Jami Tucker:  A Pro-Developer Agenda for Milton?

Posted on by Milton Coalition

In my previous post, I wrote about my concerns about Jami Tucker’s views on 5G, which are not supported by the facts and the basic physics of radiation.  Frankly, Ms. Tucker’s 5G stances are wacky and call into question her abilities to assess issues and exercise prudent judgment on Council.  However, my greater concerns about Ms. Tucker have to do with her alignment with the Lusk-Kunz faction in Milton politics and her associated support from developers in Milton, who actively recruit and back candidates for council.  These developers desire compliant council members that will bend and break the rules for developers to goose developers’ profits.  I opposed both Council Members Bill Lusk and Matt Kunz (and Karen Thurman) because of their pro-developer voting records.  (I have similarly opposed the Moore-Bentley faction on Council for advancing the agenda of their Special Interests . . . I am an equal-opportunity critic.)  I remind voters of the Lusk-Kunz pro-developer voting record with a sampling of their votes:

  1. For – Rezoning of the property across the street from Cambridge High School, which resulted in 3X more density than would have been allowed by AG-1 zoning.  This rezoning included extending sewer. (See above photo.)
  2. For – Extension of sewer 4 times.
  3. For – Ebenezer rezoning, where Lusk and Kunz supported proposals for 50 cluster homes—some on lots as small as ¼ acre.  The rezoning was denied.  The developer is building 34 homes on the same property.  The Lusk-Kunz rezoning would have meant a 47% increase in density.
  4. For – Rezoning of the property south of Vickery Crest on Hopewell Road to allow higher density housing.  This rezoning included extending sewer.
  5. For – The CSO (“Conservation” Subdivision Ordinance), which mandated that no buildable land be conserved, despite Randall Arendt (the father of the CSO) advising Milton that a CSO must require conservation of a minimum of 35% of buildable land.
  6. For – Community Septic—i.e., HOA owned/operated private sewer systems.
  7. Against – The 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which was developed and unanimously approved by a 17-member Advisory Committee and incorporated extensive citizen input.
  8. Against – Three-acre minimums for lots adjacent to gravel roads.
  9. Against and then For – subdivision (1 lot into 4 lots) of property on NE corner of Thompson and Hopewell Roads.  First voted against subdivision and then where Lusk, Kunz, (and Mohrig) voted for the property’s subdivision, which then was approved.  The developer and an entourage appeared at the second hearing.

I remind voters that the above voting record resulted 1) in Mr. Lusk losing his re-election bid in 2017 when he garnered less than 29% of the vote and 2) in Mr. Kunz (likely) choosing not to seek re-election (rather than face almost certain defeat).  I strongly believe that Ms. Tucker’s alignment with Lusk and Kunz and her support from developers likely means that she will follow the path of her political forerunners and promote a pro-developer agenda, despite her assertions to the contrary.

I have seen no evidence that Jami Tucker’s opponent, Andrea Verhoff, is aligned with either of Milton’s two factions, is backed by developers, or otherwise would pursue a pro-developer agenda. (However, I do believe she needs to provide more specifics to voters about her stance on development and other issues.)

Advocating For Good Governance,

Tim

Note:  Jami Tucker was the top vote-getter in the November 2nd election, garnering 46% of the vote.  Citizens have asked me how Lusk and Kunz have been able to stage such a strong comeback in light of Lusk’s crushing election defeat in 2017.  The answer is to be found in the actions of Council Members Moore and Bentley.  In 2018, the Moore-Bentley faction demonstrated a similar penchant for advancing agendas of Special Interests.  This was most clearly evidenced by the approval of a music venue on the NW corner of Birmingham Crossroads—the most glaring example I’ve witnessed in Milton of cronyism and naked pursuit of self-interest.  The 28 variances and special use permit granted for properties at the Crossroads caused many citizens to disengage in disgust as they witnessed increasingly incoherent and irrational (and sometimes dishonest) policy-making in Milton.  The culmination of local government dysfunction is to be found in the recent Painted Horse fiasco, which brought into stark relief the sloppiness and sleaze endemic in our city government.  It is my belief that citizens need to reject both the Lusk-Kunz and Moore-Bentley factions in favor of a 3rd alternative—elected representatives that prioritize good governance and citizen prerogatives over personal interests and Special Interests . . . representatives focused more on the community than themselves and their opponents.