That cities and towns are asking for funding is a point of interest that seemed to have gone unmentioned in the recent negative ads against Patrick. Over the past few days, Charlie Baker’s campaign has been releasing ads which appear to portray Patrick as someone who has selective hearing when it comes to the strained economy and reducing taxes.
Given the tough economic times, its understandable that the state is hearing more requests for funding. Today, the town of Chelmsford received a state grant for the Parker Middle School. The school will now be able to install solar panels as a part of the town’s efforts to switch to renewables.
The grant was awarded by the state in conjunction with the Green Communities Act, which was passed two years ago. The purpose of the act is to help municipalities switch to renewable energy sources. Under the act, several specific guidelines must be met in order for any city or town to receive funding. The guidelines include, but are not limited to, enacting zoning regulations that permit renewable energy buildings and implementing the Stretch Energy Code.
Though Parker is receiving $187, 224 in grant money, that figure is a part of the larger $8.1 million for which Chelmsford is currently eligible. Chelmsford was recognized as a Green Community by the Bay state in May of this year.
Baker (R-Swampscott) has a legitimate concern about the points he raises. With the cost of living increasing and the economy moving as slowly as it is, this writer agrees with the gubernatorial candidate that things should change for the better. What confuses this analyst was his campaign’s decision to broach these topics in this manner.
Negative ads appear “effective” so long as they don’t backfire on the candidate promoting them. More often than not, candidates seem to play Russian roulette because most seem to get a fair amount of whiplash afterward. Given the uncertainty midterm elections can create, any candidate seeking to monopolize on potential opportunities probably doesn’t want to be knocked out of the running.
With that in mind, why would Baker allow himself to be associated with apparently unfair ads? In doing so, Baker gives the impression that he used technical glitches to give himself a dishonest advantage. If this isn’t what Baker intended, then he’s due for damage control.