Maybe we need a state commission on state commissions
The Globe reports that some state lawmakers want to set up a commission to designate "1,000 great places" in the Commonwealth:
"We thought it would be useful for these attractions to have the seal of approval to be designated as a great place in Massachusetts," said Representative Eric Turkington, a Falmouth Democrat and chief sponsor of the legislation. "It's sort of the equivalent of a UNESCO World Heritage site, in a much more modest way."
Third Decade is not amused, reminds us, if not Rep. Turkington, that we already have a Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism:
... C'mon, state officials. Stop looking for ways to keep yourself busy when there's real work to be done regarding the state budget and the current economic downturn. If you want a list, leave it to MOTT and ask residents to make their suggestions. ...
If they could somehow do
If they could somehow do this without spending any money (or much money) I wouldnt mind at all. Maybe it should be done through the tourism office or something?
I know what the motivation is behind this though, we all do. There are tough economic times ahead and all sorts of local programs will be cut in the next year. The reps will be hit hardest by this as they will have to explain to their voters why they couldnt save those funds. Enter this project, the rep would be able to influence what gets added to the list, and will make sure his/her local community is represented. With 351 cities and towns simple math would say that every city gets 2 which would equal 702 places, then the other 300 would be dumped into the larger cities and towns like Cambridge, Boston, Quincy etc that happen to have more local sites (and more reps that have to protect themselves.) Granted some would get more and others less, but I would be willing to bet every little town in the state gets at least one.
I think it would get pretty boring in some of the towns out west that have like 1,000 residents. I have a feeling their sites would all look very similar to each other. The other problem is once we attach this designation on a site what does that mean for the future, doesnt this give that site a state seal of approval? At some point it may need to be moved, or may fall under the threat of natural disasters, or maybe its in the way of a highway. You know local residents will use this designation as stick for getting what they want.
omg
I can only imagine the petty politicking that would occur to get listed on the 1,000. Cities vs. towns, western vs. eastern, diversity issues, what a potential shitstorm in a teapot!
And what happens when there's a new landmark worthy of the list? Does no. 1000 get kicked off? Or does it become 1001?
Let's see, the state budget is in crisis mode, two prominent Senators have resigned due to personal conduct & ethical concerns, and we're talking about setting up a state commission to do something a historical society should be doing???
Can we have two lists?
Something like "1,000 greatest places to send tourists" and "an undisclosed number of great places that we aren't going to mess up" lists?