Monday's Globe reported that slot machine supporters are closer than ever to bringing thousands of new machines to our state. Last fall the Senate voted in favor of the machines, and the House members who support the legislation will be joined by racetrack owners and local mayors in the effort to convince their colleagues to back it. A House victory is even more likely now that Northeastern's own Tom Finneran has departed as Speaker, because Finneran had bullied members to oppose the slots.

So is this good news or bad news?

The positives are clear enough: millions of dollars injected into local economies that need it, and about $350 million per year in revenue to the state budget, plus $100 million in start up fees. Now that the state has corrected the distribution of lottery funds to local governments, this windfall would presumably benefit local governments and their schools, and it is very hard to argue against that kind of money being spent on education.

Unfortunately the machines aren't printing the State checks. Nope, the money comes from people. The problem is that these are not the type of people you want to take $350 million a year from.

First of all, they are from Massachusetts. Las Vegas rakes in millions from out-of-staters, but no one is flying in to Taunton to play slots at a race track. The first rule of taxing might be, "Don't tax your own people, if you can avoid it."

The second problem is that slot machines are essentially like scratch tickets: you don't play them for entertainment (though surely most enjoy playing on some level), you play to make money. This means that the people who play often cannot afford to. Massachusetts should not be in the business of encouraging fixed-income senior citizens, say, to desperately drop $500 in a few hours.

So what we have here is a regressive tax on exactly those whose tax burdens most legislators seek to relieve. It's cleverly disguised as entertainment, but it acts just like a tax. Looking for creative sources of new revenue is a great idea, but in this case "creative" just means "politically easier."

There is no doubt that $350 million dollars a year could be put to great use in Massachusetts, and the State would be well served by legislators willing to raise taxes honestly instead of looking for creative ways to deceive those footing the bill.

In the few months that I have been here in Boston, I have come to expect anything other than the exciting from Boston, its politics, and just the city itself. The skyline of this city is a true telling of that in that it really does not have very much to offer. It is generally unexciting and does not to seem to be very much inspired. That is sort of emblematic of what is on the ground especially downtown. There is just not a heck of a lot going on there. Maybe a little more thought and something new would add some excitment. That actually came from mr. cant talk or be exciting Menino who actually proposed doing something. I hear he is mr. retail politics in this city and knows the hoods but this is actually a good idea and I am giving him some points for it. Take a look at this Boston Globe write-up on it. Ill comment some after:
Construction of 1,000 Foot Skyscraper Urged

''We will insist on bold vision and world-class architecture," Menino said of the tower envisioned by City Hall planners. In a colorful artist's rendering of the skyline the city envisions, two slender spires extend the building high above downtown's two tallest structures, the One International Place building and One Financial Center, both 46 floors.

Ken Greenberg, an urban designer and founder of Greenberg Consultants Inc. of Toronto, said Boston could use another skyscraper, because the 1980s and '90s brought a series of buildings of much the same height. ''I don't think all tall buildings are wonderful everywhere," said Greenberg, ''but there are some places where they can play very significant roles.

''What this building does is it creates a punctuation. I was struck by this -- it adds a little something special, gives a little focus to the eye."

In his speech at the annual meeting of the Boston Municipal Research Bureau, Menino said the city's immediate priorities are addressing increasing crime, meeting the challenges of rising costs, and staying competitive in a world economy where Boston is less insulated than ever from global challenges.

But a new signature tower would show confidence about overcoming those obstacles, Menino said, serving as ''a stunning statement of our belief in Boston's bright future."

Greenberg was interim chief planner at the BRA until last month but was not involved in the Winthrop Square plan, and he continues to advise the city on the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway design. ''There is something about dense cities that is good -- the life and activity," he said.

With the office leasing market showing significant improvement, developers are expected to line up as the city seeks proposals over the next two months for the location at 115 Federal St., between Franklin and Summer streets.

''We expect proposals from around the world," said Susan Elsbree, a spokeswoman for the Boston Redevelopment Authority. ''Dozens."

The office market is improving in Boston and the surrounding area after a difficult few years, and suddenly there is talk in the Boston real estate community of a new office tower, or even two. Two buildings already permitted and in design are located at Russia Wharf and on Fan Pier. But those are in the range of 30 floors or smaller, like most of Boston's recent buildings.

I mean this seems like a wow thing and from my only recent knowledge of Boston, it seems like this city could use a little kick of something to bring people back into the city because they seem to be fleeing. I really like this idea but I wonder if it is going to die. Someone should keep this going.

I usually do not think of the Boston Phoenix as my number one source for news but they seem to have more going on the the governors race department lately than anyone else. This week they had two articles, one technically an editorial, on teh race for governor in this state and they are both worth a look. The first article is an editorial on Tom Reilly and his bid for governor. Have a look at this piece from the end of the editorial and then I will comment:
Reilly Should Exit

One of Reilly’s problems may be that he has thought too much about raising the money he needs to be elected governor and not enough about what he would stand for if he were to be elected. Witness Reilly’s flip-flop embrace of the death penalty; it was every bit as squirrelly as the conversion Mitt Romney miraculously underwent when he cast his cold and calculating eyes on the White House, at which point he abandoned his position on abortion that while he was personally opposed to it, he respected and upheld a woman’s right to choose. And then there was his spineless performance on the issue of gay marriage. Reilly really stuck it to a community that had for the most part supported his electoral career. Even if as attorney general Reilly felt he had absolutely no wiggle room and had to allow a statewide referendum on gay marriage (something we — like others — doubt), he could have made a more convincing case and showed more solicitude toward his gay supporters. When the going gets tough, Reilly gets squishy. At least more-conservative Democrats have the candor to hold their positions with conviction.

While he may not do it convincingly, Reilly is always on watch trying to turn easy headlines into political hay. He tried to exploit the nasty and soul-numbing scandal over the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests by suggesting constitutionally dubious oversight of church affairs by his office. He tried to worm his way into the sale of the Red Sox with dubious claims of policing the trusts that owned the team. And he offended civil libertarians as well as people of common sense when he injected himself into a fracas caused by two loathsome radio talk-show jocks who made a racist wisecrack on the air.

But when there were issues that really mattered and where his office had a clear interest — such as the spate of murder-conviction reversals in Suffolk County and the plague of murders that Boston police have not been able to solve — where was Reilly? Keeping his mouth shut.

Although the prospect appears unlikely, we’d welcome the entrance of one of our congressmen into the race. Whether Patrick or Gabrieli have what it takes to make it as governor remains to be seen. They may, by the standards of political pros, be long shots. But we think their candidacies are more appealing than Reilly’s.

I usually dont agree with the more alternative ideas pushed by Phoenix like publications but I could not agree more. Demcorats are really lacking exciting candidates with impressive ideas. I think that Deval fills that void. At the lease he does a better job than Reilly. Reilly just seems to think that he somehow deserves this because it is what is next for him. Even taking election politics out of it I really dont know that he would be so strong for the people of Massachusetts.

On the issue of Deval Patrick, the Phoenix also has a stort about him. Here is an excerpt:
Corporate Accountability

Maybe, In the wake of his landslide win at this month’s democratic caucuses, Deval Patrick Is the new front-runner. Maybe he’s neck-and-neck with the former favorite, Attorney General Tom Reilly, who’s stumbled more in the past six weeks than most politicians do in a year. Whatever you make of Deval Patrick’s chances in the race for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, one thing is clear: his years as a high-powered corporate executive are about to get some serious scrutiny.

There’s a political paradox at work here. Patrick’s business bona fides could be invaluable in a general-election fight with Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, the likely Republican nominee, and Big Dig whistle blower Christy Mihos, who may run as an independent. At the same time, Patrick’s Fortune 500 roots practically beg Reilly, who’s been cultivating an Everyman persona, to play the economic-populist card with a vengeance. Whether Reilly can do this skillfully is unclear — but so is Patrick’s ability to reconcile his abiding business loyalties with the exigencies of his candidacy.

The article goes on to take a look at that business backgroung of Deval Patrick -- especially what the negatives might be. I wanted to be worried about this issue with him at first but I doubt that it will affect him in the long run and it would probably be good for this population losing state. Understanding business is good and with quotes like this, "The difference between us and the right is — or ought to be — that we understand that there’s more than one bottom line,” he continues. “There’s the profit bottom line, and that’s right. That’s fine; I’m a capitalist; I understand this. But there are also environmental bottom lines, and community bottom lines, and human bottom lines. And the role of government, as I see it, is to balance those bottom lines — to create the corridor within which the free market operates. I don’t know that that is a Republican or a Democratic message. It’s pragmatism.” I don't think he can lose.

# posted by CourageVisionChange @ 12:36 AM 0 comments