Email us!
LiL Fundraising for Elizabeth Warren!
Lowell Area Bloggers/Forums
- Art is the Handmaid of Human Good
- Blog from the Office of the City Manager, Lowell MA
- Captains Log (Paul Belley)
- Choosing a Soundtrack
- Corey Sciuto
- Downtown Lowell Blog
- Dracut Forum
- Dracut Musings
- Dracut Politics
- gerrynutter'slowell
- JackieDoherty.org
- Lowell Deeds
- Lowell Police Dept WebNews
- Lowell Public Schools Blog
- Lowellest Common Denominator
- lowellresident
- Middlesex Community College Blog
- MV Homlessness Blog
- RichardHowe.com
- Right-Side-of-Lowell
- Tewksbury Issues
- The New Englander
Lowell Politics
Mass Bloggers
- - Leftyblogs MA Blogroll - Almost all of my favorite lefty blogs in Massachusetts can be found here. Linking here keeps my own blogroll short but still up to date! Below are some other MA blogs which are not listed at LB.
- H2Otown (Watertown, MA)
- MargeBLOG (Williamstown)
- Michael Forbes Wilcox (Western MA)
- The Gazebo (Worcester area)
Media in Lowell
- Chelmsford Mass News
- Community Connections The online archive of many of WUML's radio shows.
- LTC :: Our community cable access channel (8 & 10). Excellent people, I've worked with them before.
- Open Source :: Chris Lydon's new show, broadcast on WUML and WGBH locally.
- The Lowell Sun :: Love it or hate it, it's the big newspaper in town.
- WCAP radio :: Talk radio in Lowell - still locally owned, and in transition.
- WUML :: The student- and community-run radio station of UMass-Lowell. Lynne hosts a radio show, Thinking Out Loud, 10am on Fridays.
Media in MA
Other Daily Reads
Politics Online
- City Council Agenda Past City Council agendas, posted in a mostly timely manner
- Lowellma.gov Official city website
Progressive Local Orgs
Snark and politics
The Arts in Lowell
- 119 Gallery - Art gallery with exhibitions of many local artists, interesting events, and living, breathing culture.
- Arts League of Lowell (ALL) - Artist community group, a recent but welcome addition to the arts scene in Lowell.
- Brush Art Gallery - Come and meet working artists in their natural habitats!
- Cultural Organization of Lowell (COOL) - Great local calendar of events.
- Lowell Opera Company - Community opera.
- Lowell Philharmonic Orchestra - Local community orchestra.
- Lowell Poetry Network
- Lowell Rocks - List of live music events
- Merrimack Repertory Theatre - A local theatre "presenting an exciting mix of contemporary and new plays in historic downtown Lowell."
- OUtlET - Paper and online 'zine making a splash locally with events in art, poetry, music, and everything in between!
- Revolving Museum Contemporary, local, public art space with a plethora of children's programs and art by and for the community.
- The Fine Print - Socially aware, themed, arts and issues periodic publication available throughout Lowell.
- The Image Theater - Theatre company which puts on all original works by local playwrights.
- Whistler House Museum - A great collection of contemporaries of Whistler at his historic birthplace.
August 10th, 2010 at 6:21 am
The responsible managers that I know set the annual budget for snow and ice to an average of the past 3 or 5 year’s actuals, less some to keep it conservative (!!!).
Snow and ice is one of the only line items that you can legally deficit spend and carry forward.
It looks like in this instance the CFO is just showing the end of year transfers that occur to close out the books (you can’t carry that deficit forever).
Trying to understand what you quoted there, is the PAC recommending no money be appropriated for snow and ice?
And why is the PAC trying to micromanage the city budget? Then again, a “reduction in tax levy” is always a great recommendation.
August 10th, 2010 at 7:07 am
Shawn:
No one is trying to micromanage. Citizen participation in government is a good thing. Do you agree?
It comes in various forms, i.e. a letter to the editor, speaking at a public hearing, etc…
All the PAC wants is for the public discussion to begin. The CFO and the CM are knowledgeable and have no problem explaining thier views. I look forward to a sub-committee meeting.
August 10th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Regarding the dog situation - it’s never going to be perfect but I would like to see all dogs required to have their rabies tag and a metal license with owner’s name and address attached to their collar or harness when they are out in public. Non-compliance - heavy fine. Have they even found the owner of those 2 pitbulls that were killed in Chelmsford? I also would like to see the city hire a part-timer dog officer to simply drive around the various neighborhoods at random times and note houses with dogs and then check to see if they have licenses. I know it sounds stupid - but we used to have 3 differnt sets of neighbors who never licesed their dogs and one was a rottweiler that was constantly getting loose and showing up in my yard. I also (gasp) actually agree with the Sun editorial about increasing fines. As for the idiots that think they need to prove their manhood - well a huge hit in the wallet might get their attention.
August 10th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Aren’t licenses and rabies tags already required? I think we simply need existing laws enforced more than new laws
August 11th, 2010 at 10:59 am
If you are counting, this will be the fourth time, yes fourth time, that the Lowell City Council will be trying to decide what is an evil dog
I believe that pit bulls (bad, scary dogs) are most commonly distinguished from American bull terriers (good, loyal dogs) by color.
Specifically, by the color of their owners.
August 11th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
The reason that Managers “underfund” snow and ice are two fold. The first is that it is one of the few line items that you can legally over expend and then raise it on the recap the next year along with items like Assessor’s overlay.
The second reason is that once you fund it at a higher level DOR requires you to maintain that higher level in future budgets. Even if you find that you’re spending less they force you to fund it at the higher appropriation. It’s a catch 22.
So most Managers who know what they’re doing “underfund” it just in case they need the “play” in the line item for future years. You’re boxed in to that higher number once you fund it.
August 11th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Joe - I assume you mean, the perception of a mean dog of the same breed is by the owner? As in insinuating race plays a factor? Cuz otherwise I might assume you yourself are making a racist comment…
August 12th, 2010 at 10:42 am
Yes, Lynne.
August 12th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Lynne, one thing Joe seems to be is literate. How often does anyone have to guess what he means? His intention here cannot be in doubt. You don’t need to assume anything, and your coy response is perplexing.
Of course, Joe’s comment is blatantly racist. It’s good to have it out there. Good to know that we are certainly not in a post-racial society. Good to know that IT continues to be harbored in the hearts of many. Good to know we can’t forget about it. Good to know we have to deal with it, respond to it, and always, always denounce it.
So, with sincerity I say: Thanks, Joe!
August 12th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
That’s what we all figured Joe, but the point was made such that you had to take a moment to think to see what you were implying there. If you were a new user without a history, I’d have to wonder if it was meant to be interpreted in a ‘bad’ way.
JC, Joe wasn’t being racist, he was pointing out that there can be component of racism with regard to the owners’ race when evaluating or perceiving a dog as ‘good’ or ‘bad’. He made the point with a little subtlety by making the assertion and leaving the reader to see the irony. We know Joe from a lot of comments on the blog, so we know what he was probably meaning. But it was good of Lynne to ask the question for the edification of those who don’t know Joe as well and to clarify something that could have been misinterpreted.
August 12th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
You mean, misinterpreted like JC deliberately does even after it’s clarified? Like that misinterpreted?
I love the fake outrage, it’s like mead around here.
August 12th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Lynne,
Please! Look at your log of comments. When I made my comment (#9 marked as 8/12/10 @ 1:06 PM) there was NO comment from Joe (#8 dated 8/12/10 @10:42 AM). Now I don’t know how that happens, but you surely must. At the very least, why don’t you extend to me just the slightest of considerations, just the smallest benefit of doubt?
Even Joe’s reply (#8) does not clarify what he intended. I have to read the clarification from Mr. Lynne (#10). I thank him for that, but wonder how he is so sure?
If there was a backchannel clarification, fine…say so. If not, I concluded what many others would - not knowing the players. If I was wrong…if Joe meant something else, some subtlety lost in the writing, I just wish HE would say so.
You can not intonate in a comment. You can’t add subtlety with voice or expression. If you write something that lacks precise clarity - something that is ambiguous - you run the risk of being misinterpreted.
Finally, I’m a lot of things…no one is perfect…but feigning outrage regarding an apparent racist remark?? How do you assert that! Why, Lynne, do you feel the need to question my reaction? I don’t know you…I don’t know Joe…I don’t know Mr. Lynne - but appreciate his consideration and his effort to dispel my very real outrage.
Just what is it Lynne? Is everything really that dismal, that cynical? Are all the glasses really half empty…all people insincere…all others inadequate?
I’m so glad you have it all figured out. It must be great to be so sure of everyone else…great to know what everyone means…great to know their level of integrity, and lack thereof.
Yours is a special gift. Thank you for sharing it with me, with all of us.
August 12th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
It doesn’t take a genius, dude, to read the original comment and interpret it. The reason I left it in the form of a question (regarding my response) was to give joe the chance to respond in the affirmative, as I do not want to put words in his mouth. You then went out of your way to misinterpret the whole exchange, and now you’re playing the victim. Let me quote you, hours after the exchange showed the true meaning even if you couldn’t gleam it out of the original comment:
“Of course, Joe’s comment is blatantly racist. It’s good to have it out there.”
That’s quite the charge to level on someone else. You must have been pretty sure of YOURself to state it. Don’t pretend it isn’t, and then get all huffy because I called you on it.
Must be nice to be so sure of other people’s perspective on race. Even I, who read the original remark and interpreted it correctly (wasn’t hard), didn’t want to ascribe a meaning to it until I had confirmation from joe.
August 13th, 2010 at 8:53 am
It may not take a genius, but to put your spin on it you’d have to know the commenter very well, and be willing to give him the benefit of your indulgence.
I don’t know him. He needs to write more carefully. Not everyone is a member of “the Club.” HE needs to explain himself. You don’t need to defend him, neither does Mr. Lynne.
I have shown the comment to others…their reaction, universally, has been an audible gasp! Only on deep reflection, and only with the proviso that they know the writer well, are they willing to concede a more charitable interpretation.
You apparently know him well. You apparently are his protector, his PR person. That’s nice, but even better would be his direct, unfiltered clarification.
Finally, I always address you by your handle, Lynne. I believe I deserve the same courtesy. I am most assuredly NOT A DUDE!
August 13th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
JC, honestly, it’s time to get over it.
August 13th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
BTW “dude” is an expression that is, pretty much, genderless. Good lord.
August 14th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
JC, you’re a loony.
What do you think the phrase “most commonly” means in my sentence?
In response to a comment from Lynne about how to “tell what is an evil dog,” a comment that draws attention to the silliness of the effort to distinguish between “pit bulls” and non-evil dogs, I pointed out that the arbitrary distinction is “most commonly” made based on bogus criteria.
You’re an idiot, and you owe me an apology.
August 14th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
“Finally, I’m a lot of things…no one is perfect…but feigning outrage regarding an apparent racist remark?? How do you assert that! Why, Lynne, do you feel the need to question my reaction? I don’t know you…I don’t know Joe…I don’t know Mr. Lynne - but appreciate his consideration and his effort to dispel my very real outrage.
Just what is it Lynne? Is everything really that dismal, that cynical? Are all the glasses really half empty…all people insincere…all others inadequate?”
I suspect she’s doing you the favor of assuming you can’t actually be as clueless as you would have to be for your outrage to be genuine.
August 14th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Regarding snow and ice, the annual budget understates the need, as any deficit can be carried over, and, as mentioned in comment #6, if you budget high the DOR holds you to that higher number in succeeding years.
But the estimated $1.3M deficit in snow and ice in the account was paid off with under-runs in other line items during FY 2010. However, the budget approved by the city council for FY 2011 included that estimated overrun as an expense for FY 2011.
So the question is appropriate - what should the city council do with the $1.3M in the budget for an expense that is already paid off? If they do nothing it effectively becomes an excess tax levy - a potential “slush fund” if its use is not planned. One possible use is to reduce the tax levy by some portion of this over-estimate and provide some relief to the property taxpayers.