For some years now, I have been telling anyone who would listen, there needed to be some action taken, to make moving north, by foot, on Main Street more inviting. Most of our professional downtown work force is in the area on or immediately around, State Street to Tower Square. They move. logically, between offices an the court houses, rarely movinn North, up Main Street, with the exception of, periodically going to the Fort restaurant. Nothing existed beyond Tower Square to attract this group, in the day time.

In the evening, the diminishing numbers of visitors came for events at either Symphony Hall, the MassMutual Center, or, sometimes City Stage, although, I believe; City Stage suffered from the lack of attractiveness in the surrounding area. Now, that CAN change.

The partial demolition of the Asylum opens up the space leading from Tower Square to Fort Street, making, even the “Entertainment District” beginning on Worthington Street, even more attractive for future investment; more restaurants, more high end” bars and other night life attractions. It may offer the struggling Theodore’s: on Worthington Street, a new vitality and market. “Cafe Manhattan” may, again, become a viable business venture. Further, it may offer a “spring board” for future development all the way to “The Arch” and beyond.

With the opening up of Main Street to Worthington Street, we now have reason to develope The Hippodrome, (Paramount Theater) and make the old “Luna’s” a viable restaurant again, while makeing life easier for “The Sitar.” With the rehabilitation of Union Station, finally, moving forward, if we refurbish some of the existing office and retail space in this area, we can have a marketable, attractive Main Street, all the way from State Street to the Arch, and  beyond, in both directions. We must not stop at State Street or the Arch.

With the redevelopment of the old “Hooters” on Congress Street, we have begun to create a new space from the Arch to Memorial Square. This is a move in the right direction. We must keep going to develop a Springfield that is both economically marketable and attractive to visitors.

The study of the Urban Land Institute identified the South End, as a “Gateway” to Springfield; BUT, so is  the NORTH END. Granted, the majority of out of state visitors to our city will come through the South End or enter in the center of downtown; but, a significant number of local commuters from Holyoke Chicopee and points and west north, view our city through the North End. Our city, state, and federal dollars have neglected this section for too long. For too long, the government entities appear to have viewed the North End as a buffer between the I-91 and I-391 ineterchange and central downtown Springfeild, leaving all major revitalization in thissection to Bay State Medical Center. The section up Main Street to the I-91 over pass is ready for help.

The North End, with its mix of old and new structures, its mix of commercial and residential properties, offers of great opportunity for an even more beautiful neighborhood. With the dominant Latino culture of the area, we have a ready made theme to enhance. The residents through social organizations and service, have, almost, on their own, created a wonderfully energetic and viibrant area. These efforts should be recongized. I would like to see the city begin to work with the residents, business and property owners, and neighborhood organizations to enhance code enforcement, develop sidewalks, enhance street lighting, and increase police presence in this ara, with the goal of incorporating all of Main Street into an community effort at revitalization, After all, the REAL community is, the Community of Springfield Residents.

We all know, parking is an issue downtown. Although there is clearly adequate parking for downtown, its use is hindered by people’s concern for the vehicle and walking on downtown streets. Whether this is a logical fear or  the perception of danger, is completely irrelevant. The fear is real.  This fear has had an effect on some businesses in attracting customers. Some businesses (primarily restaurants) came up with a creative way to address this concern. They began using valet parking. If a customer chose not to walk the few blocks from the Mass Mutual Center, Symphony Hall, or City Stage, they now could drive to the front door of their restaurant of choice, be met by a uniformed, pleasant attendant, and have their car parked. When they had completed their stay, an attendant would retrieve the vehicle for them and bring it to the front door. I must also state, this is no small expense to the proprietor of the restaurant. This system was working and working well with no real support or interference from the City of Springfield, UNTIL the city decided to FIX IT.

As I have been told, a well intentioned downtown business man, attempting to do what he believed to be right, wished to institute valet parking at his building. What I was told, is; he went to the Springfield Parking Authority/Republic Parking and asked how to institute valet parking and was told; he coulnd’t; because, there was no ordinance allowing for it; but, they would ask that one be established. My queston is; why do we need an ordinance to have someone park your car in a legal parking lot? If you park your own car legally, you don’t need an ordinance!

Well, apparently, the Springfield Parking Authority asked for a city department to create an ordinance (As I understand it, Springfield Parking has no authority to have an ordnance writtne by our law department). The city department agreed, and asked the law department to create an ordinance to solve problems with valet parking; BUT, no problems existed. Subsequently, the law department created an ordinance and asked that a city councilor bring it before the council for approval. Let’s take a look at this:

A/ Although other establishments use valet parking on an “as needed” basis, essentially, the Fort Restaurant was the only business, I know of, using valet parking regularly. There had been a few others; but, most of they have packed up and left downtown.

B/ I have met the attendants of the valet parking service several times.. They are courteous, friendly, careful, and efficient.

C/ I have asked several people, business operators and public officials. No one knows of a single incident or complaint associated with valet parking in the years it has operated.

D/ Cars are parked safely and legally.

E/ The system, as it is, encourages people to stay downtown, who would, otherwise leave after their stay at some other attraction downtown; or, it encourages them to come early for dinner, prior to attending and event.

In closing,  we have a number of organization and individual working to revitalize our downtown environment. All, whom I have met, firmly believe; that, through cooperation and communicaton, this can be achieved. If the city of Springfield wishes to support and encourage these well meaning folks, they should work with them, not against them. With any idea that will change the existing environment, such as, valet paking, parking validation, or metered parking, the input from those downtown estabishments to be effected should be solicited and considered. We should not instituted through ordinance, without input; or, implemented through mandate.

Fortunately, when it leaked out; that, this ordinance was up for consideraton, so much objection was raised; that, it was removed from the agends. But, I felt obligated to discuss this; because, it is such a clear example of government at its worst.

This position is strongly needed within City government. Any organization with a budget of about half a BILLION dollars, must have a trained, knowledgeable officer responsable for scrutinizing the budget and offering professional opinions on the fiscal soundness and economic ramifications of any major expenditure. As I understand it; this position will be appointed by the mayor. The Mayor’s appointment must be approved by the Commonwealth. The Chief Financial Advisory Officer (CFOA) will have no inherent authority to expend money or change budget allotments. The only function is advisory to both the council and, chiefly, the Mayor. If this is how this office is both instituted and maintained, this a great addtion to our government, however, I have concerns.

In all major organizations; of which I am aware, the limitations and extent of the authority of the new position is defined by the strength of the individual and the adminstration. This position must never exceed the original intent. The City Council and the electorate must remain vigilant concerning any expansion of the power and authority of this position; and, neither the City Council nor the electorate has a strong positive history in vigilance.

On the part of the Council; they have made many decison based solely on political expediency. With a City Coucnil elected to only a two (2) term, in the second year of their term, their focus is frequently split between what is best for Springfield, and what is best for their intended re-election. The City Councilors, with an adminstration with a CFAO, (appointment by the Mayor) must be courageous enough to challenge any attempt to expnad the autority of the CFOA, depsite what that challenge may do to their campaign. We have a Plan A governmeent, with a “strong Mayor.” If the C.F.A.O. were to expnad their authority of the budget and circumvent the autority of the City Council, it would neutralize the influence of the City Council (an elected position) and neutralize the influence of the electorate. The Mayor would become the ONLY influencial elected official in the city; and, with the four year term proposal of the Mayor, the electorate would become almost infectual in influencing the mayor.

The electorate has an even less recent admirable record in vigilance, with a less the 25% voter turn-out in the last two city-wide elections, people have not spoken strongly enough about their government. If we are to bring this City back to greatness, that can no longer be the case.

All that being said; I strongly support the appointment of a C.F.A.O.; but, I even more strongly support a courageous City Council and an electorate with increased participation. Ultimately, this is YOUR/OUR government, not the government of the elected.

The Armory Quadrangle neighborhood faces extreme difficulties. We have a very low medium income thus, a very high poverty rate. Those fortunate enough to own property suffer from dropping real estate values. The businesses in our neighborhood suffer from the dual problem of retreating national economy, while trying to do business in the city with the poorest economy in the Commonwealth. We have a disproportionate number of homeless; and, we have created a difficult environment in which business may flourish. But, I am hopeful. This hope is rooted in my belief; that, echoing a quote from President Clinton’s first inaugural address: “There is nothing wrong with Springfield that can’t  be fixed by what is right with Springfield.”

Recently, the Armory Quadrangle Civic Association elected new board members and began a new year. Although, at this time, I am much too busy to actively participate, I would like to offer my hope. My hope for the Armory Quadrangle Civic Association is based in a quote from then President elect Barack Obama, on his train trip from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C. In the Baltimore train station, he said; (paraphrase) When we begin to see ourselves in the faces of our fellow Americans,, we will begin to come together and solve our nation’s problems. With this in mind, I offer these suggestions. I do not make these comments as criticism of what is; but, as suggestions for the future based on my personal observations.

I. Remember, neighborhoods are made up of all who live, work, and do business within its boundaries.

A/ We have a wonderfully diverse populations. AQCA should reach out to those in our neighborhood, who are not, or are underrepresented within the membership. Membership and ideas will only grow by incorporating different life experiences and cultures.

B/ Neighborhoods of old included businesses. The growth of new business and the nurturing of existing business can only serve to enhance the health of this neighborhood. It may come as no surprise to most; almost all commercial property on Chestnut Street is either listed for sale, or willing to entertain offers. AQCA can be a vehicle to assist in creating an environmnet; in which, business not only does not wish to leave, but seeks an opportunity to locate here. Actively solicit the input of ALL business leaders and owners in this community. They too are important members of our neighborhood.

II.Work to be first, a citizen of Springfield

In this city, we area all, first and foremost, citizens of Springfield It is with this mind set, and this mind set only, that we can begin to address our problems in our neighborhoods and the city as a whole.  AQCA can be a catalyst for promoting this mentality.

Work with other neighborhood councils throughout the city to assist in addressing their concerns. In the issues that face our city; economic development, public safty, and education, our goals should all be the same: A better more vibrant Springfield What benefits one, benefits us all.

III. Be Relevant

There are a few members of the City Council, who are also members of AQCA. Solicit their active participation at meetings; so that, citizens may have first hand knowledge of what progress is being made on issues that concern them. Solicit city department heads to discuss topics of specific interest to this neighborhood as well as general concerns of the city; the new zoning code, State Street Revitalization, economic development, etc.

IV. Be Positive

They’re are many projects and plans for the city of Springfield. Many, if not all, of these plans will have components; with which, many have objections. But, look at the big picture. Will it benefit the city as a whole? If I don’t like an aspect of the plan, do I have a reasonable, well thought through alternative? Am I capable of articulating my objection and my plan clearly and succinctly? If not, where should I seek assistance? Too many times neighborhood associations develop a profile for being “against everything and for nothing. ” Avoid this profile at all costs. It wiil inhibit your ability to make progress.

In closing, I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said; “In a democracy, peopole don’t get the government they want. They get the goernment they deserve.” We deserve a better Springfield. Our elderly deserve a better Springfield. Our children and our grandchildren deserve a better Springfield. I believe, together, we can make that better Sprinfield a reality.

Over the next few decades, American use of the automobile will be radically altered. I hope this doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone; but, don’t get comfortable with $1.89/gal. gasoline. We will see $4.00/gal gas again. Even if we do not; we now know; our national dependence on oil is both an economic and security mistake. To the extent that we are now, our continued dependency on any fossil fuel is a giant global environmental mistake. It is depletable and a danger to our environment. Additionally, the continued growth of automobile use is a problem, Millions are killed and maimed annually in auto accidents. The cost to repair and maintain our roadways is astronomical. The addition of practical rail transport will assist in reducing all these negatives.

If we can develop a reasonable commuter rail transportation infrastructure. it will significantly reduce pollutants realeased into the air. Per passaenger, the pollutants released are far less than those of buses or cars. The new “high speed” electric train from Washington to Boston, actually returns power to the grid, while idleing.

Rail transport is much safer than automobile travel.  There are far fewer deaths per passenger mile on a train than in a car

Although, there is a care and maintenance component to a rail network, on a “per passenger” basis, it is far less than that of auto travel, especially when you factor together the road maintenance with the fuel, care, and maintenance paid by the individual car owner or company.

Hartford is estimated to have ten times as many employment opportunites than Springfield. The average train trip to Hartford would take about one half hour for someone in Springfield. A commuter rail link to Hartford would open up the Hartford job market to all those in Springfield, who can not now afford to purchase a car, the “working poor.”

Most rail stations are located in downtown locations. We are all aware of the difficulties faced by northeastern downtowns. Rail transportation would put new, out of town people on our downtown streets every day.

There is some questions regarding rail vs. bus or rail vs. air. In the “rail vs. bus” question, I believe; an enhanced rail transportation infrastructure would serve, not to damage bus transportation, but to invigorate it. As I have said; automobile transportation NEEDS to change. With two viable alternatives to automobile transportation, the “car habit” will change faster and more completely. If one can choose to go to work or to visit someone in another city by two other methods, than a car, they are more likely to take either, than if there were only one. Bus and rail have their own individual benefits to the consumer. They will both flourish.

In the air vs rail question; again, both have their place. Already, the benefits of air travel diminish, the closer  your departure point is to your destination. No one would consider air flight to Hartford or New Haven. Those considering air flight to New York City would do so to avoid the the expense of parking in the city, the difficulty actually finding parking, and the drudgery of driving the three hours. Rail transportation takes a similar amount of time, without the stresses of driving. The benefits of air travel don’t become apparent, until you are traveling a much greater distance. Rail, bus, and auto travel lose their appeal to someone traveling to Western Pa or beyond.

Regional business travel is an interesting consideration. From Boston to D.C. by air, takes about and hour to an hour and a half; but, as in most cases, the airports are in suburban locations. The business traveler must get to the airport travel to their destination, and get to the business location or hotel. to which they are traveling. Most major offices and major hotel chains are in downtown locations.

This same traveler traveling from D.C. to Boston, needs to get to Union Station, travel seven hours by rail, and end up in South Station, Boston, only a few blocks from major hotels and the financial district. Time becomes much less of a factor; and the amenities on commuter rail may make up for the difference. You can get up and walk around, There is typically a lounge area, a bar, and a snack location. This mode of transportation is far less stressful.

With the proximity of the municipalities in this region, the northeast is especially suited to the development of commuter rail development. For roughly the same cost and difficulties of connecting 300 miles of corn fields in Nebraska, we connect three, four, and five major municipalities; significant economic, educational, recreational and entertainment centers, as well as centers for the arts.

I don’t wish to mislead anyone. This project in NOT cheap, nor is it immediate. To insure an economic future, we must have some vision. We must prepare now, for a children’s world. The link from Enfield to Springfield is estimated to cost in the region of $300 million. 90% to be funded by the Federal Government. That is the idea of the bill in committee of the U.S. Congress. $30 million of this project would be funded by the Commonwealth. If you think that’s a great deal of money, compare it to the “Big Dig,” and that only benefited one city! The ultimate goal fo this project is to eventually link all of the northeast; Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and upstate New York. The link to Springfield will not probably be a reality for at least a decade. The full development, I will probably never see. Heck, I hope I live to see the link! But, we must start.

A transportation infrastructure with multiple options is the future of this region. probably of this nation. It would be incredibly beneficial to our city. The $300 million dollar investment is estimated to return a $148 million dollars in economic benefits alone.

It is estImated that; the failure of G.M., will cost tax payers (me and you) in the neighborhood of $175 billion, in legal cost in the first year. The resulting loss of jobs and businesses will cost the American tax payer, in excess of $200 billion. Between jobs and businesses connected to the auto industry, G.M., Ford, and Chrsyler are a major part of the stability of our economy. BUT, but, the arrogance of those involved in this industry can be identified as the primary reason for the problem they find themselves in now. What assurances do the American tax payer have; that, if we spend $25 billion in subsidies, we get a better, more viable, auto industry?

Since the introduction of the Volks Wagon Beetle, in the1950′s, the American auto industry has had examples of the changing market place. They chose not to respond.

Since the 1970;s, we have recognized; that, our national dependence on foreign oil was not only caused an economic difficult but a potentially serious security risk.  In the 21st. Century, that potential security risk has been realized. In response; the American auto industry gave us SUV’s and HUMMERS.

For decades now, foreign auto makers have been making incredible in roads into our domestic market. These in roads have been based on higher quality products, lower cost of operation, and better service. Even our own population has grown accustom to the better products made by foreign auto makers. When, having been given the option of buying the same product made by G.M. or Toyota, the American purchased the Toyota. The G.M. product didn’t sell and was taken off the market.

Now, G.M.  wants to borrow our money, with NO concessions for existing management and no restriction imposed by government. Are you kidding me?!

The failure of our auto industry will cause a devastating ripple effect throughout our economy, similar to that which, the auto industry has done to the city of Detroit through its incompetent decline. Detroit is now, the poorest major city in the United States. Now, these same people want our faith in their management. HUH!?

On the other hand, if any of the “Top Three” auto manufacturers fail, especially  in the existing recession, it will leave a void in our domestic automobile market. Toyota, and many of the other foreign auto manufaturers stand prepared to jump into our market, and fill that void. That would destroy our balance of trade and kill, at least for a time, our employment. The effects on our long term economic strength could be devestating and almost irretrievable. Those, primarily in the Republican Party, who say; “Let the market work it out,” seem to overlook the fact, they are looking at a “world market,” not simply a domestic market. Yes, the market COULD work it our, right out of our domestic economy. So what do we do?

I hope; this Congress will pass a bill to subsidize the American auto industry and secure the employment of 100′s of thousands, if not millions, of U.A.W. workers, and tangential companies. After all, we’ve subsidized Chrysler Motors in the past and the government MADE money.  BUT, the American tax payer should require concessions

At the time we subsidized Chrysler, Lee Iaccoca was C.E.O. He was relatively new in the position and had begun to make changes in the product and the financial structure of the company. When he sought assistance from the government, Chrysler needed help with the strides it had begun to make on its own. That does not appear to be the case now.

To insure the safty of the American Taxpayers’ investment, the U.S. Government must gain concessons from lenders (who are benefiting from a previously approved $700 billion subsidy), the U.A.W., who would loose their employment if the companies were to fail, and from the auto manufacturers themsleves. Why would we want to subsidize management, who had driven the auto industry into failure. Government oversight and a new management structure must be part of the package. Additionally, there must be a “strategy for the future.” How and when will we create products that reduce the dependency on fosil fuels? How do American auto makers further protect their exising markets through competition rather than further import restrictions? How do American auto makers make greater in roads into foreign markets and how can the U.S. Government assist in that goal?

Yes, this IS  a local problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If our auto indusrty fails, the reverberation will be felt on EVERY LEVEL OF SOCIETY! In the city of Springfield, laready facing unparrelled poverty, the failure of the auto industry would result in less federal and state subsidies to help ourselves in our quest for economic independence. We need that!

IN CLOSING: Please, contact your local members of Federal government, Congressman and Senators. Urge them to subsidize and support the auto industry; BUT, ONLY WITH MAJOR CONCESSIONS FROM LENDERS, THE UNION, AND A RESTRUCTURING OF MANAGEMENT. This is a Federal, State, and local issue. The future of our economic viability and our national security is dependent on this action.

Some facts:

The present City Council has nine (9) councilors elected “at large” (in a city wide election).

The new City Council will have thriteen City Councilors. Five of those coucilors will be elected “at large” (city wide). Each Ward, eight in all, will elect their own representative to the Council. These councilors will be voted on only in their ward.

In the old council, a simple majority vote was represented by five (5) votes. The exact same number as the number of councilors to be elected at large on the new City Council.

On the new City Council, a simple majority vote will be represented by seven (7) votes, only two (2) more than the number of councilors elected at large.

Of the existing council, only three (3) were NOT there, while our city went into near financial ruin: Bruce W. Stebbins, Patrick Markey, and James J. Ferraro, III.

Let’s take a look at factors feeding into the next election.

When it comes to the city wide election, those of the incumbents, who choose to run, have a number of beneficial factors in the favor:

They have the “bully pulpit;” They will serve all of 2009, while runing for office and serving on the Council.

They have a long relationship with the local media;

They have several years experience of accessing the necessary campaign money to run a city wide election. It could cost a new candidate $20,000.00 + to be run, even unsuccessfully.

Because of the historic “at large” system and the presence of the Financial Control Board for the last five years, they have NO record to account for. This is a traditional weakness of our present “at large” system.

They have eixisitng organizations.

They have name recognition.

Thus, it is unlikely, any newcomer will run “at large.” If some newcomer chooses to do so, they better have a great deal of financing and be very well known.

Considerations”

Of the existing City Councilors, at least one (1) will probably not run. It is generally suspected; that, Jose’ Tasado will seek the office of the Mayor. That leaves only eight remaining councilors to seek “at large” seats.

I believe; at least two (2) incumbent councilors will seek the Ward seat, in the same ward. One will win. One will be off the council. That leaves only six remaining incumbents seeking the five (5) seats “at large.” If one existing councilor decides NOT to seek re-election, ALL existing councilors choosing to seek “at large” seats, are likely to be elected, with one Ward Councilor coming from the other of the incumbent group. That means, of the thirteen potential councilors, six (6), one short of the majority vote, will come from existing councilors. Additionally, by January, 2009, five (5) of the existing coucilors will all come from Ward 7, a clear majority of the existing councilors on the present council, which will serve for all of 2009. Of those five (5), it is likely, a minimum of four (4) , only three short of a majority, will serve on the new City Council.

What’s that mean? On the new City Council, incumbent counilors will have a block of six (6) votes, one short of a majority; and, a majority of that block, four (4), will come from one Ward. Begs the quesion: “How much will really change?” The answer; with voter participation, things could change a great deal. Without voter participation; they may change,,NOT AT ALL

With these factors, the Financial Control Board leaving in June, the city in only slightly better condition than it was before they came, the Council dominated by incumbents, and potentially dominated by one Ward, the November, 2009 election for City Council will be a critical election.

(Don’t beleive the “spin” regarding the “cash reserve” of the City. We have about $50 million in reserve and must pay back $50 million by 2012 to the Commonwealth. We have an addtional $20 million in an account for “future economic development” that we desperately need; but, we don’t know what will happen to that money, when the Financial Control Board leaves. If it goes back to the Commonwealth, we will reduce our debt by $20 millon and will have a reserve of $20 million; but, we will loose the “ear marked” money we desparately need to rebuild our tax base. With a 1/2 a billion dollar budget, a 5% reserve is hardly a strong economic position, especially with a shrinking economic base. )

For the election of November, 2009, the Springfield electorate should start their individual work beginning in January, 2009. Although, over time, the Ward representative system will gain more equality, working ot insure an expedited maturation must begion NOW! The productive Ward representative must be a good candidate, indeed. In your decisions; be certain, your choice for Ward representative is equaly committed to the future of your Ward and OUR CITY. The foundation of a good democracy requires; debate, deliberation, and compromise. Be certain, your choice for Ward representative is competent in all these areas. Be certain, your Ward representative is knowledgeable in the needs of your neighborhood/Ward, as well as, the needs of Springfield. Be certain, the priorities of your choice for Ward representative places the needs of your Ward and neighborhood and the city of Springfield, above their own desire to gain and consolidate political influence.

I have become aware of several people planning to run for Ward representative seats in the November, 2009. I am extremely encouraged by the high quality of people making themselves available for these seats. I have spoken with future candidates in Wards 1, 2, 3, and 7. We should all be encourage by the quality of candidate stepping forward. Find them! Work for them! Get them elected!

Finally, when choosing your candidate; please remember; We are one City, non a compilation of Wards. We are one people,not a group of differing races and ethnicities. And finally, We have one future!

One City, One People, One Future!

During the march on Washington in the 1960′s. the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. dreamed of the day when “a man will not be judge by the color of his skin but the content of his character.” Thanks to the conduct of BOTH Senator John McCann and President elect Barack Obama, that dream, although slightly, as been realized. As a nation, and representing the generation who “asked why not,” when there needed to be a “fight” for blacks to even register to vote, only a generation later, our children went to the polls to cast a vote for “a man,” in large part, with NO regard for the race of the candidate. Yes, I believe; the majority of young people voting for Senator John McCann, did so, because; they honestly believed; he was the better person for the job. Many of the young people, of all races, voted for Barack Obama ;because, they truly believe him person was the better for the job. Of all that was achieved in this election, this fact may be both the most important accomplishment and the most overlooked accomplishment; but, It also offers me the greatest hope for the future. As an example, NBC News reported; if you remove the young vote (25 and under) Barack still wins. IF you remove the Latino vote, Barack still wins. The point, Barack won by a coalition of voters from across the spectrum of the voting populace. But, before we praise ourselves to greatly though, we must be realistic. What, exactly was accomplished.

With the election of Barack Obama, we have NOT, necessarily, ended the systmamtic oppression of all. Remember, in January, 1961, we inaugurated the first Roman Catholic President. None has been elected since. Only one has even been a nominated candidate of a major party. No woman has even attained the Presidential nomination of a major part, yet; but, we were close, this time, Only two women have been nominated as Vice Presidential candidates (No, Sarah WASN’T the first). Do not misinterprut my comments. I do not believe; we should now seek to nominate a woman or a Catholic, or even another African America. We must work to insure; the barriers of access to the process continue to be eliminated. We must work to insure that all our future candidates from those who seek local office, to those who seek Federal office, have equal access to the system and a their qualifcatioin are base, not on their gender, religion, or race but, soley on the “content of the character.”

As it relates to the Presidential elections, my first and proudest response is to our system. As we continue this process now for over 220 years, we do so without widely createing enemies; but simply opponents. Now, as we have done, in the past, two separate parties have elected one person to be the President of ALL PEOPLE. Believe this, although I was a supporter of Barack Obama, if the results had been different, I would be willing to PROUDLY SAY, John McCann is MY PRESIDENT. That is an American attitude that appears rare in our world, and is the backbone and stability of our Republic. All my fellow “children of the sixties,” remember the saying: “I may disagree with what you say; but, I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it!” That’s the United States I have always been proud of. Political scientist will tell you; one of the most important structual needs of any successful democracy is the “loyal opposition.” As Americans, we have done that as well or better than other naton in history. We argue. We debate, We even get angry. But, after all is said and done, we ALL accept, the preservation of our Republic is the one over riding goal of us all, Repbulicans, Democrats, and most of the lesser parties. But, future President Obama carries a unique and special burden.

As Barac Obama enters the White House, he is faced with, what many professional observers call, the most difficult environment since the “Great Depression.” The two days following his election, the stock market had the biggest percentage drop in history. All three major automotive manufactorers sent their respective C.E.O’s to Congress seeking financial help. We are at war on two different fronts. No one has taken over the White House with the nation in more desperate condition, since F.D.R. President Obama will need our support. On top of the real issues he faces, he goes to Washington with a standard set from him, that may exceed any put on a new President in history. Because of his historic victory, his calm nature, and his charismatic personality, many appear to view him and more than human; despite the fact, he has never claimed to be. I have several important desires for President Obama’s relationship with the American public.

A/ The American voter realizes; as he has said; he can not reverse the problems he faces in a year or even one term. He is human! The solution to these problems will take time and more sacrifice. I hope we, as the public, give him time to do the work.

B/ We, even his supporters, will disagree with some of what he does. In these times, initially, we may even disagree with a majority of the steps he takes. We have a right to disagree! The “loyal opposition” does NOT refer only to the other party; but, to all who loyally and reasonably disagree. Obama repeatedly made that point in his campaign. But, he deserves the time to work the complex problems through.

C/ As supporters, I hope; we never agree with Obama, simply because; we supported him. He is not going to always be right. No one ever is.

D/ As his opponents, I hope; you will not always disagree, simply because, you would have preferred John McCann. I say, with great confidence, the great American, John McCann, will never disagree, simply to disagree. He has proven himself to be a far greater person than that.

E/ Racism and bigotry are NOT dead in the United States. Unfortunately, none who read this will probably live to see the day it is; but, we have made little steps towards a “more perfect union.” Alive and well, is illogical expectations. To paraphrase Ted Kennedy in eulogizing Robert, let us not lioness Obama beyond what he truly is, a great HUMAN! If he is wrong, he will be wrong, because of human error, not because he’s Africna American. IF he is wrong, he will be wrong. We can not accept more failings from President Obama than any previous President, simply because, he is African American. That would be incredibly disrespectful to the man.

It is my opinion, President elect Barack Obama ran his campaign with the most dignity and grace of any campaign I have seen. He generated hope in Americans, all Americans. He was universal in his concern for the American population. He was not concerned simply about race, religion, or gender. He was concern about the United States of America. Vice President elect, Joe Biden has a long history of acting on the same philosophy. They have made history. We have taken another step towards the top of “The Mountain” of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; but, now its time to govern. I look forward to it with great hope and confidence.

I spoke of the grace and dignity of the Obama Presidential campaign. I would also like to say the same for Senator John McCann. If you remove some ads. influenced by the RNC, in Senator McCann’s campaign, we see a GREAT MAN!  I saw shots of McCann at rallies, where people yelled out false allegations about Barack Obama. Senator McCann could have let them sit in the air, without addressing them. It would have been difficult to falt him in the context of a campaign. John McCann didn’t take that route. He openly corrected and admonished the person. He defended Barack Obama and an honorable American. In this Presidential campaign, Americans were blessed with two candidates, who we could hold up to our children and grandchildren as examples. There are many previous Presidential election, during which, I wish John McCann was one of the choices. I may have pulled my only Republican presidential lever ever. I simply believe; this was not the time for John McCann.

That being said; I am grateful; Sarah Palin is going back to Alaska.

God Bless a united, United States of America.

Thank you for allowing me to express this personal opinion.

Nearing the end of the month, I spoke with a very small business owner, who had been validating parking for sometime, for her customers that came downtown to avail themselves of her services. She had gone in end of September to purchase validation stickers. She asked the Springfield Parking Authority/Republic Parking, if she should purchase more than a month’s worth of validation. She had heard, they were considering changing the system; and, she wanted to be certain, she had enough stickers to service her clients. She was told not to worry! Nothing would change for her.  At the end of October, she went back to purchase more validation stickers. She was told by the Springfield Parking Authority/Republic Parking, they had changed the system and the parking facility she regularly uses, Tower Square garage, was NOT part of the validation program, She could NOT purchase validation! Was this a mistake by Republic Parking in September?

In late October, I attended a public information hearing given by Republic Parking at City Hall on the new parking validation program. This, in addition to some conversations with some downtown business owners and my life long history in Springfield, gave me new perspective on this program. I came away with a new opinion: This system will hurt any effort to revitalize downtown Springfield, for these reasons:

A/ It is too complex for the immediate future. It requires a “learning curve” for both consumers and business owners. The system also includes the addition of new parking meters on Main Street, with multiple means of paying the charge.  Aside from all the other issues facing downtown, real or perceived, we do NOT need to make it CONFUSING to come downtown.

B/ It might work, if it were fazed in over a two year period, in selected areas. But, Republic Parking didn’t appear to have an attitude of discussing the introduction. Instead, their attitude appeared: “This is not a discussion. Its US giving you information about what YOU WILL DO!” No discussion necessary!

C/ Apparently, The Springfield Parking Authority is the ONLY participating parking vendor using this system in Springfield. Apparently, Pro Park is not signed on and Tower Square has gone to its own validation program. I don’t believe the Monarch Tower/Springfield Sheraton offers validated parking to downtown consumers, or needs to. Springfield is far better off utilizing the existing parking other than that managed by Republic Parking, than introducing this system. It will only confuse potential customers, anger businesses, and cause further flight of downtown business.

D/ The apparent attitude of Republic Parking and the apparent lack of respect shown downtown businesses, such as; Monarch Tower/Sheraton Springfield, Tower Square/the Marriott/Mass Mututal, The Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce, The Fort and Student Prince, The BID, and many many others, is not indicative of an organization interested in the City of Springfield; but only in justifying their own existence.

It is my understanding; Tower Square has initiated their own parking validation program for their resident businesses. CONGRATULATION TOWER SQUARE MANAGEMENT! But, the need for Tower Square to take this action, is indicative of the difficulties caused by the arrogant approach Republic Parking has taken to the introduction of this new parking system.  At this critical time in the future of downtown Springfield, DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES DO NOT NEED TO BE DIVIDED IN THEIR GOALS!

Mayor Domenic Sarno was present for the greater part of the information session conducted by Republic Parking referenced earlier. A member of Mayor Sarno’s staff was present for the entire session. At this time, I would urge the Mayor to use the power and influence of his office to arbitrate this potentially hazardous problem. There is a solution inherent in the program. It needs the acceptance of all parties. It needs a gradual introduction. It needs all parking and businesses to be working in the same direction. It does not need the Springfield Parking Authority to be making too much of the word “Authority” in the name.

If arbitration doesn’t work, I urge the Springfield Business Improvement District (The BID) to work with the membership to institute a competitive validation program incorporating all OTHER parking facilities that would meet the needs of the BID’s membership and offer an alternative parking to the Springfield Parking Authority.

The businesses still operating downtown have done more to help our city than any new parking validation program will ever do. The opinions and needs of these businesses are important and need to be part of any guidance in revitalizing our downtown district.

Encapsulated History:

Historically, during the growth of the “Industrial Age,” people moved from the fields and farms to the urban areas, in search of work in the factories. These folks were added to by the migration to the U.S. by those primarily from Europe, This “urbanization” took place, most significantly, in the late part of the 19th, and the early part of the 20th century in the United States. Folks lived and worked in the city factories, especially in the North, and most significantly, in the Northeast like Springfield. They represented the “Great Middle Class.”  Interestingly, many of these people were viewed as lesser humans, “Those People.” Behind close doors, and sometimes openly, they were referred to as; “The dirty Irish,”  “The diry Italians,” and so on. In Massachusetts, those of Mediterranian decent, Irish, and Roman Catholics were particularly dispised. But, the elite required the labor to work in the factories the owned in the city. Apartments sprung up around the large ornate homes owned by the factory owners, to house the workers. Then came the Great Depression and then World Ware II. As we geared up to fight World War II, we created the greates industriial complex in the history of the world. Then, the end of World WAr II

At the end of World War II, in their wisdom,  the government created the G.I bill. This allowed the sons and daughter (mostly the sons) of the original factory workers, to get an enducation. This, in turn, allowed those sons and daughters of the original factory workers to build “The American Dream;” and they did!

At the end of World War II, we had this incredible indutrial infrastructure. We needed worldwide markets to sell the products, We created the Marshall bill. This revitalized a Europe devestated by World War II; so that, it would be able to purchase our manufactured goods. This worked!  By the end of World War II, approximately 40% of ALL manufactured goods worldwide, we made in the United States; however, through our efforts, the economies of both Europe and Japan were growing. Additionally, the technology created in the United States was changing the face of industry. Slowly, the manufacturing dominance of the United States began to erode. During this same time, the newly empowered middle class was moving from the cities to the newly developed suburbs, bedroom communites; and, good and services left the city with them. With the advent of air conditioning, new, cheaper labor markets opened in the South. Factories packed up an moved South. We were left with no industry in the city; no jobs in the city, no tax base in the city. Poverty became concentrated in the city. Cities turned to the State and Fedreal government for help.

Today, approximately 80% of budget for the city of Springfield comes from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. With that revenue, the city of Springfield cares for and addresses the needs of the majority of the poor and homeless in the region. Suburban and “Bedroom” communities have no facilities to address those needs. Additionally, those same communities have zoning regualtions the restrict the development of affordable houseing. Wonder why, Springfield has a 48% drop out rate, almost 50% of our children, under the age of 13, live under the poverty level? Now, the residents of the communities wish to cut off our funding to address our mutual responsibility.

If we eliminate the income tax, much of Springfield’s funding as well as the majority of t he urban locations throughout the Commonwealth, will dry up. Make no mistake about this! Those responsible for this referendum DO NOT come from our urban environments. They ARE NOT wondering how they will feed their children. They are not concerned for the budget of the city or town they leave at 5:00P.M. Most disturbing to me, many of them are the grandchildren of those who fought the same kind of mentality that tried to restrict these folks from getting to wher they are now. They are sayding things now, like; “Why should I be paying for THOSE PEOPLE!” What they don’t seem to see, is; if this referendum pases, “Those people” will bedcomeing to your home to visit.  You can’t eliminate social ills by refusing to address them.

My suggestions: PLEASE VOTE NO ON QUESTION 1! Do it for you kids, you grandchildren and yes, even as in the memory of your ancestors. I am sure, they would be proud that you are working to insure the same benefits for otehrs, that they worked so hard to insure for us.

Work for income tax reform. Income tax can be better.

Work to make certain; programs created to address the needs of the poor and impaired are RELEVANT AND EMPOWERING. Stop creating programs that break peoples will and create long term poverty.

PLEASE VOTE NO ON QUESITON 1