Left In Lowell

Sometimes doing things right is not the same thing as doing the right thing

11 Responses to “Sometimes doing things right is not the same thing as doing the right thing”

1. Maggie Says:
   August 14th, 2010 at 6:54 pm

   I live within sight of the Temple and I am absolutely opposed to a pool hall next to the temple. We already have the Souper Bowl and it’s numerous complaints and now they have a couple with no experience running a business that sells liquor. The Temple has been a good neighbor - no problems and quiet. I can’t say the same for the Soccer people. I fully appreciate what Lowell Youth Soccer has accomplished - but when someone is told that they cannot use a private parking lot and then that someone curses out the Temple member- well that is just plain rude . And since they have cussed at me a couple of times when they blocked my front gate - well I fully believe that they have cussed at the Temple people. That building is a huge warehouse like structure and there is no way that the music from the pool hall is not going to affect the level of noise within the temple. I do wish Saab would let up on the motorcycle comments though- he is definitely not the best choice for an attorney. I can’t wait to hear Bayliss on this one. I fuuly belive that if this had been next to Immaculate- it would have been turned down.

2. Robby Says:
   August 15th, 2010 at 7:09 pm

   Im not understanding the opposition to this. Here we have a couple of folks willing to open up a business here in the city, provide jobs, and provide tax revenue for our city while we are in the middle of a recession. If denied, they will probably open thier business in another town and Lowell will have lost increased revenue. If the bar hires 10-20 people, then that it is 10-20 people that can now actually have money to pay thier rent. Or put food on the table. Or give the kids some new clothes to go back to school. We are in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. Anytime that the city is offered increased tax revenue and an opportunity for the many, many people here to get a job back - I fully support it.

   If the temple members do not like noise, then they could not have chosen a worse location for thier temple other than Downtown itself. Middlesex St. and that entire area is a mob scene of various business’s and bars already. It is business-oriented district. It has been for years and years. One of thier arguments against this bar was also they are opposed to drinking and smoking. I know that many Hindu’s are also opposed to eating meat. If they wanted to build a meat factory next door, would they also oppose that?

   There are always going to be the folks who are “offended” by certain things. If they don’t like drinking and smoking, then don’t go to the bar when it opens. If you don’t like religion- then dont go to the temple. But either or shouldn’t be banned because someone else doesn’t like it.

   It is also interesting that out of the 200+ people who showed up in opposition, only 1 (according to the video) is actually a Lowellian.

   I also find it interesting that a Mosque can be built next door to the WTC site, even with as much as 75% of New Yorkers in opposition. But its bad (and “socially harmful” as our Governor likes to say) to put a pool hall next to another religious center. The hypocrisy amazes me.

   Dont like drinking and smoking? Dont go to pool halls or bars!
   Dont like noise? Dont move into Downtown or business-mob scene district!

   More jobs for people and tax revenue for us in what is now an empty, sitting warehouse? Absolutely.

3. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   August 16th, 2010 at 11:47 am

   I too thought that there was zoning that prohibited the licensing of an establishment that serves alcohol within X number of feet of a school or church. Maybe that was done away with several years ago when the zoning in the city changed?

   If this establishment were proposed next to the Immaculate you can bet your house on the fact that the board would have found a way to deny it!

4. Shawn Says:
   August 16th, 2010 at 2:42 pm

   Mass General Laws

   Chapter 138: Section 16C. Licenses for premises near schools or churches

   Section 16C. Premises, except those of an innholder and except such parts of buildings as are located ten or more floors above street level, located within a radius of five hundred feet of a school or church shall not be licensed for the sale of alcoholic beverages unless the local licensing authority determines in writing and after a hearing that the premises are not detrimental to the educational and spiritual activities of said school or church; but this provision shall not apply to the transfer of a license from premises located within said distance to other premises located therein, if it is transferred to a location not less remote from the nearest school or church than its former location. Any applicant who has been denied a license under this section shall have the right to an appeal under section sixty-seven.

5. joe Says:
   August 16th, 2010 at 4:22 pm

   Maggie you and your husband complain about everything that happens in the Haldey Street area I remember years ago when you guys fought like crazy against the car wash and they are one of the best neighbors we have. You two need to find something to do besides complain

6. Lynne Says:
   August 16th, 2010 at 4:32 pm

   Folks, please keep it civil. Thanks.

7. Mr. Lynne Says:
   August 16th, 2010 at 5:29 pm

   Can local zoning be more restrictive than MGL 138.16C? Is that the case with our zoning?

8. Maggie Says:
   August 17th, 2010 at 7:03 pm

   Lynne and all - Joe does not bother me. And maybe he hasn’t heard the 2 am drag racers from the car wash - so we’ll excuse him that. Thanks to Shawn for the Mass Gen. Laws info. I believe that this whole thing will play down at the License Commission although as I understand it , Akashian may have to recuse himself. Mr. Lynne brought up an excellent question with the local zoning as opposed to Mass. Gen. Maybe Shawn or someone out there could tell us more.

9. Ned Says:
   August 19th, 2010 at 12:41 pm

   “Maggie Says: I fuuly belive that if this had been next to Immaculate- it would have been turned down.”

   The difference being that the Swaminarayan’s have Louis Saab representing them, and we have God:)

10. Maggie Says:
    August 20th, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    LOL, very good Ned. I am still trying to figure out why they chose Saab, They would have been much better off with James Flood.

11. Maggie Says:
    August 21st, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    With Mr. Saab’s passing this morning - the whole representation for the Temple could take a drastic turn.

Leave a Reply