Here’s the video from the NewTV/League of Women Voters of Newton debate between Allan Ciccone Sr. and Alison Leary who are running Ward One Ward Alderman. Roger Marrocco Jr., a third candidate, who will be on preliminary ballot on Tues, Sept. 17, reportedly declined to participate.
Watch Alison Leary/Allan Ciccone Sr. debate right here
by Greg Reibman | Sep 1, 2013 | NewTV | 86 comments
Aren’t you going to pick a side Greg? (Gail?) How atypical… no underdog bashing in this thread…
I’m not sure who the underdog is here. But either way, I’m having trouble following your point. Expressing opinions is one of the main things people do on this blog. Are you suggesting that Gail and I aren’t allowed to have an opinion?
Greg Reibman — Think harder.
Hint: The picture only has two contestants.
If you take a look at Allan’s Twitter Profile versus Alison’s you’ll see a huge difference. Allan’s Twitter profile primarily follows regular people and organizations that are hardly considered to have a partisan orientation.
https://twitter.com/allanciccone/following
On the other hand, Alison’s profile primarily followers extremist, radical left-wing organizations and causes. Someone needs to tell Alison that municipal elections are officially non-partisan because there isn’t supposed to be a partisan way to oversee city government. Municipal government isn’t supposed to be about rabidly left-wing ideologies.
Twitter profiles? Honestly you’re really searching to find things to complain about. Watch the debate, meet Alison, she is an incredibly down-to-earth, kind and reasonable person.
I was very impressed by the question she chose to ask Allan during the debate. Not a got-you trap question, but one that allowed her opponent to describe his positions and the good work he has done for the city of Newton. Alison will make a great alderman because she knows the issues and listens to all sides.
Lucia, I already mentioned how Alison never met a tax increase that she didn’t like. I could also make the same observation about Alison’s Facebook page as I would about the Twitter Page.
1. Alison supported three extravagantly expensive property tax increases
2. She supports Pay-As-You-Throw garbage. Even Steve Siegel said Pay As You Throw was a tax increase unless it was accompanied with an offsetting reduction in property taxes
http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/news/lifestyle/columnists/x415881544/Siegel-Implement-Newtons-Pay-As-You-Throw-for-environment-not-revenue
3. She supports taxing grocery bags
4. She supported the bottle bill ($20M/year back-door tax increase at the state level)
Although the debate centered primarily on Ward 1 ward-specific issues, I liked that Allan Ciccone mentioned a few money saving ideas that he enacted when he previously served on the Board of Aldermen as well as ideas that he wanted to see enacted if he was elected in 2013.
Alison’s views are more in tune with those of Waban and West Newton Hills than that of Ward 1.
Alison is a fantastic person and candidate for public office. She did great in this debate and I hope Ward 1 residents will vote her in this fall!
Shawn’s comment here the antithesis of his frequent mantra of why Newton must elect Democrats (even in nonpartisan races). Proof that some folks in the Newton Democratic Committee would likely get behind a liberal “un-enrolled” candidate than a registered lifelong Democrat (which is the case with Roger Marrocco and Allan Ciccone).
Alison is a lovely person whom I genuinely like her, however her positions on taxes and pushing more costs onto consumers to meet her environmental agenda are why I do not choose her as my candidate at this time.
Twitter profiles are as good a resource of an individuals stance on issues as much if not even MORE than their websites as an individual’js brief summary of their beliefs.
@Reibman
You and Gail continuously bash candidates with your smarmy commentary or ‘thread titles’ here. From this commenter’s view it’s nasty and unnecessary bashing of folks who are brave enough to step forward and tun for public office while you ‘show-up’ as words on a page when it comes having a so-called opinion. Easy to judge (what you call having an opinion) when you never had the courage to be counted by public vote.
I have no horse in the Ward 1 ward race, but when my words are enlisted by others for their personal agenda I’ll speak out. There is blind irony when a Newton anti-tax advocate equates support for PAYT with support for raising taxes. In its basic form, described in my TAB op-ed and echoed in the Ward 1 televised debate, PAYT is a powerful tool to reduce solid waste, increase recycling, and lower disposal cost to municipalities, completely separate from tax policy. The issue I raised in my writing is perpetuated by Mr. Norman, who co-mingles sound environmental and economic policy with a tax agenda. PAYT is only about taxes if one intentionally intertwines them; in this case Mr. Norman did and Ms. Leary did not.
Steve Siegel — I believe the kind of PAYT the City last considered is a basic trash fee. Many other cities do it — you pay $50 or $100 per quarter and the money goes into the Enterprise Fund. There’s no savings if have no trash – thus little incentive to throw out less. That kind of fee is really dangerous because Enterprise fees have no limits. Taxes have limits. Do I have the concept wrong?
Steve, I’m not an anti-tax advocate. If I was an anti-tax advocate, I would be advocating for the repeal of real estate property taxes as well as the automobile excise tax, the CPA Tax surcharge, the meals tax and the hotel lodging tax. I merely opposed an $11.4M/year tax increase package when Newton underfunded its infrastructure & maintenance spending by $30M/year and used that money to underwrite compensation.
Hoss & Steve, the only way I could be neutral on PAYT is if PAYT was offset by an offsetting and permanent reduction in the tax levy.
Also, I think Steve Siegel said it best when he wrote the following observations on PAYT:
“So what makes the CAG’s PAYT recommendation problematic?
Newton residents will pay $6.8 million in FY 2009 for our conventional solid waste disposal and recycling programs. In most communities that initiate PAYT, program costs switch from a tax-based to a fee-based system, and the total cost stays the same or drops slightly. But our CAG states that by creating a PAYT program in Newton, we can generate up to $6.8 million in new revenue. We’ll do this by assessing PAYT fees on top of the present cost of our solid waste disposal and recycling programs.
If we introduce PAYT this way, here is what our citizens will hear: “New program, environmentally friendly. Oh, and it’s going to cost you twice what the old one did. You’ll still pay taxes for it, and you’ll pay fees, too.” You think our voters will embrace it?
Unless our tax rate is reduced to reflect the fee charged for PAYT, this fee is simply an override without consulting our voters. Without a tax offset, this move injects local money politics into sound environmental policy. By doing so, it undermines this policy.”
I couldn’t have made a better evaluation of Newton’s PAYT proposal myself. Unless PAYT is intertwined with a permanent and offsetting reduction in the tax levy, it is a de facto tax increase.
Read more: http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/news/lifestyle/columnists/x415881544/Siegel-Implement-Newtons-Pay-As-You-Throw-for-environment-not-revenue#ixzz2dkfJnyNx
Follow us: @newtontab on Twitter | wickedlocalnewton on Facebook
If that’s the letter he’s referring to — it was written during the time when we had two or more guys on trash trucks and they would throw the bags into the back. We’ve moved on from that. If the metric then said reduced tonnage into landfills, we accomplished the goal with 60 gallon recycle bins and no fees. The idea of selling plastic bags while we are trying to ban them at CVS is not consistent with 2013 thinking.
ONE subject that Josh Norman KNOWS is HOW our tax dollars spent. If anyone wants to stand on the sound environmental policy pulpit and say PAYT is not a tax, it is a solid untruth.
I wonder how many parents who jump up and down about environmental policy used cloth diapers on their children and dipped those dirty doo-doo-filled diapers into the toilet when changing their babies at 2:00 o’clock am? If we were to survey these BIG environmentalists (including Leary, Rucinski, Siegel, Dolan et al) would they be honest enough to say they ALL used used ‘disposable’ Pampers on their children when they were infants?
Thank You Janet.
Shawn, I have to ask why you’re supporting a far-left extremist unenrolled voter when you have two lifelong Newton Democrats like Allan Ciccone Senior and Roger Marrocco on the ballot. I’m especially surprised when I consider that Allan is a member of the NDCC Ward 1 Ward Committee.
Janet, isn’t Shawn breaking the NDCC’s Amended bylaws by publicly supporting Alison over Allan and Roger? I thought that members of the NDCC could only publicly support other Democrats.
Also, why didn’t he include a reference to Jackie Gauvreau Sequeira on the Newton Dems municipal election page? Jackie is a lifelong registered Democrat who has actively supported Newton Democrats like Joe DeNucci, Scott Lennon, Dick McGrath and others.
http://www.newtondems.org/muni-elections/
Janet – I did look into diapers when my kids were babies. Cloth diapers versus disposables (at that time) were a wash environmentally because cloth required a lot of water to clean them and disposables could be made from a renewable resource – wood. I purchased diapers made with unbleached wood, because chlorine use to whiten wood is a big enviro problem (mainly in the 3rd world – my dad was a research scientist working on this). My kids diapers were entirely biodegradable except for the tabs – one of our dogs digested one.
PAYT means people with small households aren’t subsidizing the trash costs of people with large households. Trash disposal is charged by weight. It would be as if Newton got 1 gas bill for the entire city and divided it up based on number of households. If household gas use had no effect on your gas costs, who would turn down their thermostat in the winter? We’d all leave the house heated when we go away for the weekend, etc.
Lucia — It’s a community. I didn’t sent my kids to public schools, but I gladly pay for public education. On the other end, I don’t own a $2 million home, but those that do pay 3x the tax I pay, and for the same or fewer services. Dividing gov’t up to what we use is unfair to those needing what gov’t offers. Read Mr Seigel’s letter — it’s thoughtful essay about landfills, not large families and the garbage they generate.
My point is simple: PAYT has proven to be very sound environmental policy and it saves money. In response to a question on NewTV Ms. Leary addressed these topics specifically. Mr. Norman chose to equate her remarks as supporting a tax increase, and this was his own construct as neither Ms. Leary nor Mr. Ciccone discussed PAYT in terms of any tax.
To Janet’s assertion that PAYT is a tax, this is only so if this is how a municipality chooses to structure it. There are literally dozens of constructs one can find for how municipalities fund PAYT; in its most basic form it is simply a user fee based upon consumption, identical to cell phone minutes, gasoline for your car, and electricity for your house. As such it subjects personal waste production and disposal more directly to market forces. It makes consumer choices regarding throwing away and recycling a personal financial decision.
Unfortunately, just as climate change conversations are remarkably difficult as they have become completely politicized, so have Newton conversations regarding PAYT. It doesn’t have to be this way.
Hoss – How do you determine need or fairness? The reason PAYT is a powerful tool is because individuals have a financial incentive to reduce their solid waste. Subsidizing education benefits the economy, who does subsidizing trash production benefit?
“PAYT is a powerful tool to reduce solid waste, increase recycling, and lower disposal cost to municipalities, completely separate from tax policy”
Lucia, I offered a compromise solution. PAYT represents a $7M/year tax increase. I offered a way to structure PAYT so as to not increase the costs that Newton residents pay.
Newton’s operating budget is $331M in FY 2014.
It gets $290M from taxes
It gets $24M in federal and state aid
It gets $17M in fees, fines, charges for city services and transfers from other funds
I would not object if the PAYT crowd was willing to offer the following model for FY 2014:
Newton gets $283M from taxes
Newton gets $24M in federal and state aid
Newton gets $24M in fees, fines, charges for city services, PAYT & transfers from other funds
Anything else is a tax increase that will serve to underwrite a large spending increase.
Hoss, I read the same guest column you read. I thought it was a thoughtful and articulate evaluation of PAYT in general and Newton’s PAYT proposal in particular. I thought it balanced the theoretical benefits of PAYT with the fact that the CAG and other advocates of Newton’s PAYT was proposing it as a way to take more money out of the pockets of Newton residents.
Hoss, one critique of our health care system is that consumers are largely insulated from costs so they cannot make informed choices that consider expense. When consumers understand service pricing they can make choices that can drive costs lower. At least that is the concept behind our entire economic system!
In its simplest construct PAYT fully exposes consumers to the cost of waste disposal. In those towns that use PAYT, the volume of waste goes way down and the volume of recycling goes way up which is a net economic win for whoever is paying for it.
To your comments regarding public education and fairness, I believe that public education is a common good and a community obligation. I believe that reducing the volume of our trash is also a common good, and PAYT is one strong means of achieving this good.
Steve, while Ms. Leary may have specifically addressed issues used to support a PAYT program, she did not specifically address issues and concerns of PAYT opponents. I have acknowledged the pro-PAYT camp as well as what PAYT opponents would say and I offered a moderately progressive compromise that should be mutually acceptable to both parties.
“To your assertion that PAYT is a tax only if a municipality chooses to structure it as such. There are literally dozens of constructs one can find for how municipalities fund PAYT:”
What way would Ms. Leary structure it? Would she be willing to offset the new fees to consumers with an offsetting and permanent reduction in the tax levy? That is the only way to structure it so it isn’t a de facto tax increase.
Based on your column, I expected that you would have structured it by offsetting the new fees with an offsetting and permanent reduction in the tax levy. You said and I quote “Unless our tax rate is reduced to reflect the fee charged for PAYT, this fee is simply an override without consulting our voters. Without a tax offset, this move injects local money politics into sound environmental policy. By doing so, it undermines this policy.”
Please tell me that you’re not backtracking from your position in your column that you wrote. I was AGREEING with what you wrote and I was offering that as a compromise.
Read more: http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/news/lifestyle/columnists/x415881544/Siegel-Implement-Newtons-Pay-As-You-Throw-for-environment-not-revenue#ixzz2dlHnKiYB
Follow us: @newtontab on Twitter | wickedlocalnewton on Facebook
My, my Greg thou doth protest too much.
Your unrestricted judgmental remarks and defense is equally tiresome. Saying this is “my blog and if you don’t like it, go find another” is equally tiresome (and arrogant). I did not and still don’t care about your unequivocally pretentious endorsement (or blatant un-endorsement) of me. The only thing we continuously mutually agree to it our dislike for one another.
Do us all a favor and take it off line if you want to address me so haughtily, but leave the poor readers of this blog out of it.
Steve, is trash removal not currently paid for out of our real estate tax dollars? How does instituting a new fee (since we dare not call it a tax) for something we already pay for not a tax? Didn’t you vote for the removal of fees to NPS students for extracurricular programs we are already providing when there was a surplus in the School Committee budget?
Steve Siegel — You use the term consumer. Is the profile of someone that wastes in Newton, the profile of a frugal consumer? Seems to be a great conflict of economics…
Oh, well, we agree on the ends — in terms of the debate, I watched it and thought they both did a super job. They conveyed the type of nice, intelligent, down to earth people we need. My only prejudice is I don’t like family influences in gov’t — and here is a choice to limit that.
My problem with the so-called PAYT trial balloon was that it wasn’t true PAYT. It was a flat fee per bin per year, so whether you put a out a full bin once per week or once per month, you’d pay the same amout. No incentive to reduce waste there. Or it required wasteful plastic bags.
That, and it effectively being a tax increase without an override vote. Haven’t changed my mind since my letter to the Tab on the subject back in 2011:
http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/news/x28913156/Letter-Ticked-off-with-Pay-as-you-throw
Joshua, I don’t know what either candidate thinks about PAYT beyond what they stated on NewTV. Please don’t ask me to speculate on their positions, when you can simply ask them.
I responded on this thread after seeing a policy I believe worthy of thoughtful discussion being misrepresented to make a political sword against a candidate. I’d have left this alone but the point of my 2008 op-ed was to strip the tax politics away from the PAYT discussion so the merits could be debated. You just twisted them back together and it continues to confuse. Case in point: Janet’s posts on this thread.
In 2008, the context for the PAYT discussion was this: The 2008 override had failed, Newton had a growing structural deficit, our buildings were continuing to deteriorate, we were laying off teachers, and during this time the CAG was charged with identifying means of increasing revenues for the City.
One idea was to harness PAYT, a concept that can stand alone as sound environmental policy, as a mechanism to increase revenues quickly. Their plan would work but I worried that if Newton’s introduction to the PAYT concept was part of a revenue plan rather than as a Green Cities policy, it would compromise the policy discussion before it could begin. The CAG could just as easily have recommended a fee on city-issued energy-saving light bulbs. That wouldn’t turn most people against energy-saving light bulbs, since we already understood and valued their positive environmental impact. But PAYT was a new concept to many, and introducing it as a revenue plan first turned many against it without studying it further.
My hope is that Newton can consider this idea further as a proven tool to reduce solid waste and increase recycling. To me the discussion of revenue implications should be an independent one.
One part of our current trash scenario that makes no sense to me is why is there a charge for putting a stove on the sidewalk, something that is mostly recyclable, but no charge if we put a futon mattress on the sidewalk?
Julia, you made good points in your Letter to the Editor about the 2011 PAYT Trial Balloon.
This is a complicated issue, and I think Steve has ir right when he wants to isolate to separate pieces of the discussion: the environmentally conscious aspect of linking cost to usage, and the implications on the overall costs to the citizenry.
Administratively one has to conclude that PAYT bears added cost to implement on an ongoing basis, but its also likely to reduce total waste products, and related costs. Less waste because more gets recycled.
On the other hand, I agree with others that in the aggregate revenue derived from citizens will be higher to the city, unless there is some reduction in property based revenue. How that nets out remains to be seen, but there must be some adjustment, otherwise revenue derived from taxes plus user fees have gone up for arguably less services [lower waste collected].
A worthy exploration if considered as two separate but interrelated components.
Steve, Janet made a good point about how trash removal is already currently paid for out of our tax dollars and how instituting a new fee (since we dare not call it a tax) for something we already pay for represents a tax increase.
I already asked them their positions. Allan is against PAYT since it represents a tax increase. Alison gave an evasive answer when I asked her.
I shared my compromise proposal with regards to structuring PAYT. How exactly would you structure a PAYT proposal?
By itself, PAYT is a good program in theory. In practice, it was only proposed as a way to raise taxes and to get around Proposition 2.5.
In 2008, Newton didn’t have a structural deficit. It never had a structural deficit. It has a structural spending problem. Newton’s buildings were continuing to deteriorate because Newton spent and continues to spend the taxpayers’ hard earned money on lavish compensation packages for 17 government worker unions.
Because Newton tried to introduce PAYT as a revenue plan, it has compromised the policy discussion.
As I am all about solutions, I proposed a solution that addresses the needs and desires of both camps. I agree with Alderman Lenny Gentile (D-SOMERVILLE!) that PAYT is a tax increase. It is piously presented as a recycling initiative, but it is really a tax increase that doesn’t have to go before the voters. The number for the “saving” that has been bandied about is $6.8 million per year. That means we will cough up more per year for a service that has until now been provided with our tax money.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/news/x550232316/Letter-Pay-as-you-throw-is-a-tax-increase
You can’t separate the revenue implications from the PAYT idea because PAYT is expected to bring in up to ~$7M/year and to replace a program paid for by tax dollars with a program paid for by user fees.
Janet, I used cloth diapers on my 2 children almost exclusively. I used a diaper service and it was very convenient and easy.
And no comment from the candidate about PAYT other than cloth diapers?
Another question – outside of the dirty laundry one – as the environmental candidate, how would you advocate for a constituent (and the neighborhood) who approaches you with an accident that occurred as a result of an oversight or many oversights made by utility company which resulted in a severe HAZ MAT situation within 100 feet of the Charles River? (this really happened!)
BONE UP! December 2011 PAYT Option Study Group Report
I would never rule out any ideas/options that could save my community money and benefit the environment, and that would include a pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) program. Trash should be treated just like any other utility-gas, electricity and water; you only pay for what you use. This approach to solid waste management is both economically and environmentally sustainable and is fair to all.
PAYT communities have significantly higher recycling rates and reduced trash tonnage. Well-designed programs generate the revenues communities need to cover their solid waste costs, including the costs of such complementary programs as recycling and composting. Residents benefit, too, because they have the opportunity to take control of their trash bills.
In neighboring Needham (a PAYT community) a selectman reported to me that they have about an 80% recycling rate-much higher than Newton’s which hovers around 50% on a good day. How much could the City save if we diverted 20% or 30% from our waste stream?
The discussion around off setting PAYT with a reduction in the tax levy is a good one. Adding another fee for a PAYT program will only serve to undermine it.
My bottom line; More recycling, less waste= a better future for our children.
On the topic of solid waste, the City is looking into a Curbside Source Separated Organics (SSO) Collection Pilot, as organic waste from large producers will soon be banned from disposal in landfills and incinerators. Some more immediate discussions that we should be having include:
How will the ban on organic material impact the City?
Does the City have a dialogue with haulers around enforcing the waste bans and educating producers?
What about the possibility of the City purchasing an anaerobic digester? How it could benefit the City?
I also believe we could improve our recycling rate almost immediately by improved education and enforcement.
Hi Janet,
This person approached me already about this issue. I am happy to talk to you about details when I see you on the 10th, if not before.
Question RE: PAYT. If it equals higher recycling rates, how does this apply to Newton as city now? We have the green bins and green trash barrels. Every thing possible to recycle I throw in them. What avenue exists that we aren’t doing now that PAYT would open? signed, confused.
With the two types of collection containers, Newton residents have the capability to recycle most of their trash, but that doesn’t mean they currently are actually doing so.
PAYT provides the added incentive that some must need to actually recycle.
In concept PAYT has virtues on many levels. But it will cost more to administer, since one now needs a billing system for it. Still, if it reduces waste collection costs by significantly more than those admin costs, it’s worth exploring.
BUT, whatever the net savings is, a large portion of that [if not all] ought to be subtracted from the property-tax-based revenue stream, otherwise there’s been a net increase in revenues collected from the citizens: we’d be paying for trash collection twice.
No way will Newton tolerate reverting back to trash bags and animals they attract. Is the mayor proposing that we scrap the current program? He is our top operations person; Ward alderman can only vote to accept or decline changes, not take over.
#1 job of an Alderman — serve residents and advocate for them; not influence upon them social and environmental change.
PAYT works with our current system.
I normally don’t agree with Dan Fahey but even I can agree with him when he said that whatever the net savings a large portion of that [if not all] ought to be subtracted from the property-tax-based revenue stream, otherwise there’s been a net increase in revenues collected from the citizens: we’d be paying for trash collection twice. It dovetailed with Steve’s 2008 column as well as the concerns that I raised about how Newton has tried to implement PAYT in the past.
Property taxes use annual levy limits. Even if the mayor promised to subtract money paid through the PAYT from property taxes, the levy limit is unchanged and he or the next mayor would key subsequent taxes off that figure for the next fiscal year. This type of change will always end up with higher resident contribution to City financials. Always. If it did not, the effect is forgoing revenue potential in a non-profit organization that can always use the $$$ How would you tell a union that the City is maxed when the City isn’t using it’s entire levy? No City operates under the levy limit for more than a year or two.
Of course the game I described changes with an Underride vote. Can anyone see that happening?
A trash fee of any size is an hidden override. The economic impact is too large for it not to be.
Alison, I’m happy that you’re recognizing that adding another fee for a PAYT program will only serve to undermine it.
You may be interested in knowing that the historical leadership Newton Taxpayers Association has made its contributions towards moving environmental stewardship forward. Former NTA Director Lorenz Muther was one of the co-founders of the Newton Conservators. Former NTA President Jeff Seideman spearheaded CREW (Citizens for Responsible Waste Management). The new leadership of the NTA supports all efforts to move Newton’s recycling rate upward. According to the PAYT study report Janet linked to in her previous post, if we could divert all of our trash to recycling, this would save $1.4M/year.
Hoss, unless a $7M/year underride was spearheaded by Keep Newton Safe and Strong, Move Newton Forward, Citizens for the Future of Newton or BNF, we can’t trust that PAYT won’t serve as a hidden tax increase and an end-run around Proposition 2.5. Talking about offsetting PAYT fees with lower property taxes is only academic theory and talk unless a $7M/year underride was accompanying the PAYT proposal and passed into law on or before the PAYT proposal is passed.
Hoss, I agree with you that the #1 job of an Alderman in general and a Ward Alderman in particular is to serve residents and advocate for them, not pushing “social and environmental changes”. That’s why Ward 1 voters are best served by voting for Allan Ciccone Senior.
I normally don’t agree with the Newton TAB but I’m willing to make an exception here. I think the TAB said it best when they said that “Allan Ciccone knows the issues, and has specific plans for the next two years if elected, many of which grew out of his work on the board until he was ousted in 2003. He has the respect of his colleagues despite being slightly farther to the right of them on many issues. His relative conservatism, and his kinship with the city’s blue-collar Democrats, is needed to balance the overwhelming majority of staunch leftists on the board.”
Read more: http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/news/opinions/x902752297#ixzz2dqlyX8BN
Follow us: @newtontab on Twitter | wickedlocalnewton on Facebook
The TAB’s endorsement of Allan Ciccone is from 2005 not 2013.
Lucia, it doesn’t matter when the TAB’s endorsement. The TAB got it right then and its reasons for endorsement are timeless. It’s not like the facts have changed here.
In America, we ostensibly abide by the Constitution and that was created in 1787 and last amended in 1992. Some things are timeless.
Alison Leary brings a record of left-wing rhetoric while Allen Ciccone brings a record of results on behalf of his constituents.
The 2005 endorsement was comparing different candidates for Ward 1. Similarly, the U.S. Constitution has been amended. “Time changes everything except something within us which is always surprised by change.”
Thomas Hardy
Lucia, Alison Leary is more of a left-wing extremist ideologue than Ben Weisbuch and Carleton Merrill put together. Furthermore, there’s no registered Republican like Al Cecchinelli running to Allan Ciccone’s right.
The choice can’t be more clear. On one hand, we have a moderate, progressive blue collar Democrat like Allan Ciccone who has a record of helping the City of Newton save money and on the other hand, we have a radical, left-wing extremist like Alison Leary who wants to regulate leaf blowers and who supported the 2013 tax override.
You are a member of the Ward 6 Democratic Committee. Alison’s views are more in line with your Ward than Ward 1. I have to defer to Ward 1 Democratic Chairperson Janet Sterman’s assessment of Alison Leary. Regardless of whether she’s a nice person or not however her positions on taxes & pushing more costs onto consumers to meet her environmental agenda are why Janet does not choose Alison as her candidate at this time.
http://village14.com/netwon-ma/2013/09/watch-alison-learyalan-ciccone-sr-debate-right-here/#comment-36237
@Josh: How lovely that you admire the TAB’s 2005 endorsement of Allan Ciccone. That was a fascinating year in Newton politics. As I recall, the first Alderman Ciccone was respectable and respectful contributor to the board. However, you’re deifying the man as if he were his generation’s FDR, which I believe is a bit over the top.
One doesn’t need to resort to an “underride” to accomplish a reductio in the tax levy. I believe each and every year the city has increased the tax levy to the max of 2 1/2%. Let’s say the net savings via PAYT is $5 million, and the increased tax levy would be $7.5 million. That year, the increase in the tax levy would simply be the net, $2.5 million.
Alison Leary’s suggestion on Newton being a leader in new organic waste disposal systems is a super idea. I’d like to see that one happen. The school system and cafeteria waste seems like a perfect pilot program. Anyone know if the City is reviewing this?
(Interesting how we go full circle with things. Back in the day we never put food in the trash, it all went into a rather smelly outdoor bin. The worse jobs of ALL TIME were the guys that would lift the bin onto their shoulder and flip the “swill” into the truck. I take it a modern process would be less ugly)
Dan Fahey — While what you say is true, there would remain a large gap between actual levy and the levy ceiling. Think of how we would negotiate with unions with such a gap.
Hoss, if the city doesn’t “levy to the limit” it doesn’t get to save the unused amount for the future. The new limit can only be increased by another 2 1/2% the next year.
Dan Fahey — Pls take a look at p5 of the link below where it says “It is important to note that a community’s levy limit is based on the previous year’s levy limit and not on the previous year’s actual levy.” Am I interpreting this incorrectly?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CDgQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mass.gov%2Fdor%2Fdocs%2Fdls%2Fpubl%2Fmisc%2Flevylimits.pdf&ei=SJEmUsasJqaisQSSlYGwBw&usg=AFQjCNGsfILJn-gt3g6BwSCn_H3rmghL9g&bvm=bv.51495398,d.cWc
It’s an inconvenient fact here that PAYT is fiscally conservative policy. It just happens to have environmental benefits as well.
Greg, your response makes me roll my eyes back with contempt. I expressed a positive opinion about Allan Ciccone Senior BECAUSE he’s not a 1% left-wing elitist like FDR. I said nice things about Allan Ciccone Senior because HE’S A REGULAR GUY.
I don’t know why expressing positive opinions about Allan Ciccone Senior means you can construe that as deifying someone.
Adam, your post inconveniently overlooks the fact that Newton residents already pay for garbage through their taxes. I thought I made it clear that any PAYT tax that isn’t accompanied by a permanent reduction in the tax base is a de facto tax increase, an override that the voters don’t even get to vote on & a back-door end-run around Proposition 2.5.
Dan Fahey, I’m afraid Hoss was right and you were wrong with regards to interpreting the levy limits. I can verify the veracity of Hoss’s evaluations based on the City of Newton’s Tax Classification booklet.
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/47833
I also would not make the trade (your proposal) of PAYT tax in exchange for the City of Newton refraining from taxing at its levy limit one year since they can always raise the tax levy back to the levy limit whenever they want to. It’s a well-intentioned proposal but has nothing preventing city government from reneging on its end.
Let’s use 1989 as an example.
Levy Limit $100.75M
Actual Levy $95.6M
Unused Levy Capacity $5.15M
Newton can’t have a 1990 levy that is $5.15M over its levy limit because they were $5.15M under the levy limit in 1989. However they could and did levy $105M in taxes in 1990, which was in line with its 1990 levy limit.
Another Question:
I received a professional phone call last night asking for my opinion about the upcoming “election in Newton” and wanting to know my opinion on the most important issues facing Newton.
I become apprehensive when people running for local office (whoever it may be) have the $ and backing from the ruling elite to hire outside polling agencies. Is there more at stake here than just being 1/24th of a local governing body?
Addendum: Or more at stake than administratively running a city of 80,000+ people?
If candidates running for office want to get their “finger of the pulse” of voters, I would think walking around and talking is one way. I myself don’t mind being stopped on street by someone running for office. I welcome it. Way more than a phone call from hired person out of state.
Hoss, you are correct. I wasn’t completely off: the law originally did not allow for any carry forward, but that was later changed. So, yes, under those circumstances, I guess we’d need an Underride.
The danger here is that PAYT might get approved, with no concomitant action to adjust the tax limit. These actions must be linked.
I glanced at the list of 53 communities that Newton is saying are PAYT communities. The trash cycle in many of those communities works EXACTLY like it does in Newton — you have a base amount of trash allowance, and if have more, you buy bags. The ONLY difference is on the quarterly water bill there is a line that says REFUSE. Yes, some other communities buy a sticker for every bag but the concept is not different.
We can accomplish goals w/o snookering Newton into a new tax. We can do it without burdening the family with more than two kids more than they are already burdened. We can do it without having people avoid a fee by packing the recycle bin with non-recyclables. We can do it without dividing gov’t up into what we use.
Hoss exactly are you envisioning PAYT being done in Newton, without added overall cost to citizens in general?
I’m sure there’s a way to add a fee category to our quarterly bills, but the trash data does have to find its way into the system.
Dan Fahey — We already increased our recycle volume by an impressive amount. I voted for three overrides this year and with one of them it was an open ledger — they can use it for police year one, to raise city hall pay year three. Now is not the time to snooker Newton into a new revenue stream. The process is not broke — heavy trash users in Newton, in theory, buy bags.
Hoss said:
I suspect there’s already a problem with wrong stuff in recyclables now. I just found a pillow (!) in my recycle bin (after this week’s collection). That’s easy, I just put it in my trash for next week.
But I was also looking for a box to put a mystery fungus in (turns out it was slime mold), so I looked in a couple of green bins behind a business in Nonantum, and there were only small bags of trash in the bottom. I don’t know if the whole bin will get filled up with trash, or the trash will get covered up by actual recyclables, but I doubt anyone’s looking at the contents as it gets dumped into the truck. The poor people at the recycling facility will have to weed out the dreck if they can see it.
Then there’s things people think are recyclable but aren’t, like pizza boxes. I once learned at a recycling tour that anything with grease can ruin a whole batch of paper. They didn’t even want butter and margarine boxes.
It’s unreasonable to compare Newton to towns like Needham (which offers residents recycling and waste disposal services at the town’s transfer station, AKA “the dump” and trash hauled away from homes only through private waste removal contracts) and Wellesley (which already has a plan in place for funding public employee retiree benefits). These small communities run their municipal government via town council and town meeting unlike the great city of Newton with our extraordinarily large political body of councilors overseeing our legislation (frequently acting on perceived political will or remaining in the good graces of the Mayor’s office).
It is my desire the next elected representative to Ward 1 will focus on the desires of our citizenry and not their personal agenda. (An excellent example of a Ward Alderman who did this is Scott Lennon.) Ultimately, I hope anyone running for office in our city would want to set the bar higher in a way that other cities (and towns) in Massachusetts will want to be more like Newton (or Somerville ;-) ).
Janet, Hingham also has a much better pensions and OPEB management plan than Newton and unlike Wellesley, they didn’t need to stick the taxpayers with an override to deal with pensions and OPEB.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/news/x1676646963/Joshua-Norman-On-Newton-and-public-pension-woes?zc_p=1
In my research, analysis and evaluation of Newton versus well-run communities that do more with less (like Hingham, Shrewsbury & Winchester), I was surprised that Newton’s operating and financial performance was worse than those communities. I would have thought that Newton would be doing more with less due to its larger size and its ~$390M annual purchasing power.
I believe that an alderman in general and a ward alderman in particular should be focused on the needs of its constituents rather than furthering their own personal left-wing social engineering agenda. Allan Ciccone Senior should win because he’s more in touch with the needs of Ward 1 residents.
I was pleased to read that in yesterday’s edition of the Newton TAB, it mentioned how Newton Democratic City Committee Co-Chair Shawn Fitzgibbons has publicly urged people to vote for Leary – even though the other two candidates are Democrats and she is not.
“Alison best represents my values,” Fitzgibbons told the TAB in an email. “I also feel it is important to continue to elect more women to legislative bodies in Newton and beyond.””
Yet in 2011 Fitzgibbons endorsed Josh Krintzman against Diana Fisher Gomberg. Granted Diana was the candidate of the NDCC Old Guard, but still Fitzgibbons clucked about electing more women in 2013 yet supported Krintzman in 2011.
While Janet may have endorsed Krintzman as well, in Janet’s defense Krintzman wasn’t as much of a far-left extremist as Diana and Janet doesn’t go around endorsing candidates merely because they’re women. Krintzman has a demanding day job, plus he’s an adjunct professor of law plus he grew up in Newton and Diana couldn’t even say any of that. Based on his strong support of METCO, he’s still somewhat of a left-winger and that’s why he had a couple dozen far-leftists endorsing him like Bill and Ruth Dain, David Cohen’s cousin David Mofenson and our statehouse delegation.
Despite my reluctance to respond to yet another off-topic trip into the weeds – municipal elections are non-partisan. The Newton Dems DO NOT endorse in municipal elections, and they have no by-law requiring their members to only support other Democrats. (They do have a by-law prohibiting members from publicly supporting a candidate who opposes a Democratic *nominee* for office – very different.) I have no idea why candidates from two years ago – one who is now unopposed and one who is not even running – are being dragged into this, but neither deserves the disparaging treatment. While I supported her opponent in the last election, Diana has been a responsive and dedicated School Committee member for Ward 4, and she’s hardly an “extremist.”
Well said Tricia.
It doesn’t matter what I say on the blogs, Tricia will find some way to take issue with it and distort it anyway.
I merely referenced Shawn’s enthusiastic endorsement of “electing more women to legislative bodies in Newton and beyond” with his endorsement of Josh Krintzman (a man) over Diana (a woman) in 2011.
I pointed out that Janet doesn’t merely endorsement candidates because they’re women, she endorses and supports the candidate she believes is the best for the job.
I for the most part complimented Josh Krintzman. I was displeased that he supported the override, supported subsidizing the education of 538 kids in Newton schools who don’t live in Newton and was endorsed by David Cohen’s cousin. However, I liked the fact that he had a demanding day job, a demanding evening job, a number of recognizable reformer-oriented Newtonites endorsing him and most importantly he grew up in Newton and attended Newton Public Schools.
I’m sure Diana is a nice person. I agree with the TAB that she has good experience and philosophy in advocacy and that she’s great at it too. Unfortunately, Krintzman’s background is more useful for the TAB’s Board of Directors Approach than Diana’s advocacy experience and philosophy.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/news/x189903577/Newton-TAB-Endorsements-for-School-Committee-Yeo-Krintzman-and-Siegel
Furthermore, I don’t see how calling her left-wing is disparaging since its true.
She supported the 2013 override,
She supported the 2008 override,
She supported Robin Clemens aborted campaign against Jim Cote for Ward 3 AAL
She’s supported by Rob Gifford, Claire Sokoloff, Sydra Schnipper, Anne & Bob Larner, the Lipofs, Alison Leary, Emily Prenner, Chris Steele, Marcia Tabenken and Chris Hill
How is that not left-wing?
Joshua –
You wrote that Diana was a far-left extremist who was supported by the NDCC Old Guard. I don’t know if you were even voting in Newton two years ago, but there have been few elections that split like-minded voters like that one did. Josh had plenty of support from the NDCC too.
I know where Diana stands on the school issues we’ve discussed but I don’t know her position on politics beyond that, and I doubt you do either. Being supported by fellow Democrats who supported overrides does not make one a far-left extremist just like being an advocate on environmental issues does not make one radical.
I’m trying to answer your question because you asked. If you are going to argue with me on this, do it on substance. Don’t come back at me with, “I’m not the one who endorsed Josh…” or “It’s not my fault that the TAB…”
Instead, tell me how labeling people is furthering your cause.
Gail, I voted in Newton and unlike you I saw that race as a “left-wing Democrat (Josh) versus a far-left-wing Democrat (Diana)”.
As for labeling people, I’m not labeling anyone. I’m pointing out where people stand on the political spectrum.
I know I shouldn’t do this but I can’t help myself since I only saw that race as two good candidates running against each other.
Think back two years, Joshua. How could you possibly have know which candidate was more “left-wing” than the other?
Gail, we’ll have to agree to disagree about it being two good candidates running against each other. I’m not surprised that over 80% of Newton voters didn’t bother to vote in 2011.
When we have a Democrat versus Democrat (or Democrat versus left-wing Unenrolled voter), my conclusion of who was less left-wing would be based on each candidate’s platform, supporter base, social media profiles, bloggings etc.
At any rate, I think we’ve beat this dead horse enough, especially since I was pointing out the ironic hypocrisy of Shawn Fitzgibbons regarding the following two observations:
1. In 2013 he serves as the NDCC Co-Chairman yet endorsed a far-left Unenrolled Voter against a life-long moderate Democrat
2. In 2013 he endorsed a a far-left Unenrolled Voter against a life-long moderate Democrat because she was a woman yet in 2011 endorsed an NDCC man against an NDCC woman.
Seems like a simple question, is the McCarthistic nonsense come from Google.com or another search engine? Going back 24 months
Hoss, your post made me roll my eyes back in my head. Explain how calling Shawn Fitzgibbons a hypocrite can be considered “McCarthistic”? Shawn is the NDCC Co-Chair and he’s publicly endorsing a left-wing extremist candidate for alderman that is not a Democrat at the expense of a moderate candidate for alderman who is a Democrat.
I don’t see how Gail Spector’s question was answered… Google.com or another search engine?
Hoss, I don’t know why I even bother to dignify your inanity. I answered both of your questions. Move on.
Mr Norman, Oh really?
Hoss, at least I’m willing to post under my real name.
You are. And you will never recover
Hoss, if you’re trying to anger me its not working. At best, you’re a mere little nuisance.
Backtrack – Mr Norman, Oh really?