Worcesterites in spandex, sporting tails.

I'm not a fan of Walmart.  I've never bought anything there, nor will I darken the door of Worcester's new Walmart.  If we're going to be a Walmart in Worcester, the only benefit will be the first Worcesterite captured on People of Walmart.

I wonder if I will know them?

Paywalls.

I've been playing a new game with myself as I read the T&G every day.  Is this article worth my money?

Today's Dianne Williamson's column falls into the "Not worth my money!" category.  Did the editors screw up and post Laura Porter's column instead of Dianne's?  (No offense intended, Laura.  I just have higher expectations for the lead columnist on the front page of the Local section.)

Judging by the comments, I am in the minority when it comes to dislike for this column.  Perhaps it is because I own a Droid, was able to read the instruction manual that came with it, and even read the extended manual on that-there-Internets-thing-a-ma-bob.

What a surprise.

I posted about 165 Grafton Street and the CSX plans back in March.  While reading through Jeremy Shulkin's excellent notes on the Public Works and Transportation meeting regarding CSX, I caught this nugget from Phil Clancy:

"A new plan has been proposed that would limit truck traffic on Grafton St. The new plan calls for closing the tip of Coral St. (between Union Place and Grafton St.) to anything but CSX traffic (to do this Frank’s Flower Shop will be taken by the company). It’ll be easy for trucks exiting I-290 East to get off and enter the CSX site right away, as well as enter I-290 East, but I must have missed how they’ll get to I-290 West. CSX estimates this will cost $2 mil for “modification.” Councilor Paul Clancy asked about business relocation, which CSX seemed ok with. He also asked about keeping that closed portion of Coral st. open to one-way traffic."

I figured Ron Gestone (owner of 165 Grafton Street) wanted his parcel of land included in the CSX expansion.  Who wouldn't want to unload a property with an empty storefront onto our new neighbors, especially when there is a $2 million price tag associated with the redesign?  165 Grafton Street is valued at $191,800.  Anyone want to make predictions on the final sale price?

I'm curious why Councilor Clancy wants to know about business relocation.  There isn't a business at 165 Grafton Street.  It's still empty!  Perhaps the plans call for the removal of the buildings at 169 and 177 Grafton Street, which actually house active businesses.

One lump or two?

I won't be attending this afternoon's Tea Party downtown. I don't believe in tying up Worcester's traffic in the name of confused history and 'independent' politics. Despite my (almost) constant voting record in favor of third party candidates and independents, this is a movement I won't support.

Let's be realistic. This movement would have some legitimacy if their call for financial responsibility railed against the Administrations of Reagan and Bush 43 for raising the deficit along with the Obama Administration's stimulus. Everything I read and hear from the Tea Party ignores Bush 43's signature on September 2008's TARP and places the blame on Pelosi and Reid (ignoring the Republicans who voted for the package.) Partisanship currently trumps principle among the Tea Party crowd.

If the Tea Party movement can only criticize one party and one political philosophy, then it isn't independent. Principles cross party lines and philosophies and finds the best solutions and candidates, regardless of affiliation. A truly independent movement would run their own candidates (and probably lose to the established two party system.) A truly independent movement exists regardless of electoral success, and their influence resonates throughout intra-party debates over platforms. In the case of the Tea Party, they only seem to care about invalidating the elections lost in 2006 and 2008. America's greatness exists because of peaceful electoral transitions between parties and movements, not through threats of violence, secession, and revolution because one party won control of two-thirds of our government. (Here's a hint for the Tea Partiers- checks and balances has nothing to do with balance between political parties. It's about the balance of power between the three branches of our government and limits any one branch from exerting too much power. In other words, checks and balances invalidates the Cheney philosophy of an imperial presidency.)

My other problem with the Tea Party is their resurrection of State's Rights argument. State's Rights and the 10th Amendment has been historically used to justify the continuation of slavery and Jim Crow. The 10th Amendment was rendered null by the 14th Amendment after the Civil War. Resurrecting this argument after Barack Obama's election seems like too much of a coincidence especially when combined with the racist rhetoric, ignorance, and fury coming from the fringes of the Tea Party.

It seems like the Tea Party has become a mainstay in our daily media, despite it's utter lack of electoral or mainstream success. I don't remember the Green Party, Libertarians, or even Ross Perot receiving sustained daily attention on par with the Tea Party. Giving credit to the Tea Party for Scott Brown's election completely ignores the actual results of the election. The largest swing vote in the Senate election were independent voters who voted for Obama and then voted for Brown. I doubt the Tea Party embraces anyone who shifted that quickly, and I doubt there will be many of those 'turncoats' present at Lincoln Square today.

The Great Wall of Trash.

I was down at Beaver Brook for practice Saturday afternoon from 2 until 5.  There were three DPW trucks set up in the parking lot, with three workers waiting for people to drop off yard waste.  There was still a pile of yard waste at the gate leading into the parking lot, and that pile was still there after they closed up shop and went home for the night.

Looks like I have to file a work order with the DPW to get them to pick up the trash they ignored all Saturday afternoon.

Foley Stadium

I was down at Beaver Brook Park this past Tuesday afternoon.  Chandler Street was packed with parked cars due to multiple high school games at Foley Stadium.  (I can't call Foley by any other name, just like I still use Great Woods and the Centrum instead of their current corporate sponsor names.)

 As I drew closer, I realized the Beaver Brook/Foley parking lot was locked and empty.

I know the School department employees at Foley have a key to the lot.  They are supposed to unlock it during games to prevent traffic backups on Chandler Street, which is one of the heaviest traveled roads in the city.  In the past the upper lot has been left locked to prevent people from dumping yard waste and trash in the lot when the DPW crews aren't there.  It doesn't work.  Instead, we get a wall of yard waste at the gate like this:

It was far worse last week- the Great Wall of Beaver Brook extended the whole length of the wood fence and covered most of the gate.  This 'little' pile accumulated on Sunday and Monday.  I volunteer at Ted Williams Little League, and after numerous complaints, we received a key for the upper lot because our parking on Mayfield Street always fills up like this: 

 

 The few times our parents have parked on Chandler Street, they were ticketed.  I didn't see any WPD out ticketing the Foley crowd.  Hopefully this won't happen again!

Gambling.

Baseball season's here, so it's going to be a bit of a challenge to write as much as I used to.  I did catch this Worcester reference in Sunday's Globe.

I'm not a big fan of casinos or gambling, which functions as a regressive tax as much as it lures in high rollers. I find Troy Siebel's argument regarding entertainers and ticket prices very compelling. I imagine any casino will also draw customers away from bars and restaurants in whatever town our Legislature 'deems' casino worthy.

(This post brought to you by my phone, because Charter's internet service died mid-post. It's the second time in the past two weeks!)