Dorchester Infill and Small Developments

If Massachusetts wants to fix the place or better yet if Boston does -- let them do it --don't make poor people in Mississippi pay for a development in relatively well-off Dorchester
Click to expand...
The poor people who receive 2$ of Federal funding for every 1$ payed in?
They aren't paying for it, New York and yes, Massachusetts are.
 
whighlander said:
Savin -- the problem with this is that there were many more $ extracted from tax payers in Massachusetts than the $20.5 M "Granted by HUD" ---

Hubris and Urban Destruction [aka HUD] has not contributed a net anything in its decades of existence

If Massachusetts wants to fix the place or better yet if Boston does -- let them do it --don't make poor people in Mississippi pay for a development in relatively well-off Dorchester
Click to expand...

Seriously? Mississippi is one the biggest consumers of federal taxes. It probably hasn't exported a tax dollar since Reconstruction, if ever. Granted, this article is from Mother Jones so there is probably already steam coming out of your ears, but take a gander at these maps:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps

If you don't like that source, the Mises Institute came to the exact same conclusion:

http://mises.org/daily/1677

What could we possibly have to gain from turing away the few cents on the dollar we get to keep?
 
I truly can not understand politicizing what can only be a net positive for Boston. Quincy Street is a pretty tough area economically speaking. How can the creation of what is essentially a business incubator be bad? It's going to offer job opportunities in an area where very few exist.
 
I think his argument is that while this may seem like a "net positive" for Boston, it's not necessarily a good investment decision from the point of view of the country. What is good for one place is not always good for the larger administrative unit it exists in - just ask the posters in the "County Re-alignment" thread on ArchBoston that argues that decisionmaking should move toward the county level from the city level.

Westie's argument, which I see the logic of, is that federal money (i.e., from taxpayers around the country) is going toward a project to economically "revitalize" a Boston neighborhood. This despite the fact that the people in that neighborhood can easily access one of the nation's most dynamic economies if they travel a mile or two. Meanwhile, there are lots of much worse-off areas of the country in greater need of revitalization and with no access to a dynamic knowledge economy. If you believe the "Choice Neighborhoods" are effective / a good thing, and if you recognize they're a limited resource (5 of them), then possibly a provincial net positive for Boston isn't a great decision nationally.
 
itchy said:
I think his argument is that while this may seem like a "net positive" for Boston, it's not necessarily a good investment decision from the point of view of the country. What is good for one place is not always good for the larger administrative unit it exists in - just ask the posters in the "County Re-alignment" thread on ArchBoston that argues that decisionmaking should move toward the county level from the city level.

Westie's argument, which I see the logic of, is that federal money (i.e., from taxpayers around the country) is going toward a project to economically "revitalize" a Boston neighborhood. This despite the fact that the people in that neighborhood can easily access one of the nation's most dynamic economies if they travel a mile or two. Meanwhile, there are lots of much worse-off areas of the country in greater need of revitalization and with no access to a dynamic knowledge economy. If you believe the "Choice Neighborhoods" are effective / a good thing, and if you recognize they're a limited resource (5 of them), then possibly a provincial net positive for Boston isn't a great decision nationally.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but no. The posters here fully understood what he was saying.

Here is word for word what Whighlander wrote:

"If Massachusetts wants to fix the place or better yet if Boston does -- let them do it --don't make poor people in Mississippi pay for a development in relatively well-off Dorchester"

As other posters have well pointed out, the data (which is widely known) exposes Whighlander's post as completely absurd. To US fiscal standing, Mississippi is more of a a "consumer" state. Massachusetts is a "producer" state.

Given his propensity towards long and irrelevant posts attempting to impress all with his 'encyclopedic knowledge', it's odd how Whighlander can be so ignorant of something so widely known for so long.
 
Screw Mississippi. All that Navy shipyard work that used to be in Boston and Quincy got directed to Pascagoula.
 
shmessy said:
Sorry, but no. The posters here fully understood what he was saying.

Here is word for word what Whighlander wrote:

"If Massachusetts wants to fix the place or better yet if Boston does -- let them do it --don't make poor people in Mississippi pay for a development in relatively well-off Dorchester"

As other posters have well pointed out, the data (which is widely known) exposes Whighlander's post as completely absurd. To US fiscal standing, Mississippi is more of a a "consumer" state. Massachusetts is a "producer" state.

Given his propensity towards long and irrelevant posts attempting to impress all with his 'encyclopedic knowledge', it's odd how Whighlander can be so ignorant of something so widely known for so long.
Click to expand...

Schmess -- I don't think that having read what I wrote you understood any of it -- so I'll give you some additional information to consider:

1) the Feds take taxes from all over the country and then redistribute the taxes [supplemented by borrowing] for the transfer payments, current discretionary operational expenses, and long-term "investments"

2) Some of these such as Defense and the Federal Courts are mandated by the U.S> Constitution, others such as grants for pilot programs to improve the local housing or some study of habits of pigeons, etc is discretionary and harder to justify when we are borrowing almost $02.5 of every $ we spend

3) Much of the $ the Federal Gov't spends in Mississippi goes for DOD-related expenses e.g. [Ingalls Shipbuilding is a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries in Pascagoula, MS] -- that's a function of the Federal Gov't that is required by the U.S. Constitution

4) beyond where the $ go there is where the $ come from and how hard people have to work to generate the $ that the Federal gov't takes in taxes

Massachusetts and the Greater Boston Area is one of the richest regions in the entire US

Mississippi is at the other end of the scale ranking near the bottom of the list for nearly all measures of their economic status, etc.

5) On top of that distinction in income -- Massachusetts has chosen to be spend and to be taxed at the local and state level substantially more intensively than the comparable in Mississippi

So if any part of the country needs help from the Federal Taxpayer its Mississippi

Conversely if there is any part of the country that should be able to pay its own way -- it would be Massachusetts

That was my point -- no more and no less than we shouldn't "rob Peter to pay Paul" -- or in other words much of the Federal Tax and Spend is really the world's largest Ponzi Scheme
 
So...what should we be building in Mississippi here in the Dorchester Developments thread?

46f1c5fa_off-topic.jpg
 
^WHY ARE YOU FURTHER DE-RAILING THIS THREAD? I DEMAND THAT YOU STOP AND GET BACK TO DISCUSSING DEVELOPMENTS IN DORCHESTER!!!
 
whighlander said:
Toby -- actually a fair amount of it went to Bath Iron Works in Maine
Click to expand...

Off thread, I know, but remember all those Mainers who want to break off from Cumberland and York counties and form the State of Acadia, would quickly find themselves with the economy of Mississippi, with snow. BIW keeps a lot of people from Brunswick north, off of the welfare rolls. Camden, Lincolnville, Rockport, Bar Harbor, excepted.

Now - Back to the Thread. The Greater Love Tabernacle off of Talbot Avenue is in financial trouble, so don't expect the old Franklin Field lumber to be built upon anytime soon.
 
whighlander said:
So if any part of the country needs help from the Federal Taxpayer its Mississippi

Conversely if there is any part of the country that should be able to pay its own way -- it would be Massachusetts

That was my point -- no more and no less than we shouldn't "rob Peter to pay Paul" -- or in other words much of the Federal Tax and Spend is really the world's largest Ponzi Scheme
Click to expand...

Considering the Federal tax revenue paid by Massachusetts taxpayers never belonged to Mississippi in the first place, using the portion paid by Massachusetts taxpayers would mean that we are not making the poor people of Mississippi pay for our improvement. And who knows if we're using their money. Why, we may be using a portion from RI who benefits from our rail system and economical/cultural influences.
 
KentXie said:
Considering the Federal tax revenue paid by Massachusetts taxpayers never belonged to Mississippi in the first place, using the portion paid by Massachusetts taxpayers would mean that we are not making the poor people of Mississippi pay for our improvement. And who knows if we're using their money. Why, we may be using a portion from RI who benefits from our rail system and economical/cultural influences.
Click to expand...

Kent -- the ethical way to do it is to cut the Federal take drastically to just enough to pay for the Constitutionally mandated + some discretionary things not prohibited by the constitution

I'd go for a Constitutional Amendment requiring a 2 year Operating and 5 year Capital Expenditure Budgets passed within the first 6 months of the seating of the Newly Elected Congress

Each Budget would be with be funded with 10 Major Appropriation Bills

Each Appropriation bill composed of not less than 10 nor more than 100 line items -- and each published 1 month before the Congress has to vote on them to allow public input

Any other projects should be paid for by appropriations made by local, state and yes voluntary state-to-state pacts such as the funding systems for the DownEaster, NY-NJ Port Authority, T-CR to RI, etc.

Leave poor Mississippi to its own choices about spending and taxing

Now back to the Thread -- Boston and its Metro have a vested interest in a Dorchester which is economically flourishing -- that should be enough to prime the pump -- the rest is up to the development community -- freed of unhelpful regulation and restrictions
 
Will John Henry Save the Globe?

He’s also decided that it’s time for the Globe to make a move. The prospective sale of the paper’s 16-acre Morrissey Boulevard property, he says, “will provide us with the ability to move into a smaller, more efficient and modern facility in the heart of the city. We believe that there is enough excess value there to fund very important investments in our long-term future, if the community supports development of the property.”
Click to expand...

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2014/02/18/john-henry-boston-globe/
 
Herb Chambers to break ground on Morrissey Boulevard dealership in the spring

Despite construction setbacks, Herb Chambers is still committed to selling pre-owned BMWs from the Morrissey Boulevard lot that once housed the Channel 56 studios.

The project, which was approved by the Boston Redevelopment Authority in early 2013, is expected to break ground in the spring of 2014, according to Losordo.

Losordo said the project at 75 Morrissey Blvd. was delayed because developers missed the 2013 construction season.
Click to expand...

Minor work is expected to be made to the property to prepare it for its new use. The grounds will be revamped, the existing building renovated, and LED lights and signage installed. The antennas on top of the building are also expected to be removed.

The work is estimated to take six to eight months.
Click to expand...

This is such a terrible use for this parcel especially in light of the fact that the Globe property is opening up soon right next door. It's basically waterfront, right near a university, has easy access to the highway, and is within walking distance to the Red line. There should be housing built here not a crappy warehouse for used BMWs.

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news...o_break_ground_on_morrissey_boulevard_de.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top