I’m voting for Mike Zullas and Nora Harrington on September 8th.

Maybe it’s because I, like both candidates, grew up somewhere other than Milton – Nora in the Bronx and Mike in Brockton. Maybe its because of the Berkshire County connection. Both Nora and Mike are Williams College graduates and I grew up minutes away in North Adams and have always had a great deal of respect for that institution of higher learning. But it is largely because I agree with them on the issues and have confidence that they will represent Milton well at the State House.

Nora is running to succeed Brian Joyce as state senator. And while we are on this subject, can we all just agree that Brian produced at an extraordinarily high level for Milton year after year AND engaged in some unbelievably unwise actions that caused him to not seek re-election? Both can be true. For now, let’s agree that he made some choices that are difficult for even his staunchest supporters to defend.

Nora, of course, is taking on Milton’s own Walter Timilty for the senate seat. Walter has served nearly 18 years as state representative from Milton and Randolph and is looking to move up to join his cousin, James Timilty, in the state senate. His campaign for higher office has been a Milton version of the Rose Garden strategy – engaging voters one-on-one at the doors but avoiding any direct interaction from his opponent. That’s just not good enough when you are asking voters for a promotion. It’s also not good when #whereswalter becomes a thing. Nora’s campaign has been hard-hitting, the kind you don’t often see in a local race. But her criticisms of his conservative voting record, his disappointing record of producing for our town, and his failure to debate are fair and completely above board. Her views and her campaign have earned my vote. She will be a strong, progressive voice for Milton.

The race for state representative to replace Walter has attracted a large field. If signs could vote (and any political consultant will tell you, they don’t), Tony Farrington, Bill Driscoll, and Mike Zullas would be neck and neck with Kerby Roberson, Denny Swenson, and James Burgess running in the second tier.

Mike has my vote because of his leadership on Milton’s School Committee. He has been a smart, thoughtful voice on that body and quickly earned the confidence of his colleagues by being elected vice-chair after only one year in office and chair the following year. His service as a Warrant Committee member has given Mike an understanding of the fiscal challenges facing Milton.

Bill Driscoll and Tony Farrington seem like upstanding members of the community and have impressive bios filled with a lifetime of service to others. Denny Swenson is campaigning as the candidate of “no” having risen to some degree of notoriety as the leader of the fight to block a Chapter 40B affordable housing development in her back yard. Her literature promises to empower other neighborhoods to say no to development. Unfortunately, Kerby Roberson and James Burgess

don’t seem to have the campaign resources needed to make their case effectively across the district.

As a town meeting member I’m definitely biased, but I prefer my state representative to be well-versed in the ways of Milton politics and town government and be willing to make hard, sometimes unpopular, choices on difficult issues. For me, Mike Zullas is the only candidate that fits that criterion.

One last comment. The title of this blog post is a double entendre – Mike and Nora would both be a welcome change in our town’s representation and it is meant as a reminder that we go to the polls this year on Thursday, September 8th. Don’t forget to vote.

New York came into Boston in May and swept the Red Sox at home. Boston is in last place in the AL East while New York is at the top of the standings. Tomorrow night, the ancient rivals will begin another three-game series at Fenway Park.

Unfortunately for Boston’s beleaguered renters and homebuyers, New York is threatening to beat Boston on the affordable housing front as well. Last week, Boston 2024 released its so-called “Bid 2.0,” which included an ambitious plan for an Athletes’ Village at Columbia Point. The updated plan calls for 2,950 units in addition to another 2,700 beds that will serve as dorms for UMass Boston.

Exactly 385 of those spaces will be affordable and, apparently, all will be rental. That figure is 13 percent of the total and that is what is called for in the city’s Inclusionary Development Program. It is also what the developers at DotBlock have planned for their project at the intersection of Hancock DStreet and Dorchester Avenue. In fact, it is what all developers in Boston plan to do because they have to follow the existing standard set by the mayor’s office.

But it is disappointing to see Boston 2024 set the bar so low. Olympic organizers have promised long-term benefits to area residents from hosting the Games. One of those benefits should be more moderately priced housing in a city that desperately needs to retain its working-class residents.

Let’s look at the plan. First the benefits: It creates a new neighborhood in Dorchester with easy access to downtown, the beach, and the existing attractions on the Point. It also calls for a badly needed overhaul of Kosciuszko Circle and dorms for UMass. And it creates a neighborhood with upscale amenities that is designed to attract young professionals who have already been priced out of the South End or Jamaica Plain.

On the downside, it dramatically up-zones an already busy corner of the city and it fails to deliver much in the way of affordability for existing residents who want to stay in the neighborhood.

If we look 200 miles to the south, we can learn a lot from the experience in New York when the city made a bid to host the 2012 Games. Hudson Yards on the West Side of Manhattan was chosen to be the site for the Olympic stadium. When the bid came up short, Hudson Yards was turned into the site of a new neighborhood where New York hopes to build 20,000 housing units with nearly 5,000 of them being affordable.

The turnaround is also a cautionary tale because reports show that just 16 percent of the units already built are affordable. With increased pressure from Mayor de Blasio, both developers and advocates agree that the 25 percent figure is attainable. Still, the bar in New York is set almost twice as high as the one laid out by Boston 2024.

We may be resigned to the Red Sox finishing behind New York for second year in a row but we shouldn’t accept the same status in an Olympics competition. Boston 2024 should aim higher and show residents that permanently affordable housing, and not increased gentrification, can be a true legacy of our bid to host the Olympics in 2024.

This commentary appeared in the 7/9/15 edition of the Dorchester Reporter.