Hey, there! Log in / Register

Some Bostonians get to whittle their district council races down tomorrow

Residents in four City Council districts have preliminary elections tomorrow to narrow the fields in the November elections to two candidates each. There is no preliminary for the four citywide council seats because there are eight candidates, all of whom will battle in November.

Because of Census-related redistricting, some district lines were redrawn. Find out which district you're in.

District 3

Candidates: Barry Lawton, John FitzGerald, Rosalind Wornum, Jennifer Anne Johnson, Ann Walsh, Matthew Patton, Joel Richards.

Dorchester Reporter coverage of the race, including candidate answers to questionnaire.

District 5

Candidates: Enrique Pepen, Jose Ruiz, Ricardo Arroyo (incumbent), Jean-Claude Sanon.

District 5 council candidates discuss issues.

District 6

Candidates: Kendra Lara (incumbent), Benjamin Weber, William King.

District 6 council candidates discuss issues.
Overview of the race.
Councilor Lara says report shows she was driving half the speed police allege when she crashed.

District 7

Candidates: Althea Garrison, Tania Fernandes Anderson (incumbent), Roy Owens, Jerome King, Padma Scott.



Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!


Why did you only post an additional news article for District 6? And why that one? There are so many

District 5 has many articles worth posting as well

There is also a typo after District 7


...is that the current Councilor was attacked by a house while safely driving her car.

It has been very trying on her after physics caused a house to crash into her well insured vehicle.

The Progressives in JP, I guess they are named for an insurance company, which the City Councilor was not familiar with, have backed her owing to this house attacking trauma.


The car was insured (as has been widely reported), but go off.


So, the speeding, bad driving, and no license were not an issue?

Your reasoning is like saying Bobby Valentine wasn't so bad because at least the Sox won 69 of their games in 2012.


Speeding? You've never gone 27 in a 25, John?

Bad driving? She swerved to avoid a car that backed out of a driveway and oncoming traffic in the other lane.

The one thing I will agree with you on (maybe ever) is that Bobby Valentine was hot garbage.


If she was just going 27 she could have stopped in time. It was a clear, dry day.

You can not say unlicensed driving is unimportant as taking away someone's license is one of the very few tools we have to take dangerous people off the road. (Or at least try to.)

If you want to claim her license was taken away unfairly, why did she keep quiet about that fact until she caused a crash? Why wasn't she vocal about that injustice?


The black box in her car said she topped out at 27mph and was going 10mph at the moment of impact. The cops on scene miscalculated her speed and never fixed it in the report.

Like I said, the initial reporting on this story was very skewed.


I'm sure the car was going at 27 mph at some point, just not at the moment she swerved. The driver of the other car noted how fast she was traveling.

And regardless, why was hitting the house better then just slamming on the breaks and having a low speed collision with another car? There are people who would rather risk hitting a human vs a minor fender bender.


Now your bias is really showing. There's no gray area. 27mph was the maximum recorded speed. The speed the cops marked down was calculated under the assumption that there were skid marks for the entire length of the swerve, but there were no skid marks at all.

What she has said about hitting the house is that she swerved to avoid a car that backed out of a driveway, but there was traffic coming in the other direction, so she tried to pull into a driveway on the other side of the street to avoid a head-on collision. She missed the driveway and hit the house. But judging by your unwillingness to accept the facts of the situation, I can't imagine you'll accept what she has said about it either and will go on pretending that she was re-enacting Tokyo Drift or some bullshit.


She hired a company that produced a report favorable to her case. So yes, I'm very skeptical of that. As far as I can tell, we just have to believe everything she's saying is correct.

You have bent over backwards to find ways to defend a political who you like. I have nothing wrong with her policies and I would have voted for her. But I'm not going to pretend as if laws and actions shouldn't matter just because I like someone politically.

Even if you want to claim the crash was unavoidable (and I call BS on that), why did she disregard the license law for 10 years? If you claim she lost the license for unjust reasons, why did she not speak up? Why keep that a secret? If she had a need to use a car, why not Uber or a friend?

There are people in this country who claim politicans are exempt from laws when they like the politician. That attitude scares me, frankly, and I'm adamantly opposed to giving anyone a pass over serious infractions that needless put people at risk. Reckless driving isn't a victimless crime. Her own son is proof of that.

If you care about progressive politics and equal justice for all, you can't just ignore it when people willfully break the law. This is not a case of civil disobedience.


1) the speed the cops marked has nothing to do with skid marks. It had to do with reaction times and attempted braking. In fact, the fact that the officer noted "no evidence of braking" is actually WORSE for her. Additionally, he determined that she would have seen the person pulling out from 173 feet away and gave her a HORRIBLE perception time of 2 seconds. Even AFTER she reacted to the car pulling out, she still cleared over 150 feet of road, sidewalk, and yard to hit the house! If she was doing 27 mph as you claim, then she should have been able to stop the car in under 50 feet once she started reacting. If she's doing over 50 mph, it'll be closer to 150 feet or more...which is what it took before her car hit the house!

2) At 27 mph, how can you "miss a driveway and hit a house" assuming you are attempting to come to a stop as you go into the turn?

3) The cop is giving her MULTIPLE benefits of doubt in his calculations. For example, one of his calculations is assuming 0 mph at the point of impact...but that would assume she basically stopped AT the house, not because of it! The damage to the house indicates she struck it with some momentum still in the vehicle...which means she was likely going faster than calculated. He simplifies it IN HER FAVOR by just calculating how fast she would have to be going to clear the distances given friction and any attempt at braking whatsoever across the 150 feet of street, sidewalk, and lawn that she crossed once she reacted to the other driver pulling out.

There is literally no way she was doing 27 mph that day...except near the end of her path.

Oh, and by the way, he tested her seatbelts (which should have froze up since the airbags went off). She wasn't wearing her seatbelt either...which is EXACTLY why she lost her license in 2010 (failure to pay the fine for a seatbelt infraction)!


First off did she or her lawyer release the entire data set? No.

Second the black box said she was doing 27mph at impact. The recording on one of those starts when airbags go off. This means that it is not telling you what she was doing before.

The police report said she was doing 53mph when she swerved and crossed the lines. It also said she was doing 29mph when she hit the fence.

If anything her data actually backs what the police said.

You should read the actual police report. It breaks down her speed across multiple points.


The black box said she was going 27 MPH at impact, and the cops estimated her going 30 MPH at that point. The other estimate from the cops was around 50 before the swerving started, so maybe she was going 45 instead? Also her own defense team is the only one releasing that snippet of black box data.


But of course the analysis has nothing to do with the court case. It's all about damage control, and they are managing to control nothing. If she were smart, the plea agreement would have been done by now. She'd pay a fine along with restitution to the homeowner, discuss how everyone makes poor choices from time to time, and get on with things. Instead, we're seeing the smoke and mirrors of someone trying to beat the rap.

Oh, and my favorite is that "the car had insurance." Yup. That's not how the insurance company sees things. The car's owner will get a surcharge, but the company will argue that the driver was not on the insurance so there is no coverage.


So unlikely to be insured. And even if it was insured, that insurance isn't going to cover an unlicensed driver.

It is wrong to support politicians who flaunt the law just because you like their policies. Policies and people are not the same.

You can criticize Lara without criticizing her progressive politics. If you want police, corporations, landlords, etc to be held accountable, you can't say laws only apply to people you don't like.


The registration had lapsed a week or two before the accident and has since been renewed. The car was insured the entire time. The facts of this story were wildly skewed when it was first reported and people have been going nuts with it ever since. Most of the people still clutching their pearls have an ulterior motive.


Hold reckless drivers accountable and in general, understand that you can't have a justice system in which laws are subjective based on the politics of the person being accused.

Would you be defending Lara if you didn't like her politics? Would you defend her if a person was unlucky enough to be on the sidewalk in front of the house she collided with?

Would you defend her if she was just a clerk in a store with no political authority?


Bro... she is being held accountable. This case is going through the judicial system. That is the definition of being held accountable.


The councilor had to swerve off of the road to avoid hitting another driver instead of simply stopping.

The councilor had to have been driving at a high rate of speed (her black box recording of the impact with the sidewalk/fence at 27 mph aligns with the calculated speed on the road of over 40 mph).

The councilor did not have her child properly restrained in the car.

The councilor struck a house as a result and has not appeared to make any effort to remunerate the victim whose house she struck (who reportedly has $60,000 worth of damages to her porch and foundation).

One of the charges brought against her is driving an uninsured vehicle.

She did all of this on a suspended license that was suspended over a decade prior to the accident (and we know she was driving throughout that decade).

None of these are disputable.


It's widely reported that Kendra Lara claims the car was insured. The police charged her with driving an uninsured vehicle. I feel like they're competent enough not to bring that charge if the car was insured. The defendant has every reason to claim the car was insured even if she's wrong or lying.


They weren't competent enough to get the speed right, why would you assume they'd get this detail correct?


Officer Murray was able to obtain a minimum speed from the time the suspect was observed on Centre Street. Prior tocrossing thedoubleyellow line and crashing into the yard)/front porchof 803 Centre Street,Officer Murray obtaineda minimum speed of 53.61milesper hour for which the suspect (Lara) was operating the motor vehicle on Centre Street.

Officer Murray also obtained a minimum speed of her vehicle on the sidewalk (15.48 miles per hour) and onthe grass (19.97 miles per hour). A combined speed on al three surfaces equaled 59.08miles per hour. Officer Murrayalso utilized a formula to work backwards from impact (0 miles per hour) to where Lara was observed by the witness on Centre Street. Officer Murray was able to obtain a minimum speed based offofthese results as well Officer Murray found a minimur speed on the grass to be 19.95 mills per hour, a minimum speed on the sidewalk to be 29.64 miles per hour and a minimum speed on Centre Street to be 59.28 milesperhour. Based on the perception Jreaction time of 2 seconds, Officer Murray was able to calculate the Perception/Reaction Distance (distance where the operatorof the vehicle reasonably should have observed any hazard) to be 173 feet, giving a total distance traveled from Perception/Reaction to impact to be 354.68 feet. From where the suspect was observed on Centre Street, to the rear of thewitnesses vehicle, Officer Murray found that location to be 115.75 feet. Had the suspect (Lara), been operating the motor vehicle a the City of Boston Speed Limit (25 miles per hour) Lara would have only needed 33.60feet to come to a complete stop. Using the minimum speed of 53 miles per hour, Lara would have needed 151.092 feet to come to a complete stop.

Ok now see how it is broken down by different locations and one location, the sidewalk, is at 29mph. Lara has said she was doing 27mph at impact. This matches what the police said. The key point here, which you are doing gymnastics to avoid is the question of what she was doing before she hit the fence.

Now none of this changes the fact her license was suspended and her child was not properly secured.


I heard Erin Murphy was driving while unlicensed with a child unrestrained in the back seat of her car. She hit a house on Neponset Avenue while going over the speed limit.

She is not owing up to it and is making excuses for not having a license because she had other things to do.

Progressives are nevertheless backing her 100% because she is a woman who grew up in a working class part of Boston in an all female household.



the argument Zach and BostonDog are having is clearly based on the merits of the case against councilor Lara.

you are, as usual, grinding your own axe here.


This is Adams site - you don't have to read. Quite honestly, I didn't click on the link that seems to have bothered you. Again, this is Adam's gig. He can post/link whatever he wants.


As Magoo enters the political realm Magoo is considering the following campaign slogans:
1. Vote Magoo and yoo won’t be bloo.
2. Vote Magoo, he’s good for yoo.
3. Vote Magoo, yoo won’t regret it if yoo doo.



As usual, assholery, pure assholery.


Hard working, honest, humble, and happy as hell to be an elected official.


And let's not even talk about retirement. She's only 82, for Pete's sake!


But has she ever hired her relatives? Seriously, how many city employees get a $6000 bonus in their career? Probably close to zero. How many city employees get an $17K pay raise in under two weeks of their start date? None.

If you have ever worked for the city or state and took the mandatory ethics test, you would know that behavior was not allowed. It is insulting that every employee takes the test yet the majority of them are never going to need rules on contract procurement or hiring, but the one person who would need to know those things completely blew it off. The same councilor who yelled asking what does she have to do to get respect.

Not only that, but when the matter was initially covered by the Globe she cited their salaries as what they were hired at without mentioning raises or bonuses.


In the end, I didn't bother voting, but between the 1)ethically challenged incumbent, 2)the odious Roy Owens, 3)the anti-vaxx "activist" and 4)the guy who wants to.....change things......?, Althea looked like the best of the lot.

Maybe Althea and Ann Walsh among them.

Certainly Patton, Lawton, Ruiz, Jennifer Johnson, Joel Richards and Sanon would have had a much better chance of lightning striking.

More expensive and arduous, of course. But you work those few selected precincts wherever.


District 3- Walsh and FitzGerald advance. Not sure of the order, but if pushed, I'll take FitzGerald given that this is an organizational election and he's got 2 organizations behind him.

District 5- Pepin and Arroyo. Again, not sure of the order. Pepin has got some names behind him and Arroyo has been tarnished, but Arroyo also has the organization. I don't see the Ruiz or Sanon supporters moving to Arroyo, so if Pepin wins, it'll be a tough climb for Arroyo.

District 6- King comes in first. Not sure of the other 2 slots. Lara might squeak by, assuming the progressives show up and hold their noses. Not sure if I'd bet on King versus Weber, but I'd take the action versus Lara.

District 7- Anderson will be reelected. Whoever comes in second won't matter. She's not my cup of tea, but she does well for the district, and she has light competition (don't worry, I still love you Althea.)


has two organizations behind him?

He’s got the support of Baker, the incumbent, and former mayor Walsh. That’s a lot of people to hold signs for you.

5 — I was going to say that Ruiz gets into the top two as the un-progressive, but the previous un-progressive White mustered only 24% in 2021 so maybe the district is too progressive for the former cop. Think Arroyo’s a lock with incumbency, TBD if Pepen finds a path.

6 — for sure King as the un-progressive, waltz through while the progressives split the vote just like MacGregor. And can’t see how Lara’s name recognition doesn’t get her second place. Globe endorsement or not, who is Weber? (I know who he is, but just barely.)

Still a shame that Flaherty forgot to file his “I’m out” papers until the day after the signatures deadline so we have fewer at large candidates.


Getting your name in the papers and on TV, like Lara has done in the past few weeks, is not always the best thing. Heck, her anti-Semitic trope from last year didn’t even come up.

As for 5, Arroyo got elected on a kind of name recognition, but in the past 2 years, again, his name hasn’t been in the press for the best of reasons. Aside from that, he’s been absent from some community issues in Hyde Park, and the kind of people who attend community meetings also vote.

This is a preliminary election and not a primary as municipal elections are non-partisan... the top two vote getters are moving on to the general election, so your "progressives splitting the vote" theory is invalid, at least one "progressive" is moving on the general.

They will split the progressive vote so King will get in. If there was another "conservative" King may not make it. Or if King was progressive he may not make it to the final. Since he's the only "conservative" he gets in. But yes, one progressive will get in so Lara will face King in the final. Pretty easy call here.


Can't wait to NOT vote for Kendra Lara tomorrow!


What a bunch of doubletalk.

"One mistake..."...that in the same interview you admit to making dozens of times over and over again. Her "one mistake" wasn't this accident. This accident is just how we found out that she's been ignoring her suspended license, driving without a seatbelt, driving in a manner that imperils all of us around her, driving with her son improperly restrained...

That's like a half dozen mistakes (that she's repeatedly made every time she drives)...AND a collision with a house!


This is not a hard one to call. Progressive vote is split on Weber and Lara so King definitely gets through. Lara will beat Weber because she is the incumbent, might be close (probably not), but she will win. The final will be tougher to call, but I think the progressives win and Lara remains on the council.

Lara won by 12 pts. in 2021, a healthy margin (like Arroyo, I remember it feeling closer than it was), but will enough JP progressives hold their nose in November to overcome the Westie whites who can’t wait to vote against her? I’ll take the under.

Looks like neither Arroyo or Lara will make the finals



Thanks for posting this. I was looking for news about it. So relieved about Lara!