This hurts not only Boston, not only Cambridge, but the entire metropolitan region. Likewise, we must work together to face these challenges. The work of Harvard Business School Professor Michael Porter on Regional Economic Clusters illustrates the success possible when municipalities work together to develop a shared vision for success. The political boundaries separating our two cities are less important than whether or not new investment comes to our region at all and whether or not existing businesses remain in the region. What difference does it make if a new company chooses the Longwood Medical Area or Kendall Square if we lose them to Seattle, North Carolina, or any of the 22 cities comprising Silicon Valley? Instead of looking jealously at each other, we must look outward and imagine what we can achieve working vigorously with each other.
It’s in that spirit that we are bringing the City Councils of Cambridge and Boston together for the first time on December 16 (today) at 3 P.M. at the Museum of Science, which sits on the border of our two cities. Professor Porter’s office and the Monitor Group will kick off a discussion on the economic competitiveness of the Cambridge/Boston tech cluster. Civic, business, and academic leaders from both sides of the river will convene to develop a shared vision for how to ensure the success of our region as a whole.
Nothing could be more important for the future of the Boston/Cambridge region’s ability to create jobs and reduce unemployment than to compete effectively for the best companies. Cynics may claim this is about politics. The truth is the politics of the past operated by respecting political boundaries and crafting policies only within those lines. This is about people. A recognition of the reality that we have a better shot at helping people in each of our communities if we work together instead of against each other. The continued vibrancy of our two cities is interconnected, and today’s generation of local leaders needs to work together across those boundaries and tap our collective strengths to make our region successful. We’re all in it together.
he’d think of a thousand reasons why it would be a bad idea, but it would be hilarious.
i miss him too.
Any chance of discussing the stupidity/insanity of putting the Level 4 Biolab in Boston. Nearly every city and town surrounding, including Cambridge, has come out against the reckless endangering of the lives of their citizens, and Cambridge has consistently sent representatives to hearings in Boston to voice opposition to this lab.
<
p>I would very much like to see cooperation on this topic and bring the threat of this lab ever opening at level 4 to an end. BU has made it clear that the lab could operate at Level 2 and Level 3 so the building will not go to waste and no jobs will be lost if it does so. Please listen to the neighboring cities and towns and bring this nightmare to an end.
Ross and most of your other esteemed councilors support the bioterror lab.
<
p>Except Turner, and of course he was thrown off by this bunch of miscreants, for violating ethics law. No, wait, it was Ross who committed the ethics violation, fixing 35 of his own parking tickets.
<
p>For violating state law. No, wait, it was Ross, Feeney, and Murphy who violated the state Open Meeting Law a dozen times over the course of two years.
<
p>Oh, right, Turner was the one convicted for a bribe that wasn’t a bribe, and our virtuous councilors couldn’t live with such a scofflaw.
<
p>But I digress. How appropriate to have our city councilors addressed by Michael Porter of the Harvard Business School. From Wikipedia: “…Porter chairs Harvard Business School’s program dedicated for newly appointed CEOs of very large corporations.”
Um, do you happen to have any evidence of that?
<
p>If not, come on, Shirley.
sorry couldnt resist
Read the FBI affidavits about Turner and Wilkerson. You’ll see how little cause the FBI had for going after him in the first place. And how little evidence they had for arresting him for bribery and extortion, which are crimes of intent. (Coakley exonerated Menino’s aide for deleting years of emails because she decided there had been no intent to violate the law — no crime without intent, she said. Works for Menino, but not for Turner.)
<
p>I had no preconceived politically-based notion about what Turner did; as I had heard the media, I also believed that it was a bribe. But then I researched it myself. As I concluded in my column, there was no evidence of sale of office, no quid pro quo, no implied or explicit request for payment for anything he did for the informant (which was basically nothing), and certainly no evidence of extortion, which is a threat to harm or to withhold needed service unless payment is given. He did appear, on the video, to accept some money from the informant, who was determined to give it to him no matter how difficult it became to actually do it. That, if it was over $50 (which was not proven), was an ethics violation.
<
p>Not such a big deal; the other Councilors have done much worse, I assure you. Much much worse, as I wrote. Why aren’t you upset about them? And Menino, who has taken millions of dollars from developers to whom he’s given hundreds of millions of dollars worth of subsidies in tax breaks and unlawful permits? Was that prosecuted as bribery and extortion? The FBI possesses documented evidence of bribery and extortion by Menino and the BRA, and they have not seen fit to pursue it. And Deval Patrick, whose campaign donations from developers and other corporations with business before the state vastly exceed Menino’s, in obvious quid pro quo, are those ok with you?
<
p>And why wasn’t the FBI chasing all the named pols with whom Wilkerson was actually conspiring to sell the favors of her office? How come you haven’t been in high dudgeon about that?
<
p>It seems that all the moral indignation of the world against all the corruption of human flesh is going to have to be satisfied with the punishment of this one small transgression by one minor political actor. And all the rest…maybe they’re too big to fail.
<
p>That’s a strange sense of justice.
<
p>
I recommend reading Porter’s entire Wiki entry. This guy is a big deal. I can recall hearing his name in the mid-90s, and he was already a big deal then.
<
p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M…
<
p>My only point is, if he’s helping out local city councils, he’s probably being nice.
<
p>
This reminds me of Mike Ross’s Citizens Committee to make a better future for Boston. Did you follow that one? Led by Ed Glaeser, a citizen of Weston who always writes about how great the dense bustling city is.
<
p>I wish our elected officials would worry about how to run government like a government, instead of trying to run it like a business. We’ve already got more business than we know what to do with, but we have no governance.
The business community exists either way. Government has a role to play, and part of that role involves the business community. So, if businesspeople are willing to be useful, I say welcome it.
<
p>I take your general point though, I think. The danger is deciding business is important simply because it’s business. We see too much of that. But that’s not a comment on Ross per se; I don’t follow his doings very closely.
The location is too hard to protect from a terrorist attack (e.g. how do they prevent some wacko with a truck bomb from pulling up in front of the building without blocking Albany St?) and too close to the population center. What if there is an accident? Will they evacuate all of Boston Medical Center?
<
p>I actually don’t object to putting it in Boston, but why couldn’t we put it someplace like Long Island where you could provide better security and get it away from downtown.
Could be a stunt, but here’s hoping it isn’t, because more neighboring communities should do this sort of thing.
For example, Massachusetts has more than 250 “911 Centers” – for a similar population, Maryland has 12 or 13 these days. Regional 911 Centers, using current technology, would free up police and firefighters to (shock) do policing and firefighting.
<
p>Yes. More cities and towns and regions should do this sort of thing.
When can we start seeing some joint meetings of the Cambridge City Council and Somerville Board of Alderman? At least people can see the border between Boston and Cambridge, while the Cambridge/Somerville line is stuffed full of high density multifamily dwellings, intersections, and T stops. Lack of joint planning has been a big problem.