Charles Winkleman

Burlington Politics from the Left

Are Burlington’s Boards and Commissions Representative? Part 2 of 3

Feb
01

Today I’d like to delve a bit deeper into the data that I first presented in part 1. To ensure that the sample sizes were large enough, and not just the aberration of small commissions, I chose to look only at the commissions with at least 4 members.  You may be surprised by what the data reveals, I know I was.

I want to offer a few caveats – I made assumptions about folks’ genders based on their first names. While it’s certainly not 100% accurate nor good practice, the city does not seem to collect any data on gender or race when it comes to commissioners, so I worked with what I got. I also did my best to ensure that no identifying data would be presented, even though all of this information is public in one place or another.

By Ward

  • Ward 2, 3, and the gerrymandered student Ward 8 have the lowest number of commissioners, while Ward 1, 4, and 5 have the highest.
  • Ward 2 and 3 are represented on less than 50% of all commissions, while Ward 8 has barely any representation. Wards 4 and 5 are represented on 3/4ths of all commissions.
  • There are more commissioners living outside Burlington than from half the city’s individual wards, Wards 2,3,7, and 8.Note: Ward 0 denotes commissioners who live outside Burlington.


By Gender:

  • Burlington’s gender demographics are 51% female to 49% male, yet 34% of commissioners are female and 66% are male.
  • While 65% of commissions have more males than females, only 35% of commissions have more females than males.
  • The commissions involving business, development, financials, and housing skew heavily towards males, with over 80%.
  • Housing Board of Review, Design Review Board, and Retirement Board have combined 19 males on the boards and 0 females.

When we look at the commissions involving finances and development, the disparities are even starker:


By Home Owners and Renters:

  • Although 60% of Burlington residents are renters, only 14% of commissioners are renters.
  • Nearly as many commissioners live outside the city than are renters in the city.
  • Burlington’s median assessed value of a single family home is $234,200. 75% of home-owning commissioners, or 65% of all commissioners, own homes valued about the city median.
  • Every commission had a higher average home value than the median.
  • While 100% of commissions have homeowner representation, only 40% have renter representation, and only 25% have very low income renter representation of any kind.
  • 30% of commissions have representation from outside Burlington.
  • While 100% of commissions have more than 3 home owners, only 5% of commissions have more than 3 renters.

 


By Profession:

  • Overwhelmingly, over 44% (Business/Real) of commissioners work in the fields of law, housing, development, business, and finance. These are jobs that tend to pay much more than a livable wage.
  • Nearly 10% (Community/Social) of commissioners work in education, social work, community mental health, politics, or community organizing.
  • 1 student (UVM) was on any commissions, and they were a graduate student. No undergraduate students, who number over 12,000, have any representation on any boards or commissions.
  • 11.4% (Government) of commissioners work for either the city or state.

Note: One person worked in UVM real estate, and others worked as real estate and/or business lawyers. They were counted in all applicable groups.

The New Burlington Town Center Is Already Hurting Working Class Residents

Dec
18

I have been a very vocal critic of the Burlington Town Center for several years, mainly because the development relies on trickle down housing and trickle down economics to help low income residents. A recent article in VTDigger about UVM Medical Center’s expansion to the BTC, and the pressure and ‘passion’ Mayor Weinberger used to persuade them to move there, shows how the Mayor’s policies consistently hurt more residents, especially vulnerable ones, than help them.

Sources said the mayor lost his cool at the meeting and reminded hospital officials about the sweet deal they had for city services, though Weinberger said that argument was “not a major part of the conversation,” largely because the city’s hands are tied for another decade plus.

(As an aside, the Mayor’s ‘passion’, which has been described to me as temper tantrums, a good source tells me is a big reason why beloved former Library Director Rubi Simon decided to leaver her job and move out of state over a year ago.)

Now that the hospital will be paying an extra $1,00,000 a year, who will be paying for it? As the article makes clear, “patients”. It’s as if the mayor is so insulated from the yearly 8%-10% yearly increase in healthcare costs and premiums, that adding another $1,000,000 onto the backs of overworked Burlingtonians remains somehow overlooked. Not to mention that UVM Medical Center will likely use this as an excuse to continue paying MUCH less than the fair share of a $1 billion business should be paying for their fees in lieu of property taxes.

Who will benefit from the Burlington Town Center? Businesses on and around Church Street, landlords, hotels, and restaurants. Bringing people to the downtown core, even just for a few hours, means they will spend some amount of money there. The city will likely see a small increase in sales tax and alcohol tax revenue. Property taxes, however, will remain stagnant for 20 years, due to voters’ majority to support the TIF vote (supported almost unanimously by city councilors except Max Tracy). Instead of getting upto $1,000,000 a year in badly needed revenue, we will have to wait until the next generation is voting and having children.

Who will lose from the Burlington Town Center? Workers, especially low-wage workers, service workers, and now anyone who uses the UVM Medical Center (which is, essentially, everyone because they have a monopoly). Wages for service workers continue to remain stagnant, and likely the wealthy Church Street business owners, most of whom don’t live in Burlington, will end up pocketing any extra revenue.

“This decision is highly defensible” after all the factors are weighed, Weinberger said.

As long as those factors don’t include the vast majority of Burlington workers and service workers? Mayor Weinberger, the working class hero.

Exec Director of Spectrum’s Letter to the Mayor and Police Chief 

Aug
29


I received this letter today in my email, referencing a homeless man in Burlington who was recently in the news over punching someone in the chest. What I appreciate most is how compassionate Mark Redmond is, and how well he recognizes that many of the homeless folks downtown, the ones who will soon be treated as criminals, are often not 100% in control of the decisions they are making. Mental health issues, years of self-medicating with drugs and alcohol, and the numerous traumas they have experienced all play a huge role in what these neighbors of ours are going to do. I agree with the police chief that there needs to be consequences – but only for the folks who are violent and harassing others, not the ones drinking and panhandling peacefully – and we need to remember the situation all of them are in and remain compassionate while getting them the help they need. 

*Updated* The Death of Burlington’s Accessibility Committee

Aug
18

*Update* I heard through the grapevine that the city is looking to revive the committee. I hope they will reach out to all the folks who left, especially committee chair Ralph Montefusco, and work to make sure this committee has the access and voice it deserves.

*Update 2* – I asked the Mayor’s office for comment on Monday August 21, but have not gotten a response.

 

Something has happened to our city’s accessibility committee. Here were the members in September 2015.

 

Here is where the committee is at today.

 

What happened? Ralph Montefusco, former chair of the committee, had this to say at an August 7th city council meeting:

“On March 18, 2013, the Committee presented an Accessibility Strategy and Plan to the City Council. We identified strategies and action items for increasing accessibility to the City of Burlington’s programs, infrastructure, and workforce. The plan was received by the City Council, and action was taken to increase membership on the Committee to include representatives from the Burlington School District, AARP, Burlington Parks & Recreation, and the Howard Center.

The Committee continued to meet monthly and bring a range of City stakeholders together to address accessibility needs. However, after some initial success, the Committee began to fall apart. We lost staff support and attempts to communicate with the Administration led nowhere. The final straw was when we attempted to get some new members appointed and were informed that those appointments weren’t made because the Committee somehow wasn’t even on the list of annual appointments. Today, there is only one person listed as a member and meetings are no longer being held.

My message to you today is that, just as in 2012, the Committee has atrophied. Consider what this mean for inclusion in our City and what message this sends to our citizens.”

It would appear that Mayor Weinberger could not be bothered to meet with the committee or take their suggestions into account over the course of a couple years. Business members, community members, and even the Director of Church Street Marketplace felt so ignored they left the committee. This is concerning for a few reasons.

1) This administration is full throttle on new developments. How much of this new development doesn’t and won’t meet accessibility requirements? How much of our new city will be inaccessible to folks who already face disenfranchisement and discrimination? 2) What other boards and commissions are being ignored by the mayor – is he so focused on development and attracting capital that he is leaving behind other equally important, socially-focused commissions? 3) Who is left to advocate for these folks on the city level? Who will make sure those with accessibility concerns can feel safe and comfortable and as full members in our community?

Up until a few years ago, when my diabetic father had one of his legs amputated, it had never occurred me whether Burlington was an accessible city. Trying to get around the city with him, in a wheelchair or with a walker, has helped me realize just how much work is left to be done. But many people, for better or worse, don’t have someone in their lives who can help them come to these realizations. All the more reason to have an accessibility committee that is respected.

You can watch the video here, starting at 22:50. Full transcript below.

______________________________________________________________________________

Good Evening. My name is Ralph Montefusco and I live in Ward 4.

At your October 15, 2012 meeting, the Burlington City Council tasked the Mayor with revitalizing and making appointments to the Burlington Committee on Accessibility. Those appointments were approved on December 3, 2012.

The Committee, made up of City staff and community members, was specifically charged with developing a strategy and plan to address accessibility in the City, including reviewing and updating the previous mission statement, suggesting the needed frequency of reporting accessibility needs to the City Council, and devising a process to assess the City’s accessibility needs.

On March 18, 2013, the Committee presented an Accessibility Strategy and Plan to the City Council. We identified strategies and action items for increasing accessibility to the City of Burlington’s programs, infrastructure, and workforce. The plan was received by the City Council, and action was taken to increase membership on the Committee to include representatives from the Burlington School District, AARP, Burlington Parks & Recreation, and the Howard Center.

The revised Mission Statement says “The City recognizes that communities excel when all citizens are able to fully participate in all aspects of community life.  The Advisory Committee on Accessibility shall assist and advise the Mayor, the City Council and City departments on ways to increase opportunities for people with disabilities and meet the needs of people with disabilities by encouraging full and equal participation in all aspects of life.  This includes the identification and removal of architectural, procedural, programmatic, attitudinal and communication barriers, and strong advocacy for policies, programs and services that meet the needs of people with disabilities.

The Committee continued to meet monthly and bring a range of City stakeholders together to address accessibility needs. However, after some initial success, the Committee began to fall apart. We lost staff support and attempts to communicate with the Administration led nowhere. The final straw was when we attempted to get some new members appointed and were informed that those appointments weren’t made because the Committee somehow wasn’t even on the list of annual appointments. Today, there is only one person listed as a member and meetings are no longer being held.

My message to you today is that, just as in 2012, the Committee has atrophied. Consider what this mean for inclusion in our City and what message this sends to our citizens.

Thank you for the time.

How Can We Fight Opioids with Progressive Policy?

Aug
16

“no drugs” by Anderson Mancini is licensed under CC BY 2.0

Rising fentanyl use in Vermont is incredibly scary. According to the Vermont Department of Health, the synthetic opioid was to blame for half of the state’s 104 overdose deaths in 2016. While fentanyl acts on brain receptors in a similar way to heroin or morphine, it is fifty to one hundred times more powerful, thus drastically increasing its lethality, especially when ingested unknowingly with heroin laced with the substance.  While there is no question that lawmakers and the community are united in wanting to stop the use of fentanyl by our relatives, friends, and neighbors, there is uncertainty and disagreement in discussing how to best curb its spread and abuse. A plan by the House and Senate to impose harsher penalties on individuals dealing fentanyl, supported by Mayor Weinberger and Police Chief Del Pozo, in an effort to stop its spread, is a tactic whose efficacy has not been proven in research or study.

The new law aims to make penalties for possession a maximum of two years in jail and a $10,000 fine, and selling four milligrams of any drug containing fentanyl would cost a maximum of 10 years in jail and a $250,000 fine.

While fentanyl distribution should be vigorously discouraged, studies on “tough on crime” policies have shown inconsistent results, and have failed to establish clear correlation between tougher sentencing and reduced distribution. Moreover, if the end goal is to decrease the use of fentanyl and other life threatening opioides, “Achieving better health outcomes for drug users cannot be shown to be a direct result of the enforcement approach.

Instead, I would advocate for the state to continue increasing funding for mental health supports, as well as providing robust treatment services to those struggling with substance use, and establishing better supports in rural areas. Such a strategy is being implemented in Alberta, Canada, where doctors hope demand reduction and greater safety features will decrease demand and distribution of the substance. Policies to better fight the opiate epidemic include stricter controls on opioid prescriptions, more training around fentanyl use, and no abrupt withdrawal or tapering of opioid medications for those in treatment.

Here at home, State Rep. Selene Colburn (Burlington, P/D) recently spearheaded a bill that would offer medication-assisted detox and treatment in Vermont state prisons, which seems a promising approach to a complex problem. Locking up dealers for longer is a classic example of treating the symptom, not the problem. If the state is to make lasting gains in the fight against opiate addiction it must increase outreach and funding for proven and effective treatment methods, rather than simply trying to cut the drug off at the source. As time has shown, there will unfortunately always be emerging drugs and opportunities to get high, and so the best course of action is to help alleviate the conditions pushing Vermonters to use, and to increase supports for long-term users who are in need of help.