The issue of stem cell research has consumed a significant amount of politicians’ time in Washington.  Now, state Rep. Harriett L. Stanley is hoping to place it on the state government’s radar here in Massachusetts.

Stanley, a West Newbury Democrat and House Chair of the Legislature’s Health Care Committee, has scheduled a Health Care Committee hearing on the issue for Friday at the University of Massachusetts campus in Amherst.

“We’ve got some of the best minds in the state who are going to be out there,” Stanley said.

Stanley said she decided to hold the hearing to find out what the Massachusetts research community needs from the Legislature or the state administration to make it easier to conduct stem cell research.  She said it’s unclear what kind of legislation – if any – could eventually be proposed as a result of the hearing.

“I want to know from a health care standpoint and a business standpoint what state government can do to make their research… easier,” Stanley said.  “I think there is widespread support for the potential of stem cell research.  We do have to take care in managing it and we do have to take care in understanding its implications.  (But) there are people who are alive today who may well be kept alive longer because of what this research might yield.”

The hearing, which is open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 10 am in Room 168C in the campus center at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst.

To Top

Not wanting Massachusetts to be left behind, state Rep. Harriett L. Stanley will preside over a hearing of some of “the best minds in the state” at UMass campus in Amherst Friday in an attempt to determine what the state’s researchers need from the state to make it easier to conduct stem cell research.

The West Newbury Democrat is not certain if any legislation might come about after the hearing, but Massachusetts has a history in medicine and medical research.

Stem cell research is already going on, notably in Worcester.  Despite the controversy surrounding it, stem cell research promises to improve and extend the lives of millions of people around the world.

Rep. Stanley thinks there is widespread support for the potential of stem cell research.  And she is probably correct.

But, we agree when she says, “We do have to take care in managing it and we do have to take care in understanding its implications.  (But) there are people who are alive today who may well be kept alive longer because of what this research might yield.”

To Top

They got a few of the changes they wanted, but two local state lawmakers say they are not done pushing for more changes to the state’s anti-snob zoning law.

State Reps. Harriett L. Stanley, D-West Newbury, and Arthur J. Broadhurst Jr., D-Methuen, sent a letter to House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, D-Mattapan, yesterday asking for additional changes to the state’s comprehensive permit law.  Specifically, the lawmakers want group homes, mobile homes and Section 8 vouchers to be defined as affordable housing by the state.  “So it’s not over, “ Rep. Stanley said.

Lawmakers want the state to allow communities to deny comprehensive permits if in the past year they have added low- or moderate-income units equaling 1 percent of their total housing inventory.  Additionally, local zoning boards would be allowed to deny a permit for projects greater than 300 units or 2 percent of the total housing stock.

Under the comprehensive permit law, if a community does not meet a 10 percent affordable housing threshold, developers can supersede local ordinances, provided 25 percent of the units are set aside for low- to moderate-income families.

To Top

Cities like Newburyport find themselves in situations where families have lived in the community for generations, but the descendants currently looking to marry and raise children can no longer afford to buy property.

Rural towns like Rowley and Merrimac see expensive housing project after housing project going in with the result being that the character of the towns will be forever changed.

Call it gentrification, suburban crawl, whatever.  This area has become a popular place to live, and people want to move here.

Which means that developers want to build here.  And, if allowed to do so, they would build and build and build.

Zoning regulations are one way to keep such uncontrolled growth in check.  Master plans are another.

Currently, developers seeking to build new housing have potential loophole, and it’s the state’s anti-snob zoning law.

That law is designed to produce affordable housing in every community, a laudable goal.  But it also allows developers to bypass local ordinances and build larger developments than a community wants it they agree that 25 percent of the units will be so-called affordable housing.

The problem is that the developers are not going to take a loss on their investments.  They would build projects large enough, even with the 25 percent affordable factor, to ensure a profit.

In Georgetown, for instance, on project alone is calling for 346 units.  How many projects of such scale can a small town take and still remain a small town?

It is this loophole that some local legislator, such as Rep. Harriett Stanley and Sen. Bruce Tarr, are trying to address.

No one should want to get rid of the anti-snob zoning law.   But communities should be able to plan for themselves.  And state law, even with good intentions, should not allow the circumvention of local laws to extent that now exists.

To Top

If there really is an equitable way to finance election campaigns, this society has been unable to discover it.

There was a time when candidates were chosen by their parties to represent the interests of those attracted to the philosophies and politics of those parties, and little opportunity for endless pursuit by those of ambition who found themselves outside party favor.

This is not such a time.

This week, the Massachusetts House voted to approve a budget amendment that would change the way the Clean Elections Law would be funded, which some people say would effectively kill the voter approved ballot initiative of 1998.

Instead of the $10 million in state money that advocates sought, the amendment would require that campaign funding be raised from a voluntary tax check-off.

That vote is being assailed by those who are outraged that the public will, as expressed by the ballot vote, would be thwarted.

Because Speaker of the House Tom Finneran is seen as ruling all things with a mighty hand, the popular depiction is one of scuttling the public will.

We empathize with both area representatives, Harriett Stanley, who voted against the action of the House last week, and Paul Tirone, who voted for it.

Stanley did so because the initiative, however flawed, represented the will of the people, and Tirone, because he believed the vote would correct some of the unintended consequences of the bill.

But there was that in Stanley’s vote that belies the notion that Finneran controls everything with an iron hand, because she is chairman of a powerful committee as a result of Finneran’s appointment.

The reality is there is no perfection in legislation of this kind because it attempts to deal with the conflicting realities of our social structure and constitutional rights.

The short of it is that campaign finance reform can only be achieved by steps we are not likely to take.

To Top

Harriett Stanley readily admits she’s not a health care expert.  But she doesn’t seem the least bit daunted by the challenge in front of her.

Within hours after being named the new House Chair of the Legislature’s Health Care Committee on Monday, Stanley attended a task force meeting with some of the top people in the state’s health care industry.

That work ethic – something Stanley has displayed while tackling the state budget – may be more needed than ever, now that the state’s health care industry is facing a fiscal crisis.

Stanley’s peers on Beacon Hill and industry observers say she is up to the task.

“There is no one that works harder in the entire State House than Harriett Stanley,” said Rep. Peter Koutoujian, a Newton Democrat and the new House vice chairman of the Health Care Committee.  “She knows how to take very large and complex issues and to bring them down to an understandable level.  …I also think that, in many ways, the fact that she doesn’t have lengthy experience in health care can be a bonus.  She can come in with a fresh perspective.”

As she took a break from unpacking on Thursday, Stanley said she’s looking forward to the challenges ahead.

“It’s kind of exciting to have the opportunity to understand a whole new field,” Stanley said.  “Health care is one of those issues that affects everybody across the commonwealth.”

Stanley expects her financial acumen will be useful as the Legislature explores the best ways to improve Medicaid reimbursements for hospitals and the pool of money available to reimburse them for uncompensated care.

“I understand the pie doesn’t get any larger,” Stanley said.  “You have to do more with essentially the same amount of money, and, in the worst-case situations, do more with less.”

To Top