A DEEPER DIVE INTO THE IDEOLOGICAL JIVE BEHIND QUESTION FIVE

Question 5 on the Massachusetts ballot contains two provisions.

The first provision would gradually increase the minimum hourly wage that an employer must pay a tipped worker over five years, reaching 100% of the state minimum wage in 2029.

The second provision would permit an employer to pool tips for distribution among all workers, including kitchen staff.

For any of you who have not listened to the debates and commentary or have read the pros and cons of this ballot question, it is designed to radically change the traditional tip-based compensation system for waitstaff and bartenders.

This ballot question is the brainchild of a national organization called One Fair Wage. Their mission statement is summarized in this blurb for a book written by their president:

“These stories, paired with facts from years of research, advance the narrative of racial capitalism and the idea that all of the subminimum wages in different sectors are a reflection of America’s devaluation of people of color, workers with disabilities, youth, and immigrants as subhuman. The book also reveals the solution to addressing racial capitalism which is paying everyone a full minimum wage.”

I know of no restaurant in Watertown where employees are treated as “subhuman.”  There was a recent case where the owner of a pizzeria chain, with locations in Boston and a few other towns, was arrested, tried, and convicted for enslaving and brutalizing his immigrant employees. He’s now in prison where he belongs because we have federal laws, state laws, and enforcement agencies to address employment abuse, including racial discrimination.

And, because we are now living in the new Watertown, with a new Human Rights Commission, any sub-humanized server working within our city limits can simply grab their phone, dial 311, and send the HRC into action. I think the commissioners will appreciate the call. Currently, it doesn’t look like they have enough to do to justify their existence.

According to the National Restaurant Association, women make up a majority of tipped positions in the restaurant industry. 69% of waitstaff and 56% of bartenders are women.

And, it is the comments predominately from waitresses, former and present, that best make the case for not tampering with the status quo. I’ve plucked a few typical comments from callers to radio shows and from social media.

“As a single mother, it was my tips from waitressing that enabled me to put two kids through college. They weren’t tipping the restaurant. They were tipping me.”

“I always made the most tips because I had the most repeat customers and I worked hard to get them.”

“During my career, I dealt with more problem customers than my managers did. Making me share my tips with people who did less would be unfair.”

“Go into any restaurant during peak times and you’ll spot the ones [servers] who hustle and the ones who don’t.”

Among the many comments, the word hustle was prominent. It was even used in a comment from the state’s most prominent ex-waitress.

The ex-waitress/governor makes some awfully good points, which are hard for any longtime restaurant goer, including me, to disagree with. I would only take issue with her statement that the ballot question is “a well-intentioned effort…”

Grace McGovern, of One Fair Wage’s local chapter, who participated in some of the debates, has a message for restaurant owners:

"If you can't afford to pay your employees the minimum wage, you can't afford to run your business. It's as simple as that."

That’s a pretty tough statement which doesn’t sound well-intentioned to me. But Grace McGovern certainly sounds like she knows what she is talking about. In fact, she must have owned a restaurant at some point in her life, although she neglected to mention it.

As an owner (?), she must have succeeded in keeping her restaurant in business through the pandemic, while so many longtime restaurant owners were forced to close their doors forever.

As an owner (?), She must have excelled at attracting waitstaff and bartenders, post-covid, when many industries, including the hospitality industry, were facing crippling labor shortages.

She must have dealt nimbly with supply chain disruptions and the constantly fluctuating costs of ingredients.

She must have figured out how to keep prices under control, while not sacrificing quality, during steadily rising inflation.

Come to think of it, she probably would have mentioned surviving those personal trials if she actually had to walk that walk before making such an arrogant and insulting statement, which bears repeating.

"If you can't afford to pay your employees the minimum wage, you can't afford to run your business. It's as simple as that."

Here are some "simple" arguments used by proponents of Question 5 that they can't possibly substantiate:

Restaurant owners will not have to raise menu prices.

If they do raise menu prices, the increase will not reduce customer visits.

When customers become aware that their waitress is making a higher minimum wage, they will not decrease the amount of their tips.

The hardest-working and most engaging servers (like the ex-waitress/governor) will not make less money than they currently do.

Owners will not have to reduce their staff if the ballot question passes.

Some restaurants will not have to close if the ballot question passes.

Waiters, waitresses, and bartenders will not end up with fewer places to work if the ballot question passes.

Does common sense tell you otherwise?

I will be taking Maura Healy’s advice, rather than Grace McGovern’s. What about you?

Just to make the message sticky, I’ll end this post with this little ditty:

If you want your favorite restaurants to survive

And your favorite servers to thrive

Ignore all the jive and

Vote HELL NO on Question Five 

Thank you for stopping by. Please feel free to hit my tip jar on the way out.

 

Bruce Coltin, The Battle For Watertown

 

EIGHT TROUBLING TAKEAWAYS FROM THE LATEST WATERTOWN SQUARE AREA PLAN MEETING

The latest assault on the community took place on Thursday, June 13 at the Middle School, before a joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Board. Call me crazy, but I had foolishly held out hope for an announcement of a course correction that would introduce nuggets of sane moderation into the current plan.

You can find a detailed and objective description of the meeting on Watertown News. Nothing written on this blog post pretends to be objective. In all honesty, I might describe this particular blog post as an all-out rant. 

My troubling takeaways begin here. They are not listed in the order of my perceived importance. They simply leaped from my agitated brain onto my keyboard like passengers off a sinking ship.

TROUBLING TAKEAWAY NUMBER ONE: Attendance at These Meetings Continues to be Poor.

By my count, the meeting at the Middle School that brought us one step closer to the ruination of Watertown drew about 150 people, which appeared to be about half of the auditorium’s capacity. Another 100 people watched the meeting on Zoom. Attendance at these meetings does not grow because no conscientious effort is made to cause it to grow.

TROUBLING TAKEAWAY NUMBER TWO: Low Participation Shall Continue to Be Called Great Participation.

At every meeting, including this one, the Manager and the consultants praise the high level of community participation. In a city of 35,000, with 25,000 registered voters, the best the administration can do is draw 250 people and treat it like a smashing success. I wonder how many City Councilors, who were elected to their positions by engaging in door-to-door community outreach, are buying this baloney.

TROUBLING TAKEAWAY NUMBER THREE: It’s a Compromise If They Say It’s a Compromise.

Once again, the state’s mandate for Watertown to rezone for 1701 by-right multi-family housing units was not up for discussion. And it soon became apparent that it would not be placed on the table at this meeting or at any future meeting.

The number 3,133 has been presented as a compromise between the never-mentioned 1701 units and the once-presented 6,320 units, which was never going to fly. 3,133 is a phony compromise and they know it.

TROUBLING TAKEAWAY NUMBER FOUR: The Toy Soldiers, Otherwise Known As Activists, Answered the Call.

The local chapter of Housing For All (HAW) showed up at the meeting in full force and dutifully marched to the microphone, one by one, to praise the Manager’s plan.

Most of them expressed their regret at not having a housing goal higher than 3,133 but were “graciously” willing to accept the phony compromise.  HAW wants taller buildings, more density, and more “vibrancy” in Watertown Square. Like their counterparts across the country, what they actually want is to plant as many housing units as possible onto every available plot of land as their contribution to solving the national housing crisis.  

Their battle cry: Give housing developers more incentives and fewer restrictions.

Their implied message to the City Council: Please endorse our moral crusade!

 TROUBLING TAKEAWAY NUMBER FIVE: A Big Land Grab is in The Works.

You know those wonderfully convenient public parking lots behind the library and CVS that you so take for granted? You can kiss them goodbye. Those tempting morsels of land are a developer’s dream. How many housing units can they squeeze into those currently wasted spaces? Enough for Maura Healy and Kim Driscoll to send us a thank you note.

TROUBLING TAKEAWAY NUMBER SIX: The Number Behind the Number Shall Not Be Spoken.

We have now been conditioned to hearing the phony compromise number 3,133. But not once have we heard an estimate of the number of bodies that will occupy those units. “It’s mostly up to the developers,” is the likely answer. But, wait! Don’t we have experts on staff and expert consultants who could put their heads together and give us a range? Could it be as many as 4,000 bodies? Could it be 5,000 bodies?

Perhaps getting down to that level of nitty-gritty would spark too many mental images of suffocating hyper-density and is, therefore, officially taboo.

TROUBLING TAKEAWAY NUMBER SEVEN: The Traffic Nightmare You Must Endure in the Name of Progress.  

Let’s just cut to the chase. Your motor vehicle, whether it runs on gas, electricity, or oatmeal, is the enemy of the greater good. Watertown needs to become Bicycletown, U.S.A. and you need to either get on board or get out of the way.

The plan to make this happen becomes clearer with each poorly attended meeting. Major roads will be narrowed to create bigger and better bike lanes and “calmer” crossings for pedestrians (“uncarred” people) to better access inadequate public transportation.

Are you already zig-zagging between neighborhood cross streets to be able to get through or around Watertown Square? Well, that’s going to get a lot trickier, and that’s a major part of the plan. The more suffering you are forced to endure, the more likely it will be that you will either ditch your car or pick up and move to Vermont, making way for your bicycle-riding replacements.

TROUBLING TAKEAWAY NUMBER EIGHT: The Wild Card Members of the City Council Control the Future of Watertown Square.

It has been this way since the local election of 2021 when progressives gained an edge on our legislative body. As it now stands, the Council is composed of three progressive ideologues, three pragmatic moderates, and three wild cards, whose votes on any given issue are less predictable.

If I’m correct, it will take two of those wild card votes, added to the three moderate votes, to send the Manager, his staff, and his consultants back to the drawing board with instructions to come up with a commonsense plan that truly fits this city.

Such a plan should call for the continued building of multi-family housing units along with preserving the endangered qualities of the still somewhat townish city that distinguishes us from Cambridge, Somerville, and Shanghai.

The briefest resident comment made during the entire meeting came in the form of a simple one-sentence statement, followed by a simple one-sentence question. Combined, they spoke volumes.

He came to the podium and said:

“You published the results of a poll of a sort that attracts primarily activists. Would you be willing to commission a polling organization to do a randomized poll of the residents of Watertown?”

And then, he abruptly returned to his seat.

How about it, members of the Council? Shouldn’t you insist on getting genuine, unbiased feedback, representing the whole community, not just the most informed, most available, and most vocal among us?

How about insisting that all available avenues of community outreach are exhausted before you vote to approve a plan? All it will take to design and execute that comprehensive outreach is for someone with the will and the know-how to be put in charge – someone who, from the beginning, has been conspicuously absent from the process.

In the meantime, how about hitting the pause button? 

 The real Watertown will thank you.

End of rant.

 

Bruce Coltin, The Battle For Watertown

 

A HOUSING PLAN ON STEROIDS IS MARCHING US TOWARD YOUDOPIA

Ever get the feeling you’re being herded down a path without knowing why?

Sometimes that feeling is just a feeling but sometimes it’s a voice in your head, warning you that something is fishy here.

Watertown has been adding housing units and will continue adding housing units. For the most part, people are okay with that, though they may object to the size and appearance of some of those structures.

The current argument is about the number of new units being proposed and the location of those units.

At first, there were two options on the table. The first option called for by-right zoning changes that would allow for 6,320 new housing units and the second option would allow for 2,631.

The latest option put forward by the design team calls for 3,133 new units.

All of these units would be located within the Watertown Square Area Plan.

A longtime Watertown resident, who is also a prominent local builder, predicted that 6,320 units would result in about 16,000 people − almost half of our current population – being crammed into the Watertown Square Area.

Those who are clamoring for higher buildings and maximum density are thrilled by this prospect. They tell us that in addition to helping solve the state’s housing crisis, the maximum density will make Watertown “more vibrant.” We could become one big Arsenal Yards.

By comparison, the latest option of 3,133 units might seem much more palatable, if you consider potentially 8,000 new residents being added to the population and placed in one small section of the city to be a good idea.

The group of well-organized and highly vocal residents who are clamoring for higher buildings and more density might reluctantly settle for the 3,133 option. But how about you?

How do you feel about suggestions to replace the parking lot behind CVS with apartment buildings?

Are you excited by the prospect of having congested sidewalks that feel like being in Costco the day before a snowstorm?

It’s called vibrancy and if you’re not on board, it’s because you are old, or boring, or a NIMBY, or all three.

And finally, how do you feel about being deprived of a third option that makes a lot more sense − the missing option of 1,701 units, required by the state’s MBTA communities mandate? Many of us share the opinion that even 1701 adds too many units to Watertown Square. Following the lead of other communities, we could fight it (based on units already built or are currently online to be built) but we won’t fight it because we don’t happen to have a firebrand in government or in the community to lead that courageous charge. 

But, we hear absolutely nothing about the 1701 option mandated by the state. Not from the consultants. Not from the staff. Not from the City Manager.

We might call it the Big Shush.

Here’s a comment made on March 29, in Watertown News from Donna Leone (whom I do not know), which pretty much sums up my impression of the public process:

 “One thing that has stood out to me from these meetings is that the presentation team are not just urban planners and designers, they’re a sales team, and they’re good at it. Fortunately, it’s encouraging to see that many aren’t buying what they’re selling, myself included.

Until the questionable voting issues are resolved, and other options and alternatives to the housing side of this project are put on the table, I can’t  in good faith trust that these meetings are being conducted in an honest and unbiased manner.”

Yup! Very slick dog and pony shows and a very lax voting system, allowing people to vote anonymously, and multiple times, and permitting voting by non-Watertown residents. This is meant to pass for solid data?

Donna Leone’s comment continues:

“As far as my reading of Mr. Proakis ‘s response I understand that this doesn’t mean that 1,701 units plus the additional units will be built, but it does serve as an open invite for developers to come in and take over the square.”

True. No commercial property owner within the newly rezoned Watertown Square area will have to sell their property to developers to build apartment buildings – unless, of course, they get an offer they just can't refuse. I bet, in this housing market, those offers are already in the works.

And one more thing about grading what we’ve seen of the public process −

Promotion gets an “F.”

The Manager and his team began the public meetings by expressing their delight at the excellent turnout.

We are a city of about 35,000, of which about 25,000 are registered voters. Each of the Watertown Square meetings drew fewer than 300 attendees. Promotion for the meetings has been almost exclusively through social media.

Here’s what doesn’t get done:

Large signage placed on the delta and at other high-traffic locations throughout the city, advertising the times and locations of the meetings.

Notices of the meetings included with property tax and water and sewer bills mailed to homeowners.

Oversized, glossy postcards of the kind sent by candidates to registered voters during election campaigns.

Actual door-knocking. With all the new large-salary employees being hired by the city, who do not live in Watertown, this outreach might double as a great education and orientation experience for those new hires who think they are now working for Generic Town, U.S.A.

I am aware that many of you who are saddened and enraged by this tricky takeover but have remained silent, are not sheep. You are just fed up and cynical. But, seriously, what does it cost you to rouse your friends and neighbors and start rattling some cages at city hall?

Just pick up the phone or send an email to every councilor and the Manager and tell them you’re wise to the Big Shush and the only vote you want to cast and the only box you want to check is for:

1701 AND DONE!

If they ignore you or suggest that you get on the path to progress, their answer is essentially this:

 

 Bruce Coltin, The Battle For Watertown

  

SWINGING FISTS, BLOODY NOSES, AND THE COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 9, 2024

 How can you spot a shitty neighbor?

Sometimes it’s as plain as the nose on your face.

 

On the other hand, spotting a really good neighbor might require a little more attention. They are the ones who keep an eye on their neighbor’s home while they are away, or shovel their sidewalk, or take packages left on their front porch and put them out of sight from would-be porch pirates, or drop by their neighbor’s home to feed their pets.

Good neighbors are likely to check in on you if you’ve been out of sight for a week and are known to have health problems. Sometimes neighbors turn into friends, but even when they don’t, they play a special role in providing that underrated gift, known as peace of mind.

Who doesn’t want to live in a neighborhood where neighbors are looking out for neighbors and where mischief-makers and criminals might sense that vigilant eyeballs are scanning the neighborhood?

 

Unfortunately, all of those eyeballs are useless when it comes to one special category of neighborhood disruptors.

At the Watertown City Council meeting on Tuesday, April 9, the room was packed with residents who showed up to make their voices heard on an issue that asked two fundamental questions: Do strong, stable neighborhoods matter? And does local government have a responsibility to preserve them?

The specific issue on the Council’s agenda was a category of home-operated businesses known as short-term rentals (STRs), which have thrived in Watertown as unsanctioned, unregulated “shadow” businesses.

At this meeting, the Council would be voting on an ordinance that would legalize STRs.

If you’ve paid the slightest attention to this issue, you’ve heard residents’ horror stories of strangers showing up in their neighborhoods, occupying one or more homes, throwing loud, late-night parties, monopolizing on-street parking space, and moving out a few days later while leaving trash on the sidewalks and streets for someone else to clean up.

Those carefree merry-makers were “guests” of opportunistic homeowners who decided to periodically turn their homes into small hotels.

The politics associated with STRs is interesting. There is one side that loves them and one side that hates them.

Some progressives love them because they see STR operators as victims of an unfair economic system who need the money to keep their heads above water. Progressives to the rescue!

Some libertarians love STRs because property rights are sacred and the government should not be sticking their noses where their noses don’t belong. My home is my castle!

How do we explain progressives and libertarians becoming unlikely political bedfellows?

The answer might be summed up in a line from Glenn Frye’s song about the drug trade, Smuggler’s Blues:

It's the lure of EASY money, it's gotta VERY strong appeal...

 

On the other side, those who hate STRs are individuals of every political stripe who rank neighborhood preservation near the top in their value system.

At the April 9 meeting, twenty-one residents voiced their opposition to the ordinance − fifteen from the podium, five on Zoom, and one by email – some of them sharing their personal STR horror stories publicly the first, second, or third time. 

Three residents voiced their support for the ordinance – two from the podium and one by email.

(one commenter went to the podium and came down firmly on both sides of the issue.)

Perhaps Watertown resident, Ruth Rappaport’s testimony provided us with the best visual – three STRs, each accommodating up to ten “guests,” flooding her very small street with cars, taxis, Ubers, and noise at all hours of the day and night, and drawing rodents to overstuffed trash receptacles, that were left on the street for multiple days.

Under such conditions, one’s sense of personal safety, where normal renters become familiar to the neighbors, is sacrificed in favor of quick and easy conscience-free cash.

Some residents came to the podium and spoke for a second time, adding to their lists of complaints and putting the finishing touches on their opposition to what they regarded as a menace to the community.

Now it was up to the nine Council members to determine the fate of the ordinance. Could the overwhelming opposition coming from the room and from Zoom help persuade at least four Councilors to vote NO, preventing a supermajority of the six Councilors needed to pass this screamingly anti-neighborhood ordinance?

Or would the few Councilors who strongly support the legalization of STRs present arguments so convincing that they would win over the majority of their fellow Council members?

The spotlight was squarely on Councilor Feltner who championed the STR cause, which would allow, in some cases, an STR operator to rent to up to ten guests at a time.

Her presentation was passionate, emotional, and no doubt sincere, but it was a flop. She made this bombshell statement:

“I know that if we take this away, there are people who will not be able to stay in their homes.”

She did not tell us who those people were who would not be able to stay in their homes.  Would knowing the names of these community members have mattered in determining the outcome of the vote? We will never know.

Had these members of our community shown up at the meeting and told their stories, might that have changed the dynamic in the room? In such a high-stakes meeting, with so much to lose, why on earth would they have remained silent and invisible?

People do not tell their best stories through an intermediary. And in this case, those stories weren’t heard at all – just the second-hand report that they would lose their homes.

 Councilor Feltner pointed to public meetings where “there’s been a lot of negative energy…where neighbors were not being the most friendly to each other…” as justification for them remaining silent and invisible and revealing their potential hardship only to her.

Did Councilor Feltner implore them to show up and tell their stories? If she did and they refused, then they hung her out to dry.

Councilor Gardner told us that she also had heard from quite a few residents including some who told her that they would have to sell their homes and move out of Watertown if they were prevented from operating their “hometels” (my word, not hers).

All of those potential victims, along with Councilor Feltner’s, remained nameless and faceless. Not one of them showed up, either in person or on Zoom, to tell their story at the one forum that would mean the difference between staying in Watertown or packing up and moving to Buffalo.

Here's a fun question. During her lengthy comment in defense of STR operators, who desperately need the money that only STRs can deliver (seriously?) did this progressive Councilor ever utter the libertarian-ish statement: “I would like to respect their property rights…”?

Of course, she did. As I said, this is a strange issue.

But if Councilor Gardner made one significant contribution during this consequential public forum, it was this:

She calmed the minds of all District A residents who own ski condos (You have probably bumped into some of them at Coolidge Hardware or Donohue’s Bar & Grill) by informing them that when she rented out her ski condo, she returned to find her possessions, including her wine glasses and teacups intact.

If you had told me before this Council meeting began that it would end in a SIX to THREE vote against adopting the ordinance, I would have bet you all of my wine glasses and teacups that you were nuts.

But that is exactly what happened.

Nobody in the room said it as concisely and as eloquently as Councilor Airasian:

“For me, this comes down to a quality-of-life issue and Watertown’s neighborhoods are precious, and now more than ever they need to be protected. I feel like there has been a tremendous amount of pressure put on some of the neighborhoods with all the development going on. If people want to come to this area, there are places for them to go other than our neighborhoods.”

The only worthy response that I can come up with is Hallelujah, Councilor Airasian.

Oh, and one more thing.

I am a homeowner and I am a staunch believer in property rights. I am also a staunch believer in the principle expressed in this famous statement:

The right to swing your fist ends at another person’s nose.

The six Councilors who voted to kill the STR ordinance were in no way voting against the swinging fists of property rights.

They listened to the testimonies. They heard the first-hand horror stories and they voted to put a stop to the neighborhood bleeding.

Many thanks to Councilors Airasian, Izzo, Gannon, Palomba, Council Vice-President Piccirilli, and Council President Sideris.

Unlikely political bedfellows, to be sure.

Did I mention that this was a strange issue?

 

Bruce Coltin, The Battle For Watertown 

.

THIS TOWN'S LAST STAND

 On March 27, 2023, I used the title of a blog post to make a statement and ask a question. The statement half of the title was WATERTOWN IS A SMALL CITY WITH A TOWNISH VIBE.

My Google stat counter tells me that about 1,000 of you were interested enough in the subject matter to view that blog post.

The question half of the title was: SHOULD WE KILL IT OR KEEP IT?

Now, one year later, I realize that the title’s question should have been: SHOULD WE ALLOW OUR GOVERNMENT TO KILL IT?

The unstated subject of that post was development − how much should we allow and what should it look like?  But now, we really need to take a closer look at the word we.

That issue of preserving or killing the townish quality that has managed to hang on by its fingertips has never been more pressing than it is at this moment. If you do not know that, it is probably because you have your hands full dealing with everyday life and because we no longer have our own print publication, known as a newspaper, staffed by reporters and opinion writers.

If even one of our former newspapers had managed to survive, you would have been reading about the next stage of Watertown development – The Watertown Square Area Plan − while sitting at your kitchen table, or in your preferred coffee shop, or on your bus ride into Boston or Cambridge. It would be the citywide buzz and it would be loud and practically inescapable.

I will remind you that there was very little buzz leading up to the development of the Pleasant Street corridor. Once it was built and staring us in the face, many of you showed up at town-wide meetings, loudly complaining about canyon construction, erected without setbacks or green space, and without reasonable access to the river that now runs hidden behind walls of steel, glass, and concrete.

“We needed the revenue” was the town’s response, along with, “We had to work with the developers that were interested in Watertown.”

Then began the development of Arsenal Street, where a new, savvy wave of developers listened attentively to the public, addressed their concerns, offered concessions, and then built out every square foot of their property just as they had always planned on doing.

Some of you loudly voiced your anger about the developers’ broken promises and the useless meetings that were nothing more than the stock-in-trade song-and-dance routines that are a fixture of their traveling road show.

 

“Developers need to make their projects profitable” was the town’s response. “If we don’t give them what they want, those developers will take their business elsewhere.”

As the great P.T. Barnum told us, there’s a sucker born every minute. It’s unfortunate when some of those suckers happen to be the very public servants in charge of protecting our community.

Well, what’s done is done. But can we learn from it? Hopefully yes. Because what has happened in the recent past is nothing compared to what is happening right now.

If one of our former newspapers could magically reappear, and you were reading recent editions with your morning coffee, The Watertown Area Square Plan would have been front-page news for weeks. The headline for the edition immediately after the February 29 Watertown Square Plan meeting might have been:

CITY PAVES THE WAY TO BUILD 6,320 RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN WATERTOWN SQUARE

In the next edition, there might be an editorial titled:

6,320 Residential Units Likely to Place Over 8,000 New Residents in Watertown Square

Between the articles and the editorials, we would all become painfully aware of the decision-making process that will destroy whatever is left of the townish vibe that Watertown has been able to retain despite the escalating urbanization that threatens the city’s character, quality of life, and sustainability.

Where did the number 8,000 come from?

Based on what we’ve been seeing from developers, 6320 residential units will consist of some studios and a very few three-bedrooms but most will be one and two-bedroom apartments and possibly some condos. So there will be single occupancies, couples, roommates, and small families. Conveniently situated in the heart of Watertown, the units will be in high demand and command premium rents.

So, let’s be conservative by assuming an average of 1.3 individuals per residential unit, where Watertown would be required to accommodate and digest an influx of more than 8,000 new residents over a relatively short period of time.

Are you ready to move to Worcester?

But don’t panic yet. The social architects that are driving this train have given us an option.

Their alternative plan calls for only 2,631 units. At an average of 1.3 occupants, this would saddle our townish little city with a mere 3,420 new residents smack in the middle of Watertown Square. Aren’t you relieved?

I’m sure that both of these plans were hatched after rigorously exploring their impacts on public safety and infrastructure. We can’t hire enough cops, as it is, and that recruitment drought has no end in sight. Will we be piling an unsupportable load onto the police department’s shoulders and just hope for the best?

Much of our underground infrastructure was installed sometime around the Calvin Coolidge administration. What don’t we know about its ability to take on what nature has started throwing our way, like the kind of thousand-year storm system that recently hit Attleboro?                             

                                                 

 …and the one that recently hit Leominster.

 

Does anyone truly know the real capacity of our sewer system and how thousands of new toilet-flushing humans perched near the Charles might lead to the perfect disaster that robs us of our most precious natural asset?

I’m sure the city has all of this figured out. They’ve just been working on it behind the scenes. Unless they're just rolling the dice.

Hey, at least they’ve given us a choice. Two “popular” options. How great is that!

But, wait! Something is missing here.

What’s missing is the number 1,701. That’s the number of units that the almighty Commonwealth of Massachusetts has mandated that we build to do our part in ending the housing shortage.

But here’s the thing. If you’re going to run a shell game…

 …that famous con job, dating back to ancient Greece − where the hand always proves quicker than the eye − you play it with three shells and one pea. Not with two shells and two peas.

Because with two shells and two peas, you are only fooling the people who are not gathered around the table, watching the game. Of course, maybe that’s the whole cynical idea.

It’s still a con job. It just requires less skill and more arrogance to pull it off.

(I don’t know whose hands those are in the picture, manipulating the shells. I hope they don’t belong to the city manager, as some people suspect. Mr. Proakis, say it ain’t so.)

Under close examination, even the 1,701 makes very little sense for Watertown (more on that at another time.) But why was it not presented by the social architects as one of our choices? Where on earth did it go? Did it just slip through the cracks?

Well, that brings us back to that old song and dance routine, which in this case is more of a parade.

And this time it’s not the developers who are the star performers. This time it’s a town-wrecking ensemble comprised of city councilors (the fringiest of the progressive fringe), activists (guided by a national agenda), consultants (density is their middle name), and our in-house planners who never saw a plan they didn’t like.

 (Can you name these two of Watertown's three fringiest city councilors?)

Oops! I almost forgot. Besides the fringy councilors, the scripted activists, the outsider consultants, and the bend-over-backward planners, there are the cheerleaders who use their megaphones to shill for the shell game.

Here's a quote from Greg Reibman (he, him), President and CEO of the Charles River Regional Chamber (they, them) who lives in Newton:

“While many communities are proceeding cautiously as they create their MBTA Communities compliant plans, the majority of nearly 200 attendees at a community meeting in Watertown last week indicated in a straw poll that they want the city to go big in unlocking opportunities for new multi-family housing in and around Watertown Square.”

Oh man, does that ever capture the moment! A majority of a whopping 200 attendees, watched the shell game and played their role in determining the single most consequential change ever to happen to this city of more than 35,000 people.

What could possibly be wrong with that picture?

Folks, there's trouble in River City.

Our local government has become a social media machine. If you are not online, you don’t exist. If you have not shown up at meetings, it’s because you weren’t interested, not because you didn’t get the word or because you were working the night shift or your second or third job, or running a business, or you couldn’t get a babysitter or were caring for an elderly parent.

If 200 people vote with their sticky notes and answer questions using a QR code, it can be assumed that they are speaking for all of us.

With so much at stake, if this government actually gave a damn about what you think, rather than just plowing ahead with their own ideologic vision, they would have come up with a plan to canvass your neighborhood and knock on your damn door.

Maybe, while there’s still time on the game clock, we should find a way to knock on theirs. Or we can just throw in the towel.

Your choice. 

 

Bruce Coltin, The Battle For Watertown

MIKE DRISCOLL'S FOREVER SONG

 

He spoke to us in that deep, rich voice, highlighted by his full-throated, hardcore version of a New England accent.

At council meetings, when President Sideris would announce that it was time to turn the meeting over to the manager, we became accustomed to hearing that unmistakable voice answering from the far end of the table:

“Ah, thank you, M-i-s-t-a-h President…”

On some of those occasions, he would address his comments to all of the m-e-m-b-i-z of the council.

On other occasions, he would thank individual c-o-u-n-c-i-l-l-i-z for all their h-a-a-h-d work and let them know that he was with them a hundred p-i-s-s-e-n-t.

He was never shy about expressing his gratitude to anyone who contributed to the betterment of his beloved community of W-a-h-t-a-t-o-w-n – even those with whom he may have privately or openly disagreed.

He told us that his favorite song was Forever Young.

The song has an interesting history and is appreciated by listeners in profoundly different ways.

Written by Bob Dylan as a lullaby for his infant son, Jesse, it is Rod Stewart’s heavily rewritten version that is most widely known. Some hear it as a beautifully nostalgic melody. Others hear it as a poem or even a prayer set to music, offering guidance and hopefulness for future generations.

If you try imagining the song, sung in Mike Driscoll’s voice, I think you might hear, as I did, the poetry and the prayer rising up angelically through the melody.

Maybe this photo will make your interpretation of the lyrics a bit easier.

May the good Lord be with you

Down every road you roam

And may sunshine and happiness

Surround you when you're far from home

And may you grow to be proud

Dignified and true

And do unto others

As you'd have done to you

Be courageous and be brave

And in my heart you'll always stay

Forever young, forever young

Forever young, forever young

May good fortune be with you

May your guiding light be strong

Build a stairway to Heaven

With a prince or a vagabond

And may you never love in vain

And in my heart you will remain

Forever young, forever young

Forever young, forever young

Forever young, forever young

Yeah

And when you finally fly away

I'll be hoping that I served you well

For all the wisdom of a lifetime

No one can ever tell

But whatever road you choose

I'm right behind you, win or lose

Forever young, forever young

Forever young, forever young

Forever young, forever young

For-forever young, forever young

 

This February 11 is Super Bowl Sunday. It is also the first anniversary of the passing of the man who for 29 years was the fiscal voice of Watertown. On this day, when all of our taverns and many of our living rooms will be filled to capacity, perhaps we should all pause, raise a glass (filled with the beverage of your choice), and sing Mike’s song.

In her eulogy, Mike’s daughter, Allison, summed up what many of us over the years had come to learn when she told us: 

“Our dad was hard-working, honest, stubborn, loyal to a fault, and relentlessly positive.

I might also add that his claim to fame was his tight-fisted custodianship of taxpayer dollars, which he viewed as a sacred obligation, and which many of us saw as a respectful loyalty to all of us who pay the bills.

As changes to Watertown happen faster and more furiously, perhaps the character and values of the former “Mr. Manager” are worth remembering and worth celebrating.

On February 11, I will drink to that.

How about you?

Bruce Coltin, The Battle For Watertown

PUBLIC SAFETY IN WATERTOWN GETS A MUCH-NEEDED WIN. THIS VICTORY IS WORTH SAVORING.

 

Just over a year ago, a rookie city manager took office and was handed an assignment that might turn out to be one of the most important decisions he will ever make while occupying his current position.

Actually, the word “handed” is a gross understatement. It’s more like he was tossed a 450-degree hot potato that would remain at that temperature until he completed that assignment.

I am speaking, of course, about the hiring of the new police chief. Of all the issues Manager Proakis would be facing, none would carry the level of scrutiny or the emotional baggage of this one.

It may seem like a decade ago, but it was actually the spring of 2021 when the Town Council’s Committee on Public Safety was turned into a political war zone by a handful of citizens calling themselves the Joint Police Reform Group.

Riding the national wave generated by the tragic killing of George Floyd by a sadistic Minneapolis police officer, this adrenaline-fueled group presented a list of demands to the committee, which included slashing the police department’s budget.

According to this joint group, there was no doubt that the WPD was contaminated with racism and they were the citizens blessed with the knowledge, training, and sensitivity needed to find and fix that racism once their demands were granted by the full town council.

Just for context, here are a few of the constant themes presented in their multiple (and very contentious) presentations:

Watertown’s public safety requires that there be fewer cops and more social workers.

Watertown police officers need to undergo specific anti-bias training (regardless of the anti-bias training they are already receiving).

There are victims of racist police behavior, by Watertown cops, who must remain hidden from public view out of fear of retribution – presumably by Watertown cops.

The reform group managed to get two Boston media outlets to run stories reflecting their allegations of racism within the WPD.

There is so much more context to provide, but I think you get the point and if you witnessed these events, your blood may have just started boiling as a result of this reminder.

Now back to the man holding the flesh-burning potato.

Manager Proakis had an option. To find our next police chief, he could have opted to go outside of the civil service system where he might have found 50 or even 100 candidates interested in applying for the job.

It would have been a time-consuming and labor-intensive process, but by taking this route, the new manager might have quieted the police reformers who have undoubtedly been showing up at his office and lobbying him since his first day on the job.

With 50 or 100 applicants to choose from, he’d have an excellent chance of coming up with a Black, Hispanic, or at least a female candidate, with impeccable antiracist credentials. This would have silenced the reformers and would have been automatically endorsed by the one councilor who is always in favor of placing diversity over qualifications when hiring for any position.

But what message would have been sent to the significant portion of Watertown residents who consider their police department to be an integral part of the Watertown community and who deeply resented the accusations directed at the department where many of the officers and their families were lifelong friends and neighbors?

And how might this choice have affected the morale of the police officers who do their jobs night and day, while silently enduring the accusations delivered by some of the very people they are charged with keeping safe from dangerous criminals?

The man holding the potato had a dilemma. He also had a challenge – a very big challenge. In a small police department of only 70-something officers, there were only a few possible candidates with the leadership experience and qualifications to be chief.

And then, along the way, one of those prime candidates left the department to become police chief in a nearby community, drastically shrinking the candidate pool. Could Manager Proakis possibly come up with a candidate, so solid in credentials, temperament, and demeanor that the decision to appoint him could not be challenged by anyone outside of the fringiest of the fringe?

And, within such a small department, did such a candidate even exist?

I will cut to the chase. The candidate did, in fact, exist but according to certain “people in the know,” would not be interested in the job because he had outside business interests that were more important to him than being chief.

I do not know what conversations took place between Manager Proakis and Justin Hanrahan or what conversations might have taken place between Justin Hanrahan and his family, nor do I know the kind of inner conversation that takes place in the mind of any individual facing a life-changing decision.

Perhaps the behind-the-scenes story will one day emerge. In the meantime, Here’s my view from 30,000 feet: When this community needed Manager Proakis to pull a rabbit out of the hat, he did exactly that.

And he was able to do it because when Destiny rang Justin Hanrahan’s doorbell, he chose to open the door and welcome it in.

And because Justin Hanrahan opened that door…

Nobody will ever have to question the chief’s understanding of the law because this chief is a licensed attorney.

This chief will not have to find a comprehensive manual to keep on his desk as a handy reference tool, because he wrote the Police Officer’s Law Manual, which translates legalese into understandable English, and sits on the desks of other police chiefs as a handy reference tool.

Nobody should have reason to question whether this chief has received quality training in all facets of policing because this chief has been delivering quality training in all facets of policing, including hiring, training, and supervising, to other police departments for over twenty-five years.

And for those among us who will feel compelled to challenge his understanding of diversity as applied to 21st-century policing, they should first take his course: Understanding Cultural Norms, where police officers are taught to understand such concepts as:

The importance of understanding cultural norms,

Adapting to a changing and diverse community,

How cultural norms and non-English speaking can impact first responders and call-takers,

 Understanding diversity and culture in decision-making,

 Police legitimacy issues, and

Understanding the 6 pillars of US Policing with specific attention given to developing a guardian mindset.

 

As an attendee at the last Citizens Police Academy, I was fortunate to see Justin in action, as he conducted a presentation on policing and the law. You might think it would be a dry subject, not suited to an evening audience, at the end of a long day. Had it been someone else conducting the presentation, it might have been a real snoozer.

Far from it. Justin’s in-depth knowledge, infectious enthusiasm, and generously interactive approach made it one of the highlights of the ten-week program. Who knew that understanding probable cause could be so fascinating?

Justin Hanrahan’s appointment as police chief marks the beginning of a brand-new era in the relationship between the Watertown Police Department and the Watertown community. I suspect that he will be an exceptionally visible chief.

Of course, there are those police reform holdovers from the previous era, who will be looking for opportunities to question his judgment and challenge his decision-making. They will all come armed with well-rehearsed bumper-sticker messages and a few with an unmistakable air of moral and intellectual superiority.

They will underestimate the new chief just as they underestimated the new manager, which is just fine with me.

And so, as the show goes on, normalcy and common sense may yet come back into fashion.

In the meantime, this is a very big victory for public safety in the truly welcoming and still somewhat townish City of Watertown. And it is one that we should take a moment to savor.

Can I get an Amen?

 

Bruce Coltin, The Battle For Watertown