It looks like Boston could be in for a good chunk of progressive change with the City Council Presidency under contention. Gotta say, it would be damn cool to see Ayanna Pressley the top at-large vote getter take the reins. I think she’s the real deal and hope she nails it.
What are you seeing and hearing and what’s up with Michelle Wu’s vote?
Voting takes place Monday, January 6, 2014.
Please share widely!
…almost to the point that I would be tempted to codify it, that the person who tops the at-large race should become Council President. Also, Ayanna would be great!
What accomplishments/ initiatives/ ideas make her the best candidate for the position? I voted for her the first couple of times she was on the ballot, but then didn’t hear too much from her, or about her, so I figured I’d give some other folks a vote. Also, alas for poor me, I never see her in Hyde Park- but then, I don’t get out as much as I used to.
…I’m only vaguely familiar with her work on the Council and not a Bostonian myself. I got to know her when I interned for Senator Kerry on Capitol Hill when I was in college and she was on his staff. I think it’s fair to say that she is a strong and reliable progressive and she is dedicated to giving women and minorities voice and opportunity. Others can probably provide specifics better than I.
Doesn’t seem like anyone wants to offer specific answers to your question.
Dapper O’Neil topped the ticket for several years.
…but even if “we” wouldn’t want him if he topped the ticket then the greatest number of Bostonians did, which is what should count.
Dapper O’Neil, may he rest in peace, was a Grade A hole.
I don’t think any council uses the system you suggest. Most of them rotate, informally.
So, no, “we”, in most senses understood on BMG, would not want Dapper O’Neil to be Council President.
There are four at large councillors and nine district councillors. The at large councillors by definition get more votes than the district councillors. You’d be limiting the presidency to only four of the thirteen councillors.
…but to me it does make sense that the presidency be held by an at-large councilor. District councilors can always decide to run for at-large the next time around.
have to run for Speaker and Senate President statewide?
The City Council is a legislative body. It seems logical to me that it would be treated like other legislative bodies in how it elects leadership positions.
…I never have liked the idea that so much power goes to someone who is elected by only a fraction of the state. If we had at-large legislators they would make the most sense for the same reasons, or making having a system where you actually run popularly for those posts is an interesting idea. As the legislature is currently structured someone has do hold those offices so I guess we’re stuck with that.
n/t
Of course.
But it’s hard for me to see how Wu can vote for anyone but Linehan. She said she would, and she gave a (somewhat) plausible rationale. I think she does more damage to herself if she switches now.
So I agree – she’ll probably vote for Linehan. Maybe one of the other new guys, or even Mike Flaherty (who ran for Mayor styling himself as a more progressive choice than Menino) can be persuaded … will be fascinating to see.
see downthread for more on this.
I just posted our JP Chapter’s latest email (couldn’t get the email to work in a comment).
They are urging emails to key councilors.
As for Wu, I think a new choice has emerged. A terrific choice. Someone who really represents our values and has worked hard on difficult but critical issues – particularly those pertaining to women and girls. So supporting a “new choice” isn’t the same as switching sides.
This is a math problem. Does Ayanna Pressley have the votes? Has she done any better than Tito Jackson or Matt O’Malley?
For all the press, Facebook, Twitter and other fluff, there is no discussion of whether she has the votes. It’s the only thing that counts. The only thing.
And it’s getting late.
………………whatever the hell “sources” means today.
He voted against something she cares about..permitting of restaurants. And now that Ayanna is in, Wu could make the case that given his vote and the emergence of a new option, she’s switching. Here’s why she should switch, everything she cares about Ayanna will bring to the Council, Linehan, can keep it off the agenda. Wu needs to mend fences, especially with Ayanna, so it would be better in the long run if she supported her. Take the flack in the short term. BTW, my opinion has nothing to do with progressives. But not voting for the woman will piss off another group Wu should not alienate, those who supported both of them…women!
This is an excellent point. Linehan of course was the only “no” vote on that proposal. It does give Wu a pretty good out, if she is interesting in finding one.
What is this permitting of restaurants issue about and how/why did Linehan end up as the only vote against it?
Per the Herald and Bernstein. Is there a special for his seat now?
He is an outgoing councillor. But still an interesting development.
First, he didn’t run for reelection. He gave it up to run for mayor.
Second, when there’s a vacancy for an at-large seat on the council, the vacancy is filled by the person who finished fifth in the most recent election. In this case, Annisa Essaibi George would become councillor, should Pressley, Wu, Flaherty, or Murphy leave office. Jeff Ross would be next, should another councillor leave, etc.
District Council vacancies are filled by special election.
Christopher, to answer your question, for some reason the state legislature controls the number of liquor licenses available in the City of Boston. They like to keep the number limited for some reason. There are three impacts of this:
1. Much like taxi medallions, these licenses are sold from one establishment to another for huge amounts of money.
2. Some neighborhoods (Back Bay, Beacon Hill, North End) end up with huge numbers of licenses, while poorer neighborhoods with higher concentrations of people of color — like Roxbury, Mattapan, many parts of Dorchester — end up with very very few licenses.
3. Chain restaurants have a much easier time affording these licenses, over smaller businesses.
Since we know the most likely path to financial success for any restaurant is with a beer/wine and/or liquor license, and we know that a good restaurant in a low-income neighborhood can really be an anchor for community development for neighborhoods that are legitimately struggling or blighted, this is a critical issue for Boston.
Ayanna wrote and is advocating for a home rule petition to hand control of liquor licensing over to the municipalities, including the City of Boston. Rather than having to fight through state house committees, chairmen who could harbor a grudge and the like to get permission to increase licenses, it is logical that this decision be in the hands of the City.
The measure was widely hailed, and passed 12-1. Bill Linehan was the 1, and he says that those who paid top dollar for available licenses would have their businesses harmed if this passed. That would only be logical if the city suddenly dumped hundreds more liquor licenses into the city all at once, which would of course be foolish.
In effect, whether intentional or not, Linehan as President could block this measure from being heard again (which is a possibility), and would be denying communities of color access to a key ingredient to their ability to turn themselves around.
The Globe Editor also likes the idea.
Hope that helps.
…establishments that are primarily bars and those that are primarily restaurants? I recall we had a whole diary on this not too long ago and I said I did not understand why the licensing was not entirely in the hands of the municipality. However, in areas that are already “bad neighborhoods” I’m not sure greater availability of alcohol (at least in what I think of as a bar setting) would be appropriate.
If people want cheap alcohol, they can go to a liquor store. Those are easy to find. Having a bar or restaurant doesn’t increase availability in any meaningful way. It creates a cultural icon and anchor spot for public gathering.
I’m not so knowledgeable on the topic to understand if there’s a difference between a bar or restaurant license, though I know there are beer and wine licenses and full liquor licenses.
I also don’t think the act of telling a neighborhood they shouldn’t get a license should be up to the state, where high-priced chain restaurant lobbies can influence state senators to artificially prop up the value of their back bay licenses and keep competition down. It should be up to the cities that are most directly involved, impacted, and interested.
It should be for the city to decide rather than the state.
But how is that “a pretty good out”? It passed 12-1 and it’s not like his position on this was unknown before. Back on October 8, in this video (6:25 to 7:50), Linehan noted the benefits of expanding licenses (create a hospitality enclave that spurred further neighborhood development), but expressed concern that people who paid $350K and up for a license would lose out if the resale market collapsed due to expanded availability. Essentially the same point he made to the Globe when he voted no.
Seems to me that, had Wu cited this as a reason to switch her vote (“I’m shocked, shocked, that Bill Linehan takes this stance”), it would have been the most transparent of pretexts.
Everything about this idea makes sense.
She has been a terrific leader for our city.
That seems to be the thesis.
Can anyone back it up with facts other than Linehan = Bad?
No one has been able to cite a cause that she advanced, legislation she got passed, or any other thing of note that makes her the best candidate for Council President that doesn’t involve identity politics.
I can’t list a council accomplishment, because I don’t really follow the council, but essentially Ayanna is a young leader with guts. She made an early decision to focus on teen sexuality, particularly violence against girls. WBUR did a segment on it, and you could practically hear the discomfort in the room as she brought it up.
Best candidate? I don’t know. But change is good, and Ayanna represents a changing Boston.
Generally, city councilors don’t get as much chance to advance impactful legislation as one would in the state house or Congress, in large part because of the home rule status of municipalities here.
That said, she did push the liquor license issue, which was impressive. She was a major advocate around sex education in public schools, even ending up on CNN as a result of her work. She has been a champion on issues affecting women and girls, including raising the issue of rape on college campuses, even citing her own experience in the process. She’s been a great advocate on behalf of low-income communities as well, focussed on violence in Boston neighborhoods, and working on issues of poverty.
The Globe wrote:
I hope that’s at least partially satisfying what you seem to be asking. For those of us who have been watching the Boston City Council for many years, she’s been a force.
And yes, as disclosure, I volunteered with her campaign the last two cycles.