I'm not sure I could be friends with someone who lives here.
Isn't it at all possible that Greater Boston could develop affordable homes, preferably no where near malls (never mind connected to them)? Can't we learn anything? If we want to attract all the young talent we develop here, we need affordable places for them to live. We don't need - at all - places like "Nouvelle at Natick." How was that article front page news anyway?
This blog deserves a new tag: Things that make me go 'ugh.'
Posts
2 comments:
You know, while I agree with you in theory, does it ever occur to you that there are large parts of the state where there isn't a thing to do after 7 pm? People might want to live near malls not because they're consumerist yuppies, but because it's the only place that's actually open until 9. What the Natick Mall means to me is a very long drive, but omg! A place to get some food that's open until 11!!!
That's what makes me laugh about this thing with the casinos putting businesses out. Yeah, maybe on the South Coast, I'll take your word, but in the other locations? There're almost no stores or restaurants or clubs or bowling alleys or even bars around to begin with, and again, after 8 you've got next to nothing without a long drive. I'd rather hang at the library than the mall, but that's not open either. Obviously I'd like an affordable home, but that's never going to happen since there's no profit in developers building affordable homes. So yes, I do see the appeal of living in proximity to virtually the only entertainment option in the vacinity, especially with no walking or riding infrastructure in the outer burns (and no place to walk or bike to even if there WAS).
I'm going to skip the mall issue because I mainly found that article weird, funny and out of place on the front page. People are, of course, free to live where they'd like. If people just so happen want to live on top of a Nieman Marcus, more power to them. I think it's crazy, but no harm done.
Now, onto the much more important issue. Do you buy pizza at a local store? Chinese food? Do you ever occasionally visit a show, or a museum? Finally, did you consider that just because you may not do those things, that there aren't thousands in your area that do? And that those people doing those things are the basis of your local economy, which provides for your police, schools, plowing, etc.?
All of them will face a much more difficult time if a casino moves in. Many of these businesses will go under. Many others will get by, but with layoffs and less money for their family - and most small businesses aren't exactly raking in the dough (I speak from experience there).
I'm all for having fun things to do late into the night. I've repeatedly advocated for policies that would successfully do that on this blog (public transportation, economic development posts, etc.) That's why I've always supported strong local, vibrant economies - with busy and fun downtowns. That's where fun can thrive and positively effect the economy, which is something a casino will never do (the money a casino earns doesn't go back into the community, all the while it causes millions more in public expenses that we'll have to pay for).
Post a Comment