"Working across the aisle to accomplish the bare minimum" (which should really be read as "not obstructing the bare minimum") is not good, and does not earn my respect.

yeah, thats what I'm complaining about?

> "I think the big challenge at this point is it's not just a housing, it's not just an addiction challenge," he said. "At some point, the city's got to deal with those drug dealers who just hang around down there and just prey on people."

Ughh wow Baker with the 1000iq take here, can't wait to get rid of this clown and replace him with someone who does the same thing just not loudly zzzz. There are plenty of cops, they just spend their time watching people get assaulted in tents because they are too afraid to try and apprehend dealers. And even if they did apprehend the dealers, thats not going to stop the flow of narcotics.

What a lame pat on the back. The low threshold housing with strings attached will not fix these issues. Moving these people somewhere else with fewer resources available will not fix homelessness, it just moves it out of sight for the president and some inbred brit.

Oh, I 100% agree. Startup costs and licenses in Boston make starting up a business as an individual impossible without experience doing it before or hiring outside counsel. Should be easier, and its only made more difficult by understaffed local bureaucracy.

Walgreens and CVS's are closing and consolidating across the country, this has nothing to do with boston officials making it difficult to run and open businesses and everything to do with irresponsible growth backed by the expectation that even if the store itself fails, the property it is on will maintain its value. Its a natural consequence of a loose monetary policy.

I promise you, when Walgreens execs get the numbers saying that there is money to be made in these neighborhoods, no amount of made up "anti-business" policies will stop them. They have entire teams of people dedicated to setting up these stores.