April 18, 2010

Housing Policy

One of the bigger issues we will see over the next few months will be the Housing Policy in the City of Worcester.  This is extremely important.   Admittedly I know nothing about the public school system in the City of Worcester.  I feel the failure of the two schools recently in the City of Worcester resulting in the firing of both principals, however, may be a direct result of our Housing policy as much as anything else.   The surrounding housing and the residents it attracts, who then send their children to the local public school, has as much to do with the success of that school.  Maybe instead of firing the principals, who I don't think deserve all the blame, we need to fire out housing policy.

Same for downtown.

Same for the businesses that are attracted to the City of Worcester.  Are you listening Chamber of Commerce?   The Chamber did a great job on the sign ordinance, lets hope they get as involved with this issue as well.    The type of housing that we build has a direct link to the types of business that will want to or should I say now not want to come to Worcester.   The Chamber needs to be involved.

Over the next few months some people will be portray anything other then the status quo as being against lo-no housing.   Nothing could be further from the truth.   Low income or affordable housing has a vital role to play, but the City of Worcester has put an over reliance on this housing.  Simply put enough already.   Just because you say, we have enough and are way beyond what the Commonwealth of Massachusetts mandates does not mean one is against it.

We need a balance in the City of Worcester.   A balanced housing policy will have a direct effect on our public schools and the commercial base.  It is simply that important.

1 comment:

Jahn said...

The reality is that Worc may be too far gone down the low income housing road. State mandated minimum is 10% "afforadable"....Worc is at 14%.......that's 40% above the state mandated minimum for you S.J. and Somerville boys.

I was scratching my head agioan thsi morning after reading T&G. Two different articles mentioning the fire dept. One says something a deputy chiefs "driver" ( a.k.a. chauffuer?) and the other article goes on to mention possible fire dept cuts b/c there may not be enough money for the FD thsi next fiscal year. Tom Hoover used to raise this issue regularly and the practice still goes on......why does the deputy chief(s) need a driver? That leaves 4 less men to man the fire trucks. And please dont anyone tell me that when the deputy chief is en route to a fire he needs to map out his FF'ing strategy whilst he rides in the passenger seat.