Editorial Roundup: Pennsylvania
Hearst Connecticut Media. October 12, 2023.
Editorial: Seeking a plan for disconnected youth
Backers of a new study are calling it an “unspoken crisis.” Tens of thousands of young people in Connecticut are disconnected from society at large, either schools or employment, with untold costs that grow more severe every year.
The study, from Dalio Education, identifies a problem that is not new but is far from solved and too often overlooked. It defines disconnected youth as those age 14-26 who either aren’t in school, failed to graduate high school or graduated high school but are not currently employed or enrolled in further education.
What are they doing? The answers vary, but the lack of connection to their communities means they’re more likely to come into contact with the criminal justice system, which, as the report notes, is “critically damaging to young people’s future prospects.”
Rebuilding those connections is crucial not only to the lives of those directly affected, but to the state as a whole. There is enormous untapped potential in the disconnected communities, and we ignore them at our peril.
The report, written by a team from the Boston Consulting Group hired by Dalio Education, identifies different layers of disconnection. Some 12,000 are called “severely disconnected,” both unemployed and without a high school diploma. Many more are deemed at risk. All told, nearly one in five of Connecticut’s 14- to 26-year-olds were either at-risk or disconnected in 2021–2022.
That’s a number that should concern everyone.
This is foremost a moral issue. The state should not allow thousands of its young people to drift through life without help, when their only connection to the state, if it comes at all, is in a courtroom.
But there are economic prices, as well. It costs money to provide services to people with no other options. And the cost in lost wages every year are enormous, to say nothing of the innovations this group could be capable of providing that we’ll never know about. It’s a staggering loss of potential for Connecticut, and one that should not go unnoted.
It will be tempting to dismiss this as an issue of the cities. It’s true that many of the people identified in the report live in a few of our largest cities, and Connecticut is well known for its skill in isolating the poor from the rest of society.
But this issue affects people in every town. The report is comprehensive in numbering where the issues arise, and it is everywhere. We cannot say this is an issue for cities to handle, because everyone plays a role.
Anyone who cares about the issue wants to know about a potential solution. It’s not that easy. It’s not as though Connecticut lacks for antipoverty initiatives or incentives to stay in school.
What the state has lacked, however, is a concentrated look at this population in particular. We’re talking about young people, who did not ask for the circumstances in which they were raised. They still have so much to offer, but the longer they go adrift from society, the harder it is to reconnect.
It falls to all of us to make everyone part of our Connecticut community.
___
Portland Press Herald. October 11, 2023.
Editorial: Freight railroad free-for-all is unacceptable
The secrecy enjoyed by railroads leaves Maine unable to either evaluate or respond to potentially extraordinary risks to public health and safety.
Our freight railroads need more oversight. A lot more oversight.
As outlined in sobering detail by an investigation published by this newspaper Sunday, the privately owned freight railroads responsible for most of Maine’s train traffic are responsible for policing themselves ( “Freight railroads police themselves and inspect their own tracks. Some say a disaster is inevitable,” Oct. 8).
This means that, at any given time, the state knows little to nothing about the tracks and what is being transported on them, and is entitled to little to no information. These railroads conduct their own inspections and later file their own findings to their sole regulator, the Federal Railroad Administration.
How good or bad are these companies at faithfully carrying out inspections? Over the past six years in Maine, this group failed to report three derailments (two by trains carrying hazardous material), two accidents and three injured workers. This is unacceptable – and it may not even be an exhaustive list.
To make matters worse for the people of Maine, the little information on train contents and train accidents that is in circulation is withheld from the public as a result of a law, lobbied for by the railroads, that was passed back in 2015.
Left with railroads running railroads, what transpires in the event of an accident is a scuffle over the minimum amount of information that, frankly, has no place in 2023.
For a good example of it, we need only cast our minds back as far as this past April, when questions regarding a train that derailed near the village of Rockwood, west of Moosehead Lake, were uniformly stonewalled by the company responsible, Canadian Pacific Kansas City.
Information on the timing of inspections? None given. Information about what was being carried by the train that ran off the rails? None given.
Circumstances that transpired after the derailment were equally galling; rail cars containing hazardous materials weren’t removed in a timely manner and when they were eventually removed, Canadian Pacific Kansas City didn’t bother to empty them of their contents, spilling 500 gallons of diesel into the soil and nearby bodies of water as a result.
Without proper maintenance, tracks deteriorate and pose deadly risks. Experts say that a conservative approach to investment in private rail tracks has led to poor standards throughout Maine, leading the Federal Railroad Administration to institute extremely low speed limits on dubious lines.
In having the Federal Railroad Administration as the only official body at which the buck stops for freight railroads, Maine is not an anomaly. Across the U.S., states have tried and failed to establish regulatory roles for themselves.
A bill carried over to the next legislative session represents a big step in the right direction. L.D. 1937, which has robust bipartisan support, seeks to reverse the most restrictive elements of the 2015 state public records law that allows the railroads to keep information from the public.
This proposal has been met with resistance by the railroads, representatives of which have said they do not believe the bill has the potential to make things any more safe. Opponents have cited concerns about national security and what it might mean to make information available to bad actors. From a business perspective, too, railroads have preferred to keep details under wraps, citing a risk of competitive harm.
The national security argument is entirely speculative. And even if the more softly made commercial argument was very robust, it would not outweigh the public’s right to know. The more we know, the more we can do to better regulate the freight tracks and trains running through our communities. It’s been abundantly clear for some time that we can do better.
___
Bangor Daily News. October 10, 2023.
Editorial: Maine still needs a lot more housing
The outlines of a new report on Maine’s housing shortage have long been known – the state needs more housing. But, the details of the housing shortage were a bit eye popping – between 76,400 to 84,300 new homes need to be built in Maine by 2030, to meet current demand and to allow the state’s population to grow.
This shortfall of housing has come despite the fact that there has been an increase in permitted housing here. Maine permitted nearly 9 percent more privately owned units last year than it did in 2021, yet a shortfall remains. Not all permitted homes are built.
To meet this target, annual permitting for new homes would need to nearly double. Over the last five years, an average of 4,800 Maine homes per year were permitted. To meet the demand foreseen in the state-sponsored report, an additional 3,700 to 4,500 homes would need to be permitted each year.
As BDN politics editor Mike Shepherd wrote, Maine has achieved such ambitious numbers before. There were more than 8,500 new permitted housing units in the state in both 2004 and 2005, according to federal data. Nearly 9,200 total units were permitted annually on average here between 1985 and 1988.
There are many reasons for the housing shortfall. Maine’s population has grown in the wake of the pandemic as people moved to the Pine Tree State with the switch to remote work. An influx of immigrants, many from Africa, have come here seeking asylum, which has stressed emergency shelter space in Portland.
At the same time, Mainers and Americans are living longer and often staying in their homes for decades after they retire from work.
There is also a shortage of affordable housing, whether it is single-family homes to purchase or rental properties.
There are many potential solutions, including easing restrictions on where and how densely housing can be built.
Some changes are already underway. Last year, the Legislature passed a housing reform bill, which made significant changes such as allowing two units on lots zoned for one and smaller units known as accessory dwelling units on existing house lots.
Many towns, particularly smaller communities, have struggled to implement the new measures.
In addition, developers and housing advocates say, changes in local zoning remain a critical piece of the puzzle, pitting statewide goals against local control.
Beyond these housing specific concerns, larger economic trends are also at play. Builders say a shortage of workers already hampers construction that is underway. Supply chain issues and increased demand for building supplies have driven up costs.
The Szanton Company, a Portland-based property developer, constructed a building in Auburn in 2020 at a cost of $140 per square foot. The company’s latest project to go out for bid came in at $280 per square foot, the company’s president, Nathan Szanton, said last week.
In addition to the increased costs, construction projects are taking much longer to complete, often because fewer workers are available for these projects, Szanton said.
Last year’s legislative action laid important groundwork to increase housing availability in Maine. Much more work needs to be done at the local and state levels. More housing, especially more affordable housing, is essential for Maine’s economic future and wellbeing.
___
Boston Herald. October 8, 2023.
Editorial: Healey’s elitism infuriating
An infuriated Herald reader put it best after reading that Gov. Maura Healey huddled with fellow Democrats over the state’s migrant crisis: “This is ridiculous!”
“Well, that’s nice and very secretive. What are you hiding?” the reader added, alluding to the fact that no Republicans were invited to that huddle.
The governor needs to study the Massachusetts Constitution. The “body politic” (i.e., Governor, Legislature, etc.) must adhere to a solemn “social compact” working toward “the common good.” That’s just in the preamble, so Gov. Healey shouldn’t need to read much further.
It doesn’t say in times of trouble, consult with your party.
Article V (worth reading, governor) states in full: “All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.”
This means, as we read it and I’m sure thousands of others do too, that Democrats, Republicans, independents, Libertarians, Green Party, Constitution Party all the way to the Pizza Party (go check it out, it’s a political designation ) represent the people of this great state.
It is elitist for Gov. Healey to think only her party has the right to brainstorm about coping with the right-to-shelter law here in Massachusetts and the migrants and homeless leaning on that flawed passage.
Gov. Maura Healey, Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll, House Speaker Ronald Mariano, Senate President Karen Spilka, and members of the state’s congressional delegation — all Democrats — were in on that virtual huddle, as the Herald reported. Aides to U.S. Reps. Seth Moulton and Jake Auchincloss as well as U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey confirmed their attendance.
Both top legislative Republicans — Minority Leaders Sen. Bruce Tarr and Rep. Brad Jones — in Massachusetts confirmed they did not receive an invite.
A source tells the Herald the migrant crisis has hit districts with hotels housing these newcomers very hard. Reps and senators are all trying to adjust while begging for leadership from the Corner Office.
So what does the governor do? She rallies her base. She seeks opinions from her party.
That brand of leadership, where you turn to like-minded supporters, has proven fatal for generations. You need dissenting voices, skeptics, and people who will challenge the status quo.
Not inviting Bruce Tarr and Brad Jones smacks of partisan politics and is precisely why Congress has an approval rating of 19%. Politicians forget they work for the taxpayers.
This is exactly what we feared would happen from electing a Democratic governor here in Massachusetts — one-party rule.
Gov. Healey has asked the state Legislature to approve $250 million in additional funding for the emergency shelter system on top of the $325 million that was included in the fiscal year 2024 budget. Taxpayers are footing this bill.
Gov. Healey needs to realize, as Article VI of the state Constitution says, that she cannot “obtain advantages, or particular and exclusive privileges, distinct from those of the community.”
Or, she will be a one-term governor.
___
Boston Globe. October 10, 2023.
Editorial: Why is the state still letting places like Braintree kill the housing we desperately need?
Local control is a choice, not a law of nature, and the demise of a 500-unit plan near South Shore Plaza is yet more evidence that it’s thwarting the Commonwealth’s urgent need for more housing.
The cancellation this summer of a large housing development in Braintree, which would have added about 500 units of desperately needed apartments near South Shore Plaza, was a setback for the state’s ambitious efforts to solve the regional housing crisis. It’s a familiar story: With a few exceptions, towns and cities across Massachusetts are simply not allowing enough housing growth to meet demand — much less to put downward pressure on prices. The Braintree saga, recounted by the Globe’s Andrew Brinker last week, was a reminder — if any more are needed — that the state simply can’t count on communities doing the right thing of their own volition and must weaken the ability of municipalities to thwart development.
As proposed by developer ZOM Living, the two five-story buildings would have generated $800,000 in yearly tax revenue for Braintree. They also would have included 180 senior housing units. The buildings would have been built on what are now parking lots, and the plaza’s owner supported the plan as a way of revitalizing the mall. Most importantly, the development would have provided a chunk of the tens of thousands of housing units that the South Shore needs to keep up with demand. Failing to build those units doesn’t make demand go away; it just means people who need housing are chasing fewer opportunities, resulting in bidding wars and higher prices.
Opponents cited the usual parade of horribles — traffic, impact on schools, sewers — and a few novel ones, including the suggestion that the proposed development’s proximity to an elementary school would attract pedophiles. There are good answers to such criticisms, which state officials, housing advocates, and developers have spent decades dutifully reciting to skeptics. But zoom out for a moment, and ask — even if a development does put more kids in local schools, what gives anyone the right to sink a project for that reason? The ability of neighbors to hold up housing isn’t some ancient tradition brought over on the Mayflower: It’s the result of zoning rules and practices, relatively recent in historical terms, that have the effect of giving residents inordinate and inappropriate power over where other people can or can’t live.
There’s a line of argument that NIMBYism — and that’s what happened in Braintree, as much as its practitioners may hate the term — is a perfectly rational, self-interested tendency. Just because it’s in the state’s and society’s overwhelming interests for developers to build more housing doesn’t mean it’s in any individual neighborhood’s to allow a new development. To the extent that selfish logic is true, it just reinforces what decades of housing battles in Massachusetts demonstrate: No amount of gentle persuasion, no number of incentives, are going to make people accept what they don’t believe is in their personal interest to accept.
Maybe residents can be talked out of such beliefs. State officials talk about the need to bust housing myths to break down suburban opposition, and we wish them the best of luck at that. But with every voted-down apartment building, every bad-faith campaign against a new housing development, it becomes clearer that the housing shortage is intrinsic to our system of local control. The Legislature took an important step when it recently passed the MBTA Communities law, which does not ask but requires certain communities in Greater Boston to ease their zoning. That law should be seen as just a start, though. In the long term, taking progressively more power out of the hands of municipalities is the most durable solution for getting more housing built in Massachusetts.
___
Barre-Montpelier Times-Argus. October 12, 2023.
Editorial: Why bother?
The caller was indignant: “Why bother?”
His concern was over a recent editorial. While he was bothered by the content, he was more concerned that a newspaper would still feel the need to have an opinion.
Editorials have had a place in newspapers ever since early American newspapers published their first editions. Granted, over time, as news organizations have become leaner, it has been more challenging for editors to also squeeze in the time to serve as the “voice of the newspaper.” The legacy of editorial page editor has been all but been abandoned in many newsrooms, except for major metropolitan dailies. Many U.S. weeklies, also try to convey an editorial position if they can.
Traditionally, editorials usually involve an editorial board — a group of individuals who meet to discuss possible topics, decide upon a position, and then offer guidance to the editorial writer. Again, short of the larger newspapers, the editorial board at most small-town newspapers comes down to the publisher and a handful of engaged editors.
Vermont is fortunate to have several newspapers with robust editorial pages, including locally written editorials. On these pages, we provide a mix of local, statewide, regional and national editorials that we feel keep with the “voice of the newspaper.” Elsewhere in the state, many of the weeklies also provide editorials and a forum for letters to the editor and commentaries. Only a few still have special sections on the weekend devoted to broader issues.
But none of that answers the caller’s question.
His argument centered on why the newspaper had to have an opinion at all? Why, if it was claiming to provide objective news articles, did it need to “pick a side” on any issue. Giving preference and ink to an issue reveals a bias.
Drop the editorial page and stick to facts, he said.
Let’s address why that’s not going to happen. First, if a newspaper is fortunate to have an editorial page (or pages) consistently filled with opinions on the locals goings-on, coverage and complaints, it is a signal that people in the community are reading.
They are engaged. That range of opinions is important for the community to know and consider, as the perspectives give a good representation of how people are feeling. Second, the back-and-forth is indicative of what ordinary citizens are thinking — not just what the news media is presenting, or what that talking heads are bloviating. Third, it’s gossip, to a degree. It shows what our neighbors and gadflies are crowing over. We like to know what people think, because we are inherently curious.
But then there is that question about getting rid of the editorial. The caller’s concern was that the newspaper was in no position to be dictating what we should be thinking as members of the community. And yet decisions are made in every edition about what stories will appear on the front page — million dollar real estate in the world of messaging — as well as what stories see the light of day, and where they are placed. The entire newspaper — every page of it — contains content that an individual (probably an editor) decided was worth the readers’ attention. The person making those decisions is not serving in some nefarious role to make readers think one way or another.
Similarly, all journalists have to make a decision about the articles they are going to write. They can sit through a two-hour school board meeting, but giving the reader “the minutes of the meeting” — from gavel to gavel — is not a productive use of space in the newspaper. (If people were that concerned with what was going on at meetings, they should be attending the meetings or watching them on public access television.) The reporters make a conscious decision: What was the most newsworthy thing that came out of that meeting? Newsworthiness is subjective, of course. But experience and professional training will find most journalists attending the same meeting in agreement, with some nuance toward the communities their newspapers represent and perhaps how the meeting had been previewed. Does that make a reporter biased? No. But it does provide latitude for them to make decisions about what the community needs to know in a ladder of importance. (In the industry, we refer to it as the “inverted pyramid,” with the most important information at the top of the story.).
Usually, editorials are an opportunity for the newspaper to rise above the facts and do one of three things: It can provide context on an issue facing the community; it can expand upon the coverage with additional information that may not have been present in the coverage; or it connects the dots to other things also happening in the community. That last scenario is probably the most common tact. It can come with challenges to power, counterarguments, additional information, and the written equivalent of pulling back the curtain to reveal the Oz of an issue. Sure, sometimes an editorial is meant to provoke conversation or debate. But where would we be if we all agreed, and we were not forced to think beyond our comfort zones?
We “bother” because we understand the importance of dialogue on issues. We have the forum for such discussions to take place openly and with vigor. If the community meets on these pages to opine — or search for common ground — we are happy to provide it.
And in the course of sorting through those conversations, and parsing the many issues that clutter the news cycle on any given day, we are not bothered to provide another voice to the discussion.
END