I believe the answer is because our population is so weighted towards the Boston area that we tend to look at things in our own back yard and justify those expenditures as opposed to those we don’t see elsewhere. The Western Mass Legislative delegation travels the entire state most weeks of the year and gets a first hand view of the rest of the state. That is why we understand that the Revere beach police patrols lead to a better experience for the thousands of beach goers each year. It is important to our economy. It is that we understand the pressures of the inner city schools, but also understand that dial up is not acceptable for our rural areas. We understand the plight of our dairy farmers because we witness their struggle every day.
I have heard the argument that the greater Boston area is the majority of our economic activity and that is why we have to pay large part of our attention to this area. I would argue that if we continue to pay the attention we do to the exclusion of other parts of the state, of course it would be the largest economic driver. No one else has a chance to improve himself or herself.
The Governor has proposed one billion dollars for the biotech industry. This will greatly benefit Boston, Cambridge and Worcester. Should I not vote for this because it doesn’t benefit my district? Of course not, I should weigh many factors in my decision.
In 1987, I was a freshman representative in the House. A few years before, Sprague Electric closed in my district. Was this important? In an area with about 20,000 residents in the local job base, Sprague was responsible for about 6,000 jobs! I was able to pass a bill in March of 1987 that gave a $35 million boost to my area by funding the largest contemporary art museum in the US. (It didn’t open until 1999.) While many will scratch their heads in wonder at funding an art museum, the economic impact has been tremendous. The museum gets about 170,000 visitors to some aspect or function, but the impact on the community has been immeasurable. It has transformed my area and has lead to many other initiatives in the area. My point is that if we didn’t fund things on a regional basis, we wouldn’t have been able to change and invigorate our economy.
Whenever I talk to people about legislators’ responsibilities, I always point out that there are two conflicts that we have to deal with in our jobs. The first is whether we advocate and vote based on our knowledge of the issues, or do we vote as we think our constituents want us to vote? For example, I have always been anti-death penalty based on the things I have read and heard concerning the issue. In 1987, I dare say that probably three quarters of my constituents would have told me to vote for the death penalty. (I think that has changed dramatically today.) In the case of the Museum, would the Eastern Reps’ constituents have told them to vote in favor of such a plan?
The second area of conflict is whether we always vote in favor of benefits to our districts as opposed to voting for a good statewide benefit. Let me use the casino issue as an example. Is $11 million good for Middleborough? Does a casino in Middleborough help or hurt our state economy? Those are different considerations. We need to weigh both and make those decisions on those conflicts as we each see fit. As a Chairman that takes his duties seriously, I need to take a statewide view of each issue, as that is my responsibility.
One story about MassMoca, my contemporary art museum: In 1992, then Governor Weld pulled the plug on this as we were in a recession and he didn’t want to place state resources on an art museum. In a meeting with then State Senator Jane Swift, myself, and North Adams Mayor John Barrett, the Governor said that it was crazy to spend money on a museum and he would be roundly criticized for this. Mayor Barrett leaned forward and asked the Governor what would happen if he had come in 60 years ago and told the Governor that he wanted to find a very rural area in the state, buy a barn and knock down the walls. He would then put a band in the barn and they would play all summer. He said that if the Governor would let him do that, people would come from all over the world to listen and it would put that barn on the map and make a lot of money.
Governor Weld said that sounded as crazy as an art museum in North Adams. The mayor said, “Well, Governor that guy who said that’s name was Koussevitsky, and that place is called Tanglewood, the summer home of the Boston Pops.” You could see Weld’s expression change and he said, “We have to fund this museum.”
Sometimes we have to think of the potential of these projects, such as more data transmission and have to look beyond the region and decide whether this makes sense. It doesn’t matter whether this initiative is in Western Mass. or in Boston.
WHAT IS this “Western Mass” you talk about? Does it have to do with priests in the wild wild west days?
<
p>
I just never heard of it. If I did, I probably wasn’t paying attention. Does it concern me?
…two carriage returns between paragraphs.
<
p>
It makes it much easier to read.
isn’t raj a dink?
<
p>
Perhaps by population you mean tax revenue sources
<
p>
<
p>
Perhaps by rest of the state you mean length of the Mass Pike?
<
p>
My beef is this… and I’d love to see some real numbers as part of this discussion… where’s the tax money coming from, and where is it going to? How much does each town contribute to state taxes [business plus personal income plus fees plus whatever else], and how much does each town get back? Now, let’s consider regions/metro areas, since some rich bedroom communities are obviously directly benefiting from the cities providing their inhabitants income. Where’s the money coming from, and where is it going?
<
p>
Loosely speaking, are the urban areas of Boston, Worcester, Springfield, New Bedford, etc revenue sources, or revenue sinks?
<
p>
My big state issue is public transit. Every time I speak to someone outside of Boston-metro, they always balk at the amount of money the state spends on the T. They say: why should I help pay for the T, I don’t ride it — to which I reply: why should I help pay for highways, I don’t use ’em… and besides, no public transit is free for the rider, but nearly all roads have free admission! It seems to me that Boston simply couldn’t function without mass transit — and that the entire state economy would drag substantially, resulting in a significant decline in revenue.
<
p>
Is the same true in Western Mass? The Cape? I don’t think so. Were I a betting man, I’d bet that the flow of revenue is already away from cities — because per capita, cities spend less on infrastructure and emergency services, and because you can get an awful lot more income tax revenue out of a square foot of land in Boston than you can in Brookfield. If it is true that the net flow is out of the cities, than aren’t I in my right mind if I say shut your yapper, quit asking for handouts, and start supporting projects that improve the economy, environment, and fairness of the whole state by supporting the MBTA?
I haven’t seen any evidence that any current member of the Berkshire delegation (Reps. Bosley, Guyer, Speranzo and Pignatelli and Sen. Downing) have OPPOSED funding the MBTA properly. (And for the record, this resident of Western Massachusetts is completely in favor of expanding the T.) Perhaps some of the Republicans representing the burbs of Springfield or Worcester have gone on record as such, thus giving the appearance that we here in the Hinterlands don’t believe in funding the T.
<
p>
Chances are, though, that’s a function of party instead of geography.
<
p>
Again – I can’t say with 100% certainty, but I don’t see a massive outcry against the T out here in the Berkshires. Dan didn’t even mention the T in his diary.
<
p>
WF
Does the gas tax revenue pay for more or less than 100% of all state budget expenditures on roads?
Do fares pay for 100% of expenditure on the MBTA?
<
p>
BTW – don’t forget that toll revenues are seperate – not part of the state budget.
but I was just questioning your assertion of my assertion that I’m helping to fund roads I don’t use.
<
p>
It’s also worth noting that roads have a tremendous number of detrimental externalities relative to mass transit — consumption of more foreign oil propping up the “bad guys” and tipping our balance of trade, air pollution and global warming, much higher rates of injury or death per person due to operations, sprawl, the consumption of as much as 70% of public space in urban environments, noise, etc.
<
p>
The public at large is better served by mass transit than individual motorized transit — so until taxes charge people the full cost of the roads plus all the additional detrimental externalities, it’s not at all unreasonable for the government to shift the prices of each option using taxes to make mass transit options more attractive.
<
p>
Yet somehow, they don’t seem to get support from exurb and rural legislators, who instead hem and haw.
Stomv – did you also know that part of the GAS tax goes to subsidize the MBTA?
<
p>
…20 or so years ago, a few years after having moved to MA. The argument went that, by having the gas tax subsidize the MBTA, there would be fewer cars on the road.
<
p>
The argument struck me as being silly even back then. Now, it strikes me as absolutely insane. There are more cars–and their cousins, the behemoth SUVs–on the roads in eastern MA than ever. Don’t try going on Rt. 128 between Rt 9 and I93 after 3PM in either direction.
…have free access to the highways, while they are cycling, but your point is a good one.
<
p>
As far as I can tell, the amounts paid by MBTA riders for their tickets don’t come close to paying for the MBTA. But the cities and towns that are (ill-)served by the MBTA also are assessed for some of the MBTA costs. So I, as a Wellesley taxpayer, have to pay taxes to subsidize those who want to use the totally inconvenient commuter rail.
Your “vending machine” view of government is really annoying to me. Is this your idea of social justice, “from each according to what he can afford, to each according to what he pays”?
<
p>
If you add in unfunded mandates like NCLB, you’ve probably pretty fully described the neocon agenda of the past 6+ years — I was hoping this forum might give us some ideas about how to counter that and move back toward a system of respect for human rights and dignity.
<
p>
Who cares where the money is coming from? This isn’t a competition. It’s a society. One in which we all benefit when any one of us prospers and we all suffer when the least of us suffers. I’m not moralizing — that’s the way the world works!
So if I understand this post, I am to do something fair for the entire state by giving your priority on your side of the state all the money! Hmmm, let me think about that.
<
p>
Again, I am not complaining about spending in the East. Sometimes their needs are greater than ours. However, we redesigned the Hadley Overpass in North Adams in 1987 and have been waiting for this rebuild since then. (This is the longest span in Berkshire County and a major thoroughfare for North Adams.) We have waited through the Big Dig spending that drained money from roads and bridges throughout the rest of the state for 15 years. So I think I should not be ashamed of asking for that bridge to be done even if it doesn’t include money for the MBTA.
<
p>
I have voted for more money for the T in the past. In fact, I wanted a T station in North Adams. And no, the trains don’t come out here, I just needed the jobs!
<
p>
One final point, this issue of the creation of jobs and where revenue comes from is a little unfair. If we don?t spend the kind of money in the rest of the state that we spend in the greater Boston area, we can?t expand our economy. This is the reason that we want to expand our broadband coverage. We need to do so to increase business opportunity and that means more revenues generated outside of the metro Boston area.
Is certainly not alone in receiving less attention than larger eastern cities. Look at NC, VA, NJ, NY, and the stories are very similar.
<
p>
I doubt that western MA citizens would have any problem at all with the T and the funding it needs if there was an equal amount of attention paid to transportation issues in say, Springfield, which is ripe for being connected to the rest of the state and other states through high speed rail. This would open up this part of the state to new and mutually advantageous economic opportunities for the entire state.
<
p>
You don’t think it’s unfair? All evidence to the contrary.
<
p>
Save us the 800 plus words next time, show some courage and just say: “I think Western Mass gets screwed.”
<
p>
Then we can bypass your very compelling anecdotes and look at numbers.
<
p>
Certainly someone has done a very detailed number crunching of revenues flowing into and out of places, as stomv mentions. MassINC, perhaps?
<
p>
I don’t think anyone here doubts that more money goes to the metro Boston area than the metro Springfield area. So if you don’t want to say the funding is unfair, why the 800+ word posting?
<
p>
And what is it you find “interesting” about the fact that no one has posted a request to study this issue, which you don’t find unfair?
<
p>
Seriously, you may even have a point here. But you lost me with the “I’m not saying that his funding is unfair” crap, which I found to be borderline lying.
While I can be wordy, I wasn’t lying and people here have missed my point. Looking at one region’s needs is sometihng we have to do all the time, whether it is money for seawalls or money for dairy farms. Spending and appropriations don’t always have a state wide impact nor need they to be relevant and proper. My point wasn’t that Western Mass. does or doesn’t get their share of funding, but that I don’t witness the outcry and discussion when those benefits inure to the Eastern part of the state. We don’t need as much in Western Mass. but we do have needs that have to be addressed.
<
p>
1. It’s true, very little BMG discussion of regional give-and-take.
<
p>
Basically, we’ve got StomV on transport, Ernie Boch III on Dan Conley, Laurel on gay marriage, and Raj on serious medication. That’s nutshell BMG.
<
p>
2. While I agree that some of the comments to Mr. Dowling’s $25 million broadband proposal described regional “who gives, who gets” concerns, other comments simply relate to public investment more broadly.
<
p>
There are credible “net economic development” cases to be made for state funding for: a sports stadium, a new museum, broadband to rural areas, broadband for poor people, stem cell “infrastructure,” etc…..with the notion that they pay for themselves in increased tax revenue.
<
p>
….But I suspect that you wouldn’t wholesale support every single proposal.
<
p>
Speaking for myself, when I ask for the details, it’s not because I have a regional bone to pick, or that I’m a libertarian, just that I’m trying to weigh that $25 million against an alternative expenditure.
<
p>
3. And I may be feeling skittish over the $12 billion ($5,000 tax hit per household?) bond spending proposal. I wonder what your view is on this matter.
No, stomv, although they ARE that in a Soylent Green kind of way.
<
p>
What Rep. Bosley is trying to say in a nice way (sorry if that qualifies as borderline lying, noternie) is that while much is made of being Governor/AG/Treasurer, etc., of the ENTIRE state, the state-wide office holders know where the votes really are.
<
p>
Likewise representation. Under the ‘old, inefficient’ system each of the 351 communities had one state rep. Oh, said the goo-goo’s, how RETROGRADE! No, we will create a system where each Rep. with take care of x number of people. Thus concentrating Legislative power inside of 128 as well, eliminating the pretense of equality between communities. Co-incidently, now the Legislature AND the Executive both have a vested interest in pleasing the urban areas, as the rural areas can never vote them out.
<
p>
Like Willie Sutton said, you rob banks because that’s where the money is. Bacon Hill concentrates on urban areas, because…?
Why should Bostons hundreds of thousands of people have the same number of reps as Brookfield, MA? It’s not about being old and inefficient, it’s about being unfair. Legislative power is now concentrated where the people are concentrated, thereby giving people a more approximately equal amount of people regardless of where they happen to live relative to imaginary lines drawn hundreds of years ago.
What are the rest of us – Non-people? Second Class people?
Not all the power is concentrated in the urban areas. The rural areas still have representatives. I think having representatives allocated in proportion to population is more fair than any other system.
<
p>
The real problem leading to this discussion is that people want the state to do everything it can to serve them, without asking them to pay for anything. Everybody wants this, although most people recognize it is impossible and accept some compromise. Every representative has an equal ability to increase spending in their district while making the entire state pay for it. If all the reps have about the same number of constituents, then each person in the state theoretically has the same amount of power in getting the state to provide benefits at other people’s expense.
<
p>
This problem won’t go away as long as people vote for representatives based on how well they provide money for their district. As far as I know, nobody has come up with a good solution to that problem. It requires some change to the budget process or how representatives are elected. Perhaps having half the representatives be chosen by the whole state so that they can run on a platform of cutting excess costs. Or changing the budget process so that it is harder to earmark funds for a particular project. I’m not really sure what would work, but this problem is threatening the future of this state and country.
Usually, in a bi-cameral legislature, one house is based on population while the other is based on geographic representation. Congress is a good example – the House seats are apportioned on the basis of population, but every state has two Senators. The reason for this is to prevent a small but heavily populated geographic area from exerting undue sway over legislation and appropriation.
<
p>
We HAD that in the Mass. Legislature – the Senate was based on population, and the House was based upon geographic distinctions. Now, both houses of the Legislature, our Constitutional Offices and our Congressional delegation are all based on population.
<
p>
This isn’t just about direct appropriation, although that’s a big part of it. For years, rural drivers ahve subsided urban drivers through our auto insurance system. But – when home insurers began to redline coastal districts, we were told that under no circumstances would urban property owners subsidize rural ones – so Boston has a 5.9% FAIR plan ceiling, while Barnstable has a 25% ceiling. But Boston has the votes to enforce this indirect agenda.
<
p>
Once, I was walking through Nurses’ Hall, and overheard a MWRA spokesman talk about representation. He said that almost 80 of the Reps. and over 20 of the Senators had at least one community within the MWRA, so ‘we’ could be certain that the legislative subsidies to water rates would continue. Outside the MWRA, well, too bad for you.
<
p>
Your statement that every Rep. has an equal playing field is a fallacy for that reason. The MWRA/128 legislators can always work in tandem and outvote the rest of the state, and the check that was on that was removed. It hasn’t done anything for the reputation of Mass. government in my opinion. Probably not Rep. Bosley’s, either.
The anecdote doesn’t make sense to me, first, when I read “I overheard” more chances than none it never happened, just say it’s your opinion and be done with it. Second, if I read this correctly, your point is that if a senator had a district that included a single community within the MWRA, that the senator would be in their back pocket even though the senator had 11 other communities that are not included? Huh?
<
p>
Do you think it’s the people in those communities that polluted the Charles and the harbor? Do you think they pay less than any other community in the state? Add a zero to the end of your bill and that’s probably what MWRA towns pay for their water and sewer bill. But this doesn’t stop you from the “me first” post. I grew up in a MWRA town, but don’t live in one currently, so with that knowledge I would agree with the subsidies even though I doesn’t directly benefit me. This kind of post is just the opposite of what I thought Rep. Bosley was talking about.
Many urban school systems in this state get a higher percentage of state education funding than Boston — Springfield (which at my last look got more actual Chapter 70 dollars than Boston, a much larger city), Lowell, New Bedford, etc. Much of this makes some sense, Boston has more “capacity” due to its vital commercial sector (thus the Chairman’s reference to “per capita”) and the Chapter 70 formula factors that in, for better or worse.
<
p>
However, Boston has more low income kids than any other community, so it would also make sense that they should get aid at an appropriate level, especially if education is a “state” responsibility, as the courts have often ruled. Boston also serves a number of special needs youngsters from outside the city, as we have specialized programs that other communities do not.
<
p>
Boston does well under some formulas (Additional Assistance), not well under others (Lottery distribution). It does things that other communities don’t — house the homeless, build workforce housing, serve the needy and host significant regional events that make millions for the state via sales taxes and cost the City millions. More than half of our land is property tax exempt, including state and federal buildings, campuses, hospitals etc – we provide them with police and fire and other services that the taxpayers of Boston cover.
<
p>
I’ve noted before, what is needed in our state is to bring regions together, not set them apart. The best piece ever written on city-suburb cooperation was in the Boston Globe Magazine by former State Rep. and State Senator Mike Barrett, who then represented North Reading, I believe. Barrett made a better case for funding the cities than most mayors were making back then.
<
p>
Even today, in the fight for fiscal independence for communities, some of the Western Mass. reps are in the forefront of support for more fiscal autonomy. So too are the legislators of small towns like Seekonk, whose officials have lobbied hard for new revenues, alongside people from across the state. Across this state, plenty of communities are in the same boat, looking for leadership and answers.
<
p>
I’m currently be working with urban food advocates and rural farmers on the idea of a public market for Boston — a place that would partner local growers and producers with city and suburban consumers. It’s good for our health, it’s good for our regional economy. A similar effort is underway in Springfield, with the help of state and federal monies.
<
p>
The bottom line is — there’s plenty of issues that can foster regional cooperation. It’s up to our state officials to move them forward.
I did not attend the MWRA briefing, but walked trough the adjacent Nurse’s Hall from the House to the Senate. I DID pause to listen, and I DID hear that assertion. At the time, I realized that the implication was much wider – that it also explained things like skewed Ed formulas that gave more than 100% to education for some cities, so they could just keep the surplus or give people raises (That’s what the Boston City Council did!).
<
p>
It is more than my opinion, it is what was said. And please don’t call me liar unless you also plan to require you-tube like proof from Laurel, Amber, and all the other people who pass on things they have been told or have heard.
with links, etc. Just my opinion.
Usually, in a bi-cameral legislature, one house is based on population while the other is based on geographic representation.
<
p>
That was the case until the early 1960s when the US Supreme Court decided the “one man, one vote” case. I forget the caption of the case (Reynolds vs. Sims?), but it essentially said that the 14th amendment forbade giving cows more representation than people in either house of a bicameral state legislature.
Wow, it’s 1787 all over again here at BMG.
The East has it, the West doesn’t. Maybe when this wasn’t a one party state the Easties had to accommodate the Westies to get anything passed. I think there is very little of that going on now.
<
p>
Unfair? Of course! So what. Life is unfair. Don’t like it? Move to Beantown with your constituents.
<
p>
And, Jeez, that cabling boondoggle, just don’t hack it in so many ways, although it should be able to give out a lot of state jobs for friends and family. Good luck.
Probably too late for this discussion, but here I am in Western Mass. Surely anyone who thinks that dial up is an acceptable means of communication in this day and age is out of his (her) mind. I am at the lowest municipal level, and the computer programs we use cannot exist at the dial-up level. And downloads! Got a day or so for that? I doubt it.
<
p>
(double paragraph – note Raj)
<
p>
All state/municipal communication implies an elementary (read broadband & full-time employee) relationship. Without such, anyone is at a disadvantage. Perhaps you all assume that all municipal employees are fairly paid and full-time. Wrong. We make do with what we got, for the public good. This is non-school stuff.
<
p>
I’ve experienced the Western Mass. technology for many years. Starting in the late 1980s, when if you dared to ask for a 2nd telephone line you were lucky to get a party line. (Sounds like the 50’s or so, doesn’t it?) In the 90’s we got touch tone.
<
p>
In my wee town, we are fortunate to have broadband from Comcast. No choice, no competition: Broadbrand by way of Comcast. Verizon, despite all of its advertising via newspaper inserts, is not available in our town. It is Comcast or nothing. No choice. In my municipal building we get it for free; no so for the Town Hall. Business rates for them.
<
p>
I live in Western Mass by choice, since 1979. We have raised 2 children here, successfully. One lives in Eastern Mass; the other has been in Europe for 5 years and will return to the States and will have gainful employment in the Boston area shortly. Both firmly believe in public transportation and do/will utilize it, while gainfully employed. How I wish that we had such a choice, aside from foot/pedal transportation, in my town in Western Mass!
<
p>
This East versus West stuff. I wonder how many of you have breezed or suffered through the Sagamore Bridge Fly-Over (or whatever it is called – surely the fastest built public works project in MA) and then suffered through the prolonged wait on the Mass Pike West at the Sturbridge exit- surely approaching the wait/accident level of the Cape Cod wait. Huh? Where is the outrage? Where is that cost analysis? Man: I bet you never been there. And if I must do a duty visit to Cape Cod, I can assure you that I time my visits for a smooth visit, back and forth, at ridiculous hours, to avoid the mess.
<
p>
But bring it on.
<
p>
Hooray for the legislators who have posted. I’m encouraged by their voices.
Regarding (double paragraph – note Raj) very much appreciated. It is difficult to read a jangle of mush that is more than a screen full. But I read every word that you wrote.
<
p>
I’m not going to even try to fisk your comment, because much of what you wrote was true. What I am going to write is that, it is an issue of whether the state should be paying private companies to provide the “infrastructure” for people who want to live where they want to live.
<
p>
That is the real issue. Why should I, as a MA state taxpayer, be required to subsidize people who want to live in a region that they know ab initio doesn’t provide the “infrastructure” that is usually provided by private companies (although previously regulated ones), but that they have come to want?
Good point and that is the real issue. You may believe that government shouldn’t do that and I would respectfully disagree. Government should be there to plug holes in public or private infrastructure where needed or where the privates will not. As for people knowing that these services were not available, I believe that most people moved out here prior to the Internet becoming so much a part of our lives. If one believes that it is important to have greater connectivity, and one believes that the private businesses will not do this or at least in a timely manner, then it becomes a quality of life and business issue and I believe that government should step in.
We do this a lot. Government intervention may be as little as a curb cut for a business or it may be to save businesses in some communities by building sea walls. Should we do so is fair game for a discussion here, but it seems that we don’t question this if we intervene in the eastern part of the state, but only when funding comes top the west. That is what bothers me.
…you missed the point about previously regulated. We can quibble about whether utilities should be required to provide all services to all people, but when government required utilities to provide universal electrification and universal telephone service, they were regulated utilities–regulated as to their profitability. The government wasn’t really in the habit of throwing money at them (TVA and Hoover Dam excepted, of course).
<
p>
We can also quibble as to whether those requirements were essentially the equivalent of taxes on people living in urban areas to provide services to people who chose to live in rural areas, but that’s water under the bridge.
<
p>
The issue now is whether people who live in urban areas should be required to pay taxes to induce private largely unregulated companies to provide services to people who chose to live in rural areas. That is the issue. As far as I’m concerned, no. The example given by Mr. Downing on another thread of a lady who couldn’t get a quarterly tax filing downloaded was ridiculous. She could have burned a disk and sent it in via the postal service; she didn’t need broadband.
<
p>
If what you are interested in is throwing money at private companies, then admit it. The state did that quite well with Bechtel and the Big Dig, and you see where that got you.
Because, raj, it is called community. We are all part of a whole and we all give a bit to provide for the well-being of the whole.
<
p>
Wanna talk infrastructure? How about water? Sewage? I dare say private companies have been paid by our government to provide those basic necessities in well(over?)-populated areas where folks have chosen to live and where the land can’t possibly support so many bodies. Quabbin anyone? Harbor clean-ups? Perhaps you’d like to see the bills for drilling a drinking water well and installing a replacement septic system at a single family home. I’d imagine the multiples of $10K would make your eyes pop. All coming out of private pockets to pay private companies – not your pocket.
<
p>
The Big Dig is another story. Want to go there? We’ve been told that is important infrastructure for the good of the Commonwealth. Any private companies involved there?
<
p>
We all give a bit, raj, because we are all part of this Commonwealth. Some of us have chosen to live in the east, some in the west. We are all part of the whole. And we continue to give until it hurts.
…The issue is whether the state government should be throwing taxpayers’ money at private corporations to seduce them into possibly providing services that some people might want, but that are not really necessary for the health of the populace. Water and sewage? Owned by the state–or at least a state agency, the MWRA (we can debate the efficiencies of the MWRA at a later time, but pure water and sewage disposal is a public health issue–broadband connection via a private company is not). Or regulated by the state. The telecoms are not regulated by the state–they are regulated, if at all, by the FCC. The Feds, and whe know what that means–no regulation.
<
p>
The Big Dig? Yes, I’ll go there. It was a poorly managed project. I’m just amused that it took so long to build and that it cost so much. A few years ago, the Scandavians opened a 17 mile (or so) bridge-tunnel (half and half) between Denmark and Sweden. It took half the time for them to build it as it took for the Big Dig, and came in on budget at about US$4billion. And they don’t have leaks in the tunnel, and the ceilings aren’t falling off.
<
p>
The Big Dig tunnel is only 3.2 miles and has to date cost over US$14billion, and that is going to go higher to fix the leaks and the ceilings. I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but the management of the Big Dig tunnel has been a joke.
<
p>
On the financing of the Big Dig, let me riddle you this. Why should east-west travelers on the Mass Pike be forced to pay extra so that the north-southtravelers on the Big Dig tunnel be able to ride toll free? That makes no sense whatsoever.
<
p>
BTW, I understand Mr. Bosley’s problem. If too many people move out of his district, he won’t have a district. It really is as simple as that.
There are lots of people (think children) who do not necessarily “choose” to live where they may be at any point in time.
<
p>
There are many motivations for locating in a given area: a good job opportunity, inheriting a piece of property, wanting to be near elderly parents in their last years, seeking solitude, starting an organic carrot farm, being near a mentor, or any of a host of reasons. And, of course, in real life, there are a multitude of factors that play out against each other in making the final determination.
<
p>
Equally, there are forces of inertia that keep people/families in place even when economic conditions around them deteriorate and it might make more sense, by some metrics, to move. Networks of friends and family are very powerful attractors, for example.
<
p>
So, the question for us, as a Commonwealth, is, does it make sense to support people (within reason), no matter where they live, in having access to quality education, public transportation, sanitation, telecommunications, and the like? There’s no easy answer, because there are always choices to be made with limited government resources.
<
p>
But, practical considerations aside, I hope we can agree that we should not discriminate against people because of where they live.
<
p>
And please don’t overgeneralize about wealthy versus poor communities — every town has its mix of both. Here in Berkshire County there are plenty of wealthy second-home owners, but there are also plenty of homeless people, people without health insurance, people who need mental health services, veterans living in shelters, and any other human condition you can think of.
<
p>
It’s also impossible to know which of these people will contribute most to society in the long run. Obviously, people down on their luck have a harder go at it, but I could tell you many success stories that wouldn’t have been possible without community support.
<
p>
And wealthy second-home owners can be productive members of society, too, they’re not all leaches and robber barrons. I think of Daniel Chester French, whose summer studio was just down the road from me. He came to the Berkshires in the summer to escape the heat and noise of New York City, and set up a place with gardens and walks through the woods so he could calm his soul as he prepared to work. His studio included a short stretch of railroad track, so that on sunny days he could open the big side doors and roll his sculptures out into the sunshine to see what they looked like in natural light. Try doing that in the middle of Manhattan. The result? Many of our most treasured statues, including the magnificent sitting Lincoln that is the centerpiece of the Lincoln Memorial; the one that has appeared on the back of every penny since 1959.
<
p>
This is a long way from broadband access, but my point is that our community, our Commonwealth, thrives and prospers because of its diversity. This very diversity is what we would do well to encourage if we wish to move into the 21st century as a growing and exciting power to be reckoned with in the world at large. Leaving any of our citizens out of the loop will diminish the power of us all, and we cannot afford that.
<
p>
E Pluribus Unum