Left In Lowell

Candidate Video Questionnaires, Part Two

6 Responses to “Candidate Video Questionnaires, Part Two”

1. Jack Mitchell Says:
   October 21st, 2009 at 4:48 pm

   I volunteer at the LTLC once a month with members of Organizing For America - Greater Lowell. That doesn’t make me an expert, but I do have some insight that others may not.

   Franky nailed it! The perception of LTLC is greater than the place itself.

2. Shalloteer Says:
   October 21st, 2009 at 8:23 pm

   Seriously– a great post and video. It is unbelievable to me how little these candidates understood the issues. The responses ranged from: ‘the shelter… uh, yea, we should support them because homeless is bad’ to… ‘the city has a plan to end homelessness in ten years.’ Both types of answers are equally f’d up. One current councilor even pointed to Wayne Passanan as a saviour. Ha! Isn’t that the same guy who profits from the methadone clinic across town! His country club, Andover arse doesn’t give a damn about the people who live around his shelters. Thank you Left in Lowell for reminding me how utterly stupid, ridiculous, and sad these elections are.

3. Kim Says:
   October 21st, 2009 at 8:50 pm

   I am honestly surprised by how much I am liking David Koch

4. waittilnextyr Says:
   October 22nd, 2009 at 5:48 pm

   Ray Weicker raises a point contrary to the actions taken in the JAM area. We should consider the derelict condition of the properties taken, as not only an opportunity for development, but also that not doing so would be a continued drag on the City. It is good to see SCOTUS allows for such takings. So where I understand his philosophical objection, I do not agree that it should have prevented the taking of derelict properties.

   Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan. The Court held in a 5–4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible “public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

5. Shalloteer Says:
   October 22nd, 2009 at 6:28 pm

   Just because the supreme court made a ruling doesn’t mean the city made a smart move in this case. We’ll be paying for this eventually, long after Bernie and company are gone.

6. Mr. Lynne Says:
   October 22nd, 2009 at 6:36 pm

   Was the land in question taken under the New London precedent? I thought it was a tax issue settlement.

Leave a Reply