her? Simple. She has been to my door, although I haven’t been home at the time, multiple times. She has also sent multiple letters to my house. She has made the effort so she will get my vote.
If you really want to make a change, then bullet voting is a powerful tool in the current structure
I think the emphasis on NVA is overblown. The more accurate emphasis would be to focus on the hundreds of people who have come out to various meetings to let city officials know they are diametrically opposed to moving forward with Austin as has been presented. Most of them have probably never even heard of the NVA.
To constantly be bringing up NVA as some sort of boogeyman seem to be a tactic used to try to negatively position those with whom the supporters of higher development disagree.
btw… the incumbents are running as a slate. You see one lawn sign, you see both. I see nothing wrong with that at all. But it’s not mentioned much.
@Charlie: As you well know, incumbents traditionally run as a slate. In fact, that’s what makes Aldermen Yates’ and Cote’s alignment newsworthy. So my question remains the same, even if you remove the NVA endorsement. Why are Cote and Yates aligned with LeBlanc but not Barton or Auchincloss? And if you like to use lawn signs as your measuring stick, I haven’t seen many LeBlanc/Barton lawns but I’ve seen quite a few with one or the other.
Greg’s NVA conspiracy theory, again! Much ado about nothing. I looked at NVA website, I did not see the expression “no-growth mantra.” I did not see anything that says that their position is “no-growth.” This is a way for Greg to denigrate the other side of an honest debate. Would we call affordable housing advocates, “high density advocates,” or would we talk about candidates who align themselves with Greg’s “no-green mantra?”
Trying to link the NVA with Jess Barton’s chances is like try to link Tom Brady’s performance in the next game to the Yuan/Dollar exchange rate. We should have two separate blogs–one for NVA conspiracy theory and the other for Jess Barton.
Barton is a strong candidate who is running for the wrong office at the wrong time. If it were just her versus the incumbents, I think she would win. Someone is going to lose the runoff. An incumbent who loses in Newton is the exception to the rule. This leaves Auchincloss, Barton, and LeBlanc. One of them will lose.
Greg, I am sorry for being critical. Once I start it is hard to stop. Please don’t take away my ability to blog!
@Jeffery: No offense taken. This blog exists as a forum for different voices. And really I’m asking about Barton because I find political maneuvering fascinating and do not know the answer.
As I said to Charlie, remove the NVA from the equation and the same questions remain. Why is she being dismissed by folks who might otherwise appreciate her positions and who should certainly favor her over the two incumbents when you get to choose two candidates? Is it her age? Is it strategic? Or something else?
Finally, someone always challenges me when I describe the NVA as “no growth” and my response has always been the same: Show me a project they’ve supported. Until then, I’m sticking to the term because it fits.
Greg, I really don’t know what the NVA supports, but like me, they probably support almost every project that does not violate the current zoning law. Is that radical? Should we email them and see I am correct? If so, will you stop saying “no growth?”
Quid pro quo. Greg, have you ever supported a project that lowers density (other than chicken cages)? If not, can we call you a high-density proponent?
Back to Jess. People are people. Few of us pick a candidate based on one issue only. Density is only one issue. You have to look at the bundle of issues and the person.
NVA sent this statement out today, confirming its strategy…
Advocating that residents throw away a vote, the only real opportunity to have a voice in the workings of the city, is the worst advice I’ve seen in a while. That got rid of any respect I had left for the NVA. They say they support a candidate who “represents residents’ interests” while letting us know they do not support residents’ voice in the process used to express their interests.
A little over the top there. The ballot itself says, “Vote for no more than two.” It says nothing for or against voting for fewer than two, something I’ve done many times myself, by the way, without feeling that I’m cheating myself or the grand democratic process in any way. If (hypothetically speaking) all candidates but one leave you cold, then vote for one. It’s your choice.
Yes, that is my point. It is a voter’s choice what to do in the voting booth. An advocacy group telling you not to choose but to follow them and throw away your vote is wanting to take away that choice.
@Marti: There’s nothing wrong with an advocacy group advocating for one candidate. It’s an entirely legitimate tactic.
Still doesn’t explain what they have against Jess Barton. But so be it.
Instructing its supporters to use lawn signs as a metric for picking a candidate. Way to keep it classy, NVA.
Bullet voting works both ways. I imagine many people will bullet vote for Deb Crossley in the coming election.