Holyoke City Council Ignores Voters -- Appoints Their Own Candidate

Earlier this evening, the Holyoke City Council selected a replacement for Councilor Jennifer Chateauneuf, who resigned last month.  As you know, Councilors are exclusively elected by the voters to represent them, but tonight the City Council decided to put their own individual wishes ahead of the voters' wishes.  In fact, 8 of the Councilors entirely ignored the voters' wishes.  That should raise an alarm for every single Holyoke resident.

Mimi Panitch, who placed 9th in a field of 16 (the first 8 being elected), was the next-highest vote-getter in the recent November election and would normally have been in line for the vacated position.  3,000 Holyoke residents chose her as the first runner-up in November but, tonight, 8 of the 13 Councilors present refused to cast even one single vote for her.  Instead, they decided to play "politics" -- ultimately appointing a former colleague who wasn't even on the November ballot.  Ironically, it is some of those same Councilors who will be the first to decry the playing of politics by others. 

I (and others) had intended to make public comments at the start of the meeting, which is customary, but for some reason Council President, Kevin Jourdain, instead recommended that the Council alter their schedule and take up the vote first -- preventing public comment until after the voting had been completed.

Unable to speak as I intended until after the vote, I had to change my words to past tense, but they were just as sharply pointed as they would have been had I been allowed to speak ahead of the vote.  This is, essentially, what I said to the City Council at the conclusion of the vote:

"The Council has conducted the process of replacing Jennifer Chateauneuf as if this is a hired position.  This is NOT a hired position.  Not one of you is hired.  Every one of you has been chosen by the voters, and ONLY by the voters.

Only the voters get to decide who they want to represent them. 

How is it, then, that some of you decided to usurp that authority, in an attempt to appoint your friends or political allies to this Council?  The voters have already told you who their pick is, but some of you chose to play "politics", instead.  Voters didn't elect you so you can replace their choices, with yours.  The Council's job tonight wasn't to pick and choose ... it was to ensure that the will of the voters, in choosing their representatives, was followed.  You failed.  And you failed deliberately.

You don't get to dismiss the election results simply because they don't jibe with your own politics.  You don't have that right.

Sure, you may have established a rule that says you can ignore the voters' wishes, but you take that step at the risk of diminishing the credibility of this entire body.  Was it worth it?

There were two ways you could have gotten this right tonight:

            1) Either go by the November election results

            2) or hold a special election

Instead, you decided to play "politics". 

Shame on every one of you who acted on the belief that your vote outranks the votes of thousands of Holyoke voters."

Footnote:  the 8 Councilors who completely ignored the voters' wishes, refusing to cast even one single vote for Mimi Panitch were:  David Bartley;  Dan Bresnahan;  Howard Greaney;  Kevin Jourdain;  Todd McGee;  Joe McGiverin;  Nelson Roman;  and Linda Vacon. 

For the record it should be mentioned that Councilor Peter Tallman voted for Mimi Panitch, the next-highest vote-getter, on every one of the 13 ballots and Michael Sullivan voted for her on the first 11 ballots.  Gladys Lebron-Martinez and Rebecca Lisi voted for her on 7 ballots and Jossie Valentin on 6.

What You May Not Know About Holyoke's 5 Ballot Questions

There are 5 questions on Tuesday's ballot, 4 of which are binding. 

In one way or another, every question is about representation and accountability.  Following is how we are voting on each question, and why.

QUESTION #1:  NO

The backers of this ballot question are asking voters to reduce the number of At-Large Councilors from 8 to 6, touting a savings of $20,000 as one of their primary reasons to shrink the Council.  On the surface that may sound reasonable, but what they don't say is that $20,000 is only a savings of 50 cents per resident.  

The backers' attempt to misdirect voters into focusing on savings instead of focusing on the effect of the proposed reduction, is troubling.  There is a reason our forefathers structured the City Council the way they did.  Fewer At-Large Councilors means less ability for voters in all Wards to be able to hold the Council accountable for their actions.  To cite 2 recent examples of how changing the balance (8 At-Large vs. 7 Ward councilors) affects residents in different parts of the city, imagine what the outcome might have been in Ward 5 and Ward 7, with Walmart and a casino, if voters in those Wards didn't have the ability to hold 8 At-Large Councilors accountable for their actions?

This is a question of representation and accountability.  Not one of cost.  If backers want to reduce the size of the Council by 2, they should reduce the Ward representation by 1 seat, and the At-Large representation by 1 seat, in order to keep the balance as it was meant to be, maintaining accountability citywide. 

Preserve your ability to hold the City Council accountable for their actions.

Vote NO on Question 1.

QUESTION #2:  NO

The backers of this question want to extend the Mayor's term to 4 years, beginning in 2017.  The problem with this proposal is that citizens need to have a mechanism by which they can hold their elected representatives accountable for their actions, especially on a local level where decisions have a far greater, and more immediate, impact on our daily lives.  4 Years is too long a window to go without the checks and balances an election brings.  Responsive and accountable Mayors will be re-elected.  Bad ones won't.  As it should be.

Vote NO on Question 2.

 

QUESTION #3:  NO

The backers of this question want to extend the City Council's term to 4 years, beginning in 2017.  The problem with this proposal, as with question 2 above, is that citizens need to have a mechanism by which they can hold their elected representatives accountable for their actions, especially on a local level where decisions have a far greater, and more immediate, impact on our daily lives.  4 Years is too long a window to go without the checks and balances an election brings.  Responsive and accountable Councilors will be re-elected.  Bad ones won't.  As it should be.

Vote NO on Question 3.

 

 QUESTION #4:  YES

The backers of this question want to merge the City Treasurer position with the Tax Collector position and change the City Treasurer from an elected position, to one which is appointed by the City Council.  Our opinion is that the City Treasurer should be chosen based on his/her qualifications, experience and proven ability to do the job well -- not on his/her popularity or ability to raise campaign money.

To get the most qualified Treasurer, change it from an elected to an appointed position.

Vote YES on Question 4.

 

QUESTION #5:  NO  (non-binding)

The backers of this question want to replace the elected position of Mayor with a City Council-appointed position of City Manager.  In this case, the City Manager would be accountable only to the Councilors, not to the voters.  The major problem with this proposal is that it removes the ability of the voters to directly hold Holyoke's highest ranking official accountable for his/her actions by placing a buffer (the City Council) between the voters and the Mayor/Manager. 

Vote NO on Question 5.

 

PLEASE SHARE

 

 

A Special Message for Everyone Who Hates Alex Morse . . .

 

.  .  .  but can't stomach the idea of voting for Fran O'Connell because of his misogynistic attitude towards women.*

 

"Blank Vote"

Blank voting means to not vote for either mayoral candidate.  

In essence, "neither of the above".

 

*I get that some voters don't like Alex, but how can anyone reconcile voting for Fran O'Connell when he still thinks it's okay to belittle and sexually objectify women? 

Fran O'Connell not only made inexcusably misogynistic comments about a respected city employee (Google 'Fran O'Connell misogyny'), he then blamed and tried to discredit the woman who reported the incident.  And, to this day, he still refuses to apologize.

Given his unrepentant attitude toward women, how can he seriously be considered to lead ANY community, let alone a city of 40,000 people, half of whom are women?   

It's okay to be unhappy with Alex, but please think twice about the message it would send to every resident of Holyoke -- and to every resident in the State - to elect a man who shows complete disregard for women.  That's not moving forward.  That's moving back to the dark ages.

If you can't justify voting for Alex, please consider "blank voting" for mayor.  Let's not make Holyoke the laughingstock of the Commonwealth. 

 

 

NOTE:  before the conspiracy theorists start buzzing - NO, the Morse campaign did not put me up to this.  They are reading this at the same time you are.

Holyoke's $34 Million Dollar Boondoggle

Why spending $34 million dollars to renovate the Lyman Terrace housing project is bad for Holyoke; bad for homeowners; and bad for businesses

 

The City of Holyoke is about to embark on a $34 million dollar, taxpayer-funded renovation of 156 apartments at Lyman Terrace – a subsidized, low-income housing project in the heart of Holyoke's downtown revitalization district.  This excessively lavish expenditure of taxpayer money is bad for Holyoke, bad for Holyoke's homeowners and bad for Holyoke's businesses.  Here's why:

1. It's Way Too Expensive 
$34 million dollars comes down to paying $218,000 to renovate (not build) each tiny, 800 square foot apartment.  To put that into perspective, that would be the equivalent of you spending over $650,000 to renovate your existing 2,400 square foot home.  Furthermore, $34 million dollars could buy 156 median-priced Holyoke homes outright, and still leave an additional $50,000 to renovate each one of them.  

BOTTOM LINE:  This is an extravagant use of taxpayer money which only government bureaucrats would celebrate.


2. It's the Wrong Location, and it Undermines Nearby Revitalization Efforts
Given Lyman Terrace's key location in the middle of nearby revitalization efforts, replacing the existing low-income housing project with a "newly improved" low-income housing project is damaging and counterproductive.  Not only does it concentrate poverty in the heart of Holyoke's revitalization district, but low income housing projects notoriously attract higher rates of crime making it incompatible with the significant improvements and investments which have already been made nearby.

Instead, establishing market rate housing at Lyman Terrace would be a far more compatible use for that location and would complement, rather than hinder, other recent investments. 

BOTTOM LINE:  Placing a low-income housing project in the heart of revitalization does more harm in the long-term and becomes one more obstacle toward the goal of successful downtown revitalization.


3. Holyoke's 31.7% Poverty Rate is Unsustainable and Significantly Reduces Property Values 
At nearly 3 times the State average, Holyoke's 31.7% poverty rate is not only the highest in Massachusetts, it's amongst the highest in the entire U.S.  And it is simply not sustainable.

This massive concentration of poverty in Holyoke places a disproportionate burden on every homeowner and business owner.  It has depressed our housing prices, costing Holyoke homeowners tens of thousands of dollars in their home's value.  It's resulted in higher crime rates.  It's overburdened our schools.  And it's kept businesses from coming here. 

Holyoke didn't create poverty and it's not Holyoke's sole responsibility to solve it for the region or the State.  After spending hundreds of millions of dollars, and after decades of trying, it should be clear that we can't "social service" our way out of poverty.  Fairness says this burden needs to be shared or equalized with other nearby communities.   

Though perhaps unpopular in some circles, we need to consider transitioning some of Holyoke's poverty-based housing into tax-contributing, market rate housing.  If we ever hope to see Holyoke revitalized we, as a community, must be willing to wean ourselves off our poverty industry.  And we need to begin now. 

BOTTOM LINE:  We must end Holyoke's addiction to its poverty economy before it ends us.


4. Holyoke's Highest-in-the-State Commercial Tax Rate Chokes off Business Development
At an eye-popping $39.93 per thousand, Holyoke has the highest commercial property tax rate in the entire State – more than double the State's median rate.  Needless to say, this exorbitant tax rate scares off all but the bravest developers and investors, the effects of which can be seen in the painfully slow rate of commercial development here.  But the underlying problem isn't just one of a high tax rate.  It's one of low property values.

It's been shown that concentrated areas of high poverty result in decreased property values.  That, in turn, raises property tax rates.  To illustrate the effect of property values on tax rates, consider this example: 

Let's say your home is currently appraised at $200,000 and the tax rate is $20 per thousand, meaning your share of property taxes is $4,000 a year (200 x $20).  Now, let's imagine that tomorrow your home is suddenly worth $400,000.  Same home.  Same city.  Higher value.  In order for the city to net the same $4,000 tax revenue, they only need to tax your (more valuable) home at a rate of $10 per thousand (400 x $10).  In this example, you can see how the doubling of your home VALUE (from $200,000 to $400,000) results in a halving of the tax RATE (from $20 to $10) while netting the city the exact same amount of revenue. 

The importance of this example is to show that, if Holyoke's property values weren't so depressed from the extreme poverty here, our homes and businesses would be worth more and our tax RATE would be lower – making Holyoke far more competitive and attractive to business investment.  Higher values help everyone, but Holyoke's high rate of poverty depresses property values making it virtually impossible to lower tax rates and attract new business. 

BOTTOM LINE:  As long as Holyoke keeps welcoming more and more poverty to the city, Holyoke property values will remain depressed and tax rates will remain too high to attract meaningful commercial investment.


5. Lyman Terrace's Owners Pay Few Taxes, Shifting the Burden onto Homeowners and Businesses
At current assessments, the Holyoke Housing Authority, owner of Lyman Terrace, has yearly tax liabilities of approximately $600,000, yet pays just $11,000 in taxes.  The remaining $589,000 gets shifted onto homeowners and businesses.

And it's not that HHA and its residents don't utilize and depend upon city services – they do.  But the costs of providing those services currently gets shifted onto other taxpayers.  This is despite the fact that areas of concentrated poverty, like Lyman Terrace, place a disproportionately heavy burden on city services such as police, fire, ambulance and our school system. 

BOTTOM LINE:  This shifting of tax responsibility isn't fair and the Holyoke Housing Authority needs to help the City by paying its fair share of taxes to support the services its tenants use, just like other landlords. 


CONCLUSION:  Holyoke's inability to attract significant commercial development is due, in part, to our astronomically high tax rates . . . which are the result of our low property values . . . which are caused by our extremely high poverty rates.  This is an interconnected problem and we will never be able to solve one, unless we are willing to solve the others, too.

So, the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about is the fact that we have way more poverty than we can assimilate and policies that seem to revolve around retaining or attracting more of it.  Spending $34 million of taxpayer dollars on Lyman Terrace doesn't help solve Holyoke's poverty problem.  It perpetuates it.  And it does so at the expense of every Holyoke homeowner and business owner for decades to come.

While we have an absolute moral obligation to help others who are less fortunate, no city can absorb the extended costs associated with a 31.7% poverty rate and expect to make a recovery – not even Holyoke.  This burden needs to be shared with other local communities.  Holyoke must wean itself off its addiction to its poverty-based economy, and the Lyman Terrace property – for all the reasons mentioned – is the logical starting point for this transition to begin.  If we really want to be able to help Holyoke's poor, we must help Holyoke first.  There is no other way.


John Epstein