The complete transcript to the debate can be downloaded here as a Microsoft Word document.
Below are a selection of questions from the transcript that were not included in print. Note: This is the raw transcript from a two hour interview. Only limited effort has been made to correct grammar or improve clarity.
– – – – – – – – – – –
Question Eleven: Roll call. As mayor, your core administration staff won’t change unless you want it to. Changing leadership often welcomes new faces. If you know of any new appointees, please let us know; and are there any characters from the last administration whom are not going to be with us in the spring?
Michael Bardsley: Well, the ability of the mayor to make changes—I think there’s a perception that a lot can be done, and it’s really pretty limited. I think it’s even more limited—there used to be a position of the assistant to the mayor. We do not have that position currently, even though it’s on the books. If you look at the ordinances, I believe, that there’s supposed to be an assistant to the mayor, and there currently isn’t.
The economic development position at the last minute, before the previous election, was changed from an appointee of the mayor to a department head, so that was given protection. Even though it’s basically a three person department, they’ve created it as a department and that person’s a department head. I will look at the staffing there.
There was also, there was a rumor going around that if Bardsley gets elected—I think it came from internally—but, that if that Bardsley gets elected, he’s going to fire all of the department heads. The mayor does not have that power. They are under contract; most of them belong to a union. So, first of all, I don’t have that power, and I wouldn’t fire all of the department heads. Maybe half of them, but not all of them. [Laughter.] That’s a joke.
So, I would look into whether or not we can reinstate the position of assistant to the mayor. I think that could provide a lot of constituent services that have been lost. I will sit down and talk with those who are direct appointees, but it’s the secretary. I think the secretaries work extremely hard. We have two very talented individuals in there, so I don’t see any issue with that staff.
David Narkewicz: I think it’s important for people to understand that many of our city department heads are, again, appointees that have a contract. Many of them belong to employee unions. So, the idea that a mayor could just systematically come in and call for everyone’s resignation, that’s an old style that just doesn’t exist right now.
I think we have a lot of great department heads who are doing a lot of great work in the city. I think I see myself coming in as mayor as to continue the work I’ve done with them, but work with them issue by issue. And, obviously, when appointments happen, evaluate performance—whatever positions they are—and figure out whether it makes sense to reappoint them. I think that’s the responsible thing to do, but I don’t have a list of things or people I want to change, right now.
In terms of the core office staff of the apartment, you know I’m sort of working in the office now as acting mayor, and we do have two—one is a fairly new employee—and then a longer term employee who has a lot of institutional memory in the office. They do a great job. I do think that idea of having the position that used to be in the office, which was converted to an economic development person is worth looking at if we can afford it, because it does give a mayor the ability to do more outreach in the community, to help constituents in a better way. So that would be the one thing to the structure of the office. I think the mayor has to have the ability to focus on big issues, and have someone who can help them—a sort of like a chief-of-staff kind of role, or assistant role that can manage some of the issues or some of the things that come before the mayor for final decision. I think that just kind of helps the city function more efficiently.
I don’t have a list of people. I don’t think that’s realistic, as well.
Roessler: I wanted to bring up a question about the train coming to Northampton. Everybody’s excited about it, as am I. I grew up in a community with a train, but it was a bed room community outside of New York City. Most of the people who used that train used it to work elsewhere and come back. There wasn’t a strong community feeling where I grew up; there wasn’t a lot of participation in local government. With the way economic development is going on in Northampton, with the emphasis on building new houses and development, are you concerned that when the train starts making stops up here several times a day, it won’t be just bringing people to our theaters and restaurants, but also slowly turning it into a city that spends most of its time away?
DN: No, I think that’s a valid issue in terms of what role that’s going to play in this idea of a Knowledge Corridor. One of the things that I’ve talked about is wanting to put together a rail advisory committee to look at some of these long term issues, bringing together neighborhoods, business, and some of these other stakeholders in the process, so we can figure out how rail fits into this overall scheme of our community.
I do think that we’ve had rail that came through before. It’s the sort of traditional Connecticut River Valley route. I do think that there’s many more positives, in terms of the transportation benefits. We have many people, you know, who live in our community and commute to Hartford every day, that commute to Springfield, that commute to Brattleboro, to Greenfield. So, I think there’s some really incredible benefits immediately to it. We also have a lot of students that come back and forth through the community, and that was a traditional way student came here. They didn’t bring cars, they came by train. I think there are a lot of benefits, but I do think we have to be constantly monitoring it. I’m not immediately concerned about this “bedroom community” phenomenon, because I do think Northampton has such a core economic base, and we have this incredible downtown, and I think we have a lot of users who will take advantage of the train. But again, we have to figure out how we use this to better the city, and what the advantages are and how we can play on those advantages, in terms of bringing people here. If it means employers that can locate here where a train could be an advantage. I think those are things we have to look at. So, the short term stuff: it’s coming back, we have to make the infrastructure adjustments, the safety adjustments, we have to work with neighbors about how that will work in the short term, but also have to be planning in the long term. And planning regionally, too, not just in our own cocoon. As part of the Pioneer Planning Commission that’s taking a lead role on this, to figure out how this fits into the region. I think this is an important piece.
MB: One of the things that have often been said about Northampton is that it’s a great place to live—it’s very attractive, and it’s attracted people from New York, Boston and other places. But it’s a hard place to find a job, and I think that gives a lot of credence to Mark’s concern that the train could be more a part of a daily exit strategy, rather than an entrance one. So, I think we need to be concerned about that.
I think one of the key things to that, is when people arrive here by train, then what? What kind of transportation are we going to have here? When people go into the city, there’s lots of ways people can leave the train station. I think we need to start doing the planning to make sure that network is good, so that people will want to come here and then have other options about where they can go. One of the things I’d like to see in the city is a shuttle service; where we could have a shuttle that goes around and deposits people in various business and recreational centers around the city. I’d like to do more partnerships with Umass to see if there’s some way to have a kind of direct shuttle to Umass. I think a lot of people come up to Umass, and then take that traffic route along route nine [to get to Northampton]. That’s one of the things I’ll be working on: when people arrive in Northampton.
Roessler: Both of you have mentioned how Hospital Hill has not gotten as far as it was initially planned to go. You mentioned, David, the need for businesses and retail going up there as well. Part of the other plans for Hospital Hill included were a community center, and a variety parks and playgrounds. One of the CAC members, Rutherford Platt, got in touch with me a couple months ago, and he was concerned about an imbalance between the amenities offered the low-income housing tenants and those who have bought homes up there. The single-family residences were being completed—everything that people bought, they got. Whereas none of these parks have really been put into place; there’s open space up there, but only because it hasn’t yet been developed. It’s not a park, and there aren’t any playgrounds. And there certainly isn’t a community center up there. Furthermore, no memorial has been installed as was promised in the original Request for Proposals. While none of these things have been completed, last year the CAC approved building 100 extra residences up there, in addition to what’s already been planned. Any reaction? Where will we go next?
DN: When I served on the CAC, I actually was on a subcommittee with Rutherford Platt to look at these issues of the amenities and the community center, and I know this is a strong piece that needs to remain part of the master plan. There are tot-lots that have been built and some small parks related to the developments that are there, but the master plan does include a lot of park space. A lot of the planning that’s going into creating these neighborhoods includes park space, tree space that’s been preserved.
And the memorial effort has changed a little bit since you were involved. There was an initial effort to the memorial off to the side of the property, and now we’ve moved it to its original location, and there’s been a bit of work done to create a really significant memorial, and there’s been a whole committee created to work on the memorialization. Those are definitely commitments that we have to stick to and work on. And the community space is an important one, so that I know when we’re working with MassDevelopment around some of these potential users, whether its assisted living, or some of the other users that may go in there, the community space is an important part of how that happens.
We have examples of how that’s happened in other redevelopments downtown. I think the redevelopment of the Masonic Street fire station and the Media Education Foundation included some community space where a business or a non-profit had some community space that was made available. So, I think there’s some creative ways we can achieve that.
I know that co-housing is something that’s been in the latest iteration. That co-housing might be a great model for there. Which includes community space, so that we can integrate that with the rest of the development. So, I’m really committed that when we move forward on the project that we do provide those sorts of things. And now we’ve started to get the critical mass of people there, now that we’ve added these units—the town homes, the single family homes, the apartments—that we really need to work on that as the next phase of the development.
MB: I think that the role and responsibility of the Citizens Advisory Committee is to make sure there’s a balance of the interests up there. One of the interests, certainly from the private partners, is profit. It’s what keeps them going, and [the CAC] has to be concerned about that. But the public interest concerns that you mention, Mark, that’s the role of the public [representatives] to make certain is being done. I think the success of those can really be determined—at least in part—by the people who live there. People who live there have contacted me, and there’s a lot of discontent. There’s some concerns and frustrations from people who are residents up there, and how things are not quite what they seem. The words sound good, but the reality behind that is not accurate. So, I will be doing outreach there, talking to the citizens there, trying to give them more voice and to address their concerns.
I’ve also known—unless things have drastically changed in the last couple of months—I know very, very well two of the people who have been working on the memorial effort, and they were extremely frustrated by the lack of progress and how, in some cases, things have physically deteriorated—things that were supposed to have been part of that memorial—and they do not feel that things have been moving forward in good faith. If things have turned around recently, that’s wonderful. I haven’t heard that, so I’ll have to go back to my sources.
But we need to look at the reality up there and not be afraid to identify problems and not kind of stick with this glossy picture that everything’s fine.
Roessler: The Clarke School for the Deaf is currently in the process of trying to sell most of its historic campus. There is a neighborhood group that is trying to extend the historic district already in place on Elm Street to encompass the Clarke School campus, thereby protecting the buildings and features of the historic campus during development. I believe that the Clarke School would like to get through the redevelopment without that kind of protection in place, or at least, that’s the indication I’ve gotten. As mayor, I was wondering where you saw yourself in this situation. Would you support one side or the other?
MB: That’s a situation I’ve only recently heard about within the last couple of days. Based on what I’ve done in the past and other positions I’ve taken—working with folks up in the Smith Overlay District, the demolition of the Belmont neighborhood, development in my neighborhood with the North Street project—one of my guiding principles is preserving the integrity of a neighborhood. So, I’d want to look at what the developer’s plans there, and how is that going to impact the neighborhood. Is it consistent? And then look at traffic impact, etcetera, etcetera. I suspect there’s some well developed plans for what’s being proposed up there and the neighbors should know what they are, so they can respond to them. If, indeed, if extending that historic district [from Elm Street] makes sense…. I don’t know what the problems are, so I don’t know what the solutions are—but it does seem people have looked to that as being a source of protection. I think we need to scrutinize that. See what the problems are and whether that solution will give them the protection they need. But I will be motivated by preserving the integrity of that neighborhood, and working with the neighbors to get that resolution.
DN: I’ve actually had an opportunity to meet with the group that’s concerned about this. A lot of folks, neighbors, are abutting the property. I’ve also had an opportunity to reach out and meet with folks from Clarke School to try and understand what the different issues are. Clarke School are obviously down-sizing; they are still going to have a presence on the campus. A much smaller physical presence, but they want to see the site redeveloped. There was some initial dialog between the neighbors and Clarke School that has now moved into this process of working with the Historic Commission around should the Elm Street district should be extended. What I’ve encouraged both sides to do is to really keep those lines of communication open because I think they share a lot of the same goals. I think the Clarke trustees, obviously, Clarke School holds a special place in the heart of thousands of alumni—people who still live in our community—who went to school there, and I think they have a concern for the neighborhood and maintaining it. I think both sides share a lot of the same values, so I think the key piece of it is communication between them. And when they do announce who this potential developer is, they really do try to involve the neighborhood in that process.
Now, the historic district is a whole other state process and that’s going to work its way through. They have to have a study committee, they’ll have to make recommendations that will ultimately have to be voted on by the city council. So, that is one avenue. It may also be that the neighborhood and the developer could work out a development agreement of some kind that may achieve the same goals that everyone wants, which is to maintain the historic character, deal with issues like traffic. So, there may be other ways to work this out.
My overall concern is that it’s done in a way that balances out the needs of the neighborhood, the historic preservation aspects of it, and also allows that site, which is, you know, a site that’s been a non-profit site—hasn’t generated revenue—can be redeveloped in a way that’s responsible, and going into the future, we can reuse some of those buildings and put them to new uses, as well. So, my goal would be to try and make sure there’s good communication on all sides, so that we can work a solution that serves everybody’s goals.
