Yes, Deval Patrick represented defendants in criminal cases. So did I. So did Paul Cellucci. So did Bill Weld. I don’t remember anybody suggesting that, as a result, we were unfit for public office.
note: bolding was my emphasis
Don’t get me wrong, there is a lot of hard work left to do, during the last nine days. But I’ll say this right now. I believe, when the dust has settled, Kerry Healey will have proven herself unfit to hold public office. The “proof in the pudding” Kerry Healey will be your narrow minded xenophobic, anti-defense attorney, anti-constitution, divisive campaign. Not for Massachusetts, not now, not ever.
Please share widely!
They are all names of Massachusetts governors?
I loved the line about how Healey can’t really claim “no new taxes” when she supports the fare hike, at a time when encouraging public transportation is more important than ever.
I loved the line about how Healey can’t really claim “no new taxes” when she supports the T fare hike, at a time when encouraging public transportation is more important than ever.
Wasn’t it important during the oil embargo too? How about when the T was built in the first place?
Because of high housing costs, people are living farther and farther away from their jobs. Our dwindling open space is being eaten up by construction of residential-only exurban sprawl – neighborhoods where it’s actually impossible to walk to any destination such as schools or shopping. And a larger percentage of people who drive longer to work every day are driving in the equivalent of small trucks.
<
p>
While it questionable whether encouraging public transit is more important “now” than “ever,” I’d argue it’s more important than it’s been during many other eras. Assuming here we’re talking about “encouraging” public transit, not simply “enabling” it (which is always important). By “encourage,” I think we’re talking about making efforts to entice people to use it … and these days, such efforts involve more than simply giving people options for clean, dependable, safe and reasonably frequent public transit (although based on what we have in many areas of Massachusetts now, apparently that’s not so simple).
<
p>
It means thinking about things like how people get TO public transit, especially in less densely populated exurbs; about the streetscapes around transit stops; and about changing our car-oriented street development patterns that subtly discourage any kind of foot traffic even where distances would allow it. Take Rte. 9 in the Framingham/Natick area as an example. Distance-wise, it’s entirely possible to walk from, say, Shoppers World to the movie theaters; or on nearby Speen Street from the hotels to the Natick Mall, Home Depot and some restaurants. But few do so, because it feels so threatening to try to cross any of the streets, and the streetscape is so obviously planned for cars.
<
p>
Unless you’re strictly talking about public transit to and from work, it often works best as “arrive one place, walk to several destinations,” which is impossible in many places with current development patterns. Now that there’s enough population density west of Boston, I think regional public transit could make sense – moreso if the destinations like the Framingham/Natick shopping area were walkable once you got there. Those are the kinds of issues that “encouraging” public transportation should consider, especially as market demand seems to be there for walkable neighborhoods and mixed-use living.
How about if the state invests in cities other than Boston, so that everyone isn’t trying to jam themselves into one place during rush hour?
<
p>
Cities like Springfield, Holyoke, Lawrence, Fall River, New Bedford, etc., are struggling, with a lot of empty buildings and excess capacity.
I suppose a couple gallons of gas worth of CO2 emissions are worth the same at any time, but with global warming more and more beginning to show real effects, I’d say it becomes increasingly important over time to severly cut down.