The Problem with Plan E
On March 20, 2000, the Lowell Plan hosted an all-day event called “Lowell 2000 and Beyond.” The keynote speaker was Buddy Cianci, the Mayor of Providence. Cianci was riding high at the time, and he was widely credited with transforming Rhode Island’s capital city from the post-Industrial doldrums of prior decades into a vibrant model of what a city could be in twenty-first century America. (Cianci’s subsequent conviction for racketeering has not diminished the credit he receives for Providence’s turnaround).
Cianci opened his remarks by saying, “It took me five minutes to figure out what your problem is. Your mayor has no juice.” He went on to describe the complex land and funding deals he pulled together that were key to Providence’s revival. He attributed his success to the power he had as mayor. He set the agenda and he had the “juice” to execute his plans.
In contrast, the mayor of Lowell had no executive power and was just another city councilor, albeit the chair of the body and also of the school committee. The legal power to get things done resided with the city manager yet the manager worked for the council. So the agenda for the city, the strategic direction it was to follow, was not set by one person as was the case in Providence but by nine city councilors.
Sitting in the audience that day, I felt Cianci’s critique of Lowell rang true. I still do. Perhaps that’s why of the 59 cities in Massachusetts only three – Lowell, Cambridge and Worcester – use Plan E. This is not a critique of city managers, present or past. It’s an observation of a structural weakness in our form of government.
For a city like Lowell to thrive, there must be a shared strategic vision that guides expenditures and the efforts of city employees. Under Plan E, it’s up to the council to develop that strategic vision for the city and then ensure that the city manager executes the plan.
The Sustainable Lowell 2025 comprehensive master plan created such a vision and provided a road map for how the city should proceed. Yet neither the city council that adopted that plan in 2013 nor any subsequent council has ever embraced it. Neither have the councils collectively offered an alternative vision.
Why is there such an aversion among councilors to strategic planning? It’s not unique to this new council. More often than not in the 50 plus years I’ve been following Lowell politics, councils have acted similarly. Only rarely have councils embraced a big picture for the city and then allowed city managers to implement that shared vision. (And by “collective vision for the city” I don’t mean bumper sticker slogans like “improve the quality of life for everyone” or “be the best mid-sized city in America.” Those are important aspirations but they aren’t a plan).
Every councilor arrives with their own priorities and goals. There are campaign promises to be fulfilled before the next election. Often those promises don’t fit squarely within the master plan. Between the two, the campaign promises take priority and the collective vision is set aside. It’s understandable why that happens. That’s why I say the problem is structural.
In a city with a strong mayor, the mayor’s campaign promises become the strategic direction of the city and the mayor has the power to execute that plan. If the voters don’t like it, they can elect a new mayor in the next election.
But in Lowell, you have eleven councilors attempting to fulfill their own campaign promises which yields eleven sets of priorities. Actions and expenditures can’t advance a shared vision for the city when there isn’t one.
The Rourke Bridge
Much was accomplished in Lowell in the early 1980s. Construction of the Hilton Hotel (now UMass Lowell Inn & Conference Center) and the Wang Training Center (now MCC’s Cowan Building), the restoration of the Bon Marche building, the installation of outdoor art, and many associated projects transformed downtown. Credit for those accomplishments has rightfully been attributed to what was commonly called Lowell’s “delivery system.” Here is how it worked: A majority of the city council would enthusiastically back a particular project then those who represented Lowell at the federal and state levels would embrace the project and work diligently to get the funding needed to bring it to fruition. With Paul Tsongas in the U.S. Senate, Jim Shannon in the U.S. House, and Phil Shea in the Massachusetts State Senate, this process worked especially well for Lowell at that time.
The recent and apparently successful pursuit of funding for a Rourke Bridge replacement echoes that past delivery system. Congresswoman Lori Trahan in a February 1, 2022, column in the Lowell Sun (“Trahan: I understand the urgency in replacing ailing Rourke Bridge”) surveyed the federal funding potentially available for the project and then explained what needs to be done to make it happen. Her words provide an example of how the “delivery system” should works, so I’ll quote them here:
The work we’re doing now is focused on positioning projects like this replacement — ones that have been postponed time and time again — to receive the federal investments necessary to complete them. That’s why there has been such a flurry of action on a critical first step: getting the Rourke Bridge project on Mass-DOT’s State Transportation Improvement Program, or STIP for short. Projects on the STIP are prioritized for federal funding, including the unprecedented investments making their way to Massachusetts from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
The efforts of the city, the council, the communities and members that make up the Northern Middlesex Council of Governments, and our local business partners are key to clearing this mandatory hurdle. So too is our state delegation that has thrown their full support behind adding the Rourke Bridge to the STIP. Going forward, our broad coalition will be leading a full court press to get this project moving — from getting federal and state funds flowing to getting shovels in the ground.
Everyone agrees: the Rourke Bridge must be replaced. Together, we will get it done.
Then on Thursday, Governor Charlie Baker came to Lowell to announce his backing for this project. (See “New bridge is a go” in Friday’s Sun). Both Baker and Congresswoman Trahan credited the massive Federal Infrastructure bill as pivotal to this project. With Baker’s clear support, the Rourke replacement should appear on the state Department of Transportation’s list of approved projects that comes out next month.
There are hundreds of bridges in Massachusetts that need repairs at a cumulative cost that far exceeds the money available. Why did Lowell rise to the top in its quest for funds? Mostly because everyone pulled together in pursuit of a unified goal. Led by Pawtucketville District Councilor Dan Rourke, the entire council focused on the need for this project to happen sooner rather than later. Although little recognized publicly, the city’s state house delegation (Senator Ed Kennedy and Representatives Tom Golden, Rady Mom and Vanna Howard plus other area legislators whose constituents use the bridge) worked diligently at the State House. Governor Baker has always been generous to Lowell and that continues today. And Congresswoman Trahan kept the Rourke Bridge replacement drumbeat going at the federal level.
The Lowell Sun also played a key role. When a commuter’s oil pan was punctured by a dislodged piece of the bridge’s decking, the Sun wrote numerous stories about the bridge’s current condition and its history. This mainstream media attention upped the stakes of this project up and down the political echelons.
Finally, it’s unlikely any of this would be happening without the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill signed by President Biden in November. Lowell’s renaissance from 1978 until now has been fueled by funds from the federal and state governments. Unlike Boston or Cambridge, Lowell doesn’t have the ability to self-fund major projects. That’s why the “delivery system” that goes from City Hall to the State House to Congress is so important to the city’s continued success.
Paul Ratha Yem in Globe Magazine
Acre District Councilor Paul Ratha Yem was on the front page of last Sunday’s Boston Globe Magazine which featured a major story about Yem’s emergence as a political organizer several decades ago in Revere, Massachusetts. The article makes compelling reading that captures the racism and hostility experienced by Cambodian immigrants newly arrived in that community.
Many more Cambodians came to Lowell than to Revere and while the experience here was not problem-free, history will record that the collective Lowell community did an admirable job of welcoming its newest residents and they, the Cambodian Americans of Lowell, refreshed the spirit of the city with their culture and their devotion to Lowell.
As we saw in the recent WBUR story on racist covenants in historical deeds, the racism and bigotry recounted in the Globe story was not new and, as we can see by the hostility of many Americans to the immigrants of today, it is something that is still with us.
On richardhowe.com
This is Beatles Week on richardhowe.com. Each day will feature a post by a different author about the rock group. Our timing was influenced by the anniversary of the American television debut of the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show on February 9, 1964, and also by the new documentary, Get Back, which is now on Disney+.