Election roundup: Most candidates oppose letting BU play with deadly microbes in the South End

James Fox compiles a report card on whether mayoral candidates would want to let Boston University ramp up its South End research facility to handle the most deadly microrganisms known to man. Consalvo said simply "yes," Connolly said yes with an explanation, eight others said variants of "no" and Candidate of Mystery David James Wyatt kept his thoughts to himself, as usual.

Open Media Boston asks: Why not a union mayor?

Bill Walczak called for a holistic approach to crime fighting that focuses not just on nabbing do-badders but on preventing them from becoming criminals in the first place - or returning to a life of crime, including better job training and job opportunities for local school-age students, "comprehensive reentry services and programs for people coming out of prison" and treating domestic violence and violence against women as a public-health issue. He'd also aim for "better police deployment" step up programs for alerting residents of nearby crimes, bring back the Boston Miracle of the 1990s and change how police supervisors are chosen. More.

Mike Ross vows to make public transportation a cornerstone of his administration, would fight for more money for backlogged repair work and to expand service.

The Globe reports mayoral candidates like gay people.

The Herald photographs mayoral candidates at the Dominican parade.



Free tagging: 


What's your point of this

What's your point of this comment? To say we should aim to have the density to Vermont? Because that's the logical conclusion of your snarky comment to advocate against density. As well it's a 19th century reason resolved by the concept of hygiene than avoiding density. All it shows is your bias to attack things that's not your preference than an philosophical idea on urban design. It is a major element why many here won't listen to a word you say even when it may be judged as a good point if said by someone else.

Urban design philosophies come and go

The current design philosophy is nearly a religion few heretics will challenge. You are all sheep and no smarter than your predecessors. If anything, studies show IQ is dropping. High density housing projects were a complete failure, now replaced with Section 8 crime clusters. Reportedly, MGL Chapter 40 only passed by 1 vote, hardly an endorsement.

Nuclear and deadly infectious disease research is better done in places like Nevada than even, the South End. Outbreak response is lacking today compared to what existed long ago for just TB.


Ah yes

Tell us how much smarter you are than the rest of us. That will definitely make your point.

And by the way, this software engineer thinks you are completely full of shit. Sheep or not, at least I'm not a bloviating asshole.

Mark is a tool.

OK.. I think Mark is a tool.

However. he made one good point.

"High density housing projects were a complete failure, now replaced with Section 8 crime clusters. Reportedly, MGL Chapter 40 only passed by 1 vote, hardly an endorsement."

It's true. Take a tour of some of those housing projects on Washington Street in the South End. Several ground floor units were meant as job training centers, day cares, medical care... notice how they are all empty now. (or have been converted to office, storage, or rental units)

When these were built in the 1950s and 1960s, there were high hopes of getting people off assistance, retraining them, getting people OFF assistance and back into the real world. But once again, gov't cutbacks popped these dreams very rapidly (when it deemed too expensive to do so).

But on the flip side (in terms of High Density). Mark is wrong!

Why? Don't need to go any further than Toronto to see how high density can work. Yeah Toronto is a vast land of high rise apartments and high density, but it works and works well. Now I'm not saying Boston should become Toronto or vice versa, but we should try to find a happy medium between the two.

I like Toronto

I like Toronto and the highways linking it to the suburbs. When I went there often on business about 15 years ago, I found the club scene and radio stations much better than in Boston. Despite the weather, people went out more than in comparable US cities - perhaps due to more immigration Canada has done wince WWII. What's really impressive is how voters had too many bike nuts running the city and reducing total transportation with bike lanes and the like, so they voted for Rob Ford to get it under control. He has issues, but voters seemed to prefer his nuts to bike nuts.


Don't go picking and choosing

Don't go picking and choosing points to respond when you are the one instigating your points.

Also claiming Toronto voted for Rob Ford is a bold claim. Most don't vote on a single platform. Unless you show me his electoral victory that a major part of his platform was to campaign against bikes, then it only serving your own biases.

My cursory glance read that his campaign didn't seem to focus on bikes - his biggest platform on transit was making the Toronto Transit Commission be deemed an essential service to keep them from striking. The previous sentence is also an example of trying to use reason and logic that you claim is not used while it is questionable you use it yourself when you make claims that are not self-evident.

First, calling everyone and

First, calling everyone and me sheep is not appreciated. You know I kept engaging with you instead of flaming. You know I kept willingness to discuss points and hear your ideas - even point out an idea that may actually be good if not for your tendency to package in the worst light and antagonizing everyone by calling "you are all sheep" and thus undermine every tenet of every idea.

Second, your citation to IQ and intelligence is not relevant to the point. I ask what do you think is best, I have my thoughts on what I think is best, and others have their thoughts. For example, I don't always agree with Matthew's views, but I can tell he is well-researched and spent a lot of energy formulating to his views. Citing IQ and calling out sheep only insults and not attack anyone's supporting reasons nor elevates yours.

Third, plenty of people agree the empty deserts of Nevada is the preferable idea. Outbreak response has probably declined as there hasn't been any of real scale in decades. None of that have any bearing to your attack on "smart growth" or design philosophy.

Finally, philosophies have never proven to be reach a final conclusion, but something has to be picked. Should we just everything we choose is everything always a fad and thus choose nothing? You have your own philosophy too, like or not, you stand as no exception or real argument to anyone else. Only the strength what we can formulate in logic and cite in data. And you shown plenty of your pattern that indicates your own philosophy - your own interconnected ideas applied to various situations of Boston.

Different strokes for different folks

Instead of trying to transform Boston into Dallas, why not just move to Dallas and be happy with your surroundings? Some people like one style of living, others like another. I don't go lecturing people in Dallas about how they should abandon their sprawl and move into the city core, why should you be pushing your vision on Boston?

I was under the impression

it was already online. They were approved in, possibly 2006.
The building is designed to meet the requirements of Level 4. This is infectious disease, like ebola, for which there is no vaccine. The safeguards are good because plan B is game over, no reset button.