Recent comments in /f/WorcesterMA

-swagKITTEN t1_j3wk8lj wrote

I live in Worcester (31f) and have similar issues due to pretty bad social anxiety. It takes an inordinate amount of mental preparation for me to go meet up with people or hang out. Despite I’m always open to any new friends that might have the patience for how stupidly long it takes to come out of my shell.

7

oceansofmyancestors t1_j3w1xif wrote

Yep. The mayor flipped his shit and it was on the local news. It was a homeless shelter in Worcester that was overcrowded, and this was their solution.

Springfield also takes a disproportionate amount of refugees. So the state just dumps them there because cost of living is cheaper. But there’s less resources and less jobs as well.

The state also stiffs Springfield a lot. One example is bussing. Springfield has a weird system where they jumble up the kids from all over the city and place them in schools that aren’t necessarily the closest to their homes. The state is supposed to pay for the cost of bussing everyone but they don’t actually pay.

3

darksideofthemoon131 t1_j3vxerd wrote

The owner of the building is slime, however it's not his responsibility. I worked there when it was Beatniks back in the day under both owners. The lease basically puts sole operation and maintenance of the building up to the holder of the lease. Unless something was changed in the verbiage of lease- it's Dave's responsibility, which is sad. The owner of building has no mortgage to it, they want to put no money into it, and will make sure that anyone who does shoulders the burden of maintenance.

This is a bad lease. It's something that needs to be addressed by the city BEFORE any lease gets signed. When Beatniks closed, the city should have stepped in and said no leases or businesses will be signed until the building is brought up to proper code. Instead it puts the responsibility of it on the small business owner, not the building owner- who knowingly leases it with the knowledge that it isn't up to code.

From what I understand in this issue as well is that the sprinklers are required with occupancy of the building being over 100 persons. The current occupancy is listed at 97 which doesn't jibe with the city.

One Eyed Jacks is a family business. The food is phenomenal. I go regularly. It's a shame to see this happen to someone trying to keep a business afloat. Businesses should have some level of protection when they are signing a lease because the money they put into the building (which is owned by someone else) only financially burdens them and benefits the owner of the building.

10

Phrag t1_j3uttx0 wrote

It's keeps them from organizing. If you let a camp sit long enough, it may become somewhat stable. The people living in it might get resources that they would otherwise have access to. It might even been seen as a partially good thing by some of the locals with housing. This is potentially beneficial for everyone except the cops, who will have a harder time moving them when someone influential enough wants them moved. So you have the massively wasteful, dehumanizing, and likely unconstitutional system that exists now, because it makes cops' jobs easier in theory.

7