Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
I was browsing a very cool site I found via dKos called OpenCongress, when right off the bat I found something affecting Lowell that could be interesting. I was looking up Sen John Kerry and Sen. Ed Kennedy’s tracking pages, which show their votes, the bills they sponsor, what committees they’re on, and news and blog posts about them. Sincerely nifty tool.
Anyway, a recent bill introduced by Kennedy, S.867 “A bill to adjust the boundary of Lowell National Historical Park, and for other purposes,” caught my eye (because, well, it said “Lowell” in the title). The page links to the full text of the bill. The bill’s purpose is to:
(a) Boundary Modification- Section 101(a) of Public Law 95-290
(16 U.S.C. 410cc-11(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(3) ADDITIONAL LAND- The boundaries of the park are modified to include the
5 parcels of land identified on the map entitled `Boundary Adjustment, Lowell National
Historical Park', numbered 475/81,424B, and dated September 2004, and more particularly
described in section 202(a)(2)(G).'.
(b) Acquisition of Property- Section 202(a)(2) of Public Law 95-290 (16 U.S.C. 410cc-22(a)(2))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(G) The following parcels of land, as identified on the map entitled `Boundary
Adjustment, Lowell National Historical Park', numbered 475/81,424B, and dated
September 2004:
`(i) 91 Pevey Street.
`(ii) The portion of 607 Middlesex Place.
`(iii) Eagle Court.
`(iv) The portion of 50 Payne Street.
`(v) 726 Broadway.'.
Anyone have any thoughts on those listed locations? I’m curious. Needless to say, that website is an amazing tool for zeroing in on things going on in your Congress. And the different items are available via RSS feed, so you can use a feedreader to track your congresscritter.
Now, can we put together something like this for our state legislature? We badly need it. How cool would it be…and it wouldn’t be that hard to put together, either. It might even be the case that the software OpenCongress is using was developed under an open source license (I suspect it was, given who sponsors it) . Hmm, might a progressive state legislator propose this as a bill? Then we could at least see on the record who’s not for open government.
[powered by WordPress.]
42 queries. 0.334 seconds
March 21st, 2007 at 9:04 am
That was written up in the Sun not long ago, although it may have been the House bill filed by Meehan. I believe all those properties border the Western Canal, and may be to clean up the view for the tour boats that operate in that area, and possibly to provide walking access to the public along the canal.
March 21st, 2007 at 9:28 am
Ok, I’m going to get really libertarian here and ask why the United States Congress thinks they have the power to created and manage national parks? I don’t think it can be justified even under the much abused commerce clause.
Obviously, I’m against the government running parks in general, but why can’t this be done at the state or local level? It’s a little silly that some guy in California or some Woman in Arkansas is paying for Lowell park rangers.
Anyways, yes it’s a very cool website and we need a state-level one too.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:33 am
If we did not have national parks there would be luxury condos lining the Grand Canyon and a gated members only community at Yellowstone. I’m conservative, hell, I’m one of the extreme minority of registered Republicans in Massachusetts and I’m not opposed to the mere concept of national parks. If we get rid of them maybe we can sell the original Constitution to a private collector. Why waste tax payer money on an old piece of paper.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:35 am
I believe this relates to this item in the SUN:
http://www.lowellsun.com/fastsearchresults/ci_5366741
Also, Josh, some thoughts on your thoughts, in no specific order, and I do not have the answer to any of them… I’m not crazy about the federal government running things either… but some things require a more “collective” solution.
If they were run by the state, wouldn’t they then be “state” parks?
If they were state parks, would they exist? Most states really couldn’t afford them.
Estimated 2006 state population
MA = 6,437,193
Idaho = 1,466,465
Montana = 944,632
Wyoming = 515,004
I don’t feel too bad about some of my federal taxes supporting Yellowstone. Since Mass. has more than double the population, we should probably chip in a little.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
I’m not too familiar with those areas (ie who/what would be displaced), but looking at a google map it looks like it’s all along the pawtucket canal. More green space along the canal sounds great to me.
And Turtledove is correct - if National Parks were State or Local parks - they mostly wouldn’t exist.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Josh: you can’t turn every thread on a progressive blog into a libertarian screed. Please refrain from doing so at every turn.
I value your different point of view, don’t get me wrong, but honestly, don’t you have your own blog to raise these points?
March 21st, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Been following your blog for a while Lynne, decided to post for the first time. Is Jay Booth the selectman from Tyngsboro? If so, we went to YMCA summer camp together.
Yeah, those are all land parcels to access the Pawtucket Canal from Middlesex St. The Lower Highlands must be quite the tourist destination I guess
As for Josh’s comment, isn’t it reasonable to say that Lowell’s place in the history of America is of *National* significance, and as a *Nation* and not just a confederation of independent states, that it’s acceptable that we would expect all Americans to pay for the preservation of their common heritage? And as Turtledove said, many states simply could not -or would not- support free parks (a Libertarian will tell you either if you can’t afford it, you don’t deserve to experience it, or something along the lines of if it isn’t profitable, then it’s not worth doing). I hardly doubt Massachusetts would’ve put any sort of real investment into a park to help out an economic mess like Lowell. Lawrence has a State run park I guess, and it doesn’t seem to do them much good.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Waittil:
Thanks for the find on the Sun article — I knew I’d seen it recently, but couldn’t find it again (of course).
March 21st, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Sorry, Turtledove…. That should obviously be thanks to you. (Of course, I’m sure I have plenty to thank Waittil for anyways….)
March 21st, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Also, another bill of interest to Lowell, (this benefits many families) in relation to bills put forth and supported by Kennedy..his support for an increase in the SCHIPS allocation, meaning more monies allocated to providing medicaid to children to ensure proper healthcare.
As for the Parks issue, I would agree with previous posters, in that, likely if these lands had not been protected by Federal authority they would have been destroyed or developed long ago. The preservation of parks is long term vision, whereas, local municipalities tend to be rather shortsighted in vision, taking short term payout on property with little consideration for the long term effects.