Portland Press Herald. May 31, 2024.
Editorial: Fearlessness of exactly the wrong kind from Sen. Susan Collins
In attempting to undermine the judicial system and fanning the flames of anti-establishment rabble-rousing and worse, the senator has nailed her colors to the mast.
Let’s begin with a few simple statements of fact.
Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, was found guilty by a Manhattan jury Thursday of all 34 counts against him in a criminal trial that lasted seven weeks. The conviction is the latest in a series of legal findingsagainst Trump, the first president to become a convicted felon. It could land him in prison.
Within hours of the verdict, Maine’s Sen. Susan Collins released the following statement:
“It is fundamental to our American system of justice that the government prosecutes cases because of alleged criminal conduct regardless of who the defendant happens to be. In this case the opposite has happened. The district attorney, who campaigned on a promise to prosecute Donald Trump, brought these charges precisely because of who the defendant was rather than because of any specified criminal conduct. The political underpinnings of this case further blur the lines between the judicial system and the electoral system, and this verdict likely will be the subject of a protracted appeals process.”
Silence on the historic outcome would probably have been good enough for disgruntled Trump-supporting Mainers – and sufficient for Trump himself, assuming he’s paying attention.
Clear-headed, appropriate support of the judicial process and the 12 jurors’ work would have pleased many other voters – indeed, this was the level and professional response of each of the three other members of Maine’s congressional delegation – and it would have been right.
In this case the opposite has happened.
Collins chose to promptly join in the chorus of voices castigating the outcome without care for the consequences, attacking it in imprecise, broad-brush terms like “political underpinnings” and focusing on her interpretation of an individual district attorney rather than on the mechanics of the trial, the scope of the allegations and the evidence, or the concept of equal justice under the law.
Sen. Collins has not done nearly enough to distance herself from Trump or to reject his candidacy for a second term in office.
In 2021, Collins was one of seven Republican senators to vote to convict Trump following his second impeachment on Jan. 6 charges. This past March, Collins said that she would not personally give Trump her vote in November and “will not support him.”
But the senator has avoided categorical criticism of the embattled former president. Writers in these pages and others around Maine have, under increasingly eye-popping circumstances and statements, stopped just short of calling for Collins calling for his head, impatient for an unequivocal condemnation of Trump by their Republican senator in D.C. – condemnation that we have no reason to expect will ever come.
These same complaints often ask about Collins’ “backbone” – where is it?
Where is the courage needed to stand far apart from the thickening fog of criminality that cloaks Trump, the repeated threats to undermine our country’s institutions, processes, norms? Where is the political fearlessness? Where is the confidence that this editorial board would like to think would be rewarded at the voting booth?
Last night, those beseeching constituents were handed their clear answer. There is something pretty fearless about an elected representative who believes it’s acceptable, in the current, terrifying political climate, to seek to undermine the rule of law in response to a single criminal verdict.
Fearless – and shameless.
___
Boston Globe. June 5, 2024.
Editorial: The state says a program to house people with addiction worked. So why is it going away?
‘It’s really hard to expect people to achieve sobriety and find stability if they don’t have a safe place to lay their head at night,’ a state official said.
Two programs in Boston to house people struggling with addiction were considered a success, which made the news of their impending closures a head-scratcher. After all, wouldn’t the state want to continue the programs if they were working — keeping people off the streets and giving them a pathway to recovery?
The cottage community on the grounds of Lemuel Shattuck Hospital in Jamaica Plain and a second program at the enVision hotel in Mission Hill were created with federal pandemic relief money to help people who had been living in the tent encampment near the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Melnea Cass Boulevard. There was no requirement for sobriety. Once a person enters the housing program, access to medical care and substance abuse treatment is available.
The theory behind the two programs is straightforward. “It’s really hard to expect people to achieve sobriety and find stability if they don’t have a safe place to lay their head at night,” one state official told the Globe.
As a bridge between living on the street and a more permanent housing solution, city officials consider this model a success. “We are very, very thankful for the state partnership and thought highly of the program,” Dr. Bisola Ojikutu, executive director of the Boston Public Health Commission, told the editorial board.
But last month, state officials announced that funding is running out for both programs. The Shattuck cottages will close at the end of July. Alternative housing has been found for everyone currently living there, city officials said. EnVision hotel is due to run out of funding at the end of December.
To keep the programs running, authorities will need money. They’ll also need to provide a clearer accounting of just why they consider them successes in the first place.
Providing temporary housing and the medical support network that goes with it is not cheap. According to the state, the cottages received $8.4 million between December 2021 and January 2024 and enVision hotel received $10 million between November 2021 and January 2024.
The editorial board found that quantifying how many people have been helped by these temporary housing programs is not easy. Asked for numbers, city officials — who count “unique individuals by their first stay” — said the cottages have served 78 guests and EnVision has served 78 guests since January 2022. The state has a higher count, with a spokesperson saying there have been 134 guests at the cottages and 132 at enVision. The editorial board could not get an explanation for the discrepancy or determine exactly how many of those people have been moved into permanent supportive housing.
That number should be a key metric to evaluate whether the investment has paid off and should be publicly available.
The Shattuck cottages were always intended to be temporary, but city officials are hopeful some alternative funding source will be identified to keep the enVision hotel program running. That has not yet happened. “It was really successful and if we had infinite funds … we would continue with that (program),” one official with the state Department of Public Health told the editorial board.
Emergency shelter housing is more of a “Band-Aid,” the state official said; the governor’s emphasis is on creating permanent housing for people who need it.
But when it comes to providing either temporary or permanent housing for people with substance use disorder issues, there has been strong community resistance. As the cottages at the Shattuck are winding down, the state is also reworking what was originally a $500 million expansion plan for the Shattuck campus that would expand treatment for people dealing with mental health or substance use disorder issues and provide additional supportive housing.
How do you do what’s right for those vulnerable people who need help and get buy-in from nearby residents? It’s important to be transparent about the number of people who are helped, as well as where they end up and how long it takes them to stabilize their lives. All that data should be easily obtainable; the public shouldn’t have to take authorities’ word for it that the program has been successful.
Figuring out the most cost-effective way to provide that help is also important. As for funding sources, what about the billions in opioid settlement money that Massachusetts got a share of through Healey’s efforts as attorney general?
Boston, in partnership with the state, has led the way when it comes to addressing a problem faced by cities across the country. When it comes to making the case for sustaining that effort, more clarity is needed.
___
Boston Herald. June 6, 2024.
Editorial: Mass. should follow New York’s lead – at least on congestion pricing
Like New York, Boston’s leaders have been mulling the idea of congestion pricing. Charging a fee to drivers, proponents claim, will help the city tackle pollution, traffic and boost use of public transportation.
So why did New York just ditch their congestion pricing plan?
The $15 toll was due to start on June 30, and Gov. Kathy Hochul explained the decision to hit the pause button indefinitely in a video announcement Wednesday, as the New York Post reported.
“Let’s be real a $15 charge .. puts the squeeze on the very people who make this city go,” Hochul said.
“I cannot add another burden to working middle class New Yorkers or create another obstacle to our continued economic recovery” from the COVID pandemic, she added.
Red Sox/Yankees rivalry aside, New York just hit a home run.
Ordinary citizens, those without deep pockets, are often of little importance when it comes to decisions to cut emissions, or reduce traffic, or tweak the design of a city.
But, as Hochul noted, there are real people in those cars.
“I think the Post spotlighting the real concerns of working New Yorkers definitely impacted the conversation. It’s tone deaf to charge New Yorkers $3,600 every year when they can’t afford to put food on the table,” a source familiar with the governor’s thinking said.
“She just doesn’t think we can ask New Yorkers to pay a new fee at a time when the cost of living has gone up so dramatically.”
Would that all leaders took this into consideration when spiking taxes or adding fees or taking other action that further burdens working Americans who are struggling to get by.
Another source close to Hochul’s office added: “The governor is concerned about the economic recovery in Manhattan.”
We’re not immune to concerns about economic recovery. Downtown office space is still feeling the effects of remote working as buildings stand all but empty. We need to give companies incentives to get workers willing to head into Boston and fill those offices, or come up with feasible plan to convert the spaces.
Instead, the city council greenlighted Mayor Michelle Wu’s bid to hike Boston’s commercial property taxes beyond allowable limits on Wednesday.
Opponents point out the burden this move would have on businesses still struggling to come back from the pandemic.
“It sends the completely wrong message to businesses, especially at a time when we want to be competitive and we want to be able to provide all the necessary services property taxes provide us,” Councilor Erin Murphy said. “In fact, if we were Worcester or Providence or even Charlotte, North Carolina, I’d be absolutely thrilled with this proposal. It makes their sales pitch so much easier.”
A thriving business district brings people to the city, and fuels businesses who provide goods and services to office workers, such as restaurants. Making it even harder to recover from the pandemic isn’t good for anyone. Except, as Murphy noted, other states without such commercial tax burdens.
Mayor Wu’s tax bill is heading to Beacon Hill, let’s hope cooler heads prevail.
___
Rutland Herald. June 5, 2024.
Editorial: Power plays
Once again, the Renewable Energy Standard is back in the hands of lawmakers. The outcome seems inevitable. The debate on this issue is heated, and remains so.
The bill passed the Vermont House 99-39 and passed the Senate 18-8.
In his veto, Republican Gov. Phil Scott noted, “I don’t believe there is any debate that H.289 will raise Vermonters’ utility rates, likely by hundreds of millions of dollars. And while that in itself is reason enough to earn a veto, it is even more frustrating when you consider our Department of Public Service proposed to the Legislature a much stronger plan at a fraction of the cost. … factoring in all the other taxes, fees and higher costs the Legislature has passed over the last two years, I simply cannot allow this bill to go into law.”
Democrats and Progressives called the governor’s veto short-sighted. Republicans called it on message when it comes to defending affordability, and not passing costs on to taxpayers, business owners and renters.
In their rebuke of the veto, the environmental lobby called it “a dismaying attempt to obstruct Vermont’s environmental and economic progress.”
According to the lobbyists, this legislation would be the first major update to the Renewable Energy Standard in nearly a decade and would represent the most significant action Vermont has ever taken to cut carbon pollution in the electric sector. This bill, if enacted, would have Vermont be the second state in the nation to achieve 100% renewable electricity, setting a precedent for clean energy progress and economic innovation. By increasing the requirements for utilities to support new renewable energy projects in the region and the state, H.289 would significantly cut carbon pollution — equivalent to removing up to 250,000 cars from our roads permanently by 2035.
Among the statements leveled at the governor was from Lauren Hierl, executive director of Vermont Conservation Voters, who accused the governor of choosing “to side with fossil fuel interests over the health and well-being of Vermonters. … Vermont has the chance to lead the nation in renewable energy innovation and climate action, and we hope the legislature overturns this misguided veto.”
Scott fired back on this thinking. In a statement defending his recent vetoes, the governor, who recently announced a bid for a fifth term, noted: “Despite what some will say, I really do try hard to meet legislators in the middle. Because we actually share many of the same priorities. From addressing climate change to making child care and health care more accessible and affordable, to raising wages, to making sure our kids are getting the best education possible.”
He accused lawmakers of focusing “so much on their goals they don’t consider the unintended consequences. And the reality is, there are almost always some negative consequences as the result of new policies. … I also believe there is often a path to reach our goals while limiting those consequences. But to find that right balance we have to take our time to get it right; to walk before we run; and, importantly, make sure Vermonters can afford it.”
He added that: “Another challenge we face is the Legislature doesn’t always consider the practical realities that go along with implementation. We see a number of bills pass where there was not careful consideration of what resources it will take and what a realistic timeline looks like. … This sets agencies and partners up for failure. And pits policies against each other when we don’t have the budget capacity to fund the many initiatives this Legislature passes. … At the same time, they all come with a cost, whether that’s through new taxes and fees or unfunded mandates that put a strain on the state budget.”
He said using the veto power is the “final checkpoint on behalf of the state as a whole.”
In turn, an aggressive push has been made to guarantee the two-thirds votes needed in each chamber.
“It is imperative that the Legislature override this veto and ensure that Vermont takes necessary action to reduce our state’s dependence on imported, polluting fossil fuels,” the lobby noted in a statement.
Our editorial page is regularly filled with everyday Vermonters feeling the pinch of higher taxes. We hear about families and individuals unwilling to take jobs here in Vermont because of the high cost of living. That level of divisiveness is not just political, it is a reality.
We all want responsible policies and laws on the books that address the needs of Vermonters today, but it is not wrong or out of line for all sides to consider broader implications for today and the many tomorrows ahead.
Yes, part of that is addressing climate change. But it also can’t be driving people away. We would be remiss not to push back here.
It’s easy to know what the governor, the parties and the lobbyists want, especially when it comes to this issue. And it will happen, because the votes likely will override Scott’s veto.
We suspect this November may signal a shift more toward new issues that everyday Vermonters want addressed. Will we be just as eager when the next session starts in January?
END