CITY COUNCILOR Rita Mercier painted a beautiful portrait of Lowell: Instead of the city being a “melting pot” of cultures, Mercier said she views it more so as a “mosaic” or a “patchwork.”
She even compared Lowell’s Acre neighborhood to Plymouth Rock — although the Pilgrims weren’t exactly diverse, but they did sort of cohabit with Indigenous peoples, so that counts?
Regardless, Mercier is championing Councilor Corey Robinson’s motion to declare that “Racism leads to crisis” after rejecting a motion from former Mayor John Leahy to declare racism as a public health crisis in July 2020.
Despite many local government bodies — including the Lowell School Committee — taking an active anti-racist stance, that effort failed at the City Council. But could this new motion inspire new councilors to take charge and change their vote?
It’s notable that Mercier is backing Robinson’s motion, considering not only her past vote but also the controversy she found herself in following the failed motion.
Residents protested for the council to pass the motion, and the following spring, when the city held a vigil memorializing the victims of the Atlanta spa shootings, Mercier said she decided to speak to the crowd when no one else volunteered to do so.
According to Mercier, those in attendance started shouting, “Go home, you racist,” prompting her daughter to take the microphone to defend her mother. Shortly after, they both left.
Despite her presence there and eagerness to fill in for an absent mayor, Mercier said how she felt an obligation to go, recalling a conversation with her daughter in which she said, “I have to go to this vigil that they have over at Roberto Clemente Park with the Asian people.”
But after that incident, Mercier said she understood the anger and frustration residents felt over the motion she rejected.
With this new motion, which will be introduced at the next City Council meeting, on Tuesday night, could things change for Mercier? Her reputation may have taken an initial hit — at least among some groups in the city — but her longstanding commitment to constituent services has kept her popular among other voting demographics.
In her nearing three decades on the council, Mercier would almost always come out on top in city elections under the old all at-large system. Last year, the city’s election system changed to a hybrid format with district representation. Vesna Nuon, a Cambodian American member of the council who had once before broken through to the top of the popular vote, again knocked Mercier back to second place in last year’s municipal election.
Mercier said she’s ready to listen to her constituents when she, in the past, really hasn’t heard stories of racism or discrimination in the city.
“You hear all kinds of Asian hate and all kinds of things like that, and it does exist more so in other key states, not so much in Lowell,” said Mercier. “I noticed that, at a lot of the vigils, people speaking, they talked about incidents that happened to them, but they weren’t living in the city at the time. … So that in itself made me say, ‘Well, what’s happening here? I don’t see it either here.’”
Mercier was born and raised in Lowell as a first-generation American after her father immigrated from Poland.
One of the four key areas the motion hopes to make progress on is education and training, which Robinson said will, in part, support local organizations that teach English as a second language, teaching adults computer skills and similar efforts.
Robinson said studies show “disparities in high-minority population areas,” prompting him to address the underlying, systemic issues predominantly impacting people of color.
When asked about her ideas for supporting education and the other areas of need in Lowell through this motion, Mercier said she would hope that students in the city, regardless of race, are receiving the same quality of education. Through potential American Rescue Plan Act funding, she said, the council can identify ways to improve education.
But in her time in local schools, Mercier shared a contradicting message.
“I’ve been in many schools, and the little children that are Asian, they are unbelievably smart, I can’t get over it. They want to learn and I’m impressed by that,” Mercier said. “So I don’t know how they can say that there’s a discrepancy with education because of race. I don’t know, I don’t see that either, but maybe they can tell me something, prove to me something.”
Two years later, Mercier is supporting a motion similar to the one she dismissed, only after the language around the word “crisis” was changed.
How other councilors will feel about Robinson’s effort is yet to be determined.
Budget talk, motion discussions push City Council meetings later
WITH TAXPAYERS facing a significant increase in their property taxes under the proposed fiscal 2023 budget, it was no surprise that members of the Lowell City Council gave the books a scrupulous look.
Throughout Tuesday’s City Council meeting, everybody had something to say about the way funds were being allocated — especially Councilor Erik Gitschier, who isn’t known to be shy about his feelings on the city’s finances. Gitschier proposed several budget cuts throughout the meeting, none of which passed.
During a conversation on his motion to cut $1 million from the contingency funds for City Manager Tom Golden, Gitschier wanted the mayor to call on him. It was evident he had more he wanted to say after listening to the discussion in the room.
But Mayor Sokhary Chau said he would “respectfully decline” calling again on councilors who had already spoken.
“Mr. Mayor, this is important,” Gitschier said into his microphone.
“This is called the budget. We have plenty of time to speak — it isn’t people speak once. There are interesting things that are brought up from everybody else and we do have a right to be city councilors and sit here and question things and ask certain questions so that we can represent people,” Gitschier said.
Gitschier added that he felt there were “plenty of meetings” where motion discussions were cut down and there was a “rush” to get government business over with. With something as important as the budget before the council, he wasn’t going to allow this discussion to be cut short.
“I would implore the rest of the City Council to stand up and say ‘enough is enough, let’s do the work,’” Gitschier said.
Chau responded that his intention wasn’t to be “cutting anybody short” and that he felt councilors were “given plenty of time to speak.” He added that he wanted to make sure everybody had a chance to share their thoughts.
Hearing the mayor’s response, Gitschier motioned to allow councilors to speak “as many times as they want” during the deliberation. The motion passed with a voice vote and no councilor could be heard in opposition.
Whether it was intended to or not, Gitschier’s motion had shades of one put forward by Councilor Paul Ratha Yem just a week earlier.
With a 10 p.m. adjournment rule and seemingly more council business on the agenda than ever, Yem requested the Rules Subcommittee look into having a dedicated 30-minute window for motions to be heard.
Since motions typically fall at the end of the agenda, he felt there was a rush to get through that section and there wasn’t conversation as substantive as he’d like to see.
During the May 24 meeting, Chau sounded more like an auctioneer than a mayor as he tried to get through the night’s motions before the 10 p.m. rule hit. We’ll see how the council does Tuesday with 33 motions on the agenda.
Chelmsford Select Board disregards Pride flags in proposed policy amendment
THOSE HOPING the Select Board allows Pride flags back into town for Pride Month this June may be disappointed.
The Select Board voted in 2019 to only allow certain flags to be flown on government property, which include the flags of the United States, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Chelmsford, and National League of Families POW/MIA.
Residents may remember that was the same year the Chelmsford Center for the Arts raised a Pride flag on their front lawn at the start of Pride Month, only to allegedly receive threatening phone calls demanding they take it down. In response, the board outright banned all but four flags and has not amended the policy since.
So when “Flag Policy Revision” popped up on Monday night’s agenda, at the start of Pride Month, it signaled that the board may possibly allow Pride flags to be flown once again. A symbol of visibility during a month of heightened awareness and celebration of LGBTQ identities, permitting Pride flags on town property would be a significant gesture.
But that’s not what happened.
Without any mention of the history of the flag policy, nor the calls from LGBTQ activists and allies to re-examine it, the board reviewed a draft revision that would add the following clarification:
“Notwithstanding the preceding language, the Town may allow banners to be flown on Town property recognizing the service of veterans, and may allow holiday decorations that include banners indicating the support of businesses, only where such banners are consistent with the form proscribed by the Town, and only so long as the Town reviews and approves the message on such banners in advance.”
Town Manager Paul Cohen said the amendment is focused on seasonal banners, such as those displayed by the town’s Parade Committee twice a year, including for July 4.
Board member Virginia Crocker Timmins questioned the language of the revision, asking whether the word “holiday” is “too generic,” given how strict their current flag policy is. She added that residents may want Christmas, Hanukkah or Kwanzaa flags raised, which the board would still need to approve.
The rest of the conversation delved into semantics and the type of posts where banners are features. And in less than 10 minutes, the board decided to revisit the issue on June 27, when they will solidify the policy’s language.
With that, the discussion was over.
A tale of two votes
U.S. REP. Lori Trahan made two important votes this past week, but only one of them has a fair shot at becoming law and making a difference.
On Wednesday, she was one of 223 House members who voted to pass legislation to tighten the nation’s gun laws in response to recent mass shootings in Buffalo, N.Y., and Uvalde, Texas.
The Protecting Our Kids Act, passed by a mostly party-line vote of 223-204, would raise the age limit for purchasing a semi-automatic weapon from 18 to 21 and prohibit the sale of ammunition magazines with a capacity of more than 15 rounds, among other provisions. Five Republicans voted for it, and two Democrats voted against it.
“Can you imagine standing helplessly behind a police line as gunshots are fired near your daughter’s classroom?” Trahan said during a speech on Capitol Hill, referencing the tragedy in Uvalde in an impassioned plea for her colleagues to pass the legislation. “Can you imagine having to identify the unrecognizable body of your missing baby girl or baby boy by their favorite shoes? And can you imagine standing in line for a DNA test praying to God that it does not come back a match?”
The legislation may have passed in the House, but it is expected to die in the Senate, which has turned its focus to improving mental health programs, bolstering school security and enhancing background checks.
The same day, Trahan voted to advance the bipartisan 2022 Water Resources Development Act, legislation that includes a $100 million federal funding authorization she secured to help address combined sewage overflows in 3rd Congressional District cities including Lowell and Fitchburg.
“With hundreds of millions of gallons of sewage flowing into rivers across our district each year, the need for robust federal investments in upgrading our sewage systems couldn’t be more obvious. That’s why I requested $100 million in federal water development funding specifically for our district,” Trahan said in a statement.
She said the vote “gets us one step closer to having critical federal funds flow to Lowell, Lawrence, Methuen, Haverhill and Fitchburg. I’m proud of the progress we’ve made and look forward to getting this funding across the finish line so we can put it to use in our communities.”
The Water Resources Development Act is reauthorized by Congress every two years, and ensures federal investments in local water infrastructure and development projects to meet communities’ needs. Trahan was able to secure $20 million each for the five 3rd District cities.
And it’s Lowell’s good fortune that the Senate is likely to give its stamp of approval on the legislation, which already enjoyed bipartisan support in the House, where it was voted out of committee unanimously and passed under fast-tracked consideration.
The funding is certainly needed in Lowell, where the sewage system has continued to discharge an average of 300 million to 450 million gallons of overflow into local rivers in recent years, even after $150 million in investments that resulted in a 60% reduction in discharges.
Sticker shock
TYNGSBORO SOCIAL media users experienced some consternation this week at a real estate promotion for an age-restricted development on Sherburne Road. The cause of their surprise was the price tag. “Starting at low 800s,” the posting said.
“What is the world coming to?” read one of the responses.
The 100-home community, restricted to those who are age 55 or older, will be built on several holes of the former Tyngsboro Country Club. And, while some wonder if the price tag might be too steep for older adults, the $80-million-plus development will generate an estimated $989,000 in new property tax revenue, according to town officials.
Some of that revenue will go toward construction of the new middle school, which was approved at the May 3 Town Meeting and ratified at the May 17 town election.
The town will set aside $1 million annually from new revenue growth to help fund the $82.5 million school. Town Administrator Matt Hanson explained this funding plan would reduce the school’s impact on the average tax bill from $702 to $410 annually.
At Town Meeting, Hanson said the project was fully permitted and ready to go.
A recent drive down Sherburne Road shows that work has begun. A flotilla of heavy equipment is parked on what once gave access to the third hole and bulldozers have leveled trees. A sign is posted advertising the asphalt company that will cover what were once fairways and greens.
The view from Sherburne Road to Pawtucket Boulevard is that of ghost golf course, so overrun with weeds and brush that only someone familiar with the course could discern its former layout.
The Pawtucket Boulevard side of the property, however, will be used for recreation.
Another piece of property on the boulevard seems nearer to opening. The official signage for the Chateau Merrimack is in place, but there is still some construction equipment on the grounds.
This week’s Column was prepared by reporters Cameron Morsberger in Lowell and Chelmsford; Jacob Vitali in Lowell; Prudence Brighton in Tyngsboro; and Enterprise Editor Alana Melanson.
