Comments on: In defense of Angelo Scaccia

By: Reverre Reaper

Reverre Reaper — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:58:05 +0000

Scaccia is strickly Quid Pro Quo and is so crooked that they will have to screw him into the ground when he dies!

By: Margaret

Margaret — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:37:34 +0000

You gentlemen are missing the real issue here. I bet it has nothing to do with Wegmans. And I’ll bet it has everything to do with the person who filed the bill. Just a gut feeling. They play like that on the Hill.

By: Liam

Liam — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:03:44 +0000

Ed, you raise an interesting point (though I think you are arguing past the Esteemed Gentleman just a little bit – I don’t believe he was arguing for the efficacy of letting home rule petitions sail through, simply that they do; in other words, he was saying would, not should, and you were saying should not, not would not).

On home rule, though, there is a another side to the coin you flip. Yes, home rule petitions do sometimes affect people who don’t live in the particular municipality to which the home rule petition might pertain. Still, imagine the frustration of a town or city manager, council or mayor, who feel they must go hat in hand to the legislature every time they attempt to enact anything. And, looking forward, as more and more municipalities face tighter and tighter budgets, how will they feel as they face problems they have not the power to solve precisely because of home rule?

By: Ed

Ed — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 11:56:00 +0000

Local petitions should NOT sail through with a rubber stamp. The purpose of legislative review is to protect the rights of those who don’t live in the municipality.

For example, the vast majority of those who work in Boston don’t live (hence vote) there. The city that gave rise to the cry “no taxation without representation” thus to tax those without representation, and tried this in the 19th Century.

Home rule review thus exists to provide representation to those otherwise denied it.