May 14, 2008 by Chinatown Blogger.

The inclusion of bilingual voting ballots has been a major issue for the Chinatown community and the Chinatown Blogger has not been as diligent in following the process and reporting here on the blog. However, here is a quick and dirty history of the bilingual voting ballots.

2003 - The Chinese Progressive Association filed complaints with both the City of Boston and Secretary of State about voting rights violations inside polling places.
2005 - Based on 2003 and 2004 complaints, Department of Justice (DOJ) filed lawsuit against the City of Boston for violating the voting rights of limited English-speaking Chinese and Vietnamese voters. US District Court finalized a Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Boston and DOJ to provide increased bilingual assistance to Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese-speaking voters, and to launch Chinese and Vietnamese bilingual ballots. The Memorandum expires in 2008.
2007 - City of Boston successfully printed the Chinese bilingual ballot with transliterated candidate names in both the preliminary and final election for the special District 2 city council race (the eventual winner was Councilor Linehan). Secretary of State (Galvin) continued to oppose transliteration of candidate names on the ballot. Department of Justice asked the court to clarify whether a Chinese bilingual ballot must include candidate names. Galvin filed his opposition to the DOJ’s court motion and argued that transliteration of names were “imprecise” and did not belong on the ballot.

Today, the City Council passed a Home Rule Petition to extend having bilingual voting ballots. The Home Rule Petitionwas filed by City Councilors Sam Yoon, Michael Ross and John Connolly. Today the City Council voted unanimously to extend the bilingual ballots. The next step will be to have Mayor Menino to sign the bill and then submit the bill to the State House. Boston.com has an article here.

Posted in WORD ON THE STREET | Print | No Comments »

May 14, 2008 by Chinatown Blogger.

Below is a letter that was sent to Mayor Menino and City Hall and cc to the blog. The letter is one Chinatown resident’s opinion about the Dainty Dot compromise.
—————————–
Dear Mayor Menino:

I am extremely disappointed with the BRA’s “compromise” development decision for the new tower at 120 Kingston Street on the Rose Kennedy Greenway in Chinatown.

First, please let me express that I am not opposed to development on the site. In fact, I am strongly in favor of the original design proposed by the developer, both for its graceful design, contextual sensitivity and urban planning elements.

What I am extremely distressed by is the result of the BRA “public process” that has reduced a once vibrant project with elements for all aspects of the site, to quite frankly, a mediocre glass turd of a tower, suitable for urban anonymity in Atlanta, Houston or Dallas, but certainly not a high prominence site in Boston. Something is seriously wrong with our planning process, if the best we can do on this important Greenway site is a boring, bare bones, ¼ glass cylinder.

Specific aspects of the compromise that are deeply disturbing include:

1) This development sets a precedent for the quality (or lack thereof) of urban design and architecture to be expected for development along the Greenway. The precedent is extremely disappointing and mediocre. We did not spend $16 billion to get the Greenway with the expectation of mediocrity!

2) The total demolition of the Dainty Dot building shows a disregard for the need to knit together the Greenway developments with the midrise urban elements of Chinatown. Is this a signal that any glass turd tower that wants to bulldoze a site in Chinatown can get approval? What happened to urban planning and the need to create livable streets (read mid-rise, human scale façades, not glass sheet walls).

3) The sham of adding to the park land is a “compromise” over maintaining the transitional Dainty Dot façade is a complete red herring. Can the BRA really suggest that we need more parkland along the Greenway after just creating 15 new acres of park?

4) Essex Street, which directly abuts one side of the 120 Kingston Street site (and the current Dainty Dot building), is part of your Crossroads Initiative. A key aspect of that Initiative is “creating a welcoming, informative, and engaging street environment.” This is directly counter to the glass turd tower design approved by the BRA.

I strongly urge you to reconsider the BRA “compromise” decision on 120 Kingston Street, and reopen the design consideration that included the transitional, historic Dainty Dot façade in the design.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,
Jeff Hovis
Oak Street (Residential Chinatown)
Boston, MA 02111

Posted in WORD ON THE STREET | Print | 8 Comments »