“When I first started in this job 30 years ago, police work was never about revenue enhancement,” Utica Police Chief Michael Reaves said. “But if you’re a chief now, you have to look at whether your department produces revenues. That’s just the reality nowadays.”

“A portion of the tickets our officers write helps pay their salaries, but the rest is profit for the city,” said Priebe, a former Taylor police officer. “ ’Profit’ may not be the right word to use in government, but that’s pretty much what it is.
“Obviously, revenue isn’t the only reason our officers are out there — but I wouldn’t be telling the truth if I said it wasn’t a consideration.”

Shocking but unfortunately predictable.

link

“Frankly, the media was suckered into the story,” said Raymond L. Delisle, a spokesman for Bishop McManus. “The story was all over the place, driving more and more people to the Web site.”

But apparently the Bishops got suckered as well. What could be a better advertisement for a good time than four high ranking church officials telling you something is wrong. With this kind of publicity I’d be curious to see Bishop McManus’ portfolio, he’s probably heavy in Ashley Madison stock. Well, if nothing else at least the church still has a healthy sense of Irony.

link

link

Political polls that include cell phone users show Obama leading McCain by an average of 10 points, versus just over five points in land-line-only surveys, notes a Sunday survey put together by Nate Silver, founder of the electoral projections site FiveThirtyEight.

The survey shows a snapshot of 15 polls conducted on behalf of media companies and by polling companies such as Gallup and Zogby. Six of those, including one released late Sunday by NBC and the Wall Street Journal, include cell phone users. The rest don’t.

link

It’s easy to forget how out of touch pollsters may be when it comes to reaching important demographics. I know I’m not the only person who doesn’t have a land line in the house. The number was around 14% last year.

Two years ago, a partner in Berkeley Investments was having dinner at No. 9, and he asked if I would be interested in opening a restaurant in an old wool warehouse his company owned. They were putting in 96 condos and had 16,000 square feet of commercial space. They gave me such a great deal, I would have been crazy not to take it.

Those cheating whores.
The project she’s referring to is FP3 and if anything it stands as proof that Berkley Investments properties continue to carry a ton of potential. But where are the “great deals” being offered at City Square? The last anyone has heard of City Sq getting off the ground looks something like this:

Under the amended development agreement Berkeley has with the city for CitySquare, it needs to secure “lock-in leases” for 135,000 square feet of rentable commercial space in a newly constructed building known as Building H. The development agreement stipulates that state funds for the demolition of the mall and part of the parking garage cannot be released until Berkeley meets that benchmark.

I’m in no way a redovelopment expert, but my keen sense of reality says a few “great deals” could probably help in filling those 135,000 square feet. And I can’t be the only one who could handle a world class chef or two on the common.

link

So lets start at the bottom with the Massachusetts ballot questions.

Question One: State Personal Income Tax

This proposed law would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for all categories of taxable income for the tax year beginning on or after January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010. The personal income tax applies to income received or gain realized by individuals and married couples, by estates of deceased persons, by certain trustees and other fiduciaries, by persons who are partners in and receive income from partnerships, by corporate trusts, and by persons who receive income as shareholders of “S corporations” as defined under federal tax law. The proposed law would not affect the tax due on income or gain realized in a tax year beginning before January 1, 2009. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

This is going to fail by the slimmest of margins, I’m going to guess by under 5 percentage points, which will hopefully be a wake-up call to State Legislators and Municipalities to change the way they spend. The proposal is flawed on two fronts; we spend too much money but nobody can admit they’re part of the problem and even if we did cut the income tax we don’t currently have legislative body intelligent enough to make cuts responsibly. All we keep hearing about are the disastrous cuts that would be necessary to education and public safety, what we don’t hear are intelligent forward thinking discussion as to how we can revamp our current systems on every front. From the courts to education and from public safety to waste removal we need to be both more efficient and represent current needs. Even without the loss of income tax revenue, we’re still headed for major funding shortages in MA, so we should be looking to revamp our entire spending package now before we’re forced to in a few years.

Question Two: Possession of Marijuana

This proposed law would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties, to be enforced by issuing citations, and would exclude information regarding this civil offense from the state’s criminal record information system. Offenders age 18 or older would be subject to forfeiture of the marijuana plus a civil penalty of $100. Offenders under the age of 18 would be subject to the same forfeiture and, if they complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense, the same $100 penalty.

Question two is going to become the standard for what a successful ballot question looks like. I’m going to say this one passes at somewhere between 65-70%. I’m not convinced there is a lot of high level anti-prohibition thought in play here, just common sense thinking. Once the fog of anti-drug indoctrination clears, people begin to realize that even if there is potential harm from marijuana, it’s still far less harmful than alcohol, tobacco and most over the counter medications. Possibly even less harmful than spending hours eating fluffernutter sandwiches while watching Emeril Lagasse pimp cookware on the Home Shopping Network; not that I would know anything about the latter. Laws should not prohibit (mostly) harmless behavior.

Question Three: Dog Racing

This proposed law would prohibit any dog racing or racing meeting in Massachusetts where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs. The State Racing Commission would be prohibited from accepting or approving any application or request for racing dates for dog racing. Any person violating the proposed law could be required to pay a civil penalty of not less than $20,000 to the Commission. The penalty would be used for the Commission’s administrative purposes, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature. All existing parts of the chapter of the state’s General Laws concerning dog and horse racing meetings would be interpreted as if they did not refer to dogs. These changes would take effect January 1, 2010. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

Question three is going to pass by the same ridiculously slim margins that question one fails, but that passage will end up being overruled/ignored by the legislature.

—

As far as contested state races, the one to watch will be the one that didn’t exist until two weeks ago. The Thirteenth Worcester seat held by Robert Spellane is being contested in a last minute sticker campaign by former City Council candidate (he lost) John Mahoney. If you haven’t been paying attention, this last minute fiasco started with a series of stories in the T&G which hint at questionable personal dealings, without actually presenting any concrete accusations, based on probate court hearings surrounding what appears to be a pretty nasty divorce. As a resident of the 13th the problem I see here is Mahoney has done nothing to show me how he is a better choice than Spellane when it comes to policy. None of the claims against Spellane are relevant until they see their day in court, preferably a court other than probate. How sincere a guy is in his church attendance or marriage vows is not very interesting, all I want to know how you plan on representing me. Mahoney has failed on that front.

I think voters are smart enough to see an opportunist when presented with one and that is what we have in this case. Spellane will pull off a win, but he’s going to have to work hard over the next few years to keep this seat, as he can be sure a real race will present itself in the next cycle.

—

The other state race affecting Worcester is the State Senate seat vacated by Ed Augustus. Republican John Lebeaux and Democrat Michael Moore are battling this one out. Actually no, that was a joke. Do you really think a Republican stands a chance at this seat? You must be new here then. If you want to see just how silly this race is, take a drive through Leicester or Auburn and check out all the Moore yard signs set up next to McCain/Palin signs. The absolute inability for a Republican to gain any traction in MA is actually quite funny.

My crystal ball says Moore wins.

I, like many law abiding citizens carry a knife in some form everywhere I go as a force of habit.  What empirical evidence do you use as a foundation for your belief that an individual who has decided to commit manslaughter with a knife, or any weapon for that matter, would have a change of heart in the face of a monetary fine?

If you skip to the 3:50 mark you can see the question is essentially skipped and instead Councilor Petty is given an opportunity to explain his position. Please allow me be the first to say we as citizens of Worcester should be frightend that this man plays a role in deciding what is best for us all. Councilor Petty may be one of the least articulate and poorly reasoned men to ever hold a leadership position in our fair city. If a degenerate such as myself can identify those character flaws, you sir are in way over your head.

link

The image also accompanies the linked story.

Anyone notice if this was the case in the print version as well?
link

The ordinance, developed by the Police Department, Worcester District Attorney’s office and city officials, would fine people $300 for carrying knives.

What exactly leads the Worcester Chief of Police Gary Gemme and District Attorney Joe Early Jr. to believe that an individual who as decided to commit manslaughter will be detered by a $300 fine? Seriously, thats the best you could come up with?

Rank and file members of the WPD and DA’s office seriously need to think about distancing themselves publicly from their respective superiors and unions as they continue to make decisions which have little to no impact on their stated goals, but instead foster a sense of contempt and distrust amongst the public they serve. This ordinance is silly and stands to make much of the good work you do appear silly as a result.

link

“This is a clear step towards one of the main goals of the US Army’s Future Combat Systems project, which aims to make a single soldier the nexus for a large scale robot attack. Independently, ground and aerial robots have been tested together and once the bits are joined, there will be a robot force under command of a single soldier with potentially dire consequences for innocents around the corner.”

Sounds like fun.

link

And here’s some background on Skynet for those who missed out the 80’s.