As costs continue to rise, many local municipalities are being forced to make difficult financial decisions. New Bedford is no exception, as a projected $32 million deficit has forced Mayor Jon Mitchell to impose a significant tax increase while laying off dozens of city employees.
Compounding the situation is a Trump administration that has opposed the development of offshore wind projects in New England – a big hit to a city at the heart of the region’s wind industry. Despite the challenges, Mitchell says he’s optimistic about the city’s future. He discussed the path forward with Ocean State Media political reporter Ian Donnis.
Interview highlights
On the Trump administration’s opposition to offshore wind projects
Jon Mitchell: By and large, it has not been good news, right? It isn't as though disaster has befallen New Bedford. I mean, we're still the number one commercial fishing port in the United States and a whole lot more. The port of New Bedford's a very busy place, but we expected a sharper growth trajectory on account of offshore wind.
The Vineyard Wind project; that demonstrated that New Bedford could execute well on a major offshore wind project off our coast. We had a pipeline of projects behind that that are largely in jeopardy now. So what that means in practice is that there just isn't as much activity. There aren't as many people working at those dedicated facilities on our waterfront, not as much private sector investment coming; at least not as much as we anticipated. So yeah, it's not going as fast as we'd like. I don't think that anything's going to happen until – at the earliest – 2029, after President Trump leaves office…
I think that the presidential election will have some significant consequences for New Bedford. If a Democrat is elected, I think it's probably safe to say that offshore wind will go forward. It'll go forward in New Bedford, in part because Massachusetts is also very supportive of offshore wind, as well. The state plays a very significant role, if not the most important role, in the advancement of the industry. But of course, the federal government decides where these things go and whether they can be permitted. So this next election will have consequences because I think it's hard to find a Democrat anywhere who is against offshore wind. Some Republicans are reluctant to allow it to advance. If some of the possible putative candidates out there are elected on the Republican side, I think we'd see some progress. It's just that this particular president in office now is outright hostile to it for personal reasons that are well established.
On New Bedford’s recent budget struggles
Mitchell: I think it's a tough budget environment. The reality is that policy decisions are in place that make it very difficult for us to balance our books. The state constrains our ability to cut healthcare benefits and pension benefits, and that's what's been driving the budget, while the state, on the other hand, has not kept up with its obligation to pay cities and towns state aid. In the last fiscal year that just closed, we received – almost to the dollar – the same amount of state aid that we got in 2009, 17 years ago, so that's part of the problem.
I think some of it also is just among the many legislators. A lot of them haven't had experience at the local level and (don’t) appreciate the cost pressures of running a municipal government, even a town government, never mind a city government; a city that, in our case, has a whole lot of legacy costs, fire and police and pensions and all that, and the healthcare for all of those folks: retirees and current employees. So some of this has been coming home to roost for a while.
I do think there is some ability, some authority, for cities in Massachusetts to curb healthcare spending and pension spending. I've been making this case to my city council for many years now – too many to count at this point – and a lot of folks on our city council have just not seen the urgency. I hope now that people are getting some pink slips, which is an unfortunate consequence of all this, that they start to take some of those threats more seriously.
On his concern for the electoral prospects of Democrats at the federal level
Mitchell: As much as I have been a lifelong Democrat, I also like to hold myself out as a member of the “mayor's party,” right? So the mayor's job is really to execute, to get stuff done, to solve problems.
I am concerned, as a Democrat, that – at least in terms of the attention they're getting – some of the folks on the far left are starting to define the party. And the Republicans certainly want the Democratic Party to be defined by the likes of some of the Democratic Socialists who are out there proposing things that are, to my mind, rather extreme and self-defeating. I think there's a real danger there that the Democrats could blow it. I would just say the Democrats are going to take control of at least the House; the writing's on the wall for that. But what I don't want to see is that the Democrats blow it again in the next presidential election because they allow some of the more extreme voices to drown out the, sort of, reasonable folks in the middle. I think that's a real vulnerability.
