As the 2017 campaign season draws to a close, I like many of you have been canvassing and leafleting. To my amazement many found a flyer, see attached, paid for by the Newton Citizens for Local Representation campaign with the headline !!!!BREAKING NEWS!!! “YES” Campaign heavily funded by Real Estate Developers. They then go on to quote an article in the Boston Globe – October 31, 2017.
However as you can see by using the link, they did not quite get the quote correctly. The NO campaign states “Donations to the pro-change campaign, reported on Monday include several key people in real estate development.” Yet according to the Boston Globe, the statement reads “Donations to the pro-change campaign, which became public on Monday, include a number of real estate types.” There is a difference in what was actually stated and how the NO campaign positioned it to voters. Not sure why the Globe article was not quoted correctly.
So let’s now take a moment to look at some additional facts. The YES campaign raised $63,000. Yes, Mr. Korff and Mr. Oran together donated $1,500 which is equal to 2% of the total amount raised. Then there were a few other “real-estate types” who donated approximately $1,450. Together that is $2,950 which equals approximately 5% of what was donated to the YES campaign. Frankly I do not think that 5% can be translated into “YES Campaign heavily funded by Real Estate Developers.” The biggest donation, though, came from the private equity world: Dan Fireman of Fireman Capital Partners gave $10,000, or nearly one-sixth of the total collected. Mr. Fireman is not a developer and has no real estate interests in Newton. He is the founder and managing partner of Fireman Capital Partners, a private equity firm. He lives in Wellesley now but spent his formative years in Newton.
Now let’s look at what the NO campaign did not state in their flyer. Together Councilor Baker and Councilor Norton through their in-kind and direct donations contributed 42.5% of the funds for this campaign. With another several councilors (at-large and ward) contributing $1,400. I think that it is safe to say that with 47.5% of the funding coming from incumbent councilors the NO campaign is heavily funded by incumbents.
In conclusion, I think it would be better to say that 79% of the funds for the YES campaign came from citizens interested in a more accountable and effective government.
Please keep these facts in mind when you go to vote on November 7th.
Donors to the YES campaign: http://amysangiolo.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/yes-real-estate-donations-1-1.pdf
Hmm, it appears that real estate interests have financed 50% of the Yes campaign?
Is there another interpretation Ms Johnson? Or is this a purposely misleading thread?
How do you figure that Terry?
as we draw closer to D-Day normally citywide healthy skepticism has been preempted by cynicism.
Marcia,
That may feel like misrepresentation to you, and it may be.
Today, however, one day before we vote, I’m not interested in which side misrepresented the facts more YES or NO campaign. Early on, I questioned the YES campaign’s presentation to the extent of researching our truth in advertising laws on the AG website. (And I write ad copy for a living)
What IS important for voters to ponder TODAY is that a YES vote allows all voters in the city to vote for all candidates including Ward candidates.
For example, say I live in Chestnut Hill, and you live in Newtonville. With a YES vote, I would have a vote – EQUAL TO YOURS – for who will represent your ward in Newtonville.
This change makes it possible for a block of voters, developers, or activists to fund a city-wide candidate and over-ride an individual Ward’s choice for who represents them.
I believe that a fair democratic process is far more important than any one issue. I think that residents need to feel empowered that they have a voice *of their choosing * and a certain degree of power to affect change in their own backyard.
I’m not affiliated with any organization, I support a smaller council, I’m pro-development, I welcome density, I’ve served on the board of a Newton affordable housing agency, I’ve served on the Board of the Chamber of Commerce for close to ten years, and my most important client is a developer.
I’ve been so vocal against the Charter Commission’s proposal here on V14 because I believe that the integrity and fairness of our political system come ahead of ANY issue.
To me, this one simple fact creates a dangerous loop-hole allowing money and outside interests the ability to silence an individual Ward – Especially our Wards with a lower economic profile.
This is the ONLY relevant issue to debate today., and this is why I feel a YES vote would be a disaster for diversity, affordable housing and especially trust and participation.
If NO prevails, I expect that we will then figure out how to move in the direction of a smaller council, efficiency and FAIR progress in our city.
welcome to the Garden City, where money grows on trees, and the voters are all above average.
Just say NO..
Yes, Terry. Please take a closer look at the list.
How do affordable housing advocates qualify as highly financed special interest groups? They are not businesses, they have no financing. They are community activists…volunteers.
And we are questioning the motives of hard-working architects and realtors who want a better functioning city council? What profession is safe from No side scrutiny? Plumbers, electricians, painters and landscapers pay the mortgage thanks to residential real estate development. Are they special interests?
Rob Gifford has never developed real estate in Newton and is a 30-year community activist. Dan Fireman has no real estate interests in Newton and is not a developer. He grew up in Newton and is an active philanthropist on progressive causes.
Amy, like me, has worked as a residential real estate developer…so she knows that restoration of run-down houses is a risky, competitive business that in no way makes someone a “highly financed special interest group to run a slate of candidates or take control and do a power grab of the City Council to further their interests “, to quote the No folks. Newton’s special permitting process can be frustrating, but it doesn’t really affect the bottom line of a small-time residential developer.
In the end, $1,500 of the Yes money comes from “big development”.
Sitting city councilors have a financial interest in this vote. They are paid (underpaid is a better word) $10,000 per year plus health and retirements benefits. If they can’t don’t get re-elected because of fewer seats, they lose that.
I am not questioning the integrity of our elected officials, who work very hard for inadequate pay. I don’t believe any of them are motivated by the $10,000 paycheck. But it’s a fact that they have a financial interest.
We have hit a new low here, questioning the integrity and motivations of dedicated community leaders. People who have invested years as activists know first-hand the frustrations of a 24-member council. They are now supporting their long-held position with their money. This is a reason to vote No?
@Amy – that is an interesting misrepresentation of the facts.
@Rhanna: “Amy, like me, has worked as a residential real estate developer…so she knows that restoration of run-down houses is a risky, competitive business that in no way makes someone a “highly financed special interest group to run a slate of candidates or take control and do a power grab of the City Council to further their interests “, to quote the No folks. Newton’s special permitting process can be frustrating, but it doesn’t really affect the bottom line of a small-time residential developer.”
Hmm..my husband purchased property in Weston and restored and saved a farmhouse from demolition and subdivided the property (which he still owns) somehow makes me a “residential real estate developer?”
Marcy wants to stick to the facts. So let’s. There is big money that has been poured into the YES campaign. Was there outside money? Yes. A $10K check came in from Wellesley. Is the outside donor affiliated with Real Estate interests here in Newton? Yes. (http://www.wickedlocal.com/article/20111223/news/312239386) Is there a special interest group involved? Yes.
So folks, I mean it when I say that a “highly financed special interest group could run a slate of candidates and do a power grab of the City Council and take your voice and vote away”.
“We have hit a new low here, questioning the integrity and motivations of dedicated community leaders.”
No questioning of integrity. The point is that close to half of the YES campaign funding is from Real Estate interests. (Even if you remove the Affordable Housing advocates with no professional interest in the industry.)
A remake of our city structure is driven by one industry. Should we not take notice? Isn’t it at least as much a part of the story as the compensation that Councilors receive (as you point out)?
@Terry: Marcia detailed how she came up with five percent. Please detail how you get to fifty.
Because unless you are suggesting that everyone of us who owns a home or condo has a “real estate interest,” your numbers feel like fake math.
Tomorrow cannot come soon enough.
@Amy – I find it pretty hilarious to see you try to explain why your redevelopment and subdivision of a property doesn’t make you a developer while you accuse a bunch of community activists of being developers who are clearly not.
I also find it disheartening that you list affordable housing activists as though they were some kind of special interest. You’ve always claimed to support affordable housing.
As Councilor Laredo so eloquently articulated in his debate against the “yes” side, this all boils down to values. If you are someone who wants to preserve equal representation, limit the influence of special interests, and promote both diversity of opinion and democracy at the local level, please join me in voting no tomorrow.
In my opinion, “yes” proponents have cultivated a negative and false image of Newton. They’ve painted a picture of Newton’s government as being one that is dysfunctional and incapable of producing results because of ward representation, which they’ve paid significant sums of money to elite consultants to persuade voters of.
But the facts tell a different story. To name just a few: Newton is one of a very small number of communities to have received a AAA-Stable bond rating from both Moody’s Investors Service and Standard and Poor’s; Newton is consistently ranked as one of – if not the – best city to live in the entire United States of America; And Newton is consistently ranked as one of – if not the – safest city to live in the entire United States of America. Newton is a lot of positive things, which is why, every single day of this campaign, all of our Mayoral candidates spoke so highly about the city as we know it today. As Councilor Laredo said, clearly Newton is doing something right.
Since day one, I’ve asked Bryan P. Barash and his team a simple question: name a single municipality in the entire country that 1) has produced better results 2) because its legislative branch is elected on an exclusively at-large basis. Notwithstanding the fact that they’ve paid elite consultants roughly $30,000 to answer this question, it’s remained unanswered. As far as I can tell – since all of the available evidence proves the point – the reason this question remains unanswered is because none exists. Consequently, please join me in voting no tomorrow so that Newton’s government never becomes a “Secret Society” with a power imbalance like that seen in Everett.
@Bryan – because I don’t own it. I’m not accusing a bunch of community activists of being developers. No – the community activists – like yourself – are the special interest group. And why do you find my labeling “affordable housing” as a special interest bad? I’m an affordable housing advocate. I’m also an environmmental advocate. That is a special interest too. I’ve never said that a “special interest” group is bad. What is bad is if any one particular “special interest” group has control of the City Council.
Amy by using the term “special interest” group you are implying something negative. It goes along with the NO mantra that Newton is going to be taken over by these secret groups.
@Amy: Come on. The flyer says “heavily funded” by “real estate developers”. You then tried to justify that with a chart that is mostly affordable housing supporters, realtors and architects.
The truth is that YES donors come from all walks of life, the NO campaign was expecting and planning to campaign against developer funding, and when the numbers didn’t match their narrative they just said it anyway.
@Newton Highlands Mom: What else would you call a specific group of people lobbying for a particular interest?
@Councilor Sangiolo: Nice try but I know that you know that the term “special interests” is universally employed in politics having negative connotations.
Meanwhile the Wicked Local article you linked to reports that Dan Fireman invested in a solar panel project in Fall River. And?
Tom, I grew up in West Sacramento, CA, which has a population of 53,000 over 23 sq miles. It used to be the place to go for cheap drugs and its main thoroughfare was skid row. It still has a big homeless population.
West Sacramento has an at-large council of five, and on transportation and housing it puts Newton to absolute shame. While bike lanes are popping up all around the home I grew up in, in Newton my family and I still have to RUN to dodge cars across Comm Ave to get to the Canoe and Kayak rental & Norumbega Park. Auburndale Square was re-done to move more cars and the only reason it reverted to the exclusive phase ped crossing was that our eminent councilors were brushed back by cars on a fact-finding trip – apparently our kids getting hit wasn’t enough. Our existing system is broken in terms of moving the dial on transportation.
http://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=9388
@Greg: Just like the term “progressive”? In this election, that term can be used in any context one wants it to mean. So what would you call those “interest” groups?
From the article: “The Newton-based company boasts a power team of influential and well-financed people, including Paul and Dan Fireman, who founded Reebok in Canton, real estate developer Robert Korff and Gov. Deval Patrick’s former chief of staff, Doug Rubin.”
@Councilor Sangiolo: Maybe I need another cup of coffee, but I’m just not following. So he invested in solar panels in Fall River. And that makes him a Newton developer how?
@Nathan: Auburndale Square was designed by “supposed” expert consultants hired by the City Department – not the City Councilors. From the outset, at the least, this City Councilor opposed getting rid of the exclusive timing but was overruled by our expert transportation staff members at City Hall.
Village14.com gives and it takes. On the one hand, it allows new residents like me to become very well informed in a short period of time. I feel very confident in my planned votes.
On the other hand, YES and (especially) NO advocates are falling into the trap of impugning the motives of those who disagree with them. I hope we’ll be able to calm down and work togther to improve our wonderful city once the election is done.
In most cases, I would favor ward-elected representatives instead of ward-resident representatives voted at-large. In fact during the Charter Commission’s deliberations, I did.
After studying the challenges Newton is facing for myself and listening to both sides, I’ve come to the decision that the only way to open the gates to the city to anyone other than the wealthy and keep the economic diversity that exists now, the city must build more housing. In order to accomplish that goal, the city council needs to be smaller and less dysfunctional.
Many ward-elected councilors only pay attention to the loudest voices, not the silent majority of voices in their ward. They choose which group in their ward to listen to and represent in the city council ignoring the others. They don’t bring a fair and balanced representation of voices to the larger council, they adhere to their chosen few – the special interest group that intentionally or not will keep the gate to Newton closed except to drive lower income earners out while maintaining the status quo.
All of the assertions that a special interest group could take over city hall are correct – the status quo special interest group could do so as well. There are wealthy residents who live on large lots with big houses and plenty of off street parking who support keeping the status quo. The winter parking ban is a symptom of the inequality that already exists.
I’m voting yes on the charter so we can topple that gate and make Newton actually a welcoming city to all, including those who live here now.
John White, welcome. I hope so too.
There seems to be a franticness, dare I say panic, among the Yes campaign. In spite of a big head start (as many where not paying attention until the No campaign gained traction) being well funded and having the support of both Mayoral candidates, they are back on their heels and still keep trying to convince those of us who are a No how we just don’t understand.
The momentum and energy seems to be behind No. As I knocked doors all weekend for my candidate, I saw NO literature at every door I knocked. And I found it especially ironic that after seeing all that effort in the neighborhoods, door to door, it was ironic that I got home to hear the robocall for Yes from Setti Warren.
@Greg: The article shows that he has ties to a significant Newton developer. It also mentions Doug Rubin – who used to work for Fireman’s firm and I believe was working with Korff on the Washington Place proposal. According to the YES campaign finance report, it looks like they hired a firm called CK Strategies to do some work for them. Wasn’t CK Strategies working for Cabot, Cabot & Forbes for their Wells Avenue development? Such a small world.
@Nathan: Thank you for sharing this with us. Using data from Niche.com, let us compare Newton vs. West Sacramento.
Overall, Newton was graded “A+” and ranked the #4 best place to live in MA. West Sacramento was graded “B+” and ranked the #545 best place to live in CA.
In terms of housing, Newton was graded “B-,” whereas West Sacramento was graded “C.” Similarly, over the past 10 years, housing appreciation in West Sacramento has decreased – decreased – by 22.97%. Newton’s has increased significantly.
Most of us would choose an A+ over a B+.
Link for Newton: https://www.niche.com/places-to-live/newton-middlesex-ma/
Link for West Sacramento: https://www.niche.com/places-to-live/west-sacramento-yolo-ca/
@Marti Bowen
The thing is it shouldn’t matter what you or I prefer, or if “many ward-elected councilors only pay attention to the loudest voices”.
The system needs to be FAIR, DEMOCRATIC and EMPOWER the individual voter. I don’t know where people around here get off thinking they have the right to reverse engineer our political system to get a better or different result.
@Greg, I believe that Amy was rightly pointing out that Fireman’s partner in the solar panel development project is Korff. When one follows the money on the YE$ campaign, there are flows to and from real estate developers, investors in real estate development, and other consulting firms that support real estate development projects (including a real estate lobbying firm, NOVUS, that specializes in messaging to communities around development). As a casual observer, that seems pretty obvious. Depending on one’s point of view, this support from the development community can either be a positive or negative. But, in order to make an informed decision when voting on the proposed changes to the Charter, it is helpful to be aware of the funding interests on both sides.
A “special interest” or “special interest group” is generally defined as “a body of persons, corporation, or industry that seeks or receives benefits or privileged treatment, especially through legislation. ”
Individuals who advocate for the creation of affordable housing that does not benefit them financially are not “special interests,” nor are groups of such housing advocates “special interest groups.” They neither seek nor receive benefits or privileged treatment for themselves. To suggest otherwise is deliberately deceptive and misleading. This was false advertising, plain and simple.
Nor are such advocates required to register as “lobbyists,” since Section 4-3 of the city Ordinances only requires a “person who has received or will receive a fee or any other consideration to effect positive or negative action by the city council on any matter pending before it” to register with the city clerk.
Tom, yes my old hometown still struggles with homelessness, drugs, poverty and prostitution. It’s not nearly as affluent and educated as Newton, with its skyrocketing housing appreciation. But at least kids can more safely cross the street and bike to school.
I think this depends, to a large degree, on how you categorize Fireman, since his contribution was so large it makes up the greatest percentage of all the money received by the Yes campaign. However a news report from 2011 about a project he helped finance, in which a developer with interests in Newton was involved, does not mean to me that Fireman is also a developer. On the contrary, I haven’t read anything about him online that categorizes him that way.
I am interested in the online corresponding financial data for the No campaign but can’t find it. Can anyone point me to the link?
I suspect that the No campaign was heavily funded by current City Councilors who desperately want to entrench their position without being subject to the will of all the voters (citywide). But that is just a guess, I can’t find their financial report.
In trying to find that report I did stumble across the fact that Councilor Norton spend $750 of funds from her campaign for a cell phone in September. I am not suggesting that is inappropriate. On the contrary, I think City Councilors devote an extraordinary amount of time to the service of our community and are overall inadequately rewarded. But my point is that they (City Councilors) also represent a special interest in maintaining the status quo, and it is fair to discuss that they have a vested (self-)interest in a No vote.
And while the yearly stipend for a councilor is underwhelming, I understand after a period of time on the council the city pays their health benefits for life. When there is so much angst about Newton’s almost 1 billion OPEB liability, perhaps this too is something that should be discussed. Term limits ARE part of the new charter, but I do not know if the limits proposed are sufficient to do away with lifetime benefits for councilors after a certain number of years.
@NewtonNewbie, from Fireman’s site: “Prior to 2008, Dan was the CEO of Willowbend Development, LLC, where he successfully turned around and ran a portfolio that comprised over $500 million of LP capital invested in complex real estate partnerships, including the Westin Rio Mar (San Juan, PR), J.W. Marriott Star Pass (Tucson, AZ), Liberty National (Jersey City, NJ) and Willowbend Country Club (Mashpee, MA). Prior to leading Willowbend Development, Dan held various sales, strategy and marketing leadership roles at Reebok.”
Corresponding “No” data: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/85731
@Lauren: Thank you very much!
From my quick calculations looking at that link, $18,528.37 of the $26,125 reported by the No campaign came from current city councilors or their campaign committees. That is 71% according to my math, coming from the special interest group of current city councilors wanting to keep things the same.
Part of the problem here is that there are a lot of folks who are posting here who aren’t involved in real estate and suddenly the word “developer” means all sorts of things.
The No campaign has done a very good job with defining the debate on their terms. All we talk about on this blog and in the debate on the charter is “local representation”. The charter is so much more than that.
It was always going to be very hard to enact the charter and shrink the council. I agree with Claire that the momentum seems to be on the no side, and I would be surprised if it passed.
With all that said, it is my personal view that Amy and the No campaign are not being 100% honest about the real estate developer support. You can define a huge number of people as having an interest in real estate. And frankly anyone who knows anything about real estate knows how disfunctional Newton is and how disfuctional the city council is. It is entirely possible to want to cure that disfunction but have no personal interest in the result. But Amy’s brush is purposefully broad, and leaves a bad taste in my opinion.
And it is my personal view that the 8 plus 8 proposal was primarily meant to muddy the waters, and that it will never happen. And the councilors who support it know that.
On the latter, we’ll be able to see how it plays out after the election if the No campaign prevails. I hope everyone will remember the rhetoric and the strategy if the 8 plus 8 proposal goes nowhere. The No campaign and especially the 8 plus 8 proposal has certainly changed my view of a few members of the council, and I hope we all have long (but respectful) memories regarding the tactics.
@NewtonNewbie: The in kind donations aren’t included in the $26k number, so it’s actually about 46% that came from city councilors. The campaign is also chaired by a city councilor and it’s leading surrogates have been city councilors.
I’d rather keep things the same, than be subjected to the changes recommended by the Charter Commission, regardless of who gave what to whom. Loss of local representative should not be an option, like, at all. The Commission should be ashamed of themselves for taking 17 months to come up with these recommendations.
SoccerMommy:
Ashamed? So folks donate hundreds of hours to the city and they should be ashamed?
Disagree if you want, but in my view I give all the credit in the world to volunteers, elected by the city, who did the best job they could and came up with a set of proposals for all of us to consider.
Don’t like the proposal? Vote against it. That’s your right. Want to criticize it? Go ahead.
But you should be thanking the charter commission.
@SoccerMommy, my take is that the members of the Charter Commission are just so damn invested in the win that they have a serious tin ear on this issue. I get that they were elected to research the issue and come up with a recommendation. But 1) I think they were elected by only about 10% of voters (I’m sure I will be corrected if I am wrong on that and 2) voters never agreed to rubber stamp their proposal.
Yes they had public hearings but how many citizens were truly engaged?
Well now it is on the ballot and we will vote. I’m not a No. I am a Hell No
@fignewtonville
RE: “All we talk about on this blog and in the debate on the charter is “local representation”. The charter is so much more than that.”
I’m not affiliated with the NO campaign, but for me anyhow “local representation” was a non-negotiable dealbreaker from day one – So any discussion on the merits of the Charter was pointless.
Okay. So, the Charter Commission was only voted for by 10% of voters, and citizens weren’t engaged in the process. Whose fault is that? Why do people wait until they feel like victims to ACT? It is your right, your privilege, and YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to engage, Claire. Not at the 11th hour. Soccermommy says that the ELECTED commission should be ashamed? I think that the people who have suddenly awakened to their civic duty should be ashamed that they did not vote in the election where the Charter Commission was chosen, and did not take advantage of the opportunity to engage in the process. Vote No if that is your choice. But now perhaps you folks will step up, stay involved, volunteer and serve your community. I am voting YES based on what I see in this City, because I serve on mayorally appointed committees and several other boards. I vote in each election. I go to Council meetings and speak up for what I believe. Mike C, I know you and know all that you have done for the City: your opinion, while I disagree with it, is, I know, based on knowledge gained from careful attention to this and other issues. To others: Your vote, your opinion, your vision for this City COUNTS but it cannot be effectively counted in the 11th hour. Maybe this election will wake up the sleepers. In that case, it will have been worth it.
Spare us the lecture NativeNewtonian. No victim’s here. Just citizens exercising our rights. And I voted in every election in my 50 plus years, but not necessarily on every race or question as I only cast a vote when I am informed. And I am informed on this issue
I really feel sorry for this news has chewed up cycles. I really wish elections, especially local elections of a small city did not involve campaign donations, or political consultants.
When all is said and done, the YES campaign should really conduct some introspection and find how a decision was made to take $$$ from real estate people or spend $$$ on pollsters.
What part of checks and balances broke, or who made that decision. There was always a choice to donate to the Newton Food Pantry or other worthy causes.
This inspection should be conducted regardless of the outcome of tomorrow’s election.
$0.02 (sorry – I m not a developer)
Here is the definition of “special interest” from Merriam-Webster, ” person or group seeking to influence legislative or government policy to further often narrowly defined interests; especially :lobby.”
Here is the definition of “special interest” from Collins, “a group seeking to influence government policy in favour of a particular interest or issue.”
Neither of these definitions say anything about financial interests. Also, let me add that many non-profit affordable housing organizations make profits in development, which can be used to pay their top brass.
I am not making a value judgment. Financial interests or not, all people and organizations of people have First Amendment rights.
Rhanna wrote: Rob Gifford has never developed real estate in Newton.
It wasn’t for lack of trying. As posted on the dearly departed Newton Tab blog by Anatol Zukerman, “The Firefighters Triangle was not just Anatol’s proposal – I was only one on the team of architects, lawyers and developers: Russ Feldlman, Jason Rosenberg, Nino and Giancarlo Micozzi, Robert Gifford and a few others.”
Well I’m full of thanks and gratitude to the members of the Charter Commission and those fellow groupies who went to all or most of the meetings and hearings (whether they are pro or con). There were so many hours given to the city to review and discuss all aspects of the charter, down to decisions of which conjunction should be used. I’m sure there were other things the members could have done with their hundreds of hours spent researching and discussing–but they volunteered for it, ran for elected office, and worked very hard to do the job.
It’s sad to read these personal comments about the Charter Commission. They visited and revisited these controversial issues at least 3 times, showing there was no ‘tin ear.’ They might have arrived at a decision some don’t like, but they did listen and give their best. Their decisions were based on very thorough discussion and research–18 months of it, with expert advice from the Collins Center. If you disagree with their proposal, that’s one thing. It’s another to denigrate the individuals.
About the idea of special interests, if advocates for affordable housing are a special interest, we could also call those against development a special interest, too. In that case, maybe we all fit into some category or another.
@Sue Flicop
Indeed. We are all special 😉
Whether you go to the polls to say YES or NO, I hope when it’s over, we all choose to say HELLO and not GOODBYE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rblYSKz_VnI
Peace!
The following is from Bloomberg.com: “With Mr. (Dan) Fireman leading the sale of many of Willowbend’s more significant assets, in addition to Reebok being sold, he conceptualized and created FCP (Fireman Capital Partners) to exploit investment opportunities in the two sectors he knows best – consumer products and REAL ESTATE.”
What this means is that Dan Fireman created the company he currently owns and operates to exploit investment opportunities in real estate. Put another way, it means that his company exists to derive profit from real estate deals.
Thus, we’ve got a guy who 1) comes from a billionaire family, 2) literally started a company to profit from real estate deals, 3) doesn’t live in Newton, and 4) donated $10,000 to team “yes.” In the eyes of someone like Bryan P. Barash, somehow, this set of facts amounts to “there’s nothing to see here.”
Personally, I’m voting no tomorrow because my life experiences have taught me that diversity of opinion is a strength, not a weakness. As someone who comes from the lowest end of Newton’s economic spectrum, I’ll point out that if you go around Newton’s public housing, you’re likely to see many “no” signs but zero “yes” signs. This means something. Tomorrow, others will vote yes because their life experiences create in them a perspective that Newton’s government should become more like Everett’s.
I’ve said it from day one – there are good faith arguments on both sides of this debate. But pretending that Dan Fireman and his $10,000 contribution has nothing to do with real estate profits, as Bryan P. Barash has worked really hard to do, is not one of them.
Link: file:///C:/Users/tomda/AppData/Local/Packages/microsoft.windowscommunicationsapps_8wekyb3d8bbwe/LocalState/Files/S0/2090/2424.pdf
@NativeNewtonian I don’t know who you are but thanks for the acknowledgment. Also, a sincere thanks to everyone here. You all taught me so much about the heart and soul of our city. Tomorrow is a new day.
Yeah, undermines the credibility of the YE$ side’s position when they attempt to position Fireman as just a philanthropist and Amy Sangiolo as a residential real estate developer. Filing it under “things that make you go hmmm…”
Someone engaging on the highly interactive NO facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/newtondemocracy/) just asked why No had assumed that the political consulting “firm” MLM Strategies, that YES has paid $10,000 to, and the Novus Group were linked, so we did a google search to get a hyperlink for them.
To me, it is quite disturbing what comes up here in news articles in this search. You be the judge.
https://www.google.com/search?ei=bw8BWt9mg5mPBP_VpZAG&q=%22mlm%20strategies%22%20%22novus%20group%22&oq=%22mlm%20strategies%22%20%22novus%20group%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160k1.6644.12195.0.12411.4.4.0.0.0.0.199.536.0j4.4.0….0…1.1.64.psy-ab..0.4.536…35i39k1.0.gSmbk6moIlk
Ted H-M writes: “Councilor Norton spend $750 of funds from her campaign for a cell phone in September. I am not suggesting that is inappropriate.”
OK then what are you suggesting?
This morning, the American Bar Association reported on the filing of an amicus brief by some of America’s smartest legal minds. In short, the brief argues that President Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked critics from commenting on his Twitter account.
In all my experiences engaging in the political process, my voice has only been silenced twice. The first time was when City Councilor Jake Auchincloss blocked me and many others from commenting on his social media platforms. The second time, of course, was when Team Yes blocked comments on its Facebook. The commonality to Trump’s behavior is striking.
The article reads, in part: “Such practices are a familiar playbook for authoritarian regimes. For them, cultivating a false sense that political leaders are adored by the public is critical to warping the public’s understanding of how those leaders are really viewed by the public and, in turn, to quashing democratic impulses.”
Food for thought if you’re on the fence today!
Link: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/chemerinsky_joins_brief_arguing_trumps_blocking_of_twitter_critics_violates
With all the sleight of hand from the No campaign directing our attention to the alleged dirtiness of the Yes campaign, it is easy to overlook that the No campaign also spent lavishly on political consultants and $1000s of dollars in Facebook ads (it’s almost like someone recently won an election with that strategy).
Actually my campaign paid for half the phone – there should be a $300+ donation from me in my report. No time to look now as I’m a little distracted today. I don’t like to disclose too much of my secret sauce but suffice to say I use my phone quite a bit to further my political career 😉