By Editorial Board et al
Portsmouth voters have a broad field of candidates to choose from for our next City Council. In previous editorials, we have attempted to form a set of criteria for evaluating the candidates. We wish to take a final opportunity to review the criteria and the record of the current members of the City Council.
We began this discussion with a consideration of fiscal responsibility. Let’s face it – a lack of fiscal responsibility impacts everything else in the city. Whatever our individual hopes and dreams are for Portsmouth, it takes money to make it happen. For some residents, their hopes might be as simple as being able to afford to stay in their homes. Rising costs of living make that harder. Some, like inflation, are beyond the power of the City Council to control, but others, like the tax rate, are certainly affected by Council decisions. This Council had opportunities to push back against the substantial budget increases requested by City Manager Karen Conard. It chose not to do so. The Council unanimously approved the largest back-to-back budget increases in decades.
This brings us to our second consideration. The City Manager should answer to the City Council – just as it says in the City Charter. This Council has allowed the relationship to be inverted, with the Councilors meekly acquiescing to the City Manager’s requests. It has also abdicated its responsibility to steward the City’s resources. The Council delegated the negotiations on the McIntyre building to Conard, and now, the City has a multi-million dollar lawsuit on its hands.
Another area of concern is public safety and health. Despite years of work and millions of dollars spent on our wastewater system, significant problems persist. Combined sewer overflows during heavy storms cause a mix of rainwater and sewage to flow into South Mill Pond. The problem predates the current Council, but little to nothing has been done to address the multiple issues with the wastewater system. Even the highly touted notification system seems to underperform.
We also wish to express our interest in preserving Portsmouth’s historic character. The Council ought to take the lead in making sure that development occurs responsibly, and respects the history and architecture that make Portsmouth unique. The reality is that some councilors seem eager to cooperate with developers, even against the City’s interests. During the last council, a subcommittee was formed to deal with developer Redgate-Kane and the McIntyre building. Councilor John Tabor sat on the subcommittee, and leaked information to parties opposed to the committee’s work. That information helped Michael Kane in his lawsuit against Portsmouth. Other members of the current Council (excepting Councilor Bagley) voted to hand over half a million dollars to the developer, Deer Street Associates, out of the blue. Developers appear to have good friends in high places.
We remain concerned about another form of development. Accessible Dwelling Units (ADUs) have become a hot topic in town, and some Councilors are committed to their expansion, even against the sensible wishes of abutters. Whatever the value of ADUs might be, it seems only fair to address reasonable concerns about parking and architectural style. However, Councilor Bagley made a motion to remove all the parking requirements for ADUs, and to remove the design and aesthetic standards from the ADU ordinance. His motion didn’t pass, but it did find support from Councilors Cook and Denton.
Our final word on the subject of evaluating candidates has to do with transparency. It’s an essential element for any governing body, and residents have a right to know as much as possible about what their elected officials are up to. Some non-public meetings may be necessary, but this council has had over 60 of them. Many important discussions take place late at night. On one occasion, six Councilors met after hours at a bar. They had enough members present to form a quorum, and so the meeting, even if it was informal, should have been announced. The Council’s behavior creates a smoke-and-mirrors impression – hardly the type of transparency voters should expect.
We hope these discussions have given our readers something to think about. Important decisions and even difficult days may lie ahead. We know you take your citizenship and civic duty seriously, and we are grateful for your participation in local democracy.
