You're just making an assertion. Why is it "wildly ahistorical"?

Some years ago, in the 1990s, the International Socialist Organization (which is now gone, but which influenced a whole generation of the American left) had a discussion on police unions, and they found that they were contradictory. They weren't regular unions, but they were unions nonetheless that sometimes need to be supported, based on their demands, at least according to the ISO.

What I don't understand is why there was a meeting informing some people - but not others - about the investigation. According to the T+G, there was a non-publicly advertised meeting organized by Rollins or her office and some members of the community. Why this group of people, whoever they were, and not everyone else? What's so special about whoever they are?

First ever Latino hired for the job, and now everyone is desperate for a search committee. Maybe not racially motivated (obviously not with Sarai Rivera, as she's an advocate for the community, but the others) but it can't help but feel that way.

But really, so what? Lots of companies and cities with city manager forms of government promote from within. The guy has the experience, etc., so why not?

That clergy lady sounds just like Sarai Rivera. Was it her?

It has to become that, though, if it wants to have more than just a few restaurants. In the meanwhile, the restaurants could provide valet service, as the Shrewsbury Street places do.

The problem is that restaurant margins are already small and the cost of labor has gone way up. People point to parking as an issue, but Shrewsbury Street has good parking, and Green Street never did. On top of that, new garages are being built in the area.

Agreed. Seems like someone told the writer, who's usually good, "Write something that says business downtown is bad."

I don't know. I remember people always talking about "Will the last person to leave downtown Worcester please turn off the lights" well into the 1990s. Nationally foot traffic is down in business districts, because workers are not in the office as much, but there are all kinds of new businesses downtown, like Brew on the Grid, Fuel America, etc.

This article is weird. Did someone in the city administration offend someone at the T+G? This article sounds like it was written in the late 1980s through the early 2000s, when it was common for every article and discussion of downtown to bemoan how the business district was becoming a ghost town. The only difference is that there was a very brief mention of the pandemic.

There are new things downtown that have opened, like the place where you can throw axes, the new steakhouse, the new restaurant that's opening on top of the Mid-Town mall and a bunch of stuff in the mall itself, not to mention that the whole mall has been/is being renovated.

This really is a strange article.

A lot of these rules really limit the options kids like some I know here in Worcester who have to work to support themselves and/or their families. Some places don't enforce the rules, and some of the kids skirt the rules by having a couple jobs.

Thanks for the information!

I was planning on voting yes, but just read this article and came across this bit:

>The measure would add a 1.5% surcharge on residents' annual assessed property tax beginning in July 2023. The first $100,000 of residential and commercial-industrial property value will be exempt from the surcharge. Low-income families and low- to moderate-income senior citizens who own homes will also be exempt from the surcharge.

The average resident will pay $44.45 while the average commercial taxpayer will pay $604.58 if the measure is passed.

I'd previously heard the $44.45 number before, but not the way it's calculated. If you've got a little house that's worth $300,000, and the chop off the first $100,000, that means you're taxed at 1.5 percent on $200,000, right? And 1.5 percent of $200,000 isn't $44.45, but $3,000.

Would the person owning a house like the one described be paying $44.45 or $3,000 more?!

Now I'm thinking I need to vote no, unless someone can explain why I'm off in my calculations or the premise.

Isn't one of the issues that the free money from the state is becoming less and less each year?

I plan to vote yes - the cost is such a low gamble to improve the city - but I would like the clarification.

Thanks! I fixed my post!

Personally I think Massasoit Thomas Little Shell should just be replaced by a stylized image of Casey Affleck from the SNL Dunks commercial.

Evangelidis is definitely not an election denier.

Why would they do this?

The dates weren't really clear...

Same - but I don't want to get my hopes up.

As of 2020, median income for an individual in Worcester was $27,828. I'd say about eight times more than what most people in the city make is "a lot."