If you haven’t yet seen Jon Keller’s half-hour debate with the three Democratic LG candidates, it’s now available on the internet at Keller’s site. (No permalink available, but it’s in the collection of videos in the upper right hand corner of the screen – it’s mistitled “Complete Debate: the Democratic Candidates for Governor.” Oops.)
It’s well worth watching, especially if you remain undecided in this race. Good questions by Keller: (1) what makes you – as opposed to your opponents – the most qualified to be “a heartbeat away” from being Governor (this one predictably generated the most contentious discussion); (2) how would you look at pardons as a member of the Governor’s Council; (3) placement of homeless shelters etc. in neighborhoods; (4) how would you handle disagreements with the Governor; and (5) what about the cap on charter schools. All the candidates acquitted themselves well, but differences on some specific issues (e.g., charter schools: Silbert says lift the cap, Murray says don’t, and Goldberg likes pilot schools and didn’t take a position on charters) and in their general approach to their office emerged.
In a way, I found the discussion of the somewhat obscure “Dover Amendment,” which restricts municipalities’ ability to object to the siting of homeless shelters, drug treatment facilities, etc., to be the most interesting. On the one hand, NIMBYism is a problem, and if every city and town were allowed to veto homeless shelters and drug treatment facilities, no such facilities would exist. But on the other, is it so unreasonable to think that neighborhoods with small children ought to have some say in whether, say, a drug treatment facility is located next door?
Silbert went first, and she seemed actually to want to give neighborhoods even less say than they have now (if that’s possible) in what sorts of facilities can move in. She emphasized the importance of integrating folks with these problems into the community, and noted that her plan to eradicate homelessness (to be released Tuesday) will focus on “Housing First” for homeless families. Goldberg emphasized the importance of ensuring that municipalities receive payments in lieu of taxes (since nonprofits don’t pay property tax) when these kinds of institutions move in. And Murray talked about his work in Worcester with engaging neighborhoods in the process of siting these facilities.
In the cross-talk, Silbert accused her opponents of encouraging NIMBYism, and said that they weren’t committed to “leading” on the issue of serving the homeless. Goldberg and Murray, predictably, did not react well to that criticism. Goldberg referred to her work in Brookline. Murray noted that affordable housing is a big part of the problem (adding that Worcester had 14% affordable housing, while Silbert’s hometown of Harwich had 5%), and questioned Silbert’s “Housing First” approach without ensuring that adequate mental health, substance abuse, etc. services were in place. Silbert reiterated her belief in “Housing First,” especially for women with kids. Murray again emphasized that when a shelter’s residents have mental health or substance abuse problems, the neighborhoods can suffer. Silbert, with the last word, again denounced “roadblocks” to homeless shelters and substance abuse facilities.
My neighborhood in Medford faced an issue like this not long ago, when it was learned – after the deal was already done – that a group home for adults with schizophrenia and other mental illnesses would be moving in. Ours is a pretty quiet neighborhood: lots of kids, you’re not worried walking alone at night, you get the picture. And at neighborhood meetings there was a lot of concern, especially among parents, as to whether adequate safeguards were in place. The City Council got involved, but ultimately, there was nothing they could do.
I hasten to add that, in fact, the facility has ended up being a very good neighbor, and as far as I know there have been no incidents in the couple of years that they’ve been there. But we were fortunate in that this particular facility does not accept people with substance abuse problems or with histories of violence. Of course, many other facilities do not have those restrictions.
So, having experienced something like this in my own community, I have to say that Silbert’s approach makes me uneasy. I’m not saying that neighborhoods should always get a veto – that’s not a sustainable model, and it lets NIMBY always win. But I am saying that Murray, who talked up Worcester’s approach of engaging the neighborhoods before the facilities move in, and who seemed to have a better understanding of the issues associated with the different causes of homelessness (economic vs. mental health vs. substance abuse, to name a few) may have gotten the better of this one. I’m looking forward to seeing what Silbert has to say in the plan she is announcing on Tuesday, and I still think she gets credit for making the issue of homelessness a priority. But to address it effectively, you have got to be sensitive to the needs and concerns of the communities as well. Otherwise you just build up resentment, and that doesn’t help anyone.
Do any of the group homes that we are talking about ever accept residents with a history of violence? Or for that matter people with a substnace abuse history? The statute says “persons with disabilities,” which in other contexts can mean recovering addicts. Or are those two issues really red-herrings? I just do not know enough about how the amendment actually works in practice. I do agree that if a facility is being proposed, the proposers should be sensitive to the concerns of the community; I just am wondering it the concerns about a history of violence or substance abuse history are ever legitimate concerns. I also wished that Andrea Silbert had handled the question a little bit better.
which is far less than complete, is that it’s not actually the “disabilities” language that’s at issue – it’s the “religious purposes or educational purposes” language. Apparently, that language has been stretched to encompass, for example, a methadone clinic (see the discussion of Spectrum Health Systems, Inc. v. Framingham Zoning Board of Appeals). So that language isn’t limited to schools and churches.
just look at the interpretation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Disability is basically defined as any restriction on your ability to function “normally.” This has in the past included mental illness, & obesity. Mental illness and drug abuse can also go hand in hand (my father worked in a psychiatric hospital).
My point, though, is that with respect to this particular law, my understanding (which may be wrong) is that the “educational/religious,” not the “disability,” clause has been used to override local zoning restrictions in siting these kinds of facilities.
Thanks for the heads-up David. I missed this one. I’m not in the habit of watching TV on Sunday mornings, especially on long weekends. But this was, by far the best engagement of the campaign.
<
p>
I hope everyone who is interested in the LG race watches the Keller debate. You can’t walk away from that one without making some judgements about the candidates.
<
p>
Refreshing.
<
p>
2. Okay Deb, we get it. You were the Chair of the Board of Selectmen. It’s a huge responsibility. You’re so cool. Talk about something else.
<
p>
3. Criteria for pardons? Is this a divisive issue? Boooring.
<
p>
4. Tim Murray is carrying himself very well. The only other time I’ve seen him speak was at the convention and he didn’t impress me. This time he comes across quite strong.
<
p>
5. Deb, the question was about pardons. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
<
p>
6. Andrea, the question was about pardons. Don’t follow Deb’s lead.
<
p>
7. Deb got one right! They all agree on pardons. (Well, they all agree it was a pointless question, at least.)
<
p>
(I’d like to point out that this is a remarkably smooth-playing video.)
<
p>
8. Ooh, Dover amendment. Good question! Makes up for the pardon nonsense.
<
p>
9. Andrea has a plan to end homelessness. I think John Kerry had a plan once…
<
p>
10. Payments in lieu of taxes. Good call, Deb. I like the partnership framing. But wasn’t the question about exemptions?
<
p>
11. Murray went to law school at night. And John Edwards’ father was a coal miner.
<
p>
12. Engaging neighborhoods. Murray actually answered the question, and did it well! Chalk another one up for Tim.
<
p>
13. Andrea thinks homelessness it’s a real issue. Good to know. The swipe at the others for not taking it seriously is pretty weak.
<
p>
14. Tim, Andrea isn’t the mayor of Harwich. Is it her fault that they have less low-income housing? Does Harwich need as much low-income housing as Worcester?
<
p>
15. “When you’re a grownup…” really, Goldberg? Really?
<
p>
16. Stem cell research? That’s the one issue that Andrea could never stay silent on? I mean, it’s a good issue and it’s important, but there are no other issues that would be higher on the list of can’t-keep-my-opinion-to-myself?
<
p>
17. Charter schools! Finally, some good distinctions. Tim has a great, common-sense approach to this question (and to many of the others).
<
p>
18. Andrea wants to lift the cap! And she hasn’t said anything about changing the formula for funding them in a different way? Where are her teachers’ union talking points?
<
p>
19. Pilot schools? Goldberg hasn’t been following the directions very well.
<
p>
And that’s the debate. Very informative. I had been pretty solidly Silbert going into this, but I’m swaying a bit towards Murray right now. I’ve never been impressed with Goldberg. She doesn’t carry herself well. Murray, on the other hand, well, I finally get what the hype is about. I’ll have to watch more closely over the next few weeks to see how it all plays out.
I really think I wish I could have my vote back and change it to Tim, but I really like Andrea too – even if I’m not wild about some of her positions. Ugh.
<
p>
Oh well, at least I’ll be confident with whoever wins. I even think Deb would be an okay candidate.
Your summary was dead on. I’m supporting Silbert, but I have to agree Murray came across very well.
Can anyone think of a neighborhood that would benefit from having a homeless shelter or drug treatment facility put in? Would anyone here buy a home next door to one? Would anyone not move out if one located next door to you?
<
p>
It is not acceptible policy to subject some residents of this state to this while exempting others. If policy is enacted, then it shouldn’t matter if you’re in Wellesley, Medford, or Lawrence — you should have equal chances of having one of these things plopped down next to you. Hopefully those chances are zero.
<
p>
The way the law is written now, only more “powerful” neighborhoods can keep those facilities out. For example, ones where housing prices make such projects unfeasible. Why spend $800k on a house in Wellesley when you can find one for $150k in Lawrence? Or why fight a strong neighborhood council in Lowell when you can dump one of these things in downtown Holyoke?
<
p>
That’s unjust. If these things are problems — and I don’t think anyone can make the case that they aren’t, because their sheer presence weakens a neighborhood — then the state needs a different plan for them, like keeping them out of every neighborhood. Not just the privileged.
<
p>
How about a simple rule that whoever is proposing one of these things must come from the neighborhood itself? I can’t begin to count how many non-profit social programs are pushed by people who are simply not affected by the placement of these things, because they live elsewhere, far away from such facilities.
Where do they go? If you ban them from anywhere, that means they can’t go anywhere. That means they’re on the streets when they shouldn’t be. That means society is even more at risk.
<
p>
From my perspective, I’m not so against clinics that only take people without a history of violence, etc. People who have a history of violence, etc. will need more serious clinics imho. But it would be equally harsh to put people who weren’t a serious risk in a neo-Danvers State if they aren’t serious risks to society.
Of course you’re right — you can’t just ban them. But why is using economic status the best way to determine placement?
<
p>
Yes, some could argue that the communities where these facilities exist are more likely to produce a citizen with a drug problem, but then again, I wonder if the poor areas are merely the bottom rung of society’s ladder, and that people wind up there after falling from elsewhere.
<
p>
The bottom line is that these facilities detract from a neighborhood. And you won’t find one next to expensive houses in expensive towns.
<
p>
I suppose the answer to the problem depends on your ideology; if one thinks the homeless or drug users are problems of individuals, then I’m sure they think that others should be able to pay more money so that these facilities affect others and not them.
<
p>
But if you think that things like homelessness and drug abuse are societal failures, then no residents should bear a greater burden than others.
<
p>
Maybe that means special areas for these facilities — in industrial zones, perhaps. Maybe that means an even stronger version of the Dover amendment. Maybe that even means some kind of system that gives communities a “relief” card when they have over a certain number of them, thereby making it more likely the facilities will be less concentrated.
<
p>
I once visited a string of such facilities in a residential neighborhood. People walking around like zombies. It was not a place I’d ever feel comfortable raising a child. Why should anyone have more rights and ability to defend their houses from that kind of situation than others?
<
p>
I question whether deinstitutionalization was the right path. I suspect the people who argue against segregating people with serious issues aren’t the ones who now have to live in their shadow. While it sounds like great public policy to “take the ill out of the institutions and put them among the people”, reality is that they aren’t among the people, they are among the less privileged.
it’s an extraordinarily tough problem, and you’ve identified some of the factors that are so hard to balance.
<
p>
Speaking from my own experience – which, as I said in the post, was lucky in the sense that our facility doesn’t take people with substance abuse problems or histories of violence – I can vouch for the fact that, at least sometimes, the neighborhood’s initial fears aren’t realized. I live literally across the street from this facility; walk my dog by it every day; and we’ve had no problems. So in our case, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the facility has detracted from the neighborhood, I don’t think that property values have been affected, and there are indeed nice houses adjoining it.
<
p>
All of that said, if it were a different kind of facility with a different clientele, it could well be a different story.
Murray hands down won that debate, he answered the questions most effectively, came off very knowledgeable but also very personable. Goldberg came off the worse, she didnt answer some questions correctly on one question about charter schools she talked about pilot schools, on another question about pardons she talked about her uncle or grandpa (sounded like both?!) who was a judge, and on another she invoked 9/11 as if Brookline was under direct attack. Silbert I must say impressed me the least in the last debate I saw, she came out swinging with the homeless issue but the charter school question showed you how unknowledgeable she is.
<
p>
Any, any local official knows that charter schools actually take away funding from local schools and if you are like Andrea and just plop them in Boston without changing the funding formula you actually hurt local schools. Charter schools are not public schools either as she claimed, as a former student member of a School Committee and as a student education is very important to me and I think she really dropped the ball on that issue.
So not sure exactly what your point is. If it’s that the funding formula needs to be refined, fine, but that’s different from saying that they’re not public (which they are). Care to elaborate?
I learned this the hard way, but they actually are not public schools in the traditional sense. A public school recieves funding primarily from its local community, followed by the state and federal block grants to a community for its schools. A public school has to admit everyone and is at the control of an elected school board at the system level, parent-teacher boards at the school level, and principals hired by a Superintendent appointed by an elected school committee. So individuals and the community at large have a huge say in what goes on, especially in Cambridge. A charter school is run more like a private school, harsher zero tolerence policies, teachers do not have to be in unions and can be hired/fired with ease, students can be expelled with ease, and the principal of a Charter school has a lot of leeway over what can be done, they are only accountable to the state DOE and are out of the control of the communities they are in. They are not public schools, but rather federally funded independent schools. Also every charter school in a district takes away a whole schools worth of funds and resources from the state and federal level away from the district.
<
p>
Hopefully that answered it but feel free to reply with any more specifics.
admission to charter schools is open to anyone in the district, and is limited only by availability, so there’s a lottery if there are too many applicants. (I gather there may also be some preferences for siblings, but it’s basically open to anyone.) Isn’t that right?
<
p>
So they’re “public,” in the sense that anyone who wants to go has an equal chance of being able to. They’re less so, in that the “public” school has to take everyone even if that ends up making for very crowded classrooms, while the charter school doesn’t.
<
p>
Of course I agree with you that charter schools are less under the control of the elected school committees and the teachers unions – that’s kind of the point, right? So it depends what you think makes a school “public.” To me, a “public” school is one that any kid has an equal shot at attending. So I’d call them “public.”
expect instead of simply giving a private school (religious or non-religiously affliated) public money for a couple of students to attend, you are giving a school enough public funding to create their own “private school.”
<
p>
Public schools do not only imply that any student has the right to attend, but also that their funding and how they operate are subject to the public’s will & control (through voting for school committee or serving on boards etc).
<
p>
A Magnet school on the other hand is more similar to what you defined. It is a public school that is typically specialized and is open to all to attend, but is more selective due to limited space. Some examples of a Magnet school would be Worcester Technical High School, University Park Campus School, or even more familiar to everyone – LaGuardia High School in NYC, also known as the “FAME” High School.
Mayor Murray showed all who watched how important it is in having our next LG have the experience in the day to day local and state problems that occur. Murray’s answers whether you are supporting him or not were factual. He truly understands the importance of having someone who will pay attention to the needs of the cities and towns.
<
p>
I believe that although Mayor Murray can’t buy this election his camp is growing each and every day. His message is extending to all corners of the state and everyone in between.His grassroots camp is working day and night. His visiblity is having a tremendous impact in helping his campagin.
<
p>
As far as the debate goes, Mayor Murray’s answers regarding the social service programs and the charter schools were in my opinion a homerun. He undertands the issues much better then Silbert and more so then Goldberg. He has worked collectively for the last six years with all levels,agencies, private/public educational systems.
<
p>
This race is so important, we have a great chance to take back the corner office. We need a strong voice, one who can assist in developing econmic growth across the Commonwealth.
<
p> Mayor Murray has the right demeanor to work as a team player, and is ready to start the job right now no on the job trainging needed.
I agree both with high hopes on his/her assessment of Murrays stellar qualifications and leadership ability, and I agree with Dave that charter schools do offer a level of independence that seperates them from public schools and that they are public in the sense that they are publically funded, open to all so long as there are slots available, but a true public school in my view is one that is completely open to all in the community, charter schools have and can refuse admission for nearly any reason, and aside from being plunked into communities the local areas around them have very little say in how they are governed. To me a public school is one that is owned and operated by and for the public, a Charter school is owned and operated primarily by its staff and benefits only those lucky enough to get in. Hence they are to a category of their own.
<
p>
Granted its a minor distinction, but a private school operates for profit, an independent school is a non profit that generally requires tuition, a parochial school is independent but religious, and a charter school is an independent school that the federal gov picks up the tab for. Charter schools are NOT public schools and thats the whole point of supporting them, its to bring independent schools modeled after private schools within the reach of those who cant afford them, and also the other distinction is that charter schools MUST meet all state and federal mandates that other schools can ignore. So for the sake of ending a discussion over definitions Ill agree that they are in some regards public schools, but in other regards not, and hence their in a league of their own.
AFAIK, there are very, very few private schools that operate for profit – I don’t know of any in the Boston area, though they may exist. Almost all of them are nonprofits; that’s the only way they can have 501(c)(3) status which allows them to be exempt from income tax and to raise money via tax-deductible contributions.