Aw: Downtown boy doesn't like West Roxbury
By adamg - Sun, 02/17/2008 - 3:48pm.
John Keith thinks Boston is too big and so wonders if it's time to de-annex the city south of the Fenway:
And, the interests and concerns of those in neighborhoods such as West Roxbury, Roslindale, and Hyde Park (hi, Mayor!) are not shared by those in Central Boston.
He does not specify what those interests and concerns are, however. I wonder where his Worcester-sized (Newton-sized?) Boston would get all the police officers and firefighters it would need?
- Add new comment |
| 
| 
Why not just secede...
...from Massachusetts and the US for that matter? Maybe John can just declare his own property a principality and be done with it.
Petoria
I've seen the documentary when someone tried this on a show called "Family Guy". It doesn't end well for the independent nation.
Or in real life, Sealand
Principality of Sealand.
Sealand coup d'etat, fire, attempt to sell off the entire nation.
The Purple Line
Adam, just a point of clarification: I never said I don't like West Roxbury.
In fact, I love West Roxbury.
I even took the commuter rail there, once.
and, Mike Flaherty can be Mayor of Southie ...
Oh, and Adam, as you, yourself, wrote, regarding the race for Mayor of Boston, 2009:
Rob Consalvo, whom I doubt anybody outside of Hyde Park and Roslindale has ever heard of ...
Exactly.
No one from downtown could
No one from downtown could ever get enough votes to be mayor since there are too few voters there. It goes both ways. Additionally, how many people in West Roxbury know who Mike Ross is?
Did I write that?
Oh, let me correct myself:
Mike Ross, whom I doubt anybody outside of Back Bay has ever heard of unless you remember his problems with parking tickets. ...
In any case, I was talking about Consalvo possibly running for state senate, not mayor.
But, so you think West Roxbury isn't Bostonish enough because commuter rail goes there? What else? What is so foreign about West Roxbury, Roslindale and Hyde Park you would want to cut them off? And where would you draw the line? Mattapan? Roxbury? Dorchester? Charlestown?
I think it's pretty easy to draw the line, really...
I can see pros and cons both ways, but to go along with John Keith's idea of getting rid of the communities that are considerably less urban, I'd say that it seems pretty clear that West Roxbury, Roslindale, and Hyde Park would go. The lines would possibly need to be redrawn somewhat. Parts of Southie might also need to go, and possibly parts of Brighton and Charlestown. These neighborhoods just have a large percentage of people with really different priorities and lifestyles from the more central neighborhoods. These are neighborhoods where most everyone has a car, uses it almost daily, is more than 1/2 a mile from a major transit line, shops at places with parking lots that they drive to, etc. Pretty different from the other neighborhoods where, even if the particular street is all residential, everyone can walk to stores/restaurants/transit, most people tend to walk and take public transportation on a regular basis, and it's not necessary to have a car. I think this aspect of daily life just makes a lot of things really different than living more centrally. I mean, from this point of view, how is daily life in Hyde Park any different from Milton or Dedham, and how is daily life in West Roxbury or Oak Square any different from Newton or Brookline? (And yes, to piggyback on what another commenter mentioned, there are parts of Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline and Newton that are more urban than parts of Boston. We could invade parts of those cities/town too!)
Which is all fairly meaningless
Much of what you say can also be said about large sections of Dorchester. So? Whether a neighborhood is correctly viewed as part of Boston has little to do with the T's priorities or the availability of parking. It is the history and overall focus. We are talking about places that have been part of Boston for well over 100 years (Hyde Park excepted). A lot of history builds up in that time of people attending Boston schools, voting in Boston elections, etc. Can anyone imagine Boston politics without Doyle's? Yet it wouldn't make the cut if your criteria is applied. Do the people living in these communities consider themselves to be suburbanites? No, we don't. We share the same library and school system, ride the same subway to work, pay the same taxes.
btw, I call Mike Ross the "Dark Knight"
google.com/search?q=streetcar+suburbs... with-thumbnail
The Streetcar Suburbs: The Process of Growth in Boston, 1870 - 1900
"In the last third of the nineteenth century the American city grew from a crowded merchant town, in which neatly everybody walked to work, to the modern divided metropolis. The street railway created this division of the metropolis into an inner city of commerce and slums and an outer city of commuters' suburbs. This book tells who built the new city, and why, and how."
From an Amazon reviewer:
"All ye people of the Parkways! Read all about the history of suburban Boston. It's all good! This is a scholarly study of the history of Roxbury, Dorchester, and West Roxbury (which includes Jamaica Plain, Roslindale, Mattapan, and Hyde Park.) Have you ever wondered why Washington Street in Roslindale looks the way it does? Why one street has mansions and the next has turn of the century boarders? And why does the bus run down one street and not another? Find out in Streetcar Suburbs: The Process of Growth in Boston."
This is a great book, very much worth a read by anyone interested in Boston and its history.
The commuter rail also has a
The commuter rail also has a stop in the South End (Back Bay Station). GASP!
The commuter rail also has a
The commuter rail also has a stop in the South End (Back Bay Station). GASP!
de-annex and annex
Just to upset even more people -- the real central city crosses the Charles to include Cambridge and Somerville (the latter a part of Charlestown until ~1870). I say drop Readville, Hyde Park, etc., add the Left Bank, and move City Hall to North Pointe or whatever it's called.
Charlestown and Somerville
Somerville (and a small part of what is now Arlington) separated from Charlestown in 1842.
Boston annexed the remainder of Charlestown in 1874.
This is from a real estate
This is from a real estate agent? Those people have to look up to see the belly of a used car salesman.
Boston Is Wee Little Small
Compared to, say, the city limits of just about every other major city in the country!
1990 US Census 100 top Cities by Population and Area
In other words, Boston is way hella shrimpy in land area for it's population compared to just about every major city in the US save San Francisco and Philadelphia - and Philly has three times the population.
Yep, but you wouldn't know it...
I find it funny how some people here are completely dumbfounded when someone goes from one neighborhood of Boston to another neighborhood a mile or two away to go shopping or get dinner or something. And if you go to a meeting or friend's house whatever in, say, Providence or Worcester, people are amazed that you didn't take provisions with you, stay overnight, etc. In many cities in the country, there's suburban sprawl going out 40 or 50 miles, and it's not uncommon at all in theflatstates to travel 75 or 100 miles each way to work or school. Not that it's great for the planet or the soul to spend this much time in the car or anything, but hardly anything to bust a gasket over. The distancelaziness is totally contagious though, because the longer I live here, it starts to seem like a huge ordeal to leave the neighborhood, and I'll have times where I realize I haven't been to Cambridge or Somerville in over a month.
Dependent States
Sounds like all the times Quebec has threatened to seceed from Canada - despite (at the time) its heavy economic dependence on money from the oil provinces.
To cut Boston down to a small central area would be extreme, to say the least. Who would pay for the park systems, maintenance of park lands in the outer areas? What about losing tax money from the more affluent areas, while those same outlying areas would lose the economies of scale they get from Boston systems?
On the plus side: Such a move would end all braying about Boston being in any way a world class city.
Boston's too big?
At 48 square miles? Gee, I guess New York City is really too big, at 308 square miles. Maybe Manhattan ought to cast off all those boroughs...
7.2 miles to the north is Everett, and 7.2 miles to the south is Milton? I'm surprised this benighted flack didn't note what's 7.2 miles to the east. It's ocean, maaan! Ocean!
Boston was laid out on an east-west axis for geographical reasons. Boston used to be a peninsula whose only access went through what is now JP. So it's pretty natural that today Boston still stretches farther east-west than it does north-south.
Or maybe only buildings located on the original Shawmut Peninsula should be considered truly in Boston. Whoops. That leaves out the Back Bay. They're sitting on dirt from Needham.
Send them all north!
Why can't we just bulldoze the poor neighborhoods like Rozzie, Mattapan, Hyde Park and Dorcestor and rebuild them? We can drive out the gangs that way, and rebuild it - the very people who were displaced by the destruction can work on rebuilding it; those that do not take part will be sent elsewhere (like Lawerence? Or southern new hampshire?) so all the criminals, drug addicts and crazy homeless will be gone.
People really don't understand that you'll never solve the crime problems in those areas, so best to just level it and start over. I'm sure all the bleeding hearts and fans of the crappy corner stores and 'authentic' ethnic cuisine will be upset, but those people can just move to Slumerville and get the same thing - plus they're extending the green line there in a few years so you'll have public transit.
While we're at it, lets annex Cambridge and Brookline as well - well just north brookline.
It doesn't have to do with size, it is, as the original poster was hinting at, chopping off the poor neighborhoods that are a blight on resources due to high crime rates, assistence for the poor and various other social programs.
Just one man's opinion.
Correction
One anonomyous man's opinion.
Correction
One acephalous man's opinion.
Strong words from someone
Strong words from someone who has an indentity but no contributation. Ooh we can all be like Ron Neuman and be banned from Slumerville blogs, woot!
Anon == too lazy to create an account.
You may call me...onemansopinion
Contributation?
I gots no contributation? Yo momma gots no contributation.
Hrm, so how long have you
Hrm, so how long have you sitting infront of the computer, hitting refresh while you wanted for me to respond?
Mm...burn.
Lets get off of mothers.
Way ahead of you
I got off mine when I was two. You can get off yours now.
I think you're the one with
I think you're the one with the indentity.
In your head.
Wow, a sarcastic fat woman, you must be tops with the gents.
A shock that the topic has gone into third grade level retorts. Go back to blogging about the #39 bus or make me a damn sandwich.
One
One peanut-butter-and-cyanide coming up! ;)
Pfft. Gents are overrated.
Oh, and before I forget, I
Oh, and before I forget, I would like to say your handle should win "Best Use of 'Anonymous' in a Handle".
On the subject of taxes, etc.
Based on my review of several years of the city's budget, it appears that over 60% of the city's revenue comes from property taxes collected on residential real estate solely within the "Central Boston" region (Central Boston is their term, not mine).
Meaning, the city as a whole couldn't survive without the incomes of those in the downtown neighborhoods.
The opposite, however, is not true.
Citation?
These budget docs online somewherre?
are you sure that's residential real estate?
I would expect commercial real estate to pay much more tax than residential within the center city.
Libary's closed today
I'll have to go to the library tomorrow to check. I pulled all the data several years ago from a series of pamphlets put out by the Boston Foundation.
Ron, you would think so, but it's not true. Percentage-wise, commercial real estate's contribution to the budget is low.
Oh, I'll have to check, but I think my claim is based on assessed real estate values, not actual tax income. Perhaps with exemptions, etc., the actual contribution is less.
You do realize ...
That the BRA's definition of "central Boston" excludes Beacon Hill and Back Bay, don't you?
So you want a city that consists of the North End, the West End, the Financial District and Chinatown.
No, I don't want that
Thanks, I didn't realize that.
Three maps.
Boston, as is:
http://bostonreb.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/city.jpg
Boston, without Boston Proper:
http://bostonreb.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/secede.jpg
Dorchester: new town
South Boston: new town
Hyde Park / Roslindale / West Roxbury / JP: new town
Allston / Brighton: new town
East Boston: new town
Boston Proper ("New Boston") without exburbs:
http://bostonreb.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/newboston.jpg
Includes Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Charlestown, North End, Waterfront, Chinatown, South End, The Fenway, Roxbury
Oh,and Adam, thank you for calling me a "boy", but I'm 43 years old.
Ron: my calculations of actual revenue from commercial real estate may be off - way off. Again, I was looking at assessed values; since the rate on commercial is 3x that of residential, I have no idea what the actual numbers are. I'll check at the library. During past searches, online, I was never able to find city budget data by neighborhoods. Funny, that.
43 year old boy?
If you're 43 years old, and still haven't grown up, I think it's fair enough to call you a boy.
Arbitrarily cutting off parts of Boston is a really stupid idea that could only come from a lack of understanding of history and how a city works.
Maybe you should build yourself a tree fort instead.
And your comments add to this conversation, how?
Thanks, Gareth. If you have that strong an emotional response, I think you're taking this way too seriously.
I think I do have a good "understanding of history" and "how a city works". Even better, how a city "doesn't" work.
Anyway, I don't think most people are interested in this conversation, but for those that are, here's a spreadsheet I wrote up a couple years ago, breaking down city revenue & expenses, by neighborhood.
Yes, it would be great to give attribution, but apparently I didn't think to do so. It's all out of a pamphlet that The Boston Foundation put out, I think in 2000, 2002, and 2004, but not since. There are copies on the second floor of the main public library, in Copley Square.
I took the data from there, directly, but cannot vouch for the accuracy. For example, I have written down "public school enrollment" of 79,456, but that can't be right, since the Boston school committee says it's around 59,000.
It may include METCO students, but I can't imagine there are 20,000 in that program.
http://bostonreb.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/secede3.xls
- warning, MS EXCEL document
(Adam, I hope you aren't taking this too seriously, either!)
I don't
take any of this seriously at all.
Nice tree fort
Well, if you understand history, you'll understand that the reason there are more people living with public assistance in neighborhoods like Dorchester is because the City of Boston long ago decided that Dot, and JP, and other peripheral neighborhoods, were the best place to send its low-income and minority folks, so they'd be away from downtown Boston. That has gone on for decades now. Uphams Corner used to be a prosperous Jewish neighborhood, but the City of Boston decided it could be put to better use as a dumping ground for people who shouldn't be permitted to buy in other neighborhoods. Roslindale was one of the city's most prosperous neighborhoods as late as 1960, and would probably be more prosperous today if it hadn't been part of Boston then.
So now the beneficiaries of block-busting and ghettoization declare that their central neighborhoods are finally sufficiently white and rich that the peripheral neighborhoods should be kicked out of the city.
Hey, sounds great!
But first take your ghettoes back.
Let's make a deal: New Boston can become a reality as soon every single housing project in Dorchester, JP, Hyde Park, Southie, and Roslindale is moved to the Back Bay.
When did this become a conversation about public housing?
?
Why are you talking about public housing?
I'm not sure what your point is. Have you been drinking?
Regarding the number of public housing units in the city, if you do some research, you will see that much of the city's low-income / subsidized housing is actually within the confines of the new boundaries I've proposed.
http://www.bostonhousing.org/housing_dev.html
You're going to have to do better than that if you plan on playing with the big boys.
So you admit it
You are a boy. Said it yourself.
That map compares apples to oranges. What's the South End's Bromley Heath? Does Rutland with its 13 apartments really change the neighborhood? Bromley-Heath alone has 1,500 apartments, more than in the entirety of your central neighborhood projects.
The larger point here is that, over decades, central Boston has exported its undesirable industries, facilities, and residents to the peripheral neighborhoods. There's a give and take between the periphery and the center that has gone on for more than a century. Maybe at this point it seems natural to you that all the industry, tenements, and poor should be elsewhere, but this didn't happen by accident. The City of Boston has long used the peripheral neighborhoods into safety valves - Jamaica Plain got city water from the Quabbin, and in return it got half its neighborhood torn down for Bromley-Heath and the quondam highway.
All those people who got kicked out so you could sell condos to yuppies in the newly gentrified South End went somewhere - to the peripheral neighborhoods, as they've done for ages. And now that you've ridded yourself of them, you want to pull up the drawbridge. Well, that's a really stupid idea, and it insults the neighborhoods where the people who put out your fires, keep peace on your streets, and teach your neighbor's kids live.
And, yeah, Johnny, you're going to have to do better than that if you ever want to play with the big boys.
Doesn't compute
Your argument doesn't make any sense! There are only a couple public housing projects in the outer boroughs - three in Roslindale, three in Hyde Park, etc.
There are several large public housing projects in the South End, and several "privately" run but heavily subsidized. My suggestion to break up the city wasn't on any class or income lines, but on simple geographic layout and city budget income and distribution levels.
Why are you so angry about everything?
Um
Angry?
I'm not the one going through conversations two and a half months old so I can make some specious rebuttal.
Check the numbers. I'm not doing your homework for you today because it's two months late.
I was thinking of ...
The opposite of "Uptown Girl," not trying to make any cracks about your wet-behind-the-earedness.