Nick K

Has a story on the Cigarette Ordinance.  I put this right up there with the

1. Shopping ordinance
2. Street Vendor ordinance
3. Pit bull ordinance (a week from now Rushford will be luck if he has 5 pit bulls registered)

One councilor thinks the City Councilor should get involved because “The fact that more than 480,000 people die each year (nationwide) from smoking-related illness is reason enough to consider these restrictions.”   How about people who die from being over-weight or drink too much?  Do we have ordinances coming out next addressing this?   My point is that this is not something the City Council of Worcester , Massachusetts should be addressing.   The only good thing in this ordinance had to do with the proliferation of cigarette signs, which I believe was addressed in the sign ordinance.

I got great idea, instead of this, why doesn't the City Council talk about:

1. Main and May Street sewerage work--who is paying for all of that?
2. Request a review of all RFP's the past 5 years of City owned land and find out their current status (comply with the LDA or not).   Those that are not in compliance need to be taken back by the City of Worcester and rebid.
3. Do we make statement and stop accept anymore "free" monies for no-low housing when we are 50% over the state mandate of 10%.
4. Do we look into privatizing a service like school custodians
5. Philadelphia Plan--do we target 10 under-utilized commercial properties and offer to waive all permitting fees and lock in the assessed value for ten years 

Now these are 5 issues that the City Council does fall under their auspices.