Blue Mass Group

PPP released their latest poll.

Markey 48
Gomez 41

Public Policy Polling’s newest survey of the US Senate election in Massachusetts finds Ed Markey’s lead over Gabriel Gomez growing to 7 points at 48/41, up from a 4 point margin right after the primary election 2 weeks ago

Gomez favorables are going south as well, down 6 points.

Hey BMG!  I mostly lurk here, but want to share something that I did yesterday with my friend Ken Ward from JP.  Ken and I, in our 50 year old wooden lobster boat named the Henry David T (get it?) took action to stop 40,000 tons of Appalachian coal from being delivered yesterday to the Brayton Point power station in Somerset.  We have such love for the world we have grown up in, and to bear its destruction without trying to stop it would be impossible for us.  So we put the Henry David T between the ship and the pier and dropped anchor.

You can find out more about the campaign at coalisstupid.org where there’s video archive of the beginning of the action and things you can do to help.  Also a good article from today’s Globe.  And find out more about upcoming Coal action that’ll be part of 350.org’s “Summer Heat”

Here’s our full statement below:

Our Statement: Coal is Stupid

Why we seek to close Brayton Point.

From his new perch at Boston Magazine, David S. Bernstein reports that Gabriel Gomez (who apparently does not yet know his position on abortion and just can’t shake his shady tax deduction problem) has set up a “Victory Fund,” a joint venture between the Gomez campaign and the National Republican Senate Committee. As Bernstein writes:

It’s not a coincidence that this account was set up just before the upcoming fundraiser with John McCain, as reported by the Globe‘s Jim O’Sullivan. The top ask for that event is $37,600, which is an odd figure until you realize that the most one can give to Gomez is $2,600 and the most one can give to the NRSC PAC is $35,000. Apparently it’s too much to ask rich people to write the two separate checks, so the Victory Fund lets them write one…

The main advantage of this is that givers can feel certain that the NRSC will know to use that $35k on its campaign to get Gomez elected, rather than some other effort. Which, by the by, it can do because Gomez won’t sign the “People’s Pledge” to prohibit spending by outside groups.

The funny thing is that, when Deval Patrick set up a similar “Victory Fund” in 2009, on a much smaller scale (maximum contribution $5,500, less than 15% of the max one can give to Gomez’s fund), the Massachusetts Republican Party raised holy hell. Patrick and the Mass. Dems abandoned the idea, and the state legislature passed a bill banning such joint venture funds.

That ban, of course, applies only to state candidates. And so we’ve had the spectacle of Scott Brown setting up a Victory Fund in 2011, and Mitt Romney setting one up last year that gave almost $9.4 million to…the Mass. GOP.

Par for the course. The GOP howls about how corrupt the Democrats are. The Democrats cave, ceasing the activity in question and passing legislation to outlaw it (our state legislature is, after all, more than 80% Democratic). Then the Republicans do the same thing on a scale seven times bigger.

This is getting ridiculous.

Republican Massachusetts Senate candidate Gabriel Gomez was sued by his plumber over unpaid toilet repairs from 2007, according to court records.

According to the plaintiff, Lundy Plumbing, the case was brought in 2008 in response to two attempts to get Gomez to pay for repairs to a leaky toilet in Gomez’s home. Lundy Plumbing alleged that Gomez was billed in January of 2008 to which he did not respond. Lundy Plumbing then says they sent another bill and called several times before bringing the case.

The case was settled out of court according to court records.

Honestly, who does that?  Stated otherwise, if he can’t manage his own bills, how can we trust him with America’s?

First, a confession: I drive more places than I bike, though I do both.  Does that make me a bad person?  Maybe.  But there you go.

Now, to the point of this post, which is the Globe story reporting reaction to a City of Boston report on the causes of bicycle accidents and recommendations on what to do.  Apparently, advocates for cycling are upset about the following:

In an effort to make the city safer for cyclists, police will ­begin to hand out $20 citations to cyclists who run red lights; and the mayor’s office may push for a law requiring helmet use by bike riders of all ages.  “We’re still blaming the victim,” said Dahianna Lopez, a Harvard doctoral student who worked as a consultant compiling crash data for the Boston Police Department.

Cycling advocates have objected that (1) a helmet law won’t prevent accidents; and (2) a relatively small number of accidents (12%, per the report) are directly traceable to cyclists running red lights or stop signs – by contrast, “twenty-two percent of collisions between cars and cyclists occurred when a vehicle door opened unexpectedly on a ­cyclist. Eighteen percent ­occurred when a motorist did not see a cyclist, and 12 percent occurred when a cyclist rode ­into oncoming traffic.”

Regarding point 1, I’d say the objection is true but irrelevant.  The argument for helmets is precisely the same as the argument for seat belts: it’s a common-sense safety measure that will almost certainly prevent a good number of serious and perhaps fatal head injuries, thereby reducing the number of shattered lives and also keeping medical costs down.  I find it hard to see the contrary argument.  So I think this reaction is off-base:

David Watson, executive ­director of the Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition, a statewide bike advocacy organization, said he disagrees with the conclusions of city officials on bike helmets. Forcing helmets on the heads of cyclists won’t prevent accidents, Watson said.  “We need to focus on preventing a crash in the first place, not just providing protection when they crash,” he said.

Hey, here’s an idea: why not do both?

Point 2, on ticketing cyclists who run red lights, is more complicated.  Here’s a quote from the Globe story that I think is illuminating:

[Cyclist] Ira Kemp of Arlington said that cracking down on bike riders who run red lights, an ­offense that he admitted committing on occasion, would not address one of the biggest factors in bike crashes: the behavior of motorists.

“It’s a huge cultural issue,” Kemp said. “Most motorists don’t have an ounce of respect for people on bikes.”

In my view, Mr. Kemp is both exactly right and precisely wrong.  He’s right that many motorists don’t “respect” cyclists.  That is a problem that has to change for the city to become more bike-friendly.  But he is wrong that forcing cyclists to obey traffic laws won’t have any effect on that problem.  To the contrary, motorists – including myself – get frustrated with cyclists precisely because they routinely behave like scofflaws, darting in and out of traffic, running red lights and stop signs with barely a glance toward oncoming traffic, and so forth.  Be honest, now: how often have you seen a car intentionally run a red light?  It happens now and then, but it’s pretty rare.  In contrast, cyclists do it all the time.

Respect has to be earned.  If cyclists want it, they have to behave as though they deserve it.  And that means obeying the traffic laws.  Right now, too many of them don’t do that.  So a crackdown by law enforcement – in conjunction with other efforts, to be sure, such as the ongoing expansion of the city’s bike lanes and other efforts noted in the report – strikes me as an excellent idea.

Frank Phillips is reporting that not only did Gabriel Gomez use a shady historical home tax deduction agreeing not to alter the his home’s facade even though Cohasset already places similar restrictions on historical properties but Gomez also shopped around for the highest appraisal. It seems that Gomez rejected appraisals if he didn’t like the value, further still, Gomez didn’t even pay the bill for those appraisals.

When Republican US Senate nominee Gabriel E. Gomez was seeking a lucrative historical tax deduction for his Cohasset home, he rejected the first appraisal he received because it was too low and then refused to pay the appraiser’s bill, according to a claim filed this week.

That appraiser, Shaun Fitzgerald, said Gomez hired him in late 2005 to determine the amount he could deduct on his federal tax return in exchange for agreeing not to alter the home’s facade. But Fitzgerald said Gomez then failed to pay the $1,000 appraiser’s fee.

The appraisal amount? A measly $245,640.

Apparently, that’s not what Gomez was looking for. Note to appraisers you need to value the home exactly how Gomez wants you to value it or you don’t get paid.

After being granted the easement and tax deduction Gomez had work done on the exterior of the property anyway, it seems that the easement agreement for the tax deduction only covers areas that is visible from the street. Cohasset’s historical commission does get involved in the approval on any changes to the home. Gomez didn’t seemed to to have any issues getting approvals even though the renovation included the removal of “character-defining elements” of the historical home.

That construction included removal of a brick chimney, one of the two on the house. A survey commissioned by the Trust in August 2005 to evaluate the historic significance of the home had determined that the chimneys were “important character-defining elements’’ of the property.

Gomez’s wife Sarah serves on the Cohasset Historical Commission.

Celebrating the passage of Marriage Equality!

It’s time we looked at the rules for signature collection and ballot qualification.

I am calling on the Boston City Council to offer a Home Rule Petition to change the requirements regarding signature gathering to qualify for the ballot in municipal elections. As it now stands, candidates for Mayor must gather 3000 signatures, and any registered voter from Boston can sign as many nomination papers as they want, but only the first signature certified will count toward the potential candidate’s total.

That’s not right. It’s an unfair barrier to getting on the ballot, and it mostly affects candidates of color, candidates who aren’t as well funded as others, and candidates without networks that take years to build. If you can get 3000 valid signatures, you should be able to get on the ballot. Boston’s rules should be closer to the Commonwealth’s rules.

To that end, I pledge my legislative support to any Boston Home Rule Petition that makes its way to the Massachusetts House floor.

Marty Walsh

Author’s note: those interested in supporting YDM’s Emerge scholarship should visit our event page. I hope to see many of you tomorrow night!

BOSTON – The Young Democrats of Massachusetts (YDM) will present their 4th annual ‘Ladies in Blue’ awards at the Roosevelt After Dark fundraiser at Storyville on Thursday, May 16th from 8:30-11:00pm. This year’s honorees are Senator Elizabeth Warren as Woman of the Year, Representative Ellen Story as Legislator of the Year, and Dr. Harmony Wu as Activist of the Year. Half of the proceeds from the event will go towards a new scholarship for a YDM member to attend Emerge Massachusetts, a training program for women running for office.

The upcoming referendum on a Boston casino must be conducted in the most fair, open, and transparent manner possible.  I believe that the casino referendum should be citywide so that the voices of all the people of Boston can be heard.

The current law allowing a referendum to take place only in East Boston is potentially unconstitutional and could prove divisive.  While East Boston will undoubtedly feel the greatest impact of a casino, its impact will not be limited to that one neighborhood.  The Boston City Council should vote to authorize a citywide vote.

In order to avoid many of the problems of the past, I also believe that the City Council should use the opportunity before it to make clear that the referendum itself should be read to reflect the support of the city only if it wins a majority of the vote citywide and in the host neighborhood.  In so doing, the referendum gives the people of East Boston a position of primacy, an important protection against others potentially imposing a casino on a neighborhood that may or may not embrace one.  Conversely, this two-part threshold prevents a single neighborhood from setting a course for the entire city that is so potentially momentous.

Finally, we should take whatever steps we can to ensure that the referendum itself is conducted on a level playing field.  Casino interests are clearly in a position to spend millions to affect the outcome of the referendum.  A campaign spending cap would be ideal.  Short of this however, any contributions and expenditures made in the referendum campaign should be completely transparent and fully and publicly disclosed.

We are one city, with one shared future.  If this statement is to be a matter of fact, and not merely a slogan, then the referendum itself must be citywide and its results read to reflect our shared stake in it.

from petr:

divestment is one thing, investment quite another…

… almost by definition =-)

Today, fossil fuel companies represent two of the ten largest investments in the both the Public Retiree Investment Trust (PRIT) fund’s $9.4b domestic and $8.2b international equity portfolios. An additional $780 million invested across three other portfolios means the Commonwealth invests around $1.3 billion in state assets in fossil fuels.

While “investing” in fossil fuels often carries with it less risk of loss of principle, and increased chance of returns and dividends, and thus makes it a good “investment”, when seen from a purely mercenary point of view, it really isn’t “investment” in the sense I think you mean: buying stock in Exxon is buying stock in the churn of drill, refine, burn, gasp and, you’re not really making anything better. In addition, there is unlikely to be any sort of multiplier. You might help Exxon pump crude out of the ground faster. You might fund another, bigger, tanker that’ll (hopefully safely) get the crude to the refinery). But you’re not investing in much progress. If anything, you’re working against the present state of things where most modes of conveyance, cars, boats, airplanes and trains are in a race to become more fuel efficient. The actual process of turning crude into petrol isn’t all that different from the cracking processes first invented in the 1890′s and refined in the 1920′s. It’s an industry in stasis and unlikely to change. The only thing that will change is the amount of crude available. I had hopes when British Petroleum tried to change it’s name to “Beyond Petroleum” but they suffer, distinctly, from the same issue described here: the lure of easy cash returns rather than real progress.

But specifically investing in renewables is specifically investing in progress: things will need to be built, problems solved, infrastructures built and maintained, and energy delivered. As such, it’s a real investment and, bonus, likely to have a more potent multiplier and a much longer shelf life. Personally, and for those reasons, I’d like to see that 1.3b spent chasing progress, perhaps even eventually being chased by it, rather than simply chasing more bucks in an ever diminishing spiral of diminishing returns. But I don’t think of it as ‘divestment’ in fossil fuels but ‘investment’ in progress.

Yeah. If you’re running the state’s investment fund and investing in fossil fuels, you’re betting against the state’s interests. You could invest that money elsewhere and get a decent return without directly hastening catastrophe. As a candidate Steve Grossman talked about using the state’s funds to invest in Massachusetts itself; we should keep this frame of reference in mind.

Via ABC News

Gabriel Gomez’s incoherence on climate science and energy policy makes a lot more sense once you take a deeper dive into his personal finances, as Joshua Israel did at ThinkProgress:

A ThinkProgress review of Gomez’s personal financial disclosure filings reveals that a significant amount of his own money is invested, directly or indirectly, in dirty energy stocks and bonds. These include investments of between $1,000 and $15,000 each in:

1. Emerson Electric Co., which automates oil and gas operations for energy companies.
2. Exxon Mobil Corp., the world’s largest publicly traded international oil and gas company.
3. Occidental Petroleum Corp., an international oil and gas exploration and production company.
4. Schlumberger Ltd., a the world’s largest supplier of technology and project management services for the oil and gas industry worldwide.
5. Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc., a deepwater drilling contractor for the oil and gas industry.
6. DTE Energy Co., a Detroit-based electric and gas utility.
7. Dominion Resources, a Richmond-based electric utility.
8. Xcel Energy Inc., a Minneapolis-based electric and gas utility.
9. Gulf Power Co., a Florida-based electric utility.
10. Southern California Edison, a California-based electric utility.
11. Entergy Louisiana, a Louisiana-based electric utility

By doing the dirty work of his out-of-state polluting investments, Gomez is turning his back on the more than 71,000 people who work in Massachusetts’ booming clean energy industry. He’s also ignoring the impacts that climate change is already having on Massachusetts – stronger storms like Sandy, rising sea levels, deeper droughts, and deadlier summer heat waves.

As I’m knocking on doors for Ed Markey in the weeks ahead, this story speaks to the one thing I’ll be telling undecided voters: Gomez is so beholden to big money – polluters, national Republicans, shady tax breaks – that we just can’t trust the guy to do what’s right for Massachusetts.