Ask Kristin a Question
On Neighborhood Decline
Always Right in Lowell writes:
Kristin: Another question… With the renewal of the acre, it seems like lower belvidere has declined faster than the acre has progressed. Shaughnessy terrace and the acre were dumped into lower belvidere and centralville What are your plans to invigorate lower belvidere?
It is my belief that while the Acre and Shaughnessy have been infused with serious investment, this has caused the displacement of many into other neighborhoods, even up here in Pawtucketville. With that come social issues such as increased crime, less investment in infrastructure and even less investment in property upkeep.
I think that there are a few existing resources we need to draw on, when we look at revitalizing these neighborhoods which have seen a significant disinvestment over many years.
First, these neighborhoods need to be safe. On any given day, just about any neighborhood in the City of Lowell can be brought down by a “few bad apples”. The good majority of folks who live in the neighborhoods you referenced are good, hardworking, law abiding individuals and families. If we want to keep these folks living in the City of Lowell, they need to feel safe. Or they will move out of the City the first chance they get. The Lowell Police has lately been successful in quieting troubled neighborhoods; in particular, with regard to gang activity in certain areas of the City. A portion of the funds utilized to provide for these initiatives came out of federal grants. One could argue that funds designated for urban revitalization go hand in hand with public safety initiatives.
Also, much of the housing stock in the areas you had referenced is rental properties, owned by out of town or absentee landlords. They collect their rent, pay their taxes and never look back. Inspectional Services, the Health Department and the Police Department has and can make a great deal of headway across the City in making the landlords more accountable to making the necessary repairs, general upkeep and the illegal activity that occurs on their properties, so that they are well kept and safe to live in.
Thirdly, the streets, sidewalks and parks need investment. Streets, so that cars may pass safely, sidewalks so that children may walk to school safely, and parks for families to recreate. This element feeds directly into the safe streets issue.
In revitalizing these neighborhoods, or any neighborhood for that matter, there is a lot of work on the front end. However, in the long run, the residents are much more invested and begin to care when they see that their government is taking care of their basic needs. We wind up with less crime, we have a sustainable, long term investment in the infrastructure and property values rise. It is also important to note that the Lower Highlands is also in desperate need of attention. Community participation is not easy to engage. As a resident, a neighbor and hopefully one of your next City Councilors, I feel that it is incumbent upon government and residents across the City, to get involved and work to make the Lowell, the best that it can be.
Professional City Management (Revisited)
Robby asked:
Hi Kristin:
I have one question that I forgot to ask previously:
What is your position on the whole Cox vs. Lynch duel?
Clearly that is the issue voters will have on thier minds when they head to the polls this November.
Glad you came back to ask this question.
Another had posed a similar question and this was my response, “As for our current City Council, I don’t see it as entirely different from previous years. In truth, the entire City Council agrees and/or disagrees as an entire body. However, on “larger” issues, the Council appears divided. There are currently some political factors that splinter the group. As your Councilor, I will always make decisions that come down on the side of the greater good of the citizens, not special interests.”
Your question gives me an opportunity to expand. Let’s be clear this is not a duel between the former City Manager and the Current City Manager. The majority felt it was time for a change within the City’s administration and utilized that privilege, just as City Councilors have done in previous years. One issue that was lost in all of this is the fact that the City Manager is an employee. That position is one of three within the City of
The City Council split is due mainly to philosophical differences about which direction the City of
The 6-3 split comes from votes taken on each City Councilor’s motions.
In closing, as stated previously, as your Councilor, I will always make decisions that come down on the side of the greater good of the citizens of
Professional City Management
Always Right in Lowell asked:
Kristin: With all the talk about the divided council, will you or will you not support the present city manager through the end of his contract? Thank you
Thanks for your question. As mentioned in a previous response, it is obvious that this current council is splintered. The issues between them go far deeper than just “the manager.” There are general philosophical differences.
Yes, I would be inclined to support this manager through the end of his contract and do support the extension of that contract to enable the manager to fully implement the initiatives he has put in place. Additionally, this would provide some relative stability, in terms of being able to attract and sustain businesses to the City of Lowell. National companies, as well as local industries, must feel confident that their investment in the City of Lowell is protected and that there is a stable management team in place.
Additionally, the fiscal management policies that have been put in place will serve us well in the future; in terms of Department of Revenue’s perception of the City of Lowell, Moody’s Bond Ratings, the ability to build reserves once again and to fully fund our City Health Care Trust Fund and Pension Fund.
Bridging Old and New Lowell with Neighborhood Business Districts
Wil asks:
I was wondering what you would do about bridging the older Lowell and the newer Lowell together. What I a mean about that statement is there seems to be a struggle in the city with the way things were done and progression. We can even see this in the city council itself. I have read some comments that people are not happy with the new wave of condo owners not shopping in Lowell. I for one do try to support local businesses but I find it difficult because not to many cater to my needs. What would you do to bridge that gap.
Wil, you present a very interesting question, particularly in consideration of the fact that I, myself moved to Lowell when I came here to attend school at UMass Lowell.
As for our current City Council, I don’t see it as entirely different from previous years. In truth, the entire City Council agrees and/or disagrees as an entire body. However, on “larger” issues, the Council appears divided. There are currently some political factors that splinter the group. As your Councilor, I will always make decisions that come down on the side of the greater good of the citizens, not special interests.
In regards to the reports that folks in the City of Lowell are unhappy with “condo dwellers” not shopping downtown to fulfill basic needs…this problem is not exclusive to the Downtown neighborhood. There are neighborhoods all over the City of Lowell where residents do no shopping within their neighborhoods, and bring their business to other parts of the City or out of the City altogether. The fact is, if the retail or commercial outlets do not exist Downtown (or anywhere in the City) to fulfill your basic needs, of course you’d have to shop elsewhere. This is why I advocate the concept of Neighborhood Business Districts, which is already a part of the Comprehensive Master Plan (section 3.1.3). While it is encoded in the Master Plan, however, my intent is to ensure that it is not overlooked, because I believe that this is the best way to bridge old and new Lowell, keep tax dollars in the city, and support our local businesses.
Specifically, these neighborhood business districts should include food and clothing stores. I, for one, would love to have an all purpose farm stand/grocery store (similar to Trader Joe’s) and something like a Life is Good clothing store downtown. These types of shopping venues pull folks in to spend their money on basic needs, not only from the City itself, but from surrounding communities, as they are widely recognized brands. And we can start with the downtown, but we must not forget about every other Neighborhood Business District in the city of Lowell.
I’d also advocate that when the product or service is available locally, we all should give that vendor preference, and not fly off to NH to get a slightly better price. A bit of economic patriotism would do us all some good.
Furthermore, the trend nationally is that chain stores are coming back to the Downtowns of America. As your City Councilor, I would advocate wholeheartedly to bring those venues into the City of Lowell.
The Hamilton Canal District, Lowell Taxpayers, and the 5th Congressional District
Robby asked:
Hello, Kristin. I have a couple of questions for you.
First, I’ve been hearing several different ideas as to what will happen to the Hamilton Canal District. I’ve heard a UMASS Lowell Center, a courthouse, and some want to preserve the site for historical value. My question is, what do you support, if anything, to be done at the Hamilton Canal District.
Secondly, if something were to be approved to be constructed at that site, what will you do to ensure that Lowell taxpayers pay the least amount as possible? I agree with you that Lowell has spent too much money developing downtown and has neglected other areas.
Lastly, and just out of curiosity, have you endorsed or supported any campaign for the 5th district Congress seat?
The Hamilton Canal District holds a great deal of promise, so we must get it right in the redevelopment.
First of all, I believe that it will be a good site for the courthouse, with its access to the Connector and the Transportation center. Although it will likely be tax-exempt property, it will spur development of commercial and office space properties in the immediate area, contributing to tax base growth. And it will serve a pressing need for updated court facilities in the area.
As for the UML Technology center, another tax-exempt property, I feel it will be best sited on the existing campus, in proximity to the research personnel and students.
Beyond these two, my vision for the Hamilton Canal district includes:
- Remove blight and dilapidated buildings and the criminal element that attracts
- Create at 24 hour a day “district”, to make it attractive for further development and businesses
- Retain historic character, but without undue cost constraints
- Include a grocery store for the benefit of downtown residents
As for your second question, we must recognize that the city already has a substantial investment in the area. I had opposed the city-funded parking garage, as its build cost of $46M including interest is a substantial liability to the taxpayers of Lowell. If we are to achieve a return on that investment, we will have to leverage the parking to attract tax base growth in the immediate area, while still retaining the market fees for the use of the garage and the commercial space within it. Beyond the garage itself, we must make sure we recover the maximum amount from the Master Developer for the properties transferred for redevelopment, but at the same time ensuring the development is consistent with the character of the district with solid growth in the tax base.
In answer to your last question as to whom I might consider for the 5th; I haven’t made up my mind as yet. However, my choice will ultimately be that of a candidate from Lowell. I’d like to see another Lowellian in Congress.
Robby, thanks for your questions. Feel free to email anytime.
– Kristin
Safe Bridges in Lowell
Mariann asked:
If you had to propose a plan tomorrow to make sure all the bridges in the city are safe what would it be and in what time frame would it be executed? Thank you.
Thank you for your question and a very timely one at that, considering the most recent tragedy in Minneapolis.
High quality infrastructure is an essential element of a thriving economy. In the past five years, there has been significant statewide investment in transportation capital spending, but with significant funding gaps remaining.
A recent report released by the Transportation Finance Commission estimates the Commonwealth’s transportation funding shortfall over the next 20 years to be $15 to $19 billion.
Our bridges and roads come under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, therefore much is left up to them (the state government) to properly inspect, schedule repairs, maintenance, replacement and provide funding for all of the aforementioned areas.
Very recently, Governor Patrick unveiled a capital plan that includes a total of $1.12 billion in transportation funding in FY08. This year’s designation is a 25% increase over last year’s spending. Over the next five years, spending on transportation is expected to total $5.72 billion. This represents nearly half of $12 billion, the Commonwealth plans to spend on infrastructure in the 5 year capital budget.
More specifically, the Governor’s capital plan includes $613 million for statewide road and bridge construction and repair projects.
With that said, as your City Councilor, I would work with other City Councilors, the City Manager and our state delegation to advocate on behalf of the City of Lowell to ensure that we receive the necessary funding to repair and/or replace the bridges in Lowell.
– Kristin
On Cuts to Family Shelters, JAM Plan
Shawn asked:
Hi Kristin, hope things are going well with your campaign.
What is your opinion on the cuts in the state budget that Deval Patrick made to family shelters and the JAM plan?
Shawn, thank you for your question! The campaign is going great and we fully expect to succeed.
As to the family shelters where funding was cut: from the information I was able to obtain, the shelters whose funding were vetoed are the Our Fathers Place in Leominster and the St. Francis House in Boston. According to my sources, this funding was vetoed because they had previously been awarded this funding in the current fiscal year, and additional funding for FY08 was taken out as a means of preventing redundancy in funding.
In regards to the JAM Plan funding, I’m confident that this funding will be restored in the form of an override with the advocacy of our delegation. This funding is necessary for us to move forward, particularly at this juncture, where we are poised to choose a major developer for Hamilton Canal District.