Future shock

As Worcester braces for the next wave of development, will city council be on the sidelines?

by Carolyn Given

It's not like the old days in the late '80s and early '90s when the Worcester City Council regularly made headline news. Konstantina Lukes and Jordan Levy faithfully surfaced in the papers or on Channel 3, embroiled in floor debates -- frothing over Medical City plans. Back then, Tuesday-night council meetings were considered dependable entertainment. "I hope I never have to serve with you on another elected board as long as I live," Levy hurled at Lukes after a particularly vigorous night's work. Jordan Levy. He was the first city official to rouse applause at council meetings.

Today, most residents tune into sitcoms or Congressional floor debates for TV entertainment. Although the current board is noted for its business-like, "civil" style, few Worcester residents watch or attend council meetings. It's hard to tell if the lack of public input is a response to this tepid council -- or its cause.

Says Councilor Lukes, "This civility crap is pretty boring."

"We don't see anyone at council meetings anymore," notes Councilor Stephen Patton. "We're sure not trying to bore them to death. But maybe we are."

A review of council minutes for the past two years reveals business as usual: roll call votes on relentless council orders made on behalf of constituents, issues referred to subcommittees and city departments or, most often, to City Manager Thomas Hoover. Split votes are a rare but welcome diversion from the redundant reports, occurring only where action is taken on tax classification, loan orders, or zoning changes. Otherwise, the votes seem almost perfunctory, except the notorious 8-3 council vote approving fluoridation of city water -- an action swiftly repudiated by voters.

But it was just six years ago that city councilors, amid financial crisis, launched the largest economic development plan in Worcester's history, including construction of such mega projects as a convention center, the airport expansion, the Route 146 connector, renovation of Union Station, and Medical City.

Today, these projects translate into more than $1 billion spent, a portion fronted by local taxpayers. But to critics, the current council appears to rubber-stamp the implementation of these mega projects. Meanwhile new, unfolding urban crises erupt without redress.

The community is restless to see the board dig past Worcester's well-worn development plans to draft creative, progressive policies that resolve the city's most dire problems: neighborhood blight, arson, rocketing automobile insurance rates, a 27 percent commercial vacancy rate for unrenovated (often contaminated) sites, a $36 per thousand commercial tax rate. Minority isolation and pockets of economic stress combine with the high cost of doing business in the city, creating a wall of disincentives for new business to step in -- and for residents' quality of life to improve. Worcester may lead the state in the number of tax breaks it approves for new industry, but it does so to compensate for underlying problems that ravage the city, unchecked.

In fact, if it weren't for the fluoride issue, or council-scrutiny of "head shops," or Councilor Wayne Griffin's cry for stepped-up security to prevent consensual sex at City Hall, one might wonder, Where, oh where, have the councilors gone? This election year, where can they be?

Worcester resident Robert McAuley has actively followed city government during many administrations, attending council meetings to either speak out on issues or file petitions for council action. McAuley is not only disturbed by this board's placid style and focus on non-substantial matters, he specifically criticizes the constrained way the council runs its meetings. "This board does it with clinical expediency. They're in and out and try to be home by eight."

Councilor Patton agrees, adding that the May 13 meeting was over in 45 minutes. "Moving meetings along quickly is not one of my goals in life," he says.

City council's lack of visible, aggressive long-term planning has prompted several residents to react by running for office. Council challenger John Lazzaro sees automobile-insurance rates as a prime example of the council's failure to help make Worcester an affordable place to do business. When the cost of fleet insurance escalated due to Worcester's high auto-insurance rating, businesses had yet one more reason to leave the city. "City Council should have been a lot more proactive working with the state delegation to craft legislation to make the playing field more level, [by having a more competitive state insurance system]," he says.

Another hot-button issue is the city's 196 known commercial sites that are contaminated, "and God knows how many that are unknown and undevelopable," says Lazzaro. "This is a central, burning issue to the future of the city. The council never talks about it. This cuts to the chase of our competitiveness and our ability to track new industry."

Robert Hennigan, who sat on city council in the late '80s and '90s and ran unsuccessfully against Mayor Raymond Mariano in the 1993 mayoral race, is troubled that the economic-development agenda established during his tenure has stalled. "It was always the hope that we would be able to concentrate for a period of time on downtown then move into other areas, such as neighborhoods."

Ironically, Worcester's neighborhood blight is sometimes caused by economic development despite the mobilization of more than 40 grassroots neighborhood groups that, among other things, fight re-zoning proposals to allow commercial development in neighborhood zones. Mike Troiano, president of the Grafton Hill Neighborhood Association, Inc. for 11 years and challenger for a council seat, has assisted many of the city's grassroots neighborhood and parks organizations. He wants development to stay downtown, not encroach upon the neighborhoods. "The city is not addressing basic needs of its neighborhoods. City councilors seem reluctant to run the city," he says.

Grassroots activists are eager for the city to renovate vacant industrial sites not only to reduce re-zoning efforts, but to quell increasing alarm over what residents call an arson epidemic. Last year alone, 551 structure fires struck the city, of which 51 were arson-related. This is an increase of 22 fires from 1995, when Worcester's fire rate was the second highest in the state.

"These figures are absolutely stunning," says Lazzaro. "If you ride around the city, you see boarded up, abandoned buildings. Some are not boarded up and those are hit with arson. There should be an ordinance requiring that these buildings be sealed tight. Not to mention tax incentives to encourage redevelopment. That's the kind of progressive, proactive policy thinking that needs to happen."

Job retention is another area where residents want swift council action. Many point to the loss of Paul Revere Corporation, bought out by Provident, Inc., of Chattanooga, Tennessee, which is now laying employees off.

Meanwhile, an untapped pool of employable college talent further irritates the community, says council challenger Timothy Murray, who notes that Worcester turns out an average of 6000 college graduates each spring. "We should be out there selling that," he says.

Murray sees more missed opportunity in the mutual-fund industry, which lobbied the Massachusetts Legislature last year for tax breaks, using projections that indicate in the next five years 11,000 jobs could be created in the state. "The council should be debating what this city can do to bring those jobs here," he says.

Part 2