Another Save Fitchburg Doctrine Post

This all started as a response to a comment, but got too out of hand. Here's the comment, then the response. Hopefully this clears a few things up.

2ndSon said...
Jason:You espouse a contradictory,
inconsistent approach. In fact, of late the sole consistency has been your
inconsistencyOn one hand, you oppose any attempt to override Prop 2 1/2. Later,
you announce that, well, OK, I remain opposed to the override but not an
override for debt exclusion.On one hand, you (rightly) question the assessed
value of the Harper Furniture Building as compared with your home (end result =
a concern with the amount of tax collected on your home); decry any effort to
override 2 1/2, then reverse yourself as noted above.You compliment Councilor
Tran's energy, enthusiasm and innovative ideas, yet you disagree with his
Petition claiming it only represents $6, yet previously you modified your
position to consider an override for debt exclusion for the schools. Where's the
consistency?You, as have I, as have many others on this blog faulted the dearth
of ideas, leadership and attention paid by the Mayor and the City Council (taken
as a whole), yet you say, "Thanks, but no thanks" to Councilor Tran's petition
because "$6 is barely two gallons of gas..." Tell me, your bio on the opening
page indicates Fitchburg residency for a couple of years and you indicate a
brief bit of employment with Fitchburg's preferred kindling material. So you
have been around long enough to observe. Any other Mayors or Councilors come to
mind that have brought as much to the forefront during their entire term as
Councilor Tran has in 4 months?You indicate a desire to bring growth to
Fitchburg yet nothing is more growth inhibiting than a constantly rising tax
rate-and that's what results in dismissing Tran's Petition out of hand.You
indicate, if not champion, a revitilized Main St. yet nothing can damage that
effort more than an unstable, constantly rising tax rate.You indicate agreement
with citymonitor that violent crime requires immediate attention, yet you choose
to support a major increase in the school budget. An available buck can only be
spent in one place.You proclaim support and faith in the efforts of the
Fitchburg Revelopment Authority and its' Director, Ms. Wong, conveniently
ignoring the information provided by pro-se concerning the immediate future of
Putnam Place and current tenants.You express faith in Ms. Wong's efforts yet
ignore the fact she has been at this for a considerable period of time, spent
millions, and we have more vacant storefronts along Main St. now than prior to
her arrival.Where's the consistency? Where's the philosophical approach? No
override..but increase taxes. Failing schools...more money is the sole response.
Let's allow Fitchburg to grow...and then whack young families with a tax
increase. Decry the lack of leadership in City Hall...and then dismiss Councilor
Tran's efforts toward restoring fiscal sanity as insufficient and paltry. See
any other Council member stepping to the plate? That, my friend, is
leadership.The key to eliminating the moribund policies many are determined to
keep in place is to gain control over the budget. Where else but Fitchburg would
you find a $90 million dollar budget formulated, administered and managed by a
high school graduate who spent 40+ years selling shirts and ties? How does that
experience lend to managing this budget? Is that not cause for considerable
concern? Look at the results!Think about each of Councilor Tran's Petitions in
an all-encompassing sense. See the direction, the path Councilor Tran is
attempting to place Fitchburg on? Don't look at the Petitions individually. View
them as a unit. If approved, we may be the only City or town in Massachusetts to
HOLD THE LINE on taxes. Think that may send a message to prospective investors?
If the landlord registration/petition is approved the quality of available
housing will naturally, and immediately, improve. Landlords don't get it,
Councilor Tran does get it. If the Petition on restriction of Level 2&3
sexual offenders passes, your kids will be a bit safer because fewer sexual
predators can live here.Buy in...buy out...it makes little difference...but at
least take a consistent, not contradictory, approach.

The Response:

2nd Son:
Here's the consistency:

What's best for Fitchburg? My $6, or a new cop or a teacher? I'll take the cop or teacher. What's best for Fitchburg? An empty building, or a start at Putnam Place? Putnam Place, please. What's best for Fitchburg? A rotting building, or the greenspace of Riverside Park? What's best for Fitchburg? More cops, or a better school system? Admittedly, that's a very tough choice, but the city should be able to handle two tasks at once (although right now that seems like a big should). If I absolutely had to choose, I'd say education, and a lot of that is personal. I have a kid in the schools starting in September, and I live in a safe neighborhood. Sometimes I think about what's best for my family.
I oppose an operational override because it's an increase that will never go away. I would consider a debt exclusion, but only under the most necessary of circumstances, because it is fixed and eventually disappears.
I'm registered as unenrolled, but admit to be very liberal on almost everything. I'm not running for office, so I'm not constrained by politics or pandering. I decide on my own what I think it right.
When I look at downtown, I try to look ahead, not in the past or the present. Same for the neighborhoods, schools and police department. I think it's pretty clear I'm relatively new to the city, and don't have the history of some folks who patrol this site, but I'm also a good representative of Fitchburg's future -- young families who give a damn are moving in, and we'll be heard one way or the other and we'll have our say. Might be tomorrow, or next year's election, but the day is coming.
So, there's my consistency. What's best for Fitchburg's future. It's actually the one consistent thing all of us on this site share.
If it all doesn't match up according to political lines, too bad. Few things and few people -- at least the honest ones -- rarely do. Political compartmentalization isn't necessary. Moving the city forward is.
Without question, Councilor Tran has the same vision we do. His first four-plus months in office have been not only excellent, but it should embarass other councilors. But we don't agree on everything, including the tax issue. You want tax reform for residents? The tax burden has been shifting away from business and to residential as long as I've been in town. That needs to change. Get a healthy residential base in town using local commercial services, and the slight increase in taxes won't hurt any businesses (yeah, and overly simplistic explanation right now, but this is already waaaay too long).
Finally, I'm pretty proud of the forum this has become. Sift through the crap that sometimes floats up, and this is the most energized and active discussion of the city you can find. It can be thoughtful, illuminating and on the rare occassion entertaining. I enjoy writing it, I enjoy reading it, and every day I get the growing feeling that not only are City Hall folks reading it, but some folks are leaving some some well-worded postings as "anonymous." It's having an impact, and that's all we can ask for.
So, to summarize: If you don't like the policy leanings, oh well. That's part of what makes policy and politics fun and interesting. If you've been unclear on the mission or the "consistency" of this site, hopefully this helps.