..but I thought it was a good. Walsh agreed to a two hour debate and by showing up late and contacting Tito two hours before the event to say he'd be leaving 1/2 hour early, we got 1 hour not 2 hours.
Walsh arrived 26 minutes late and stopped 30 minutes early so instead of a two hour debate 6-8 p.m. it was a one hour debate 6:30-7:30 p.m.
Since it's a campaign event and not a city event, no one is legally required to provide access. It's total bullshit that the ADA doesn't mandate it, and that candidates don't take any initiative to be acccessible.
How easy is it for enthusiasts to learn stenographer or shorthand on their own? Generations ago Journalists knew and used shorthand.
In the future many folks knowing stenography or shorthand will attend meetings and take down the words for posting later online https://twitter.com/plover
Youtube already does machine speech recognition of videos you upload. Of course it's not perfect, and they practically bury the feature, but every year it gets better.
My aunt went to secretarial school after high school and worked in offices her whole life. She didn't have a computer at home but when she retired about a dozen years ago she finally got a laptop since she wouldn't have access at work any longer. She was having a few issues with getting online at her home so i went by to get her up and running again and give her some troubleshooting tips. She grabbed a notebook and documented my advice in shorthand which I got a kick out of.
Paradox of diversity campaign is that it will inevitably result in more poor black people in an area of skyrocketing wealth. Rich Democrats are very conservative on tax issues but ok with some conscience-easing payouts/programs.
Tito runs from the left, but really there's not much of an voter base for that. Poor black people get a lot of attention. As soon as black people get a professional income they are moving out of here.
Very little for a professional-level family (90-150K) in our city politics.
Tito hoping for a blast from voters who can't use what he's selling. Why would you want your income raised, the first thing you're going to have to do is move 90 minutes away from your job. Stay in Villa Victoria and work under the table, people next door are paying $1m for that location. Why change?
For the record, I know numerous black people who live in the 'inner city' who make six figure salaries, it's not as uncommon as you think. And given that home values haven't totally ballooned in those areas (for the most part) a lot of them have bought homes, and are gaining equity. And those homes will only increase in value; 2008-9 notwithstanding. (The problem is creating generational wealth but that's a topic for another day).
And also, poor is poor. Doesn't matter if you're black or white, because there are poor whites in Dorchester too.
I was responding to the roundup of the discussion about bringing the strong economy to Dorchester mattapan and Roxbury.
There's going to be a donut hole where moving off benefits will not be enough to move into home ownership, and moving to the burbs will be better for your housing and school choice.
Did Walsh have any response to Tito's proposal to dismantle the BPDA (formerly BRA)? Such as justification for why he broke his own previous campaign promise to dismantle same?
In the end , if a few million is what drives this decision. You are in trouble.
When you are hiring tens of thousands of employees and investing billions of dollars, the few million we throw at them is a drop in the ocean. If they think that makes a difference, you are dealing with liars or idiots and I assure you Amazon doesn't hire idiots at that level.
You wanna be here, these are the rules. Level playing field.
Really appreciate it. There are more typos than usual FYI so you might want to give it a quick re-read.
Walsh is what he is but I'm just not buying what Tito is selling in terms of anything that he would actually get done if elected. Two disappointing choices.
There were four candidates for mayor at the first primary. Are these then the only four people who can have a valid opinion on the quality of the candidates? That's literally what you are implying and I'd love to see an expanded explanation on your 'thinking'.
But no, I'm sure you're right - my failure to take time away from my family and job to take on a heavily entrenched mayor who represents the old school political machine in Boston totally means I shouldn't hope for a better set of choices for our city.
However, my personal efforts to support local candidates I like are essentially irrelevant against someone who has the backing of the dominant political forces in the city - unions/trades, city employees/patronage and the local party.
Walsh is popular enough - the polling shows that. It doesn't mean I have to like him personally or think he's a very good mayor.
How do you know that the people that make up the "dominant political forces" won't like you? Disagreement is normal. Maybe you bring more to the table than you realize.
That's a right wing canard. I've heard Limbaugh-bots say that there was a housing crash only because "The Democrats forced them to give housing loans to poor people and minorities no matter what!" and cited the Community Reinvestment Act as the reason. Go ahead and read the regulations, it says no such thing.
It was primarily the repeal of portions of Glass-Steagall signed late in the Clinton administration that broke the wall between banking (i.e. lending) and investment that allowed the crisis to happen. You then had lenders who could make money off of the loans and then bundle them up to sell them thereby getting rid of risks associated with defaults. This in turn led to a lot of shady lending activity (e.g. lenders lying about incomes for applicants or pushing them to riskier AMR loans that paid more).
The ratings agencies were not doing their due diligence on these bundled loans and gave them high ratings and the investment firms bought them by the boatload thinking they were "safe" investments. There were other factors too that fueled the real estate bubble (more in the "sand" states than here).
Though there were programs that were meant to help first time home buyers that were swept up in this maelstrom those programs were very far removed from the cause of it.
Jackson said that's not enough, that Boston is becoming too expensive for normal people. He said he would increase the minimum required number of affordable units developers would have to build from 13 to 25%.
Tito the NIMBY would strangle any new housing in this city if this were enacted. He either doesn't understand housing policy or doesn't care.
13,000 units thus far, of which about 1,380 are affordable and 2,000 are restricted to prices attainable by middle-income households and [the remaining 9,620 units built (74%) are luxury housing.]
Mayoral challenger Tito Jackson is among those who says that production has gone awry, with new luxury condo buildings purchased as financial speculation tools, not housing. In one example, buyers from Greece, Hong Kong and the Middle East have swooped in to claim dozens of condos in Millennium Partners’ tower.
“It’s unsustainable to continue to build $2 million and $3 million condos all over the city of Boston that no one is actually occupying as owners,” Jackson said during a July JP Progressive forum. “In the Millennium Tower — only 20 percent of the units in that building are taking homestead, or are owner occupied. These buildings in many ways are not housing, they’re actually investment vehicles for uber-rich people all over the world, and that is unacceptable.”
Too much housing remains for the top-earners, he added in a recent Banner conversation.
“The build-it-and-they-will-come mentality is flawed, short-sighted, and pours gasoline on the fire of gentrification,” Jackson told the Banner. “87 percent of housing in Boston is being built for the top 25 percent of earners.”
Instead of replacing all the signs in the city that say Marty Walsh he will just staple a handwritten made from driftwood Doug sign over them. Eco-Friendly.
Friends of mine put a Walsh sign in my yard as a joke knowing that I will never cast a ballot for him over signing off on the great Boston2024 giveaway. The next time they came over to my house they found this sign there instead.
I watched the debate on BNN. After all the clamoring for more debates from Tito's side and avoiding them from Marty's side, I had assumed that this was an area of strength for Councilor Jackson and expected him to shine. Instead he seemed nervous and awkward- why was he holding the lapel mic? He got in a few good lines that he had obviously prepared, but the rest of the time he was stammering and poorly spoken.
Marty Walsh is weak. He's had a rough four years of his own making. Tito is offering solutions in housing, which is supposed to be a Walsh strength and isn't, and in leadership on issues that affect the middle class and poor not the wealthy and developers.
Last night people laughed out loud when Marty told them building a new tower would bring wealth into the community "we've heard that before." I think Boston voters are too smart for the BS lines Walsh is slinging and he does that when he doesn't have a good story to tell.
Tito went at Marty's policies with better policy and went at Marty's mismanagement by talking about his approach to management.
If a sufficient number of voters who want change this November come out, Tito can beat Marty. He's a longshot for sure but let's face it, this race didn't really start until last night and Tito took round 1 as Marty begged off.
Maybe I couldn't hear that because of the way he said "um" roughly 40, 000,000 times.
And, anecdotal, but I live work and spend 99% of my time in the city. Everyone I know is supporting Marty. I had one friend, a teacher and poc who was with Tito until last night, and she texted me after that she was coming over to the "dark side."
But as we learned last November- we never really know who people will vote for until election day!
People called Walsh's predecessor Mumbles. He never lost a re-election campaign though.. People knew he had wisdom because they listened to his ideas not the malaprops that popped out when he chose the wrong word. And for the record, Walsh is the rhetorical equivalent of a blocked punt.
down the Mass Ave bridge during the evening rush now that it gets dark by about 6:15.
Then see if you can still tell me with a straight face that you think bicycles and and automobiles belong on the same roadway at the same time. I recently did just that. Here's a run-down of what I saw:
Cyclists on their phones.
Cyclists not wearing helmets.
Cyclists wearing dark clothing.
Cyclists with no lights.
Cyclists with distacting rapidly flashing lights as opposed to steady lights.
Cyclists going too slow, causing other cyclists to swerve into the right-most car lane to pass them.
Cyclists not yielding to motor vehicle traffic before swerving into the right-most car lane to pass them.
And as a treat for Swirly: a few days ago when I was waiting for the light to turn at Comm Ave and Warren Street, a cyclist (young, male, without helmet, without reflective clothing) sneaks up along the double-yellow in the middle of the road, and swerves right in front of the car ahead of me (who's first at the intersection), and goes merrily on his way literally one second before the light changes. Had the light changed early, that would have been two seriously unhappy dudes and it would have been one hundred and ten percent the fault of the idiot on two wheels.
If there were 50 drivers in the Boston metro area who drove their cars the way I see 50 percent of cyclists ride their bikes, 2030 would be the monthly body count, not a slogan.
So no: cars and bikes do not belong on the same road. Separate them, ban one, ban both, build new bridges, knock down houses and build new roads, but please don't perpetuate the fiction that two tons of metal at 25mph+ that moves in straight lines and takes scores of feet to stop and a hundred fifty pounds of flesh and aluminum that can turns on a dime and frequently gives into the temptation to do so belong anywhere near eachother.
Bicyclists want tracks that separate cars and bikes with a physical barrier so that bike riders are not at risk of injury and death from car accidents, just as pedestrians have infrastructure like sidewalks, curbs, crosswalks and signaling to keep them safe from injury and death from auto collisions.
Some great cycling infrastructure in Odense, DK. Mostly seg raised cycletracks, but also some parking protected lanes. pic.twitter.com/r6HZhJqbN9
Also interestingly Amsterdam has recently moved to limit the amount of tourist targeting stores in the central canal area to the benefit of the residents which is a bold move.
Notice how you didn't notice:
motorists on phones
motorists with windows rolled up and stereo on
motorists running lights
motorists blocking intersections
Selective anecdata - but we know already that you can't deal in any way with science, data, statistics or reality.
A motorist on a phone is bad, but safety being a mutual responsibility, let's consider the worst case of a motorist on a phone and a cyclist on a phone on the Mass Ave bridge.
A motorist on a phone is far less likely to go left or right because one hand is hold up a phone to his ear. He's also less physically impaired from putting on the breaks unless he's got his hands at 10 and 2 and hold the phone to his head with his feet. And even though he's potentially distracted by the conversation, the worst he'd do on the bridge is rear-end someone. Monetary damage yes, death unlikely.
A cyclist holding up the phone to his ear is equally distracted, but also less balanced, and now has at least one hand off the breaks. And if he has to swerve, he's done.
Having the stereo on and the windows rolled up does not impede your ability to see out front or hear emergency vehicles. No sale on that one.
Running lights? Saw plenty of cyclists running lights. Did not see any motorists running lights that night. Hard to do in city traffic in a car. Easy as pie on a bike.
Blocking intersections? Rare. Even around here. Bikes being in intersections when they shouldn't be (like when crossing traffic and pedestrians have green) happens all the damn time.
If "science" is whatever makes you feel good about yourself, sure, why not. If "science" is actual science, then you're not even wrong.
You don't bike. You don't know how cycling works. You need to provide proof of your assertions. You need to reconcile your opinions with reality that cars take up far too much space and drivers kill people (and bikes don't).
Because while I've driven a car in Boston for 10 years and know hundreds of people who've racked up thousands of road-years without suffering or causing bodily injury to anyone, of the ten or so people I know who bike regularly, more than half of them have got themselves hurt on their bikes in half that time.
Citation needed yourself. Who are you to say cars take up too much space. From an engineering perspective, they take up exactly the right amount of space. Don't confuse your own political biases and chips on your shoulder with objective facts.
And you know, cars don't kill people. People kill people. An in the particular case of motorists and cyclists, 90% of the time the cyclists get themselves killed through inattentiveness, recklessness, and downright stupidity and magical thinking.
And I agree with a lot of what Roman has said here, with notable the exception that they "don't belong" on the same roads. Infrastructure is the best solution, but not feasible in all locations. Cyclists need to do a much better job of maintaining their own safety. Theres has been a quite noticeable shift towards the dangerous and insane in just the last three years. Things I would NEVER dream of doing on a bike are now things I other cyclists doing daily.
Bike lanes are NOT an important issue. They should be secondary to other transit issues, particularly BUS LANES, bus stops, and giving buses priority at intersections via the stop lights. Way, way more people use them than bikes. Pedestrian safety and general walkability, things like the small handicap ramps that are at most intersections now, are other, higher priorities as well. The city keeps adding bike lanes that squeeze existing traffic and make it even harder for buses to make their stops. No bike lanes should be placed along a bus route unless absolutely necessary. It is just not safe.
I find it funny otherwise progressive people constantly talk about bike lanes and the trains when they say transit, but ignore busses, because the stereotypical person riding the bus is a stinky poor.
bus infrastructure can be improved immediately with a little road paint and some willingness to ticket. but nobody gives a fuck. they'd rather fight about imaginary connector rings and elevated bike lanes and monorail pods up and down the greenway than help people in neighborhoods without trains get to work.
Did you make that strawman up all by yourself or did you have help?
You might want to come down to Roslindale, where a "progressive" group is waging an active fight for both a dedicated bike path between Roslindale Square and Forest Hills (two, actually, one through the Arboretum and one on Washington Street) AND a dedicated bus lane on Washington. I'm making the assumption (probably gravely mistaken, though) that you actually know why these would be really important to both yuppies and the less well off people who live along Washington.
I live in roslindale and suffer that washington stretch every day, on the bus, because I don't own a car and biking that road is an invitation to massive head trauma. the neighborhood folks pushing for a bus lane are flipping heroes. it's ridiculous that this should have to be an "active fight" to get simple, easy, logistically possible improvements made, and all because the political powers that be - the subject of your article here, dude - are too busy paying lip service about trains to finance bros and techies taking the red line into cambridge to give a fuck about anyone in a less hip, more brown neighborhood.
The best possible thing for all purposes: GET PEOPLE OUT OF CARS.
Cars are the problem Cars are not the solution to anything. Fix transit. Fix roadways for less wasteful and spacehogging modes. Tame driver behavior with infrastructure. Improve pedestrian access.
It's the city's job to make it easy for people to go about their activities in an orderly and timely fashion.
I'm sorry (not sorry) if the idea of people getting from point A to point B on their own time and on their own schedule is offensive to you if that distance is too far too walk, but that's your opinion, as distinct from everyone else's reality.
A lot of neighborhoods would argue the city doesn't care enough about how residents can easily go about their activities and accommodate the commuters from Newton, Brookline, Cambridge, Quincy, etc...
I'd be very interested to know for sure but I'd guess nearly an equal amount of people bike across the MA Ave bridge as drive.
because a properly planned and managed city would be able to accommodate the needs residents who pay taxes and expect services and commuters who patronize business and whose employers pay taxes alike.
No one wins when there are sides. Everyone loses. The city residents lose a tax base that pays for their stuff, city businesses lose money, suburb residents lose time, and everyone is worse off because some kid (or someone with the mental age of a kid) decides that cars are icky so we'll make it harder for people who need to use them.
Literally every other metro area in the country manages to not pit people who live on one side of the city line against people who live on the other over silly stuff like making sure people can get to and from work on time and without stress. LA builds freeways and trains and bus lanes. New York has extensive rail connections. Philly has highways and parking and all-electrified commuter rail. Houston and Salt Lake and Seattle are building out their trains.
Boston is the exception, for no reason other than sheer pettiness and parochialism. Not something to be proud of.
You'll get no argument from me that the regional public transportation infrastructure needs improvement - that's the MBTA's not the City of Boston's responsibility. Hilarious that you laud Houston for building a rail system - something that they can do and Boston can't because, well, we already have one whereas they are starting at zero.
Less space and lanes make vehicles of all kinds move more slowly, especially buses.
The city does not seem to be focused at all on buses, but is on bikes. Witness the initial plan for the North Washington Street bridge, which had a bike lane but nothing for buses until people complained.
Just have to pay for it. In the particular case of Mass Ave, you can drop the parallel parking. You will have to make up for it by building a garage, which costs money, but there's plenty of room to do that the whole length of Mass Ave if there was will to spend money were there instead of wasting it elsewhere.
But no. Bike lanes are cheap. Not that many people ride bikes compared to buses and cars, putting in bike lanes slows down everyone. But hey, you get to pander to a certain demographic while screwing over lots of other people in a way that's subtle enough you can pretend they're being petty when they complain. What's not to like?
Cyclists pay plenty of taxes - income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes.
Motorists are the ones who don't pay their fair share.
Build a garage? Um, no. We need to reduce the number of cars in the Commonwealth and in Boston to get rid of congestion and emissions problems. Just because the costs of pollution are externalized doesn't mean they aren't there.
Why do you have a problem with people using highly efficient means of transport that protect health on their own time when it is too far to walk? Oh - because you are really lousy at science and prefer to believe/worship four-wheeled idols instead.
Comments
Excellent coverage Adam!
Thank you for the thorough report!
Walsh gave us half a debate
..but I thought it was a good. Walsh agreed to a two hour debate and by showing up late and contacting Tito two hours before the event to say he'd be leaving 1/2 hour early, we got 1 hour not 2 hours.
Walsh arrived 26 minutes late and stopped 30 minutes early so instead of a two hour debate 6-8 p.m. it was a one hour debate 6:30-7:30 p.m.
Afterward, Marty stuck around for photos.
Well Adam, at least it was
Well Adam, at least it was union approved.
As opposed to CEO approved?
As opposed to CEO approved?
Transcript
At what WebLink would a Boston Mayoral Debate Transcript be available for hard of hearing folks/for ESL English Second Language folks/for all folks?
Since it's a campaign event
Since it's a campaign event and not a city event, no one is legally required to provide access. It's total bullshit that the ADA doesn't mandate it, and that candidates don't take any initiative to be acccessible.
Thank you Adam for your great reporting!!!
bite size video
more video here
Learning stenography or shorthand?
How easy is it for enthusiasts to learn stenographer or shorthand on their own? Generations ago Journalists knew and used shorthand.
In the future many folks knowing stenography or shorthand will attend meetings and take down the words for posting later online https://twitter.com/plover
see also http://qwertysteno.com/Basics/HowItWorks.php
There’s one way to find out
We look forward to your report, and all the stenographic transcriptions.
Youtube already does machine
Youtube already does machine speech recognition of videos you upload. Of course it's not perfect, and they practically bury the feature, but every year it gets better.
What's old is new again
My aunt went to secretarial school after high school and worked in offices her whole life. She didn't have a computer at home but when she retired about a dozen years ago she finally got a laptop since she wouldn't have access at work any longer. She was having a few issues with getting online at her home so i went by to get her up and running again and give her some troubleshooting tips. She grabbed a notebook and documented my advice in shorthand which I got a kick out of.
I tried to work with one the
I tried to work with one the candidates to use Artificial Intelligence the whole thing could have been translated into 4 languages. but theyre scared
Basis Technology
Basis Technology https://www.basistech.com/
Please note https://www.macfound.org/fellows/983/
Diversity = Inequality
Paradox of diversity campaign is that it will inevitably result in more poor black people in an area of skyrocketing wealth. Rich Democrats are very conservative on tax issues but ok with some conscience-easing payouts/programs.
Tito runs from the left, but really there's not much of an voter base for that. Poor black people get a lot of attention. As soon as black people get a professional income they are moving out of here.
Very little for a professional-level family (90-150K) in our city politics.
Living in the projects is a great deal
Tito hoping for a blast from voters who can't use what he's selling. Why would you want your income raised, the first thing you're going to have to do is move 90 minutes away from your job. Stay in Villa Victoria and work under the table, people next door are paying $1m for that location. Why change?
An elitist
orgasm.
I'd love a populist
Show me one.
Show me the left in Boston. There isn't one. And if there isn't one here then Massachusetts Progressivism is a fraud.
As you posess a perfect political purity
you should run.
I like having a life
I've blabbed so many crazy things on this website I wouldn't get elected to the student council.
Babbling to some. Abrasively engaging to others.
You're a better choice than a clown.
Sweet of you to say
Maybe I should. It's good to be the king. But I hate it when people agree with me. Knock it off
Huh?
For the record, I know numerous black people who live in the 'inner city' who make six figure salaries, it's not as uncommon as you think. And given that home values haven't totally ballooned in those areas (for the most part) a lot of them have bought homes, and are gaining equity. And those homes will only increase in value; 2008-9 notwithstanding. (The problem is creating generational wealth but that's a topic for another day).
And also, poor is poor. Doesn't matter if you're black or white, because there are poor whites in Dorchester too.
bringing good economy to Dorchester etc
I was responding to the roundup of the discussion about bringing the strong economy to Dorchester mattapan and Roxbury.
There's going to be a donut hole where moving off benefits will not be enough to move into home ownership, and moving to the burbs will be better for your housing and school choice.
how many
how many
BPDA
Did Walsh have any response to Tito's proposal to dismantle the BPDA (formerly BRA)? Such as justification for why he broke his own previous campaign promise to dismantle same?
Nope
He didn't say a thing about it.
Walsh didn't welch on his
Walsh didn't welch on his promise. He followed through on his pledge to get rid of the BRA... by changing its name.
I am very unclear as to the
I am very unclear as to the uproar on having Amazon come here . What is the problem you snobs?
Most of us are fine with it
Most of us are fine with it coming here, we just don't want want to massively subsidize it with tax breaks and other "incentives"
Why?
I'm genuinely curious why people take that position.
Corporate Welfare
Why should we give a pile of scarce public resources to a corporation with plenty of their own money?
Because
In the end , if a few million is what drives this decision. You are in trouble.
When you are hiring tens of thousands of employees and investing billions of dollars, the few million we throw at them is a drop in the ocean. If they think that makes a difference, you are dealing with liars or idiots and I assure you Amazon doesn't hire idiots at that level.
You wanna be here, these are the rules. Level playing field.
The problem is giving them
The problem is giving them money in the form of tax breaks.
Walsheconomics
Of course per Walsh, that's not really giving them money. Because reasons?
Us against "them". Amazon is "Them".
Them is always the evil other. See one orange haired populist that rode that strategy to the white house.
Bostonians
Like to resist change.
Unless its a discussion on baseball managers or
bike lanes.
Great write up
Really appreciate it. There are more typos than usual FYI so you might want to give it a quick re-read.
Walsh is what he is but I'm just not buying what Tito is selling in terms of anything that he would actually get done if elected. Two disappointing choices.
I'm still looking for your nomination papers.
.....
So dumb
There were four candidates for mayor at the first primary. Are these then the only four people who can have a valid opinion on the quality of the candidates? That's literally what you are implying and I'd love to see an expanded explanation on your 'thinking'.
But no, I'm sure you're right - my failure to take time away from my family and job to take on a heavily entrenched mayor who represents the old school political machine in Boston totally means I shouldn't hope for a better set of choices for our city.
So is
the extent of your civic participation complaining on a blog? What are you doing to change things?
No, it isn't the extent of my civic participation
However, my personal efforts to support local candidates I like are essentially irrelevant against someone who has the backing of the dominant political forces in the city - unions/trades, city employees/patronage and the local party.
Walsh is popular enough - the polling shows that. It doesn't mean I have to like him personally or think he's a very good mayor.
Whether you believe it or not, you may be popular too.
How do you know that the people that make up the "dominant political forces" won't like you? Disagreement is normal. Maybe you bring more to the table than you realize.
The people have voted
I got 7 likes on my comment - no campaign for me.
Walsh
"But he said the city needs to put more pressure on banks to loan money to residents."
NO! This is a reason why there was a housing crash in 2008.....
No it wasn't
That's a right wing canard. I've heard Limbaugh-bots say that there was a housing crash only because "The Democrats forced them to give housing loans to poor people and minorities no matter what!" and cited the Community Reinvestment Act as the reason. Go ahead and read the regulations, it says no such thing.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/chapter-30
It was primarily the repeal of portions of Glass-Steagall signed late in the Clinton administration that broke the wall between banking (i.e. lending) and investment that allowed the crisis to happen. You then had lenders who could make money off of the loans and then bundle them up to sell them thereby getting rid of risks associated with defaults. This in turn led to a lot of shady lending activity (e.g. lenders lying about incomes for applicants or pushing them to riskier AMR loans that paid more).
The ratings agencies were not doing their due diligence on these bundled loans and gave them high ratings and the investment firms bought them by the boatload thinking they were "safe" investments. There were other factors too that fueled the real estate bubble (more in the "sand" states than here).
Though there were programs that were meant to help first time home buyers that were swept up in this maelstrom those programs were very far removed from the cause of it.
Tito the NIMBY
Tito the NIMBY would strangle any new housing in this city if this were enacted. He either doesn't understand housing policy or doesn't care.
75% of the housing being built is luxury housing for investment
13,000 units thus far, of which about 1,380 are affordable and 2,000 are restricted to prices attainable by middle-income households and [the remaining 9,620 units built (74%) are luxury housing.]
oh FFS
Anyone have a great suggestion for a strong write-in candidate?
The Szak
but it has to be an electronic signature.
Doug Bennett
Doug Bennett
Instead of replacing all the signs in the city that say Marty Walsh he will just staple a handwritten made from driftwood Doug sign over them. Eco-Friendly.
Already got it taken care of
Friends of mine put a Walsh sign in my yard as a joke knowing that I will never cast a ballot for him over signing off on the great Boston2024 giveaway. The next time they came over to my house they found this sign there instead.
Who calls Boston the most segrgated city in the country?
And have they been to any other cities?
My Two Cents
I watched the debate on BNN. After all the clamoring for more debates from Tito's side and avoiding them from Marty's side, I had assumed that this was an area of strength for Councilor Jackson and expected him to shine. Instead he seemed nervous and awkward- why was he holding the lapel mic? He got in a few good lines that he had obviously prepared, but the rest of the time he was stammering and poorly spoken.
Not what I expected at all.
marty begged off
Marty Walsh is weak. He's had a rough four years of his own making. Tito is offering solutions in housing, which is supposed to be a Walsh strength and isn't, and in leadership on issues that affect the middle class and poor not the wealthy and developers.
Last night people laughed out loud when Marty told them building a new tower would bring wealth into the community "we've heard that before." I think Boston voters are too smart for the BS lines Walsh is slinging and he does that when he doesn't have a good story to tell.
Tito went at Marty's policies with better policy and went at Marty's mismanagement by talking about his approach to management.
If a sufficient number of voters who want change this November come out, Tito can beat Marty. He's a longshot for sure but let's face it, this race didn't really start until last night and Tito took round 1 as Marty begged off.
Really?
Maybe I couldn't hear that because of the way he said "um" roughly 40, 000,000 times.
And, anecdotal, but I live work and spend 99% of my time in the city. Everyone I know is supporting Marty. I had one friend, a teacher and poc who was with Tito until last night, and she texted me after that she was coming over to the "dark side."
But as we learned last November- we never really know who people will vote for until election day!
Menino, Walsh, Jackson
People called Walsh's predecessor Mumbles. He never lost a re-election campaign though.. People knew he had wisdom because they listened to his ideas not the malaprops that popped out when he chose the wrong word. And for the record, Walsh is the rhetorical equivalent of a blocked punt.
Wai, what?
"Tito is offering solutions in housing"
What are they again? Rent control and 25% affordable housing requirements? Those are proposals but actually very far from solutions.
What solutions? The problem
What solutions? The problem is a housing shortage. Tito's "solution" would bring housing construction to a screeching halt.
"Housing delayed is housing denied"
Take a walk
down the Mass Ave bridge during the evening rush now that it gets dark by about 6:15.
Then see if you can still tell me with a straight face that you think bicycles and and automobiles belong on the same roadway at the same time. I recently did just that. Here's a run-down of what I saw:
Cyclists on their phones.
Cyclists not wearing helmets.
Cyclists wearing dark clothing.
Cyclists with no lights.
Cyclists with distacting rapidly flashing lights as opposed to steady lights.
Cyclists going too slow, causing other cyclists to swerve into the right-most car lane to pass them.
Cyclists not yielding to motor vehicle traffic before swerving into the right-most car lane to pass them.
And as a treat for Swirly: a few days ago when I was waiting for the light to turn at Comm Ave and Warren Street, a cyclist (young, male, without helmet, without reflective clothing) sneaks up along the double-yellow in the middle of the road, and swerves right in front of the car ahead of me (who's first at the intersection), and goes merrily on his way literally one second before the light changes. Had the light changed early, that would have been two seriously unhappy dudes and it would have been one hundred and ten percent the fault of the idiot on two wheels.
If there were 50 drivers in the Boston metro area who drove their cars the way I see 50 percent of cyclists ride their bikes, 2030 would be the monthly body count, not a slogan.
So no: cars and bikes do not belong on the same road. Separate them, ban one, ban both, build new bridges, knock down houses and build new roads, but please don't perpetuate the fiction that two tons of metal at 25mph+ that moves in straight lines and takes scores of feet to stop and a hundred fifty pounds of flesh and aluminum that can turns on a dime and frequently gives into the temptation to do so belong anywhere near eachother.
This viscous cycle will not be stopped by
segregation. Wheeled diversity, whether straight 4 wheeled or Bi-cycle we are all from the same wheel.
cycletracks
Bicyclists want tracks that separate cars and bikes with a physical barrier so that bike riders are not at risk of injury and death from car accidents, just as pedestrians have infrastructure like sidewalks, curbs, crosswalks and signaling to keep them safe from injury and death from auto collisions.
I read that 80% of trips less than 4 miles in Amsterdam are made on bicycle. It's an older city than Boston.
The rebuild of the Mass Ave bridge should have had cycletracks
Once upon a time, it had one lane each way with a lane on each side blocked to motor travel.
Surprisingly, there weren't traffic problems at all.
Then they ignored the suggestion of including the bike tracks in the rebuild because Boston couldn't do what other cities already had!
Amsterdam
Also interestingly Amsterdam has recently moved to limit the amount of tourist targeting stores in the central canal area to the benefit of the residents which is a bold move.
Oooh
Anecdata.
Notice how you didn't notice:
motorists on phones
motorists with windows rolled up and stereo on
motorists running lights
motorists blocking intersections
Selective anecdata - but we know already that you can't deal in any way with science, data, statistics or reality.
OK, I'll play
A motorist on a phone is bad, but safety being a mutual responsibility, let's consider the worst case of a motorist on a phone and a cyclist on a phone on the Mass Ave bridge.
A motorist on a phone is far less likely to go left or right because one hand is hold up a phone to his ear. He's also less physically impaired from putting on the breaks unless he's got his hands at 10 and 2 and hold the phone to his head with his feet. And even though he's potentially distracted by the conversation, the worst he'd do on the bridge is rear-end someone. Monetary damage yes, death unlikely.
A cyclist holding up the phone to his ear is equally distracted, but also less balanced, and now has at least one hand off the breaks. And if he has to swerve, he's done.
Having the stereo on and the windows rolled up does not impede your ability to see out front or hear emergency vehicles. No sale on that one.
Running lights? Saw plenty of cyclists running lights. Did not see any motorists running lights that night. Hard to do in city traffic in a car. Easy as pie on a bike.
Blocking intersections? Rare. Even around here. Bikes being in intersections when they shouldn't be (like when crossing traffic and pedestrians have green) happens all the damn time.
If "science" is whatever makes you feel good about yourself, sure, why not. If "science" is actual science, then you're not even wrong.
[citations needed]
[citations needed]
You don't bike. You don't know how cycling works. You need to provide proof of your assertions. You need to reconcile your opinions with reality that cars take up far too much space and drivers kill people (and bikes don't).
You're right, I don't bike
Because while I've driven a car in Boston for 10 years and know hundreds of people who've racked up thousands of road-years without suffering or causing bodily injury to anyone, of the ten or so people I know who bike regularly, more than half of them have got themselves hurt on their bikes in half that time.
Citation needed yourself. Who are you to say cars take up too much space. From an engineering perspective, they take up exactly the right amount of space. Don't confuse your own political biases and chips on your shoulder with objective facts.
And you know, cars don't kill people. People kill people. An in the particular case of motorists and cyclists, 90% of the time the cyclists get themselves killed through inattentiveness, recklessness, and downright stupidity and magical thinking.
I bike.
I've been biking for 40 years now.
And I agree with a lot of what Roman has said here, with notable the exception that they "don't belong" on the same roads. Infrastructure is the best solution, but not feasible in all locations. Cyclists need to do a much better job of maintaining their own safety. Theres has been a quite noticeable shift towards the dangerous and insane in just the last three years. Things I would NEVER dream of doing on a bike are now things I other cyclists doing daily.
Bike lane BS
Bike lanes are NOT an important issue. They should be secondary to other transit issues, particularly BUS LANES, bus stops, and giving buses priority at intersections via the stop lights. Way, way more people use them than bikes. Pedestrian safety and general walkability, things like the small handicap ramps that are at most intersections now, are other, higher priorities as well. The city keeps adding bike lanes that squeeze existing traffic and make it even harder for buses to make their stops. No bike lanes should be placed along a bus route unless absolutely necessary. It is just not safe.
Agree with everything Roman said above.
sad and true
I find it funny otherwise progressive people constantly talk about bike lanes and the trains when they say transit, but ignore busses, because the stereotypical person riding the bus is a stinky poor.
bus infrastructure can be improved immediately with a little road paint and some willingness to ticket. but nobody gives a fuck. they'd rather fight about imaginary connector rings and elevated bike lanes and monorail pods up and down the greenway than help people in neighborhoods without trains get to work.
Fake news, sad
Did you make that strawman up all by yourself or did you have help?
You might want to come down to Roslindale, where a "progressive" group is waging an active fight for both a dedicated bike path between Roslindale Square and Forest Hills (two, actually, one through the Arboretum and one on Washington Street) AND a dedicated bus lane on Washington. I'm making the assumption (probably gravely mistaken, though) that you actually know why these would be really important to both yuppies and the less well off people who live along Washington.
I live in roslindale and
I live in roslindale and suffer that washington stretch every day, on the bus, because I don't own a car and biking that road is an invitation to massive head trauma. the neighborhood folks pushing for a bus lane are flipping heroes. it's ridiculous that this should have to be an "active fight" to get simple, easy, logistically possible improvements made, and all because the political powers that be - the subject of your article here, dude - are too busy paying lip service about trains to finance bros and techies taking the red line into cambridge to give a fuck about anyone in a less hip, more brown neighborhood.
Squeeze existing traffic?
You mean "keep people in line".
The best possible thing for all purposes: GET PEOPLE OUT OF CARS.
Cars are the problem Cars are not the solution to anything. Fix transit. Fix roadways for less wasteful and spacehogging modes. Tame driver behavior with infrastructure. Improve pedestrian access.
Not the city's job to "keep people in line"
It's the city's job to make it easy for people to go about their activities in an orderly and timely fashion.
I'm sorry (not sorry) if the idea of people getting from point A to point B on their own time and on their own schedule is offensive to you if that distance is too far too walk, but that's your opinion, as distinct from everyone else's reality.
Which people
A lot of neighborhoods would argue the city doesn't care enough about how residents can easily go about their activities and accommodate the commuters from Newton, Brookline, Cambridge, Quincy, etc...
I'd be very interested to know for sure but I'd guess nearly an equal amount of people bike across the MA Ave bridge as drive.
Shouldn't matter
because a properly planned and managed city would be able to accommodate the needs residents who pay taxes and expect services and commuters who patronize business and whose employers pay taxes alike.
No one wins when there are sides. Everyone loses. The city residents lose a tax base that pays for their stuff, city businesses lose money, suburb residents lose time, and everyone is worse off because some kid (or someone with the mental age of a kid) decides that cars are icky so we'll make it harder for people who need to use them.
Literally every other metro area in the country manages to not pit people who live on one side of the city line against people who live on the other over silly stuff like making sure people can get to and from work on time and without stress. LA builds freeways and trains and bus lanes. New York has extensive rail connections. Philly has highways and parking and all-electrified commuter rail. Houston and Salt Lake and Seattle are building out their trains.
Boston is the exception, for no reason other than sheer pettiness and parochialism. Not something to be proud of.
Nice alternative facts
http://www.businessinsider.com/13-us-cities-worst-traffic-2017-5/#2-san-...
Seattle, New York, LA - all have worse traffic than here.
Of course freeways are bad for residents
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-freeway-pollution/
You'll get no argument from me that the regional public transportation infrastructure needs improvement - that's the MBTA's not the City of Boston's responsibility. Hilarious that you laud Houston for building a rail system - something that they can do and Boston can't because, well, we already have one whereas they are starting at zero.
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/transportation/2016/07/...
He's a font of alternative facts
Also a connoisseur of selective vision - blocking intersections is rare? LOL.
Out of context
Less space and lanes make vehicles of all kinds move more slowly, especially buses.
The city does not seem to be focused at all on buses, but is on bikes. Witness the initial plan for the North Washington Street bridge, which had a bike lane but nothing for buses until people complained.
Simple reason for that
No room to put additional bus lanes.
Often plenty of room for a 4' wide bike lane.
Really is that simple.
Plenty of room
Just have to pay for it. In the particular case of Mass Ave, you can drop the parallel parking. You will have to make up for it by building a garage, which costs money, but there's plenty of room to do that the whole length of Mass Ave if there was will to spend money were there instead of wasting it elsewhere.
But no. Bike lanes are cheap. Not that many people ride bikes compared to buses and cars, putting in bike lanes slows down everyone. But hey, you get to pander to a certain demographic while screwing over lots of other people in a way that's subtle enough you can pretend they're being petty when they complain. What's not to like?
Pay for it?
Cyclists pay plenty of taxes - income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes.
Motorists are the ones who don't pay their fair share.
Build a garage? Um, no. We need to reduce the number of cars in the Commonwealth and in Boston to get rid of congestion and emissions problems. Just because the costs of pollution are externalized doesn't mean they aren't there.
Why do you have a problem with people using highly efficient means of transport that protect health on their own time when it is too far to walk? Oh - because you are really lousy at science and prefer to believe/worship four-wheeled idols instead.
We all pay plenty of taxes
But drivers and users of pubic transit pay specific fees related to their choice of transport. Gasoline taxes, tolls, fares. Not bikers.
The priority should be PUBLIC, MASS transit, over private, individual transit. Buses are in the first category, bikes and cars in the second.
Some people can't drive. Many can't bike. Pretty much everyone can get on the bus.
Lousy at science?
Is that the hot new insult these days?
OK, well, um, let's see here...You're lousy at...Fourier analysis and modular arithmetic!
Climate deniers are lousy at
Climate deniers are lousy at science by definition.
.
.
.
.
There was room on the bridge
The city just hadn't added it until people complained.
Let me say again: BIKE LANES AND BUS ROUTES SHOULD NOT BE ON THE SAME ROADWAYS!
[Videos] Boston Mayoral Debate Wednesday 11 October 2017
[Videos] Boston Mayoral Debate Wednesday 11 October 2017 https://www.reddit.com/r/boston/comments/75v3b1/no_transcript_yet_for_ha...