I'm voting yes, but I swear I'm going to be so pissed if they use the money to build a new stadium so we can snipe another town's developmental basketball team.

So helpful. Is there a useless award?

u/GoblinBags? Why’d you delete your comments coward?

Without fail, every single person I’ve listened to that’s said they’re voting no is an asshole. Yes that’s anecdotal, but it’s also a vast swathe and totally unfailing in its prediction. This is such a no-brainer, if you find yourself a no vote, I regret to inform you: you are an asshole.

No kidding. That's exactly the kind of store I want to support - small scale business, local focus. But their prices are OUTRAGEOUS. The same pack of local beer costs $4 more there than at any other grocery or liquor store. And a head of garlic is like $3.50. GTFO with that kind of extortion.

The state statute mandates five members of existing city boards and committees - up to four more "at-large" members can be added depending on how the city sets things up. There are very specific guidelines on how the CPA funds can be used (and lots of legal precedent excluding specific uses) so misappropriation would be highly constrained and likely to trigger a lawsuit or state intervention. More info here: https://www.communitypreservation.org/CPCs

Gay bars are a blast on Halloween.

Thanks for the information!

Anything before 2005.

It's 1.5% on top of the tax not on top of the house value. So if you own a $700k house, your tax bill is likely around $8,000 so this would add $120 (1.5% of $8,000) to your tax bill.

I was planning on voting yes, but just read this article and came across this bit:

>The measure would add a 1.5% surcharge on residents' annual assessed property tax beginning in July 2023. The first $100,000 of residential and commercial-industrial property value will be exempt from the surcharge. Low-income families and low- to moderate-income senior citizens who own homes will also be exempt from the surcharge.

The average resident will pay $44.45 while the average commercial taxpayer will pay $604.58 if the measure is passed.

I'd previously heard the $44.45 number before, but not the way it's calculated. If you've got a little house that's worth $300,000, and the chop off the first $100,000, that means you're taxed at 1.5 percent on $200,000, right? And 1.5 percent of $200,000 isn't $44.45, but $3,000.

Would the person owning a house like the one described be paying $44.45 or $3,000 more?!

Now I'm thinking I need to vote no, unless someone can explain why I'm off in my calculations or the premise.

Isn't one of the issues that the free money from the state is becoming less and less each year?

I plan to vote yes - the cost is such a low gamble to improve the city - but I would like the clarification.

It's a Monday. Most places I know of that were doing Halloween stuff did it this last weekend.

This is a great question! I can’t wait to hear some of the answers!

Speaking about maker to main specifically…

Maybe people don’t want to overpay for the same stuff you’d get at Whole Foods/target for cheaper.

It’s a gentrifier store in a non gentrified area.

Close down streets to automobile traffic, run the buses more frequently, allow for mixed zoning, provide access to capital for people who live in these communities

It’s already been adopted by 189 cities and towns in MA. Yeah it’s an added fee of ~$50/year for homeowners, but it’s for programs that directly benefit the public. Plus there are matching funds, so by not doing it we’re leaving money on the table. Seems like a no-brainer.

I would love to see the zoning loosened up a little bit.

The article said that's happening. It's just going to take some time

I work downtown, right around the corner from 145 Front st. and the Grid. Neither residential complex seems to add noticeable weekday foot traffic.

We lost some good lunch options to Covid and inflation has definitely impacted the ones that are still kicking. Not everyone has $15-20 to spend on lunch. And people would probably be more inclined to spend time and money downtown if there were actual stores (e.g., a gift store that isn’t Worcester-centric, toy store, small market, city Target, whatever).

Also, for all of the “walkability” improvements, Main st. and the surrounding streets are still majorly oriented to car traffic. Things might appear close on a map, but it’s deceiving because you wind up stuck waiting 2-5 minutes at every single intersection for a walk light. And you’re walking past ugly parking lots and empty buildings, so even a short walk feels like it takes longer than it should. (Speaking as someone who used to walk a lot more when working/living in Boston.)

A while ago I saw someone mention that Worcester needs to be more walkable, which would really benefit these retail shops. I completely agree — but have no idea how that idea comes to fruition in a city like Worcester where basically everyone drives. My first thought would be filling in “the gaps”. For instance, walking from Culpepper’s on Cambridge st. to Polar Park seems doable for me (an adult male) but it’s not necessarily inviting given the little pockets of nothingness in between. And if I were a female I wouldn’t do it (sadly) especially at night. Fill in those gaps between the outskirts of the city and downtown with shops/restaurants and basically more people and it feels safer. I’m sure zoning would have to be tampered with a bit to make this happen. Fingers crossed because I would love to see this trend reverse. Covid, inflation & the looming recession isn’t helping anything either :(

The Mustard Seed also can use volunteers: https://mustardseedcw.org/

I wish some of those empty office buildings could be repurposed for housing to bring life into downtown.

There is so little reason to vote no it’s laughable. We’re talking an extra $40-100/year on property taxes. If your house is valued at $700k you likely won’t even notice that extra $100 tacked onto your $8k property tax bill.

This is free money from the state, but only if we put in our share. We need more affordable housing. Our kids need nice parks and fields (since there’s not much else for them to do in Worcester). I don’t get the reticence in Worcester to actually contribute to making this city better for everyone.

We love to turn out to vote Democrat in national elections and then sit back and let the provincial white haired voters do everything in their power to screw the city in local elections.

on the one hand, you could pay like $50 a year (or $0, if you are exempt) and get free money from the state in order to improve parks and make housing more affordable. on the other hand, you could discuss your $4/mo surcharge using catchphrases like "a tax on a tax" as if that's not how all taxes everywhere already work. good arguments on both sides if you ask me!

That’s fair.