City Council Continues 10-Year Battle for 311 Service

The City Council held hearings Thursday on an improved constituent service hotline. Despite the Boston Globe's recent trumpeting of the issue, they buried coverage of the Council hearing to page B4 (probably because City Editor Brian McGrory vowed in 2003 "never spill a drop of ink writing about the Boston City Council") -- and then buried the most alarming quotation towards the bottom of the story:

[Boston Chief Information officer Bill Oates] acknowledged a switch to the catchy and simple 311 could elicit a flood of new calls.

"One of the challenges of 311 is we don't want to turn the button on 311 and have a volume [of calls] that will overwhelm the capacity of the call center," Oates said. He said city officials are currently focused on improving the city's response to calls made to the mayor's hot line. "It's a fairly well-known number," Oates said.

Yes, you read that correctly: a top city official doesn't want to roll out a service that more people would call -- he wants to keep the call volume at its current, low level.

The city's CIO also seems to think that the phone number of the Mayor's hotline is well-known, which is a disputable assertion. (See poll below.)

On top of that, a quick search of the record shows that the City Council has been lobbying -- unsuccessfully -- for the 311 service for over a decade.


The Phone Number Few People Know -- Or Call

The truth seems to be both that Boston's current system has a very low call volume compared to comparable cities, and that most residents don't know where to call.

The population of Baltimore is only 20% larger than Boston, yet its 311 service -- the first ever rolled out in the U. S. -- receives about 3000 calls (4.6 calls per 1000 residents) compared to Boston's 450 (0.8 calls per 1000 residents) to the "Mayor's 24-Hour Constituent Service Hotline." And of Boston's small number of calls, the city claims that around 80% are never logged because they are merely informational requests, not complaints. That leaves Boston with only 80 substantive calls per day (0.14 per 1000 residents) to the Mayor's hotline. New York City? Forty thousand calls per day to their 311 number since it started in late 2002, or 5.0 calls per 1000 residents.

Why so few calls in Boston? Are there no potholes in the city?

In last fall's Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor campaign, at a candidates' forum I asked one candidate, Rosie Hanlon, if she ever used the Mayor's hotline (she said no); a number of other candidates privately admitted the same. Only half of the candidates for Councilor-At-Large claimed to have used the system when responding to a written questionnaire. (Two other candidates dodged the question, while Councilor Felix Arroyo candidly admitted, like Hanlon, to never having called the number.)

In my roles both as a blogger and a member of several civic groups, I often hear complaints about city services. Very, very few people in my experience know the phone number of the Mayor's hotline; many people don't even know that the hotline exists. And those people are the ones who are involved at some level in community events -- civic leaders and long-time, not transient, residents. (Some of the noisiest complainers in Brighton have admitted to me they have never called the number!)

It's quite clear to me: the Mayor's 24-Hour Constituent Service Hotline doesn't get many calls because most people either don't know it exists, or don't know the phone number off the top of their head.

When you combine that observation with CIO Oates' statement that the city doesn't want an increase in call volume anytime soon, the cynical argument is that the city wants to keep the current system to avoid dealing with constituents and their complaints.


City Council Held Hearings About Rolling Out 311 Service -- In October 1997

In the 1996 presidential campaign, President Bill Clinton gave a speech in Sacramento, California pushing the concept of a city services phone number for non-emergency services, as part of his support for community policing. The City of Baltimore rolled out their service in October 1996, and the Federal Communications Commission approved the use of the 3-1-1 phone number in February 1997.

Former Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor Brian Honan joined with current Councilor-At-Large Stephen Murphy to hold hearings in October 1997 (archive fee) to look into having a 311 service in Boston:

Lost pets, illegally parked cars, noisy parties, cars blocking driveways and a host of other issues are regularly fielded by emergency operators, according to City Councilor Brian Honan. He said he is concerned that the calls bog down the 911 system, making it more difficult for police, fire and emergency officials to promptly respond to more serious emergencies "In terms of Boston, there is a significant number of nuisance calls into our 911 system," said Honan, who represents the Allston-Brighton district and proposed the hearing along with Councilor at Large Stephen J. Murphy. "We're going to examine the issue to see if it's a feasible, viable option to adopt a 311 system."

Murphy, who chairs the Committee on Public Safety, which will hold the hearing, said the concept mimics a program in Baltimore, where the number of calls to 911 dropped by 43 percent as a result of the new public nuisance line.

The Globe recently noted that Councilor Murphy "has been pressing the city to adopt 311 for nearly a decade"; actually he's been doing it for just over a decade, albeit more to relieve "nuisances" from the 911 line than to deliver constituent services.

Despite this pressure, city officials aren't totally giving in, according to the Globe: "[Mayor Thomas] Menino's spokeswoman, Dot Joyce, said the existing hot line has served the city well."

Which might be true if "well" means having a number that few people seem to know and even fewer call.


Online Poll

I have put up an online poll about what number you should call if you wanted to have a pothole filled today. No Peeking! No Searching Online! The point is to see if the readers here know, off the top of their heads, what number to call.

To vote, you have to load the full website in a browser.

District 9 Crooner-Elect

Mark Ciommo, District 9 City Councilor-elect, was a no-show at the City Councilors (and candidates) talent show October 26th in Hyde Park.

Did he dodge the event because he can't carry a tune? One report from last night's tree lighting in Brighton Center said that he, in fact, has quite a voice when he's Christmas carroling. Rosie Hanlon, Executive Director of Brighton Main Streets (which sponsored the event), managed to get him up front of the crowd, but he apparently woudn't take the microphone to lead the singing. Maybe he's just shy. Next time: setup a shower curtain.

The City Council needs a crooner to replace outgoing Councilor-At-Large Felix Arroyo.

Election Urban Legends: Checking Out the Facts

Rain Caused the Low Voter Turnout

Boston's 13.6% turnout was far less than the 23-32% turnout in all previous municipal elections without a mayoral race since 1985. Inclement weather can certainly reduce the turnout for elections, and November 6, 2007 had a good amount of it: half an inch of moderate rain coming down during the day. The rain stopped by 3:00 pm, and the Sun began showing by 3:30 or 4:00 pm.

Did this rain cause the low turnout? Last time I checked, Quincy, Brockton, and Fall River all have weather highly-correlated with Boston; those cities still had around 50% turnout among registered voters for their mayoral elections. You can't tell me that half the people stayed home in Boston, Quincy, Brockton, and Fall River because of the weather... unless the latter three can expect voting rates of 100% -- or more -- when the Sun is shining. Yeah, right.

More likely: voter turnout was depressed a bit by bad weather, but mostly by the blizzard-like-whiteout of horrendously inadequate coverage of the race and issues by the city-wide papers, the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald. Those newspapers could have written their campaign coverage via computer program: IF (not cover the campaign && rainy weather) THEN (write column about low voter turnout on election day and a news story the day after). I wonder if all their news coverage could be coded up like this.

Memo to Globe and Herald city news desks: you got the election you asked for. Brian McGrory is my candidate for local news editor of the year, since he appears to have been the most powerful influence in the election via his reporters' non-coverage in the race.


Allston-Brighton Residents Don't Vote

A staple of Boston election politicking is that Allston-Brighton residents don't vote. You can explain it in many different ways, primarily through the transient nature of much of the A-B population, but the bottom line result keeps coming up. A-B Wards 21 and 22 (which includes Ward 21, Precincts 1 and 2 which are not part of District 9) voted in the 2005 municipal election at 23.6% of registered voters, while the city as a whole voted at 35.6%. In the 2005 preliminary municipal election, Wards 21 and 22 voted at 11.5% while the city voted at 15.1%. Conventional Wisdom of city politics dictates that city-wide candidates shouldn't spend much time campaigning in A-B -- or delivering constituent services -- because the residents don't vote enough to make it worthwhile.

In the 2007 election, we have all learned a lesson: Allston-Brighton electoral interest is resurgent. For the first time in recent memory, voters in Wards 21 and 22 turned out at a rate of 12.6% -- a rate nearly matching the city-wide average of 13.6%.

Why? The open A-B District 9 City Council seat likely motivated voters here to turnout for their favorite between Mark Ciommo and Greg Glennon. This local race also brought to the fore important neighborhood issues on many voters' minds, particularly those of institutional expansion and the exodus of families from the area. The A-B turnout has its silver lining: A-B residents are showing that they want their neighborhood issues dealt with during the next two years. The City Council and Mayor are bound to take note.


Councilor Michael Flaherty So Encouraged by 2007 Finish That He Will Run for Mayor in 2009

Hold your horses! In 2005, Councilor Flaherty got 49,220 votes to take first-place in the Councilor-At-Large race, thereby beating second-place finisher Councilor Felix Arroyo by more than 5,600 votes. This time, Councilor Flaherty got only 25,847 votes, beating second-place finisher Councilor Stephen Murphy by only 2,206 votes. The difference between first and fourth place in 2007 was only 3,867 votes: the first four candidates ran pretty much neck-and-neck.

On a positive note for him, Councilor Flaherty managed to get a vote off of 55.9% of ballots cast in 2007, up from 50.7% in 2005, in a Councilor-At-Large race that allows voters to cast up to four votes. Nonetheless, in 2005, Mayor Thomas Menino got a vote out of 65.9% of the ballots cast (including blank ballots) in a Mayoral race where voters do not have the opportunity to cast more than one vote. Without a massive voter revolt over the horizon, it's hard to reconcile Menino's and Flaherty's numbers to make it look like the latter would have any chance in a head-to-head competition.

While Councilor Flaherty was bringing in the big bucks for his fundraising in an election year, Mayor Menino decided to do a little bit of his own fundraising in an off-year. During September and October, Mayor Menino raised $229,890; in the same reporting period, Councilor Flaherty only brought in $147,480. Does Councilor Flaherty have piles of his own money to throw into his own race like Maura Hennigan did in her failed 2005 Mayoral bid?

Councilor Flaherty needed to win big on November 6th to make his Mayoral aspirations look credible, but he only won marginally, not overwhelmingly. And the Mayor flexed his fundraising muscles to make it clear.


Bullet Voting in West Roxbury

John Connolly's campaign sent out two anonymous mailings attacking Councilor Stephen Murphy in the last week before the municipal election. There were three additional, anonymous mailings that were sent out around the same time (according to the Boston Globe's summary), but which nobody has stepped out to take responsibility for. Two of those were sent to voters in the Parkway neighborhood (i.e., West Roxbury) lobbying for "bullet votes" for a local candidate, presumably Connolly; one of those mailings also included the bulk mailing permit number previously used by Connolly's campaign.

Did Connolly's lobbying for West Roxbury bullet votes swing the election to him?

Ward 20 includes West Roxbury as well as some of Roslindale; Connolly was born in Roslindale but currently resides in West Roxbury. Ward 20 historically turns out to vote at rates well above the city-wide average: in the 2005 municipal election, the Ward voted at 48.4%, compared to the city-wide rate of 35.6%; in the 2007 municipal election, they turned out at 23.8% compared with city-wide 13.6%. In 2007, Ward 20 was therefore disproportionately voting at a higher rate even than is usual even for them. This is exactly the behavior expected in a low turnout election, where neighborhoods with white/elderly/wealthy residents turnout at higher rates than minority/young/poor neighborhoods.

What did this disproportionately high turnout in Ward 20 mean to the Connolly vs. Councilor Felix Arroyo race for the fourth Councilor-At-Large seat? If Ward 20 had voted at 18.5% in 2007 (matching their usual higher turnout) instead of 23.8%, Connolly would have lost only 635 votes out of his 3421 margin of victory over Arroyo. Ward 20's disproportionately high turnout in 2007 was not nearly enough, by itself, to elect Connolly.

Did these Ward 20 voters engage in bullet voting? City-wide in 2007 there was an average of 2.7 votes (out of an allowed four votes) for City Councilor-At-Large; in Ward 20, the average was 2.5 votes per ballot. Compare this to the 2005 municipal election which had 2.9 city-wide votes per ballot, versus 3.0 votes per ballot in Ward 20. While city-wide voters did a little bit more bullet-voting in 2007 than in 2005, West Roxbury and Roslindale voters did substantially more bullet voting in 2007 than in 2005.

Did this bullet-voting make the difference? We don't know for sure, because you would need to know how each and every ballot voted. But we can take two cases: an extreme case, where all the bullet votes took a vote away from Arroyo (unlikely); and an average (and likelier) case, where all the bullet votes took a vote away from one of the other four candidates, taken at random. In the extreme case, all of Ward 20's 0.5 fewer votes per ballot in 2007 than in 2005 removed 3142 votes from Arroyo, almost all of the margin between him and Connolly. In the more likely case, only 3142/4 = 786 votes were taken away from Arroyo, not nearly enough to produce the difference between Connolly and Arroyo.

OK, so the numbers back up that West Roxbury and Roslindale utilized the bullet vote more in this election than previously. But are they the masters of the bullet vote? No! Ward 6 (South Boston, Councilor Flaherty's ward of birth) averaged 2.3 votes per ballot, Wards 1 (East Boston), 7 (South Boston, Councilor Flaherty's home ward), and 22 (Allston-Brighton) all averaged 2.5 votes per ballot, similar rates of bullet voting to the West Roxbury/Roslindale recent converts.

What do we make of all this? Yes, Ward 20 (West Roxbury/Roslindale) voted at a disproportionately high rate and used significantly more bullet voting than in previous elections, but neither effect was sufficient to explain how Connolly beat Arroyo for fourth place. The combination of the two effects only explains around 40% of their margin differentiating the two.

Look elsewhere for bigger causes of Connolly's defeat of Arroyo, such as: Arroyo's failure to raise money; Arroyo's failure to get-out-the-vote; the mainstream media's failure to cover the race resulting in low voter turnout; etc. Those will likely be fingered as the real factors leading to Arroyo's ouster at the polls in 2007.

Why Ciommo Won and Arroyo Lost in the 2007 Municipal Election

Just before the polls closed last Tuesday night, I posted my predictions for the City Council race. I was pretty much spot-on for the Allston-Brighton District 9 seat (albeit missing the turnout numbers by a lot), but got the wrong odd-man-out in the Councilor-At-Large seat. Here is some analysis of what I thought happened on election day.


Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor

I predicted that Mark Ciommo would beat Greg Glennon by at least 900 votes and by at least 57-43% (possibly as high as 60-40%). My prediction couldn't have been closer: Ciommo won by 948 votes by 59.8-39.8%. The full precinct results can be found here.

That said, I screwed up on two points -- one moderate mistake (Wallingford Road) and one a big mistake (voter turnout) -- which magically cancelled each other out to make it look like I hit the lottery.

Turnout. I guessed 6500 voters would turn out, which was at the low end of previous municipal elections. It was far worse at 4745, which was barely over the 4521 votes in the preliminary municipal election.

Why was I so wrong? Not because of the weather. I think that the rank-and-file voters got so little information from the mainstream media (Allston-Brighton TAB excepted), that there was little motivation to vote. I also heard from many voters in the preliminary election who were dissatisfied with the two choices in the final election; I suspect many of them just stayed home, unwilling to be forced to choose.


Wallingford Road. Glennon carried Ward 21, Precinct 13, full of elderly Russian Jewish voters at the Wallingford Road housing project, over Ciommo 303-142 in the preliminary election. I predicted that he would add to that lead by +200 votes, but the forces of arm-twisting pushed it the other way: Ciommo won 333-242, giving Ciommo a net +252 votes. I blew the vote difference by 452. Oops.

But this is a really, really big story in the neighborhood. Tim Schofield told host Joe Heisler on the Talk of the Neighborhood show that the Russians mostly listen to former State Representative Brian Golden and Mayor Menino; to that I add a likely third party, the Mark Alford-Pat Galvin-(and-his-brother) trifecta. Golden, Alford, and Pat Galvin all supported Glennon -- and Ciommo holds progressive social positions incompatible the conservative Russian voters, at least in the conventional wisdom -- so this means that the Mayoral power in A-B is now at the point that it trumps all else in specific cases of arm-twisting (like Wallingford in this election).

The other big feature of the Wallingford Road vote is that it actually didn't matter in the election. Ciommo could have won without a single vote from the Russians. In looking back on this year's election, the message we should all take away is that the Russian vote can impact a preliminary (or three-way) election in an important way by determining the second-place finisher, but their strength cannot dominate over the powerful base of a long-time resident.


Oak Square battleground. I predicted that several precincts in the Oak Square neighborhood would represent battlegrounds between the long-term Brighton residents (Ciommo's base) and socially conservative Irish Catholics (Golden's base, and hence Glennon's). Many people in the neighborhood have one foot firmly in each camp, so predicting how they would swing was the parlor game of the election.

Ciommo carried the combined Ward 22, Precincts 7, 11, and 13 in the preliminary, with Glennon and Schofield in a virtual tie for second. Schofield's voters generally swung heavily for Ciommo, regardless of his endorsement, but this was the one neighborhood where that pattern might have been broken.

In the final election, Ciommo won 22/7, 22/10, and 22/11 heavily, and barely nudged Glennon 102-98 in more conservative 22/13. I predicted, "if Ciommo carries 7, 10, and 11 with big margins, then it's lights out." That it was.

My model was that Schofield's supporters went 80-20% for Ciommo, Selvig's 65-35%, and Hanlon's 50-50%. Using that model on Ward 22, Precinct 7, for example, my prediction was Ciommo over Glennon by 137 to 61 votes; the actual result was 131-67, off by six, but within the margin of error of 14 votes (for 198 cast).


Ward 21 Progressive Precincts. I predicted that you should forget-about-it without a strongly identified progressive in the case (like Schofield). Ward 21, Precinct 8 actually doubled their turnout over the preliminary election -- from 1.6 to 3.2%. In the end, the progressive precincts still didn't show up.


Summary. The bosses of Ward 22 were able to get Councilor Jerry McDermott elected in 2002 (he is the cousin to the Galvins, after all), even though McDermott claimed after the election that he was not the Mayor's candidate. (Ciommo told me earlier in the year that he disputes that characterization of the 2002 race, however, since the Mayor did not formally endorse a candidate.) In 2007, however, the Ward 22 bosses no longer appear to be able to throw an Allston-Brighton election to their favorite candidate -- although they can get him a second-place finish and into the finals.

Councilor-elect Ciommo enjoyed powerful support from middle-aged men who chose to stay in Brighton to raise their families here. He won out over the younger, more transient constituencies -- like former Representative Golden and lame duck Councilor McDermott -- who leave town with their young families.

Long-time Brighton residents and the Mayor's influence ended up winning over the ward bosses and families in transition through the neighborhood.


Boston City Councilor-At-Large Race

While many in the city thought that the race for the fourth seat among the Boston City Councilors-At-Large was between Councilor Stephen Murphy and challenger John Connolly, there were many soothsayers predicting Councilor Felix Arroyo to be the odd man out.

I called the race a toss-up until the last moment, when I thought that Connolly's strategic blunder of sending out the anonymous attack mailings would cost him enough votes to lose out on fourth place. I was obviously wrong, and the Arroyo predictions were right.

Why did Arroyo lose? The pundits have rained in with some pretty convincing reasons: low voter turnout working against minority candidates; Arroyo raised little money, while Connolly raised around ten times as much; Arroyo didn't campaign very hard or send out many mailings, while Connolly campaigned like crazy (and sent out quite a few flyers!); Arroyo's record on attendance at City Council meetings and hearings; etc. None of the reasons seems enough by itself, but, taken together, they seem plenty to explain why he got around 15% fewer votes than Connolly.

This year's City Council election is an important one for data mining purposes in the future, because it shows clearly how low voter turnout impacts voting from ward-to-ward. Connolly's West Roxbury Ward 20, for example, voted disproportionately higher than the rest of the city.


The election numbers, plus analysis on a ward-by-ward basis, for the Councilor-At-Large race can be found at Matt O'Malley's website.  He ran, albeit unsuccessfully, in 2005 for Councilor-at-Large, so he knows the ins and outs of all the different neighborhoods and their voting trends.

Spending Like Crazy At the Last Minute on City Council Campaign

I have been carefully trying to keep track of all the money that the candidates for Boston City Councilor-At-Large have -- not just their standard checking accounts, but also the money that they transfer to savings and/or money market accounts.

By my accounting, John Connolly did not have money in savings accounts at the end of 2006, but had transferred $90,000 to savings between June and October 2007. Combined with his checking account ending balance of $25,916.52 as of 10/15/07, he had a good amount of cash on-hand for last minute spending.

Between October 16st and 31st he pulled in another $23,428.10 in contributions, such that I think he should have had nearly $140,000 on-hand at the end of October. His campaign did not itemize the transfers from savings to checking in the expenditures on their 10/31/07 filing, but they do give the total in receipts during 10/16/07-10/31/07 as a whopping $220,279.73! The $220,000 should include the $23,428.10 in contributions above, plus any additional savings account money transferred into checking; since I thought they had another $90,000 in the savings account, that leaves around $106,000 mysteriously showing up in their receipts in the 10/31/07 report.

Where did that extra $106,000-plus come from??? I'm bamboozled. I knew he had a lot of money lying around, but not that much. I hope to see some clear accounting of this money beyond the mere itemization of around $23,000, because I really cannot figure out where the extra $106,000 came from. Then again, maybe I'm just dumb. That must be it: stupid me.

On the expenditure side, Connolly spent like crazy during the second half of October, making two wire transfers totalling more than $200,000. Past campaign finance reports indicate that such expenditures are usually updated later to indicate that they are media buys -- which can include mailings, radio advertisements, and television advertisements. (Councilor-At-Large finance reports get audited at some level, which appear to result in the OCPF requesting the campaign to clarify such expenditures with an amended report.) We also know that Connolly has been sending out some mailings city-wide in the last week, which probably account for some of the total. (Councilor Michael Flaherty lists two different expenditures on mailings of $27,000 and $28,000 during the second half of October, so this gives an indication of the cost of a city-wide mailing.)

Connolly has now spent more than $330,000 on the campaign to-date this calendar year, according to my calculations. Councilor Flaherty has topped him with $350,000 this year, spending nearly $60,000 in the second half of October. During late October, Councilor Stephen Murphy spent another $52,000, Councilor Sam Yoon only spent $10,000, and Councilor Felix Arroyo spent $4,600.

My estimates have the total in expenditures currently around $957,000 by all candidates in the Councilor-At-Large race.

Is this a quiet City Council election? Not with that kind of money being spent.

When it's all over, I will assemble the reports and figure out the total expenditures. I'm predicting the 2007 City Councilor-At-Large will be by far the most expensive race on record. With predicted low voter turnout, the expenditure cost per vote cast will also undoubtedly be a record for Boston.



Campaign Finance Year-To-Date to 10/31/07
Boston City Councilor-At-Large

NAME	END DATE	BEGIN BALANCE	RAISE	OWN MONEY	SPEND	END BALANCE
Felix Arroyo	10/31/07	3720.04	29878.49	0.00	32498.19	1101.30
John Connolly	10/31/07	35926.65	309174.77	10000.00	334722.83	20378.19
William Estrada	10/31/07	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Michael Flaherty	10/31/07	447262.56	337821.15	0.00	350947.80	434135.91
Matthew Geary	10/31/07	0.00	3672.01	0.00	3147.35	524.66
Martin Hogan	10/31/07	0.00	1621.13	0.00	1601.80	19.33
Stephen Murphy	10/31/07	43710.09	100000.00	250.00	96192.66	47767.43
David Wyatt	10/31/07	0.00	363.00	0.00	341.78	21.22
Sam Yoon	10/31/07	47636.17	209257.33	0.00	138422.17	118471.33
TOTAL	10/31/07	578255.51	991787.88	10250.00	957874.58	622419.37

Councilor Murphy Strikes Back at Challenger Connolly in Councilor-At-Large Race

Councilor Stephen Murphy has managed to get a mailing out attacking challenger John Connolly for the latter's anonymous mailings late last week attacking Murphy.

It reads, "We deserve better than cowardly attacks by a desperate campaign... Call John Connolly and tell him you won't stand for this Mud-Slinging! 617-327-5646" The adjectival choice of "cowardly" represents a bit of mud slung back at Connolly.

The anonymous mailings came out Thursday, and Connolly's campaign on Saturday admitted to being behind them. That Councilor Murphy was able to produce a response mailing, get it printed and mailed, and then have it appear in mailboxes today (Monday) is amazingly fast and nimble. Based on the information on the Murphy mailing, it was produced before Connolly's campaign admitted they were behind the anonymous mailing. Murphy's mailing gets into people's mailboxes the night before election day. I never received the original Connolly mailing -- but I got Murphy's mailing -- so I think the Murphy mailing's reach will go far beyond the Boston Herald and the blogosphere to connect with the electorate city-wide.

Score: Murphy 1, Connolly 0.


On other news, I got an automated message from Tim Schofield today asking me to vote for... Councilor Sam Yoon, not law partner John Connolly, in the Councilor-At-Large race.

I have also been informed that Governor Deval Patrick not only endorsed Councilor Stephen Murphy in the Councilor-At-Large race, but also Councilors Felix Arroyo and Sam Yoon.

Former Councilor Larry DiCara on City Council Race

Former Boston City Councilor and candidate for Mayor Larrry DiCara spoke about the Boston City Council race on WBUR-FM's Morning Edition this morning.

DiCara thinks that Councilor Felix Arroyo is most at-risk of losing his Councilor-At-Large seat in tomorrow's election. DiCara talked about "Felix being Felix" -- akin to "Manny [Ramirez] being Manny" -- by doing the politics thing his own way. DiCara said that not many sounds have been coming from Councilor Arroyo lately, but DiCara apparently hasn't been in the middle of Brighton lately himself.

But, you know, if Councilor Arroyo can hit as many end-of-the-season home runs as Ramirez... he won't have much to worry about. He finished second in 2005, after all.

DiCara also stressed the important of Governor Deval Patrick's support for Councilor Stephen Murphy lately, including a big fundraiser last week.  Why would Governor Patrick do so?  Councilor Murphy came out early to support Governor Patrick in last year's gubernatorial race at a time when "not many people named Murphy from Hyde Park" were doing so.  Governor Patrick is returning the favor.

Maybe Murphy supported Patrick because the name sounded Irish?

New vs. Old Boston in the Councilor-At-Large Race

Some pundits are predicting a low turnout in Tuesday's municipal election, which would favor "old Boston over the new, white over minority, and seniors over younger voters."

People generally put Councilors Felix Arroyo and Sam Yoon in the "new Boston" typecast, and there is little question that they are also minorities. Councilor Stephen Murphy, on the other hand, is clearly white and most would associate him with old Boston (cf. David Bernstein's case made in the Boston Phoenix). Councilor Michael Flaherty makes a more difficult case: many perceive him as blocking Team Unity's proposals in his former role as Council President, while the Phoenix claims that, since losing the Council President post, he has "become a more vigorous, daring, and thoughtful Councilor."

Putting aside the incumbents, let's ask the questions: Where lies challenger John Connolly? He is clearly white and young, but does he represent old Boston or new?

The mainstream media thinks Connolly represents new Boston. The Boston Herald thinks he would bring a "fresh approach," the Boston Globe quotes Connolly as promising to be "a voice for people who want to build a life in this city," and the Boston Phoenix says Connolly pitched himself as a progressive in 2005 -- he may be trying to be even more progressive this time around -- and has "thought deeply about a host of urban issues."

Is their combined assessment on target?

In what has probably been the most clever part of the 2007 municipal election campaign, Connolly has convinced the powers-that-be that he represents new Boston, when in reality he doesn't.

Old Boston Political Lineage. The obvious argument for Connolly as old Boston insider focuses on lineage: his father was the Secretary of the Commwealth, his mother is currently a Superior Court judge, and his uncle used to be Boston City Councilor. The Irishman doesn't seem to have the background of an urban progressive.

His connection to the Boston politics of old became all too clear in the last week as his campaign sent out two anonymous mailings attacking Councilor Stephen Murphy, and may have sent out another two "anonymous" mailings (supposedly from the "Parkway Coalition" and the "South Boston Association," both of which don't exist, according to the Herald's Howie Carr). Vicious, anonymous attack mailings are lore of old-time politics, not YouTube or internet-savvy young 'uns. Embarrassing thing (for me) is that Howie Carr seems to agree with this assessment: "Just when you think the old Boston is dead and buried, things like these farcical flyers pop up."

Casino Gambling. Connolly has come out solidly in favor of casino gambling in the state -- and in Boston itself -- although he notes that he wants East Boston residents to have some kind of say in the matter. Putting Governor Deval Patrick aside, gambling as revenue generation is usually more a conservative position than a progressive one: conservatives who don't want to raise taxes instead support raising "voluntary" taxes through gambling, while progressives express strong opposition to the terrible human cost gambling inflicts on the under-priviliged classes. It's no coincidence that Councilor Arroyo strongly opposes casino gambling and Councilor Yoon expresses strong reservations about it based on the human costs. Connolly mostly sits on the other side of the aisle from new Boston Councilors Arroyo and Yoon.

City Planning. The formation of the Boston Redevelopment Authority in the 1950s gave every Mayor since then a cover to undertake large-scale urban renewal (like razing the West End), thereby keeping his hands clean. What has made the situation far messier now than then is the breadth of land ownership by tax-exempt institutions, and their massive proposals to develop on those lands. The BRA regulates their development proposals while simultaneously promoting economic development in the city and undertaking city planning. Those three functions of regulation, promotion, and planning often conflict on a fundamental and unresolvable level.

Recent years has seen a surge in the interest in splitting off at least the planning arm of the BRA into a separate city planning department; Councilor Arroyo proposed the current ordinance. These are the realities of the new Boston: dealing with the complicated and messy problem of planning a city's redevelopment while simultaneously regulating the developers. Connolly favors the status quo to keep the half century-old BRA as has been since old Boston times.

Public Schools. More than anything else, Connolly's stance on schools betrays his old Boston roots. He's 34-years-old, so when he grew up Boston was already under court-ordered desegration and mandatory busing. He told me he did not attend the Boston Public Schools himself, and he also strongly favors returning to neighborhood schools. In fact, he sat down with me in August and lectured for probably a solid 10-15 minutes on why neighborhood schools were the key towards improving the public schools.

The problem with wanting a return to neighborhood schools is that the city may revert to pre-1970s battle lines with schools segregated based on neighborhood demographics, and uneven school quality from neighborhood-to-neighborhood. It's not a surprise that new Boston Councilor Arroyo opposes continued movement towards neighborhood schools. Councilor Yoon summed up a progressive take on the issue by ensuring equality of schools for all: fix the schools first so that every neighborhood has a good school, and only then can overhauling the school assignment system occur. Connolly instead thinks doing the latter will accomplish the former, which sure sounds like an old Boston approach to me.


In the end, voters on Tuesday may well choose Connolly's ideas over one of the incumbent Councilors-At-Large. Good arguments can be made on both sides of each of these issues in the election. But somehow Connolly has convinced the mainstream media that these ideas are new and even urban progressive, when they sure seem like they are old -- and sometimes even conservative.

Candidate for City Crooner-At-Large

For those who missed the Boston City Councilor amateur talent night, here's a little something from last year: Felix Arroyo singing La Despedida (in Spanish) on YouTube. What a crooner!

I couldn't find any other YouTube videos of the other candidates, other than a 2005 commercial for John Connolly previously noted.

Will Team Unity Fall to Team Low Turnout?

The last week or so has seen the politics punditry a-flutter with speculation that there will be low turnout in Tuesday's municipal election that might result in the defeat of Councilors-At-Large Felix Arroyo and Sam Yoon. Wrote blogger Marry in Massachusetts, "Will Team Unity survive a low-interest contest?"

The argument goes like this. Tuesday's election will have low turnout because: (1) it is an off-year municipal election because the Mayor is not up for re-election until 2009; and (2) the mainstream media has not covered the race, totally ignoring the preliminary municipal election, for example, until only after it had taken place. Low voter turnout emphasizes "reliable" voters -- elderly, wealthy, and white -- while de-emphasizing the opposite. On BNN's Talk of the Neighborhood show last Tuesday, David Bernstein of the Boston Phoenix told host Joe Heisler that a low turnout vote emphasizes old Boston over the new, white over minority, and seniors over younger voters.

Minority candidates like Team Unity's Councilors Arroyo and Yoon will get hit hard by the low turnout, while majority candidates -- like Team Irish's challenger John Connolly and Councilors Michael Flaherty and Stephen Murphy -- will fare well. Wrote the Boston--Bay State Banner:

For Arroyo and Yoon, success depends largely on who will turn out. In the last off-year election in 2003, Arroyo garnered 75 percent of the vote in predominantly African American Ward 12. Flaherty got 25 percent of the vote.

In South Boston’s Ward 6, Flaherty garnered 86 percent of the vote to Arroyo’s 25 percent.

While people of color make up more than half the city’s population, the whites in Flaherty’s voting base turn out in greater numbers.

But that article then contradicted the story line by noting that Connolly and Councilor Murphy are both courting people of color in this election; if they, too, are reaching out to minority voters in order to get elected, then why would low turnout work in their favor? More likely is that Connolly and Councilor Murphy have far less support in minority neighborhoods than their supporters would like you to believe, reinforcing the point that they would benefit from low turnout. Retired school teacher Bob Marshall was quoted by them as saying, "I’m not voting for anybody else," he said. "These Councilors [Arroyo and Yoon] have been on the front lines when it comes to dealing with communities of color."

Bernstein argued on BNN that city politics are steadily moving towards to the point where no one can run city-wide unless they appeal to minorities and urban progressives. He predicted a voting bloc on the City Council to develope in the next 4-6 years, representing the new Boston -- whether explicitly minority, like Team Unity, or not.

Allston-Brighton may buck some of these voter turnout trends, since we have a lively race for the open District 9 seat being vacated by Councilor Jerry McDermott. Turnout of 4500 voters at last month's preliminary municipal election may have been a little lower than expected, but may very well set the stage for proportionately higher voting in A-B in the municipal election November 6th as compared with the rest of the city. (A-B historically turns out the vote at lower percentages of registered voters than most of the rest of the city, so I am referring to A-B potentially delivering a larger percentage of the overall number of voters than in past elections.) That all of the active candidates for Councilor-At-Large showed up last month for our Brighton candidates forum speaks not only to their renewed interest in the issues of our neighborhood, but likely also to a political calculation that A-B turnout this year could be more important than usual to the Councilor-At-Large election.

Boston Globe Covers City Council Race (on Page B4)

The Boston Globe has exploded onto the scene with 3/4 of a page of coverage of the issues in the Boston City Councilor-At-Large race! Toss aside the front section! Pick up the City/Region section -- and flip through to page B4! Marvelous... I'm delighted that the Globe's newsdesk has chosen to cover some of the issues in the race.

The article actually notes which District City Councilors face competition for re-election, although it fails to name any challengers. Shame on you, Globe!

The article manages to name both finalists for the Allston-Brighton Distict 9 seat, Mark Ciommo and Greg Glennon, although the Globe newsdesk continues in their dogged insistence of not once giving either candidates' position on any issues. The Globe once previously mentioned District 9 race on September 26th, the day after the preliminary municipal election.

The Globe also previously devoted one article to the Councilor-At-Large race in their Sunday City Weekly section, although that article consisted mostly of a discussion of bullet-voting -- not the issues -- and included a print-only set of contact information for the candidates.

Their latest article continues that tradition of print-only content: the wonderful table containing the responses of all nine candidates for Councilor-At-Large to three different questions, is not included in the online version of the article. Sigh. They were so close -- and yet so far -- from delivering information to the online masses!

Since the Globe can't figure out how to deliver this (sidebar) content on their website, I've scanned and provided the thing below.

Arroyo Stopping Traffic in Brighton Center

Nearly two weeks ago, Councilor Felix Arroyo was in Brighton Center for a "visibility": holding signs up on the sidewalk during rush hour to raise awareness of his re-election campaign for Boston City Councilor-At-Large. Most of the candidates do this on occasion at the corner of Washington Street and Market Street / Chestnut Hill Avenue.

Sure, the couple of guys Councilor Arroyo had along with him were standing on the sidewalk. But not Arroyo...

No, he was in the middle of the street, walking along the double yellow lines handing out campaign literature to drivers through their driver-side window, maybe even a few kisses on the cheek. It was apparently quite a scene, a little bit of fun partying for Friday morning commuters. Smiles all around. This guy has boundless energy, and knows no boundaries. The police at D-14 station two blocks away didn't even think to interrupt Arroyo's one-man, populist machine.

By the time I got a camera over there, though, Councilor Arroyo was nearly -- but not quite -- back on the sidewalk about to pack it in for the morning and head back to City Hall.



In a city where politicians try to be calm, cool, and collected, Councilor Arroyo comes across as someone who seems to break the rules -- and the traffic laws.


Mark Ciommo's Sugary Visibility

During Wednesday's Brighton Business Trick-of-Treat, Mark Ciommo, candidate for Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor, was running his own visibility in the heart of Brighton Center.

Ciommo and his campaigners were not just holding up signs, but also giving out candy to the young, costumed revelers. Cute move. No, I did not see him trying to register voters among the under-18 crowd.

Ciommo was himself disguised as a pirate superman Dumbledore teenage mutant ninja turtle politician. Sorry, no photos.

Boston Phoenix Endorses Ciommo and Re-Election of All Councilors-At-Large

The Boston Phoenix has endorsed Mark Ciommo for Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor, and the re-election of all four Boston City Councilors-At-Large -- Felix Arroyo, Michael Flaherty, Stephen Murphy, and Sam Yoon.

Actually, they tried to endorse a fifth candidate for Councilor-At-Large, John Connolly, by writing, "If Phoenix readers looking for guidance in next week’s election disagree with one of our endorsements, we hope they will vote for Connolly." Maybe they couldn't quite make up their mind.

In endorsing Ciommo, they write:

In the hard-fought district race in Allston-Brighton, the Phoenix urges the election of Mark Ciommo, a life-long resident of that neighborhood and the executive director of the Veronica Smith Senior Center. In the years to come, Allston-Brighton will have to cope with the continued growth of Boston College and the unprecedented expansion of Harvard University. During the campaign, Ciommo has made his mark as the candidate best able to fight for the interests of his neighbors while simultaneously engaging the educational powerhouses as potential allies.

In the Councilor-At-Large race, the Phoenix has been the only city newspaper to provide regular, in-depth coverage. The Phoenix's local politics endorsements ought to carry weight from the politically-astute crowd, because their news and op/ed pages have provided information and analysis on which to base editorial board endorsements.

Their endorsements for Councilors Flaherty and Murphy seem to be based on their records and perception that both are continually improving during their time in office. For Councilors Arroyo and Yoon, the Phoenix editorial board appears to be encouraging both to better reach to their potentials as voices for minorities and those who are less fortunate economically. The near-endorsement of Connolly says that he too would be a "welcome addition" to the council.


So there you have it. Between the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, and Boston Phoenix you have endorsements for both candidates (Ciommo and Glennon) in Allston-Brighton, and all five front-runners (all four incumbents plus Connolly) for Councilor-At-Large. Well, actually the Globe said to "throw the bums out" in the Councilor-At-Large race, and the Phoenix says to "keep the bums in, but maybe substitute a new guy if you want to throw one bum out." The Allston-Brighton TAB will be coming out with their recommendations in the next day or so, and I expect they will stay within these seven names.

So go ahead and try to figure out who to vote for based on media endorsements. You won't see any endorsements here, though.


On a related note, within 24 hours of the Herald endorsement of Glennon I saw stickers plastered to Glennon lawn signs reading, "Endorsed by the Herald," as well as a one-page photocopied flyer left about. No such response from Ciommo, at least that I've seen, about his endorsement from the Globe. Schofield had same-day flyers out in A-B after he was endorsed by the Globe in September.

Ward 21 Democratic Committee Endorses Ciommo, Arroyo, Connolly, and Yoon for City Council

The Ward 21 Democratic Committee met two weeks ago to consider endorsements in the Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor and Boston City Councilor-At-Large races.


Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor

In A-B, they had endorsed Tim Schofield in September, but he took third place in the September 25th election thereby failing to make the final election. This time around, the Ward 21 committee endorsed Mark Ciommo. Their selection is not surprising, since Greg Glennon was yet another no-show -- this time not even responding to the committee's invitations to meet with them. You would think Glennon would learn how to send a nice letter, email, or phone call saying, "I'm sorry, but I will unfortunately have to decline your invitation to meet with you." That kind of politeness is standard teaching in charm school, be it in Massachusetts or Pennsylvania.

Attendance wasn't the only thing leading to their endorsement; the issues also mattered. Nan Evans, acting chair of the Ward 21 committee, said that Ciommo "has a record of accomplishments in the A-B community, and his basic political orientation is compatible with that of the [Ward 21 committee] members." As for Glennon's stance on the issues, she was more harsh, saying that Glennon "appears to prefer the goals of Bush Republicans to those of most Democrats."


Boston City Councilor-At-Large

Residents will have the opportunity on November 6th to vote for up to four candidates for Boston City Councilor-At-Large. There are nine candidates on the ballot.

The Ward 21 committee chose to endorse three candidates for the seats: Councilor Felix Arroyo, John Connolly, and Councilor Sam Yoon.

There were not quite enough votes to make a fourth endorsement; the leading contenders for that slot, Councilors Stephen Murphy and Michael Flaherty, appear to have lingering issues with some members of the committee, although the exact nature of that history is not clear.

When looking at those three endorsements, one thing struck me as odd: Councilor Arroyo (more so than Councilor Yoon) has many positions on the issues that are at odds with John Connolly.

In particular, Connolly is a vocal cheerleader for returning to neighborhood schools, while Councilor Arroyo opposes it in favor of the current system (with minimum 50% walk-zone). Connolly favors casino gambling -- including within Boston's city limits, albeit only after the input from East Boston residents -- while Councilor Arroyo opposes casinos, full stop. Councilor Arroyo proposed to split of the planning responsibilities from the BRA and instead create a city planning department, but Connolly opposes this plan.

If I kept researching the candidates and the issues, I am willing to bet I would continue to find many more issues on which they disagree. Councilor Arroyo is Boston's leading populist in politics, and is a rallying point for the city's minority and immigrant communities. Connolly, on the other hand, represents an older Boston full of Irish Catholics and political dynasties -- his father was, after all, the long-time Secretary of the Commonwealth. Connolly and Councilor Arroyo's stances on neighborhood schools is a classic confrontation between old and new Boston, representing the schism that engulfed the city in the 1970s over desegration and busing. It is an argument over issues like the "white flight" to the suburbs and making the schools serve every child -- no matter their race or economic background.

Why would the committee simultaneously endorse two candidates with such substantive differences?

Acting Committee Chair Nan Evans's Answer: "The decisions were not based on single issues, but on records as a whole (with the known candidates [e.g., Councilor Arroyo]) and the perception of potential (with those who have not yet held office [e.g., Connolly])."

My Answer: Connolly is a law partner of Schofield; the latter temporarily stepped down as chair of the Ward 21 committee while running for City Council. It is simply a lot easier to endorse Connolly when he is the friend and colleague of a guy you trust. But they could also have been making a more politically-adept move, as suggested by one committee member: if elected, Connolly might be more accessible to members of the Ward 21 committee due to their connection to him through Schofield.

Access buys a lot. The Ward 21 Democratic Committee got none with Glennon and therefore endorsed his opponent; the same committee appears to have picked character and access, rather than the issues, when they chose to endorse Connolly.

TAB Profiles of the Candidates for Boston City Councilor-At-Large

The TAB newspapers has been running a series of articles to "get to know the candidates" for Boston City Councilor-At-Large.  They have trickled out since July, so I am linking to the articles they have published to-date -- and will update this page as more articles are published.  The individual articles appear to have sidebar links to each other from within the TAB webpage.

Here are links to their individual stories:

1. Councilor Felix Arroyo
   
2. John Connolly
3. William Estrada
4. Councilor Michael Flaherty
5. Matthew Geary
6. Martin Hogan
7. Councilor Stephen Murphy
8. David Wyatt
9. Councilor Sam Yoon

The Allston-Brighton TAB also wrote a story about the forum for the candidates for Councilor-At-Large that was held in Brighton on October 10th, 2007.

The A-B TAB editorial page ran a short blurb in the same issue that was not an endorsement...  but threatened non-endorsement of one or more candidates "who are so uninformed that they are not even worth considering."  Ouch.  I think I can guess who they're referring to... can you?

Finally, the TAB had all four active challengers into their offices for interviews on the issues.  Kind of odd that none of the four incumbents bothered to show up.

Councilor Felix Arroyo Responds to the Brighton Centered Questionnaire

Councilor Felix Arroyo responded to the Brighton Centered questionnaire for the candidates for Boston City Councilor-At-Large.

1. QUESTION: If you could reverse one decision made by the City Council in the last five years, what would it be and why?
   
   RESPONSE: This past summer’s vote on the FY08 City budget. The approved budget did not include the requested $8 million for youth opportunity programming (summer jobs, year-round jobs, after-school programs and youth/street workers). In a $2 billion budget, I find it extremely disappointing that we could not work together to better prioritize funding to include this minimal request from a coalition of youth and youth workers. Voting on the budget annually is our biggest decision of the year and, if three other Councilors had joined the four of us in voting against the budget, we could have negotiated for this youth programming and to better meet other top priorities. We must work more diligently to pass City budgets that meet current priorities to the limit of current revenue.
   
   
2. QUESTION: What specific changes do you think should be made to Article 80 of the zoning code?
   
   RESPONSE: I have proposed the creation of a City Planning Department and elected Planning Board which would require substantial changes to Article 80 and the large development review process. In addition, I have supported and will continue to support changes to improve community process, to encourage environmentally-friendly building practices, and to maintain open space. In general, Article 80 needs to be looked at comprehensively to ensure that reforms are implanted that broaden and strengthen community-based planning for houses, schools, and open space.
   
   
3. QUESTION: Vancouver, British Columbia, requires 25% of their new housing stock built downtown to be “family-friendly.” What is your vision of the specific design elements that would make housing “family-friendly,” and should Boston adopt a similar requirement?
   
   RESPONSE: "Family-friendly" housing must not only be truly affordable to working parents, it should be 3-5 bedroom housing, located near quality schools and recreation opportunities, and be free of common childhood hazards such as lead paint and faulty wiring. Most importantly, it must be quality housing at the same time it is affordable. I certainly would support and will strongly consider introducing a new Ordinance which would create a similar requirement in certain Boston neighborhoods (such as Brighton) where institutional expansion, overbuilding of luxury condominiums and other forces have driven out too many of our City’s working families.
   
   
4. QUESTION: Some people have proposed that the BPS return to “neighborhood” or “community” schools. Do you support such a proposal? How would such a move impact the achievement gap?  
   
   RESPONSE: No. As a parent of five children who either attend or graduated from the public schools, I know firsthand that the current school choice system is far from perfect. However, there simply aren’t enough quality public schools in each neighborhood to fully serve the children of each neighborhood. With that reality, a move to a complete “neighborhood” school model would likely increase the achievement gap and set back our decades-long effort to truly integrate our public schools.
   
   
5. QUESTION: Should Boston College be required to house all of their undergraduate students in on-campus dormitories? If so, where should the dormitories be located? On their 'Brighton Campus' (land recently purchased from the Archdiocese of Boston), on their 'Main Campus,' or both?  
   
   RESPONSE: I have proposed a University Expansion Moratorium which would condition all future expansion on the institutions paying full property taxes (in the form of a PILOT payment) and participating in a full community and City Council review. Though I’m not sure it would be legally permissible to require *all* undergraduate students to live on-campus, I support each effort to put whatever pressure is need on BC in order to encourage such a policy. I believe all undergraduates should be housed on the “Main Campus” while the St John’s Seminary land should be reserved for open space, administrative buildings (along Commonwealth Avenue only) and, if necessary, graduate student housing.
   
   
6. QUESTION: Have you ever used the Mayor's 24-Hour Constituent Service hotline, either the phone number or the online version? Is it an effective tool for delivering constituent services? What, if anything, would you change about it?  
   
   RESPONSE: I’ve never used either version personally. I do think that the Mayor’s line can act as a good central number and referral service. However, I strongly support a move to a 311 system which would provide an easily recognizable number (311!) for all non-emergency service calls. I met with the Mayor of Somerville recently about their 311 system and it also includes the advantage of immediate service by those answering that line. Callers should never be forwarded to other individuals and Boston’s service line (like Somerville’s) should include trained individuals who can either immediately solve your problem or solve it personally and then call the caller back to report “problem solved.”
   
   

Casino Gambling All Over the Map in the Boston City Council Race

At last Wednesday's forum for the candidates for Boston City Councilor-At-Large, all the candidates were asked to give their position on whether or not they support having a casino within the City of Boston.

Some people may call this a state issue, which is true to some extent: the State Legislature and Governor must first approve having casinos of any kind, or even just slot machines, in Massachusetts. Should the State not approve casinos, the Mashpee Wapanoag can also appeal to the Federal government's Bureau of Indian Affairs for approval.

But the issue is closer to home than that. While the state must approve having casinos altogether, local governments must decide whether to welcome, constrain, or block altogether construction of a casino in their community. That's why the candidates were all asked whether they backed a casino in Boston, not whether they backed casino gambling in Massachusetts altogether.

The Boston Globe recently surveyed Massachusetts residents and found 53% support leaning towards legalizing casino gambling in Massachusetts. Despite this, only one-third of respondents had actually made up their mind to support legalizing casino gambling; 40% are undecided for the time being (want more information), and 24% oppose it. A plurality of Massachusetts residents, and a majority of residents within Route 128, wanted any such casino to be in a rural location, i.e., relatively far from the urban Greater Boston area. Governor Deval Patrick's proposal, however, looks to having one of the three resort-style casinos to be located in or near to Boston, with Suffolk Downs (straddling the line between East Boston and Revere) as the odds-on favorite.


Where the Councilor-At-Large Candidates Stand on Casino Gambling

The Boston City Councilor-At-Large candidates expressed opinions all over the map on the issue of casino gambling in the City of Boston.

Councilor Stephen Murphy and challenger John Connolly expressed strong support for casino gambling in Massachusetts, and Murphy went further in wanting slot machines (albeit not a destination casino) at Suffolk Downs within the year. They cited the potential revenue as the justification for allowing casinos. Challenger David Wyatt appeared to be leaning towards casinos in general, but against Suffolk Downs in particular, because he doesn't want anybody competing against the Native Americans' own casinos.

Councilor Felix Arroyo and challengers Martin Hogan and Matthew Geary strongly opposed casino gambling anywhere, including Boston. "We don't have to gamble our future away," said Arroyo, who also cited many social concerns about the negative impacts of gambling on the public. Geary thought that the casino developers would be the main financial beneficiaries, not the public or the government. Hogan saw the inherent conflict due to the added burden of policing the casinos while the city instead needs more police on the streets.

Councilors Michael Flaherty and Sam Yoon were undecided on casinos. Flaherty said that destination casinos "hold much promise," but said that he wanted promises in writing about how the revenue created would guarantee state-wide direct benefits like additional police, school improvements, and job creation. Yoon understood the economic development arguments, but worried about gambling addiction and the possible role of "criminal elements" or the "underworld" in casinos.

Flaherty, Connolly, and Yoon all called for listening closely to residents of East Boston on the issue of a casino at Suffolk Downs. "We absolutely have to have a vigorous public process and a debate in East Boston," said Yoon. Flaherty went so far to say that he would "hold up judgment altogether" until he got the chance to "take the temperature" of the residents in East Boston. Only Councilor Murphy emphasized that the casino issue was one for the State, not the City, to deal with.


What Was Missing From Their Answers?

There were two substantial omissions from the eight candidates' answers. Most remarkable was how no one objected to casino gambling on clearly ethical grounds by saying, "I think gambling is wrong and we as a government shouldn't support it." The Archdiocese of Boston has come out strongly against legalizing casinos, so it surprises me that there weren't any candidates expressing such an objection. Sean Cardinal O'Malley said that "we unequivocally oppose casino gambling in the state." Should the Cardinal deny communion to casino supporters?

Also suprising was that no one saw the role that city government could play in blocking, or at least constraining, the construction of a casino at Suffolk Downs. Local governments have the power of zoning and permitting to make it very difficult to build an unpopular development, yet no candidate seized on this point. Casinos need water, sewer, and electrical lines, roads capable of holding traffic, liquor licenses, entertainment licenses, etc., all of which can be controlled partially or fully by city government. (I note that I have not examined the text of Governor Patrick's bill which might include language over-riding any local ordinances, zoning, etc.) While the State may control the issue of whether or not there can be casinos somewhere in Massachusetts, it will be up to our local elected officials to decide if we should welcome one here in Boston.

I was also amazed that none of the candidates really addressed the issue of whether or not Governor Patrick's analysis of the monetary benefits of legalizing gambling appeared credible. The casinos will necessitate additional public expenditures in roadway access, public safety, etc., and will also likely cause a substantial drop in Massachusetts Lottery revenues, so do we believe there will be a lot of money leftover? It is a good question, but the Governor blocked providing copies to the public of the documents he studied in coming up with his plan.


Allston-Brighton's Elected Officials on Casino Gambling

I have had the opportunity recently to talk with two of our four local elected officials about the issue of casino gambling. Neither appeared prepared to take a public position; instead, both appeared to be genuine in looking for information on gambling and opinions about it from their constituents. If you have opinions or information on gambling, this would be a good time to contact your Allston-Brighton elected officials to tell them.

State Rep Kevin Honan: 617-722-2470, email, website
State Rep Mike Moran: 617-722-2460, email, website
State Senator Steven Tolman: 617- 722-1280, email, website
District 9 City Councilor Jerry McDermott: 617-635-3113, email, website


Transcript of Candidate Forum on Casino Gambling

The following is the transcript of the candidate remarks on casino gambling at the candidate forum at the Brighton Elks Lodge, October 10, 2007. Audio of this portion of the forum can be listened to here (MP3 format); the full audio links are contained in a previous post.


MODERATOR: All the candidates will get the same general question regarding casino gambling, but each will get a different specific question related to it. I'm going to ask you to answer the general question -- Do you support or oppose casino gambling in the City of Boston? -- in addition to a specific question.

QUESTION: Do you support or oppose casino gambling in the City of Boston? And, specifically, should slot machines be allowed at the Suffolk Downs racetrack?

COUNCILOR MURPHY: The casino issue is a state-wide issue, it's not a city issue, so let me answer it state-wide. I do support casino gambling. I think we're way behind the eight-ball. In fact, 72% of cars down at Foxwoods have Massachusetts license plates on it, and many of them are seniors who go on bus trips down there. In terms of the slots at the racetracks, that's the way I would have started it. I don't agree with the Governor's plan. I would have had slots up and running at the five racetrack sites -- including the one at Suffolk Downs -- probably this year, and hope to put, maybe, two full-fledged casino -- one in the Middleborough southeast area of the city, and one out west in Worcester, somewhere in that area. But I think we an awful lot of revenue, that could go to a whole host of worthy purposes, to out-of-state concerns. So I do support it.

QUESTION: Do you support or oppose casino gambling in the City of Boston? And, specifically, should a "destination" casino be built at Suffolk Downs?

MARTIN HOGAN: I personally oppose the gambling casino, because I feel that we are looking for a revenue stream in which we're bringing on something that is not healthy for us [inaudible]. I believe that it will bring in more gambling addiction, I think it will cause more drug and violence problems, and we also are going to be taking police off of the beat to patrol the casinos. We don't need that. We need as many police on the street as we can. As far as "destination," again, I disagree with that. I believe that we have had Las Vegas and Atlantic City -- and Connecticut for the last 20 years or longer -- and I believe that we need to stick with that. I think we need to look for new revenue streams and look for healthy alternatives, not for this.

QUESTION: Do you support or oppose casino gambling in the City of Boston? And, specifically, what tools can, or should, the City of Boston use to constrain, or block altogether, a possible casino within the city limits?

COUNCILOR FLAHERTY: A destination resort casino holds much promise. It's really a two-fold question if you look at it from the State-wide perspective or if you look at it from the City-perspective. If it can be shown to me, in writing, signed by the appropriate parties, that it will lower our taxes, improve our schools, put more police officers on the streets, and create jobs, then that is something that I can support. A little closer to home in Suffolk Downs, the first thing that needs to happen is that the host community of East Boston needs to be consulted, and that has yet to happen. We have had an announcement of a proposal, and [thus far] no one has been brought to the table to voice their concerns or their opinions about the impacts of having a casino in their backyard. So I would hold up judgment altogether on a destination resort casino until I get the chance to take the temperature of the folks that I represent in East Boston, first and foremost. What tools you can use? The strength of the Council is in their advocacy, working with the elected officials that represent East Boston specifically, working with the community leaders and civic associations, will be the tools that will guide development in a proposed casino.

QUESTION: Do you support or oppose casino gambling in the City of Boston? And, specifically, what specific concessions would be necessary for you to support building a casino at Suffolk Downs?

COUNCILOR ARROYO: I oppose casino gambling. I think they bring more social problems than solutions. I think that we should be responsible for our own future. We don't have to gamble our future away. If we take charge of our budget, we make sure that there is priority-setting, that do what is needed in the communities, instead of looking at [?enforcement ideas?], not only when there is a victim, after there is a victim. We should concentrate in investing in prevention and intervention so that we faciltate programs that bring people back to work, to productive life, then we will not have to think that we cannot take care of ourselves unless we gamble our future away. I don't that there is a concession that will change my mind.

QUESTION: Do you support or oppose casino gambling in the City of Boston? And if a casino were to be built at Suffolk Downs, how would you anticipate your duties as City Councilor to be affected?

JOHN CONNOLLY: First and foremost, I support casino gambling. I think in a city where we have a resource crunch, particularly have major concerns over safety on our streets, and we need to find a way to get more officers on our streets as part of a way to implement more community policing strategy, that we do need to look at casino gambling to open up a source of revenue. On the destination casino issue, I think that we have to have a full process to hear what East Boston thinks on that. I really fear for the quality-of-life in that neighborhood, without it. Were it to go there? I think the biggest thing you could do as a Councilor-At-Large would be to advocate strongly for the community that would be impacted. Just having been over there this summer, concerns about traffic, concerns about quality-of-life when you've got people leaving the casino at 3 am, 4 am. I also worry for myself, because I can never remember whether to hit or to stay at sixteen.

QUESTION: The general question, also. And residents of Boston average spending $823 annually per capita on the Massachusetts Lottery already. Do we need more or less gambling in the City of Boston?

COUNCILOR YOON: To the general question, I am keeping an open mind about casino gambling. I do listen to a lot of the arguments about economic development and the ways that it can generate public revenue. And I will really have to examine the negative impacts and understand them, because gambling addiction is real. Furthermore, it has been stated, we absolutely have to have a vigorous public process and a debate in East Boston. If you think about if a casino were to be proposed for Allston-Brighton, how would you feel? What would you think is the most important thing to do? It's just to have a vigorous public debate about that. In terms of the State Lottery, as many of us know, it's losing money, and the Speaker has pointed that out, and that is being investigated. This is a long historical precedent. We know that when gambling was illegal, it became an enterprise of the underworld, of the criminal elements, and this is why the State essentially took it over, one of the many reasons. But we also need to have a debate about its appropriateness in terms of the neighborhoods and the city in general.

QUESTION: Do you support or oppose casino gambling in the City of Boston? And also, should the community be required to approve via referendum construction of a casino in Boston?

MATTHEW GEARY: I oppose casino gambling. It's like trying to squeeze blood from stone. Every single time the government's in a revenue crunch they always come down on working people, and increasing taxes on working people. The people who benefit most from casino gambling are the people who own the resorts, who own the casinos... [asked second half of question be repeated]

QUESTION: Should the community be required to approve via referendum construction of a casino in Boston?

MATTHEW GEARY: Yes, I believe in direct democracy, in all its forms. However, when was the last time a community ever got to vote by referendum for any development programs in their neighborhood? The Boston Redevelopment Authority, the Mass Turnpike Authority, the MBTA, all these bodies are run by unelected boards of directors, and the community never has any input. The way it's being proposed -- that if we don't support casino gambling, then it will another toll increase on the turnpike, or it's going to be more fare increases on the MBTA -- [inaudible].

QUESTION: Do you support or oppose casino gambling in the City of Boston? And, specifically, if a popular referendum is required, then who should vote on it? Only East Boston and Revere? All of Boston? Suffolk County? Everyone within Route 128?

DAVID WYATT: I think it would be necessary for everyone in the Commonwealth to vote on it, [if it] were it to work. We have an example of a state where we have legalized gambling, and I don't think we would be able to compete in Massachusetts unless we became similar to that state and everything that attracts people to gambling in Nevada, here. I oppose gambling in East Boston. I don't think the Native Americans would be participating in it, and it competes with their stream of revenue which the government has granted them as separate nations in order to address past wrongs. I don't want to compete with them. I want them to get what they deserve.

Audio from City Councilor-At-Large Candidates Forum

Eight of the nine candidates for the Boston City Councilor-At-Large showed up to a candidates forum on Wednesday night, October 10, 2007 at the Brighton Elks Lodge.

Two-thirds of the questions were prepared in advance by the moderator and a committee of the event sponsors -- the Brighton Allston Improvement Association and the Allston Civic Association -- while one-third were submitted by members of the audience at the beginning of the evening.  Candidates were given one minute to respond to each question, two minutes for introductory remarks at the beginning, and another two minutes for closing remarks.  The event went over its allotted time, just like BAIA meetings often do.

Audio of the event, in MP3 format, can be heard by clicking through the links below.  Each file contains one response from each candidate.

1. Introductory Remarks
   
2. Housing / Open Space / Public Safety
   
3. Casino Gambling
   
4. Institutional Expansion
   
5. Public Schools
   
6. Zoning / Licensing
   
7. Audience Questions, Round 1
   
8. Audience Questions, Round 2
   
9. Closing Remarks

The order of the candidates for the introductory remarks was:  Matt Geary, David Wyatt, Councilor Stephen Murphy, Marty Hogan, Councilor Michael Flaherty, Councilor Felix Arroyo, John Connolly, and Councilor Sam Yoon.  The first candidate to respond to subsequent questioning rounds was rotated.

Many thanks to Harry Mattison, of the Allston Brighton Community Blog, for hosting these audio files on his HarvardInAllston website.  Thanks are also due to:  the event sponsors, BAIA and ACA, and their presidents, Dick Marques and Paul Berkeley; the organizing committee, including Abigail Furey, Donal Carroll, Jason Karakehian, and Mark D. Trachtenberg; Bill Mills and Boston College's Office of Governmental and Community Affairs for providing the sound system; the audience, for providing many interesting questions; and the candidates for showing up and giving many insightful answers.

A transcript of the forum, or at least a partial one, should be available here in a few days.

At-Large City Council Campaign Warchests

Unlike the District City Council candidates who file their campaign finance reports on paper at City Hall, the Councilor-At-Large candidates file electronically using the state's Office of Campaign and Political Finance website. They file bank reports every month in the off-season, and then twice a month during the campaign itself.

A year-end report is also required, which also includes information on savings accounts -- but information about those savings accounts have to be pain-stakingly culled from the monthly bank reports if you want to track them throughout the year. We'll see in a moment how important, and stealthy, those savings accounts can be.

The following are the sum of the campaign finance reports for the year-to-date, i.e., January 1, 2007 to September 30, 2007.

Campaign Finance To Date
Boston City Councilor At-Large

Name	End Date	Balance Beginning	Raised	Own Money	Spent	Balance Ending
Felix Arroyo	9/30/07	3720.04	21638.83	0.00	23830.10	1529.73
John Connolly	9/30/07	35926.65	174688.75	10000.00	115557.35	105057.65
William Estrada	9/30/07	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Michael Flaherty	9/30/07	447262.56	190341.15	0.00	191179.44	446424.27
Matthew Geary	9/30/07	0.00	3127.01	0.00	0.00	3127.01
Martin Hogan	9/30/07	0.00	1300.13	0.00	1270.66	29.47
Stephen Murphy	9/30/07	43710.09	64285.00	250.00	35508.60	76736.49
David Wyatt	9/30/07	0.00	263.00	0.00	263.32	-0.32
Sam Yoon	9/30/07	47636.17	125613.00	0.00	120621.37	52627.80
Total	9/30/07		581,256.87	10,250.00	488,230.84	685,531.10

Note: William Estrada has not reported campaign finance online to date.

Saving Yourself for Schedule S. Flaherty's 2006 year-end report shows a large balance which appears to be primarily due to savings accounts (much of it continuing from the 2005 year-end report). His 2006 year-end report, however, failed to include the required "Schedule S" (pull-down menu for name, then click on Year End 2006) to report those monies. By my estimate, he should have shown somewhere between $327,000 and $330,000 in that Schedule S form -- no trifle! (The money does, however, appear within the ending balance of $456,956.87 on the summary totals on the 2006 year-end report.) The Flaherty campaign did not respond to an emailed request for clarification about the apparent oversight.

Stealth Savings Account -- For an Upcoming Media Blitz? Unless you dig around in the expenditure forms, you wouldn't realize that Connolly had transferred $70,000 to savings (or money market) accounts so far during 2007. As such, you might think he had only around $35,000 on-hand right now -- instead of his $105,000-plus warchest he really has. He's got the money waiting to pull out of savings at the last minute and make lots of media advertising buys, just like he did in 2005. Stealth money market accounts!

Bang for the Buck. Arroyo has never been known to raise much money in previous campaigns, and is continuing that trend in 2007, but, you know, he nonetheless took 2nd place in the 2005 election. Hands down, he spends the least money per vote, as is clear from the 2005 election campaign. In 2005, he spent $131,884.92 to get 43,533 votes, or $3.03 per vote. Murphy spent $149,371.89 in 2005 for 35,553 votes, or $4.20 per vote. Yoon spent $220,076.26 in 2005 for 41,891 votes, or $5.25 per vote. As best I can tell (since the 2004 year-end report is missing, and it would clarify the amount entering 2005 in savings accounts), Flaherty spent $309,922.87 in 2005 for 49,220 votes, or $6.30 per vote. (Note that the Boston Globe appears to have fallen into the trap of not noticing that Flaherty transferred more than $202,000 to a savings account in 2005, which is not an expenditure, even though it is itemized by OCPF under "expenditures." Flaherty therefore spent around $309,000, not $511,000 as reported by the Globe, in 2005. Ooooops!!!) Connolly spent the most per vote (of the five candidates who also ran in 2005), spending $309,625.36 in 2005 for 31,629 votes, or a whopping $9.79 in dubloons per vote -- more than three times Arroyo's rate.

Summary: The candidates have already raised more than $581,000 to date for this election campaign, and have spent more than $488,000. They have more than $685,000 in cash on-hand to spend -- if they wish -- between now and the election, but most of that money (around $380,000) consists of Flaherty's savings accounts that he is likely squirreling away for a future run for higher office (e.g., Mayor).

Oh, don't say squirrels and running for Mayor... one possible Mayoral candidate, District 6 Councilor John Tobin, is totally scared of those things with the bushy tails. My advice: don't feed the aggressive things during lunch breaks on the Boston Common.


Allston-Brighton District 9. See my previous post for a summary of the Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council candidate campaign finance filings as of September 17, 2007.