Hey, there! Log in / Register
Globe: John Tobin to quit city council
By adamg on Tue, 07/06/2010 - 12:07am
The Globe reports Tobin, who has represented West Roxbury and Jamaica Plain since 2001, will become a lobbyist, sorry, vice president for city and community affairs, at Northeastern University:
... I framed it in the sense that I'll be the city councilor for Northeastern ...
That should mean frequent chats with Mike Ross of Mission Hill, whose constituents aren't all that enamored of Northeastern right now.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
a better place to live
John did a good job making the city a better place to live.
Seconded!
Seconded!
What's the process?
Does the seat remain empty or do we hold a special election?
Special election
David Bernstein, who tends to know these things, suggests it would be timed to coincide with the state elections this fall.
Given the race for Marian Walsh's and Mike Rush's seats, could be an interesting confluence - and huge turnout in West Roxbury, at least in the preliminary (assuming that's held the same day as the state primary).
Mike Ross doesn't really
Mike Ross doesn't really represent Mission Hill or the Fenway as part of his district unless there is some photo op in it for him. Ross loves to put on a show and talks a lot, but when it comes down to action or voting to back up his words, he doesn't.
Solution
I am a Northeastern student who lives off campus. Pretty much everyone I know also lives off campus and the only students that do live on campus do so because their parents force them to use on campus housing.
One of the main reasons for so many people living off campus is that Northeastern over charges way too much for housing - why pay $1250 a month for an on campus apartment when you can pay under $600 for off campus. It just doesn't make much sense for most students to continue living on campus after freshman year - especially when half of our year is spent working in the city as normal residents instead of taking classes. If Northeastern would provide affordable housing that matched the options we would find outside of campus, then maybe more students would be willing to live there. There are currently NO on campus housing options that are cheaper than my current off campus rent. Plus my cheaper apartment is significantly nicer and feels more like a home than any dorm. To get on campus housing anywhere near the price I pay I would need to live in a small single room with two other guys - that isn't a realistic option for me or most other students.
Before I was 21, I will admit that I was probably part of the noise problem that many residents complain about. Once my friends and I turned 21, we no longer threw large house parties because we all now had the ability to go to a bar together. Off campus parties aren't going to go away - but they can be significantly reduces if the drinking age was lowered to 18.
If Northeastern keeps building dorms, I don't know if that will really solve the problem. Many students might still choose to live off campus. Northeastern needs to make their housing options affordable - and that means affordable apartment style suites - not affordable economy style dorms that many find unsuitable. Both the university and the local residents should also push for lowering the drinking age. Keeping the drinking age at 21 does not stop those under 21 from drinking - it just creates an environment where they are forced to do their drinking in neighborhoods where it will upset the other residents instead of in bars.
its nice to hear from actual NEU students
Thanks for your comments, NEU Student. I think it helps all of us to hear directly from the source of the problem (students in general, not you specifically) why there are problems. Your comments make a lot of sense and were something I hadn't considered before.
Ditto
As a Hill resident and recent grad of NU, I totally mirror your response regarding the unaffordable options of on-campus housing NU offers. I feel like comments like these (from the student perspective), appear on UHub every week or so and sound very similar to each other. Hopefully Tobin will help the housing situation.
Understood, but
Campus housing has 24/7 security, maintenance, cleaning, wireless internet. Off-campus housing is a bed, four walls and a roof. There's a reason for the price difference.
You forgot
heat, AC (sometimes), hot water, electricity and cable. Also, don't forget that Northeastern now covers up to a certain number of loads of laundry each semester, and that laundry is generally in the building.
When you're paying all the bills individually, I'd bet that it can wind up close to what it costs to live on campus.
laundry
yes, that $4/mo I spend on laundry (in my basement) really makes up the price difference of living on the Hill or in a dorm. Not all, but a good amount of on-campus students use a laundry service (now Garmet Valet, previously the choice was Husky Express). The laundry service is not included in the >$1k/ mo on-campus rent.
Well if you live in a West
Well if you live in a West Village suite, you pay around $1200 to share a room, with which you get a small kitchen and a decent sized living area. There is no maid service - you're responsible for cleaning. Yes, there's free wifi and security.
Compare that to Mission Hill - $700 for solo bedrooms, bigger kitchen/living room. Since my landlord isn't a scumbag, maintenance is covered/not a huge issue. So if I'm paying at most $100 a month for utilities and internet, thats $400 for security.
Yes, this is an oversimplification, but the point stands. If location mattered I'd just rent a studio in Symphony and still pay less. Beyond the "Boston is scary" viewpoint, I can't think of a single good reason to live on NEU's campus.
Right
So obviously there are benefits of living on campus compared to Mission Hill. Does that matter? That wasn't the point of my comment. If I'm given an option of $600/mo (Mission Hill, including utilities) or $1100/mo (West Village fancy, including utilities), which should I choose? Walking less than one mile to school is not worth the extra price. Yes, NU has luxurious housing with all the bells and whistles. However, not all students can or want to spend the additional amount for tall, orange dorm with eco friendly toilets. NU provides very little choice for students - if you want 100+ cable channels, cookie cutter small square bedrooms, intense security proctors/RAs, and uncomfortable furniture, go live on campus. Point: why can't NU provide affordable, comfortable housing?
Broader Problem
This is a situation that affect the whole city. The census bureau has apparently "found" about 65,000 new residents of Boston over the past 10 years - noting that the city has grown from about 570,000 to about 635,000 people in the most recent press release (those numbers are approximate from memory if someone wants to look them up). However, the bureau also notes that we have only increased the housing stock from 252,000 units to about 255,000 units. Obviously one or both of these numbers is mistaken and the new census should clarify the numbers, but one thing is clear every time we talk about the future of the city - middle class housing in particular is too expensive in this city and that apparently is driven by a lack of supply. We need to expand the housing supply for students and others for the city to thrive in the long term. Unfortunately the BRA seems to focus most of its efforts on large scale projects downtown with minimal effort at expanding development outside of choice (and very expensive) downtown areas.
I disagree, NU Student.
Lowering the drinking age to 18 won't solve problems, but it'll create more of them and make already-existing problems a great deal worse. The drinking age here in the Bay State was lowered to 18 yrs of age at one point and then raised back up again, because there was much, much more drinking among high school kids when the drinking age was 18. Nobody, regardless of age is "forced" to do their drinking in neighborhoods and upsetting residents with their loud, drunken all-night parties and the fights and vandalism that often result, keeping longtime and lifetime residents awake when they've got to go about their own daily lives/businesses the next day. I have no sympathy for you and your ilk, because it's clear that you think that you're entitled to do whatever you want when you want. Well, NUStudent, I've got a hot surprise for you and your pals: Ever heard the expression "What goes around comes around"? That'll happen with you someday...it'll come around and bite you and your friends in the ass...hard.
Arguing about the drinking
Arguing about the drinking age is getting a little beyond the scope of this discussion.
My question is directed at those who are so unhappy with students moving in to Mission Hill:
All I hear are complaints of noise and parties. Before the influx of college students there may have been less house parties but what about all the violence and drug use. I don't know about you but I'd trade fearing for my safety with noise any day.
Don't make stuff up, anon
The increase of drinking age in MA, first to 20, then to 21, may have been spun to some as a way to reduce teenage drinking rates, but it was primarily to ensure that the commonwealth continued to recieve federal highway development funds.
There have been plenty of studies showing that raising the drinking age does little to reduce teenage drinking, and may even increase the prevalence of destructive behaviours of consumption (aka binging).
About 30 seconds with google reveals many peer-reviewed articles, eg:
Impact of legislation raising the legal drinking age in Massachusetts from 18 to 20.
(compares rates of use/abuse/related-injury in NY (18y) and MA (20-21) and finds no real difference).
Legal drinking age and alcohol consumption
(similar comparison between LA (18) and NC (21) finds little difference in use rates and increase in NC of destructive behaviours like binging).
and on, and on...
Fwiw, all these studies confirm my own experience as a student in Boston in the early 80s. I was of legal drinking age when I got here, but the students of the next classes were not. I saw, during just the next few years, a distinct difference emerge between the older students who could drink legally from the time we became adults:
- generally prefered beer and coolers,
- consumed drinks more slowly
- frequented restaurants/bars/venues with other adults
and the younger students who were legally adults but not allowed alcohol
- drank heavily *before* going out socially
- drank a lot more distilled spirits
- binged whenever they had the opportunity - even when not socializing
- drank just with other young adults (the dramatic rise of "house party" culture)
- didn't frequent restaurants/pubs or go to as many outside events
A lot of these less healthy, more infantile behaviours did not go away when the students reached 21. What "goes around" does indeed "come around", anon - when young adults are treated like children who must be coddled and patronized, they act like children. If someone can vote, get married, and be asked to die in defense of their country, they should be allowed to order a pint with their steak.
I disagree with your accusations, Jeff.
First of all, even when a person has reached the age of 18, they're still a teenager, and therefore the brain's limbic system is not completely developed, and therefore even more vulnerable to the consequences of excessive alcohol, both physically and cognitively.
Secondly, when these young adults behave like children, they can expect to be treated like children.
Thirdly, the idea that the drinking age was raised to 21 as a ways of getting highway building funds is a lot of bunk, to me.
Next,. I don't buy into the notion that younger people who do drink alcohol are more responsible than some adults. It's just not true.
Lowering the drinking age to 18? I disagree, NU Student.
Lowering the drinking age to 18, imo, would help make things worse, not better, at least in part, because, when kids go off to college, one of the things that they have to learn is responsibility, and many students that age (although not all, by any means) all too often, not knowing what to do with that new-found freedom that they've discovered upon entering young adulthood, have not yet learned. I also think that if there is underage drinking, school authorities and police should definitely get tougher on that, and, if it means the arrest of students and possible subsequent suspension or expulsion from school, or a night or so in the slammer for destructive actions and behavior that results from excessive drinking, so be it.
Also, when the drinking age was lowered to 18, as it was for awhile at one point, years ago, it was found that even more high school kids were able to get access to alcohol, which can be even more harmful to still-developing bodies, brains and minds of adolescents, and more likely to cause permanent physical, emotional and cognitive damage.
What does it say when our politicians leave ....
What does it say when our politicians leave to take new jobs that allows them leave the city for better educations for their kids? There is no question this is what John did. His son did not get into the school of his choice and as a result is moving out.
Huh?
There are other options such as private or parochial schools, if he really wants to remain in Boston and isn't happy with the lottery results. I'm sure if he wanted to hang in there as a city councilor, the school thing wouldn't get in his way.
Unfortunately, that's not uncommon, Susan from West Roxbury.
I can understand why a politician (or anybody) would do that, but it certainly sets a very bad precedent, because then the people who make up a politician's voting base are far more likely to follow suit.
Maybe if the Boston Public School system were better as a whole, fewer politicians, as well as average laypeople, would feel compelled to leave the city altogether, in order to educate their kids, or to put their kids in private and/or parochial schools.
election better happen on the same day
The election better happen on the same day as the other elections because it does not make sense to spend extra money holding an election when people are being laid off!
Question:
Why is Tobin being allowed to leave the position he was elected to by the taxpayers before the next election to begin with? He should be required to serve out his full term or, if he can't agree to that, give up his campaign war chest to the City coffers.
There's a term for forcing somebody to work at a job
Yes, I realize he was re-elected only a few months ago, but why should he treated any differently than a private-sector worker? In any case, he gives up his city salary (no small thing; don't councilors make like $87,000 a year?), benefits, etc.
I'd be more concerned about the possibly unfair advantage Northeastern now has. This isn't to say there's anything dishonest about the deal or Tobin - he seems to have done a very decent job as a city councilor in a fairly demanding district - but I'm doubting Northeastern hired him for his background in stand-up comedy.
Major accomplishments
What were John's major accomplishments for the nine years he was on the City Council?