Shorts and ballot questions

[magid]

I've had a houseguest since Labor Day who's leaving tonight. It's going to be strange not having someone else around the house.

With the switch from tokens to Charlie cards, I assume the T has a plan for what to do with all the tokens (melt them down? sell them as souvenirs in the Boston city store?). It would be cool to make a mosaic map of the T using tokens (colored appropriately, of course), perhaps with a bit of a background map and/or labels (or icons) for the stations.

Happy 8th birthday to Google. It's hard to remember what life was like before it :-)

New magazine for Harvard alumni: 02138. Harvard alumni who go on to fame, power, and money, of course.

---

There are going to be three ballot questions in MA in November. I've read about the issues around Question 2, which would allow a candidate to be nominated by more than one party (which would lead to multiple listings on the ballot). I can see how this could make smaller parties much more viable, especially since the proportion of votes that came through each party would be given, though part of me would rather have each name listed only once, with all their nominations after. It also changes the minimum for small parties to get official recognition to having gotten 3% of the vote for any statewide office in the two most recent elections, rather than just the most recent. Those opposed say that the ballots will be confusing and more difficult to count, ending with a reference to Florida's 2000 presidential elections and the confusing ballots, which I thought a rather cheap shot.

Question 1 would allow supermarkets to sell wine. I'm confused by this, because a lot of supermarkets around Boston already sell wine (and other liquor). I'm not sure why there should be a change to the system, really, though I wasn't surprised to see the arguments for and against ("we should be up to date like other states, rather than having package stores" v. "more places selling alcohol means more drunk driving and youth drunkenness").

And Question 3 is about home child-care providers to bargain collectively with the state. I can imagine it would be easier for the child-care providers, not having to deal with a layer of bureaucracy, but if there were a need for individual accommodation, it might be more difficult. I'm not sure whether the one outweighs the other.

Comments

[xuth.livejournal.com]

Regarding question 1: Currently no entity can have more than 3 liquor/wine licenses in the state. Which means that there are exactly 3 stop and shops that sell wine, 3 trader joes, 3 shaws, etc.

[magid.livejournal.com]

This question would allow any town to issue 5 licenses for food stores to sell wine, with an additional license for each 5,000 people (or fraction thereof) after that. I thought the next statement "No person or business could hold more than 10% of the total number of the licenses that could be issued under the proposed law." didn't make sense at first, because I was thinking about it on a town by town basis, rather than statewide. So this would be a huge change for supermarkets. I don't see why they couldn't just change the upper limit to a maximum of 10% (or 5%, or whatever) per entity, though.

[xuth.livejournal.com]

I didn't think much about the law prior. I mostly do support it on principle. I do note that "10% of the total number of licenses that could be issued" is somewhere near 320. (6.35 million people in MA / 5000 people + ~350 cities or towns * 5 licenses per city or town + 350 cities or towns * .5 licenses (gotten from from rounding the population up to 5000), all multiplied by 10%)

[magid.livejournal.com]

The maximum number of licenses increasing from 3 to 320 is pretty noticeable.

[curly-chick.livejournal.com]

my agency is dealing with the third question. haven't heard that much about it yet though.

[magid.livejournal.com]

I'd love your opinion once you hear more about what's going on.

[ckd]

My thoughts on the ballot questions:

Q1: yes, some supermarkets sell wine now, but the limit is three licenses per company. (That's why the Whole Foods on Prospect stopped; they moved the alcohol license to the big River Street store, where they had room to sell more stuff.)

Q2: I'd prefer preferential voting[1] to fusion ballots, but I think either would be an improvement over what we have now.

[1] Can you tell I live in Cambridge? :)

Q3: I think it's telling that nobody could be found to write an "against". Usually there's some organized opposition for anything the least bit controversial....

[magid.livejournal.com]

Q1: I hadn't realized that until I read Xuth's comment above. Why not just change the limit (to 5% of all licenses or something), instead of the current question?

Q2: I agree that either is an improvement. And if there's a concern that the electorate will be confused, then maybe there should be a bit more education available or something. It's not that horribly difficult.

[And yes, I can :-)]

Q3: I noticed that too, which is part of why I'm likely to vote for it. I just don't know enough about why the question has appeared now, particularly.

[jwg.livejournal.com]

New York state has had multiple parties placing the same candidate on the ballot for a very long time. It seems to work fine.

Preferential ballots would be great, especially in primaries. When Capuano first ran for the 8th Congressional district he got about 22.88% of the ballots which was a bit more than the next guy, Ray Flynn who got 17.46%. There were 10 candidates (one of which was Chris Gabrieli). My favorite was George Bachrach who got only 14.3%. As a result this small fraction of the electorate allowed him to be rep for life in this heavily Democratic district. Who knows how it would have turned out with a preferential system. I'm perfectly happy with the result but it certainly isn't a great example of democracy.

[ckd]

New York state has had multiple parties placing the same candidate on the ballot for a very long time. It seems to work fine.

Well, if even Yankees fans can figure it out, we shouldn't have any problems.

Yeah, the MA-8 primary that year was one of the best advertisements for preferential balloting I've seen in a while. As with you, I'm pretty happy with Capuano but he would have been my second choice behind, IIRC, Tom Keane. The big worry was that the not-Flynn ballots would have been too split and we would have wound up with Raybo; preferential balloting would have been a great fix for that.

[ruthling.livejournal.com]

I lived in CA for many years, where buying my beer at the grocery store was just what I did, and I missed that convenience abnd simplicity when moving here. However, G and I discussed it we realized that we patronize the local liquor stores, and that there are several good ones within walking distance of us now. They would be the ones to lose out if the big grocery corporations could sell beer and wine. So, although I liked having the ability to shop for beer and wine along with my canned tomatoes and TP, I don't think I'm going to vote for this change.

Also, apparently some specialty food stores, like Trader Joes, *can* get liquor licenses; I don't know what a store has to do to make this so under current law and what this will actually change.

Also, also, I'm not a lush, really :)

[ruthling.livejournal.com]

oh, never mind my 2nd pp, I reread what you wrote!

[magid.livejournal.com]

I hadn't really thought of it as local (liquor package) stores v. nonlocal/big corporation (supermarket) stores. Good point.

[xuth.livejournal.com]

You should note that this addresses wine only and not specifically not beer. I don't know how wine is explicitly defined so as to be inclusive of most wines but preclude most beers.

[ruthling.livejournal.com]

Good point, I haven't got a clue either.

[queue.livejournal.com]

From Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 138, Section 1 (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/138-1.htm):

"Wines'', all fermented alcoholic beverages made from fruits, flowers, herbs or vegetables and containing not more than twenty-four per cent of alcohol by volume at sixty degrees Fahrenheit, except cider containing not more than three per cent, or containing more than six per cent, of alcohol by weight at sixty degrees Fahrenheit.

[treacle-well.livejournal.com]

I was thinking much like you wrt empathy for my local liquor store (and how inconvenient it would be for me if this law resulted in them going out of business). However, when I read the "Against" argument that was published in the Voter Information booklet, which seemed to have as its gist something like "Think about the chiiilldruuun!" I reconsidered, just because I want to vote against that whiny emotional "against" argument.

[ruthling.livejournal.com]

Well, the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend and all that. Thankfully, I didn't read this info booklet and have therefore not been subject to any knee-jerk feelings against the "for the kiddies" crowd.

Of course, now that I think about it, it's easier for kids to get booze from the omnipresent small local packies than from a big grocery store. Those little bottles of crap that I find in my bushes from time to time are clearly swiped from the place down the block. Most of the big grocery stores that would be able to take advantage of the law's change, you almost need a car to get to.

[queue.livejournal.com]

The against argument talks about how convenience stores will all be selling wine, and how easy it will be for kids to buy wine from "untrained" convenience store employees.

[the-gadgetman.livejournal.com]

I figure I'll vote yes on 1 just on the basic principle of less government restrictions.

[queue.livejournal.com]

This is one less government restriction, but also another layer of government regulation (they're creating a new class of licenses for food stores).

[gnomi.livejournal.com]

In re tokens when the Charlie Cards are universally available in T stations, I found out what they're doing. The Charlie Card machines accept tokens as payment for Charlie Cards. So if you're buying a $5 Charlie Card, for instance, you could pay for it with 4 tokens.

[magid.livejournal.com]

That seems a bit stupid. In the short term it makes sense, but once people have used up their tokens, it's useless.

Once someone uses their tokens to buy a Charlie Card, what happens to the tokens then? Is there going to be some huge collection place before their ultimate fate as they slowly get all the tokens out of the system?

[gnomi.livejournal.com]

That, I honestly can't answer. All I know is that when I asked the guy about why they were still sending tokens as refunds if they're phasing out the tokens, he said they were usable in the Charlie Card machines.

[magid.livejournal.com]

Huh. That sounds like they might keep tokens around as long as they have that program.

google

[jaq.livejournal.com]

It's funny thinking about the start Google. There were other search engines around before they started, and I can remember wondering why I should try 'that new one', so it seems far from obvious that they would climb to their current position.

Re: google

[magid.livejournal.com]

I remember using Alta Vista and Ask Jeeves back then; memories of anything else have vanished.

My agency's take on it

[curly-chick.livejournal.com]

The Bill shifts the focus of regulations away from the interests of children and families by allowing for the modification of existing regulations based on collecting bargaining. This Bill would allow health, safety, and educational standards to become part of negotiations with licensed providers. Regulations governing child care programs need to be driven by research and best practices rather than the collective bargaining process.


The proposed definition of a “Provider” is ambiguous. The Bill defines a “Provider” as a “person licensed by the commonwealth to provide subsidized child care services in a private residence.” While EEC currently licenses family child care providers, EEC does not “license” any family child care providers to provide “subsidized” services. Rather, EEC contracts with family child care systems and with Child Care Resource and Referral (CCR&R) agencies who arrange for subsidized family child care services through the Commonwealth’s voucher system. Family child care providers are independent contractors. Not all licensed family child care providers choose to provide subsidized care; many only provide care for private paying families. Those who choose to participate in the state subsidy system have two options for participating. Specifically, a family child care provider who chooses to participate in the state subsidy system may either affiliate with a contracted family child care system or enter into a voucher agreement with a CCR&R.




The Bill applies to a class that does not exist for collective bargaining purposes. Collective bargaining only occurs between an employer and an employee. Family child care providers are private business entities and not state employees. As citizens and small business owners, family child care providers have the right to organize and lobby the Commonwealth’s agencies or Legislature for change. The Commonwealth, however, is not currently required to collectively bargain with any independent business owners. The Bill specifically states that the Providers are “independent contractors and not employees of the state for any reason.” Yet, under the terms of the Bill, the State Labor Relations Commission retains jurisdiction over unfair bargaining disputes under G.L. c. 150E, the State Collective Bargaining Act, which pertains only to State employees. Granting collective bargaining rights to non-state employees such as family child care providers will set a precedent for other similarly situated groups.


The Bill will result in a new cost that Providers may incur related to membership in the union. This cost could otherwise be expended on initiatives to improve the quality and accessibility of child care.


The amount the Commonwealth must pay for subsidized child care should be based on the cost and the quality of care being delivered rather than the collective bargaining process.

Re: My agency's take on it

[magid.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

Your agency sounds fairly negative on this one (and the reasons seem valid to me; it seems that the deeper you dig, the more shades of gray there are on so many issues). I'm surprised that they weren't asked to write an "Against" opinion for the information booklet.