Another blow to the Boston office market: It seems companies are showing more interest in suburban offices these days, due to the lower rents and shorter employee commutes, as Steve Adams reports at B&T (sub.). … Remember when, not so long ago, suburban offices were so unhip, lacking the cool bricks-and-beam ambiance of urban offices and the live-work-play atmosphere of the city in general? Well, the hipsters are typical parents now, I guess. … To be clear: we’re still talking about a post-pandemic office market everywhere, urban and suburban offices alike, and overall demand is still off due to the rise of remote working

Gov. Maura Healey continues to show her pragmatism-over-ideology side of governing, putting more limits on the state’s shelter program that’s now bursting at the seams due to the recent influx of migrants. 

One can debate whether the shelter law was ever intended to provide housing for migrants in the first place (I happen to think it wasn’t). But there should be no debate about these two assertions by Healey: 1.) “We simply cannot afford the current size of this system” and 2.) “With Congress continuing to fail to act on immigration reform, we need to make more changes.”

Update – Joan Vennochi thinks Kamala Harris should look to Massachusetts to see where the immigration issue is headed. And it’s not headed left.

He deserves every accolade he gets – and more. Jack Connors was an old-fashioned civic and business leader, a true Mr. Boston. I like Larry Edelman’s piece on a key source of Connors’s philanthropic influence: his vast network of connections.

Insurance giant John Hancock is jettisoning additional office space in Boston, putting another 160,000 square feet of space on the sublease market. It’s making an already bad office market even worse in Boston. How bad? Colliers recently reported the city’s office vacancy rate at about 23 percent. But that’s the official rate. The unofficial vacancy rate includes what’s called the “shadow” market, i.e. space that’s technically leased to a tenant but isn’t fully occupied due to remote work, etc. Some think the actual vacancy rate, when “shadow” space is included, is around 40 percent.

There are still a few people and institutions telling Dems to slow down when it comes to backing Kamala Harris, warning there are risks ahead by going with the VP. But resistance is futile. Most Dem delegates are jumping on the Harris bandwagon, including (no surprise) Massachusetts Democrats and the usually cautious Gov. Maura Healey. 

Again, I wish Dems had taken it slower and looked at other candidates. But I don’t see how they can effectively vet other prez candidates with so little time available. For all her flaws (and she’s displayed many flaws over the years), Harris is probably the best candidate Dems can back at this point. And she’s not a bad candidate at all. She’s just not a great candidate.

So much for the open and transparent process that would generate lots of attention and excitement for Democrats in Chicago. Instead, Democratic leaders have opted for a fait accompli coronation of Kamala Harris, one in which they’ll allow others to technically contend for the nomination but make it almost impossible for others to mount a serious challenge to Harris. …  

Just to be clear: The Harris positives

… Though I don’t like the idea of an anointment, I think a Harris nomination would clearly be a net plus for Dems compared to the alternative of Biden staying in the race. Harris has slightly stronger poll numbers than Biden. She will energize black and female voters. At least for now, she’ll stop the hemorrhaging of support Dem Congressional candidates have been seeing of late. She’ll probably have a boatload of money available for a new campaign. And she can mount a serious campaign right away, rather than wait till next month’s party convention. …

... Lacking the luxury of time …

But is Harris the strongest Dem candidate to beat Donald Trump? Probably not. So can Dems do better? On paper, yes. In reality, probably not. They simply don’t have the luxury of time to fully vet other candidates. That’s why I’m sort of accepting the fait accompli process as a fait accompli, even though I’d prefer a more open process. …

Those giddy progressives …

… Notice how progressives such as Rachel Maddow and Elizabeth Warren are pumped by a Harris candidacy? They should be. Harris is a progressive, even though the NYT describes Harris as a “moderate,” or at least she’s “center-left by California standards.” By California standards? Is she running for president of California?

... Give the Times credit

But give the NYT credit for throwing a little cold water on the rush to anoint Harris, with stories like “If Harris Is the Nominee, It Still Won’t Be Easy to Beat Trump” or “Some Black Voters Say They Wonder if a Black Woman Can Win” and “The Promise, and Risks, in Turning to Kamala Harris.” … Can you imagine Fox News running similar stories about Trump? No you can’t.  …

… The VP sweepstakes: It’s begun …

 … Don’t you get the impression that both Mark Kelly of Arizona and Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, both of whom have been mentioned as possible vice presidential candidates, are angling for a VP spot on a Harris ticket by endorsing her so quickly? … Both would help Harris. White moderate males in key swing states etc. etc. …

Remembering Ted Kennedy’s awful campaign

… Getting back to the topic of Dems not having enough time to vet other candidates : I was talking to someone yesterday about how you need to be careful what you wish for in politics. And I recalled how, many moons ago, I was pumped at the prospect of Ted Kennedy running for president, only to see him fall flat on his face when he finally did so. He was not only a functionally awful campaigner, he was also a divisive campaigner. So the moral of my story: I may prefer someone like Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer as the Dem party nominee. But I really don’t know if Gretchen Whitmer would be a good campaigner.  And so …

 

First off, I don’t think Kamala Harris would be a bad candidate to replace Joe Biden, who finally succumbed to pressure by withdrawing from the race for president. She brings a lot of pluses to the table, not least a boatload of cash. All in all, she’d make a good, solid candidate. But the best Democratic candidate? We don’t know.

Democrats would be smart to hold off on any anointment of Harris, allowing for a “mini-primary” (or whatever) to pick a candidate next month in Chicago. It risks a little chaos, but a little chaos is better than widespread cynicism that a Harris anointment would bring. In case Dems haven’t noticed, pre-selecting candidates hasn’t turned out well for Dems of late, such as the Biden-for-second-term anointment. Or how about the 2016 Hillary Clinton anointment? … Speaking of Hillary Clinton, she and her husband are already backing Harris. The previously anointed, Biden and Clinton, are busy at the old anointment game again.

Update – U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has already endorsed Harris, thinks Democrats will coalesce around Harris — and she’s right. They’re already coalescing. … As much as they say they want an open and transparent process, they’re aiming for a fait accompli process.

Citing Shakespeare, especially anything to do with King Lear, ranks up there among the most annoying cliches around. But … read this NYT piece on President Biden stewing at the ungrateful world from the isolated confines of his Delaware beach home. Who comes to mind? King Lear. 

Mandating that employers disclose salary ranges in their job postings makes some sense, I suppose. The goal of salary-disclosure legislation now on Beacon Hill: to reduce income inequities for women and people of color, who advocates say tend to underestimate their asking salaries, as the Globe reports. OK. 

But what if the salary ranges are ridiculous to the point of meaninglessness? Example: I just saw a posting for a full-time job on LinkedIn with a pay range of $40K to $160K. That’s a big range. So big as to be a joke. And that’s what employers are going to do: provide big, fat meaningless pay ranges. No wonder business groups like this bill.

This instantly vaults into one of the top business stories of 2024: The massive global IT outage, perhaps the largest in history. And it was all caused by a cybersecurity firm’s update of code into Microsoft Windows. … Think about it. Such a simple and routine procedure caused so much chaos. Now think about what might occur in the event of outright cyber-warfare between, say, China and the U.S. Or in the event of a highly sophisticated cyber-terrorist attack. Remember: no one thought 9/11 was possible until it happened.