Tag: Editorials

Déjà vu all over again.

That describes the status of the lengthy tug of war between Attorney General Andrea Campbell and state Auditor Diana DiZoglio over the latter’s authority to inspect the inner workings of the Legislature.

The latest iteration of this Cabinet level battle of wills occurred after the attorney general’s appearance Tuesday on GBH’s “Boston Public Radio” program.

“I hope the voters get exactly what they voted for,” Campbell said in reference to the overwhelming support of a 2024 ballot measure that sought to give the auditor the power to review how lawmakers operate out of the public eye.

However, the AG laid the blame for this impasse squarely on DiZoglio.

“I hope the auditor stops the standoff,” Campbell added.

For her part, an obviously exasperated DiZoglio has accused Campbell of “public corruption” for stonewalling the will of the people.

Despite the support of nearly 75% of their constituents, the Legislature’s Democratic leadership has raised concerns about the constitutional validity of the voter-approved law.

Meanwhile, Campbell and DiZoglio have gone back-and-forth about who’s responsible for delaying the audit process.

If you thought both sides have expressed similar sentiments previously, you’d be correct.

During an October rally at the State House in support of the legislative audit, DiZoglio told the Boston Herald that the attorney general was “working together with legislative leaders” to prevent the probe from unfolding.

In response to a Herald inquiry at the time, Campbell said “any audit must be conducted within constitutional limitations,” while saying there is “no dispute about whether Question 1 is the law.”

But a law in name only, without any actionable powers.

“In order to move forward, the auditor must address our unanswered questions,” the AG said in a statement shared with the Herald, “including assurances that the audit remains within the confines of the (state) constitution.”

Then and now, DiZoglio has asked: what questions?

DiZoglio previously said that the AG needs to “stop alleging to the general public that my office has in some way not provided or withheld information that she needs to do her job.”

The auditor continued: “If she’s going to continue to allege that, then it is her obligation to sue me and my office to get the information that she needs… to be able to make sure that this law is enforced. We would be happy to meet the attorney general there, happy to meet legislative leaders there. We need to get this law followed.”

The attorney general, in that recent GBH interview, doubled down on the auditor’s supposed intransigence.

“We represent almost every state agency and constitutional officer in the commonwealth,” Campbell said Tuesday. “Anytime an agency comes to us and asks us to represent them, we ask them a certain amount of questions, they reply, and then we move forward or not.

“The only agency or constitutional office we have had any issue with since I’ve taken office is the auditor. And it’s not for lack of trying — it’s not for lack of trying to resolve this.”

DiZoglio responded to Campbell’s Tuesday comments in a statement to the State House News Service:

“The Attorney General continues to falsely claim that she needs more questions answered from my office. This is why I have called on the AG to sue me, and my office, so we can end this so-called ‘standoff.’

“She won’t face me directly in interviews, however, and won’t sue me — as I have repeatedly called on her to do. Why? Because she is well aware that she needs nothing else from my office to be able to do her job,” the Methuen Democrat said.

“She cannot continue to claim that my office hasn’t given her what she needs, yet refuse to sue me. It’s her duty to this commonwealth to drag me to court if I haven’t provided what she needs to get this law enforced — and I’ll skip into the courtroom happily providing whatever is allegedly needed from my office.”

DiZoglio called Campbell’s actions “stall tactics” that are “giving the Legislature more time to destroy documents and records.”

Campbell said Tuesday that there’s “a pathway forward” where DiZoglio could get an outside lawyer should Campbell’s office opt not to represent her.

The auditor’s office previously confirmed to the Herald that it was in contact with the law firm of Donnelly, Conroy & Gelhaar regarding litigation.

“Even in that posture, which we allow for other agencies, she still has to answer certain questions, and she has not provided us those answers,” Campbell said.

According to Campbell’s office, the core questions DiZoglio needs to answer revolve around her position on key legal issues, including what she believes she can and cannot audit, whom she would sue and what the legal claim would be.

Asked by “Boston Public Radio” co-host Jim Braude whether it’s an “unreasonable request” to also ask DiZoglio about what aspects of the Legislature she might want to audit, Campbell said that the court would ask her the same question.

Well, it took a while, but it finally appears we now know the questions Campbell says must be answered.

But if the auditor believes those queries constitute AG overreach, then we’re likely back to square one.

It’s a recurring, discouraging statistic that no aspiring first-time homebuyer wants to hear.

Despite enduring some of the highest monthly expenses nationwide, only one in seven renter households in Greater Boston can afford an “entry level” home, according to the 2025 Greater Boston Housing Report Card released Wednesday.

The share of renter households with the means to buy a starter home fell from 30% in 2021 to 15% in 2025, the report shows.

That’s despite a period of increased housing construction activity.

“While new data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows a significant uptick in new home completions in recent years, the increase has not significantly helped home affordability, and a decline in the number of new housing permits statewide suggests any construction uptick could be short-lived,” said Luc Schuster, executive director of the research arm of the Boston Foundation.

The annual housing report found that Massachusetts created just under 98,000 housing units from April 2020 to July 2025, with about 71,000 in Greater Boston.

The pace marks a “meaningful increase” and “would put Massachusetts within striking distance” of meeting the state’s goal of building 222,000 new units by 2035, the report stated.

“But permits, which signal future housing construction, are way down,” the report states. “New permits as of July 2025 are running 44% below levels for the same period in 2021.”

Despite the modest increase in housing construction, “Greater Boston’s housing affordability crisis has only worsened since the pandemic,” the report shows.

In 2025, home prices and rents have broadly leveled off but remain at unaffordable levels, the data shows.

Whereas in 2021, a household earning about $98,000 could buy a home at the low end of the market with a $2,520 monthly payment, a household this year would need to earn over $162,000 to afford the $4,200 monthly payment on the starter homes.

While Greater Boston encompasses communities with the state’s highest housing costs, it’s not an insignificant sample.

The Metropolitan Area Planning Council defines Greater Boston as an area made up of 101 communities — 22 cities and 79 towns — that includes a mix of coastal communities, older industrial centers, rural towns, and urban neighborhoods.

And while housing costs do moderate somewhat beyond that region, so do the incomes of those who live there.

And in many cases, incomes haven’t kept pace with housing prices, even in Gateway Cities.

For example, since 2021, housing prices in Lawrence have climbed nearly 70% to a median of $500,000.

Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll spoke on the report’s finding Wednesday, citing the administration’s work in passing the $5.2 billion Affordable Homes Act in 2024, and the MBTA Communities Law requiring zoning for multifamily housing in the 177 communities served by that transportation system.

Despite the government’s efforts to spur housing construction, market forces — primarily the high cost of land and building materials — have conspired against it.

As the lieutenant governor stated, building sufficient housing shouldn’t be this hard.

But in Massachusetts, that’s the inescapable norm.

DPU continues exemplary pipeline safety performance

Building on the protocols incorporated in the wake of the catastrophic 2018 pipeline explosions in three Merrimack Valley communities, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities has received another perfect score from the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration for its oversight safety program in 2024.

On Sept. 13, 2018, a series of natural gas pipeline explosions in Lawrence, Andover and North Andover killed one man and injured dozens more.

The explosions and fires occurred after high-pressure natural gas was released into a low-pressure gas distribution system, causing damage to more than 130 structures, and destroying five homes.

Firefighters fought more than 80 blazes and thousands of people were evacuated from their homes.

Columbia Gas of Massachusetts, the company held responsible for the disaster, pleaded guilty in federal court to pipeline safety law violations and negligence and agreed to pay a fine of $53 million.

The events ultimately cost the company more than $1 billion.

This evaluation marks the third consecutive year that the DPU’s Pipeline Safety Division has received a perfect score for the enforcement and implementation of federal pipeline safety standards.

Through rigorous enforcement, the Division now ensures that the investor-owned gas utilities, municipal gas departments, steam distribution companies, and operators of intrastate Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) facilities comply with both state and federal safety laws.

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulates the safety of the transportation of energy and other hazardous materials. It must review annual progress reports, pipeline program procedures and records, and observe on-site inspections done by state safety regulators to adequately assess each state’s pipeline safety program when conducting evaluations.

Since 2022, the Pipeline Safety Division has scored the maximum possible points for both portions of PHMSA’s evaluation.

With legislative changes increasing penalties for gas operators that violate pipeline safety laws and regulations, the Pipeline Safety Division drove the reduction in damages through its enforcement, an increased field presence, and education.

The series of safety reforms resulting from the 2018 pipeline disaster that tragically took one life should ensure that nothing approaching the scale of that cataclysmic event will ever occur again.

First the BabySteps Savings Plan, and now the Baby Bonds program?

The latter is distinct from the former, an operational opt-in strategy providing a $50 seed deposit into a 529 college savings account for all state newborns.

As of September 2023, the most recent data available, more than 26,000 families had started saving for their children’s education and vocational training since the program’s inception in January 2020.

The two initiatives also differ in eligibility criteria. While the BabySteps plan covers every newborn, Baby Bond legislation targets the socially and economically disadvantaged.

Multiple Baby Bond bills have been introduced in the state Legislature, where they’ve remained without gaining any traction.

Several related bills have been filed, including S.1999, “An Act Addressing the Racial Wealth Gap,” and H.3429 / H.48, “An Act establishing a Massachusetts Baby Bonds program.”

Currently, “An Act establishing a Massachusetts Baby Bonds program” has been filed by House Bill H.3429 (and related H.48) and Senate Bill S.2146.

The legislation’s sponsors include state Rep. Andres Vargas, state Sen. Paul Feeney, and supported by State Treasurer Deb Goldberg.

A virtual hearing for the Senate bill before the Joint Committee on Financial Services occurred Wednesday.

In 2022, Treasurer Goldberg established a Baby Bonds Task Force, a diverse group of experts, advocates, and community leaders, to research and develop recommendations for how a baby bonds program could be most effectively structured and implemented.

The task force’s findings have served as a foundation for the treasurer’s ongoing policy discussions.

If enacted, the proposal would work as follows, based on task force recommendations and bills’ details:

Children born on or after a specific date — tentatively July 1, 2024 — whose families receive Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children or are in the custody of the Department of Children and Families, would automatically be enrolled in the program.

Individual, government-managed trust accounts would be created, with an initial state investment — amount to be determined — that would accrue interest over time.

Funds would become accessible to the beneficiaries when they turn 18 up until age 35, provided they still reside, work, or pay taxes in Massachusetts at the time of withdrawal.

A Baby Bonds Trust Fund Advisory Board would assist the treasurer in policy development and fraud prevention.

If beneficiaries don’t claim their funds by age 35 or die before that age, the money will return to the trust.

Funds could be used for specific wealth-building purposes, such as post-secondary education, job training, purchasing a home in Massachusetts, investing in a Massachusetts-based business, and other wealth-generating investments as defined by the legislation.

The funds in the account would not be considered an asset when determining eligibility for other government benefits.

The legislation aims to reduce economic disparities and provide long-term financial opportunities for disadvantaged children in Massachusetts.

The legislation would align Massachusetts with Connecticut and Washington, D.C., where similar bills have been passed.

Treasurer Goldberg testified last week before the Joint Committee on Financial Services in support of Baby Bonds legislation, emphasizing the positive opportunities it would provide.

“Baby Bonds will narrow the racial wealth gap and provide our youngest generation with a foundation for success,” said Goldberg. “By investing early in the lives of every child, we can help ensure that more young people enter adulthood with the resources they need to build a stable financial future.”

The concept of Baby Bonds, first developed by economist Dr. Darrick Hamilton, advances the idea as a way to address structural inequities in wealth accumulation. His work has helped shape national conversations on how publicly funded child trust accounts can promote economic mobility and reduce racial wealth disparities.

During her testimony, Goldberg highlighted the need for a fiscally responsible and equitable program that builds on her office’s ongoing economic empowerment work. She emphasized the importance of collaboration among state leaders, community organizations, and private partners to create a program that meaningfully supports children and families across Massachusetts.

Beyond the individual benefits, Goldberg stressed that Baby Bonds represent a smart investment in the overall Massachusetts economy. By helping more young adults pursue higher education, start businesses, and become homeowners, the program would stimulate economic growth and strengthen local communities.

Research indicates that reducing wealth inequality enhances productivity, innovation, and long-term economic stability, benefiting not only individual families but also the state’s workforce and competitiveness.

Goldberg invited the joint panel and her fellow policymakers to collaborate with her office to develop a model that’s both impactful and operationally feasible, ensuring accountability and strong outcomes for children and families.

While no one can argue with the altruistic intent of this legislation, as with many well-intentioned measures, they come with bedeviling details, with the funding source being the most obvious.

Will this be a line item in annual fiscal year state budgets, come from the treasury as needed, or be funded through some private endowment?

Can that initial investment — $6,500 has been mentioned — guarantee a return that will significantly improve someone’s economic prospects as they enter adulthood?

These and many other questions will need an answer before we can expect lawmakers to make an informed Baby Bonds decision.

Four decades after a temporary solution was built to bridge sections of Lowell and provide access to Route 3 and I-495 for motorists in surrounding communities, a groundbreaking on Aug. 13 signified the dawn of a new transportation era — the construction of a modern, permanent replacement.

The Rourke Bridge honors the legacies of Raymond Rourke, a former Lowell mayor, state representative and deputy state Department of Transportation secretary, and his son, state Rep. Timothy Rourke, whose life was tragically cut short in 1982 at age 29 by a fatal car accident.

The bridge opened in 1985, two years after construction began.

The two-lane Bailey pony truss bridge spanned the Merrimack River, connecting the Highlands and Pawtucketville sections of Lowell.

Thought to be just a temporary solution for accommodating the growing number of vehicles from Lowell and surrounding communities, over time, it became overwhelmed by the volume of traffic, which routinely caused significant congestion throughout the surrounding area and delayed emergency vehicle response times, given its proximity to Lowell General Hospital on Varnum Avenue.

Not only was the bridge’s vehicle capacity inadequate, but the 40-year-old structure does not comply with current multimodal Americans with Disabilities Act standards for bicycle and pedestrian use.

The 1,250-foot span carries approximately 27,000 vehicles back and forth each day, including buses and other heavier vehicles. There are no shoulders or bike lanes, and pedestrians navigate the crossing in a steel cage that vibrates with passing traffic.

At the groundbreaking, U.S. Rep. Lori Trahan, a Lowell native, summed up the feelings of countless motorists over the decades by recalling her Rourke Bridge experiences.

“When I got my driver’s license I crossed the bridge, white-knuckled in my dad’s old pickup truck. If you’ve ever felt that bridge sway under your tires, or braced yourself as cars squeezed past in the opposite direction, you know exactly what I mean,” said Trahan.

Even the walking path, which sits on the west side of the bridge under a chain-link arch, is nerve-racking to walk across, the 3rd District U.S. rep said.

“That experience is not unique to me … Every person in Lowell, Dracut, Chelmsford, Tyngsboro and beyond has a story about the Rourke Bridge, the bottlenecks, the anxiety and the frustration.”

Those unpleasant memories should, like the existing temporary structure, fade into history once the new Rourke Bridge opens for business.

The new iteration will be built at more of an angle across the Merrimack River, with the southern end being in roughly the same spot as it is today — near Wood Street past the Collegiate Charter School’s athletic fields — while the northern end will connect farther to the west along Pawtucket Boulevard, across from Old Ferry Road.

It will include four total passenger vehicle lanes, two going in each direction, with a bicycle path and walking path.

By design, the new Rourke Bridge will arc over the Merrimack River on its six concrete piers.

The new span will improve passage, sightlines and safety for all users. The placement of the six piers maximize the width of usable riverway for recreational use such as rowing and boating.

The new bridge, which has a 75-year service life, will be three times as wide as the existing two-lane bridge, a welcome relief for motorists used to the claustrophobic feel of the current one.

While preliminary sight work, including soil boring samples, utility work and tree clearing at the north and south approaches, has already begun, construction, which is expected to take up to four years, is scheduled to start in earnest this fall.

The temporary bridge will remain in use during that time; it won’t be demolished until the new one opens for traffic in 2029 or 2030.

The design-build project, which keeps costs down by combining final design and construction into a single phase, will be built by construction firm Skanska USA and Jacobs Solutions Inc.

In April, MassDOT announced that Skanska was awarded the $274 million contract.

In June, Skanska announced that it had been awarded a $303 million contract.

That sum includes a fund for unexpected expenses.

Hopefully, unlike Skanska’s experience with the Lowell High construction/rehab project, those funds will cover any contingencies.

The majority of the construction capital will come from the federal government, with the remaining portion from state and local sources.

The city of Lowell will allocate $10 million to support the construction of water main connection work by the Lowell Regional Water Utility adjacent to the new bridge.

The project will increase the city’s ability to provide potable water backup when needed for the Highlands.

State and federal money funds the bridge design and construction costs, but incidental costs such as cross connections and utilities fall on the municipalities.

Aside from harrowing stories of traversing a span that has lasted far beyond its intended purpose, that bridge kept the memory of two honored sons of Lowell alive.

And now, this new motorist, pedestrian and bicyclist friendly bridge will carry the Rourke name well into the next century.