Override!

City Councilor Kevin Starr has done something that I didn't think anyone on the City Council had the balls to do; he has proposed a Prop 2 1/2 override for Fitchburg.

Ward 4 Councilor Kevin Starr said he'd like to see an override question be put on November's ballot to avert deep cuts in public-safety departments.

"So many people have strong opinions and their voices need to be heard," Starr said. "The choices shouldn't be left up to 11 people on the council. They should be decided by an entire city."

Makes sense to me.

The city needs money, and a way to get it is through a Proposition 2 1/2 override. It certainly seems like the sort of thing that's at least worth exploring. If the voters go for it, then it can help fix a lot of problems. If they don't, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Councilor Jody Joseph sounds like he's on-board with at least having a vote.

Ward 6 Councilor Jody Joseph said he doesn't see many places in the budget to cut.

"I've been through the budget and to me, to cut any more would be taking something that's already bleeding to death and cut it even more," Joseph said.

Joseph said his priorities are not only in the public safety departments, but the human service departments, too.

Joseph said the only option besides cutting is adding new revenues.

Joseph's quotes here address what will most likely be the biggest complaint about an override (besides "I don't want to pay taxes, waaah!"); the idea that it's a lazy way to get around cutting junk from the city budget. There's only so much junk in the budget in the first place, so cutting only works to a degree. After that, you need revenue.

Of course, not everybody is going to be so accepting of the idea.

Ward 2 Councilor Norman Boisvert said he would not support an override.

"Once you add taxes they never come off," Boisvert said.

Boisvert said the city's fiscal problems will not go away next year, or the year after.

"Are we going to have an override every year?" Boisvert said. "Maybe we should just learn to live within our means."

Or, you know, we could understand that Prop 2 1/2 is inherently flawed and counterproductive and look for ways to work around it?

There have been nearly 4,500 attempts (about 1,800 successful) to override Prop 2 1/2 it since it first became possible to do so in 1983. Does that sound like a law that's benefiting communities, or one that's standing in their way?

City Councilor Solomito also weighed in with a bit of stupidity:

Ward 5 Councilor Joseph Solomito said he wouldn't support an override either.

"I think the people have already spoken," Solomito said.

Attention Fitchburg: All future elections are hereby suspended, because Joseph Solomito thinks that you've "already spoken" about everything, and your decision is whatever Solomito says it is. Solomito will be declared councilor-for-life, because if he was able to get elected one time, that must mean he'll get elected every time he runs in the future. Representative democracy is for wussies.

Incidentally, the public perception is arguably that an override can't pass. I don't exactly know why this is the public perception, but it probably has something to do with the loud and incessant whining of the anti-tax brigades.

Luckily, we're not dependent on public perception for our facts here, and can just look at these statistics on overrides from the Mass. Department of Revenue.

Fitchburg has only had one override vote on this list. It was for fiscal '92, seeking $200,000 for ambulance services. It lost almost 2:1. But that was nearly 20 years ago. During the 90's, overrides didn't fare well in general, with 1,843 attempts being defeated and only 931 attempts passing.

Now times are different, so let's focus on the years just from 2000-2009. Things have changed pretty dramatically. From 2000-2009 there have been 1185 override attempts. Of those, 580 were defeated and 605 won.

You could perhaps argue that the dramatically lower number of total override attempts explains the wins. Maybe people are less likely to propose overrides after the drubbings of the 90's, and only propose ones they think they can get support for.

Maybe so, but it's already been proposed. I don't know what Starr's thought process is, but I doubt he would have proposed it if he thought it was doomed to go down in flames. So we're already past the first step, and overrides clearly don't carry the same "no way will that happen!" stigma they had for many years.

So yeah, let's vote on it. Up until we do, I'm sure there will be plenty of local idiots ranting about socialism and "unconstitutional" taxes and probably abortion (because they always work it in somehow) for us to enjoy. Which will make for easy blog posts.

Thanks, Kevin!

Still waiting for one valid argument...

I knew it.

This tedious issue of illegal immigration has moved on from just outraging stupid people on message boards.

I heard stupid people arguing about it in my workplace this morning, a bunch of city councilors said stupid things to the newspaper, and McMenemy did what everyone knew he would do and wrote a stupid editorial.

We're approaching a singularity of stupid.

Let me clarify something, in case anyone is under the impression that I'm just calling people stupid because I disagree with their point of view. That's not actually the case.

There's certainly a discussion to be had about illegal immigration and how best to deal with it. Smart, sensible people can have different opinions on the issue. It's a very complicated issue, after all.

But what we're seeing is not smart, sensible people making rational arguments against allowing illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses. If we were, this would be a wonderfully interesting topic to write about and discuss.

No, what we're seeing is a bunch of people putting forward the same fundamentally stupid non-argument. It boils down to saying "illegal is bad" and therefore anyone who's been labeled an "illegal immigrant" or the dehumanizing pseudo-noun "illegal" is bad and should be punished in petty and nonsensical ways.

This "argument" is actually perfectly encapsulated in McMenemy's editorial headline: "Rewarding people for breaking the law."

That's what it's all about. There's no argument about whether allowing illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses makes sense or not. No, it's all about denying them the vast reward of being allowed to legally drive because they're ILLEGALS!

Dean Tran makes the same basic argument in his whining:

"I strongly believe this is an issue of right and wrong," Tran wrote in an e-mail responding to questions Thursday. "We should not condone illegal activities as we do not teach our children to engage in illegal activities."

Incidentally, note that the Sentinel initiated the questioning here. They're the ones trying to drum up outrage. They went looking for quotes condemning DeMoura, and found themselves a number of willing patsies. Way to get used, guys!

Here's the old dumb non-argument again.

Ward 2 City Councilor Norman Boisvert strongly disagrees with DeMoura's stance.

"I must be stuck in the old school," Boisvert said. "I believe anyone who comes here illegally should not be rewarded with a drivers license."

Boisvert is not anti-immigrant, he said, but he wants the laws to be obeyed.

Yes, what a wonderful "reward" driver's licenses are. It's not like anyone needs a driver's license. They're just a nice luxury item, like golden back-scratchers.

Also, please note: anyone who feels the need to state that they're "not anti-immigrant" is most likely anti-immigrant. It's like the people who say "I'm not a racist" before saying something incredibly racist. Just saying it doesn't make it true.

Kevin Starr thinks illegal immigrants should have a way to become legal immigrants, and I agree with him. But what does he think about this specific driver's license issue?

Ward 4 City Councilor Kevin Starr disagrees with DeMoura's position.

"A driver's license is a privilege you have to earn," Star [Sic] said. "It's not a right."

Oh, Kevin. You're a nice guy, but that's a really stupid thing you said. You "earn" the privilege to drive by passing a driving test and paying a fee. There's nothing about that process that inherently disqualifies people who haven't gone through the proper immigration channels.

Believe it or not, even foreign tourists can drive legally as long as they have a valid license in their home country. Have they earned that privilege more than someone who's actually living here but has been labeled as "illegal"?

About the only one in the S&E article who gets it at all (besides DeMoura) is Jody Joseph:

Ward 6 City Councilor Jody Joseph is upset that Patrick has the committee to begin with, saying illegal immigrants should not be receiving any benefits from the state.

"I don't know how comfortable and easy we should make it for refugees and immigrants to come into the area if they are here illegally," Joseph said. "I don't understand the whole concept."

But Joseph is not opposed to DeMoura's stance on giving licenses to undocumented immigrants.

"The chief just wants to be able to identify all of them," he said.

Sure, the first part of that quote is stupid (way to attack refugees for no reason, asshole), but at least Joseph understands that this isn't about "rewarding" anyone, it's about pragmatism.

Chief DeMoura didn't suggest allowing illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses as a reward, it's for purely pragmatic purposes. Let's actually see what he says:

DeMoura defended his comments Thursday. He said giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants is a good policy.

"It's a procedural step that makes sense," DeMoura said.

It would allow police to be able to identify those immigrants during traffic stops or other police encounters, he said.

And the proposal would also give the state a way to get a fingerprint from the immigrant, he said.

Most illegal immigrants are people whose temporary work visas have expired, DeMoura said.

Clearly, this isn't about some stupid "reward", it's about making the job of the police easier. People have to drive. Not driving is really not an option if you live in Central Massachusetts and hope to have a job, or do pretty much anything.

There just aren't a whole lot of other options. Not everyone has an endlessly supportive friend who can ferry them around all the time. Not everyone has access to public transportation (which sucks around here). Taxis cost more than many people can realistically afford, assuming they can even get one when they need one.

And even if there were viable alternatives, the reality of the situation is that people are driving anyway. Doing this illegally causes problems. So instead of stamping our feet and whining about it, DeMoura put forward an idea that's very simple and solves a lot of problems.

So, can anyone point to problems that DeMoura's suggestion creates? I mean besides pissing off people who "earned" the privilege of having a driver's license by virtue of their mom getting knocked up while living in the United States?

Here's the closest I could find to an argument against DeMoura's suggestion, and it doesn't actually have anything to do with driver's licenses, it's just whining that anyone dare to give a shit about what happens to illegal immigrants. Cue Dean Tran:

And Tran thinks Patrick ought to be doing more for the legal residents of the state before he deals with illegal immigrants.

"If Gov. Patrick wants to help the people of the Commonwealth, he should be focusing his energy on creating jobs and lowering taxes," Tran wrote. "His committee is another representation of bigger government and more tax dollars going to waste."

Blah blah blah, typical conservative nonsense. You know, Dean, it is possible to do more than one thing at a time.

Or should we wait until every single problem faced by naturalized citizens is solved before we do anything for illegal immigrants? Because if that's how you think government works, it's no wonder you think Rachel is some kind of political genius.

Finally, McMenemy does present an "argument" that slightly deviates from the prevalent "stop rewarding the wetbacks" argument. Here it is:

Again, no matter how well intentioned DeMoura is, we think his proposal, if enacted, would only encourage more illegal aliens to come into Massachusetts, where residents and business owners are already paying high taxes which go, in part, to educating and housing illegal immigrants.

This, like everything that comes out of McMenemy's brain, is only valid in the peculiar little fantasy world that he inhabits.

I'll just discard outright the totally-unsupported-by-facts assertion that this would somehow turn Massachusetts into some sort of vacation resort for illegal immigrants. It's nonsense.

Also, please note that illegal immigrants pay less in taxes than citizens, but they also use less in services. Depending on who you listen to, they either use slightly more than they pay or pay slightly more than they use, but either way it pretty much comes out as a wash.

Sure, schooling illegal immigrants costs money, but illegal immigrants also pay into Social Security without ever getting any benefits from it. Sales tax hits everyone, of course. It's not a simple issue, unless you just choose to ignore all the complexities.

As for our "high taxes," Massachusetts was ranked 23rd in the country in 2008 for "tax burden." That puts us squarely in the middle. Of course, any tax is high in McMenemy's eyes.

But that's beside the point.

The point is, if you have a valid argument against allowing illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses, go ahead and make it. But base it on the real world, not some imaginary land where driver's licenses are considered "rewards" and a police chief expressing a desire to do one very simple thing to make the job of the police easier is some deep moral outrage.

In other words, disagree with DeMoura all you want, but please stop being so fucking stupid about it.

Once again, irrational fear hurts everyone...

There are a lot of things wrong with this country's prohibitionist "War on Drugs." Too many to go into here, really. Prisons full of nonviolent pot smokers, the creation of a highly lucrative black market, and a system that does far more harm than good to the very people it claims to be protecting are just a few examples.

A far more insidious problem, though, is the reframing of drug use/addiction as a criminal act instead of the health issue it actually is. And guess what? We have some of that right here in Fitchburg!

The Sentinel just ran an oddly-titled article called Treating local addicts? that addresses the way some city councilors are "concerned" about the possibility of a medical practice specializing in addiction treatment opening on Summer Street.

The medical practice in question is described by its founder, Dr. Punyamurtula S. Kishore, like so:

"We are an enhanced primary care facility," Kishore said. "Everything is integrated, from people who have diabetes, to patients that need a check up and others who are addicted to alcohol, we help everyone."

Wow, scary stuff! And indeed, looking over the website for his group sure is terrifying!

I mean, they offer creepy programs like "Weight control and smoking cessation programs," "Physical exams and health assessments," and a "Home Detox Program." Someone quick, hide the children!

Speaking of which:

[S]ome City Councilors are concerned about the location of the facility, being blocks away from St. Bernard's High and Elementary Schools.

"It's right next to a school," said Councilor at-large Annie DeMartino. "I'm shocked they want to put one in there."

Umm, yeah. Because a doctor's office is totally a threat to schoolchildren who may be in the general vicinity. People seeking medical care certainly can't be allowed anywhere near children!

Oh, but this isn't about people seeking medical care, is it? No, it's about "addicts."

The word "addict" (as used by the Sentinel headline) conjures the image of a junkie shooting up in an abandoned building, so they're scary. And scary people should be kept away from children, right?

You see, in this country we don't talk about people with addictions as being people with a health problem. No, they're dangerous criminals! Never mind that the vast majority of people with addictions (which is probably about 95% of the country, to one thing or another) are no danger to anyone. Never mind that "addiction" usually doesn't involve anything illegal. Never mind that the people who'd be coming to this doctor's office are people seeking help. Let's just be ignorant and freak out about all the scary addicts!

Thomas Conry goes along with DeMartino's illogical fears and expresses concern at the location, but takes it one particularly ill-informed step farther:

Thomas Conry, an at-large councilor, said he has "very serious concerns" about the facility.

"I believe that people have to be treated, however I feel Fitchburg has enough of those types of practices now," he said.

Apparently Thomas Conry is in no way familiar with the medical landscape of this area.

This is a primary care facility with a specialization in addiction medicine we're talking about. Fitchburg has a serious dearth of primary care providers (as does most of the country).

In fact, the state is currently sending questionnaires to local doctors in an attempt to assess whether Fitchburg should be categorized as a "Low Income Primary Care Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA)." Generally such assessments aren't undertaken unless the people involved are pretty confident they're going to qualify. Having seen the dearth of new providers coming into the area, I'd be shocked if we don't.

Additionally, the low income population of Fitchburg (and several surrounding towns) has been categorized as a "Medically Underserved Population" since 1996. (This information is easily found at http://muafind.hrsa.gov/, though I can't link to it directly.)

Now, those classifications are specific to "low income" populations, but don't read that to mean those of us with a bit more money have a good situation. While it's definitely more difficult for a low-income person to find a provider, that problem is made worse by there not being enough doctors to go around.

Low-income patients mean low reimbursement for the doctors who care for them, so many doctors try to limit their numbers. The poor also tend to have more medical problems than wealthier people, which means they take up more time and resources. Yet the reimbursement (especially from Masshealth/Medicaid) is extremely low compared to people who can actually afford reasonable insurance. So from a doctor's business perspective it's unwise to let the percentage of low-income/crap insurance patients in your practice get too high.

Without enough primary care providers in the area, the low-income people get hurt first, because it's not in the doctor's best interest to see too many of them. With the ridiculously ill-conceived Massachusetts "universal" health care sham now in effect, that's going to get even worse. And unless more doctors come into the area, it's going to move up the chain until nobody can find a doctor (it's already a tough thing to do around here).

Anyway, back to the Councilors.

DeMartino seems to harbor an irrational fear. Conry shares it and heaps on a big pile of ignorance. Now we get Norman Boisvert to take it to the next level of dumb:

Ward 2 Councilor Norman Boisvert said he doesn't know the specifics of the plan, but said he doesn't think Fitchburg should be attracting addicts to the city.

"There are ample places for the addicts to go," he said. "If we bring another center in, that's more addicts into our city, what we should be doing is running them out of town."

Hey, guess what Norm? There are already plenty of people with addictions living in this area! They fucking need treatment to help them get over these addictions! We wouldn't be attracting busloads of those scary meth-heads you picture, we'd be helping people in the community to deal with their addictions without having to drive to Worcester to do so. So they'd, you know, get better!

But apparently instead of helping people in town to get better, Boisvert thinks the right thing to do is to "run them out of town." Congratulations, Norm! You're a giant idiotic asshole!

You know, Hillcrest Nursing Home is right in the same part of town. Some of the patients there suffer from dementia or Alzheimer's, and could at times be classified as a danger to themselves or others. Let's run them out of town too! And certainly let's not let them stay near the school, what if an old person gets out and does something crazy?

It seems like the only City Councilor on the record as having any understanding of medical care is Jody Joseph:

Ward 6 Councilor Jody Joseph, whose ward the facility would be located in, defended the practice.

"It's a doctor's office, that's all it is," Joseph said. "One of the things he does is treat addictions, but it's not going to be a methadone clinic."

Joseph said people are rushing to judgment on the practice.

"People have made it into a horror show, when he's really just a general practitioner for people that don't want to go to a detox center," Joseph said. "It's for the average person."

Right on, Jody!

Joseph is quite right. People have gotten this false idea of what an "addict" is from television and the Drug War propaganda campaigns. But most people with an addiction are very much "the average person."

Smoke cigarettes? Drink too much? Eat too much? Too many lottery tickets? Four cups of coffee a day? Get stuck on painkillers after an operation? Take a medication that's addictive at its normal dosage? Or yes, even have a problem with illegal drugs?

Congratulations, you have an addiction. Norman Boisvert wants to run you out of town, and others on the city council fear you.

Meanwhile, intelligent and well-respected people like Dr. Kishore want to help you improve your life. Which would improve the lives of those around you. Which would improve the city.

And of course having a new business and some more primary care providers in a city that desperately needs both wouldn't be so bad either.

Hopefully the city council will figure out at some point that their constituents are not their enemy, that they don't need to be afraid of everything, and that helping people with problems actually helps all of us.

But don't hold your breath.


[Update: January 9th]
The suckass newspaper ran an editorial opposing the practice opening. Conry, DeMartino, and Marcus DiNatale spoke against it at the ZBA hearing. And the fools at the ZBA turned down the zoning change required to open it. So it's dead.

So we've lost an opportunity for a business to open (while simultaneously costing that business $100k), lost the chance to bring some much-needed primary care doctors into the area, and showed everyone that we're an ignorant little shithole town*.

Way to go.


*In fact, Fitchburg is not an ignorant little shithole town. But is it any surprise that we get characterized that way when this is how we present ourselves?