In her latest TAB column, Newton Villages Alliance leader Kathleen Kouril Grieser is outright giddy about what she calls the “spectacular preliminary election victories of Jake Auchincloss and Lynne LeBlanc” on Sept. 17, claiming that the results were a “triumph” and a “stunning rebuke to the pro-high-density-housing political establishment.”
I’d like to offer another perspective and perhaps urge Kouril Grieser to hold off on uncorking the Champaign just yet.
For starters, let’s remember that a measly 4,176 residents voted on that perfect September day, an apathetic turnout rate of eight percent of Newton’s registered voters.
That’s only slightly more voters than the number of dogs (4,136) registered in Newton. And it hardly represents any kind of “stunning rebuke,” although it perhaps suggests that most Newton residents must be happy with the way their city is running.
And then there’s the fact that the Newton Villages Alliance didn’t even endorse front runner Auchincloss, who lead the pack with 2054 votes, followed closely behind by incumbent Susan Albright (1993 votes) and then at a greater distance by incumbent Marcia Johnson ( 1667 votes) and even further behind LeBlanc (1295 votes).
The NVA only endorsed LeBlanc in Ward 2, adopting a bullet vote strategy that, let’s face it, likely only hurt fifth place finisher Jess Barton (556 votes), while failing to elevate LeBlanc above either incumbent.
That’s neither “spectacular” or “triumphant.”
Which brings us to Auchincloss, the candidate who poses next to a couple of Green Line trains on top of his campaign website, who was booed at a recent NVA meeting and who has repeatedly said he’s not anti-development or anti-smart growth; positions at the core of the NVA’s no-growth mantra.
Yes, Auchincloss opposes the Austin Street project, but only because he doesn’t like the terms of the agreement, not because he wants to use the parking lot exclusively as a parking lot.
So why did Auchincloss win? I have two theories:
- Marcia Johnson is not a good campaigner. She just isn’t. She doesn’t connect well with voters and given a very busy professional work schedule, Johnson doesn’t have a lot of visibility outside of City Hall. Note, I’m not saying she’s not a nice person. She is. I’m not saying she isn’t a hard working alderman. She’s that too. But she’s a crummy candidate.
- Meanwhile, Auchincloss worked his butt off campaigning this summer: Knocking on doors, sending out multiple mailings, participating on blogs, on social media, doing a great job on NewTV, etc. He’s also young, energetic, an officer in the Marine Corps, a Harvard grad, a local kid, etc. etc.
And Auchincloss didn’t knock on all those doors championing an anti-development bent. Far from it. Check out his website: It’s all about walkable villages, better schools, seniors, etc.
If anything, Auchincloss won by taking a page out of the playbook of fellow military veteran, tireless door knocker , barn coat wearing, Setti Warren during his first campaign, who like Auchincloss, carefully tracked his supporters block by block and made sure they showed up on Election Day.
In other words, Auchincloss’ win was not a “stunning rebuke to the pro-high-density-housing political establishment” because he doesn’t share NVA’s vision of Newton frozen in the snow globe.
Maybe on Nov. 3, voters will indeed rise up and deliver a stunning anti-growth rebuke.
Or maybe they won’t.
We just don’t know yet.
I agree.
The fact that LeBlanc came in second in Ward 2 is interesting data but it means nothing. We already know that Ward 2 residents are more opposed to the Austin Street development than the rest of the city, and that would make them more inclined to vote against the incumbents. But that doesn’t mean that LeBlanc is going to surge in the general election.
I would speculate that the residents who are adamantly opposed to development and to Austin Street in particular have already voted. If they feel that strongly they wouldn’t have missed the preliminary. So in order to win, Lynne doesn’t just have to get people to the polls, she has to identify and motivate a large enough group of new voters to overcome the people who will vote for incumbents. I will be very surprised if she can do it. I’ll be less surprised if Jake can do it but it’s not going to be as easy as it looks for him either.
Yes Gail, although I’m suggesting that even if Auchincloss finishes first again, it shouldn’t be seen as proof of an anti-development mandate, or even an anti-Austin Street mandate, because he’s running as a fully dimensional candidate and against a weak incumbent. Now if Julia Malakie and Chris Pitts unseat (strong incumbents) Ted Hess-Mahan and Deb Crossley and LeBlanc wins, then that would be a mandate.
It’s very hard to decipher meaning from the Prelim. In Newton, we know that about 5900 residents have been consistent voters in the past three elections, so even many of those voters didn’t show up at the polls on the 17th. That one surprised me.
If you look at what the voters in Newtonville have been saying…it IS as close as you’ll ever get to a clear mandate in Ward 2.
It’s a mandate voted by the most hard core, and most informed voters in the city – the ones that turn out for a prelim. They are being ignored for hypothetical “greater good” and higher political aspirations. And that’s just plain wrong.
@Charlie: I don’t see how you can say that Lynne’s 389 votes in Ward 2 should mandate what the city should do. If 389 people’s desires direct any citywide decisions, that would be plain wrong.
@Charlie: It’s statements like that which make me nervous about you as a candidate for Charter Commission.
Certainly, I would think as a former aldermen you’d realize that there hasn’t been a decision on Austin Street yet? And, as required by the Charter, that it will take 16 votes to approve the special permit?
And if you do understand that, how can you alleged any group is being ignored? There’s been countless public hearings and, before that, years of public meetings. A robust discussion in the TAB, here and elsewhere. Lots of listening. No decision.
I suppose if the board approves the project, then you can theorize that folks are being ignored. But right now not-ignoring is all that has happened.
Charlie, the Austin Street parking lot does not belong to Newtonville or Ward 2 residents only. The proposed project in my opinion will be a benefit to the entire city and have a positive impact on the Newtonville businesses. It will provide a wonderful accessible living environment for those who live there. I love the village concept we have in Newton but it should not deteriorate into selfish enclaves that ignores the greater good of our entire city. There is not one reasonable argument against the approval of this project.
Exactly.
I would speculate that the low voter turnout has more to do with the election being on a Thursday as opposed to a Tuesday.
I think we all agree that preliminary voters are the more informed voters than the general election voters Austin st. was the big issue for this election, everythingelse was pretty much status quo. Knowing that, I think it’s indisputable that out of the informed voters in the city people were concerned over Austin st, otherwise the incumbents would have won easily (like every other election).
What Howard and Gail said….
I think Charlie hit the nail on the head. Preliminary election voters are the most informed and engaged. So there is a message in these election returns. Particularly in the stellar showing by Jake Auchincloss, who understood that the biggest problem with Austin Street is the weak deal the Mayor cut with his developer buddy.
As Charlie put it, The Austin Street project is all about some “hypothetical greater good and higher political aspirations.” In my opinion, the principal motivation behind the Austin Street proposal has always been, Setti’s own political aspirations. The City had [has] an asset that could have been used to create more affordable housing. The developer’s getting rich, the city is getting screwed, and Setti will be wearing his “I created affordable housing” tee-shirt when he campaigns for Governor.
Wake up folks. You’re being used. “There’s a sucker born every minute.”
@Greg- I hope you’re not suggesting that everyone elected to the Commission should march to the same pro-development drumbeat regardless of what the neighborhood most impacted thinks about it? I didn’t think so. Because THAT would make an awful lot of people very nervous.
I think Howard’s response is valuable to the discussion. It is a clear and succinct view that any project affects the entire city, and what’s best for the city should likely be the overarching decider.
I respectfully disagree. To say there is not a reasonable argument against the project and/or process comes through as an insult to those living in the village who hold a different opinion. I do not believe that is Howard’s intention.
This is actually a very good example of why it’s important to have diversity of thought on the Commission. While I don’t have a personal ax to grind regarding Austin St (I live on the other side of town), and while I have zero financial stake in it, I am a proud and steadfast believer that villages are an extremely important foundation of quality of life in Newton.
Whether i’m elected to the Commission or not, I would certainly hope to to see a discussion take place among the commissioners regard the value and priority of neighborhood input on development. I don’t have a specific outcome in mind (other than ensuring and open dialogue) but I believe its an important conversation to have – and I bet the public would be very interested in it.
What Howard said. While the village concept is unique to Newton, residents use services and businesses throughout the city and that’s a good thing. In the end, small businesses simply can’t survive in Newton if they have to depend on the village residents as their clientele. The beauty of the villages is that residents can find services, many of which are locally owned, throughout the city.
@Jane, This is not a criticism but more an illustration on one of my father’s favorite lines, “All generalizations are false”, and he would sometimes add “including this one”. Perhaps your statement is not a generalization as such but triggered the thought in my mind.
I grew up in the Town of Manlius NY that also includes the concept of villages. Manlius is comprised by the villages of Manlius, Fayetteville and Minoa. I did not move to Newton because of its distinct villages but can appreciate the difference between a municipality centered around one core district and those that have several districts. I think Boston may also be similar with its “villages” of Brighton, Allston etc.
I agree that Newton is unique in its own way but it can also share many aspects of other communities. Our neighbors can inspire solutions if we think of those similarities.
Ironically, Syracuse NY, the snowiest city in the US, has had a sidewalk snow clearing ordinance since 1964 and is still trying to figure out how to fine homeowners for non-compliance. I guess we have some time to figure it out in Newton :-)
Groot – What I love about Newton is that we’re always trying to figure things out!
The Thursday preliminary in between major holidays involving just one race really doesn’t provide much reliable data about anything. It was low turnout. Many more people will vote in the next election and that will make for a much different dynamic.
On Jake, he is running a good field campaign, and he’s a smart guy, but I am not sure he is being fair as he talks with voters. He campaigns to our Democratic Committee members as a Dem, but he has strong GOP ties.
Additionally, Jake called me the other day and told me I need to stop Democratic Committee members from attacking his campaign or he won’t work well with us when he’s in office. That didn’t seem appropriate to me. He also said when he was a Marine he could get his troops in line and that I should too … but I’m not sure he knows how the Democratic Party works!
@Shawn: What exactly does campaigning “to our Democratic Committee members as a Dem” mean? And how is that “not being fair as he talks to voters”?
@Alderman Norton: Are you endorsing in the Ward 2 At Large Contest? If so, who and why? If not, why?
That seems like a cheap shot, Shawn. What do you mean you’re “not sure he’s being fair”? Auchincloss campaigns like a Democrat but has strong Republican ties? What does that even mean?
“Additionally, Jake called me the other day and told me I need to stop Democratic Committee members from attacking his campaign or he won’t work well with us when he’s in office.”
Wow…. play nice, Jake. Not sure you are in any position to make threats.
I’m going to circle the conversation back to the original topic, Kathleen’s editorial. I’m also at risk of repeating myself.
I think Kathleen has taken a page from many politicians. She is defining a very minor “win” as having won the war. I love Ward 2 and vote in Ward 2, but it is a strange thing to call a preliminary election to narrow a field as anything important as she states.
Two big important facts Kathleen has decided to purposefully ignore:
1) Her candidate (Lynne) placed 4th.
2) While Kathleen defines her “stunning rebuke” and “triumph” as Lynne and Jake winning Ward 2, the election was city wide. I could just as easily say that my own little neighborhood voted for Susan, so Susan clearly won the Newton North area of Ward 2. Victory! A stunning rebuke of the Austin Street/Shaw’s neighborhood. Free Cabot’s ice cream for everyone. Huzzah!
The rest of us live in reality. Where this was a preliminary election with very minor stakes, where it was obvious which of the 5 candidates was going to be eliminated, and where turnout was very low.
Now I will say this. If Lynne and Jake win the city wide election, she will be correct that there will have been a definite rebuke of the status quo. But I don’t think Lynne will even win Ward 2, never mind the entire city. I’m sure Kathleen will once again declare victory from defeat if that happens, and embrace Jake if he wins. Or start discussing how narrow either incumbants win really was.
The rest of us will live in the real world.
Sometimes folks who are experts in marketing and public relations forget that just because you can spin a fact to benefit your side doesn’t mean your argument is strengthened.
As for Jake, I don’t feel as strongly as Shawn, but Shawn’s comment does reinforce what I feel about Jake, namely that he wants to be all things to all people. I wonder how Kathleen and NVA will feel if he wins and then later supports development around the city… the horror!
And Charlie, the fact that you are willing to draw any conclusion from a preliminary election, and even worse, are giving extra weight to the result because that is when the most “hard core” and “truly informed” voters vote, is also a convenient moving of the goalposts. I didn’t realize that voting to eliminate a 5th candidate would allow my act such extra weight. If only the city had remember to advertise the election to fit your criteria! How would that have worked Charlie? “Vote now, oh you well-informed and hard core voters, before the Ward 2 rif-raf awakes from their slumber and Democracy rears its ugly head. A Mandate awaits!”. A mandate? From this election? What nonsense.
Wake me in November when the election actually means something and the b.s. has stopped flowing.
Will be delighted to work with Democrats, Republicans, and unenrolled alike if I am elected. Campaign season, unfortunately, will always feature political operations focused on negativity, in which people attack character and even resort to misrepresenting private conversations, but I have found, from speaking with thousands of voters at their doorstep, that Newton residents are much less interested in politics as sport than they are in politics as substance. The lesson from the prelim, for me? Talk about policy, not people. Be positive. And listen.
As a 30-year Newton politics participant/observer I feel compelled to make 5 points about the preliminary’s implications:
1) Auchincloss finished first because he worked the hardest, talked to the most voters, and put forth attractive credentials that qualify him as potentially the best new young leader to emerge on the Newton political scene in many years.
2) Even though Albright was hurt in W2 by her pro-Austin St stance, she has built up so much support over her many years of dedicated public service to Newton that a large number of voters across the rest of the city remain solidly with her.
3) Johnson is clearly a poor campaigner, Greg, yes you’re right, but to many voters she’s also not proven herself over the years to be a very effective alderman, either. Albright’s tireless support provided strong coattails, without which Johnson could have easily finished fourth.
4) If the NVA actually had the following that its leadership claims, LeBlanc would have finished far higher than where she ultimately placed, given that she, and not Auchincloss, was their sole endorsed candidate. If an NVA candidate like LeBlanc or Malakie or Pitts can’t topple a strong incumbent like Albright or Hess-Mahan or Crossley in November it will be clear that while the organization has a lot of bluster, it doesn’t have a lot of support for the no growth message at the heart of its platform.
5) Shawn Fitzgibbons is doing the NDCC a disservice by continuing to intentionally mislead voters about Auchincloss, as evidenced by his post above. Everyone paying attention knows by now that Auchincloss is a registered I and has never campaigned among Dems or among anyone else masquerading as a Dem, as Fitzgibbons suggests. The Fitzgibbons strategy is backfiring, hurting his and the NDCC’s credibility, while the average voter isn’t paying any attention to his diatribes at all in this non-partisan election. This election may not ultimately lead to the unseating of any aldermanic incumbent but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if one incumbent who ultimately loses his position due to the way the election plays out is Fitzgibbons himself.
Exactly. The last time I remember meeting a candidate who made such a strong impression, he was running for mayor. And he won.
Wow, he’s back! And under his own name, refreshing.
To say that Marcia Johnson “not proven herself over the years to be a very effective alderman” is completely, utterly, and totally baseless. I have known Ald. Johnson for many years and called or emailed her many times for help and advice. I found her to be responsive, committed and principled. Now as her colleague we do have one or two big items we diverge on, but in two short years I have worked with her on items as varied as advocating for a smaller 40B on Court Street, to ensuring an ideal location for the new Ward 3 farmer’s market, to advocating on behalf of residents wanting a salt shed moved, a barrier placed in front of their Walnut Street home against wayward cars, and more.
I second what Emily has to say about Alderwoman Johnson’s effectiveness. For the two years I have been in office, Marcia has always been willing to work with me to problem solve, especially around the many issues regarding parking, traffic and buses at our schools. And in the years I have lived in Ward 2, I’ve always been able to count on Marcy to listen to neighborhood concerns and provide advice and assistance.
Gerry,
Thanks for posting in your own name!!!
I agree. It great to have Gerry Chervinsky participating here.
Voting for people in Newton campaigns has been my last refuge from partisan politics. I like the fact that we vote for the person, not the party they may be affiliated with or hang around. I know sight echoes of this may come up in discussions but what party they may be fans of should not be the main reason or driving force for voting for someone here in CITY elections.
It would be disappointing to continue to read in the Tab or on this blog further “I hold here in my hand, concrete proof” diatribes from either side of the aisle.
Sadly, the national virus of political fundamentalism has not avoided Newton. The us vs them mentality is alive and well in the leadership of the Newton Democratic Committee in Shawn Fitzgibbons. This is a guy who called for a boycott of New Balance; he wants you to buy your sneakers from sweat shops in China rather than locally produced shoes made by our friends and neighbors here in New England, because the owner of the company, a Newton native, had a fund raiser for Mitt Romney. He’d rather send his money to China than help employ Americans because of his small minded politics.
Fitzgibbon HAS to inject partisan politics in non-partisan local elections because he is a fundamentalist. A small minded tribal leader who insists on purity and obedience to the party.
Newton deserves better.
Glad to elaborate. Here’s the issue: Jake contacts our members and says he aligns with Democrats. Yet, all his past political experience aligns with the GOP.
For example, Jake wrote an email to our Ward 6 Committee saying how inspired he was by Deval Patrick. Yet, he never voted for Patrick – or any Democrat for partisan office since 2008. He’s supported Republicans.
Jake talks about working “just for Charlie Baker”. But when you work as a paid staffer for the Massachusetts GOP–and at a GOP aligned consulting firm–then you are supporting all statewide GOP candidates.
We’re not trying to make this all about party affiliation–the NDCC isn’t saying anything about Republicans Jim Cote, Susan Huffman and Lynne LeBlanc. We know people like the local “last refuge” as Mark says.
But Jake has come forward to so many of our die-hard Democratic activists professing to be part of our cause, even though we can easily see he hasn’t been. He’s also been threatening some, like me, much in the way Gerry is doing here (Hi Gerry!). So that’s the issue and why we are seeking to correct the record on his candidacy only.
@Shawn: How can you possibly know how he — or anyone — voted?
1. Actually, Shawn, the NDCC just did say something about “Republicans Jim Cote, Susan Huffman and Lynne LeBlanc.”
I didn’t know they were all Republicans. Never thought about it.
2. I was concerned when you said Jake threatened you but now I’m wondering about your offhand use of the word “threat.” Gerry said that you are shooting yourself in the foot. That’s not a threat. It’s not even a warning. It’s an opinion.
@Terry – good memory! New Balance is a great company. One clarification: the company’s owner did a bit more than “host a fundraiser”. He became one of the largest GOP super PAC donors in US history.
@Gail–you’re right in terms of what Gerry said. On Jake, you can decide: he called and told me that as the leader of the local Party I should be able to stop people from attacking his campaign. He said repeatedly he would “hold me personally accountable”. When I asked what would happen if I couldn’t stop our members (which of course I couldn’t do even if I wanted to!) he said he would not work well with me or the NDCC when he is elected. To me, that was a concerning statement. Not bridgegate level, but not the right tact for a candidate for public office to take in my opinion.
The biggest challenge to that editorial is the assumption that this is a one-issue campaign- Austin St has dominated talk, but it’s not a one-issue campaign- or a one-issue office either. One thing I find myself looking at is the candidates themselves- I know some, and can easily know the others because we all live here. That changes the dynamic even if you don’t agree on all issues. And to vote based on not just a single issue but a single project is something I want to be mindful not to do.
Also, to other parts of the comments, I’ll echo Mark’s point that party affiliation means far less in local elections than it does in national and state ones.
What Emily and Margaret said about Marcy Johnson.
Shawn,
Glad that you admit to supporting that great Democrat Xi Jinping and that wonderful super PAC called China over a local guy and a great company – New Balance-that pays local taxes, employs Newtonites and New Englanders and contributes to many local charities and causes all because of your partisan politics.
Newton deserves better.
Terry,
lol.
@Greg – he’s told me and others this information verbally and in writing including as recently as a few days ago.
I met Jake very early on this year. He reached out and we had a nice meeting at the Village Cafe. He was very up-front about his work with the GOP which was fine with me. I asked him if he’s ever voted for a Democrat and he laughed and said, “well I cast a protest vote for Huntsman if that makes any difference”. After our meeting I said I was glad he was running as it’s good to have young people involved and said I couldn’t support him.
Since then, he’s since been far less up front about his political experience, which is the reason for all the back and forth you’re seeing here.
@Shawn: Thanks for that. My next question is why does this matter? And does one have to have voted for Deval Patrick to have been inspired by him?
It matters because it contradicts what he is saying about himself to voters on the campaign trail.
Take this quote from Jake’s site:
“Jake is a political independent who has worked for both Governor Patrick and Governor Baker. He comes from a family of committed Democrats and shares their progressive values on issues ranging from LGBT rights to inclusionary zoning, and was proud to cast his first presidential vote for Barack Obama. ”
Sounds good, right? This is what he tells our Democrats. But when you look at Jake’s professional history in GOP politics, and his campaign donations and votes going only to Republicans (except Obama ‘08), his telling me that the transgender rights bill that Baker opposes (but which passed in Newton) is about making businesses install a third bathroom (the GOP fearmongering line on this issue), then you wonder if why he leads so much with “progressive” and “democratic”.
@Shawn:
One of the NDCC ward chairs, after sending a negative email about Jake, investigated Jake’s assertions about working for Gov. Patrick and discovered that he was telling the truth. So, he worked for Patrick and voted for O’Bama. Sounds progressive to me.
If you want to win, stick to campaigning for your candidates. It’s a lot more effective than nitpicking and whining about your opponent. Or do you consider this a threat too?
@Gail – I hear you and am well aware lots of people hate this type of stuff. And normally I wouldn’t get into it so much. But for many Democratic party faithful it is kind of galling to see someone who never voted for Patrick out there saying how great it was to work for him (as a summer intern, yes).
Our Ward 6 Chair Barbara John is a great example. She is in Deval Patrick’s book and greeted President Obama at Logan a few years ago because of her incredible dedication to Patrick’s campaign. So, I can see her taking umbridge where you wouldn’t! I do too and stand by her comments. For many – myself included – it seems as though Jake is trying to re-position himself for the Newton electorate.
Sorry to sound tautological, but for people to whom politics matter, politics matter. Even in a nonpartisan election, people who are politically engaged often want to know about a candidate’s political affiliation as one way of assessing that candidate’s values and agendas amidst all the campaign boilerplate. Jake Auchincloss, being a bright young man, apparently understands this, and volunteered that information accordingly. What troubled–indeed, offended–some NDCC members, myself included, was the tone in which the information he gave was questioned, not the fact that the information was considered significant.
Shawn,
You’ve done a great job illustrating why Newton now has more unenrolled voters than Democrats.
Less and less voters believe in your brand of partisan purity standards.
Newton deserves better.
A question an Alderman posed to me the other day: can a person with a full time job run for office in this city?
@Shawn: I agree with Terry. This type of political partisan branding is very distasteful and that is why so few people are interested in joining the Newton Democratic City Committee. There have been plenty of folks in city government – past and present who were either registered Republicans and switched party affiliation right before running for office or who gave sizable contributions to either Republican candidates or the Republican party. This is a non-partisan election. Focus on the issues, the positions of the candidates, and determine whether or not they fit in what you want in an elected representative. That is what matters.
Jane,
I don’t understand the alderman’s point.
Amy,
I agree 100%.
If a candidate can spend her/his whole day canvassing, while a candidate with a full-time job is limited to making calls in the evening after a full day at work and on weekends, isn’t the candidate who works full time at a significant disadvantage in the campaigning process? Before the Prelim, I heard a lot of voters say that the incumbents, who both hold full-time jobs, didn’t canvass as much as the newcomers, none of whom had the same outside time commitments.
I just think it’s something for people to think about.
I am not involved with any party in Newton.
I have heard Jake speak several times. Each time he talked and answered questions differently depending upon who he was talking to. He is as others have described him, a young, energetic, ambitious politician with connections and backing. I’m not sure about anything else.
Regardless of the reason, I don’t like what I’m reading about him here.
Jane,
I think the people that say that are whiners. The two incumbents have the power of incumbency and name recognition which trumps anything the challengers can muster in 2 months. Food for thought.
Note to our posterity: any and all conversations with Shawn Fitzgibbons may end up paraphrased on local blogs.
Interesting how Jake’s candidacy is really stirring people up. Well they only attack you when they think you’re having an impact, or so I’ve been told ;-)
Gerry’s comments are harsh to the extreme about Alderman Johnson. While her personality may be at times a bit prickly she is also a tireless worker for this city. She has been extremely generous in mentoring new aldermen, looking for opportunities to give them leadership positions. Leading the Zoning and Planning Committee through zoning reform 1 has been like working a maze blindfolded – herding cats is easy by comparison. I don’t take a thing away from Jake’s hard work but he and his role model, our current Mayor – had no full time job as candidates. Jake has run an unprecedented campaign for Alderman – but who among us can afford to take a year off from our jobs to run for office in Newton – especially one that won’t pay the rent at the end of the day. Alderman Schwartz is an MD, Alderman Harney is a lawyer, Alderman Cicconi was a policeman – just to name a few of the professions represented on the Board. We need people from many professions to bring expertise from their day jobs so that we have diverse experience and backgrounds and create complex solutions to knotty issues. We need people with good ideas – things they’ve learned from school and things they’ve actually practiced in real life. Is the expectation from now on that we all must be free to take off 6-8 months from our paid work so we can contribute to Newton? I hope not because if that does become the new normal I feel very badly for the future of Newton.
Tom – I’d prefer to assume good intentions. These comments were made as a genuine concern in conversations with people who had hoped for more contested races.
With all due respect to Aldermen Albright and Norton, I find it ludicrous that my comment about Alderman Johnson can be considered “completely, utterly, and totally baseless” (Norton) or “harsh to the extreme” (Albright). I was simply trying to put into perspective why it might be that so many voters had rejected Johnson in favor of Auchincloss and Albright. I mean, that’s what happened, right? She was beaten out by the other two, right? So there must be a reason for that, right? What I said was that “to many voters she’s also not proven herself over the years to be a very effective alderman.” How is that baseless or extreme? Clearly if she’d proven herself to be an effective alderman the way Alderman Albright has, then she would have received more votes, right? What am I missing here?
By her post at least Alderman Albright has proven that I’m correct about her tireless support for Johnson!
And I’m heartened to see that after all these years Alderman Norton and I have found something on which to agree, which is that candidates draw attacks only when they’ve had an impact. Candidate Auchincloss is clearly having an impact. Alderman Norton, to her credit, has also had an impact, too. In fact, many of us are curious as to whether she might answer the question Greg posed to her yesterday: “Are you endorsing in the Ward 2 At Large Contest? If so, who and why? If not, why?”
Come on Alderman Norton, one of your best attributes is that you’re not like all those other aldermanic lemmings who blindly support each other come hell or high water. Spill the beans, inquiring minds want to know, and besides, don’t you think you have a responsibility to your constituents to clue them in as to where you stand?
Ald. Albright: I’m sure you’ve heard the expression “if you can’t stand the heat…” Obviously, it is your choice of whether to run or not. It’s also an honor to be elected and serve. I am not sure why someone would run for election while bemoaning the obligation and effort involved in the exercise. Perhaps you might want to so some reflection on that.
I do agree with you that a candidate’s experience and profile should be given some consideration. Your opponent, Mr. Auchincloss, has served his country as a Marine officer, and is currently getting his MBA. He has participated in politics and has demonstrated that he can work with people (not just his people). We can use more, not less of that. Like the effort he has put into his campaign, Jake’s resume is a demonstration of intelligence, loyalty, grit, discipline and the ability to navigate stressful, uncertain environments (which could come in very handy during the budget process).
To declare that anyone should be configured by some group-specified profile does not strike me, in any way, as helping to inform voters, or as adhering to Newton values. So, rather than telling us whether this guy fits your profile for office, why not let us voters decide that? In the meantime, it is worth noting that Jake’s very constructive approach seems to be working very well for him.
Susan,
I’m kinda surprised this is coming from you, but maybe in a d at or two you might regret bringing this up.
Second, during you’re debate, I believe it was Jake who brought up the rate we calculate our OPEB is way too conservstive I believe he said we calculate it at 7.65%. I’d love to know more about that and if that is true. But Susan, whether it’s true or not this is the type of critical thinking that should be on the board. Some of you have been on the board for 30 odd years and never brought that up, why is that? We need more critical/independent thinking like that. Thats something he dug up by himself in less than a month (or whatever) in the campaign.
I am not surprised at Shawns whining, but I am surprised at your excuses….Marcia isn’t even publicly giving excuses and if these results hold, she’s the odd incumbent out.
sorry, end of top line should read:
maybe in a day or two
NOT maybe in a d at or two
Looks like Jake Auchincloss is giving the Newton political hob-nobbers a reason to live! :-)
I hope Alderman Norton stays out of the endorsement game on this election, as she has nothing to gain from it.
Hurray for Terry Malloy, LisaP and Amy Sangiolo for telling it like it is.
Bill, I’ll count you as a strong Jake supporter… ;-) I also think you kinda took Susan’s comment out of context just a bit. “Can’t stand the heat, get out the kitchen”. “honor to serve if elected”? Really?
I think Susan’s actual point was very valid, in that we are giving Jake tremendous credit for knocking of doors, but that very few people can afford to take a year off to do what he has done. Aldercritter has never been a full time job, unlike the mayor. Jake has used Setti’s approach of tremendous work and voter contact, and I give him great credit for that. But it is unrealistic that this is the new normal.
I also think Bill you aren’t really addressing Jake’s propensity to try and be all things to all people. I attribute that to his youth. I respect Susan and Emily because I’ve always known where I stand with them. I rarely seem to agree with Emily these days, but she is consistent and true to her principles. Haven’t exactly gotten the impression with Jake.
As for Jake being a republican or an independent, I think he knows that if he identifies as a republican it will hurt him, so again he is trying to play both sides. He is both Baker And Patrick. Not Dem or Republican but independent. Against Austin Street but for smart development in some other shape.
I’ve said in other posts that I am considering voting for Jake. That is true, but the above troubles me most of all. I like his energy and his youth and his enthusiasm. I think he will give the job his all. But he very much seems a politician and he is running for a post where many of us are so intent to make in a non-political post that we don’t allow democrat or republican affiliation. (I mean I kinda know everyone’s politics from this blog, and it certainly doesn’t shock me that Amy doesn’t want party affiliation to be part of the picture… ;-) ) Jake is in full-on politician mode, with his barnstorming coat and careful weighing of his audience to tell them what they want to hear.
Does anyone actually know what Jake will stand for as an alderman? Does anyone actually think he will stay an aldercritter for more than 2 terms? He is following Setti’s playbook I agree. But I voted for Setti once, and I hesitate to do that again. Sometimes folks who are full-on politicians on the campaign trail never know how to turn that mode of operation off.
I am Jake supporter. I probably disagree with half of his positions, but I disagree with half of what most of the Alderman do. Jake has great ability to analyze problems. Despite our financial mess, we don’t have any Alderman with the analytical training of an MIT MBA. Maybe I am missing someone. On the other hand, when it comes to positions, I am also a supporter of LeBlanc. I agree with 80% of what she says, and I love the way she says it.
There are worse things in this country than a young person who is focused and motivated. I think Jake has what it takes to go far. I hope he is only around for two terms. If so, it means he accomplished something real in Newton, and he has moved on to the next challenge. The worst thing I can imagine is Jake being an Alderman 20 years from now.
I have volunteered on Jake’s campaign a few times and saw the comment thread above. I want to point out that in addition to being a full-time MBA student at MIT Sloan, Jake is also one of two Managing Directors of the MIT $100K Entrepreneurship Competition (I am the other). He leads a team that plans and executes the foremost startup competition at MIT, which involves hundreds of student entrepreneurs and culminates in dozens of new businesses being created in Massachusetts each year. The time commitment required of a Managing Director is substantial.
Fig: I could spend more time unpacking Ald. Albright’s post, outlining who already doesn’t work full-time on the Board, or point to what campaign efforts were made when she knew she had a challenger, the advantages of her incumbency, or that one of her cited examples, Jay Harney, is actually one of the most avid and passionate campaigners to ever cross Newton soil (despite his full-time job). It’s quite a post, but others can infer it for themselves. Instead I will address this “all things to all people” claim.
Anyone who has run for office in a competitive race, particularly the first time, and who actually respects the views of voters, undergoes metamorphosis, for the very reason that Ald. Albright mentions: Aldermanic candidates are not professional politicians (despite the inaccurate contention of some). A major reason to knock on doors is to talk with, not at voters. If you are listening to what they say, then chances are you care going to refine your thinking on issues. Even the very, very smart candidates do this. Further, voters have filters and are busy. What you attempt to say to them in a concise manner may not necessarily be what they hear. So show me an active candidate, and I will show you someone who can be accused of saying “all things to all people.” It’s cheap.
I care about how the candidate approaches an issue. As an alderman/councilor, you will be presented with hundreds of issues, many of which you know little about (as opposed to having an opinion). The vast majority of those are initiated by the Mayor, not you. And the math is that your position represents 1/24th of the legislature. So, that’s about 4 % efficacy on any particular issue. Then, consider that very limited impact will come to bear on hundreds of issues, not the 3-4 they discuss during the campaign. Meanwhile, the candidate’s approach to issues will come into play 100% of the time.
As for the Republican thing, when Jake knocked on my door this summer, he candidly mentioned that he had worked with Charlie Baker. Most people know I’m a Democrat. Not sure why anyone would say he is hiding that. And more importantly, there has been one public measure of voter sentiment in this election: the preliminaries. And the results indicate that a lot of this noise being generated is not impacting voter sentiment.
As many of you know, I like facts. True info lets people decide for themselves. In the Tab today, A. Downs talks about the record of the incumbent Aldermen, especially how none of them (S. Albright, D. Crossley, THM and M. Johnson) voted to lift the deed restriction at 135 Wells Ave.
I was there:
– Monday, 11/10, the Land Use Committee (LUC) had voted 4-0-1 (with Alderman Crossley abstaining) to uphold the deed restriction as commercial.
– On Monday, 11/17, starting at 10:30 PM (because there were other items voted on first!) the Board of Aldermen (BOA) turned to the question of whether to lift the deed restriction on the Wells Ave Office Park to allow construction of a 334-unit apartment building on the site of the Boston Sports Club. Ald. Lipof gave a strong presentation arguing against lifting the restriction and was supported by the other two Aldermen for Ward 8 in which the club is located (Ald. Lappin and Kalis). The majority of the Board concurred.
The final vote was 19 in favor of keeping the deed restriction, 2 excused (because of potential conflicts of interest), and 3 WHO LEFT THE ROOM BEFORE THE VOTE.
The three who walked out of the room as the vote was about to take place were: S.Albright, D. Crossley and M.Johnson.
So the accurate fact is not “none of the four aldermen voted to lift that restriction” as Andreae says, but: one had a conflict of interest and rightly so abstained; the other three cared more about their record than doing what they had been elected for: to vote.