Date

A Record of My January 2008 Votes on Issues Before the Council

1/14/08

Proposal to request $50,000 to finance legal counsel for the City Council to review and analyze investments made by Merrill Lynch.

Merrill Lynch invested city funds in Collateral Debt Obligations (CDO’s) and lost over $12 million. A state statute delineates the sorts of investment vehicles into which city funds may be placed. CDOs are apparently not among the permissible investment vehicles. In an effort to recoup the city monies invested by Merrill Lynch, the city has already retained a very prominent law firm which apparently has specific expertise in this area of the law. The Massachusetts Secretary of State and the Massachusetts Attorney General are also investigating Merrill Lynch’s conduct and all circumstances surrounding its investment of city funds.

The main objective here is to compel Merrill Lynch to return any and all funds which were invested inappropriately on Springfield’s behalf. We already have one law firm assisting us in obtaining this result. There is no need to hire another law firm to duplicate its efforts. Accordingly, I voted against this proposal. It failed by a vote of 6-2. Councilor Ferrera, who proposed it, and Councilor Rooke voted in favor of appropriating funds to hire a second law firm.

Rule amendment which would bar councilors from making proposals which require additional expense on the part of the City unless they delineate the source of revenue funding prior to debate.

Nothing irks me more than politicians who make proposals that we as a city are not in a position to fund. The intent of this rule amendment is to impose some discipline on city councilors. Despite my belief that every decision we make should be a fiscally responsible one, I voted against this proposal because I feared that it could have the effect of chilling debate and creativity on the City Council. Council chambers are a place where ideas ought to be discussed in the open. I fear that if this rule change were made, many good (and admittedly some bad) proposals would never be brought forth.

If, after a particular proposal is made, it is determined there are not sufficient funds available, then the proposal ought to fail. To require that a funding source be identified prior to discussion regarding a proposal, however, is to put the cart before the horse. In my family, we have a wish list of home improvements. We talk about them and reprioritize them frequently. We may not have the money to undertake them all at once. However, I see nothing wrong with having a discussion about what needs to be done around the house. I see debate about priorities at the City Council similarly. The fact that a particular funding source may not be known in the first place should not limit the ability of councilors to suggest, for example, that we need to undertake particular capital improvements or maintenance projects.

We need city councilors who are fiscally responsible and who will not seek to spend money which the City does not have. However, a sense of fiscal responsibility should not bar councilors from proposing and debating about ways to improve the functioning of city government and the quality of life in Springfield. For that reason, I voted against this proposed rule amendment. Councilor Rooke, who proposed the amendment, and Councilor Ferrera voted in favor of it. It failed by a vote of 6-2.

1/28/08

Petition of Eduard Shvetsov and Dimitry Belyshev to amend their special permit so as to increase the maximum number of used cars for sale at Orchard Car Company in Indian Orchard.

Eduard Shvetsov and Dimitry Belyshev operate the Orchard Car Company, a used car lot in Indian Orchard, which has operated since November, 2000 under a special permit which sets the maximum number of vehicles which can be offered for sale at 20. Mike Jachym of the City Code Enforcement Department testified that the petitioners have been cited for violating their existing special permit many times over the last 8 years. In May of 2007, after several tickets, they entered into a consent agreement endorsed by the Housing Court. Pursuant to the terms of that agreement, they promised that unless their special permit was amended, they would keep no more than 20 vehicles on their lot. They violated the terms of that Consent Agreement. On January 28, 2008, a Code Enforcement inspection revealed a total of 33 vehicles on Orchard Car Compay's lot. There have also been multiple citations over the years for storing junk vehicles. In addition, there have been complaints that petitioners have performed unlicensed repairs and body work on vehicles.

The petitioners sought to increase the maximum number of vehicles permissible under their special permit from 20 to 48. There was much reluctance on the part of the City Council to reward the petitioners past non-compliance with a special permit amendment. Tim Rooke made a motion to table consideration of their petition for a special permit amendment for 90 days. He proposed that the 90 days would be a sort of probationary period, monitored by the Code Enforcement Department, during which the petitioners could demonstrate their ability and willingness to live within the confines of their existing, 20 vehicle, special permit. I thought that his proposal made some sense, and, as it was consistent with what the Indian Orchard Neighborhood Council proposed, I voted for it. It failed. We then considered the application for a special permit amendment in its entirety. Given the past conduct of the petitioners, I felt compelled to vote against that petition. While I was willing to put the petitioners on probation, I was simply not willing to forgive outright their past violations and reward them with a special permit amendment. The petition to increase the maximum vehicles permissible under the special permit was denied by a vote of 9-0. I hope that this result sends a message to special permit holders that we, as a City Council and as a City, will hold them to the terms of their special permits.

Petition of Colvest Group, Inc. for a special permit to operate a drive-up window at 1259 East Columbus Avenue.

This is the St. Joseph's property on East Columbus Avenue which the Colvest Group, LLC recently purchased from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield. After demolishing the church and convent at 1259 East Columbus Avenue, the Colvest Group plans to construct a retail/office building and a separate bank building there. The petition before the City Council was for a drive-up window at the bank. While I see the demolition of historic St. Joseph's Church as tragic, I am impressed with the Colvest Group's plans for the site. I am excited that this property will be put on the city's tax rolls and recognize that, in terms of economic development, functioning businesses beat vacant and closed churches.

The only concern that I have with respect to 1259 East Columbus Avenue relates to traffic. I was contacted by some parents of children who attend the Zanetti Montessori School which is located immediately behind 1259 East Columbus Avenue. Traffic congestion and traffic safety at pick-up and drop-off times have concerned them for years. The Pride Station and retail facility which opened recently across the side street from the Colvest property is well-maintained, but has exacerbated an already difficult traffic situation. I thought that it made sense to study the impact that the drive-up window and the Colvest development would have on the neighborhood and the school. I spoke in favor of the Colvest Group's project generally, but made a motion that its petition for a drive-up window be tabled until such time as a traffic study could be conducted. Other councilors suggested that the school's traffic concerns and the Colvest special permit application were separate issues. I disagreed. The drive up window is certain to have some impact on traffic. I believe that the time for neighbors impacted by traffic, including residents, the Zanetti School, Pride and now Colvest, to come together to consider traffic issues is now, before more traffic is added to the area. Other councilors disagreed and my motion was not seconded. The application for a special permit was then voted on in its entirety. It passed 9-0. Other councilors, in open session, expressed a desire that a traffic study be undertaken and that city officials work with Zanetti parents and adminstration to address their concerns. I will push to see to it that Zanetti's concerns are addressed.