by Ryan Gilday

1. Guns N’ Lowell

As an American, I’ve pretty much come to terms with the fact that I’m going to die in a hail of bullets someday. Nevertheless, it seems that many of my fellow citizens still had some hope that their communities’ laws could protect them. I imagine many were disappointed this past June when the Supreme Court issued a controversial decision in the matter of in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In Bruen the Court struck down a 1913 New York law requiring persons seeking a permit to carry guns in public to show they had a specific need for doing so. To meet this “proper cause” requirement, an applicant had to provide more justification than a general desire to pack heat.

What does this have to do with Lowell? The NY licensing system, often referred to as a “may issue” licensing regime was present in five other states – including Massachusetts. Licensing authorities—which in Massachusetts’ case, are local police chiefs (e.g Acting Superintendent Barry Golner) had the ability to deny a permit if they deemed an applicant unsuitable. Thanks to Bruen that will now be harder to prove. Previously, an applicant had to prove why they had a need for a gun. Now, the burden is on the government to prove that there is a particular reason why an applicant shouldn’t carry a gun. The net result, of course, that it will be much easier for citizens to obtain licenses to carry a gun in public.

Last night, the council was provided a very well-written response by former Assistant City Solicitor Kerry Regan Jenness addressing a July 2022 Motion by Councilors Yem and Scott seeking a legal opinion as to the applicability of the Bruen decision to Lowell’s gun licensing procedures. The response sets forth changes made in Lowell to comply with Bruen. Manager Golden stated that the new LPD policy reflects the letter of the law, and “whether we believe in it or not, it’s the right thing to do.” Indeed, a change in Lowell’s procedures was probably necessary to keep us out of court. As per the response, the changes are as follows:

• • Lowell no longer requires applicants to submit an essay in support of their application;
  • Lowell utilizes the state LTC/FID application forms and does not require any additional written material; applicants may choose to provide references, but these are optional;
  • MGL c. 150 s. 131(P)(a) requires all first time firearm license applicants to successfully complete a MA Certified Firearms Safety Course or a Basic Hunter Education Course and submit a certificate of completion with their firearms license application. Lowell will accept any firearms course certified by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to satisfy this requirement (previously, Lowell required that the course contain specific elements, including live firing); and
  • All licenses that are issued will be unrestricted.

The Bruen decision encroaches on the duties and rights of Congress, state legislatures, and local communities to to look at on-the-ground realities of gun violence and enact common sense gun control laws and procedures. In the end (and against our democratic will), Lowell is now more “gun friendly” than it was six months ago.

2. Giving Trees

New-ish DPD Director Yovani Baez-Rose picked-up where her predecessor left off in providing excellent, highly-detailed motion responses. This week my highlight is a response relative to Councilor Gitschier’s motion requesting the City Manager to appoint a Citizens Tree Committee (consisting of members from each district) and hiring someone qualified as a certified arborist.
The response advised that DPW Commissioner, Paul St. Cyr is the city’s Tree Warden – however, he is not a certified arborist and the city currently has no arborist on staff. In addition, the city currently has a Tree Board “wholly consisting of members of the Conservation Commission.” Any changes to the current system will require an amendment to the existing tree ordinance. Finally, the response provided an extensive list of the location and species of trees recently planted in the city.

Councilor Gitschier questioned whether the city’s current system was in compliance with state law. Specifically, Mass. General Laws Chapter 41 sec. 106 that mandates the appointment and hire of a tree warden who “shall be qualified by training and experience in the field of arborculture and licensed with the department of food and agriculture.” It was further noted that the city recently received a report on heat islands in the city and the importance of tree canopy in mitigating global warming. Though it is nice to see an exhaustive list of trees recently planted, it could prove pointless if they die as a result of not having qualified personnel maintaining their health – as mandated by state law.

3. MSBA Funding Running Dry?

When the agenda for this week’s meeting came out last Friday, the following motion caught my eye:

C. Gitschier – Req. City Mgr. Update The City Council On The Recently Released Decision (November 2, 2022) By The MSBA Board Of Directors Vote To Pause 2023 Accelerated Repair Program And On How It Effects The City Of Lowell.

The MSBA Accelerated Repair Program is primarily for the repair and/or replacement of roofs, windows/doors, and/or boilers with the potential to include additional systems as may be determined by the MSBA. The program focuses on the preservation of existing assets by performing energy-efficient and cost-saving upgrades.

During the Donoghue administration, the city began to leverage Accelerated Repair Program funding to improve school facilities. For example, in 2019, the city received funding several projects, which totaled more than $10 million in state funds. These are projects that were both sorely needed and unlikely to have been completed without considerable help from the state.

As such, Councilor Gitschier’s Motion came as a bit of a shock. Despite my best efforts (read: 5 minutes of Googling), I still can’t find a copy of the decision Councilor Gitschier is referring to. Nevertheless, if true, the Councilor was correct in noting that such a decision would negatively impact the city as we are “heavily invested” in this program. Indeed, just last November, the city appropriated $410,000 for feasibility studies/schematic designs for four schools:

I’m looking forward to the response to this motion to get a better idea as to where the city stands on this issue and what it means for projects currently in the pipeline.

4. Miscellaneous

• There are other issues worthy of attention but I used all my fire-power on guns (wink). Accordingly everything else gets thrown into a list:
  • Some light chirping when Councilor Jenness made a Motion from the floor relative to the city’s outdoor dining program. Councilor Rourke agreed with the substance of the Motion, but raised a procedural objection that it should have been placed on the agenda last Friday. The motion passed 8-3 (Rourke, Yem and Scott opposed). Later, when a response on the topic of access to Council Rules came up for discussion, Councilor Rourke sniped that he was thankful that Rule 12 was included. Rule 12 pertains to the timing of agenda motions.
  • Some louder chirping when Councilor Robinson was complaining about the state of city playgrounds and more broadly, the quality of work being performed by the Parks Department. Councilor Leahy interrupted – objecting to what he viewed as an attack against the department (or perhaps more accurately, the Department Head). Councilor Robinson, in turn, spoke over Councilor Leahy and stated that he was tired of excuses being made for the department.
  • Councilor Yem wore a bow-tie and delivered an report on the November 1 Housing Subcommittee Meeting. Both were excellent.
  • We’re still very much behind the 8-ball when it comes to the painting of the 4,000 crosswalks throughout the city. I wouldn’t expect much to change until next spring.
  • As of November 1, per state law, you’re no longer allowed to throw textiles (or mattresses) in the trash. Only the textile bit will be new to Lowell. As such, look for ways to donate. With respect to mattresses, as always, you may contact UTEC. Please don’t throw it onto 1st Street. If you must, drive it into Westford or Chelmsford and throw it there.