Bob Croce
-
The Basics
-
Bob on Patch
-
More Stuff
Comments
-
On the article LETTER TO THE EDITOR: 'Mr. Apathy' Wins in a Landslide
-
On the article LETTER TO THE EDITOR: 'Mr. Apathy' Wins in a Landslide
Bob Croce
1:41 pm on Friday, April 5, 2013
ReplyI guess I'm a little confused as to how people could read Dave's letter here, and somehow view it as an attack on Leah Cole. Look, Leah won fair and square regardless of the turnout, and needs to be given a chance to show what she can do and if she can grow into the job. It would be totally unfair to not at least give her a chance.
But you are not being honest with yourself if you can't agree with Mr. McGeney's point about there being "leadership void." Both Senator Berry and Representative Spilliotis were -- because of their years navigating the difficult environment on Beacon Hill -- extremely effective and influential representatives for Peabody.
Leah Cole is a rookie, and because of that it will initially be difficult for her to wield any influence at all. Ms. Cole's learning curve will be even more steep than Senator Joan Lovely's, since she is less experienced and will have to deal with those Democrats who overwhelmingly control the House.
Each day, the leadership of that body will do whatever it can to ensure that Leah doesn't succeed, and hope they can take back that seat in 18 months. This will be her greatest challenge. This isn't just my opinion, it's reality.
As for Mr. McGeney's main point here about voter apathy ... you are dead one, Dave! But there also doesn't seem to be a lot we can do about it. i'll bet you anything we're having this same conversation following the US Senate Special Election primary on April 30th.
-
On the article AG Decision Might Strike Down Peabody Pot Ban
Bob Croce
1:10 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
ReplyPlain and simple, Chris: The Peabody City Council voted unanimously for this ban because no one knows how it will be regulated. There is concern about the unknown, so considering that, they DID their jobs. They did the work of the people and protected both public safety and quality of life. I would have done the same.
They are not making a judgment call on whether or not they think medical marijuana should be legal: They're simply protecting their communities from a poorly constructed, and terribly executed law. That's exactly what taxpayers should expect from their elected officials.
I'm not interested in a debate on whether it's a good law or a bad law. I'm simply telling you that, because of the vagueness of this law, it would be irresponsible for elected officials in any community to allow pot shops to open at this time. My point is also backed by the fact that many cities and towns have done exactly what Peabody did.
I've gone as far as I can here, so I will let you have the last word.
http://bob4ward5.com. -
On the article AG Decision Might Strike Down Peabody Pot Ban
Bob Croce
1:10 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
ReplyPlain and simple, Chris: The Peabody City Council voted unanimously for this ban because no one knows how it will be regulated. There is concern about the unknown, so considering that, they DID their jobs. They did the work of the people and protected both public safety and quality of life. I would have done the same.
They are not making a judgment call on whether or not they think medical marijuana should be legal: They're simply protecting their communities from a poorly constructed, and terribly executed law. That's exactly what taxpayers should expect from their elected officials.
I'm not interested in a debate on whether it's a good law or a bad law. I'm simply telling you that, because of the vagueness of this law, it would be irresponsible for elected officials in any community to allow pot shops to open at this time. My point is also backed by the fact that many cities and towns have done exactly what Peabody did.
I've gone as far as I can explaining this to you, so I will let you have the last word.
http://bob4ward5.com. -
On the article AG Decision Might Strike Down Peabody Pot Ban
Bob Croce
10:54 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
ReplyReginald,
We can agree to disagree here, but by "proactive" I mean that the councilors and the Mayor were acting to keep from being sorry later when Peabody didn't get what it needed from the standpoint of regulation. The way I look at it, and had I been on the council at the time, I would voted for the ban simply because I didn't feel there was enough information available on this law to assure me that it would be properly regulated.I was at the meeting where they debated this, and I was at the meeting where they took the vote, and I can tell you that councilors who spoke out for the ban did so while voicing the same concerns I've outlined here. They weren't "reacting" to the ballot question passing. They were being "proactive" in heading off problems that might occur now that the question had passed. Heck, some of the councilors, before voting for the ban, even admitted that they had personally voted Yes on the ballot question.
http://www.bob4ward5.com -
On the article AG Decision Might Strike Down Peabody Pot Ban
Bob Croce
10:53 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
ReplyReginald,
We can agree to disagree here, but by "proactive" I mean that the councilors and the Mayor were acting to keep from being sorry later when Peabody didn't get what it needed from the standpoint of regulation. The way I look at it, and had I been on the council at the time, I would voted for the ban simply because I didn't feel there was enough information available on this law to assure me that it would be properly regulated.I was at the meeting where they debated this, and I was at the meeting where they took the vote, and I can tell you that councilors who spoke out for the ban did so while voicing the same concerns I've outlined here. They weren't "reacting" to the ballot question passing. They were being "proactive" in heading off problems that might occur now that the question had passed.
http://www.bob4ward5.com -
On the article AG Decision Might Strike Down Peabody Pot Ban
Bob Croce
9:48 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
ReplyChris.
"In the process of developing regulations" means that we have to trust that the regulations will be acceptable to our community. This is what I am getting at. Our Mayor and City Council took a proactive approach here. If the state wants to develop its regulations, and those regs are acceptable to us when it comes to protecting the safety and quality of life of our citizens, then we can reconsider the zoning ban. If I'm on the City Council when that happens, I might even consider voting to lift the ban.But it's just not good practice to govern blindly, and trust that the state will do the right thing.
-
On the article AG Decision Might Strike Down Peabody Pot Ban
Bob Croce
8:42 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
ReplySorry Chris, but you're just wrong on all counts here, The Peabody City Council and the Mayor did the right thing, and should stick by their votes. They didn't wait and hope it would be regulated properly. They acted immediately to protect the safety of those they represent and to protect quality of life. They acted proactively and in our best interests. As for your comment about me "representing the citizens of Peabody," the overwhelming majority of those who voted for your deceptive pot shop referendum did so under the impression that it would be regulated and would be dispensed through a qualified pharmacy. I guarantee that, if you polled Peabody voters now, they would OVERWHELMINGLY agree with Mayor Bettencourt here.
If I'm elected Ward 5 Councilor, I can assure you that I will do everything I can to ensure that the residents of my ward don't have their quality of life infringed upon by unregulated pot shops up on Route 1.
http://www.bob4ward5.com. -
On the article AG Decision Might Strike Down Peabody Pot Ban
Bob Croce
4:07 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
ReplyTom,
Please read again what I've written. I never said "pot" was a "threat to safety and quality of life." I wrote that the law itself was a threat, because no one knows how it will be regulated, and the people who are allowed to own these shops have no credentials, no healthcare provider experience.By the way, if you want to use alcohol as a comparison, go right ahead: Are you aware that towns and cities in MA can LEGALLY ban the sale of alcohol too, if they choose?
-
On the article AG Decision Might Strike Down Peabody Pot Ban
Bob Croce
12:25 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
ReplyBut David, we don't need any more vice on Route 1. There are no rules around these dispensaries, which is the main problem. I'm actually in favor of legalizing marijuana for medical use, but it should be through the prescription of a qualified medical professional, and dispensed through regulated pharmacies, just like any other medication.
Right now under this law, anyone can set up shop and sell pot, and the state has no details on how any this will be regulated. Right now, it's a threat to public safety and quality of life. That's why I'm in favor of the ban.
http://www.bob4ward5.com
Bob Croce
3:21 pm on Friday, April 5, 2013
Andrew,
Personally, I feel the basic fundamental message Leah has on tax reform is something most Peabody people -- including me -- would agree with. My question, though, is what is her definition of "wasteful spending?"
I totally agree that we have a bloated state government, and that the more money you give these guys, the more they're going to spend. But there are services/programs, especially for senior citizens, that need to be funded with tax dollars.
Personally, I believe in the approach taken by the woman who previously held this seat. Joyce Spilliotis really believed in taking care of people who truly needed help. But she was also a fiscal conservative in many regards. I think as an elected official, you need to understand that your job is ALL about helping people.
You need to help those who need these services and social programs to survive. But you need to understand too that you also help working people by ensuring that the government doesn't make their lives more difficult by taxing them into oblivion.
I believe that most people are not for slashing every program, and they're OK with taxes as long as they get something for their money. It's a case of "take care of people who are truly in need, but don't rob me in the process to pay for welfare cheaters."
I'm definitely willing to give Ms. Cole a chance. I just hope that, first and foremost, she is all about helping people who need the help, which also includes the working class taxpayer.