More on Brookline by Design
[EDITOR’S NOTE: the following are the thoughts of only me, Ryan Black, and not any of the original Medium letter’s other authors + signers]
On Monday, April 27th Brookline by Design responded to “Why Progressives Should Be Wary of Brookline By Design,” a letter signed by over sixty progressives in Brookline, by sending a communication to only their endorsees.
The quantity and severity of the inaccuracies in BBD’s message felt like it warranted a further reply. Accordingly, further down in this post I’ve articulated seven points in response.
What the letter says:
“Dear Candidate,
A recent letter by some members of our community unfairly targeted Brookline by Design based on individual grudges. We will not be generating a public response for voters, as it is contains pronounced personal smears but does not contain policy discussion worthy of a response. Our community deserves better. We encourage you to follow Michelle Obama’s model: “When they go low, we go high”. We do want to provide you as a candidate with facts that may help you to digest the landscape of this campaign and feel confident that it is safe to ignore their letter. A community-driven planning process has no pre-determined outcome.
The Brookline by Design candidate committee is 1/3 people of color and the 205 candidates that BBD has endorsed represent a very broad range of racial, economic, cultural, and housing situations. Brookline by Design actively seeks thoughtful representation from all perspectives to fulfill our mission of a genuinely broad-based community planning process. We are more than happy to have our critics compare the diversity of our leadership and field to their own.
Brookline by Design has received donations from nearly 130 individuals in Brookline ranging from $25 to $500 (our legal maximum). Our campaign is made possible by the number of donors, because we cannot accept very large donations. By contrast, Brookline for Everyone, who our critics support in their letter, is run as a 501(c)(4). This means there is no legal cap on the size of their donations, nor do they need to report their donors to the public the way we do.
As a Brookline by Design endorsed candidate you are backed by the support of more than the 620 community members who signed, and continue to sign, our letter. Their names may be found here: https://www.brooklinebydesign.com/sign-the-letter
[EDITOR’ NOTE: at time this post went live, Brookline by Design (BBD) no longer lists who has signed their letter on that webpage.]
Let’s continue speaking to voters about the value of a comprehensive community driven plan that lets us, as a community, decide what the future landscape in Brookline will become, taking back the visioning process from developers. We have placed hundreds of signs at the request of Brookline voters, and receive new sign requests daily. Our mailings highlighting your candidacy has been sent to thousands of frequent voters, and with your help door hangers are being widely distributed.
Almost to a person, those who have been in Town Meeting and are criticizing BBD and the idea of a plan voted in favor of Article 26, our November ’21 initial framework for a planning process. We will have an opportunity to vote to fund Article 26 at the May 2022 Town Meeting.
Thank you for your willingness to step out and run for Town Meeting, and for your service to our community. We hope you have a great final week campaigning, and we regret any negative education about politics that you’ve experienced.”
Why BBD’s response falls short
#1 Chooses platitudes over policy
It’s disappointing that BBD has chosen not to engage with (or speak to the voters about) the substantive points on policy the letter makes. But to instead brush off a contrasting point of view with a platitude — and to double-down on primarily being about cryptically vague talk about “visioning” and “planning.”
This was a missed opportunity for them to clarify what concrete policies they actually support. Concrete, community-driven policies like the ones listed in our letter:
“..community land trusts, housing cooperatives, repairing public housing units in disrepair, lobbying our State-level elected officials to bring back rent control, and affordable housing overlays.” — Why Progressives Should Be Wary of Brookline By Design
#2 Voting records are relevant
To talk about the voting histories of elected officials is hardly engaging in “pronounced personal smears.” Particularly, when subsequent judicial ruling have objectively proven what the prudent way to vote was (as was the case with Alston matter). Here is the point in the letter they are referencing:
“For instance, there was legislation at the Spring 2020 and then Fall 2020 Town Meetings to end the Select Board’s pushes to overturn court rulings in favor of Mr. Alston. But 88 of Brookline By Design’s endorsees voted NO on at least one of those articles and 58 of them voted against both pieces of legislation.” — Why Progressives Should Be Wary of Brookline By Design
Note that we also made a point to in the letter itself not name any individual names — so as to keep our focus on the actual substance at hand and not specific personalities.
#3 Little renter representation in BBD
With respect to the economic diversity BBD purports to have: I can only strongly question if the representation of renters on their steering and candidate committees is actually close to the percentage in town overall (51.5%).
As the linked-to analysis articulates, only 6% to 14% of BBD’s endorsees are renters. Compare that to the Brookline Equity Coalition’s endorsees, where between 40% and 50% are renters.
BBD isn’t set up to lead a “thoughtful” and “broad-based” community planning process because it is nowhere near reflective of a population that is literally over half of Brookline.
#4 Disingenuous language
“thoughtful representation from all perspectives” is a very euphemistic way of saying their organization has endorsed literally every single Republican running for Town Meeting.
#5 Inaccurately frames the discussion
Frankly, it’s puzzling to see BBD’s response to the letter being to contrast themselves with Brookline for Everyone (B4E)… when it wasn’t B4E who wrote or published the Medium letter.
I was involved in the drafting of the statement and can attest that its authors aren’t members of B4E. It was only when we elicited signatures from many Town Meeting Members/candidates that B4E members signed.
#6 Bewildering amounts of money from already powerful Brookline elected officials
You would think Brookline by Design is some upstart grassroots organization based on how these describe themselves in their letter. In reality, their donors are just several of the same long-standing elected officials our initial letter points out to have consistently voted against racial justice (see page 15).
And they’ve brought in a bewildering $23, 295.37. It’s unheard of in Town Meeting elections to raise the amount of money required, for example, to make a video with this level of production value.
#7 Revisionist history regarding Warrant Article 26
Regarding WA 26: BBD knows as well as anyone that pressure from more progressive TMMs and the Planning Department got the petitioners to amend the original legislation dramatically. (Not at all unusual for a warrant article.) What was ultimately passed was not some affirmation of BBD’s mission statement.