Left In Lowell

Bernie has his report on the energy audit company which has been hired under a performance contract with the city published on his blog. Take a read.

Très super cool.

In celebrating the win for the puppies (ie, the passing of Question 3!), I have paused to ask myself several times if this is the end to this matter, or if there’s another fight a-brewin’.

After all, the dog racing industry is one which has consistently employed influential lobbyists to prop up its sagging industry in many ways, not the least of which is the perennial issue put before every legislature: that of allowing racinos with gambling slot machines.

So, it is not outside the realm of imagination to believe that before they can be dismantled, there will be one last push in the legislature by the track industry’s lobbyists to “overturn the will of the voters” (as conservatives like to call it when recalling the tax rollback ballot initiative). Now, while the legislature has every right to overturn previous laws, whether created by former sessions of the legislature or by ballot vote, in this case, I would not support that.

The Yes on Three people had better be prepared for this last leg of the fight. Although there’s a chance the tracks will just fold up and quietly go, as their revenues are dying anyway, I doubt this will happen. They will take this to the legislature for a vote, and one more likely to be favorable to them.

The saddest news, which mars the great triumph of last night, is that it looks like California, by a slim majority, voted to accept hate and bigotry into their state constitution. It is a huge step back for equal marriage rights, but it’s more personal than that. Today, hundreds of couples in California who yesterday were married, are weeping. Trying to console one another.

The ludicrous system which allows CA residents to vote on civil rights on the ballot, to amend their constitution so easily, has allowed hate to flourish and triumph. The big news is that if a right wing religion from another state spends a decade and millions of dollars, they can rip loved ones apart and take away their dignity, their right to be there for each other at the end of life or in the hospital, they can encode their hate into constitutional law.

But this is a marathon, as I have said elsewhere. This is not over. To my gay brothers and sisters, I say, mourn today. And I give this advice. Don’t leave your pain in the dark, with your friends and allies and partners. Let the country see what they have done. Let the sundering of the civil bond between already married partners in California shine in the spotlight. Let them see your sorrow. At work, on the television, at the movies, on the street, in the park. Let them see you cry. Don’t hide from this hate. Show us how you love. How you hurt.

I say that if you do not shrink back from this, if you boldly come before Californians, the American people with your heart showing, there will be a backlash against hate. There will be human beings who will see themselves in your shoes, though they never thought to change their attitude or be your ally. Yours is the human story, a human struggle. Let us see.

As I write this, my throat’s constricted, my eyes are wet. Let them feel it. Let them see. Let them see.

I’m not sure what to make of this article about the Tsongas Arena and Meehan’s sudden public announcement that the University is unwilling to move forward on discussing the possibility of taking over the property.

I mean, what would give the city, and Lynch reportedly, the impression that the University was at least interested in proposals put forth, only to suddenly reverse course?

UMass Lowell does not want to take over control of the Tsongas Arena, nor the abutting property, Chancellor Marty Meehan told a joint meeting of the City Council’s economic development and arena subcommittees last night.

[…]

“We really should end discussions,” Meehan said repeatedly. “From the university’s perspective, the best thing … is the lease agreement we already have in place. We would probably like to withdraw rather than move forward.”

[…]

Meehan’s statements came as a surprise to Lynch, who said he was under the impression that the discussions were going well. He and Meehan are scheduled to meet with Sen. Steve Panagiotakos and staff from Gov. Deval Patrick’s office in Boston on Friday to explore financing options.

Meehan said the governor’s office wants an appraisal of the arena that justifies paying $2 million for a venue that loses $1 million annually and needs $5 million in capital improvements.

So why the charade to this point? Does Meehan have more information than he did, suddenly, or is there something else going on?

Meehan says that without $5M in improvements, citing some study done for the U, the existing arena isn’t “viable” for UML; that it would need a practice rink, more parking, and other improvements.

So what is the University doing now with the arena, playing air hockey? If it’s not adequate for UML to own, how is it viable for UML in the next 10 years of lease it has? Am I the only one who’s confused here?

Someone is screwing the pooch here. Either Lynch and the city is expecting too much in its asking price, or else Meehan is in his demands for upgrades. The point of view between the two is too different for this to be a mere negotiation sticking point. I mean, WTF? People, straighten this out. It’s costing the city money (let’s hope the indy audit of the operations of the Arena help us find out why) and the situation isn’t “viable” as is. And if the adjacent property can get on the tax rolls, why not explore it?

And is this Meehan (pardon the pun) going for a power play here? I can’t see any other explanation for this public turnabout.

Or maybe I am just completely confused about what’s at stake here.

Can it really get any worse for them? Really? Losing three seats in the legislature, meaning state Republicans hold only 16 of 160 seats total?

You know, if you stopped running hard-right, anti-gay wingnuts that are far outside the mainstream of Massachusetts voters, you might actually get somewhere. Unless you like being the size of a single committee of the state House. *shrug*

(And if you ask me, we already have plenty of “checks” in the legislature with conservative Democrats like Rep. David Nangle. Frankly, I’d love to see them switch parties to more reflect their voting record, but that’s not going to happen while the state Republican party is as impotent as Bob Dole before the invention of Viagra. Talk about a losing side!)

I don’t think I ever explicitly came out to say in linear fashion where I stood on the MA ballot questions, though individually I had things to say about them.

With 83% precincts reporting, the ballot questions have gone the way I could have wished, with absolutely fabulous resounding margins that make me proud to be from Massa-freakin-chusetts:

1. Repeal the income tax?
Winner No: 69%
Yes: 31%

2. Decriminalize marijuana?
Winner Yes: 65%
No: 35%

3. Abolish dog racing?
Winner Yes: 56%
No: 44%

Yay for sanity (Q#1), superyay for the dogs!, and…yay…for the pot heads?

Question #2’s margins totally caught me off guard. Who knew MA voters felt that strongly on this? Certainly, the compelling ads from law enforcement making the case must have had some impact. I think it’s a sane, pragmatic route to take and I think we see a mandate there for better ways of dealing with marijuana possession and possibly, CORI reform.

On Question #1, I just am flabbergasted by the margin of loss. These are margins you see in a John Kerry/Jeff Beatty race (scratch that, more people voted No to Q1 than for John Kerry).. I think we can safely say that the close call on this issue from 2002 where 45% voted for it is safely beat the crap out of. Thank whatever lord you believe in.