Full Disclosure: This is my first post as the newly hired Field Director for the United Independent Party. While I will not be officially working there until the end of the month, I felt it was proper to disclose this now. Very excited to be returning home to Massachusetts and working on this campaign!
Evan Falchuk, Chairman of the United Independent Party, has a new piece in Commonwealth analyzing the GE deal and asking key questions about it. While it is excellent news that confirms our new reputation as the #1 innovative economy in the country, it is also important to ask the hard questions about whether the incentives were necessary and how future deals will be conducted.
the nearly $150 million relocation package given to GE — to be funded by Massachusetts taxpayers — raises serious, valid concerns. Mayor Marty Walsh’s chief of staff Daniel Koh says we should expect to see more deals like this — and that the GE deal will be used as “an example of how we collaborate and how we work with companies that want to come here.” It is therefore both critical and fair to raise these concerns now. Doing so doesn’t make anyone a “naysayser,” as people are sometimes labeled when they question government decisions. Rather it makes us thinking, taxpaying adults, interested in having a say in where so many millions of tax dollars land.
The piece goes on to provide 5 key takeaways from this deal and crunch the numbers. At $181,000 a job, are these deals worth it? At a time of severe state and Boston budget cuts? We feel the voters should be educated about these deals and have a say.
SomervilleTom says
Congratulations on your new job.
I think your new job and return to Massachusetts deserves its own diary — congratulations again, and welcome home!
Have you moved back in-state yet, or is that still pending?
If you’re in Cambridge/Somerville, it sounds like BMG mini-gathering is entirely called for. I nominate the new-improved Rosebud or The Speakeasy. Both are in Davis Square, easily accessible from the Red Line.
jconway says
I will be moving back in with my folks this coming Monday and get started right away working for the party. We have some key deadlines to meet and there won’t be a lot of time for me to go gallivanting too much, but I would be happy to make an exception for my fellow BMGers. Especially since I hope to enlist many of you as allies and co-conspirators!
I am leaving my beloved behind for a bit in Chicago, and we will be commuting back and forth until she can find a similar opportunity out here, but we set a date and are simultaneously planning a wedding on top of the move so that’s another exciting change for 2016!
Christopher says
…on job, wedding (finally!), etc., but I’m sorry the Dem party is losing you.
jconway says
I’ve been a Democrat my entire life, and have only campaigned for Democrats, so it will be an adjustment for me as well. One I wouldn’t be making if I felt the state party and the majority of it’s legislative delegation was responsive to the progressive community and it’s concerns.
We are a progressive party. Check out our blog, we just praised Lori Ehrlich and Sonia Chang Diaz. Evan voted for Deval twice. And the platform he ran on in 2014 would’ve made Martha Coakley Governor if she had adopted it.
So this is definitely a progressive party that I hope to help build into a real movement for change. An advantage of being an official party is that we can raise money and disperse it to legislative candidates in a coordinated way, that we are assured a challenger’s spot on the November ballot that a primary can’t guarantee, and that we aren’t affiliated with the Democratic ‘brand’ which is becoming increasingly associated with DeLeo and corruption to the average unenrolled voter. This branding can keep doors opened that might otherwise be slammed. I’ll save the rest of the soapbox pitch for a later post, but while my registration will change, my commitment to the principles we share certainly has not.
rcmauro says
… I did consider it and felt he was a serious candidate. I also exchanged a few emails with Angus Jennings, who seemed like a smart and thoughtful guy. I was impressed that with the choice of this particular running mate, Falchuk put land use issues front and center. Congratulations on the new job!
fredrichlariccia says
On your new job AND for moving in with your folks in Wakefield —- my home town.
I’m looking forward to meeting you. Do you think we’ll have something to talk about when we do ? 🙂
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Mark L. Bail says
Glad to have you physically present here in Massachusetts.
jconway says
And actually I’ve been meaning to bounce some ideas off of you. Feel free to shoot me an email if you’re interested. jamesconway@uchicago.edu
JimC says
To you jconway, a sincere, heartfelt congratulations. I’ve appreciated your fair-minded comments over the years. Best of luck!
And second — what campaign, exactly?
jconway says
1) Registering voters to stay on the ballot
We need 40,000 and are already at 21,000 so more than halfway to our goal but November is coming and we gotta keep up the pace. Feel free to help out after March 1st!
2) Getting state legislature candidates elected
Have to recruit them by March 8th. Feel free to email me good leads.
3) Raising money
4) Building a party structure
Statewide committees, local town committees, and more grassroots level organizations. Already got a great group in Weymouth and a city councilor in Holyoke with a strong ward organization behind him. So out of these building blocks, hopefully we can build something a bit more sustainable.
It’s definitely a start up organization and has that mentality. But the open platform also enables us to experiment with different techniques, policies, and candidates and see what connects best with voters.
JimC says
Well, best of luck, I guess. 🙂
jconway says
I know I’m gonna need it but I am optimistic hard work pays off.
paulsimmons says
1) All politics is local
2) If you want someone’s support, you gotta ask.
Have fun. Apropos which, let me add Simmons’ corollary:
Politics is the only game for grownups.
centralmassdad says
UIP. So 21,001.
jconway says
I really appreciate it. Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions.
JimC says
(Kidding)
(Mostly)
ryepower12 says
Congratulations on the new job.
doug-rubin says
and good luck. Sounds like you are already off to a strong start.
JimC says
… if a new signature and/or handle is in order.
gmoke says
There is a practice called Economic Gardening which was pioneered in Littleton, CO starting in the late 1980s when their largest employer left town. Economic Gardening focuses on growing the existing local businesses and the town or city infrastructure to support them rather than offering tax breaks to recruit outside businesses. For over 20 years, Littleton has been extremely successful in building employment and their business community this way, although I understand that they may have recently changed their tactics.
This kind of home-grown, local growth seems to me to be something which would provide enormous benefits with an investment of $150 million. But then, it wouldn’t have the cachet that GE’s move does.
incidentally, I’ve been publishing a weekly Energy (and Other) Events listing as a listserv and webpage (http://hubevents.blogspot.com) for years now and promoting the idea of a searchable listing of ALL the public events at ALL the local colleges and universities as a practical idea. I can only imagine the educational, economic, and innovation benefits from something like that. However, I can’t get a response from Boston’s Office of New Urban Mechanics, the state innovation office, the Cambridge City Council, the Boston Globe, or the Boston Institute for Non-Profit Journalism. Maybe if I change my name to Mr Goldman Sachs and ask for a couple of million $$$$ this idea would get some of the attention it deserves.
jconway says
I’ll be sure to get on your listserv, as I hope to be involved with events like that for the party and also in what free time I have. Thanks!
And the economic gardening approach is something to look into as well. I would agree that helping several startups or small businesses incubate to me would pay bigger dividends than the jobs the GE relocation will provide.
gmoke says
Economic Gardening is more about networking as many as the local businesses as possible and building a resilient and expanding local business community. It’s not just about a few start-ups and small businesses but building a local community business culture. More than well worth looking into.
jconway says
I’d like to better connect with you on this and other subjects so feel free to drop me an email (jconway@unitedindependent.org)
Christopher says
Can it maintain/develop an identity beyond the personality of Evan Falchuk? As I recall, the Reform Party nationally did not long survive Ross Perot’s personal involvement.
Is it necessarily progressive? I may be misremembering, but I thought Falchuk himself struck me as a social liberal/economic conservative as a candidate.
If it is progressive and therefore mostly targeting traditional Dem constituencies absent IRV there is concern about splitting the vote and favoring the GOP.
PLEASE remove “independent” from the party’s name. This is a pet peeve of mine. IMO independent and party together is an oxymoron bordering on false advertising.
marcus-graly says
ie. They wanted to be unenrolled, but saw “independent” in the name and thought that was the “no party” choice.
jconway says
Disclosure: Following comments are in my capacity as UIP Field Director and not just friendly BMG banter
1. It has to in order to survive, thrive and become a movement for change. Nobody understands this more than Evan. Feel free to like our first elected official, Holyoke city councilor Nelson Roman on Facebook. Great personality and an inspiring tale of a first time candidate who is LGBT, Latino, and thoroughly progressive winning on our ballot line in a city dominated by regressive Democrats. Taylor DiSantis came close but fell a little short out in Pittsfield, but he is another young leader to watch. And please email me suggestions for candidates, I am confident that the BMG community will be a great resource on that front. We can crowdsource an alternative that can win!
2. Socially progressive and fiscally sensible. That means we make sensible investments in public transit and affordable housing funded by a sensible progressive income tax and well regulated marijuana market. All four issues that top the list of millennial concerns totally ignored by the Speaker, Gov. Baker and Martha Coakley in the last race. We will consistently oppose corporate giveaways like the Olympics or the incentives for the GE deal (I do want to emphasize that we think GE coming here is great and could’ve happened without the incentives). The party officially backs transgender rights by the way, something a majority of elected Democrats have yet to commit to.
3. We are not competing in three way races unless we think we can win them outright. Forget spoilers, 54% of state reps run unopposed, the UIP thinks that’s appalling and unhealthy for our democracy and we are committed to running challengers in races that will win.
4. Our identity is the opposite of false advertising, we just sent out an email, which you will get if you join our list, explaining the difference between our party designation and the unenrolled status and educating our voters on how to register for the main party presidential primaries and switch back to the party. Multiple people commented on our Facebook page saying we are the first party, third or otherwise, that has taken this amount of time to educate voters on these differences.
I will be writing up a broader post explaining my thoughts, hopes, and reasons for my own party switch and will only add my personal encouragement to everyone here to join us after they vote on March 1st in the presidential primary, at least to keep this growing movement on the ballot to provide an alternative. I strongly feel that our state’s legislative leadership is failing to provide that alternative, which is why a third party is needed as a pressure group to ensure our state invests in it’s future
sabutai says
…not that I necessarily agree with everything you’re saying. Congrats on your new work, jconway!
spence says
On social media, Falchuk & UIP accounts have said they won local offices in Holyoke & Greenfield. But, oddly, when asked who the person was in Greenfield have declined to answer. Who is the UIP person who ran & won in Greenfield?
Also, re. the Pittsfield City Council race, we’ve actually conversed previously when you made an inaccurate statement about the closeness of that race & you acknowledged that presenting it as close was not accurate. Has something changed?
Christopher says
…but I assume you realize that in MA City Councilors are not officially partisan positions.
jconway says
Neither are any of the statewide offices, state legislative seats, or the presidency itself which was first occupied by a non-partisan. All were envisioned as being serviced by men (and much later sadly) women of good character and judgment with a civic conscience. Nelson is definitely one of those people, as is Taylor, and I am looking forward to meeting both in person.
Technically the Boston Mayor’s office and even that election is non-partisan, but name the last one who didn’t make a big deal about the fact that he was a Democrat? We will definitely make a big deal out of his UIP status and our chairman proudly attended his inauguration party at the start of the New Year.
Christopher says
…but every position you named in your first sentence IS and has for sometime been chosen through partisan nominating processes whereas city councilors are not. Not that independents can’t seek those seats, but the law recognizes the role of parties in those races.
jconway says
Everyone knows Marty Walsh is a Democrst and arguably the question “who is the better Democrat?” determined his race with Connally. Of course, plenty of Democrats in this state are registered for that party and nominated in its primaries and still vote like Republicans :p
Christopher says
When my friend Matt O’Malley first ran for City Council I noticed he prominently said in his lit that he was a solid Democrat. I asked him if it made sense to inject partisanship in an officially non-partisan race, but his sense was that such a label played well in Boston. Mayors in this state seem to straddle between their officially non-partisan and unofficially partisan status. Marty Walsh is labelled a D to match his registration as were his predecessors and he was also a state rep. by partisan nomination. The plan E Mayor of Lowell and plan A Mayor of Haverhill both happen to be DSC members. The Mayor of Lawrence is known as a Dem from previous campaign work, but his predecessor was a Dem when it was convenient and even managed to get elected to the DSC, though I don’t think he ever attended a meeting. Interestingly, despite being officially non-partisan, “Democratic Mayors” are on the list of elected officials who are given ex officio delegate status to the state convention, but I don’t know if that includes plan E mayors or just plan A mayors. Here in Lowell, people sometimes gripe about supposedly Dem Councilors endorsing Republicans, but that bothers me less than Dem state reps doing the same thing precisely because the former are not elected by a partisan process.
centralmassdad says
Kind of like the false advertising where the Massachusetts Democratic Party calls itself “Democratic”?
Christopher says
We are the state division of the national Democratic party, adhering to the principles thereof, and participating in their processes. There may be some elected officials whose Democratic identification is barely accurate, but since we can’t excommunicate and state law governs much of the nominating process there is not much the party can do about that, though we do withhold funds and delegate privileges from those who openly oppose our nominees.
marcus-graly says
Thanks! Good luck on the new job!
jconway says
We are focused on making Massachusetts state government more responsive and more responsible and will not be officially endorsing a candidate in either primary, though we are excited and encouraged by our members who are getting involved in presidential politics, many for the first time.
johntmay says
I don’t think that GE moved to Boston for the tax breaks. Sure, they asked for them and sadly, our people caved in. GE’s former revenue machine was its financial group. GE sold that off after the great recession and increased regulations made it less attractive. GE wants to return to its industrial roots.
I’m sure you’ve seen the ads GE has been running, all in a effort to change it’s image and attract engineers.
A relative of mine works for a engineering firm with locations in Texas, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Colorado. He is involved in recruiting and spends time at many universities trying to find and recruit the top talent. It’s not easy. These kids are picky with what they want. Location means a lot. Fairfield Connecticut may have been fine with the financial types but if a company wants the best place to find the Big Bang crowd, Boston is high on that list.
I think our elected officials gave in too much, considering how much we had to offer in an area that GE was in desperate need of.
jconway says
This was in direct response to the Commonwealth piece I posted above and more analysis will be needed to dig through it. I suspect they did this to show that the money and tax breaks will be phased in gradually rather than all at once, but I will post something with more details after I comb through it.
petr says
… methinks you are fighting a different battle…
The tax breaks are for property for $25 million over 20 years. Nobody has said differently. This has been the story from the get go. The cost of seaport property being what it is, $25 million over $20 years is well a truly a pittance.
Other than that there is no money going to GE. There is assistance for employee relocations, not in the form of money but rather troubleshooting. There is money for infrastructure like roads, hydrants, sewer, etc… depending upon where they land… and which would have to be done anyways to bring the place to code. And if GE purchases an existing complex then that money probably won’t be spent. Conceptually, it is no different than the CommonWealth filling in the Back Bay in the 1850’s to create what is today some of the most expensive real estate in the City of Boston. I don’t remember anybody every saying that Prudential Insurance got a sweetheart deal on property in Boston when Boston actually created land outta the water…
centralmassdad says
Most of the time, if a new development requires new public infrastructure, then the developer is required to build that infrastructure and then transfer it to the municipality as a condition in the construction permit. So, if the developer is building a new shopping center, the developer must widen the nearby road, install traffic signals, water, hydrants, street lights, and the like, and then transfer all of that infrastructure to the town. So, I would consider that kind of infrastructure to be a gift by the CoB.
petr says
… conceptually, this is no different from filling in the Back Bay so as to actually create private property, essentially out of thin air. If that was not a ‘gift’ then what was it??
One of the purported infrastructure improvements is to resurrect a derelict bridge that, surely, will not handle much increase in traffic without danger. What’s the difference between fixing a broken bridge or putting a bridge where before there was none…? Both are ‘gifts’ under your definition.
SomervilleTom says
I wonder what sort of marvelous new infrastructure the Commonwealth will build for GE.
1. Will the Commonwealth build increased RAIL transportation access?
2. Will the Commonwealth build actual bicycle lanes (as discussed earlier, with physical barriers separating them from parked cars, moving traffic, and pedestrians)?
3. Will the Commonwealth build a neighborhood where the people who work in this new building can live, play, buy groceries, raise children, attend schools, and so on.
petr says
…. all of the above.
Certainly you and I are in agreement that it is well within the purview of government to do so. There is no disputing either the authority or the ability of government to do so, nor the overall, general, benefits that accrue and not just to GE.
So why the opposition? This is what government does.
SomervilleTom says
I’m not sure I’d say I oppose this deal until knowing more about what is actually being proposed, particularly with respect to my three questions.
The point of my questions is that there is ZERO evidence that this has been government policy for any of the other Seaport development projects. I therefore see no reason to think it will happen here.
Frankly, the much-touted Assembly Square development in Somerville is just as bad. Acres of new roads, and NO actual bike lanes. High-priced condos, and only high-end mall stores for residents to shop in. Where will these new residents buy their groceries? How will they get to those grocery stores? I’m glad that a shiny new Orange Line station is there now — does that make even a small dent in the overall sustainability of all this sparkly new steel, glass, and concrete? Will the new condos have outdoor space for their owners to grow tomatoes in?
Walk through a successful human-scale neighborhood like Beacon Hill, the Back Bay, or the South End. Walk through the Seaport or Assembly Square. The differences are obvious. The latter are built to benefit the developers, the former the people who live and work there.
I agree with you that it is not just within the purview, but in my opinion a proactive obligation of government to address these issues. I suggest that in the Seaport and in Assembly Square, that is likely not happening.
If the answers to my questions are “no”, then I oppose this deal.
jconway says
This is not what our government is doing. It is raising T fares, possibly canceling transit expansion in the form of the GLX, Walsh is cutting $50 million from BPS and Baker was talking about up to $250 million in cuts to the state budget. As Mark Bail pointed out elsewhere, those are real cuts that will damage local budgets and force communities to raise their own property taxes, a trend Paul Simmons has written about in great detail. Meanwhile GE gets a 20 year break on property taxes while BPS parents will literally be paying more for less.
I don’t get why we have to rely on shiny objects and underpants gnomes be they Olympics or luring other companies to do the things government is supposed to be doing on it’s own, for the benefit of the entire commonwealth and not just the connected few.
boston2009 says
Tax incentives can have major implications for states’ budget stability. Every dollar allocated to a tax incentive is one that cannot be spent on education, health care, public transportation and other investments in a state’s economy. And if policymakers do not take proper precautions, tax incentive costs can grow rapidly and unexpectedly.
It would appear that many of the same folks who concocted the Olympics and Race Car follies seem to have been decision makers in this latest deal. I may be wrong, but I think it won’t take long to see how much this really cost us.
jconway says
He has a decent summary of the publicly released incentives (which were dumped today before a FOIA request could go through) embedded in his morning’s piece:
Will the public be using those parking spots? The corporate jet hanger? Or state and city support for the helipad? Will GE be using that million center you and I will be paying for to retrain the 300 workers it just laid off in Avon or some MIT grads fresh out of college? What about the innovation center? We paid for it do we get to see it and visit it for free?
I also agree with Richard Florida in today’s Atlantic piece when he writes that GE likely picked Boston because of our existing assets and gamed us for the incentives:
We did just fine becoming the #1 innovation economy without relying on incentives like this historically, but this model will be the new norm according to Walsh’s own chief of staff.
boston2009 says
for companies like GE rarely do more than shifts jobs from one state to another and doesn’t necessarily create them. Conversely state and local incentives rarely target the new and young businesses that actually do create jobs. And even when new jobs are created, companies would likely have needed to add them anyway, and the cost per position to taxpayers can be astronomical.
A study last year from advocacy group Good Jobs First found that in deals in which companies get a combination of credits and subsidies worth at least $75 million, the average cost per job was $456,000.
Currently, 46 states offer 200 programs of tax credits. Companies use credits to lower the cost of doing business, which increases profits. Because an increasing number of the credits are transferable, companies use exchanges to sell them to one another. This creates an entirely new industry that can lead to pure giveaways. For example, according to the Wall Street Journal, half the transferable credits are for the movie industry. However, out-of-state production companies don’t generally face state tax bills and either bring in their crews or create temporary positions for a few weeks. The production companies sell the credits, which improves their bottom lines.
Massachusetts and Boston, IMO, has been gamed by GE and the local cheer leaders don’t even realize. A year or two out, this will be back in the news as some of the “hidden costs” and “hidden considerations” begin to surface. We have a guy in office whose expertise in business is not existent making deals that he obviously does not understand.