About Newburyport, MA, the small, coastal city in Essex County, Massachusetts, United States, 35 miles northeast of Boston, the people who live here, and the events, matters and actions that effect their lives, and how the community has continued to change since its downtown historic restoration in the late 1960's.
Category: Parking
Parking, Newburyport, MA, stopping and disengaging a vehicle and leaving it unoccupied.
I’ve been scratching my head as to where in the world the push for 27-29 affordable senior housing units came from for the Brown School, which is a complete about face from the direction that the City had been going for as re-use for that property.
And from someone who lives in the Brown School neighborhood 27-29 units of any size is nuts. This is one of the most densely populated areas of the city with narrow 18th century streets. On street parking is already a nightmare, we already have what I call “neighborhood road rage” when it comes to parking and traffic.
The temperature in the neighborhood would go down a whole lot if the proposal was for 10 residential units. That’s realistically 20 cars. And if the neighborhood got to have the Newburyport Youth Services (NYS) stay, that would be a big extra bonus.
There are a variety of different affordable categories which are referred to as Affordable Medium Income (AMI). Here is table from a 2015 household study from Boston, Newburyport is considered part of the Boston Hud Federal Management Regulation (FMR) area.
2015 Affordable Medium Income (AMI)
2015 Affordable Medium Income (AMI)
As you can see there are different percentages of the AMI, 30%, 50%, 60%, 80%, 100% and 120%.
If the City put out a Request For Proposal (RFP) for 10 units, they could be half market rate and half affordable, or all affordable at let’s say 5 different levels of AMI (that’s the % of income) if funding could be found for different AMI levels in the same building. I think under scenarios along these lines that most of the neighborhood would be breath a sigh of relief.
Newburyport Youth Services (NYS)
Newburyport Youth Services (NYS)
And my understanding is that there is no place for NYS to go even if there was funding. My impression was that NYS did not want to be in the building or the neighborhood, but that’s not the case at all — they love where they are. I thought NYS had somewhere they could go, but apparently that is not the case.
Councilor Jared Eigerman’s Ordinance now in front of the City Council is a wonderful starting place. I hope we can get to a place where NYS, affordable housing folks and the neighborhood are not pitted against each other, but where we can all come together and find a solution that has something for everyone and not everyone gets everything they want – that’s what I call good negotiating.
Editor’s Note:
This is from the 2014 Brown School Feasibility Study. There are 37 available parking spaces. If there were 10 units, that would realistically be 20 cars and 17 left over parking spaces. The basketball court at the Brown School Park and possibly parts of the Brown School Park itself could be used for snow emergency parking for the neighborhood along with those extra 17 spaces.
Brown School Parking from the 2014 Feasibility Study
The City is now actively concentrating on what to do with the Brown School. Although the template for what to do with the Brown School has been the 2014 Brown School Feasibility Study, the City of Newburyport is now taking a different approach. The school is in terrible shape, and would cost around $14 million to rehab/fix/develop it. The school and the land itself has been appraised at $5.5 million. Understandably the City would like a developer to develop that property.
I was very upset at the last Brown School meeting that affordable housing advocates from all over the city were “rounded up” on Facebook and by word of mouth. The push was for all affordable housing. The neighbors felt intimidated about speaking up about their concerns about parking, traffic and density, worried that they would be labeled as being discriminating against poor people and the elderly, and the fact that this was a completely different direction than the one they had been lead to believe that the City was going in for the last 3-4 years, i.e. The Brown School Feasibility Study.
City Councilor Jared Eigerman introduced an Ordinance for Monday’s City Council Meeting. I am very grateful to Councilor Eigerman that he has done this. I hope that it is the beginning of a thoughtful dialogue on the new directions that the city is taking for this project.
“This is my (Councilor Eigerman’s) attempt to reconcile all of the interest that I’ve heard over the past five years and balance it out,” Eigerman said, noting that the ordinance will likely be sent to one of the City Council’s committees and ultimately require a positive vote from eight of the 11 councilors.
“Now, with my colleagues, we’re going to hammer it out,” From the Daily News, February 9, 2018.
The Ordinance proposes 40%-60% affordable housing, which I think is a good mix.
The Ordinance proposes 1-1.5 cars per unit. I think that is really unrealistic parking for the neighborhood. I think at least 2 cars per unit is realistic.
The Ordinance calls for 24 units, which I think is way too many units for this property. (Councilor Eigerman has assured me that all of this in his mind would be open for discussion. I trust him a lot.)
The Ordinance would enable the Newburyport Youth Services (NYS) department to serve City residents, “consistent with its mission,” and to Identify public monies for the “NYS to continue to serve Newburyport residents after it relocates from the Brown School Site.”
The Ordinance would protect the 2013 Brown School Park, roughly 11,000 square feet.
The Ordinance calls for, “Mitigating negative impacts upon the neighborhood from changes in use of the Brown School Site, with particular concern for quality of design, traffic, and parking.”
The Ordinance calls for, “Providing for a diverse, balanced, and inclusive community, with housing for people of all income levels as a matter of basic fairness and social responsibility, and to promote economic stability within the community.”
The Ordinance calls for “Protecting the historic exterior features of the schoolhouse building.”
I think that it is really important for people to contact all 11 of our Newburyport City Councilors, not just Councilor Eigerman (Ward 2) and Councilor Sharif Zeid (Ward 1). The City Councilor’s contact information can be found here: https://www.cityofnewburyport.com/city-council . I would also Cc Mayor Holaday and our City Planner Andy Port.
The Ordinance was sent to the City Council Planning and Development Committee at Monday night’s City Council meeting. I was very relieved by this. They will be holding sub-committee meeting on the Brown School. If you care about this project please attend those meetings, this is where a discussion of the fate of the Brown School will take place. The first meeting will be scheduled the week of February 26th.
I watched (I thought I wouldn’t, but I did, I just couldn’t help myself) Monday night when the parking garage vote came to the floor of the Newburyport City Council. Is this riveting stuff? it was to me. In the ongoing 41 year hoped-for/battle for a parking garage in Newburyport, the choice had come down to 244 space, a 204 space or a “no” space parking garage. Having counted the votes for a 244 garage (8 out of 11 votes were required), 8 votes simply did not exist, but would those folks who so desperately wanted a 244 settle for the smaller number or let a parking garage die yet one more time in its 41 year old quest.
City Councilor Bob Cronin put a motion (I don’t know what the technical term is) on the floor for a 204 garage. It was immediately amended to a 244 — sudden death in the making. Councilor Jared Eigerman very calmly asked the 244 folks, that if they did amend to a 244 would they be willing to have no garage. The answer to Councilor Eigerman’s question was apparently “no” because somehow “it” got amended back to a 204 garage.
And then the speeches commenced. My favorite was probably Councilor Joe Devlin’s who read a long, long list of all the insults that had come his way (and he was by no means alone) including being called a misogynist (a misogynist over a garage–really?? Yes, actually really — bat-shit crazy, but really) and ended up his speech assuring the good people of Newburyport that if a large civic project came to their back yard the City Council would have their back. The theme of the strong 204 folks, Bob Cronin, Larry Guinta, Sharif Zeid, Greg Earls and yes, Joe Devlin, was that the people of Newburyport who were most affected by the garage, the abutters, were their major concern.
And then somewhere after lots of speeches a 244 seemed to be being thought about again, and Councilor Jared Eigerman one more time, very calmly reminded the 244 folks that he was only counting 5 votes for their cause — 8 votes not there. The vote for the 204 garage took place with a few grudging “yes” votes, and after 41 years the Newburyport City Council made history, by taking an incremental step, getting 100 cars off the Waterfront, and moving Newburyport one small to medium step towards its future.
Congratulations to this Newburyport City Council — a job well done.
I admire all the Newburyport City Councilors for wrestling with the proposed Newburyport Parking Garage. Here is a post from Newburyport Councilor at Large Joe Devlin on his thoughts about the garage and the process. I appreciate Joe’s thoughtfulness on the subject. The post is from Councilor Devlin’s Facebook Page.
“Parking Garage Update: I have attended several public meetings with the abutters, residents, the mayor and the other members of the city council, the city’s parking consultant, the MVRTA and LAZ Management. I have communicated individually with abutters, local businesses, and Newburyport residents, as well as several professionals in the commercial construction industry. I have also reviewed numerous documents and studies, including those provided relative to the current project, and those from past efforts. To me, the issue boils down to the following questions:
1) Does the city need a garage?
2) Do residents want it?
3) Can we pay for it (now and in the future)?
4) Is this the appropriate location for it?
Initially, I have an issue with the information, both its form and timeliness, provided to councilors and the public alike. For example, although the MVRTA, along with its primary management company LAZ, operates several garage locations in Massachusetts, we were only given the annual budget and expense report for FY2015 and to December 31, 2015, for the MVRTA garage in Haverhill, MA. When councilors, including myself, asked about some numbers in the Haverhill budget that reflected badly on the garage and/or management (i.e. the actual budget through December 31, 2015 was 12.5% higher than the estimated annual expenses), we were told the Haverhill garage was not a good comparison to our city, begging the question why it was provided in the first place. In a report from the planning director, a timeline of the steps in the process to vote for the 100% design funds of $630,000 stated that the 30% design would be done first. However, in questioning the MVRTA representative at one meeting, I was informed that the 30% design had been halted in September of last year, due to the uncertainty with the size and scope of the project. These are just a few of the examples of the information provided.
1) “Do we need the garage?” One person’s “need” is another person’s “luxury”, and a garage is not necessarily a project that will have residents dancing in the streets. Studies of varying sophistication have been done over the years, the last in 2012, based on a study of parking on two days during the summer. Its first conclusion – “overall, the total on-street and off-street public parking system operates under effective capacity except for the infrequent, summer peak weekend condition and during special events” – matches most people’s observations. Despite talk of impending development that may affect our parking situation, a parking garage alone is not a trip generator. In other words, people don’t come here because we have a garage, but rather because we have interesting places to visit, shop and eat. A parking garage is a complement to a successful and prosperous business center, however. On the waterfront, we are also using valuable land in a less than optimal way, so for me, shifting some parking off the waterfront would be a good reason to build a garage.
2) “Do residents want it?” – Again, I do not believe a garage is something that will have residents dancing with joy in the streets. Generally, the people I have spoken to are somewhat in favor of building a garage – so long as it can be done economically and not use monies designated for other important public purposes. Councilor Ed Cameron sent out a survey to several hundred people, and 53.2% of the respondents favored a garage. The Chamber of Commerce polled downtown business, and 57% were in favor of the garage, although at the time of the report from the Chamber a good portion of the businesses had not responded. However, important aspects of making the garage successful (i.e. profitable), have not yet been decided or vetted through the public. According to John Burke, the city’s parking consultant, parking restrictions have to be put in place within a 5 minute walk of the garage, a sea change in our parking structure that could negatively affect the residents’ view of the garage. In the 2012 traffic study, Burke equated a “5 minute” walk to 1200 feet. I walked from the site of the garage and made it past Olive Street to the west, and just past Fair Street to the east, which was approximately 1500 feet. In either event, a very large area of the city will be affected by new parking restrictions necessary to make the garage work.
3) “Can we pay for it?” – The major part of the plan to pay for the garage is to raise parking rates from $.50 to $1.00/hour. This would raise approximately an estimated $250,000.00 in parking revenue if the parking demand remains constant. We have been given projections for the next 10 years, but they make numerous assumptions that may, or may not, come to fruition. As the parking garage is the only variable we can control, and the parking garage is not a trip generator, the conservative approach is to make this decision assuming parking remains the same. Everything else is just a guess, and I do not want to spend the public’s money that way. It has also been argued that we have excess funds ($261,920.00 last year) from the parking program each year to go to overruns and losses, but that money currently goes to downtown improvements, so a loss of that money to fund the garage would mean the parking garage was not a success.
4) “Is this the right location?” – I believe this is the second best location for a parking garage, behind Green Street. I also do not believe it is a location of sufficient size or proximity to address all of our future parking needs. We have several areas of the downtown – call them “West”, “Central” and “East” – and this location will only help the first two. “East Downtown”, from State Street to the Tannery, also has parking needs that can not be addressed by a location at this distance. Sinking all of our money into this location, then, would be short-sighted and tie our hands for future needs.
This is also the most intensive use of the Titcomb/Merrimack parcel under our zoning code, with the highest allowable height and no required setbacks. In plain language, it means we can build something that takes up the entire lot right to its edges, and go higher than any other use there. That is a lot to ask of the neighbors, abutters and area of the city. The height for the 244 space garage is also larger than any other structure in the area, and does not fit into the historical character of that part of the city. Putting so much money into such a small spot, which provides no room to expand horizontally, also neglects the parking needs of other parts of the city east of State Street.
To me, the fact that the Green Street lot is always the first lot to be filled attests to the desirability of the location for businesses and customers, it has the most room for future expansion and is surrounded by buildings of significant height. However, we have been told that we are in danger of losing the $2,000,000.00 in Federal funds, which I verified at a public meeting with the representative of the MVRTA, if we do not authorize $630,000.00 for final design by March 31, 2016. To that end, I am unable to further explore the design of a similar-sized garage at Green Street.
The city council is being asked to put the cart before the horse on this matter, in voting on $630,000 for final design before, among other things, we have the information from the 30% preliminary design, any binding vote from the NRA on removing spaces from the waterfront, and an initial plan for parking restrictions, vetted by the public who will be affected. However, the prospect of losing $2,000,000.00 in Federal funds means a “no” vote on the final design funds would also lose the Federal money that, in my mind, are essential for me to even consider the project.
I did not create the problem with this deadline: it has been 6 years since the city council and Mayor voted on the Titcomb street site, and the preliminary design was halted several months before I was elected. However, it is solely based on the prospect of losing the Federal funds, that I, along with Councilors Cronin and Zaid, have proposed a vote to approve the $630,000.00 for final design of a 204 space parking garage. The height of the 204 space is almost 6 feet lower than the 244 proposal and 10.5 feet lower at the elevator tower, and the scale and massing of the 204 space garage is more in-line with the historical architecture of that part of the city. The $3,600,000.00 bond also gives us the most margin for error in case the garage is not financially as successful as we all hope, and flexibility in pricing, parking restrictions and addressing future parking needs in other parts of the city. Most importantly, it will allow us to make a significant reduction of at least 100 parking spots from the NRA lots.
The initial proposal for the garage would have cost a total of $16,000,000.00, with $9,000,000.00 coming from the city. Our proposal achieves two major goals, the building of a centralized parking structure to serve the western part of the downtown and the removal of parking from the waterfront lots. It does so at the most minimal investment to the city, giving us a sizable structure for approximately .33 cents on the dollar. It also allows us to take advantage of the $2,000,000.00 in Federal funds, despite the inadequate time given us to fully vet this particular project.
Please feel free to give me and the other councilors your thoughts and questions on this proposal. Thank you.
The Newburyport Blog has all but disappeared from Google’s search engine, and I wanted to figure out why, I always have liked that question, “Why,” and got me to thinking, “What exactly is The Newburyport Blog anyway??”
The Newburyport Blog is not a place to find out where to eat or shop in Newburyport. There are many Newburyport websites now, including Google (which is almost becoming a website itself instead of a Search Engine), which would give answers to that question.
The fascination that I have, is not where to eat or shop in this wonderful historic city, but the fact that over the years the kind of restaurants and shops have radically changed (The General Store, the hardware/lumber store have been replaced by high end restaurants, spas, boutiques and very expensive furniture stores), and “Why” is that? and what does it say about Newburyport and how the culture in Newburyport is changing. What makes Newburyport “tick?” (the definition of “tick,” a verb, is “The motive and explanation of behavior” — that is what engages me.
The question of what makes Newburyport “tick,” was one of the reasons I was so hooked our once local political journal, The Undertoad. Despite Tom Ryan’s very often, in my opinion, offensive, bombastic, childish and sometimes just downright sadistic approach to reporting the “underside of Newburyport,” The Undertoad’s basic premise was “What makes Newburyport tick?”
When Ulrika Gerth was editor of The Newburyport Current, she had an underlining theme, “What makes Newburyport tick??”
And Tom Salemi, the editor of The Newburyport Posts, with his journalist education, and his light, amicable, often deceivably “simple” posts, also had an underlining theme of “What makes Newburyport tick.” (Come back to blogging Tom Salemi!!)
And Jerry Mullins, God bless him, with his long, researched, valuable content (that Google seems to ignore, so much for Google valuing “valuable content”), over at Brick and Tree, has that same theme too, “What makes Newburyport tick??”
And there are also the blogs by many Newburyport Councilors that address that very same question in a variety of ways.
The Newburyport Blog does have stuff on “gluten free,” but have you noticed the changes in restaurants, etc, gluten free has roared into out culture.
Where to park in Newburyport?? earlier post. Well, I never, ever thought we would have paid parking, but we do. It says something about our town (good stuff for a blog post).
Ask for “Newburyport restaurants.” Google itself, not the webpages it “represents” in its search engine, will give you an answer.
Ask for 20+10, you will get an answer from Google, no need to go looking for a calculator on a website anymore.
Ask for information on “zucchini” and you will get Google’s answer. No need to look for a webpage anymore.
Ask for “Following Atticus,” Tom Ryan’s (Undertoad Tom Ryan) book. Google will tell you all about it, need to got to a website?? Maybe.
Look for “Newburyport,” Google will give you an answer, maybe not a good answer, but an answer. That answer will get better, more refined, and pretty soon — no longer need to go to a website anymore.
Look for “Why Newburyport is the way it is today, culturally, socio-economically, architecturally, politically?” That is not a simple question. And if that sort of question is important, maybe check out The Newburyport Blog, the Newburyport City Councilors’ websites, or go over to Brick and Tree and get Jerry Mullins take on what makes Newburyport “tick,” and maybe Tom Salemi will come back and blog again one day.
It is sometimes difficult for visitors to find out where to park in Newburyport. Here is a map and some parking information.
Newburyport Parking Map (press image to enlarge)Parking information Newburyport (press image to enlarge
The map can be found on the City of Newburyport’s website here.
The parking information can be found on the City of Newburyport’s website here.
General parking information can be found on the City of Newburyport’s website here.
Paid parking Monday through Saturday is from 8am – 6pm, Sunday from 12 pm – 6 pm. The price is $1.00 an hour. Pay and display kiosks are in each of the lots. The kiosks accept coins, dollar bills and major credit cards.
NRA East, NRA West, and Prince Place are all day lots. Green Street and State Street lots are time limited (3 hours). The Water Front Trust (WFT) lot is also time limited. And a Newburyport resident sticker cannot be used to park in the WFT lot.
You can also pay for parking with your phone, by using Parkmobile. To use the Parkmobile option, you can register for free here or download the mobile app.
The City of Newburyport has a tutorial on how to use Parkmobile on your iPhone, which can be found here. And if you need information on how to use it on your Android phone, click here.
Here is a link to the application that the City of Newburyport made for the proposed 40R Smart Growth District (It has all kinds of links and information on it), it can be found here.
Here is a photo of the proposed Minco building (it is now in the public domain), which is the cornerstone of the proposed 40R District, and that I think is ugly.
The Minco building
Here are two of the new maps of the proposed Smart Growth 40R
40R Smart Growth mapSmart Growth 40R map
And here is a table for the Water and Sewer capacity for the 40R District which also includes the number of bedrooms and the number of apartment units.
Water and Sewer capacity and number of bedroom and units
I’ve seen the first draft of the new 40R Smart Growth District around the train station.
The proposed 40R District (see previous post) would allow for mixed use buildings near the train station, traffic circle, parts of Rt 1 and the area on lower State Street between Lunt and Kelly and the edge of the cemetery. There is a new updated map (see below), the larger area subdistrict B is zoned for 4 story buildings (45 ft), Subdistricts A and C is zoned for 3 story building (35 ft), and the Minco building would be zoned for 5 stories (55 ft).
Four story buildings in Portland Maine, please press image to enlarge.
And I’ve gone on a hunt for some good looking 4 story buildings. I have found only one photo that is in the public domain, it is in Portland Maine.
I’m a little confused about Google’s copyright laws, and WordPress does not allow me to embed Google’s images, so what I’ve done is put links to 4 story buildings in Portland ME, Providence RI and Haverhill MA. Haverhill has, on Washington Street, what I think is a gorgeous, but rundown historic section of 4 story building. I love them.
And when you press on the links for the different cities, you can go on a “Google drive” through the areas and see what you thinks works and what does not work. Interesting stuff. Also, the buildings take a few seconds to show up after you press the links.
Portland Maine’s links can he found here, here, here, here and here.
Providence Rhode Island’s links can be found here, here and here.
Haverhill Mass links can be found here, here and here.
Updated 40R Smart Growth Village District map, please press image to enlarge.
In looking at the initial 40R draft (this is just the beginning of a large process that the city will go through) a couple of things stand out.
1) The design review is outstanding. Yah!! I hope that means that the Minco building will be forced to look awesome.
2) There is extensive input into the affordable housing aspect of the district (I’m sure the affordable housing folks with Phd’s in the subject, will have lots of input). It looked great to me.
3) Parking seems a little “skimpy” to me. A residential unit only gets one parking spot. But there is “shared parking,” with businesses and residents, which use parking at different times during the day and week, the objective being not to have lots of wasted, barren parking lots. There are so many people in this city who have Phd’s in parking, and I am not one of them. I am hoping, and pretty sure that they would figure out the “Goldilocks” version of parking, “not too much, not too little, but just right.”
4) The setbacks of the buildings are puzzling to me. There are “no requirements” on setbacks on front, side and rear yards. The way it was explained to me is that there would be no requirements for setbacks for mid-block buildings, but it might be a good idea to look at the setback requirements for intersections (and there seem to me to be a whole lot of intersections). At this point, we do not have close-up renderings of what buildings would look like in different areas of the proposed 40R District.
This is one of my main questions. I can’t imagine 4 story building around the traffic circle where Dunkin’ Donuts is and where the Bird Watcher is located. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to live on that dangerous and noisy area, and being so close to a busy traffic circle. Renderings are definitely needed.
5) Not in the 1st draft, but backup information that would be arriving in the coming weeks that would include:
(1) estimated maximum dwelling units
(2) expected sewer flows (and how to pay for them)
(3) expected traffic impacts
(4) renderings/photo-simulations of new buildings
(5) expected impacts on schools
(6) expected c. 40R and c. 40S payments from the Commonwealth
(7) expected property tax revenues
Location of Municipal Lots for Off Street Parking in Newburyport:
Green Street, Municipal Lot
Cashman Park
Cushing Park, Washington Street
Waterfront Trust Lot
NRA West Lot
NRA East Lot, behind Custom House
Prince Street lot, corner of Hales Court and Prince Place
State Street lot, corner of Harris Street and State Street
One of the first things that struck me when I first saw the “Save the Open Waterfront” signs around town, was the phrase, “Stop NRA.” Not “Stop the NRA,” but “Stop NRA,” as if the NRA was not a group of Newburyport residents, but instead something like a STD, a sexually transmitted disease. And maybe that was the point in the marketing strategy, I don’t know.
What I do know, is when I walked and talked to folks during what seemed a very, very long election, the Waterfront always came up, and when the NRA was mentioned, I would try to explain that the members of the NRA are real, actual caring, human beings, not weird, wired, automated machines, cyborgs. Sigh.
And the chair, Tom Salemi, has got to be one of the nicest, fairest, kindest human beings in town–not toxic waste. When I would get beyond the tactfully stated, on my part, “not toxic waste” thing, and tell people about Tom Salemi, they would relax a little, and say, “Really.” And I’d say, “Really. Really and Truly.”
And judging from the article in the Newburyport Daily News, see earlier entry, it is really and truly true. The members of the NRA are not some uncaring monolith (a large and impersonal political, corporate, or social structure regarded as intractably indivisible and uniform), but people who care about this small New England City and the people who live in it. Will everyone in Newburyport believe that, probably not, but “really and truly,” that is true.
I asked a friend of mine, who not only knows about such matters, but is also “wise” (a much overlooked character trait these days), about why, when the history of the NRA (Newburyport Redevelopment Authority) land had been massively built on (lots of photos and maps to prove it), did the residents of Newburyport, no matter how long they had lived here, short time, long time, in-between time, seem so passionate about having it stay as an open waterfront.
Disclosure, I am one of the only people I know who likes, and will admit to liking, the proposal by the NRA and Union Studios for Newburyport’s Waterfront. I was born and raised in Manhattan, NYC, I like tall buildings, I like tall buildings that lead to the mouth of large rivers (the Hudson River for example). As far as I can tell, when talking to people, I am in a minority of one.
What my very wise friend said, was that when buildings get demolished, people get very attached to the open space. Boston’s Greenway was given as an example.
And the residents of Newburyport are very attached to the wide open space called “The Waterfront” along the mighty Merrimac River in Newburyport, MA. When I would walk and talk to folks, what I heard from all sorts of folks is that they would rather have it just the way it is than have anything built on it at all. This is from folks who have lived here, a short time, a long time, an in-between time.
And this past 2013 election has been, in my mind, about a whole bunch of things. But I think it might well be the final “swan song” for anything ever being built on that land. Yes, maybe “it,” the Waterfront, has been resolved in my life time. “Leave it open.” But, how to pay for it and maintain it, that has always been the question. And hopefully my “wise” friend might have some thoughts on that challenge, that puzzle, that head-scratcher, that perplexing conundrum.
From an article in today’s Newburyport Daily News, the entire article can be read here.
“The chairman of the Newburyport Redevelopment Authority has indicated the organization is changing direction and will cooperate with elected officials and residents to envision a future for the 4.2 acres of land the NRA owns on the central waterfront.
“I met with the mayor this week,” said Tom Salemi, chairman of the five-member NRA during an interview with The Daily News. “We’ll definitely be working more closely with her and the city going forward.
“With the change in (city) councils, I’m going to suggest the NRA hold off on any developments regarding Union Studio’s project until the new year.”
The NRA met Wednesday night, and members indicated they were in accord with Salemi’s statements…
Salemi in recent weeks suggested that it would be difficult to pursue the Union Studio plan without the support of the mayor and city administration.
In the recent interview and in comments at the recent NRA meeting, he said the NRA wants to work with the mayor, councilors and residents.
“The mayor would like time to talk with the new council (and those returning) about their views on the waterfront,” said Salemi.
“Then once everyone is settled and up-to-speed, the city and the NRA will decide on a future course.” “
Mayor
Donna Holaday (incumbent)
Richard Sullivan Jr.
Winner:
Donna Holaday
Councilor At-Large
(5 Councilors At-Large)
Laurel Allgrove
Edward Cameron (incumbent)
Barry Connell (incumbent)
Ari Herzog (incumbent)
Meghan Kinsey
Lyndi Lanphear
Bruce Menin
Sheila Mullins
Bruce Vogel
Winners:
Edward Cameron
Barry Connell
Ari Herzog
Meghan Kinsey
Bruce Vogel
Ward 1 Councilor:
Michael Ferrick
Allison Heartquist (incumbent)
Winner:
Allison Heartquist
Ward 2 Councilor:
Jared Eigerman
Christopher Welch
Winner:
Jared Eigerman
Ward 3 Councilor:
Robert Cronin (incumbent)
Leslie Eckholdt
Winner:
Robert Cronin
Ward 4 Councilor:
Tom Jones (incumbent)
Charles Tontar
Winner:
Charles Tontar
Ward 5 Councilor:
Larry Giunta Jr.
Sean Reardon
Winner:
Larry Giunta Jr.
School Committee
(3 School Committee members)
Steven Cole (incumbent)
Daniel Koen (incumbent)
Michael Luekens
Raymond Matthews
Cheryl Sweeney (incumbent)
Winners:
Steven Cole
Michael Luekens
Cheryl Sweeney
Election Results Mayor and City Council 2013, press image to enlarge
Election results for Mayor and City Council
Election 2013, School Committee (press image to enlarge)
Election results for School Committee
Congratulations to all who ran and to all who won.
Official numbers in for the top 5 Newburyport City Council At Large race (slightly different than last nights numbers, the winners are still the same).
Updated total:
Ed Cameron 2947 Barry Connell 2944
Ari Herzon 2893
Megan Kinsey 2856
Bruce Vogel 2526
Final results for Newburyport City Council At Large (press image to enlarge)
Final total for Newburyport City Council At Large (last night’s results were “unofficial”).
There is a very cool tool to find out where to vote in Newburyport, this Tuesday, November 5, 2013.
You just enter your street number, the street’s name, and your city or town, or your zip code, and voila, it tells you exactly where to go (it even tells you which ward you are in, and how to get in touch with the City Clerk). It can be found here.
The people of Newburyport will be voting for a Mayor (a 4 year term, not a 2 year term), for 5 Newburyport City Council At-Large candidates, Newburyport City Council candidates in Wards 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, and 3 Newburyport School Committee members.
Voting hours are 7am to 8pm.
Be sure to vote.
I will most likely go down to City Hall at 8pm, and will post the election results on the Newburyport Blog and the Newburyport Blog’s Facebook page.
Here is a sample ballot for the Newburyport At-Large Candidates.
On Tuesday November 5th, the residents of Newburyport will go to the polls to elect a Mayor (for a 4 year term, not a 2 year term), 5 Newburyport City Councilors At-Large, 5 Ward Councilors and 3 members of the School Committee.
Here are links to the Mayoral Debate between Mayor Donna Holaday and City Councilor Dick Sullivan on October 22, 2013 and the Newburyport City Council At-Large Debate on October 16, 2013.
The Mayoral Debate
The Mayoral Debate between Mayor Donna Holaday and City Councilor Dick Sullivan on October 22, 2013 can be watched here.
The Newburyport City Council At-Large Debate
The Newburyport City Council At-Large Debate on October 16, 2013 can be seen here.
As I recall, in the 2001 election, people voted for Al Lavender, as a reaction against Mayor Lisa Mead (not a “for” Al Lavender vote). I thought Lisa Mead was an incredibly competent mayor. And I feel that we are still recovering from the consequences of two years of Al Lavender’s tenure in the corner office (we are still cleaning up the landfill, which has caused untold misery–something that came out of Al Lavender’s two year term).
I would like a smart, well educated (more than a high school education), competent person, who can deal with an array of complex issues, in the corner office for the next four years, someone with a lot of executive experience (this is one complicated city to run) (a retired firefighter and a Home Depot greeter does not do it for me).
I think firefighters are incredible people, unbelievably brave, but with a skill set that, in my mind, does not translate into dealing with the incredibly complex issues that the Mayor of Newburyport deals with.
I would surely like to see the electorate vote with their intelligence, instead of reacting emotionally, and to see this not just as a one issue election (i.e. the Waterfront).
And I also think, given his resume, that if Dick Sullivan didn’t have the last name “Sullivan,” no one would take his candidacy seriously for being the CEO of this complicated city.
One Newburyport City Councilor (Dick Sullivan) got up in the Newburyport City Council chambers and lamented that all these “newcomers” were coming in and telling the folks who were born and raised here what to do.
Another Newburyport City Councilor (Tom Jones) got up (Thursday night) and said how Newburyport was a working class town, and seemed to intimate that it was still a working class town. No it’s not. In the year 2012, Newburyport is an upper-middle class city, quickly approaching a upper class enclave – especially when Mr. Karp starts building.
Honey, it ain’t your father’s Newburyport anymore.
If you haven’t noticed the carpetbagger thing has really, really gotten out of hand lately. You don’t just have the carpetbaggers who came in the first wave, in the mid to late 1970’s and very early 1980’s, right after Urban Renewal renewed. There was a wave in the late 1990’s after the MBTA came back to town. Remember that, a big housing spike when a lot of the old timers cashed in. I remember folks saying that it was a joke that anyone would want to live in Newburyport’s South End. There was a lot of bitterness about how high the taxes had gotten because of the housing boom, but that money bought more house not so far away, in a place where there weren’t so many doctors, lawyers and financial folks. Where the working class folks felt more comfortable.
And then the super duper influx around 2005, when Mr. Karp bought so much land and real-estate downtown. Yup, and people have just kept coming, with more and more money, lots more money. And the old-timers, the natives, they pay attention and they vote, but their numbers just ain’t what they used to be. It’s not your father’s Newburyport by any stretch of the imagination, no how, no way, any more.
A friend and I were talking yesterday, and they asked me what did I think of the new NRA’s proposal for Newburyport’s waterfront.
And I said, “I don’t know.”
And they said, “I don’t know.”
We’ve both lived in Newburyport for over 30 years and watched the ongoing NRA waterfront saga.
We both agreed that for the “Citizens for an Open Waterfront” (COWs as they have often been referred to over the many, many decades that this has gone on) having an open waterfront is a religion. And there are many, many folks in town that I know, like and respect very much, that feel fervently that nothing ever should be built on that piece of property.
Mayor Holaday was elected some 3 years ago over James Shanley in part because she was for an “Open Waterfront.” She won, and I thought at the time, Ok we can finally get on with that idea.
But the “new” idea proposed by then candidate James Shanley (now chair of the NRA, appointed by governor Deval Partrick), of having limited building on the NRA parcel to pay for the open space has gained, yup, traction.
I got out the old photo I have courtesy of the Historical Society of Old Newbury, or as it’s known in Newburyport as “The HIST,” of the NRA lots, c 1920, way before Newburyport’s Urban Renewal took place (click image below to enlarge), and there is no open space at all in what once existed before the bulldozers came in the late 1960s.
NRA land c. 1920, courtesy of the Historical Society of Old Newbury, press image to enlarge.
And my friend and I compared it to the new proposal by the NRA (click image below to enlarge), and we both agreed that there was a fair amount of open space, and that it looked reasonable.
NRA plans, 2012, courtesy of the NRA, press image to enlarge.
NRA plans, 2012, courtesy of the NRA, press image to enlarge.
NRA site plan, aerial view, courtesy of the NRA. Press image to enlarge.
NRA site plan, aerial view, courtesy of the NRA, press image to enlarge.
I guess the question now is, “What is considered open space on Newburyport’s waterfront’s NRA lots?” Lots and lots of open space, or open space, but less open space, with a plan to pay for it (and a park would be wicked expensive).
And for me, will this NRA saga finally be resolved, which I would like a lot, or will it never be resolved in my lifetime, and continue to be a Newburyport political third rail? Hang on to your hats, we’ll find out.
A couple of more images, courtesy of the NRA, for clarification:
NRA lots, aerial view, courtesy of the NRA, press image to enlarge
An aerial view of the NRA lots as they are today, courtesy of the NRA. Press image to enlarge.
Boundaries of the NRA land, courtesy of the NRA. Press image to enlarge.
Delineation of the property boundaries, of the NRA, the Waterfront Trust and the Ways to the Water as well as an approximate low water mark. Courtesy of the NRA, press image to enlarge.
To see the entire presentation of the new plans for the NRA lots, given at the Firehouse on September 12, 2012, press here (takes a while to load).
This is a film that about Newburyport made in 1975 that’s been around for a long time, but it’s the first time that I’ve seen it in video for the Web. It’s about the story of Newburyport’s Urban Renewal (and we have come a long, long way). The film was made by Lawrence Rosenblum (Vision, Inc. and Urbanimage Corp.) and is called, “Newburyport: A Measure of Change” and the video runs about 30 minutes.
You’ll see lots of friends, Sue Little (Jabberwocky Bookstore), Tom Kolterjahn, John (Hacky) Pramberg (former president of the Institution for Savings) and others (all much younger)! It’s very cool!
Link to Newburyport: A Measure of Change-video about Newburyport’s Urban Renewal
