2016 MA Ballot Questions, for those who haven't voted yet

I know I'm cutting it close, but here's my recommendations for how to vote on the ballot questions for Massachusetts and the extra one for Somerville.  My recommendations are Q1-No, Q2-No, Q3-Yes, Q4-Yes, Q5(Somerville specific)-Yes

Let's go in order, shall we?

Q1 - Additional slot license - This question would authorize the formation of a second slot parlor where we currently limit gambling establishments to 3 casinos, 1 slot parlor, and pretty much every convenience store and grocery store.  But seriously, this is a highly specific request for a specific location to be allowed to form a slot parlor.  Let's put aside whether gambling is a positive/negative element for society.  The lone slot parlor that we already have is not running at capacity.  There's simply not sufficient demand for the current supply.  When that's the case, economics states that increasing supply is not a good idea.  To me, this one's easy: No

Q2 - Increase the cap on charter schools - So, this one's a bit more tricky ... until you look at it.  Even proponents of charter schools are saying this is a step too far.  This question opens up the floodgates on charter schools.  "But Peter, if you had kids in a failing district, you would demand a better option."  O.k., let's get a few things straightened up right now.

• First, I would not want my children to get a better education at the cost of my neighbors' kids.  I know, my first duty is to my own, but I am my brother's keeper, and therefore what impacts my neighbor very much impacts me.  And the method by which we pay for charter schools in Massachusetts has a negative impact on district budgets.  Yes, the state fully reimburses the district for the first year of a student who transfers, but the second year is only reimbursed for 5% and nothing thereafter, so if a student spends more than one year at a charter school, it very much impacts the district's funding.  Furthermore, the funding that the district provides is per student but the costs for a district are not per student.  Buildings still need to be maintained.  Teachers and administration staff cover many many students and their salaries do not decrease proportionally as students leave the district.  There's a reason that the charter school initiative is considered considered an unfunded mandate.
• Second, again, what effects my neighbor very much impacts me.  There are lots of studies that show that when you remove students who are highly motivated from the district's society, the remaining students lower their efforts because they don't have the highly motivated students there to impact the culture.  By removing the best students, you don't just decrease scores because the average shifts by moving the better scores out, but the remaining scores falter because of the culture shift.
• Third, worse yet, while charter schools aren't supposed to cherry pick their students, they most certainly are succeeding at doing so.  They'll tell you that it's because the students that aren't cherry picked are leaving of their own volition because they just don't fit in, but it's obvious and it's intentional.  Charter schools are supposed to take any students interested, but they have major drop off rates, which are expected and embraced by those running the schools.  It's one of the ways in which they get higher testing scores. 
• http://www.citizensforpublicschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CPS-report-online-draft-6-10-13_reduced_2.pdf 
• http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/12/10/are-charter-schools-cherry-picking-students/charters-can-do-whats-best-for-students-who-care
• Fourth, while charter schools appear to reduce the achievement gap while the students attend them, they don't necessarily reduce the achievement gaps thereafter.  
• http://kevanharris.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/wdobbie/files/texas_charters.pdf

Q3 - Banning sales from farms that use animal cruelty - Simply put, we should treat animals with more respect than we do.  Yes, it'll cost more.  Yes, this will have an impact on many families.  The "yes on 3" campaign has been down-playing this but it's important to me that we acknowledge it.  It is a legitimate concern.  But I still endorse yes on Q3 on the basis that we should care for the methods by which the things we purchase are created.  We try to tell companies not to make clothes using sweat labor.  We should clearly tell farms to use humane means to raise their animals.

Q4 - Legalize recreational marijuana for individuals at least 21 years old - O.k., so, I understand the no-on-4 position.  We don't have enough research on marijuana; we already have the allowance for use for medical purposes; we don't have the equivalent of a breathalyzer; Colorado has seen a rise in car accidents (though we can't prove that this is related to marijuana use because we don't have a way of detecting it like we do with alcohol).  I get all that.  The problem is, we're treating multiple drugs differently from each other.  There's no evidence that marijuana is any worse for adults than alcohol.  There's some evidence that it can have lasting effects on kids under 16 (frontal lobe issues), but the question at hand is for individuals 21 or older and only in private areas.  A yes vote creates regulatory bodies at state and local levels with the authorization to restrict, or even ban, marijuana-selling establishments.  A yes vote also creates revenue by bringing the sale of marijuana for recreational purposes into the light of day rather than being restricted to the black market.  I understand and respect the "no on Q4" perspective, I just don't agree that their arguments mean that we should continue our prohibition on alcohol... I mean... on marijuana.  No, seriously, if you feel that we shouldn't legalize marijuana because of the accidents, I understand that, but then we should never have legalized alcohol.  We gain similar benefits to the legalization of marijuana that we did to the legalization of alcohol: ability to regulate the product, tax the sale, and for there to be a stigma associated but not legal concerns when people seek assistance with their problems.  This was a hard one for me to decide on, but my suggestion remains: vote yes.

Q5 - Somerville only - Deviation from laws dealing debt and taxes to build high school - O.k., this one's another easy one.  First, let me point out that I am a home owner, so the increase in taxation directly impacts me.  Second, let me point out that I do not intend to have children of my own and my nieces will probably be out of high school, or close to it, before the new high school is ready, so the benefits don't impact me as closely as it would others in the city.  That said, we have to do something because the high school will be discredited otherwise.  The options are to rebuild-in-place or to build-new.  The option to rebuild-in-place would likely cost the same, if not more, than building-new.  Thus, the answer is simple: build-new will allow a better building in a more efficient manner (from a organizational view point) for the same cost or cheaper than the alternative.  Somerville: vote yes on 5.

Cyclists, Pedestrians and Drivers part 3 - McGrath Highway

Alright, this has been a little over a half year brewing in my mind: the debate about grounding the McGrath Highway. 

Let's skip past the question of whether we should sure up the elevated stretch while we plan for the future, because that's happening, as it should be.

There's been a lot of discussion of how the McGrath Highway should be restructured as a ground-level roadway.  Some people are calling for it to be much more like a city street, with only 1-2 lanes each direction and slower speed limits.  Somerville Patch did a non-scientific poll which suggested that you could only ground McGrath OR leave it as a thoroughfare, but not both, which seems a little off to me, since you could certainly ground McGrath AND have it be a thoroughfare, which would make it closer to the way Broadway west of McGrath operates.  My general feeling is that it's partly this limited mindset that gets us into trouble.  The idea that we can only either make this road more pedestrian friendly or we can maintain as a cars-only roadway seems extremely limiting in the scope of what we can do.  Let's delve into some of the more specific proposals/arguments.

Part of the idea of grounding McGrath and making it into a smaller roadway is that then local businesses will magically crop up and have a chance to be successful.  I would point out that we already have plenty of locations for local businesses where local businesses are not popping up and being successful.  We have empty storefronts in almost every square.  Magoun Sq., for instance, is the intersection of 3 major roads that have 1-2 lanes each direction, and there are more empty storefronts on the 1-lane streets than there are on the 2-lane streets.  Why should we believe that the path along McGrath Highway would be any different?  It's not like there's a lack of traffic going through Magoun Sq. on those 1-lane streets. 

Another rationale for making the roadway smaller is the idea that we don't want traffic to go through our city that isn't utilizing our city.  There are a few problems this idea:

• People FROM Somerville drive on this roadway to get places.  It makes it much easier for me if I can drive from my house in Magoun Sq., up Medford St., merge with the McGrath Highway and go either north to Assembly Sq (no, I will not call it Assembly Row, that's ridiculous), or places in Medford/Malden (such as BJ's), or south to Target, the East side of Union Sq. or, yes ~gasp~, Cambridge's East side (I have friends there and a couple times each year go to CambridgeSide Galleria).  If you remove how easy it is for me to get places, why am I paying a premium to live in such a well connected location?  Oh, that's right, because I'm moving away to live in some other well connected location or moving to where it's cheaper.
• People drive TO Somerville.  Just as I take McGrath to go to Assembly Row, people in Cambridge will as well.  Just as I take McGrath to get to East Union Sq., there are others from outside of Somerville that do the same exact thing.
• What's wrong with people driving through our city?  In theory, those people might even stop and spend money in our city, no?  If someone's driving home and they're going to do some grocery shopping on the way, wouldn't you rather they do it in our city than somewhere else?
• One last reason why this is a ridiculous rationale: you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.  A study was performed recently that shows that people enter and leave McGrath at each on/off section in equal numbers.  That means people enter McGrath from Medford St in equal numbers as people leave McGrath to get onto Medford St.  Which means, drum roll please, people don't use McGrath, for the most part, to drive THROUGH Somerville, they use McGrath to drive TO/FROM Somerville.

There's also the thought that McGrath's being raised creates a division within the city.  This point certainly is an issue, but I think it's one that needs to be thought through a bit more.  It's not like crossing McGrath at Broadway is super-easy, and that's just one street intersecting with McGrath.  At Washington St, you have, of course, Washington St crossing McGrath, but you also have the same spot intersecting with Linwood, and, at the moment, the combined traffic from Somerville Ave and Medford St that is heading North joining in as well.  A pedestrian crossing McGrath at this section, therefore, has a rough time figuring out where the traffic is coming from and when.

In fact, the combination of Medford St, Somerville Ave, Linwood, and Washington St in this short period, along with the high volume of traffic intersecting with McGrath, is what makes the raised segment of McGrath such a difficult pathway to resolve.  Speaking as a resident of Somerville that uses McGrath in this segment, I know first hand that there are traffic jams even with the off ramps in place that separate out over a block of 1 lane offshoots that therefore don't interfere with the traffic moving past these two off ramps.  These traffic jams can back up 2-3 city blocks at times, so this is not insignificant jammage.  Then there's the on ramp from Washington/Linwood/Somerville Ave/Medford St coming north, which is an accident waiting to happen, especially if you're trying to get to Medford St going west.  Grounding McGrath won't resolve any of this on its own, and, if planned poorly, will make the problems we have today much much worse.

There's one more item to keep in mind: the railroad.  Part of why the McGrath Highway current has an elevated section has to do with the 2 bridges it has in the space of 6 blocks, one of which brings the roadway up to level with the surrounding area.  Somerville is full of hills, and on runs approximately Cedar St., up Highland Ave., and ends approximately at the northern edge of the elevated section of McGrath.  The more you change elevation, the less efficient vehicles become, so for those driving from Highland Ave to the Twin City Plaza (called Twin City because the stores are in Somerville but the parking lot is in Cambridge) would operate most efficiently if they do not have to go down at the edge of the hill that Highland Ave runs along and then back up to go over the railroad tracks that go by the Southern section of the elevated segment of McGrath.  Efficiency isn't everything, but it's one more thing to consider, as are the two railroad crossings this major artery has.

There are, of course, many options we could take with McGrath:

1. Keep the elevated segment.  The negatives are obvious:
1. The negatives on this one are the obvious ones that many are talking about:
1. Eye-sore: Yes, one major reason to remove the elevated section is the disruption it causes to line of sight.
2. Multi-modal: The currently layout is not very multi-modal friendly.  As mentioned above, it can be dangerous for pedestrians, but bicycling is even worse while traveling east-west on Washington St, unless you transform into a pedestrian while moving across the area.  Traveling from Somerville Ave. to Twin City Plaza is actually o.k. for the most part, and going from Somerville Ave. to BrickBottom or Linwood couldn't be much easier.  Sure, it's a little inconvenient if you're trying to get from Somerville Ave to directly across McGrath (you have to walk down to BrickBottom and follow the street along, so you go around 2 blocks out of your way)
3. Drivability issues: If we leave the elevated segment as it currently exists, it seems less likely that we'll address the issues for drivers, and as mentioned above, yes, there are indeed issues for drivers.
4. Cost: Let's face it, bridges are expensive.  Having the elevated segment be brought down to ground level very likely decrease the cost of construction and upkeep.
2. The benefits are less often discussed or acknowledged as benefits:
1. Car/truck traffic flow along the corridor: Indeed, as mentioned above, it's much easier for those of us trying to bypass 1 or 2 exits to have the option to go straight from Medford St to whichever exit we're trying to get to.
2. Multi-modal: I know, this was one of the negatives, but if you're redoing some of the segment, you could add better path-markers for those looking to go from point A to point B, and you could add better flow for pedestrians (I'm thinking in particular of the Washington St intersections, both north/south and east/west.  I'll explain why this is a benefit of this option by explaining the negatives for multi-modal in the other options.
3. Overall Score: B-
2. Ground the elevated segment but leave the layout as close to how it is currently:
1. Let's switch things up and go with positives first:
1. Cost: Yes, it's almost definitely cheaper to maintain an at-ground-level roadway, probably also cheaper to set things up for the next 40-60 years (demolition would be expensive, but shoring up would be more expensive probably)
2. Line-of-sight: You will definitely have a better sight-line to Linwood St and Joy St... and the train tracks.... congratulations on being able to see the bridge crossing Washington St.
3. Better for businesses: O.k., fair enough, you'll have some better visibility to ground-level businesses, but as discussed above, this doesn't necessarily mean businesses will flourish... so I don't know that this is really a positive.
2. Negatives, ah, the negatives nobody points out:
1. Multi-modal: Yes, you've brought everything to ground level, but now instead of crossing 1-2 lanes of traffic at a time, you've got to cross around 6-8, and again, this is a more difficult area to cross than at Broadway.  
2. Multi-modal!: So you've made passage by pedestrians more difficult, you've also made it more difficult for cars, because now they've got to stop even if they're not intending to stop at each intersection.  The traffic jams you have now probably get even worse because now you're making things a bit more complex, and complexity usually slows things down.  The complexity isn't only the car flow but also the pedestrian traffic, as pedestrians now need to be given the opportunity to cross more lines of traffic instead of just 1 or 2.
3. Overall Score: C-
3. Ground the elevated segment and shrink the roadway:
1. Positives:
1. Cost: See option 2 above.
2. Line-of-sight: again, see option 2 above.
3. Better for businesses: see option 2 above.
4. Multi-modal: Ah, now we're finally seeing true benefits to pedestrians and bicyclists.  With the shrinkage of the roadway, not only will you have fewer lanes to cross, but likely, people will slowly stop driving down it as much, and presumably less traffic will be better for pedestrians.
2. Negatives:
1. Multi-modal: O.k., so you've made it better along this area for pedestrians, you've also made it much worse for drivers.  Are you secretly hoping to drive Twin City Plaza and the Target on Somerville Ave out of business?  Are you hoping that people will flood the neighboring streets in search of better pathways?  I'm sure that the folks that live on Prospect Hill will be thankful that their skinny streets are being utilized more.  Or are you just hoping that people like me will stop driving in that area of the city, in which case, I have to ask again, are you hoping Twin City Plaza and the Target on Somerville Ave will go out of business?!?  City planners have understood that if they expect the Assembly Square area to flourish, they need a good car/truck solution for the area, and have thus spent a lot on the roads there and made sure that driving to/from this area and getting to/from 93 or 28 or 16 is easy.  Why wouldn't they want people from Assembly Sq to be able to get to the rest of Somerville?
3. Overall Score: C- (you've increased benefits to those who live nearby and don't want to have a Target or successful large businesses in their backyard but at the expense of having those large businesses nearby or EVER making the inner belt more successful)
4. The (mini) Big Dig (that's right, we could spend a ton of cash to bring the roadway underground):
1. Positives:
1. Line-of-sight: again, see option 2 above.
2. Multi-modal: Damn straight it's multi-modal!  Now, instead of having multiple lanes of traffic to cross, you have the entrances/exits only again.
3. MULTI-MODAL: Unlike both grounding options, you can maintain the flow of traffic going through both intersections (Somerville Ave and Washington St).
4. Pleasant for pedestrians and neighbors: Imagine, if you will, a park going along from Washington St to Somerville Ave.  Traffic trying to get from Somerville Ave onto the McGrath Highway could be routed further east to Linwood and then north to meet up (as it does now) with the traffic entering from Washington.
2. Negatives:
1. Cost: HOLY CRAP, COST!  Yes, this option probably far exceeds the costs of the other 3 options.
2. Short term disruptions: Neighbors would have to deal with not only the short term traffic problems but also the noise and pollution of major reconstruction of the area... on the other hand, they also get the fourth positive above after it's all done.
3. Overall Score: Difficult to grade without knowing the costs of this option as well as the other options.

I hope you've enjoyed reading this breakdown of my thoughts about the McGrath Highway.  It's a lot, considering it's only 5 blocks of roadway, but it significantly impacts the community in more ways than I fear most are considering.  It's a complex situation and requires a lot of thought before we move forward, so I am thankful that the state decided to shore up the current layout and give itself the time to more fully weigh the options.