Derek Kopon is for campaign finance reform, sound development as candidate for council
We need a City Council dominated by pragmatists rather than ideologues. And we certainly do not need councillors whose integrity has been compromised by substantial developer contributions. The city’s problems are complex and can be solved only by councillors who are able to see clearly where more information is needed and how to ask the city to provide it. This has not been the case with the current City Council, some of whom appear to be motivated by ideology and money, rather than the city’s best interests.
We have been residents of Cambridge for the past 25 years, and realize that the influx of highly paid tech workers means we cannot have a city without change. We therefore want to see new faces on the City Council who are mentally equipped to deal with the complexity of change. One such, we believe, is Derek Kopon. He is a scientist and therefore bases his professional life on data. But he also realizes that data have to be assessed by humans, not all of whom agree. He has had this experience in the past and found that the most effective progress is made through consensus. Apart from being sound on environmental and renewable energy policy, he advocates for campaign finance reform and well-planned development, not ill-conceived upzoning such as the Affordable Housing Overlay.
Dominick Jones, Hurlbut Street
This has to be one of the most insulting, nonsensical letters to the editor I’ve ever read. To suggest councilors, “who’s integrity has been compromised by substantial developer contributions” is Insulting to many people who could make a far higher income in the private sector. This means to me, the writer/candidate is for sale to anyone who makes contributions to his campaign. Meaning (as I’ve said many times before) if I donate to his campaign, he will do what I demand regardless what that may be. Including if illegal or not. Money is money. To suggest a Councilor would risk prison for a max of a $1000 donation is ludicrous for example. It’s an excuse and non sensical argument that only the folks involved in one of the many Cambridge political groups or campaigns care about. Most voters, including myself, could care less where any legal contributions come from.
The writer suggests or out right declares only Mr. Kopon is smart enough to be a city Councilor. There are educated people on our current city council, including scientists. The writer also outright suggests that Mr. Kopon is the only person, “mentally equipped” to be a councilor.
I could write pages upon pages on why this letter of support has not remotely helped the writers candidate. Most importantly, the writer hasn’t made one single proposal on how or why Mr. Kopon could or would enlighten or help all the stupid* Cambridge residents.
*sarcasm
I should clarify. If a councilor knowingly accepted donations (legal) from a white supremacist group for example. That would be an issue to the vast majority of Cambridge voters and would be political suicide.
Apparently, I needed to point this obvious (example) exception out. Developers, real estate folks and or landlords are not evil people. Somenl, matter of fact are heads of local Cambridge political groups.
Pragmatism in this case means, the developers will ultimately win, so let’s make the best deal we can, knowing full well (or believing ) that they hold all the cards. I and most Cantabrigians realize that cities change, grow and evolve, and Cambridge is no exveption.
The question is who or what will drive that change and to what end. Will Cambridge remain livable and diverse, both on population and environment or will it become another example of Nowhere.
Developers aren’t inherently evil, nobody is saying that, but often (usually) their interests are different than the community they are working in. Land is expensive and limited, labor is expensive as are materials. A developer isn’t going to make a profit, selling units at $100 a square foot, for example, but will at $400. Why would they bother? Unless forced to, few affordable units will be built. Even the term affordable is open to debate.
Ultimately, the idea of livability, isn’t a quantifiable concept.
I think the point being missed here is that when there are Councillors whose campaign chests are much, much fuller that most others, and most of that comes from those with direct ties to local development interests, you would have to be a fool not to believe that no influence is being made. If that were true the donations would stop immediately. Look at the OCPF data yourself. It’s obscene.
Ah, now those who believe our city council is a group of good people are fools. Many of them can make a lot more cash in the private sector.
Again, to believe donations from a specific group of people corrupts the city Councilor receiving those donations must themselves be easily influenced by whom donates to their campaign. Otherwise, why care. Only those involved with the many political groups in Cambridge or individuals connected to campaigns care. Most Cambridge voters by far, don’t care. It’s a ridiculous argument and an excuse to attack good people.
Instead, maybe those candidates should worry about what their ideas are to make Cambridge a better community instead of pointing the finger of corruption at good people working every day to make Cambridge a better place to live for all of us.
It’s easy to complain and accuse others of being corruptible, its harder by far to create the change we need and offer ideas to accomplish.
Manny, your argument is without evidence or substance. Compare the votes in favor of big development and their proprietary (contract zoning) up-zonings, and the correlation is clear. There is a obvious “Development Slate”.
I’m not suggesting specific quid pro quo, but a Councillor knows where their campaign bread is buttered and you can make sure you will have bucks the if you give the votes.
I’m not a candidate and am not a member of any Cambridge political group there days, and I’ve been watching this for too long to think otherwise.
You and the many folks pushing the exaggerated, don’t take developer money ect. are indeed suggesting a quid pro quo scenario. This is what I see is wrong. For the umpteenth time. The candidates who refuse developer money must indeed be easily swayed by whom donates to their campaign. Otherwise, why be concerned about what legitimate donation is made. Including morale legitimacy (i.e., no one would knowingly take a camping donation from a known white supremacist).
What are the definitions of whom is a developer? Are landlords, real estate, attorneys who may or may not have developer’s as clients, businesses looking to expand, friends of all the folks i just mentioned? There are factually heads of local political groups who are landlords.
It is a ridiculous argument. Again, most Cambridge voters are interested in what a current or prospective Councilor will do to help make homes available to the poor and middle income folks. Not whom donates to which candidates.
Regardless of my opinions about evil developer donations. This argument has been used the past 2 to 3 cycles. If it were a legitimate causation of the housing crisis. Why hasn’t it mattered or, why isn’t the housing crisis over? Rhetorical question. It’s not, rent control and those working on this solution is the possible way to go and all this evil developer money B.S. is simply a distraction and excuse for our elected officials for not helping the thousands upon thousands of people suffering on the Affordable housing waiting lists.