I don't know anything about Scheinman, but Suher appears to care about nothing but his bottom line. Not much of a rallying figure for the BID opponents. This seems like a SLAPP suit, especially with the parallel federal action, designed to wear down the BID and its supporters. I hope they lose.
Great invitation to community members. I now live in Florida and, so, cannot attend the games of my granchildren anymore. You made me realize that I should supportthe young people in my new community. It takes a village to raise a child! Thanks for bringing the obvious to light! ...(full comment)
Thank you, Lee and your family, for sharing with us the raw honest facts and experiences of your transition.
Many of us will stand on the shoulders of courageous and open individuals like you.
Title IX makes that impossible. And for the record, this ground breaking social engineering plan has been the singularly most successful endeavor in US history (behind Emancipation of course). ...(full comment)
As someone who attended the meeting last night, I think the debate is once again misrepresented and reduced in the above to a conflict between folks who want no disruption to their status quo and those who advocate for more affordable, smaller-footprint, energy-efficient housing for more people. But that is a divisive, outlying argument formed on the margins of the larger discussion. Most of us are more concerned with a synthesis of those two distinctions, and want to see it written concretely into the new zoning ordinances and not simply left up to the discretion of a planning board whose perspectives (and personnel) may change over time.
Although the increased traffic and congestion that will surely follow in the wake of greater density may indeed be the most critical issue in forming these development standards—as its consequences will affect streets and roads and interchanges throughout ALL wards—the purpose of the meeting was to see if we could get some of our many unanswered questions addressed, and to figure out a more collaborative mechanism for public engagement in this process. For example, if there is evidence of the due diligence on citywide impact, why hasn’t that been effectively conveyed to the public?
To that end, in addition to the discussions sponsors, Councilors O’Donnell and Sciarra, it was good to see Councilors Klein, LaBarge, Dwight, and Adams in attendance. All of Northampton is our back yard.
Ban the dogs, or leash amd muzzle them. Many dog owners live in a fantasy land and think their dogs are sweet and loving and will respond aggressively only to a hostile situation. From observation I conclude that most dogs are very social, love and want to please their owners, but are virtually untrained. They are operating on instinct and their owners have very little control over them, especially off leash. If their predatory/defensive instincts are triggered they will behave in an aggressive fashion as that part of their brain overrides any direction from an owner or handler. This is why dogs should be restricted around a school, a place where children are required to be. ...(full comment)
Interesting. The only dog biite injury was caused by a dog that was not with or under control of its owner. There have not been other incidences of dogs with their owners biting or harming children. The dog in question has not been located, nor has it's owners. Northampton already has a leash law requiring dogs to be under the control of the owner. So.... follow my ttrain of thought here... the injury to hte children would have been prevented if there had been a ban on dogs on school property?? because of course, the owners would have kept their dog away?? This rule is like much of the post 9/11 crap, the gun control crap, etc - it only restricts those people that are willing to follow the law in the first place. Life has risks - one of the bigggest is that people don't follow all the laws. Hold them responsible for the laws that they violate, but don't restrict the behavior of the ones that do follow the law. This rule is another example of a nanny state gone wild... ...(full comment)
All college sprots should be required to be self sufficient, independent of student tuition and fees. UMass football isn't even entertaining, they stink. The athletic department is under the ridiculous impression that they are relevant to the scholastic excellence of the school. Let's have the Isenburg School of Business do an analysis for them to show how little they contribute to an education,. and how much they add to the cost... ...(full comment)