Deval's Economic Development

Good news.

Governor Deval Patrick’s administration will spend hundreds of millions of dollars this summer building roads and highway ramps for at least five struggling private developments - from the former Naval air station in Weymouth to Somerville’s Assembly Square - in hopes of jump-starting construction and the local economy.

The money, a combination of federal stimulus money and state funds, will not go directly to the private developers, but rather for public works that Patrick aides said they expect will make it easier for companies to arrange financing in otherwise tight credit markets. That, in turn, would kick off construction of the planned office parks, shopping centers, housing, and hotels that will create new jobs.

The better news is just where these projects are proposed -- these are places ripe for job growth, many of which have a particular need for good jobs.

Although more projects may be chosen later, the ones already approved include not only SouthField in Weymouth and Assembly Square, but a new business park in Fall River that will recruit biotech companies, the Westwood Station project, and Waterfront Square at Revere Beach.

I'm particularly excited about the Fall River and Revere projects. Revere's project will be right across the street from Wonderland. There's a Blue Line station right there and plenty of further development opportunity, quite likely in Wonderland itself (it is closing, after all), which may be spurned on by these investments. Fall River is just an economically depressed city - the family median income is around $25k. It needs those jobs desperately. The thing about Fall River (and New Bedford) that makes it a great place for entrepreneurs is that the property there is dirt cheap - way cheaper than the rest of the Massachusetts, cheaper than the Tri City area in NC that's been siphoning off some biotech jobs. It's also close enough to the Boston area that it still has access to recruiting the top talent in the US for biotech or other high-tech jobs, not to mention a great university next door (UMASS Dartmouth), as well as plenty of Universities in Rhode Island, in and near Providence.

Here's hoping two years from now we can see tangible results from these major economic developments. It's just a start, but it's an illustration of the fact that Deval Patrick and his administration are serious about making sure the economic success that Boston's enjoyed over the years will finally be distributed throughout the state, in all our gateway and former mill cities that have been struggling for decades.

Top Story?

The Standard Times in New Bedford clearly had a really slow newsday, pushing a summary of upcoming fall Broadway shows in NYC as one of its "top stories."

On a high note, though, the paper almost made me cry: Shrek is becoming a musical.

More with the Casino Plans, Sheesh

Now, we don't just have one potential new site reported today, but a second in the New Bedford Standard times - an actual design for a 'revitalized waterfront' in New Bedford aka 'let's build a casino' plan.

Again, these people can propose all the designs or sites they like, but Class 3 gambling is illegal in Massachusetts. That fact's not likely to change any time soon, either. So I think I'm going to go back in my backyard and start dreaming plans for Ryan's Outdoor Paradise and all the slots I'll be able to fit in between my patio and chimenella. It's about as likely to happen as "Revere's Landing," the name of the casino these developers would like to build on historic New Bedford harbor.

Professor Barrow Wasting UMASS Resources

Who thinks a known casino supporter should be using university funds to pay for polls of his pet projects, especially when its something the private sector would likely fund anyway. That's exactly what Clyde Barrow did in his recent poll of New Bedford citizens, to test whether they'd want a casino in the city. Now, no one should question the importance of university professors researching their own interests when there's some kind of academic or scientific merit, or little purpose for the private sector to get involved - but it's been made obvious again and again that Clyde Barrow an unbiased observer when it comes to casinos in Massachusetts. Hence, his deep connections to the industry in the past. Most professors study things with an open mind, just trying to learn information before coming up with any serious conclusions. Clyde Barrow's more akin to the guy who knew the answer before the question, rarely ever considering any facts beyond how much money he thinks Massachusetts could make, using science others consider flawed to come up with those numbers in the first place.

Seriously, though, where's the Scientific Method? Was the fact that casinos are Bay State bliss ever in doubt with Mr. Barrow? There would actually be no problem with that - if got his own little think tank and did his 'research' (you know, counting license plates) funded by the industry instead of the university, or even if he disclosed his conflicts of interest and appearances of such.

The bottom line: Barrow's doing no favors to the University, the city of New Bedford or the Commonwealth. There are plenty of other, much better uses for the resources of UMASS Dartmouth than propping up the casino industry, especially when there's almost no chance in hell of a casino opening in New Bedford, whether or not Massachusetts legalizes Class 3 gambling. Furthermore, university resources should fund projects that the private sector has little incentive to be involved in, or at least something that benefits the public health, not studies that the private sector is very capable of funding itself.

Wouldn't it be a much better use of university resources to study the effects of the black market (drugs) on New Bedford, an international leader in offloading heroin? Or, how about studying why the city suffers from some of the worst drop out rates in the state? Not important enough for UMASS? What about studying why family median income lags so far behind the rest of the state in New Bedford, even many of the other struggling cities across Massachusetts? Nah - not important enough. Clearly, we need to be doing the casino lobby's work for them! Now that's important!

Casinos: Beacon Hill's Easy Bake Oven

I was invited to speak to over a hundred people last night in New Bedford, explaining just why I think casinos are a terrible idea for Massachusetts. There were a number of other great speakers and the audience was terrific. I wrote in detail about the event here, along with what people can do to stop casinos from becoming a reality. However, during the last speaker of the night's presentation, given by CasinoFreeMassachusetts's spokeswoman Laura Everett, I was struck by the simple brilliance of one her chief points.

"We need to have an adult conversation here," she said.

It put together the last few remaining pieces to the casino puzzle for me. Casinos are nothing but a gimmick. They won't fix any of our revenue problems. They're a distraction from the real, far more difficult issues out there. It's a flashy, new toy for the state's politicians to keep them busy from doing their real work, like finding a way to control health care costs in this state (you know, the thing that's driving cities and towns bankrupt). For evidence, Massachusetts has lower taxes than New Jersey, Connecticut and many other states with casinos. So much for the panacea some claim them to be.

In fact, not only are casinos a gimmicky toy, they're the political version of an easy-bake oven.

"Hey, Mommy Constituents, look at me help you cook dinner for us," said the honorable Therese Murray, "all I have to do is put the casino issue in the little box, make sure it passes through the shiny lights inside, wait just a few minutes and it's done!"

Except, just like with Easy Bake Ovens, they're only toys. The food they make can't feed a family and the little they can provide is empty calories that tastes bland. Plus, what do you do when you run out of the boxed ingredients (aka once-a-decade licensing fees)? The Political Easy Bake Oven is fun and flashy for the first few minutes, but they grow old and tiresome later on. Sadly, they're also dangerous: they can cause fires and have been known to burn children in the past. Worse yet, because of the components, they can't just be thrown away after you're done with them. When you own an easy bake oven, you own it for good - even after it breaks and just ends up being a waste of space.

So there you all have it, folks. Casinos are like an easy-bake oven for politicians. Beacon Hill may love them, but they end up being an expensive waste of time for all the grown ups other citizens of Massachusetts in the long run, not to mention an ugly, pink eye sore.

Casino Questions for Governor Patrick

No fun pictures for this one, just some humble curiosity. Governor Patrick is right about casinos when he says "there is no obvious answer for the Commonwealth." He's also right to say that casinos aren't the end of civilization as we know it, but that's for one major reason only: areas surrounding the casinos will be hit the hardest, but they don't constitute a civilization - only small parts of it. Yet, just because casinos won't ruin all of Massachusetts, that doesn't mean we need to build one - or three, in this case, either. Casinos in Massachusetts are fuzzy and difficult to predict on whether they'll be mostly good or bad for this state, but even if they're good, they're not going to be great. So, why take the risk? I haven't heard Governor Patrick answer that one yet.

Sadly, there are other big questions that Deval Patrick hasn't answered. Why would anyone go to a bar to watch a big game when they can go to the casino, watch the game and bet on it, to boot? Heck, these resorts may even have free beer - just like they do in Foxwoods, according to my fan-of-the-foxy-casino elder sister. Casinos kill local businesses - just look at Atlanta, Las Vegas or any number of places. Their entire entertainment and leisure industry - from restaurants to clubs and bars, even to spas and shows - wrest around casinos (and usually in them). With a 'we don't need no local owners' mentality, we forget they're the ones who care about local areas - with kids in their schools and cars on their streets.

Meanwhile, resort casinos are drinks, foods, sporting events and malls all wrapped into one. The local economy doesn't even stand a chance. If people like to complain about the death of local downtowns and important nearby congregating areas, why, Governor Patrick, institute policies that will only further propagate their demise?

Of course, we haven't really heard the Governor answer questions about the social costs, either. Games are much more exciting when you have money riding on it, except of course when suddenly you've blown hundreds or even thousands of dollars. But don't worry, after you've blown away your savings, we'll have "best-in-the-nation" social programs for you (negating some of this vaunted added revenue). That way, after you've already blown away your kid's future, we'll get you some help. No harm, no foul. See why I'm so cynical?

Even if Governor Patrick is correct in that we'll have all these new, wonderful programs, how - Governor Patrick - will any of them actually prevent major devastation to families (who can least afford them) to begin with? When someone wastes away their life, they tend to take a lot of people with them. It's wonderful to cure the addiction, but not so much if the damage is already done. And then, after all of that, there will be three convenient and tempting targets for addicts to wrestle with for the rest of their lives - certainly not a recipe for success.

The biggest concern, for me, are local economies. Having lived in and studied places such as New Bedford and Lynn, I know quite a bit about the differences between having a flourishing local economy - and not. As recently as my mother's youth, Lynn prospered. Cities and towns like Salem, Saugus and Peabody weren't a part of Greater Boston, they were a part of Greater Lynn. They worked in its high-paying, Blue-Collar factories, shopped in its huge downtown and even went there for entertainment - restaurants, shops and shows. Now? Lynn's perpetually rebuilding, hoping to find the key to rekindling great things that may or may not ever happen again. In New Bedford, things are even more bleak. At the same time, blue collar jobs disappeared and America hasn't become a more inspiring place.

Governor Patrick, how will minimum-wage casino jobs and mega resorts with everything in one small place fix any of these problems? Isn't it even more likely, as casinos gut local economies, that many of the Commonwealth's problems will only get worse? Then again, maybe I only think local economies are the bigger concern because I'm not close to anyone who's been addicted to gambling and dragged their entire family down with them. Is Governor Patrick?

UMASS Casino Study Neglects to Mention...

Professor Barrow, of UMASS Dartmouth, has come out with a study that suggests Massachusetts would be best served - in generating income revenue - by allowing three casinos in the state, two of which would be operated by native tribes. Huh? Maybe Professor Barrow should read my blog, where I've repeated the very basic and simple fact that Massachusetts has almost no control over the volume of casinos built in this state: either we allow no casinos with slot machines, or the federally-recognized tribes in this state will have no real restrictions against the number they'd build.

Furthermore, the study goes on to suggest that the best locations for casinos in Massachusetts would be Boston, New Bedford and Springfield, yet tribes have no reason to be compelled into building them in any one particular area. I'd find it hard not to believe that the tribe from Martha's Vineyard wouldn't want to take advantage of the summer tourism (and attract a wholly new clientele) by building a casino on the island, perhaps in addition to building one in the Springfield or Boston area.

I rarely agree with the pro-casino side, but here's one quote where I do:

Mr. Ferson didn't dispute Dr. Barrow's findings, saying, "New Bedford would have been great." But Dr. Barrow's conclusions are "theoretical and hypothetical," Mr. Ferson said. "The tribe has to deal with the reality of putting the land package together, and that didn't come together."

Thanks Professor Barrow for an interesting read: next time, add a few real-world facts to your studies of casinos in Massachusetts. The only control over them is whether they'll exist or not - and that's where the conversation has to begin. Where that conversation should end is whether or not increased revenue from casinos is worth it to begin with: that 200-600 million a year in state revenue may barely pay off the state's infrastructural costs in these projects' constructions.

Health Benefits at Cities and Towns

The New Bedford Standard Times wrote an editorial today on health benefits at South Coast municipalities that was high in opinion, light in fact. I figured the editorial would suggest towns and cities shift the plans from being town based to joining the state plan, as both Speaker DiMasi and Governor Patrick have suggested in varying degrees. While the state plans seem very good and are a great deal cheaper, many unions are wary of leaving the current status quo - which is a mistake. Yet, that's not what the editorial was about.

Cities and towns can no longer procrastinate reforming their salary and benefit structures. When the public sees 90 percent of a worker's health benefits covered by tax dollars, they don't care that the employee might be accepting a lower salary than he or she could make in the private sector.

Really? 90%? What towns offer those generous benefits in the South Coast?

The paper never says. Instead, this is what we're offered:

Two SouthCoast towns pay 90 percent of the cost of an HMO plan, he said, but he would not name names.

Well, geez, that's informative. The only municipality we really learn about is New Bedford, which pays 75% of the health benefits - what the paper said, at an earlier point, was around average for private businesses.

Anyone else find anything wrong with this?

Well, the pattern is repeated:

They should also rethink what Mr. Corcoran described as the historic justification for sweet public benefits packages: the assumption that a public employee sacrifices the higher salary he or she could make in the private sector.

Those days may be gone, at least in some fields. High-level public workers on the SouthCoast often make more than $90,000.

Well, yes, a high level worker may make $90,000 in Dartmouth - but there are also high level business executives or entrepreneurs living in Dartmouth probably earning several million dollars a year. More importantly, the vast majority of public workers in the South Coast area make far less than $90,000 - the vast majority less than half that sum. If most public employees were making close to $90,000 grand, the paper may have a point. Unfortunately, the paper doesn't.

Treasurer Cahill, Casinos and Idiocy

Cahill wants to beat Native Americans to the punch on casinos in Massachusetts - apparently, the state will get ever so much more money with a casino they can fully tax, unlike a casino built by Native Americans.

Cahill has long expressed concern that an Indian-run casino would drain money from the state lottery, while providing the state only a limited amount of revenue, subject to negotiations with the tribe. By orchestrating its own deal to establish a casino in Massachusetts, Cahill will argue today, the state would gain far more from gambling than Connecticut has from its two Indian casinos.

What a great idea! /sarcasm off

Apparently, Cahill never investigated the potential to, oh, I don't know... fucking stop the construction of a mega casino. It's not as if the state has no leverage, either.

The Mashpee Wampanoags, who today are celebrating their official recognition by the federal government, have announced plans to open a casino by 2010, but must first go through the time-consuming process of putting land into federal trust. The tribe must also negotiate a compact with the state, which would allow the tribe to open a casino with a level of gambling not now permitted elsewhere in Massachusetts. In other states, tribes have often agreed to pay a certain percentage of revenues in lieu of taxes.

Woot! Three possible ways to block this.

1. We lobby the federal government to either not put the land in federal trust or make a deal on just what could be built on that land.

2. Say "no thanks" in any negotiations with the Mashpee tribe. If they want to build a gambling enterprise, they can build one of the sort we already allow on this state.

3. Alternatively, we can say "let's compromise" and allow them to build a casino - but one that actually works in Massachusetts.

To say the least, the ideas of casinos in Massachusetts doesn't thrill me. However, I'm not inherently opposed to building some sort of casino in Massachusetts, but it can't be of the type Cahill wants.

Under Cahill's plan, which would have to be approved and implemented by the Legislature and Governor Deval Patrick, the state would issue a request for proposals for one or more casinos that would offer such amenities as five-star hotels, gourmet restaurants, shopping, and event pavilions.

Great, let's build a huge fucking, massively massive structure - so one company gets all of the benefits and potential small business owners in the area get the shaft. Put one of those things near any brink city and whatever progress that's been made over the past 10 years will instantly go away. A casino won't help any economy if it gives no reason for people to participate in it.

If we want to allow casinos, we need to make them work for local economies. That means people who are coming from all around the state to go to these casinos should have a reason to leave those casinos for most of their entertainment, food and other needs. Imagine a casino in New Bedford - let's say we allow them a modestly sized hotel. That means others would want to build hotels in the area, too. That means lots of local restaurants would start up and thrive, catching a lot of the new tourists. It means that museums, galleries and theatres could pop up - and the ones already there could become even better. It means all sorts of shopping could be created to attract any costumer, from luxury stores to stores for different crowds. Such a project could really put a brink city on the map, giving people a reason to visit them. I use New Bedford as an example because there are already a lot of reasons to go there, it just needs the type of attraction to get people to realize that - it needs something to push people through the door.

With lots of things to do in Massachusetts's brink cities, even people who don't gamble would want to come and visit. Of course, we already know that happens - as is - in today's mega casinos. Just a few months ago my step mother, who never gambles, went to Connecticut for a weekend at Foxwoods. She went with an old friend to catch up, see a cool singer and do some shopping. Sadly, for Connecticut's small business owners and economy, all her money went to one casino - it wasn't spread out to everyone else. Do we want that in Massachusetts? I say no.

If people want casinos in Massachusetts, fine. However, instead of building mega-resorts, let's build something that won't kill local economies. Let's build something that will enhance what we already have and create far more. In other words, let's be smart about it. However, it's going to take political leadership on this issue that clearly Treasurer Cahill doesn't have. Let's hope a certain Governor does get it.

What Undocumented Americans Face (in New Bedford)

I get most arguments on illegal immigration, but there's one reason why I could never support the most intolerant of them. Why? Clearly, the majority of the people (including leaders in the movement) support mass deportation for one reason alone - they don't like the people coming into this country. The levels of their hatred is pretty sick. Here's a taste of what Undocumented Americans face in New Bedford on a daily basis.

Kanvas, a citizen of the South Coast, had this to say:

I am not tolerant of illegal immigrants. Nope. Not at all. Not one ounce of guilt either. If they come here and are separated from their families...oh well. That's what can happen and they opt to take those chances. Those who break into a warehouse are taking their chances that they will go to jail and be separated from their families. Drop off the mexican illegals to Acapulco, Cancun and Cozumel. Yep. These ideal locations are very far from the border. This will also put a hurt on their tourism too. Cut all aid to cheesy mexico and watch what happens. That stoopid government might just build their own wall to keep their population in!

Oh, those "stoopid" Mexicans! I mean, it's not as if there were ever brilliant minds to come out of Mexico. Diego Rivera, Frida Kahlo and Laura Esquivel must have been wasting their time in all their grand efforts. Surely, we don't want any of that talent, cultural knowledge or hard work coming into this country. And if we cut off funds, they'll even build their own wall for us! What a great idea! (/sarcasm off)

In the same thread, New Bedford's Just John agreed.

Yup! Illegal Aliens are up to something... It can't be good...

Because trying to make a decent living isn't a good enough reason to be living here, clearly these "illegal aliens" are "up to something." Pray, tell, what could that possibly be? Only someone warped in the head, and clearly prejudiced against certain populations, could think there was some mass conspiracy.

RedSoxGirl clearly must not be a big believer in basic tolerance or backing up her opinions. She just calls all undocumented immigrants "pigs." Nice.

I was going to stop there, before I made any unnecessary Nazi or KKK comparisons, but then I read CinCity's idea - which is to just kill them all; after all, that's "the only way to get them the hell out of our city." I don't know about that, but perhaps Cincity's statements is exactly where a holocaust starts? A few angry Rwandans or Germans making crazy comments in some private location, till it all boils over.

People would do well to remember that who you're fighting with may just be a clear-cut reminder to reexamine your position on the matter and why you came to that position. Did you reach that conclusion based on facts, or was there some other reason? No one is immune to bigotry; it can affect anyone. The trick is to be smart enough to sense if something you say or think is prejudiced, then work to correct it. That's what being open-minded and accepting is all about - people aren't just born that way, it takes time to get there.

Clearly, there is plenty of room for immigration reform, but no one should side with people like RedSoxGirl, Just John or Kanvas. It's amazing what some people will say in the anonymity of an alias and internet forum. They're the kinds of people who led to the debacle at the New Bedford factory: people who have pushed politicians to create agencies that create human-rights nightmares in their quests to round up immigrants. A far more sensible solution to immigration is trying to create a policy that works; a bipartisan solution was created in the McCain-Kennedy bill, but a few angry Republicans thwarted a policy that even President Bush would have signed.

For the people in New Bedford, I hope they realize the righteous hatred being directed toward immigrant populations in the name of wanting to send "illegal immigrants" home. To put it simply, there was no such hatred directed at European Au-Pairs when they were coming here in boat loads. New Bedford is one of the largest immigrant communities in all of Massachusetts, legal or otherwise. It makes the city more vibrant, interesting - and all around better. These voices of hatred should neither be ignored nor forgotten. They must be confronted; people should know that the New Bedford community overwhelmingly supports its immigrant population and they will never, ever be forgotten or go unappreciated.

The Mystery is Over: Exposing the Biggest Reason for New Bedford's Drop Out Rates

New Bedford and Fall River probably have, collectively, the worst drop out rates in the entire state. In New Bedford schools, fewer students finish high school in four years than graduate. It's a sad - but true - statistic.

People like to blame all sorts of things - lousy teaching, not enough student-parent-teacher involvement, not enough funding - and surely, all those things play their roles. However, how can anyone expect high graduation rates when the median household income is $27,569? In comparison, Lynn - another fairly poor city - had a household income about 10k higher.

The real important thing to consider here is this: if a student worrying about whether or not there's going to be food on the table, or how the hell you're supposed to write a paper when they have easy access to a computer, then graduating may not be something every student going into New Bedford High expects of themselves when they're incoming freshmen - and that's a shame, a real shame. Students need a stable environment at home to prosper at school. They need concerned parents - and it's hard to be fully concerned when you're working 60 hours a week, barely making minimum wage, just to pay the rent.

So, how does the state fix the problem? Obviously, jobs is a key answer. Creating opportunities for parents to get their education is too - be it GEDs, specific job training or college. Furthermore, creating a demand for the (very) cheap housing in New Bedford by actually getting that rail built would go a long way to attracting young, educated families. With a few more of those in New Bedford, everyone would benefit by the added expectations they'd have of the New Bedford school system - and they'd be paying taxes to make sure that happened.

One of the real shames of the suburban flight from what's now coined as the "brink cities" in this state during the late 50s and early 60s is the fact that they both robbed cities of a stable tax base that essentially subsidized poorer sections of the city, as well as the fact that they robbed talented students - students that, by being there, would encourage other students to do better. They robbed cities of parents that demanded high quality education and had the means and times to make sure their demands were met. Now, cities have to be rebuilt and new ways have to be found to reattract new people that will emerge in middle classes and want to stay in cities for the added culture they provide.

Born Again Town Centers

I want to hear more about this: a loose plan that calls for more redevelopment around town centers. I'm a hard-core proponent of revamping what we already have, instead of just building further and further away from the metropolitan area. Let's encourage more low and medium income housing, a reduction of energy costs, environmental friendliness and more public transit. Let's also encourage the vibrant culture these areas are filled with that McMansions with hour-long commutes to get anywhere will never offer.

Of the many places I eventually may consider moving to, I seriously dig the idea of those nifty lofts that were once old factories in brink cities like Lynn and New Bedford. We need to encourage the development of the old urban centers of smaller cities and even towns; it's a life that would well suit me. One of the keys to fostering a better environment for these cities is to get new people willing to move into them - quality, affordable housing, surrounded by lots of culture (restaurants, galleries, theatres, etc. ) is one way to do that. With more people, of mixed income, moving into these areas - suddenly communities will see all-around improvements. Everything's linked to housing, from the schools our kids are enrolled at to the commutes we choose to live. All of those things can be improved if there's some serious planning at the state and local levels, focused on revitalizing town and urban centers. Hopefully reports such as the one I linked will lead to more revitalization of towns and cities in ways that just make sense across Massachusetts.

Why Keep Interviewing the Haters?

The Globe did an article on the aftermath of the immigration raid on New Bedford. I'm not happy to report that, out of the 94,000+ people who live in New Bedford, they chose it's biggest hater as the person to interview. Why interview Phil Paleologos? What sort of expertise does he offer on immigration? If the Globe wanted a general reaction from people in the New Bedford community, there are plenty of people to pick from - almost a hundred thousand. What is this media obsession with interviewing the biggest jerks - people who have no credibility within the community, except for the crazy people who buy into their utter hatred?

It's sad to taint the article that way, because it did report on a lot of the problems New Bedford is facing. Few people think about the reasons behind why New Bedford is struggling - and this article addresses some of them. However, the Paleologos stench (along with a few other haters) is prioritized way up top. Speaking as someone from the New Bedford area, I don't see any of this hatred from the community in general. In fact, New Bedford has been one of the most welcoming places I've yet to see. There are great organizations, like the South Coast Marriage Coalition, which have made great strides in fostering a welcoming atmosphere. Wouldn't it have been nice to see the Globe focus on that, instead of the few bad apples at the bottom of the barrel Shawmut Diner.

How to Pay for the Rail Extension?

Charley has a great post on his skepticism of the whole rail proposal by Governor Patrick: where's the state going to come up with 1.2 billion?

Well, the comments to his blog were fairly interesting too, including this one by Noternie. He suggested the proposed casino in New Bedford could help pay for it. As many readers are aware, I've never been a fan of casinos. I've been solidly against them in Massachusetts for a long time now. I was in Las Vegas for four days this summer and didn't even put one quarter into a slot machine. I've see the effects of gambling on people's lives and the community in regular Nevada towns (I travelled all through Nevada and California this past summer) and don't want anything remotely like that here in Massachusetts.

Then again, neither Rhode Island nor Connecticut remotely resemble that today. While the effects of gambling no doubt have hit Connecticut, perhaps the potential rewards of a casino in New Bedford could be worth it. Noternie's post made me think about how everything in life is interconnected: railways and a potential casino could be a match. People from the South Coast could use it to go to work in Boston; people from Greater Boston could go to a revitalized New Bedford waterfront - which would be a different kind of waterfront than anywhere else in this state. If all the state's taxes from a New Bedford casino were to go toward a railway extension and the casino fronted the costs of the additional cops, infrastructural needs, etc. that would be - maybe, just maybe - I could get behind that. A rail extension to New Bedford may just be enough to cover the costs of allowing a casino there.

The Globe Should Read the AP

They missed some key information. They paint a he-said-she-said story, but the facts are clear to some reporters...

Federal immigration agents notified state officials months in advance of its plans for a massive illegal immigration raid in New Bedford. But they prohibited them from alerting the Department of Social Services -- the agency charged with caring for the workers' children -- until just days before. Kurt Schwartz with the state's Executive Office of Public Safety says D-S-S Commissioner Harry Spence wasn't told until four days before the raid.

At that time, Schwartz couldn't tell Spence the exact location, only that it would be in southeast Massachusetts.

And Spence was banned from telling any employees until after the raid began.

More on McNamara

Charley destroys McNamara's arguments over at BMG. McNamara's column had a lot of holes in it, but good 'ol Mr. Blandy made them seem like the Grand Canyon.

Turns out, according the the AP, Deval Patrick was right: DSS really was given last minute notice.

BOSTON (AP) - Federal immigration agents notified state officials months in advance of its plans for a massive illegal immigration raid in New Bedford. But they prohibited them from alerting the Department of Social Services -- the agency charged with caring for the workers' children -- until just days before.

Kurt Schwartz with the state's Executive Office of Public Safety says D-S-S Commissioner Harry Spence wasn't told until four days before the raid.

At that time, Schwartz couldn't tell Spence the exact location, only that it would be in southeast Massachusetts.

And Spence was banned from telling any employees until after the raid began.

Charles lands the obvious critique:

There damn well was a problem. There damn well was a failure to coordinate. They were getting phone calls about it from the Governor and the Congressional delegation. It plainly didn't work the way it was supposed to work. And McNamara blithely takes their word for it?

McNamara would do well to learn not to be so trusting of people who tell you what you want to hear. I wonder if we'll see any mea culpa in the next McNamara column? Otherwise, if she can't admit when she makes mistakes, she's right: it's going to be a long four years.

McNamara's Column on the N. Bedford Raid

McNamara came out with another column today and we have another blame-everything-on-Deval piece. Charley has a post with lots of discussion going on, along with various blogs out there on the mass left. However, I do have one point to make: whether or not Patrick knew about the raid beforehand doesn't matter. In fact, he did know; we knew that since the news broke out - fact that changes nothing.

The relevant question is what was Deval supposed to do? He couldn't stop the feds from raiding New Bedford, he just simply doesn't have that kind of power. Furthermore, it's not like he could have gone on the 11 o'clock news and told everyone the state was going to be raided weeks in advance - if he did, it may have been illegal and probably would have created a kind of mass panic that would have been worse than what actually happened (consider the fact that the raid - while a human rights nightmare - only affected the families of 300, instead of the 10,000s of undocumented Americans living in this state).

McNamara's column suggests that the ICE and DSS were planning this raid for months. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. She says there were conference calls and discussions over those months - but that doesn't really mean it was well planned - by either org. A phone call here and a phone call there doth not equal well planned - and it's pretty hard to know what went on during the planning process. Personally, I don't trust a word either organization says.

However, let's give McNamara the benefit of the doubt. After the failure that occurred in New Bedford, one wonders how that reflects on the Patrick administration? McNamara has an answer in the form of a question.

Patrick did not hesitate to appeal directly to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to allow DSS social workers access to the detainees after the raid. Why, then, did he not call Chertoff before the raid to insist that the necessary precautions to protect children be in place?

Yet, her question fails again. Simply put, even if Patrick knew about what was going on as far in advance as he did, it still wasn't his job to organize this raid. It was the federal government's job, a job they were quite happy to drop onto DSS's hands - it was an unfunded mandate of the worst kind (playing with the lives of children). Furthermore, it wasn't Patrick's job to organize the raid. DSS was the organization that should have been in contact with Chertoff. The media has recently criticized Patrick for micromanaging everything, they're their criticizing him for not micromanaging a federal raid. The media needs to pick one or the other, they can't keep having it both ways.

Even if this state government failed in any capacity, the fault lays with DSS, not the Patrick administration. Deval Patrick has had neither the time nor the resources to fix that organization, but it's becoming quite apparent it should become a new priority for him. The fact that Patrick was able to fully step in and use his role as Governor to fix things after the fact speaks well on his part: even though DSS apparently failed at first, at least someone was at the helm to fix the ship's course afterwards.

Ultimately, McNamara's column ignores a key fact: a raid targeting 300 families is a very tall task for any organization, never mind one as discombobulated and underpowered as DSS. It was the ICE that decided to ship families across the country, within a very short period of time and without due process before being removed from the state. They could have just as easily slapped bracelets on the immigrants, giving them some time to figure out what was going to happen to their children while waiting for due process. Furthermore, it's doubtful that the ICE had names and addresses for every undocumented worker in that factory - DSS isn't the FBI, they don't have the capability to find out that kind of information, especially when there are so many people involved and they're all undocumented Americans. There was no way an organization like DSS could cope with that kind of pressure and deal with it in a way we could all be proud of, even if we had a perfect Department of Social Services. Clearly, DSS is far from perfect - we knew that before this raid. McNamara would do well to continue to criticize it. However, she went too far in blaming that organization - and especially the Patrick administration - for the federal government's mistakes in New Bedford.

Mass Deportation and Mass Human Rights Nightmare

That's something I've always maintained. Undocumented immigration is the type of issue that sounds really easy to determine: people are here "illegally," they should be sent home. Easy as pie, right? Well, obviously there are some kinks in the system. When parents are flown to all sorts of detention centers around the country in the matter of a day or two - and families are left in the dust, including young children, something is wrong. Very, very wrong.

Simply put, for all those in favor of heavy regulation of immigration, more of what we saw in New Bedford will happen. States, at least states with Governors who give a damn (and luckily, we have one of those) will try desperately hard to keep up - and what does that mean? Suddenly, we're flying in a DSS team to Texas, just even trying to keep up with the basic human right of not being separated from one's family. This is the same DSS that's on scrambles as is, now having to find emergency homes for the children of 300 families. The same state with a billion dollar deficit has to find the funds to solve this crisis, which surely will cost us tens of thousands of dollars - maybe hundreds.

Immigration is an issue that demands compromise. We can't allow these kinds of raids; they're a disaster. Sadly, immigration is one of the few areas where President Bush is actually willing to compromise. The McCain-Kennedy Bill, in its original form, was an eminently fair bill - one that all sorts of people from all kinds of political perspectives got behind. Citizens from Massachusetts should ask our Senior Senator to resubmit that bill, especially given what happened in New Bedford and the change in direction of the Senate.

Uniting in Common Interest

The New Bedford Standard Times prints a doozey today, one that I - in large part - agree with.

MassINC and the Brookings Institution gently call them the "gateway" cities. They are places like New Bedford and Fall River, Holyoke and Lawrence, Pittsfield and Lowell — former mill towns that got left out when the factories closed, leaving poverty and unemployment and all the related social problems behind. With a new governor who was not cookie-cut from the Boston-centric Beacon Hill crowd and a lieutenant governor who was the mayor of Worcester — itself a gateway city--the public policy research organizations decided the time was right to release a study that shows just how badly these old working cities have been left to wither even as Boston and its wealthy suburbs bloomed as the manufacturing economy gave way to a "knowledge" economy driven by technology and research.... Want commuter rail to SouthCoast? Well, forget it because $14 billion or so is going to the Big Dig. Merge UMass Dartmouth and the Southern New England School of Law? Not going to happen because Suffolk University and the New England School of Law don't want it to happen.

The paper's solution?

Organize what the Brookings Institution's Mark Muro calls a Gateway Cities Coalition that will represent the collective interests of all these old milltowns. Then invite their municipal leaders to a Gateway Cities Forum and hold it right in New Bedford/Fall River. Bring in not only the public policy experts... and help these cities define a Gateway Cities Agenda that will articulate our shared concerns and common demands.

Then present every state lawmaker and every candidate for statewide or federal office with that agenda and its associated legislation and notify each candidate that if they desire the support of those who live in or near these old cities, then they know what our expectations are. Therein is power — and enough to compete with greater Boston on equal or near-equal footing.

Sounds good to me. It's long since time that the brink cities across this state join together. Over at BMG, whether there's whole tons of validity in it or not, people are obviously angry and the state needs to do something to relax the mood. For several years, Boston has had more than it's fair share of resources toward improving the city - improvements that were necessarily. But, it's well past time that the state focus on giving other regions of the state what they need to improve and provide a high quality of life for its citizens. That means a train in New Bedford, subway in Lynn, public law school in Dartmouth and improvements that go beyond my scope in central and western Massachusetts.

It's up to making citizens across Massachusetts realize that they need to band together - not tear each other apart, a la that Mass Pike thread - if they want any major and necessary projects to happen in their city too. What happens in New Bedford really does matter in Springfield too in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Building Momentum on Marriage Equality

Last night, the Marriage Equality Coalition of the South Coast hosted Marc Solomon of Mass Equality in New Bedford. Marc came prepped with a power-point presentation to discuss the history of the marriage movement post Goodridge - and where we're at now. Specifically, they're focused on avoiding a plebiscite, but are prepared to raise the "15-20 million" they'll need to defeat Team Homophobia if we lose at the next ConCon.

While I appreciate Mass Equality's efforts on marriage equality - there may be no such equality without it - I can't help but think we need to try our hand at some new tactics. To be successful, any movement has to stay on top of their opponents in all sorts of areas - so when Solomon spoke about how anti-marriage foes were winning the rhetorical debate with 'let the people vote' chants, it makes me a little worried. Clearly, we're not staying on top of things.

A movement needs foresight to be effective - this isn't just about the next ConCon. To win, we need to build momentum on our side again - set the discourse and look like the sure bet. To do that, we need some successes and new messages going into the next ConCon. In terms of messaging, it's time to challenge the very principal upon which we allow the plebiscite to determine rights of the minority.

Even many conservative Republicans would agree that 25% of the legislature is a bar set too low to move amendments forward; why not push that angle? If the public disagrees with the amendment process, they're not going to care if we block this amendment procedurally. It won't cost a single legislator their seat. We need a narrative that says "civil rights now, procedure later" and promise not to block anything procedurally when the process is fair. The fact is I am a process person, but when it just doesn't work and is universally ignored, it's time to scrap it.

I asked Marc Solomon about trying to change the process and he essentially told me 'maybe you could start that movement' last night, because Mass Equality just wasn't going to do it. As if this 22 year old, broke college student could do that? Solomon's missing a golden opportunity to shape the debate - and look toward the future. He's also missing an opportunity to bring in allies, key in the marriage debate, who would easily agree with a new amendment process.

It seems like lots of people think if we can kill the amendment this year, it'll be dead for good. Well, it's not that hard to get 68,000 signatures - so that kind of thinking is crazy. Unless people want to be stopping these petitions every year by the slimmest of margins (since it only takes 25% of state legislators to pass), we ought to be trying to overhaul the system.

Secondly, we need some small successes and momentum going into the next ConCon. The atmosphere must belong to us. To do that, I suggest Mass Equality and allies demand the state legislature repeal the 1913 racist/homophobic law that stops out-of-state gay couples from getting married here. Governor Patrick is our ally on this issue; we've got our ace on the mound. It's message-sending time: we can push equality bill after equality bill until people get the basic concept that Massachusetts is about personal freedom, not suppression and religious intolerance. It's better to go in victorious on important issues, than last year's ConCon loser.

Marriage equality, in Massachusetts, ought to feel very safe. It's an almost 4 year incumbent that's directly benefited 17,000 people - 8,500 happily wedded same-sex couples. Imagine that kind of constituent service - and its leader admits the other side has the momentum? No sir-ree. People in Massachusetts have been very supportive, almost from the start. It's time to take advantage of that understanding and expand rights for all, by building momentum and using it to protect the political process from further abuse by amending the state constitution in a responsible way. Marc Solomon and Mass Equality could be a key to that process, but they're just not there yet.