Update: I survived. Another three years of meetings! Woot! – CB
Dear readers: Please indulge this instance of self-promotion. Hopefully it will only happen once every three years. – Charley
Vote April 10, 8am-8pm
Hardy School or early by mail
I became a member of Arlington Town Meeting in 2020, taking over the last year of a vacated seat. I’m now running for a full three-year term. I’m asking for your vote on April 10; you can vote by mail, or on 4/10 at the Hardy School.
I am a classical singer and voice teacher, and have taught voice at Tufts University since 2005 and Harvard University’s Holden Voice Program since 2002. I have degrees from Oberlin College and Indiana University. I’m switching careers to fight the climate crisis full-time; and I’m now in a mid-career Masters program at Tufts University’s Urban and Environmental Policy program, with a wonderful cohort and faculty.
I’m an Arlington school parent. My kids, 15 and 12, are Bishop School grads, currently at AHS and Ottoson respectively, and dealing with the COVID era of education with great resilience and grace. Around town under normal circumstances, you can find my wife and me at our kids’ orchestra concerts or baseball games (go ‘Stros!).
Since 2004 I’ve been the co-editor of Blue Mass. Group, the leading progressive political blog in Massachusetts, writing about issues such as transit, environment, policing reform, and a special focus on climate change.
I was inspired to run for Town Meeting mostly to support housing affordability and sustainable transit, particularly bicycling.
In last fall’s Town Meeting, I was very pleased to be able to vote for the following:
- Article 4, where we essentially nullified time-of-day restrictions on use of the bike path;
- Article 5, a home rule petition to the legislature that would allow Arlington to ban fossil fuel infrastructure for new construction;
- Article 6, establishing an independent police civilian review board study committee;
- Article 8, establishing an Affordable Housing Trust Fund for Arlington;
- Article 13, for Ranked Choice Voting in Arlington.
I voted to keep the Black Lives Matter banner up at Town Hall (Article 25); though I think the town would do even better to implement policies that address the legacy and present ill effects of racism, especially in housing. And instead of a banner, we could perhaps establish a more permanent public expression of purpose and solidarity with black lives.
This coming meeting, if I’m re-elected, I’m looking forward to voting for:
- Article 12: Designating an Indigenous People’s Day (replacing Columbus Day)
- Article 13: Designating Juneteenth as a holiday
- Article 23: Authorizing a study for an Affordable Housing overlay, an intriguing idea that Cambridge has approved.
- Article 43: To allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs, also known as “granny flats” or “in-law apartments”). This would allow the construction by right of small apartments attached to a larger house, with a separate entryway. This would add to the variety of housing options in town, especially for elders who are downsizing; young adults; divorcées; widows/widowers; etc.
Regarding Article 21:
To see if the Town will vote a warrant seeking to earmark a majority percentage of municipal funds allocated for affordable housing for those households/individuals making at or under 60% AMI [Area Median Income]; or take any action related thereto.
I think the intent behind this article is good; 80% of Area Median Income is still a pretty high income, and housing money needs to be targeted to those with need. But I am concerned that a simple mandate without an additional funding mechanism won’t result in any new housing. It seems to me that a more comprehensive approach is necessary if we want to get actual roofs over actual heads. Without that extra funding mechanism, I suspect Article 21, in a way, isn’t ambitious enough.
I have similar hesitation about Article 45, which would:
increase the percentage of affordable housing units required in any development subject to Section 8.2 of the Zoning Bylaw from 15% to a percentage between 25 and 30%.
Again, I don’t think that simply passing a mandate, without a mechanism, is going to do what we want it to do.
I want to hear advice from people who have worked in the affordable housing arena, and see what they think of Articles 21 and 45. I’m grateful, for example, for the advice of Pamela Hallett of the Housing Corporation of Arlington, which does terrific work; and Karen Kelleher of LISC, an Arlingtonian of long experience in developing affordable housing. They have been generous in sharing their expertise with Town Meeting and the ARB.
I need to be convinced that Articles 21 and 45 are likely to have their intended effect.
Housing affordability is a “wicked problem”, one that is regional, even international, in origin. Arlington has become a “victim of its own success”, in its easy proximity to very profitable employers paying high wages, particularly (though not limited to) Kendall Square and the 128 belt. This, plus a high quality of life in our town, has driven up housing costs to an eye-watering extent. It’s kind of unfair that every municipality is left to sort out how to deal with the local effects of global economic forces.
I’m wary of over-confident answers to the question of affordability. There is an argument that new market-rate housing is necessary. There are also arguments that new market-rate housing actually drives up the cost of housing; and that only new specifically-designated affordable housing should be allowed. And then some folks don’t want anything at all built for reasons of “preserving neighborhood character”.
I’ll address the latter argument first: If we don’t tailor our housing approach to affordability and sustainability, that does not mean that Arlington “stays the same”. In the last generation, this entire region has been re-mapped by income inequality. As the economist Ed Glaeser quipped some 15 years ago, we risk becoming — or perhaps already have become — a “boutique community for educated elites”. That doesn’t sit well with me. I feel that we should be open, available, and welcoming to all income groups, backgrounds, races, and professions.
Sustainability is tied in with these discussions as well. Nothing is more radical than climate change. Multi-family dwellings are simply much more energy efficient; and if we care about climate change (I can’t imagine why one wouldn’t), that means we must prioritize access to sustainable transit: Public transit, walking, and — my favorite — bicycling. (See “Building the Cycling City” for wonderful case studies from the Netherlands.)
I note with interest this recent literature review from the Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies at UCLA. The answers are not a slam-dunk, but there are some patterns to discern:
Key Takeaways:
Researchers have long known that building new market-rate housing helps stabilize housing prices at the metro area level, but until recently it hasn’t been possible to empirically determine the impact of market-rate development on buildings in their immediate vicinity. The question of neighborhood-level impacts of market-rate development has been hotly debated but under-studied.
Taking advantage of improved data sources and methods, researchers in the past two years have released six working papers on the impact of new market-rate development on neighborhood rents. Five find that market-rate housing makes nearby housing more affordable across the income distribution of rental units, and one finds mixed results.
These findings point to local benefits from market-rate development, but they should not be interpreted as an endorsement of market-rate development regardless of the project or neighborhood context. Housing production should still be prioritized in higher-resource communities where the risk of displacement and other potential harms is lower, and complementary policies such as tenant protections and direct public investments remain essential. Nonetheless, the neighborhood-level benefits of market-rate development are promising and indicate an important role for both market and non-market solutions to the housing crisis.
Research Roundup: The Effect of Market-Rate Development on Neighborhood Rents
Shane Phillips, Michael Manville, Michael Lens
So here’s what this seems to suggest: The laws of supply and demand do exist. On a regional level (Greater Boston), we do need to build more housing. As a “high-resource community”, Arlington should do its part — as should Lexington, Winchester, Belmont, Concord, Lincoln, etc. However, the acute effects in any given neighborhood of market-rate development are unknown. So building affordable housing, with renter protections, is also necessary. And indeed, in larger developments, market-rate housing can cross-subsidize affordable units. It’s Both/And, not Either/Or.
But act we must, with creativity, and an awareness of the big picture. As Jarred Johnson of TransitMatters says:
Local control with no recognition of the interconnected nature of housing fails poor people and people of color. Full stop. Massachusetts’ ridiculous housing costs are a blight on the [Commonwealth].
@jarjoh on Twitter
Good luck! My one disagreement I think is with Article 12.
Uprated for the good luck. While my parents got married at the Arlington Sons of Italy, I think it’s high time Italian Americans (and American Catholics) look to someone else as a founding icon. We also need to give the original Americans their due. While it’ll probably be a cold day in hell before Revere pursues it, in the four years I’ve run my Columbus debate I’ve seen the student body shift in their viewpoints on this in a profound way. To the point where I now end up playing devils advocate on Columbus’ behalf because it has become such a “tight case”. So I commend Charley for a stance that may seem commonplace in Cambridge, but is still a brave stance to take in Arlington.
JC, the Select board endorsed this unanimously. So maybe not so brave as you think, though still right for us.
Fair enough. My ma’s friends and relatives still living in Arlington are fairly Trumpy, so I wasn’t sure if it was totally the Western Peoples Republik of Cambridge yet. I doubt they vote in local elections though so I guess the select board is safe.
I suspect they are in the distinct minority. According to the town website Biden carried Arlington 82%-15% and Clinton 76%-17%.
Ma go into an argument over the phone with one of them about Trump, but I consoled her that at least they are wasting those votes in Massachusetts. Our cousin up in NH is more dangerous (although Jan 6 has moved him back to anybody but Trump for 24’).
People started cancelling Columbus before cancelling was cool. He’s no saint (though there is some question as to whether the worst parts of his reputation were cooked up by detractors), but October 12, 1492 is one of those dates (like July 4, 1776) that everyone should know. They should know it because CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS (and his crew) first landed in the New World. If you believe as I do that history is about how we got here this is a big one. He did not “discover America”. He wasn’t even the first European and he died believing he had gotten to the Indies. However, his voyages kicked off an age of European exploration and colonization that led to the current polities in this hemisphere all of which speak European languages. I think he should be part of world or Western history rather than US since he did not ever set foot on our mainland. I think our history should begin with the Native peoples on their own terms and address Europeans once they actually get here. We should focus on Native American Heritage Month to highlight their contributions and of course make sure they are treated fairly today. I hate relitigating the past, however, and don’t understand why we constantly have to apologize for something that happened centuries ago. Migration and conquest have been part of human history forever. I’m not aware of Norman-descended Brits wringing their hands over stealing Saxon land, or for that matter Saxon-descended Brits doing likewise relative to the Celts. The shift you have seen is the result IMO of weaponized and unnuanced history.
You can learn about a guy without honoring him with a holiday. I still teach an entire unit about the Columbian Exchange and it’s a real debate about whether we’d all be here and alive if he hadn’t made that voyage. And perhaps it’s inevitable some other guy would’ve made a similar voyage and committed the same atrocities. I even show a pro-Columbus video from the Heritage Foundation that rightly rips Zinn for making the Arawak out to be passive victims of white supremacy when they definitely had agency and fought back.
There’s a great Atlantic article on the origins of the holiday that delves into how it’s creation was originally a reaction against late 19th century white Protestant supremacy. I teach all sides and let the kids debate each other without injecting my opinion. We got about 10 more years of the nonnis in Eastie and Revere going to the parade and then I predict it dies out. Especially as more Dominicans and Central Americans move here and share their own perspective about Columbus and it’s very different from ours.
I’m with you 100% on the curriculum, but I’m against the holiday. We absolutely should teach about the Confederacy and we can do that without flying the flag of treason against the government on government property or naming army bases after generals who literally fought (and LOST to) the army.
I too am all for teaching all sides and would recommend a documentary on Columbus on the History Vault website (a subscription service of the History Channel, but actually has a lot of historical content unlike the channel). I do like holidays as a way to keep certain things in the public consciousness in a way they would not be otherwise. Same reason I have previously defended Bunker Hill Day and Evacuation Day on this forum. October 12th is the anniversary of an event rather than the man’s birthday, the latter of which would feel like celebrating the totality of his character. It is what John Adams would probably call “an epoch of history” and the world changed on that date in a way few other dates have. It is the day that the Nina, the Pinta, and the Get-me-the-hell-out-of-here (Let me know if you get that reference!) landed in Hispaniola and Columbus is the guy who did it.
Don’t want to hijack the thread too much, but I see both sides to the base naming issue. Naming after traitors does seem a bit odd, but I also favor reconciliation. Precisely because they lost they remain our fellow Americans and many had non-Civil War military legacies too. As a Boy Scout who a couple of times attended a National Jamboree I have a particular soft spot for Fort A. P. Hill in Virginia where that event was held for many years.
I must say History Channel online reminds me of the History Channel I grew up on. It’s got a lot of great resources and I first learned about the dark side of Columbus on a Kids News bit for Nickelodeon. I’d take either over nonstop Pawnstar and Picker marathons (although I’ll admit they’re guilty pleasures to watch with my dad).
I’m fine with bases named for James Longstreet or Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar. Both were Confederates who fully committed to reconciliation AND reconstruction. The reason you don’t see any monuments to them is precisely because the bases were named after and for unreconstructed southerners who perpetuated Jim Crow and the Lost Cause. I’ve probably linked to the Lynn GAR (a wonderful and endangered building) letter from 1891 calling for no confederate flags on confederate graves. They died as Americans and reconciliation means they are allowed to be buried under the lawful flag of the US.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/08/23/opinions/where-are-monuments-to-confederate-general-longstreet-opinion-holmes/index.html
https://garlynn.org/
Go Charlie!
Your post illustrates one of my takeaways from a lifetime of engagement with local government (since undergrad days, when I was elected to the Town Meeting in Amherst).
Namely, “It’s not what you think.”
Local government, which is a 100% subdivision of the Commonwealth, is constrained by state laws and by markets that create counterintuitive outcomes.
Oh yes indeed.
It was during my brief service as elected town meeting member in Billerica (in the mid 1980s) that I learned about the reality of local politics and town meeting.
Mitch McConnell’s tactics remind me of some of the tricks I first saw in those days.
For example, the “Streetlight Repair” gambit used to push through a different expensive, corrupt, and wildly unpopular measure.
Heh — Article 43 (ADUs) reminded me of a perhaps interesting story of how I became a Billerica town meeting member way back in the 1980s.
At the time, my first wife and I owned a Victorian that we had renovated. At the time we bought the property, it already included an illegal “in-law” apartment built into the attached barn. That was our first house, and we were very concerned that the legal status of the apartment would jeopardize our purchase. We also needed the (illegal) income. One of the reasons it was illegal is that it had a complete kitchen, complete bathroom with shower, and separate entrance. None of that was ever permitted, approved, appraised, or taxed.
The upshot of that story was that nobody cared at all. The town didn’t care, the bank didn’t care, the seller certainly didn’t care, nobody. I was told that as new owners, we had no exposure at all. The construction apparently predated the then-extant zoning laws and was therefore grand-fathered in. Billerica at that time was, shall we say, not rigorous in its enforcement of codes, permits, zoning, or anything similar.
I tell all this because we let the existing tenant stay in the apartment at the rent he was already paying for as long as he wanted. I don’t think we ever had a lease (I don’t remember one). He stayed for at least a few years, always paid his rent on time, and never made any noise. He was a great tenant.
That tenant, who shall remain nameless here, also happened to be the long-time moderator of the Billerica town meeting. For those who don’t know, having the moderator on your side can be VERY advantageous for anyone hoping to promote a particular article or articles. Our tenant was very well known among local activists, and most people actually liked him.
It was our tenant who let me know of the upcoming vacancy that I ended up running for and winning. He strongly encouraged me to run, and said that the town needed “people like [me]” in town meeting.
The irony of having a relatively powerful local political figure living in an illegal apartment in town for YEARS was not lost on me.
I’ll add to the chorus that we need more thoughtful people like you in local government. I would even argue you’d be a great fit for the statehouse. I think it’s also good to see a relative “newcomer” to Arlington appreciate that the changes to Arlington need to be managed and made sustainable.
It’s not enough to be a more suburban (and whiter) version of Cambridge, Arlington needs to be affordable again in a way that allows long time residents to age in place and first time home buyers like yours truly a mixed use walkable community to buy into. My grandfather took the 77 at the crack of dawn from his Oakland Ave house to his Rindge Ave sub shop every morning long before it was hip to go carless to work. So I think he’d be happy to hang a sign for you if he were still here.
Good luck in the race. I can’t vote for you, but I appreciate the full explanation of your views and history. It should be required of every candidate.
As far as Columbus goes, yes he was a product of his times, of monarchy and cruelty and class division, and a significant amount of scientific ignorance. But we should give him his due in regard to courage. Because while we seem to advanced in many ways, courage seems to be lacking in America. People are afraid of the MCAS test, brown-skinned children at the border, socialism and each other. We are a nation overrun by fear, unable to explore, solve problems, take chances and think anew. Columbus, in contrast, had a vision to explore the world, rejected the idea that it was flat, and persisted until successful. Like all of us, he had some great qualities and some not so great qualities, and as always, we must separate the wheat from the chaff, and not engage in false equivalency. He need not be at the extremes of superhero or supervillian, but just a man of his times. We stand on the shoulders of the past, and every generation must take the good and reject the bad of our forefathers.
Congratulations, Charlie!
Thank you! That was … close. And weird.