Local Politics Thread

Scipio said:
We're in a mayoral election year, but nobody wants to run against Marty Walsh. Maybe we'll get a perfunctory challenge from Tito Jackson but it looks like Walsh is in for an easy win.
Click to expand...

I kind of saw that coming though. Walsh hasn't really done anything terrible, and has kept the city running good enough, and it would be very difficult to oust him as the incumbent mayor. If he can get through his second term without things falling apart then we will pretty much have the mayor's office for as long as he wants like mayors before him.
 
cden4 said:
Basically, the neighbors are convinced that building more (paid) off-street parking will make the overused (free) on-street parking less full. Too bad economics disproves that. Until the City tackles the resident parking permit program, this will continue to be an issue.
Click to expand...

there is such a drastic jump from free to where I think the price of permits should be.

Many of the suggestions I here for Boston are on par with Cambridge at $25 or Somerville at $40; costs largely designed to recover running the parking office.

I can rent out my space in Allston for ~$2,000 per year. To my mind, that means on-street permits should go for $500 in Allston. It should probably be $1,000 for Back Bay, Fenway, South End, etc. Maybe $2,000 in some neighborhoods.

Not sure any politician could suggest that and not be crucified though.

A possible way to these prices might be an inventory of available spaces, then auctioning permits for that number of spaces in the neighborhood. (or 1.1x that number of spaces)
 
^ The issue is the overhead cost to residents for permitting fees. It becomes highly regressionary to charge "market rate" for on-street resident parking if you're charging $500+ as an annual lump sum.

Still regressive but less overhead if it's a "subscription" model fee.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
^ The issue is the overhead cost to residents for permitting fees. It becomes highly regressionary to charge "market rate" for on-street resident parking if you're charging $500+ as an annual lump sum.

Still regressive but less overhead if it's a "subscription" model fee.
Click to expand...

Seems very feasible to do monthly billing and get rid of the stickers. I believe a significant amount of enforcement is already done by ALPR rather than stickers, so I would be a fan of doing away with them and having a flexible subscription model. This would also allow purchase of visitor passes and such.
 
So. It's come down to Marty and Tito. Who do the members of this forum support?
 
So was I.

dwash59 said:
Extremely disappointed in the Suffolk Registry of Deeds election.

The winner claimed that Norfolk's web site was "more modern" and "mobile friendly" than Suffolk's, but Norfolk relies on Java plugins while Suffolk at least eventually gives you a pdf. And I doubt that Stephen Murphy has any idea what RSS feeds or a RESTful API are. I don't mind if the web site stays the same, but I just hope the future isn't full of claims of Chrome incompatibilities and Java requirements
Click to expand...
 
I don't think that the registary of deeds should be an elected position. It's too obscure for the average voter to know about or care about the candidates. The candidate with a D in front of their name will win no matter what.
 
Tito is a typical extortion specialist who opposes every damned project within 3 miles of his sacred side of town until everyone with their hands out gets paid. The only things this assbag has accomplished during the past 4 years are hundreds less affordable units, the certainty that there will be no abatement of soaring housing costs at the bottom tier, and the postponement of people's lives.

This process + doing the bidding for neighborhood nimby's is the urban equivalent of a hate crime.

Making sure that people remain at the mercy of government is what assholes like Tito do.

That's his job.

There's no choice but Marty Walsh for any marginally rational human being or above.
 
Far fetched, but do you guys think that something like the NSRL could be passed using a ballot question? Maybe add some infastracture improvements to Western Mass (rail to springfield or highway improvements) so that the whole state would benefit. I wonder if something like that would have a chance of passing.
 
tysmith95 said:
Far fetched, but do you guys think that something like the NSRL could be passed using a ballot question? Maybe add some infastracture improvements to Western Mass (rail to springfield or highway improvements) so that the whole state would benefit. I wonder if something like that would have a chance of passing.
Click to expand...

Ballot initiatives without secured funding mechanisms are very problematic.
 
Ballot initiatives without secured funding mechanisms are very problematic.
Click to expand...

Ballot initiatives are also non-binding in Massachusetts. The legislature has no responsibility to act or even implement them as written.

It is a good way to get the conversation moving though and show politicians the people want something to be done. That said, you probably need to lump it in with high-speed rail to Worcester and Springfield to really get that part of the state to care.
 
Boston city council committee assignments and chairs are out. Although I don't know the specifics of their responsibilities, Michelle Wu chairing the Planning, Development, and Transportation committee means we should be getting shit done this term:
https://twitter.com/wutrain/status/956232038197202945

DUU3923WsAEETk_.jpg:large
 
34f34f said:
Michelle Wu chairing the Planning, Development, and Transportation committee means we should be getting shit done this term....
Click to expand...

you got to be kidding. I fear Boston will descend into the Dark Ages under a 'post-development Czar.' Wu clearly holds to the theory of development is a reflection of Developers' hegemony over the City.... Developers enslaving the people.
 
odurandina said:
you got to be kidding. I fear Boston will descend into the Dark Ages under a 'post-development Czar.' Wu clearly holds to the theory of development is a reflection of Developers' hegemony over the City.... Developers enslaving the people.
Click to expand...

What is your basis for this opinion? What councillors do you feel are more pro-development?

Edwards being chair of Housing & Community Development is an actual threat by an anti-development councillor. Lots of projects were trying to be pushed through in District 1 last fall out of fear of her election. Several projects supported by LaMattina at Zoning Board hearings after the election were opposed by her. And at her first city council meeting, she expressed disapproval of the redevelopment of Suffolk Downs as well as BHA's redevelopment proposal for Bunker Hill. She's going to be the most anti-developer voice on the city council.
 
tysmith95 said:
Um have you ever taken a basic economics class. That is exactly how we fix the problem if we don't want Boston to look like San Francisco in a few years.
Click to expand...

It's a bit more nuanced than that.

If the prevailing trend is to convert two- and three-family homes into condos, we're removing a key rung from the property ladder, and in doing so, we're making our neighborhoods a lot less vital and interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top