New "Anti-Shadow" Laws Proposed for Boston

BostonYoureMyHome said:
Sorry Statler, but at certain times of day, I cast a shadow over a portion of that park just standing in it as well.
Click to expand...

You are mobile. You can move/be moved if you are disrupting someone's enjoyment of this local treasure. The only solution to the Custom House problem is a wreaking ball.
Hopefully we can have this solved by next spring.
 
i emailed a few unions. First responce i got back was from the carpenters union saying:

"Our Political Director has indicated that we are strongly opposed to 853."
 
I'm going full-bore Jonathan Swift on this. I think it is a viable angle of attack.
 
I don't think Jonathan Swift will work. Irony is clearly lost on these people. Sarcasm is lost on people who don't take social cues, as it requires placing yourself in the other persons' shoes to recognize the mismatch between words and intent. These people can't see beyond walking their poodles on the Comm Ave mall. The only other perspective they understand is that of the sun, whose rays travel tirelessly through outer space for 8 minutes before being brutally intercepted from their goal and trajectory of God's green Greenway by a future Congress Street Garage tower.

In any case, they'd readily agree about the customs house.
 
"They" might (hell, there were probably people who read Modest Proposal and thought, "Good idea!") , but the idea is get everyone else to first be horrified at the idea of ridding the city of some of most iconic structures and then realizing that so many of them would never have been built under the proposed law.
 
I don't think "Keep Boston a City" or "Keep Boston a Growth City" are the angles you want here. Boston isn't in danger of losing city status even if nothing is ever built in it again. And "growth" isn't necessarily something these people look upon positively. What about "prosperity"? It's definitely a word that resonates during a recession.

The "banned in Boston" tag is always effective against these latter day Puritans as well. Signs/posters that read something like "Prosperity: Banned in Boston" might work.

A couple other ideas:
- "Is Boston scared of its own shadow?"
- Groundhog Day theme: "Did the Punxatawny Puritans see their shadow and declare eighty more years of economic winter?"
- "If Boston doesn't stop being scared of its own shadow, it will find itself in the shadows of other cities"
 
Loving the "Prosperity: Banned in Boston"

Nice.
 
I like "Keep Boston Urban".

Unfortunately, "urban" has a different meaning outside of places like this forum.

Alternately you could go negative: "Stop the Suburbanization of Boston"
 
Anything worthwhile in here?

My other personality said:
Matt Conti said:
"Anyone who has attended the public meetings for the Chiofaro project at Harbor Garage or the Raymond project at Gov't Center Garage knows that the City review process is inadequate."
Click to expand...

I've attended about a dozen meetings on the projects you've referenced. Please help me understand, specifically, what is deficient about the process. I believe there's ample evidence to suggest that the Mayor plays favorites with developers, but that isn't necessarily relevant to the discussion of this absurd piece of legislation. Boston is a vital urban center; putting further constraints on dense development can only serve to hurt the city, and region.

Please consider:
> Every square foot of the Raymond and Chiofaro projects will pay taxes -- these taxes will fund police officers, firefighters, EMS workers, school teachers, and other critical city service providers;
> Both projects are sited at transit nodes, a key to smart growth;
> Both projects will remove unattractive parking structures and revitalize their environs with human activity -- employment, shopping, entertainment, tourism, etc.

Boston's "cultural fear" of Manhattanization needs to be met with facts, logic, and well-reasoned solutions. Opponents of real height (i.e. >600') at these proposed sites should pay a visit to Bryant Park in Midtown Manhattan -- it's a stunning urban park that makes the Greenway look like an ill-conceived highway median.

And let's use our heads -- shadows don't kill people. In the Summer they're a pleasant escape from the heat; in the winter they are simply a fact of life in a northern climate regardless of whether a building is 6 or 60 stories.
Click to expand...
 
Let me draw on my years in PR...

You need to fight them with their own argument.

This bill is heralded by "green" types. So.. the argument is that this bill is "anti-green"

This bill is pro-sprawl. This bill is pro-automobile and parking lots. This bill is pro-strip malls and big box stores. This bill is pro-deforestation. It's pro-wetlands destruction.

Why? Because this bill is anti-public transportation. It is anti-sustainable. It is against putting things where people can get to them easily, and without a car. It is anti-green.

This "green" bill is actually "anti-green"

That is the argument that will win. Not because it necessary makes sense, but because you are forcing people to argue against themselves.

My entire line attack for this bill is not "anti-business" because these people are already anti-business. My line of attack is "anti-green" because that is something these people actually care about.

You don't win by beating your head directly up against these people, you win by infiltrating their argument and tearing it down from within.
 
BTW, my headline for any argument against this bill would be

"Stop the Anti-Green Building Bill"

In the 21st Century, we have to build green and sustainable. Unfortuantley, the legislature is considering a bill that would cripple our ability to build for the green future.

Instead, this bill will force most large-scale new development outside of the heart of Boston - into the city's residential neighborhoods and into the suburbs. Instead of putting development where public transportation is in place, the bill will push it away from the T system. This means more automobiles, more parking lots and a lot less greenery for us to enjoy.

Let's keep major development where it belongs in a 21st Century Green City - in the city.

***

etc, etc. something along these lines is the PR angle that I really believe has some legs. Especially since this is not a Boston City Council resolution but a State House issue.
 
^ They could respond by saying "build low-rise infill in already transit-served neighborhoods." I've heard that argument recently.
 
Oh, they can say a lot of things. Nothing will end the argument. But "this bill is anti-business" I don't believe helps. These people are vehemently anti-business, most of them are trust-funders, stay-at-home-moms, over-educated and/or under-employed. So I'd go "anti-green" on them instead of "anti-business"
 
^^ Wouldn't your PR training also teach you KISS?

While most people here might understand why this law is anti-green, I would imagine you would have to do a lot of Smart-Growth/Urban Planning 101 to get most people to make the connection.

To them, parks are "green", lawns are "green", sunlight is "green".

To ask them to draw out the unintended consequences on their own is asking waaay too much.
 
And don't forget, the Bill will surely put the shadow of new taxes on our economy.
 
For those who don't know KISS is "Keep it simple stupid"

I think "this bill is anti-green" is fairly simple. If you don't build near the T lines, then people drive. Therefore we need to build near the T lines.

My over-riding point was "this bill is anti-business" is actually seen as an advantage to these people, not an argument. "This bill is anti-green" could resonate.
 
I'll give an example by way of an argument I continue to have with a suburban friend.

Say you have a 10 acre greenfield. There is demand for 10 units of housing in the area of the greenfield.

My argument is that it far more environmentally friendly to build ten units on one acre and leave the other 9 unspoiled.

His argument is to build 10 discrete units, one on each acre, so that the space between them (in his mind "green", thanks to lawns, shrubs, etc) will remain forever 'open', whereas in my model the remaining 9 acres will eventually be developed by greedy developers.
 
Are these people seriously promoting this bill on environmentalist grounds? If I believed that, I'd be in total agreement with pelhamhall. But I just see stupid, provincial people who can't get past the idea that their precious lawns may not always have sun dappling them. I mean, there is literally no argument on their side that the bill is "green," other than the criminally idiotic idea that shade on parks is not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top