As the preliminary edges closer, I’ll re-post a link to a forum that was recorded in June and nicely delineates what three then-certified candidates (Fuller, Lennon, and Sangiolo) think on a variety of issues.
Though (disappointingly) the promised Part II with other later-entry candidates never materialized, this is still good food for thought and might help others think about how ALL candidates might respond to these important questions.
For candidates who participate in this blog, please jump in and give your response here to any question asked at the forum.
A forum with all seven candidates by the League of Women Voters can be found here: http://www.newtv.org/home/Decision2017/videos/
I’ve watched many of the forums and I think this one adds plenty information including the opioid epidemic, development, seniors, the charter, and more. I also like that none of the questions were given to the candidates in advance.
I’m actually in it, but I’m re-watching it right now. Not to be missed is Kathleen Kouril Grieser’s incredibly focused, hard to squirm out of, questions on land use, including rezonings, the 1.5%, and the devil strip. I’m still waiting for the docket item they promised to co-docket regarding updating and publishing Newton’s SHI — maybe the city councilor mayoral candidates could comment on that?
I was happy we got in questions trees and Webster Woods. Especially since the only time tree issues came up at the Green Newton forum was when Ruthanne volunteered that she’d cut down Library parking lot trees for solar panels, and Al Cecchinelli said he wouldn’t. (Thank you, Al!)
Julia, that’s a bit of an oversimplification of Ruthanne’s answer. She gave a very carefully researched and reasoned response as to the replacement of each tree, the numbers that were possible to move and what the net-benefit generation from the solar panels. I thought her answer spoke volumes about her ability to look at an issue that can seem simple on the surface and dive into the details.
In her analysis, it came down to the loss of a single tree and that loss was worth the tradeoff.
Al looked at none of that nuance and showed no understanding of the issue at all. His answer was a throw-away. He admitted in the debate that he hadn’t even thought about environmental issues until he received the invite.
I’m tired of hearing about “replacing” trees when we’re losing many more trees than we’re planting. We should be planting trees in those other spots and keeping the trees we’ve got in public spaces. And I’m tired of young trees being treated as expendable. The only way we’ll have mature trees is to plant young trees and have the patience to let them grow.
And that’s a very valid criticism of her answer.
Julia,
I couldn’t agree more. We have 310 miles of city streets, and to plant 250 trees annually means we plant less than one tree per mile and that’s on one side of the street only. Not only this but we are losing over 500 trees annually so in a few decades the garden cities streets will essentially be denuded.
AMY Sangiolo is the environmentalist running for mayor and we need her to win if want to be able to continue to call Newton the garden city.