Submitted by Original_Musician103 t3_119mq0s in massachusetts
MOGicantbewitty t1_j9ov2bk wrote
Reply to comment by BovaDesnuts in People are leaving Mass. Thoughts? by Original_Musician103
Edit: This guy is a brand new account and explicitly says below that he doesn’t give a fuck about the region and it’s economic development. He’s full of shit.
The people who live and work in Boston are incredibly Boston centric and don’t even realize we exist as a real economic center or that the PioneerValley has so much more to offer then just pretty views. Of course, now they all want to move out here and work remote from home while telling us how we are supposed to do things the Boston way. It fucking pisses me off. You and I are definitely on the same page.
Edit: and you are right, the people out in that area or remote working in Boston only see where the money needs to go in Boston. Even if they live here, they are so focused on Boston is the only place that needs funding that it is so frustrating.
BovaDesnuts t1_j9ovamp wrote
Therefore, no rail. Rail bad. Go build skyscrapers in Salem and then we'll talk.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j9ovuh6 wrote
I’d actually disagree there. The east west rail wouldn’t just feed Boston, it would connect people on the Berkshire’s to Springfield and the rest of the Pioneer Valley. My planning agency is fully behind that rail idea exactly because it would bring eco dev into Springfield and the Valley, by connecting more of Western Mass together. I mean, screw all the focus on the eastern end of the state, but the east west rail would greatly benefit economic development in Springfield, Holyoke, etc.
BovaDesnuts t1_j9owcmi wrote
High-speed east-west rail would enable Boston to do to Springfield exactly what it's done to Worcester after the commuter rail started up in 1994. Displace locals, jack up property values, commute to Boston by high-speed rail, overwhelm the locals in elections, and degrade the local community.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j9oy43w wrote
The proposed east west rail doesn’t just go Springfield-Boston. It would go all the way to Pittsfield. Thereby connecting the Berkshires with the Valley. It would also connect Springfield & Palmer to Worcester. I’d suggest looking over the wealth of study documents on that page. It’s not just a high speed train from Springfield to Boston. It would connect a bunch of economically struggling and isolated areas in Western Mass together. It is uniformly supported by all the western regional planning agencies: BRPC, FRCOG, PVPC. Specifically for the economic benefits to our region. For real!
BovaDesnuts t1_j9oyrkv wrote
>Specifically for the economic benefits to our region.
Fuck the region. I care about the people and the culture. Land doesn't need economic opportunity, people do. How are you planning to stop the fine people of Framingham or Weymouth from displacing locals like they have in Worcester County?
MOGicantbewitty t1_j9ozybb wrote
Okay, aren’t you the guy who said fuck Bostons, who about some economic development for Springfield, but now you don’t give a fuck about the region? The one that has Springfield in it? And no way did you read anything about the studies of economic benefits to Springfield. You are ignoring evidence and being a weird NIMBY about anyone from Eastern Mass. Based on this, and the fact that your account is not even two months old, I’m done. Bye!
BovaDesnuts t1_j9p0df5 wrote
The region meaning the soil. Dirt doesn't care about economic development. People do. How is this going to benefit the people who are already there instead of displacing them, as happened all the way to Worcester. In other words, what makes you special?
Know what might work better? PVTA getting enough money to kick off streetcar service in Springfield would be a good start. It would be hard to manage it worse than the MBTA manages every rail they touch.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j9p3zri wrote
The region does NOT mean the soil. And it’s offensive that you think my sourced comments about economic benefits for the people in the region means I think I’m special. No. It means I do this work for a living and I understand how the rail will benefit the people in the region by creating economic development, local wealth, and jobs. Without sources showing backing up your analysis, your comments don’t mean anything. And your inflammatory response with complete inaccuracies do not help you.
Plus, it seems like the only thing you care about is Springfield. More people live in the valley than they do Springfield. And a trolley system in Springfield? Seriously, show me one needs assessment that suggests that Springfield would benefit from that. Show me one place that says that would be better than what PVTA already has.
The region is the soil… god, I can’t. The amount of bullshit in this one comment would take me pages to deconstruct and I have to get back to actually improving the environment and economy in the Pioneer Valley in my professional state level position. So again, until you have sources that mean something instead of ranting about things you don’t understand, bye!
BovaDesnuts t1_j9p5bdx wrote
>The region does NOT mean the soil. And it’s offensive that you think my sourced comments about economic benefits for the people in the region means I think I’m special.
Gentrification is well-studied. It has been creeping West across Metro West. Rent goes up, people head West where they can afford homes without changing jobs, or leave all-together. In case you're unfamiliar, it's a process whereby something brings wealthy individuals into the area, driving up costs and displacing local residents.
My question is how the rail, as proposed, will improve the lives of the people already in the Pioneer Valley instead of displace them as has happened from New Hampshire to Braintree to Worcester. Your link shows it'll improve the economy, sure. But who will benefit is more important to me than how large the benefits are.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j9p731x wrote
How does improving the economy is a specific area NOT benefit the people living in it? Jobs? Food? Accessibility to services, medical care, businesses… if your concern is keeping people for other areas out, that’s just ridiculous. And I see nothing from you backing up the negative impacts to Worcester and NH from adding public transport like railways. You need to back that shit up with evidence and studies.
You do know the gentrification is not the result solely of expanding public transport right? Have you seen the housing prices in the last three years WITHOUT the railway? Please, use sources or stop talking to me. I have real work to do.
BovaDesnuts t1_j9p7xz5 wrote
>How does improving the economy is a specific area NOT benefit the people living in it? Jobs? Food? Accessibility to services, medical care, businesses…
Oh, easy. When it doesn't come with improved conditions, it tends to lead to social cohesion and social capital loss while simultaneously displacing poor people and damaging their health.
The mistake you're making, and the one that the state documents refuse to address, is what happens to the people who are already there.
>You do know the gentrification is not the result solely of expanding public transport right? Have you seen the housing prices in the last three years WITHOUT the railway?
CDC indicates it's mostly driven by push factors, such as a lack of housing and massive job growth in nearby cities. Maybe we can think of a city with these issues nearby?
MOGicantbewitty t1_j9p8bxp wrote
That’s has nothing to do with Springfield and a railway. That’s the CDCs page on gentrification and there is NO tie in to the topic at hand.
Bye troll
BovaDesnuts t1_j9p8gf7 wrote
I only hope that in 20 years when you see what you've done to the poor people of WMA, you'll have the strength do the right thing.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j9p9ul1 wrote
Troll
MOGicantbewitty t1_j9p47yc wrote
By the way, where do you think Springfield gets his water from? It draws water from a variety of small hill towns in the valley. Springfield depends on the entire valley to function. Where do you think people who use the businesses in Springfield live? Elsewhere in the valley you’re being very shortsighted in offensive with your statements, and you can’t back any of it up with evidence.
BovaDesnuts t1_j9p5kh3 wrote
So maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, public transit in Springfield might, say, reduce congestion and car dependency in the area and make it a more attractive location to set up shop for people not working in labs in Boston?
I'm not opposed to regional transport, I'm very specifically opposed to the expansion of the Boston Metro. That's a concern I haven't seen addressed.
MOGicantbewitty t1_j9p6jwr wrote
The east west rail is NOT the MBTA. It can connect and work in conjunction with the MBTA. And you can’t just spitball with no evidence. Try reading the earth of documents that have been a published that I linked you too. And perhaps submit questions to the PVPC about the impacts of a trolley system in Springfield. Because it’s been rejected as a viable idea a bunch of firm. They’ll have peppers to back it up
BovaDesnuts t1_j9p6x1f wrote
>The east west rail is NOT the MBTA. It can connect and work in conjunction with the MBTA.
Metro area, not MBTA. You know. Metro West, but further west. The W towns, if you don't know where that is.
>And you can’t just spitball with no evidence. Try reading the earth of documents that have been a published that I linked you too.
I did. They're... not encouraging. It pretty much confirms my concerns that they're just looking to expand the Boston metro
MOGicantbewitty t1_j9p76uy wrote
Link to them then. You haven’t supported anything g you said. Provide sources or stop talking to me. I have real work to do benefiting the region.
BovaDesnuts t1_j9p82np wrote
Now now, you and me both know you can't prove a negative.
I have real work to do voting against you. No rail to Boston if I can help it
MOGicantbewitty t1_j9p87w9 wrote
Troll
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments