HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Bulger
Date: 11 Jan 93 10:18:24 GMT
Organization: Mitech Corporation, Concord MA

In article <BZS.93Jan10232815@world.std.com>, bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
> NYC has the UN, and yup, about the same situation. You know what it
> costs to deal with the huge diplomatic community there? Not to mention
> that they don't pay parking tickets etc, and probably don't pay income
> taxes (almost certainly don't.) What an honor, they should have left
> it in Nassau County...

Should have left the UN on the Pacific Coast. Where not the first
meetings held in SF?
From: richb@jti.com (Richard Braun)
Subject: Re: Bulger
Organization: Jupiter Technology Inc. / Waltham, MA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:16:53 GMT

lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund) writes:
>	On channel five's _Five on Five_ show on Sunday, Jan 10 
>Sen. Bulger made the statement that he did not get the Garden bill
>until December 22.  He repeated this several times so I assume
>that something was not done until that date.  Anybody got the 
>straight skinny?

There was an editorial in today's _Globe_ which really made my
stomach turn.  It was Nyhan, I think, claiming that Bulger should
be regarded as a hero because he used his influence to stop Weld from
forcing through a bill which would have handed huge taxpayer subsidies
to the greedy folk who are behind the Garden redevelopment project.

I don't question the fact that the Garden developers are greedy, nor
even the fact that Weld perhaps tried to pull something over on the
taxpayer, with the cynical (but true) knowledge that taxpayers will
tolerate just about any political shenanigans to support Professional
Sports.  (They're a sacred cow in this town, up there with the AIDS
Action Committee, the Boston Pops, and Channel 2...!)

What I question is this: given that Bulger has all this power to begin
with, how is it that he can be considered a "hero" for "pulling off"
blockage of an 11th hour attempt to stick it to the taxpayers?  He
could've dealt with the whole problem months earlier!

And they call this leadership?

-rich
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond)
Subject: Re: Bulger
Organization: Integrated International Systems Corp. One Longfellow Place, Suite 3309, Boston, Ma.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:38:28 GMT

borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:

>In article <73125@cup.portal.com> James_J_Kowalczyk@cup.portal.com writes:

>>Boston does not have rent control.  As far as I know, only Cambridge and
>>Brookline still have rent control.

>Boston has vacancy decontrol.  What this means, at least what it meant in the
>places I lived in the Symphony Hall area (not as nice an area as it sounds),
>is that when a tenant renews a lease, the rent can only go up by a certain
>percentage, which I think is related to the estimated increase in the cost
>of living.  Low income tenants' rents only go up by the cost of living, if
>they get the form in on time.  When new tenants move in, starting new leases,
>the landlord can charge whatever he or she can get.  I don't know if there are
>other systems in effect.


>    - Dave Borden
>      borden@m5.harvard.edu


There is a "Rent Equity Board" in Boston. I know that a friend's landlord
filed for an exemption with them. If you want more info , call them up at
725-4200.

Charlie
-- 
*****************************************************************************
*  Charles Richmond 	Integrated International Systems Corporation        *
*  cmr@world.std.com	(Temporary) cmr@koneko.shr.dec.com		    *
*  Specializing in UNIX, X, Image Processing, and Communications.           *
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: pstodd@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Paul Stoddard x5559)
Subject: Re: Bulger
Reply-To: pstodd@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Paul Stoddard x5559)
Organization: Interleaf, Inc.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 01:49:06 GMT

In article <C0Fvy3.A62@jti.com> richb@jti.com (Richard Braun) writes:
> So how do you like Bulger's latest autocratic BS?  Geez.  He pulls this
> stunt right after the election every two years, sure in the knowledge
> that half his supporters vote for him *because* he exercises his power
> this way and that the other half will have forgotten by the next time
> around.
> 
> Maybe this time he's stepped over the edge.  Maybe there'll be a good
> strong candidate running against him.  Maybe Southie will come to its
> senses.
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> -rich

Not a chance! I'm a South Boston resident and I vote against that little
bastard every time an election comes round. The problem is that no democrat
will run against him and, unfortunately, most of the constituency of Bulger's
district are non-thinking democrats, i.e. their parents were democrats, so
they're democrats, and their children will be democrats, etc. It's almost a
religion for them to vote democrat, so a republican wouldn't stand much of a
chance. The last republican to run against him was Dr. John DeJong, a back bay
veterinarian who holds a seat on the Boston Finance Commission. His vote tally
was embarassing. Unfortunately, Bulger has become like a tradition to his dis-
trict, albeit a sorry one. The only way he'll leave office is either feet-first
or if he decides to retire. But don't expect that to be any relief. He has 7 or
8 children and most of them are already involved in either politics or some
form of state or city government.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Stoddard, Interleaf Inc., Prospect Place, 9 Hillside Avenue,
Waltham, MA 02154 (617)290-0710 x5559, INTERNET: ...!mit-eddie!ileaf!pstodd
Disclaimer: All thoughts and opinions expressed are my own.
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Re: Term Limitation in MA
Keywords: CONCON, Term Limitation
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 11:22:46 GMT

rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:

>The latest I have heard is that Gov. Weld is not going to be able to force 
>the great and general court of Massachussetts to vote on the term limitation
>item. This item was placed on the ballot by the voters, but that does not
>stop those moral midgets in the State House from ignoring the will of the
>People.

>What we need in Massachussetts is a latter day Guy Fawkes. When we get
>one, we can set a day aside, not because he failed to blow up the
>legislature, but because he succeeded.

>Conan the Libertarian
Correction!!!!!

>-- 
>"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"

Correction!!!!.
I just read in this morning's Boston Globe (1/4/93) that a ConCon will
convene at 11:00 AM EST at the statehouse.  It is expected that Mr. Bulger
will block the vote on the term limitation (proposed) ammendment. 
Twentyfive percent is the necessary threshold for getting the proposed
ammendment on the ballot for the next election.

Cioau.

Conan the Libertarian

-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"
From: rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Bulger
Date: 8 Jan 1993 18:09:44 GMT
Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: spcsun25.bbn.com
Keywords: not so fast there

I hate Billy Bulger as much as anyone around here, but
on the front page of today's Globe business page, Joan
Vennochi's column points out that Bulger may have done
the citizens a service by killing the hurriedly-drafted
Boston Garden bill.   Among other things, Bulger says that
the bill would have required the MBTA to make a 0%-interest
loan to the Garden developers, and would have given away
a parcel of state-owned land at no cost.

It would be tragic if this dispute prevented construction
of the new Garden.  But I'm all for trying to get a better
deal for the taxpayers.

-- 
Ron Newman		rnewman@bbn.com
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Bulger
Date: 12 Jan 93 04:24:39 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1993Jan12.022653.23618@athena.mit.edu> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes:
>In article <58527@dime.cs.umass.edu>
>	yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>>During the 1970's it was
>>estimated that NYC had a net federal outflow of taxes close to $10billion.
>
>What if you include state taxes and state spending?


If you think the rest of New York state is subsidizing NYC, think again.


>
>I remember a lot of debate during the 1980s about federal aid to cities.
>How much did NYC get?  What was the difference between federal taxes and
>federal spending since the 1970s?

I only have figures for the 1970s, but since the 1980s saw a major
increase in federal taxes, cuts in federal assistance to cities, and
a bloating of the "defense" budget (very little of this was spent in 
the city), it seems quite likely that it got worse. 




-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: State Socialism
Organization: The World
	<58382@dime.cs.umass.edu> <4398@mitech.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 06:47:12 GMT


GJC writes...
>  Do you agree or no with the observation that WHEN PEOPLE OWN THINGS
>  they tend to take care of them better than when they don't own things?

Well, perhaps it's a cultural thing (not that that isn't important.)

I've had this same (following) conversation with two Canadian friends,
the first brought it up, the second I asked just to see if it was a
common belief (ok, two data points, big deal, but bear with me) [note
that both have had extensive experience living in the USA]:

Is the following true: One big difference between the US and Canada is
that in Canada the word "public" (as in public school, public swimming
pool, public hockey rink) means "good, well-kept, the real thing"
while "private" means small and shoddy (for the same kind of thing),
but in the USA "public" means shoddy, over-crowded, poorly maintained,
maybe dangerous, while "private" means superior, well-maintained,
etc.?

Both thought the statement was overwhelmingly true.

It came up in the context of why people in the US seem to generally
shun the idea of "public health care", not that this specific issue is
terribly relevant, but the attitude is. After talking about it for a
while it made perfect sense. If the word "public" in the US always
means "shoddy" (and the opposite in Canada, in general) then no wonder
we have trouble understanding each others' points of view on these
matters, and no wonder people shun things like public health care,
public school, public transportation. The very word public seems to
mean "you don't want it, you certainly don't want to pay for it!"  in
the US. That's not typically so in other western countries.

Makes ya think. Are they crazy? Or are we?

The problem is deeper than might meet the eye.

For example, I was in Paris during that row over wine and rapeseed oil
a few weeks ago. The French papers (Le Monde, Le Figaro) were clearly
complaining that one reason they resented the US's competitiveness in
the European markets was that certainly if *they* denied their people
things like health care and ran public schools and transportation
systems like Americans did, well, they could charge less for products
also!

Isn't it nice to be characterized like we might characterize some
two-bit third-world country?!

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr)
Subject: Re: Bulger
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:02:24 GMT

In article <BZS.93Jan6181957@world.std.com>
	bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

>Meanwhile, Flynn is pushing for a city sales tax for Boston, not that
>I find that the worst idea in the world.

>I know I know, it'll drive business out, it hits the poor the
>hardest, etc etc etc, I dunno, NYC has had a city sales tax for around
>30 years and I don't remember it driving them to rack and ruin.

Maybe we have different standards, but I wouldn't point at NYC as an
example of a healthy city.

Costs are high.  One reason there are a lot of high-paying jobs in the
city is so employees can afford to live there.  My sister is in law
school in NYC.  Once she starts working she will lose 40% of her income
to taxes, and have a much higher cost of living than I do.

Crime rates are high.  This was probably true before the city sales tax,
but has the extra tax revenue helped?  Or did it all go to pay inflated
union wages?

--
    John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: spike@world.std.com (Joe Ilacqua)
Subject: Re: Bulger
Organization: Software Tool & Die
	<BZS.93Jan6181957@world.std.com> <4387@mitech.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:11:55 GMT

In article <4387@mitech.com> gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette) writes:
<Fewer citizens, fewer Police, fewer Fireman, fewer children in
>the school system. What the heck is costing all the money? 

	No, that's "Less Crime, fewer Police." and "Fewer buildings,
fewer Fireman."  Fewer citizens doesn't necessarily mean ether.  

	For fewer students you need to look at the demographics.  Are
you losing poor families with many children or "middle class" families
with few children?  I'd guess the latter.

	Even if there are less children you have to loose a number of
students per in the same neighborhood to lay off one teacher (say
30+).  And how many does it from the same neighborhood take to close a
school?  Hundreds?

->Spike
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: boba@miki.pictel.com (Bob Alexander)
Subject: Re: Bulger
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:10:51 GMT

>Another factor is not how many people live in Boston but how many
>people use Boston. When someone lives in Newton or Framingham but
>comes in town for "things Boston" (even just shopping, I mean,
>shoppers expect the roads and other transport to be there, they expect
>police around etc) then the numbers you cite may be misleading. One
>way to assure collecting on that kind of activity fairly would be a
>city sales tax.

People who visit Boston pay exorbitant parking fees.  The businesses they
work at and the shops they buy at pay property taxes at a higher rate than
residents.  All of this has been justified, at least in part, by the fact
that businesses attract out-of-towners.

How much more should out-of-towners be taxed before we consider it "fair?"
(It's interesting how politicians' ideas of tax fairness change based
on revenue needs rather than how much tax a certain group is paying.)

     Bob Alexander                                     boba@pictel.com
       The more the government does, the better libertarianism looks
     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     Organizations don't have opinions; people do.  The above opinions
     do not reflect those of the directors, stockholders, managers, or
     other employees of PictureTel.

Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Bulger
Organization: The World
	<1993Jan10.230224.13553@athena.mit.edu> <58527@dime.cs.umass.edu>
	<BZS.93Jan10232815@world.std.com> <4458@mitech.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:51:31 GMT


From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette) [responding to me]
>> NYC has the UN, and yup, about the same situation. You know what it
>> costs to deal with the huge diplomatic community there? Not to mention
>> that they don't pay parking tickets etc, and probably don't pay income
>> taxes (almost certainly don't.) What an honor, they should have left
>> it in Nassau County...
>
>Should have left the UN on the Pacific Coast. Where not the first
>meetings held in SF?

Perhaps. My recollection is that they were housed for a short time on
the old World's Fair Grounds (well, in a builiding on...) in Flushing
Meadows, Queens and then moved for several years to the current site
of Sperry Gyroscope in Nassau County, NY (specifically the town of
Lake Success), and then moved to their current location in Manhattan.

The Sperry plant still (or did as of a few years ago) maintains
gardens planted with plants from around the world during the UN stay
there. The plant was the place a lot of the navigational electronics
and other components of the Trident submarines were built (among other
things.) They used to have a full-sized Trident in the "basement".
It's a big building (not tall, but flat) and people use bicycles
(supplied by the plant) to get around inside.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund)
Subject: Re: Bulger
Summary: Date of Garden bill submission 
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:35:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.133840.17343@osf.org> Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org> writes:
<disussion on Boston Garden Bill deleted>
>
>I think that Bulger had legitimate reasons for not passing the
>garden deal.  I do, however, question his timing, as the
>refined bill was introduced in Oct. 92 and Bulger claimed that
>he didn't have time to read it and act on it until the midnight
>session.
>
	On channel five's _Five on Five_ show on Sunday, Jan 10 
Sen. Bulger made the statement that he did not get the Garden bill
until December 22.  He repeated this several times so I assume
that something was not done until that date.  Anybody got the 
straight skinny?
 

-- 
Larry Headlund  lmh@world.std.com    Eikonal Systems (617) 482-3345 
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Bulger
Organization: The World
	<BZS.93Jan9013033@world.std.com> <1993Jan11.134008.633@miki.pictel.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:42:55 GMT


From: boba@miki.pictel.com (Bob Alexander)
>So, do you advocate taxing fairly, or unfairly?  And if you strive for
>fairness, would you care to answer the question "How much more should
>out-of-towners be taxed before we consider it 'fair?'"

Fairly for whom? And what basis do you decide what is "fairly"? Surely
those taxed to pay for what they are using may well advocate the view
that it is unfair. That does not make it unfair. The other possible
way to gauge it is to tax to recover on services until either those
services are recovered or it's hurting something else you have an
interest in so you go think about it again.

The minimum that would be fair would be what the out-of-towners cost,
both directly and in terms of devpt for the future.

Notice that I am not trying to spell that equation out or how to
apportion it. Comments like this usually elicit "but what about the
increased property taxes that result from enhanced business from
people who come in from out of town?". Sure, it's part of the
equation. But if you're still net negative someone has to pay, that's
all.

It's also not clear that, given the kinds of taxes we're talking about
(e.g. sales taxes) that brutal "fairness" is really necessary, if what
one means by that is that god forbid the city actually has something
left over to develop the city for its residents. To me, that's still
fair, out of towners have no right to dictate that everything must be
done at rock-bottom levels for their benefit, I wouldn't have a
problem with, for example, some enhancment of public transportation as
a result of enhanced revenues from the saturday shopping crowd.


-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From: cher@ksr.com (Mike Cherepov)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Industrialization (oops)
Date: 7 Jan 93 01:07:47 EST
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp.

I boldly proclaimed:
>                                          But Stalin's USSR was
>a whole lot closer to mid-19th century Britain than to the period
>you insist be used (a good metric is percentage of urban population,
>about 25% for the start of Stalin's rule, and, I think, about the
>same for Britain of 1850s).  So the right period in British history
>for this comparison (which you insisted on) is the second half of
>19th century (the middle phase of British industrialization)

Unfortunately, Paul Johnson, whom I would trust to reproduce
urbanization stats, gives comparable urbanization rates (20%)
for 1926 Russia and 1800 Britain.  I lose.  But on this point
I can afford to: the Columbia statement on increasing life
expectancy and the impossibility of categorical claims on
the standard-of-living changes still applies to the early
industrialization.  Besides, there is no proving that Lord
Liverpool's or Robert Peel's governments committed what could
have been considered horrible crimes by the standard of their
times.  Stalin and Mao did, by almost any standard.

With this, I am bailing out of this discussion or taking it to
e-mail.  Some have complained that it is polluting the pure
Bulger/term-limits stream that sustains them.  Cheers.
	Mike Cherepov
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Bulger
Date: 11 Jan 1993 20:39:53 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <BZS.93Jan10232815@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry  
Shein) writes:
> 
> The capital of NY is Albany (that's that town up where the thruway
> turns left.) So chalk up another pork barrel that might have helped
> NYC, they gave it away to some town that wouldn't have even existed
> w/o it. Feh. Albany's only other claim to fame is the only 50 lane
> bowling alley in all of, er, Albany.
> 

But the fact that Albany is the capital is probably a godsend
to the rest of the state.  If NYC was the capital, they'd have
even more control over how the state is run.

I've always thought that one problem in MA is that Boston is
the capital, and too much of Legislature is directed at doing
what is best for Boston and the other towns inside of 128.
I think a city in the center of the state (Worcester, for
example) would make a far better capital, because the 
legislators then wouldn't be overly influenced by the
concerns of the state's largest city, but could look at the
state as a whole a bit more.

This seems to work well in Pennsylvania. Neither Philadelphia
nor Pittsburgh is the capital: Harrisburgh, halfway in between,
is. Thus, the Legislature doesn't just do whatever is best
for Philadelphia, but tries to work for the whole state.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

Newsgroups: ne.politics