total time: 4.86 minutes
total words: 68
[Nick Giurleo]: Hello Medford, my name is Nicholas Straleo. I'm a candidate running for City Council. I'm speaking to you today to tell you a little bit about who I am and my solutions to two very important election issues. Let me begin with a little bit about who I am. I grew up in Medford and have lived here my whole life. I went to the public schools and graduated valedictorian of my high school class. I then went on to attend college at Tufts University, where I graduated with degrees in history, international relations, and Italian. After Tufts, I went to law school at Boston College. The focus of my studies was municipal law and land use. I graduated BC Law and took the bar exam that summer. I passed on the first go and scored in a top national percentile. Since my admission to the bar, I've practiced as an attorney with a firm on State Street. I would now like to talk to you about two key election issues this election is about. I'd then propose for your consideration the specific solutions I'm offering. One of the biggest issues this election is zoning. On the table is a plan to comprehensively rezone Medford's residential neighborhoods. It will see essentially all of them upzoned to allow or permit a substantial increase in the number of units per lot. While some claim that this plan will make housing more affordable, serious questions have arisen regarding the process that has brought us to this point, and whether the proposed changes would even achieve the goal desired. Ultimately, in my view, zoning needs to be a reflection of what our neighbors want their neighborhoods to look like. This is simply because they are the ones living in them. As much as academics, activists, and consultants might think they know what is best for you and your neighborhood, zoning amendments that would fundamentally change the character of where you live need to be approved by you and your neighbors. The process concerns arose by how blindsided residents were when they became aware of what the changes would actually entail. To this day, many do not know or do not fully comprehend the amendments. This has been a failure of city communications, particularly communications from the council. Regardless of the number of meetings that have taken place and how technical the concepts are, the Council has a duty to ensure the public understands what is happening before it happens. It is patently clear to me that the public was not adequately informed. More importantly, in my many conversations with neighbors on the campaign trail, and in reviewing the comments received by the Community Development Board, residents are overwhelmingly against the changes. They don't want overdevelopment in their neighborhoods, and they are deeply concerned how the amendments will impact essential city services, like fire, police, our infrastructure, and our already overcrowded schools. To date, insufficient studies have been done. We have none on the economic impact or how services will be strained. All of this leads me to say unequivocally to you that I am opposed to the comprehensive residential rezoning plan on the table in its current form. I'm not opposed to reasonable revisions to our zoning ordinance, but this isn't one of them. I will vote no if the proposal comes before me as a councilor. The second major issue I'll discuss today is council access. We've seen in the past two years very alarming efforts to reduce the ability of the public to meaningfully contribute at our public meetings. We saw a reduction of public speaking time from five minutes per person to three minutes per person. We have seen meetings running very late, sometimes past midnight, with papers on local issues taking a second seat to papers on issues pertaining to national and international issues. We've seen Councilors talk at length, flattering and grandstanding to no end, at the expense of time that could be spent hearing from the public. We have seen Councilors laugh and belittle commentators, expressing viewpoints that simply differ from their own. All of this has led me to see the need for comprehensive procedural reform in how we conduct our meetings. My very first resolution, when elected, will be to restore the public voice lost at our meetings. I will propose an immediate return of public speaking time to five minutes a speaker. I will also work to implement reforms to our council's internal rules to limit councilor speaking time, ensure a hard cap on how late our meetings run, prioritize papers on local issues, and bring us back to weekly council meetings. The public voice should be a priority at our meetings. It currently is not. For all these reasons, this election is a critical one, maybe one of the most critical in our city's long history. Do we continue with the same failed leadership that is making Medford into a city we no longer recognize? Or do we elect new, independent-thinking leadership and restore common sense to our local government? The choice is clear. Thank you very much for listening, and I respectfully ask for your vote on November 4th.
|
total time: 4.86 minutes total words: 68 |
|||