To the editor:
Looking at our city election choices, it’s very clear that the choice of a mayor is, in itself, the real problem.
The city lacks proven professional executive leadership. The charter needs to be changed back to hiring a seasoned professional city manager, preferably one with 10 years’ experience running a slightly larger city.
It is hard to believe any local mayor could walk into a human resources office for a $110 million-a-year concern and land a CEO’s job or equivalent. Yet Gloucester is that size corporation. We have a professional chief financial officer; we deserve a seasoned professional CEO.
If we had one, I-4, C-2 would have had a marine biolab on it already, instead of that deal going south after the so-called “Idea Development” design competition that no one could win. We would not have pursued a “HarborWalk” ahead of more substantial seaport bond funding for needed waterfront infrastructure. We also wouldn’t be wasting a 16-acre site with direct highway-access opportunities like Fuller School — a property that could create more needed jobs — while the administration simply decides what should go there next.
The city has to be run far more professionally. We face a lot of change as a community, and infrastructure renewal problems as well.
We can not afford to continue with this office of mayor as it is now structured. The charter should be changed after this election.
At this point in the city’s evolution, the mayor should be a ribbon cutter and host to visitors with an annual minimal honorarium fee.
Main Street, Gloucester