“I am running for Mayor of the City of Boston,” announced Kevin McCrea. “It’s time for a change at City Hall, and I will bring that change.”
“We need to end the cycle of career politicians. I am a businessman, and I am running as a common citizen. I’m independent, I’m informed, I have fresh ideas — and I believe in honest government that includes the citizens. I’m not locked into a political system that dictates I must ‘go along to get along,'” states McCrea.
“I am going to end the waste and abuse in Boston City government. I will ensure that all of our public officials, boards and agencies are held accountable for their decisions. Honest, open and accountable government will enable us to build an exemplary school system based on neighborhood schools, to lower taxes, and to provide better services to all our citizens. Under my leadership, Boston will have great public schools, the safest streets, and the most environmentally green government,” McCrea promised.
McCrea is well known as a good-government activist who asks the tough questions. But he’s proven he’s not just all talk. In 2005 he sued the Boston City Council for violations of the open meeting law, and after a four-year struggle, he has won. His blog, http://electkevin.blogspot.com/, talks about big issues: Why has Mayor Tom Menino given away hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of City-owned property to the BRA? Why doesn’t Boston have transparent government? Why have the ranks of City Hall employees increased, while the population stays level and student enrollment falls?
McCrea is passionate when it comes to our schools and the education of our youth. “We have so much administrative staff. We should use more of our resources for teachers, to reduce our class size,” says McCrea. “I’m going to do my homework and report on where our money is going, so we can finally give our kids what they need to succeed.”
McCrea is a resident of the South End. His company, Wabash Construction, has built several “Best of Boston” projects, and specializes in historic renovations. His developments have been recognized by the National Parks Service for their historic significance, and even awarded historic tax credits. In 2002, he completed a BRA project in Roxbury and voluntarily sold 20% of the units as affordable housing.
McCrea has a long history of civic involvement, working with the New England Shelter for Homeless Veterans and Boston Community Capital in Roxbury and Habitat for Humanity in New Orleans.
McCrea has been active in the Big Brother/Big Sister program and coached South End youth baseball. He served as an advisor for the carpentry program at Madison Park Trade School in Roxbury.
McCrea is an active member of the Claremont Neighborhood association and a member of the Ward 9 democratic committee.
I’m not a Boston resident so I don’t really have a dog in this hunt, but I’ll be watching the race. Best of luck to you…
“respectfully (for the most part)” and not “respectively (for the most part)” in describing the way we post messages here.
allow me to comment on the Environment portion of your “cha cha cha changes” tab.
<
p>
<
p>Kevin, I’m sure you’re a great guy, but I’m going to level with you: you can’t do this. But that’s A-OK… it doesn’t need to happen. Create a robust plan to Boston to 80% of 1990 levels by 2020. That would be a hell of an accomplishment. What’s a robust plan?
* A plan that uses comprehensive measurements. You can’t measure reduction until you measure how much Boston is emitting in the first place.
* A plan with annual reviews. If you’re not reviewing the progress every year you can’t change policy emphasis to keep on track.
* A plan with both carrots and sticks to get private sector cooperation by hook or by crook.
* A plan that incorporates all three major sources of C emission: buildings, transportation, and electricity. For this, here’s what you’ve got to be prepared to do:
– Buildings Expand the LEED certifiability requirement from spaces of 50,000 sq ft+ to spaces of 5,000 sq ft+. Encourage more mixed use projects like those being build in Downtown Crossing. Work with the state if necessary to eliminate “triple net” leasing options — you want every tenant to pay their own heat and lighting bills so they’ll work hard to reduce their usage, not just a percentage of the entire buildings (see: Tragedy of the Commons, Hardin 1968).
– Transportation Fewer parking spaces, both public and private. More expensive parking, both public and private. Mo’ better MBTA. A bike policy that emulates Cambridge in all ways — an extensive connected safe bike network, zoning requirements for bicycle parking, enforcement both on bicyclists running red lights and on vehicles double parking on bike lanes, etc. And, improve the sidewalks. I’m not talking about making them pretty brick covered sidewalks. I’m talking about widening them, using bulb outs to reduce the length of crosswalks, making crosswalks perpendicular instead of angled across the street, painting them more often, installing safe curb cuts everywhere, fixing tree root caused sidewalk heaves, making sure that buttons actually trigger walk signals, and that those signals are audio so that the blind can find their way. I’m talking about enforcing not just dont-block-the-box but writing tickets for drivers who stop on crosswalks. I’m talking about enforcing snow removal ordinances and I’m talking about planting lots of street trees and installing more litter and recycling bins, big belly or otherwise. The experts on this stuff, and a group who I’m sure would be more than happy to help: Livable Streets.
– Electricity Make zoning easier on those who want to install solar or wind. Look into expanding the steam plant downtown so that cogen is expanded and the electricity is generated “for free” from the steam plant w.r.t. carbon emissions. Really encourage folks to sign up to programs like NSTAR Green.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>Mr. McCrea, I love the sentiment, but I’d be surprised if even 1% of all city bulbs are incandescent. Most bulbs are already fluorescent — the long tubes in the drop ceilings that have been used for decades. Now, there’s no reason why we need to be using so much light in city buildings to be sure — are we turning off lights at night? Are underused spaces like bathrooms or closets using occupancy sensors? Are we over lighting our hallways, allowing for delamping? Are our specs for new buildings and retrofits calling for low watt T5s instead of T8s or T12s? As far as lighting goes I love your sentiment but you’re behind the curve big time here.
<
p>As for vehicles: why does Boston have any “non-essential city vehicles” at all? The best way to reduce Boston’s cost and carbon emissions is to reduce the number of vehicles in Boston’s fleet in the first place. As for the requirement, why not just require that every vehicle be fuel efficient in it’s class. Fuel efficient school buses, work trucks, and sedans. For more info, check out the folks working out the details on the Green Communities Act who, if memory serves me, are working out a city/town fuel efficient vehicle purchase requirement plan in order to qualify for the Act — one which Boston could simply enact. Why reinvent the wheel?
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>I agree that clean streets are important, both for direct environmental concerns like pollution in the Charles, but also because clean streets encourage more walking, which is good for low carbon emissions, businesses, and neighborhoods. So long as we’re talking about trash, did you know that Boston’s recycling rate was 12% in 2006? 12%. Cambridge was 31%. Even that would be a big improvement, but it’s not enough. Want to reduce the litter and trash from Boston? Implement Pay as you Throw. It can be done in dense cities, and it reduces the amount of trash sent to landfills by 25% or perhaps more in Boston’s case since her recycling rates are so dismal. Clean up the streets? Sure. But, stretch a little, would ya?
you had better address the elephant in the room: what as mayor you would do to lead Boston through this bad recession?
<
p>Government transparency is great, but it doesn’t in itself create jobs or balance budgets. You have some nice goals on your website, such as increasing school hours and the size of the police force, but those would be hugely expensive and you omit concrete proposals for where the money would come from. Why wait until your “first 100 days as Mayor” to “identify alternative streams of revenue”? Identify them now and put them in your platform.
<
p>You should also indicate what you would do about your company if you are elected mayor, since it seems it would be an inherent conflict of interest.
<
p>(BTW, you should fix the link to your blog above)
HR’s Kevin – thank you for posting. My name is Steve Wintermeier. I have been working on various community efforts at property tax reform and budget issues in Boston for the past 10 years. I am a local financial professional and volunteer working in support of Kevin McCrea as an advisor on financial policy issues because I believe in his vision of a more efficient local government rather than a government that promotes a perennial search for incremental tax revenues (see today’s Boston Herald Editorial – Blood from a Stone).
<
p>The key to these alternative streams of revenue is that they are used to offset the residential property tax levy rather than used as incremental to our revenue collections. This will make it more affordable to live in Boston, a key to our future economic success and vital for our residents also struggling in these difficult economic times.
<
p>Many of these revenue streams have been proposed, but as incremental income rather than PERMANENT, STATUTORY OFFSETS to an already bloated budget that is projecting a 6% increase in expenditures for the next fiscal year in a city with no population growth and declining school enrollment. These include proposed taxes on meals, events and parking and additional PILOT or service fee collections from local institutions (not their endowments). Substantial additional revenue could be generated by taxing BRA owned properties or dismantling the BRA and returning these properties to their rightful owners, the people of Boston, who could sell them and reduce our debt obligations which now represent over 25% of our fixed annual expenditures.
<
p>Thus, while such proposals allow us to diversify away from our dangerous and burdensome overreliance on the property tax for 60% of Boston’s revenues, there would be zero net new taxes on residents of the Commonwealth and in fact many of these taxes would fall on out of state and foreign visitors who are currently enjoying city services at little or no charge.
<
p>The state legislature wisely put the decision to raise local taxes into the mechanics of a Proposition 2 1/2 override. Offsets keep the success of Proposition 2 1/2 controls where they belong, in the hands of the people, not in the hands of politicians who have for too long played too fast and too loose with our money.
<
p>Interesting, but this needs a lot more explanation and details. Doesn’t the BRA serve a legitimate function? Is gutting it for quick cash going to be good for the economic development of the city, or would it just be a bonanza for developers? Given the horrible real estate market, does it make any sense for the city to sell off prime assets at a time when few will want to buy?
<
p>Also, are you officially speaking for Kevin, or just offering your own opinions?
<
p>
<
p>If I had a nickel for the times I thought about that question…
and you’ll do fine.
HR’s Kevin – The BRA was chartered as an Urban Renewal Authority and is technically an independent agency similar to the MBTA or Turnpike Authority that serves as the planning and development “arm” of the city and does indeed serve some legitimate functions, mostly development oriented with some minimal planning (the city has no comprehensive citywide plan and no plan to develop a comprehensive plan as official policy of the BRA according to its director John Palmieri).
<
p>Quite honestly, it has been extremely difficult to get information from the BRA on assets held, budgets, cash flows, headcounts and personnel which is part of the problem. I believe 4 of the 5 board members are appointed by the mayor and the fifth by the governor. Rest assured, the agency would be restructured as needed in an orderly, businesslike and professional manner and assets would be liquidated strategically over an extended time frame. I would expect that the vital functions of the BRA would be reabsorbed into city government as they are in every other major city in the country. We are the only major city in America that uses an Urban Renewal Authority in this manner.
<
p>Mr. McCrea requested that I respond to your post and I believe this to be an accurate reflection of his opinion. However, the campaign did not specifically review or approve of these messages. If you have any questions or would like further information you can contact the campaign directly at electkevin@gmail.com and I am sure they will respond personally with an official response to any more detailed questions that you may have. The leading local expert on the BRA is Shirley Kressel whom you can contact through her website at abnboston.org and is also volunteering to help Kevin in a similar capacity to me.
<
p>Thank you for being interested and staying involved.
Dear Kevin, I wish you luck but with this approach you’re going to get 4% of the vote.
<
p>Most of the involved voters in the c of b are old people and public employees. The public employees will be put out of work if you actually enact your program. So they won’t go for it. The service employees and students simply don’t vote.
<
p>You have to improve the business climate in the city. Why are there so many small restaurants in the near suburbs and so few in the city? What commercial taxes and regulations are stifling small business in favor of large institutional development?
<
p>Cutting the budget is not going to make these things better. First address the things inhibiting private prosperity and capital investment in the city. Then you can tackle the public bloat, because those people will be drawn into the private sector.