The Lowell City Council met on Tuesday, July 14, 2026. No single issue dominated the meeting although there were several interesting public policy discussions that I’ll review today.

****

Underage drinking – A trio of motions addressed the presence of minors in establishments that serve alcohol. A steady stream of incidents over the past year indicate that several downtown bars routinely serve alcohol to individuals who are not yet 21 years old. You might ask, why aren’t these places checking IDs at the entrance and not admitting anyone who is underage? That would be a reasonable and easily policed procedure if the city’s licensing ordinances did not contain a massive loophole.

Specifically, any establishment that has a licensed kitchen is deemed to be a restaurant which can admit patrons of any age. There’s a certain logic to that policy: when a family goes out to dinner, the parents might want a glass of wine with their meals while their minor children join them. But as I heard the Lowell ordinance explained at a prior city council meeting, a liquor establishment need only have a licensed kitchen to fall into the “restaurant” category that allows customers of all ages to enter. It doesn’t matter if the kitchen ever opens, if it passes the city’s inspection, there’s no need to check IDs at the door. True, the server is then supposed to ensure that the person being served is of legal age, but even if that happened diligently, it would not be as effective as totally excluding underaged people from the place.

The challenge for city government comes with drafting the ordinance. A bar that has a kitchen that is never opened should not be treated like a full-service restaurant. But what if the place serves microwavable pizzas? Is that enough? Where do you draw the line? It may be difficult, but making laws and rules is all about drawing lines so the city should get its act together and revise the existing rules.

Of course, that assumes there is a desire to revise those rules which I sometimes doubt. For all the “we have to protect our children” rhetoric from councilors, I question whether there is a collective will to address this problem. People who run for public office are not recluses. They don’t sit quietly at home. They are social and like to be out and among other people. Such socialization frequently occurs at places that serve alcohol which inevitably makes elected officials familiar and friendly with those who own and operate such establishments. With such familiarity comes sympathy, or at least a desire to avoid inflicting economic pain, an attitude that inevitably softens regulations.

Another factor is a firmly established culture in some segments of Lowell that tolerates and even celebrates underaged drinking. Perhaps it flows from an “I did it at that age so why should I deprive my teenager of the same fun I had” attitude. Whatever the source, I think that attitude exists and has some political potency.

In the face of those factors, it will be interesting to see if the council separates rhetoric from action on this issue.

****

“Canvassers and Solicitors” – After a public hearing, the council unanimously voted to amend the city ordinance governing “canvassers and solicitors.” Among other things, the revised rule limits soliciting to a 12-hour window from 7:30 am until 7:30 pm; makes it unlawful for a license-holder to enter onto a premises displaying a “No Trespassing” or “No Solicitation” sign; requires the license-holder prior to doing any canvassing to notify the police department either in person or by telephone of the “date, time and approximate location said business will be conducted.”

As someone who has run for office and worked on political campaigns, I have done my share of door-knocking and sympathize with those who do it for a living. That said, if I want to switch internet providers or acquire a rooftop solar system, I’ll research the options and make a deliberate choice. I don’t think I’ve ever purchased goods or services from someone who arrived unannounced at my door, so I have no problem with this ordinance. Notably, canvassers engaged in charitable or political activities are not affected by this rule.

During the brief council discussion on this issue, Councilor Dan Rourke speculated that the city should perhaps include a “do not solicit” list for those who don’t want commercial canvassers coming to their door. That wasn’t take up but it seems homeowners could achieve the same result with a “no solicitation” sign.

****

Smith Baker Center – The council confirmed a vote taken in executive session by the prior council to enter into a Purchase & Sales Agreement (P&S) and a Land Disposition Agreement (LDA) between the city and the Smith Baker Preservation Corporation for the Smith Baker Center at 400 Merrimack Street.

A representative of the Corporation presented a brief video to councilors depicting how the first floor of the building will look and function in theory. It’s an impressive video which can be seen at 1 hour, 13 minutes of the YouTube video of the council meeting.

Although the details of the P&S and LDA have not yet been made public (if they even exist at this point) some elements were mentioned during the discussion. The purchase price to be paid to the city is $470,000, however, all that money will be paid to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, to cover the HUD grants that were used by the city to purchase the property back in the 1970s. Unfortunately, repayment isn’t just paying back the 1970s grant plus interest. Instead, the amount due to HUD is the fair market value of the property right now. That means the city will not keep any of the $470K, however, it will eliminate any HUD claim on the property if this proposal doesn’t work out.

Speaking of not working out, the deed to the Preservation Corporation will have a reversionary clause that would restore ownership to the city if the Preservation Corporation failed to meet certain deadlines for restoring the property. However, that reversionary clause will become subordinate to any mortgage the Preservation Corporation may obtain on the property. That means that if the city declares a default that would trigger the reversionary clause, the lender could step in and foreclose since the lender’s position would be superior to the city’s. As regrettable as that may be, there is no practical alternative since if the city’s reversionary clause was superior to the mortgage, no one would ever make a loan on the property.

Finally, if all goes according to plan, the Preservation Corporation expects to obtain an occupancy permit for the property in the summer of 2029.

The council voted 10 to 0 to confirm the executive session vote with Councilor Belinda Juran abstaining. She explained that while she was supportive of the proposal, she did not participate in the executive session since she was not on the council at that time and retains some unease with the timelines and the ownership sequence should the proposal fail.

****

Data centers – Two motions, both jointly filed by Councilors Kim Scott and Sean McDonough, indirectly addressed data centers in the city.

The first motion asked for a report explaining why the city issued permits for demolition and for fire hydrants to the Markley Group (or a related entity) for property at 2 Tanner Street even though the city has a Data Center Moratorium in effect. Markley, which operates a data center at the former Prince Spaghetti plant in South Lowell, recently purchased a parcel on Tanner Street with the presumed intent of constructing a data center there.

The second motion asked for the drafting of a regulation that would prohibit the installation of diesel generators of more than a certain size anywhere in the city. While the words “data center” or “Markley” were not mentioned in this motion, it clearly targets data centers since those are the only types of facilities with generators of that size contemplated by the motion that would conceivably be in Lowell.

Both motions passed, so I assume we’ll see a report on Tanner Street and a draft ordinance about big diesel generators.

Although he voted in the affirmative, Councilor Dan Rourke cautioned against a reflexive anti-data center approach to city policy, explaining that whether we like it or not, artificial intelligence is working its way into every aspect of business, commerce, and life. While Lowell city government has an obligation to protect the quality of life of its residents, it should find a way to do it that’s compatible with reasonable economic development.

I’ve always been an early adopter of new technologies and artificial intelligence is no exception. OpenAI first released ChatGPT on November 30, 2022, and within a week I was using it extensively, amazed by its capabilities and its potential. But technological innovation always occurs in the context of society and the world around it. Whatever one’s feelings about the usefulness of AI, most people today recognize that the billionaires who control that technology have a track record of enriching themselves at the expense of American workers. In a functioning democracy, the government would establish policies to assist those who lose their jobs to AI and ease the transition to new work. But we live in a system where the ultra-wealthy exercise enormous control over our political system which in turn works for their benefit and at the expense of everyone else. Whatever their political party, I think most people recognize this and would like to do something about it. Data centers provide tangible objects that are emblematic of the threat to working people. As such, people who live far beyond the detrimental quality of life issues that come with data centers have reason to oppose their construction. Consequently, whatever barriers the city council erects to data centers will likely find widespread political support.

****

This week in my Seen & Heard column, I reviewed a book about visiting historic sites across the US; commented on the Boston Celtics trade of Jaylen Brown; noted an article about how shifting to all electric vehicles harmed Honda; reviewed the telecast of the Boston Pops July Fourth show; and commented on a newsletter by economist Jared Bernstein on grocery prices.