Hey, there! Log in / Register
Citizen complaint of the day: Don't let the rich erase history
By adamg on Sun, 07/10/2016 - 12:01am
A disgusted citizen files a complaint:
Move the Coconut Grove plaque to where it belongs. The city needs to stop bending over for the rich. 492 people died, why are millionaires allowed to change history and dishonor the dead. THE CITY SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES FOR MEETING THIS HAPPEN!
The citizen probably read the Cullen column: Cocoanut Grove plaque shoved down the street.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
That Is Pretty Pathetic
It's a Plaque, it doesn't mean poulterghousts are going to be rummaging in your luxury walk in closets. Is having it in its original placement going to devalue the overpriced property or something?
The aquisition team behind
The aquisition team behind all this sure must have some clout.
The Vendome argument all over again
FTA: “We now occupy these homes with our families as part of the Bay Village neighborhood and would like to enjoy our homes in peace, without tragic memories, hanging wreaths at our doors and tourists peeking into our houses.”
Vendome developers put forth the same argument in the seventies.
For years the BFD wanted a plaque, maybe something as simple as the names of the nine firefighters mounted on the fire box that was struck for the fire. Now, there's a beautiful and poignant memorial in the middle of Comm Ave.
http://www.publicartboston.com/content/vendome-fire-memorial
492 people killed. That plaque was supposed to be put back and they weaseled their way out of it. I'm not buying the 'tourist and wreaths' baloney.
FTA: "The contretemps in Bay Village over a small plaque raises a bigger point: It is time that the victims of the Cocoanut Grove fire are afforded a proper, large-scale memorial somewhere in the city. In fact, it is long overdue."
True.
The fire was so long ago that
The fire was so long ago that a memorial no longer makes sense. Everyone killed by the fire is long past their life expectancy. Even the people who knew them are past their life expectancy. It's too late.
Oh, sure
And let's tear down the Bunker Hill Monument, too - all the people involved in that are dead.
Hey! Keep your hands off of
Hey! Keep your hands off of my workplace ;)
Exactly, tear down that
Exactly, tear down that monument and put it on Breed's Hill where it belongs.
All the more reason to return the plaque.
There are a few folks out there that can tell you exactly where the revolving doors were. Ask them.
Hell, ask the City archaeologist that's been featured here a few times. He can probably locate it precisely.
Just put the damn plaque back where it belongs. Cut the cement, drill and lag it in place. Not much money, everyone that uses the public sidewalk is happy.
End of discussion.
As a matter of fact, I went
As a matter of fact, I went by Sunday, and happened to meet an old couple who were furious that the plaque was moved. They had grown up nearby, in the "New York Streets" which were taken down to put through the Turnpike. The lady said she remember where the revolving doors were, because the ruins were still up for several years after the fire. The plaque was in front of that doorway originally. Now it's situated where there was a parking lot in 1942. The only part of the Grove anywhere near it is over on the Shawmut St. side, where the Broadway lounge had just open.
Did Anthony just throw the plaque anywhere ? Oh no, the current owners know where it belongs. Far away from them. Good luck, they live in a graveyard, no matter what they do.
I remember the fire
Everytime the comment is made here, on the articles Adam writes on Licensing Board hearings, that the police have better things to do than make sure bars and clubs are in compliance with the law.
Are you kidding?
Are you kidding?
There are clearly many people who have lived past their "life expectancy" then, they also have younger family members. What happened to "never forget"?
Everyone who came in through Ellis Island is past their life expectancy, let's get rid of that memorial too.
Have there ever been so many deaths in Boston on a single day?
The Battle of Bunker Hill doesn't come close in terms of casualties, and I sure can't think of any other historical event that caused so much death at once here. This needs more than a plaque, it needs a full-sized memorial.
Bunker Hill doesn't have a
Bunker Hill doesn't have a huge monument because of the body count. It has a huge monument because it represents victory.
Besides, getting killed fighting in a war is seen differently than being a victim of a fire. At least it used to be. After 9/11 the difference between victims and heroes became blurred.
Victory, you say?
Not really. Militarily, it was a defeat.
I'm not arguing against a Bunker Hill monument, though.
But you don't seem to realize that, just as ultimate victory came from that defeat, ultimate victory came from the "defeat" at Cocoanut Grove - an entire nation changed the way it dealt with large public assemblies to try to prevent such disasters from ever happening again. It hasn't been perfect (see the Station fire), but overall, your chances of dying in a fire at a nightclub or even in your workplace are a lot lower than they were back then. That seems worth remembering.
Some are still alive
Some of the people in the fire are still alive. Surely that alone renders your comment foolish, no?
Wow.
Don't ever go to Europe: all you'll see is wasted money.
Cocoanut Grove
Wait, say that again ? You're literally saying a memorial makes no sense if all the people involved have died ? Wwwwwhat part of "memorial" is escaping your brain ?
My mother went to 6 funerals that week. He best friend lost her father and brother, and her mother died in a mental institution. Put the plaque back.
Rich Man Poor Man
As the rich have taken over the neighborhood around the Pine street Inn the homeless will be evicted within a year. For those of you who have lived in the neighborhoods around Dudley square through good times and bad times your next stop will be Brockton.
Precedent
I don't know all the history, but similarly the Vendome memorial was located caddycorner from the building on the Comm Ave mall as a compromise to the owners that didn't want to be spooked by a reminder of the event.
They fought it...
...tooth and nail. Now it's angled in such a way that when you're there, the Vendome hovers above it in the background. I'm not sure, but if I remember correctly, there was already something directly in front of it.
Yes
There is a statue there so that may have been part of the argument. That fight precedes my time here - but I think the end result is beautiful. As to the poster below and the wisecrack about the Pekingese - I have NEVER seen a dog pee on that memorial - not saying it doesn't happen - but it is treated with respect and reverence in the neighborhood.
Put it back!
It took friggin years to get the memorial on Commonwealth Ave for the Vendome Firefighters, the "Civic" associations having fought against it tooth and nail. And there probably some rich person's Pekingese poodle pissing on it as we speak.
Leave it lay where it was installed!
According to...
According to the Boston Globe article I read yesterday, residents of the condos moved the plaque because they wanted their "privacy" from those who visit or would be visiting the plaque.
As far as I'm concerned, nobody FORCED them to buy homes that happen to be on a historical site. If they didn't want to deal with "tragic memories" and the occasional tourist they should have bought their home(s) elsewhere.
I also think the memorial should be a HELL of a lot larger than a simple plaque, considering the sheer number of people who died.
Link to article: https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/07/09/cocoanut-grove-traged...
Simple bronze plaque.
Attached to the building.
Listing the names of the victims.
People who wanted a memorial
People who wanted a memorial have had 74 years to acquire the property and build one. They didn't, and instead someone else used their own money to buy it and develop it and use it as they see fit.
That's how the system works. Everyone knows that's how it works. It's not a secret.
I'll go ahead and assume
You own a unit in said building. Or are just a jackass. Maybe both.
And did the developer buy the sidewalk too?
Except that they don't own
Except that they don't own the street and sidewalk outside their building. Why should they have the ability to move that? I have a really annoying street lamp outside of my window...can I get that moved to another location too?
♫ He is the very model ♫
I am the very model of a modern Libertarian:
I teem with glowing notions for proposals millenarian,
I've nothing but contempt for ideologies collectivist
(My own ideas of social good tend more toward the Objectivist).
You see, I've just discovered, by my intellectual bravery,
That civic obligations are all tantamount to slavery;
And thus that ancient pastime, viz., complaining of taxation,
Assumes the glorious aspect of a war for liberation!
Chorus:
You really must admit it's a delightful revelation:
To bitch about your taxes is to fight for liberation!
I bolster up my claims with lucubrations rather risible
About the Founding Fathers and the market's hand invisible;
In fact, my slight acquaintance with the fountainhead Pierian
Makes me the very model of a modern Libertarian!
Chorus:
His very slight acquaintance with the fountainhead Pierian
Makes him the very model of a modern Libertarian!
All "public wealth" is robbery, we never will accede to it;
You have no rights in anything if you can't show your deed to it.
(But don't fear repossession by our Amerind minority:
Those treaties aren't valid---Uncle Sam had no authority!)
We realize whales and wolves and moose find wilderness quite vital,
And we'll give back their habitats---if they can prove their title.
But people like unspoiled lands (we too will say "hooray" for them),
So we have faith that someone else will freely choose to pay for them.
Chorus:
Yes, when the parks are auctioned it will be a lucky day for them---
We're confident that someone else will freely choose to pay for them!
We'll guard the health of nature by self-interest most astute:
Since pollution is destructive, no one ever will pollute.
Thus factories will safeguard our communities riparian---
I am the very model of a modern Libertarian!
Chorus:
Yes, factories will safeguard our communities riparian,
He is the very model of a modern Libertarian!
In short, when I can tell why individual consumers
Know best who should approve their drugs and who should treat their tumors;
Why civilized existence in its intricate confusion
Will be simple and straightforward, absent government intrusion;
Why markets cannot err within the system I've described,
Why poor folk won't be bullied and why rich folk won't be bribed,
And why all vast inequities of power and position
Will vanish when I wave my wand and utter "COMPETITION!"---
Chorus:
He's so much more exciting than a common politician,
Inequities will vanish when he hollers "Competition!"
---And why my lofty rhetoric and arguments meticulous
Inspire shouts of laughter and the hearty cry, "Ridiculous!",
And why my social theories all seem so pre-Sumerian---
I'll be the very model of a modern Libertarian!
Chorus:
His novel social theories all seem so pre-Sumerian---
He is the very model of a modern Libertarian!
Not just the number of people who died
What is most striking is the number of people who have not died, as a result of a complete re-thinking of fire codes around the country that resulted from this tragedy.
And advances in burn treatment.
I think of it every time I walk by the photo of Dr. Moore at the Brigham--he treated many of the victims and essentially helped to revolutionize burn care.
Anyone who objects to a plaque on the sidewalk is a feckless idiot. If it bothers you so much, go find a shiny new subdivision to live in instead of one of the oldest cities in America.
The rich need to be brought to heel
If our democracy is to survive. There are nasty things down the line if we don't correct the imbalances somehow.
Why?
What are they doing to hurt you/us? There are bad people in all walks of life - but personally I generally love rich people. I know a few and they are wonderful, generous people. They are why we get to have nice things. Granted - they get to have nicer things - are you jealous of that?
They're just sucking up too much wealth, Stevil
To a certain extent, some of them might not even realize what they are doing to America, and to the world. But it needs to stop. Token gifts to charity that still leave the rich with 100 times more wealth than they need to survive, while more and more people become homeles or are driven to desperation by economic fear and privation, are not an adequate sacrifice. I'm grateful for what I have, Stevil. But there are a great many who have far less than me, and who don't have enough. And these beautiful people you describe simply have too much.
And again, you have to ask why?
As a financial planner, I see this differently. The rich aren't sucking up the wealth, the rest of us are dropping Benjamins at their feet. They don't reach into your pocket and take it (with a couple of exceptions like the carried interest rules which even people in the industry believe are a huge gift from DC). The problem is that we make it and we spend it. 50% of Americans have effectively no savings. 30% have very little. Fewer than 20% of Americans live below their means and have any respectable level of savings. I get that 10/20/30% of Americans struggle for a whole host of reasons and many of them need our help for food/shelter/clothing/medical. But half or more of the country is broke due to their own behavior, not because the rich are picking their pockets.
Curve Vs Line
It's very simple Stevil. Wages should go up in a straight, 45 degree or less line, not the curve they can be graphed at now. Nobody should work their ass off and only be earning subsistence money [or often even less than that]. And everyone, even the poor, deserve some nice [non-essential] things now and then. It makes people happy, so their existence is not just a soul crushing cycle.
Why?
Why should wages track your hypothetical growth function? Who determines how far right a person falls on your wage curve? Who enforces this?
Income inequality is a massive, massive issue, but I think you're missing the point by looking at wages. Our society isn't broken because doctors and lawyers are high earners, it's broken by the rentier class. Unearned wealth (ex. capital gains) and dynastic wealth are driving most of the distortion. The 99% vs. the 1% has great optics, but the 99.99% vs. the 0.01% is an even more stark comparison.
I'm not a kleptomaniac
I bumped this line of shelves and all this expensive stuff just dropped at my feet!
Interesting
You say that you are a financial planner, but you clearly don't get the idea that they do this because they have NO DISPOSABLE INCOME.
Sad, really. Warped and sad.
No
I'm saying that they have DISPOSED of their income.
Drop the top and bottom 20%. Effectively the ENTIRE middle class spends virtually every penny they make. To say that the entire middle class in America has no disposable income is laughable.
We make it and we spend it. Except for 20% of us. Some of my wealthiest clients are middle class people that lived below their means and realized around the age of 55 that they had amassed a 7 digit net worth and came to me to help manage that wealth.
Frugality and compound interest are an amazing combination.
Financial Planner
In other words, you never see people who don't have money.
You never know people who are living "hand to mouth".
Wages have not kept pace with expenses. REPEAT until you get that.
Then again, you probably think that someone making $150K a year is "poor" - you have no fucking idea about what rent costs, what childcare and school supplies cost, what food costs, and what transportation costs (and how those costs have massively outstripped wage rates) because you never see anyone who isn't suffering from their own frugality. The only thing that is cheaper now relative to 30 years ago is clothing.
I have no sympathy for someone with an extreme mortgage for an expensive home in an expensive community who can't either save or pay their kids college tuitions. I get that. However, I also know people struggling on $13,000 a year without access to housing programs because those programs have been cut so deeply - people who can't get dental care or buy glasses or even handle copays. I also know people making minimum wage cannot make it all add up ever.
For a huge number of Americans and our neighbors in this state, there is no fucking way it adds up or will ever add up to any of them having any disposable income - unless you are talking about "OMG they didn't bank that $10 they spent on their kid's birthday cake!".
Clueless, dude. Just clueless.
Do me a favor
Go back and count how many times i say I'm talking about the middle class, not poor people, and check back into reality with a cogent appropriate argument instead of your MSNBC talking points.
Let's see
"50% of Americans have effectively no savings."
50% of Americans? When 75% apparently fall outside your client base.
"the rest of us are dropping Benjamins at their feet"
So you meant the rest of us in the top quintile?
"Effectively the ENTIRE middle class spends virtually every penny they make. "
This after defining "middle class" as the center three quintiles, which is a fallacy in an of itself if you look at income distribution.
I could go on. But that would be useless since you would find yet another way to double down with this rather than face your own lacking ability to understand demographics in a personally meaningful (as in cost of living versus typical wages) sort of way:
???
How do you not define the middle class as the middle quintile plus or minus one quintile?
How else could it logically be defined?
The theory of unreasonable
The theory of unreasonable expectations..........
The calculation is a false argument
How many people who are rich or are at least very comfortable are in that position because they:
1. Earned all of the money
2. Did not have any economic, educational, social or health care advantages that are part of the package of being wealthy?
For # 1 you have to subtract anyone who inherited wealth. These folks did not earn their income. They may be fortunate enough to understand how to maintain the wealth but to imply that they are wealthy because they somehow do a better job at keeping wealth ignores having wealth in the first place.
For # 2 they have never struggled at a subsistence level. If any of them grew up seeing their parents struggle at a subsistence level, and living without the social and educational advantages of wealthy parents I expect their overall economic profile will be very different.
As for the numbers if 50% effectively have no savings could that be due to not being able to earn enough to save money? The answer is yes. If you are living at a subsistence level then there will be no extra cash to save. So that 50% is a disingenuous statistic.
As for "reaching into my pocket and taking it" that is also disingenuous. It sidesteps the issue of income equality by referencing an old shibboleth of government or other entity engaging in economic robbery. On the other hand when an industry does not have sufficient competition, when an industry is effectively an oligopoly (such as telecommunications), when the executive class is able to manipulate boards of directors to paying them outrageous incomes, then that points toward a class of people who can metaphorically reach into pockets and take what they want.
Putting the blame on half or more of the poor in the country on merely their choices is a terrible whitewash. It ignores economic changes over the past 100 years. For example middle class incomes were high following WW2 in part because the United States was the only remaining significant industrial power. The United States enjoyed an industrial monopoly and many of its people benefitted from that. But that monopoly was lost with the result that wages inevitably would decrease for the many who no longer had access to industrial jobs. But did the executive wages decrease commensurate to overall wages decreasing? No. That right there is a example of the already wealthy abusing their privilege of power and wealth by continuing to increase many had to accept lower wages.
Walmart is another good example of rich versus forced poverty. It is a sin and social crime that a corporation can do the following:
1. Enter a community and suck the retail economic vitality out of the smaller businesses toward its centralizing lowest cost center. One could argue that the residents of the community choose to shop where the cost is lowest. But if they shopped in the smaller stores which can not buy in the massive quantities and therefore at the lowest manufacturers profit margins then the consumers would be guilty of not using the advantage of stores with the lowest prices.
2. Walmarts ability to demand the lowest profit margins from manufacturers (due to buying in massive quantities) means that the manufacturers have to A) keep their costs, including labor, down and B) to increase their wholesale costs to smaller retailers in order to make up for the lack of profit forced by Walmart. But one place where they do not decrease costs is by paying lower wages to executives.
3. A person could argue that manufacturers just should not bow down to Walmart by charging the lowest wholesale prices. But that would then result in ignoring a major retail channel and so loosing considerable sales. So then its either accept lower profit margins when selling to Walmart of accept lower overall profit by ignoring the Walmart channel.
4. Walmart then returns a negative to the communities where it has decimated the local store retail economy by paying wages so low that the employees still have to request government assistance to maintain an economic subsistence level of living. Is that then blaming the working poor for choosing to work for the wrong employer?
5. Yet the executives and inheritors of the Walmart fortune live very well, even to the point of amassing enough wealth open a large art museum.
As a person who grew up poor and so saw poverty first hand I see this differently. If not for resources such as Pell grants and student loans that supported me in earning a college degree I would not have managed to find work where a college degree is a prerequisite. Without a college degree and a native intelligence that allowed me to develop expertise in a well paying area, I would not have been in the right place at the right time to do well: what some might call luck. What I call having the preparation for enjoying the greater benefits. But that preparation is due to earning a degree and enjoying the native intelligence (and interest) to do well. Many do not enjoy that educational, personal and economic assisting constellation.
To argue that "half or more of the country is broke due to their own behavior" ignores the impersonal factors that allow the rich to be and stay rich, ignores the impersonal factors that lead to and maintain poverty and ignores that the road out of poverty is built of far more material than merely saving a few shekels.
This is the excuse for being broke
It's "the man's" fault. There is way too much to go into there - but while 80% of America has virtually no savings consider:
1) Car sales are at almost record high
2) Average home size is at or near a record
3) Disney profits are at or near all time highs (and attendance at their parks)
4) Restaurant sales growing and growing
5) Most of the country has smart phones, internet connections, Netflix, cable TV etc. etc. etc.
6) Sox games at $75 - $150 a pop - Celtics Bruins Patriots the same or worse. If I checked the bank accounts of the people going to these games - my guess is that it wouldn't be much different than
7) The vast majority of people continue to have children - and many have many more kids than they can afford - and forget about putting them through college.
The list goes on.
Who makes money on all this? The "rich" (and my clients who own shares in the companies that provide all these services).
You really want to screw the rich - simple. Don't go out to eat so often, don't lease cars (generally), If you can afford a $500k home - buy one for $400k, don't go on fancy vacations, get the most basic cable service, etc. etc. etc. until you've saved 10% of your income. This doesn't apply to maybe 10-20% of the population - that is subsistence or even subsidized living. It may not even apply to 30-40% of the population depending on how you define needs v. wants. But if you make over $50k per year and you have no savings and haven't had a true personal financial catastrophe - don't blame the rich. Look in the mirror and blame him/her.
Are you for real?
THIS IS NOT THE PROBLEM FOR ANYONE WHO MAKES A NORMAL AMOUNT OF MONEY.
The problem is that there are very few if any $150-200K homes anywhere near where any jobs are. Typical family income is around $60K - nobody is going to sell you even a $400K house on that. A $400K home is something that someone with $140K a year could swing.
DUH! $140K is the upper quartile of income!
PRO TIP: why don't you go to a community center and see what your "financial planning" wizardry can do for people in the lower third of income - or even the lower half. You might learn what things actually cost and what even typical people make versus what your "theories" are.
p.s. I understand how wonderful frugality and compound interest are, as I am paying cash for college costs right now and still doing fine in a house that has trebled in value. We have no debt other than our house. However, I grew up in a family that could not get ahead until my brother and I left. Hand to Mouth living - it is real, and more are trapped in it daily.
A real pro tip
Do you try to teach David Ortiz how to hit home runs too?
First - I said "if you can afford a $500k house - then buy the $400k one" Likewise - if you can afford a $350k one - buy one for $300k or $250k. they point was always live below your means.
Here's the Big Papi skinny on buying a $400k home:
Taxes in Boston net of residential exemption - about $2500
Insurance - about $2000
PITI (with 20% down -which is the harder piece for most people) - at 3.5% - 30 year fixed on a $320k mortgage - roughly $1500 per month/$18k per year. Total housing costs = $22,500. It's a bit of a stretch on $60k - but my guess is that a good mortgage person could get you in that house. Maybe you need to buy one for $350k instead of $400k to be sure (assuming you meet other credit/job history checks etc.).
FHA mortgage
Don't forget FHA mortgages.You can buy for 3.5% down instead of 20%.
There are currently 17 properties in Boston with at least 3 bedrooms listed for under $300k. It'll be tough, but these are definitely within reach of someone earning $60k/year.
Bad analogy
Would you consider Ortiz to be of professional baseball caliber if he didn't get a hit for 100 games?
The criticisms of your sense of proportion still hold: you can't spend less on a basic need like housing or food if there is no "less".
Frugality is useless absent choice, and that's pretty goddamn basic.
Whoosh
Now I get it. You don't get anything - even a joke about how you would try to teach one of the best in the world at a certain skill how to do it.
Talk about clueless.
Math and reading are your friends. Take them out for a spin some day.
a) Try reading my post before responding by ignoring anything that might refute your arguments and pretending they weren't written.
b) If you are going to argue math - do your homework first. I'm not really sure exactly what your point about less is above - but it doesn't even apply to the $60k a year household you yourself chose as an example. Might apply to someone making $30k - but if that's your point - see a) above.
Strawmen and context
There is no "man." There are economic structures that create wealth and poverty. Walmart and other oligarchic massively sized businesses are a part of the structure that creates and supports near poverty by being able to 1) eliminate locally owned retail stores, 2) pay below subsistence wages and 3) remove wealth and economic power from local communities by centering wealth in other hands, whether share holders or executives. Oligopolies such as telecommunications and any other industry that has consolidated through mergers and acquisitions so that power and wealth concentrate into the fewest hands are more examples. That assumes that the estimates that locally owned businesses reinvest wealth at a higher rate that non-locally owned businesses. Perhaps that is a myth perpetrated by the countless deceitful small business owners of America. Perhaps ultimately the best economic system is one where the fewest enjoy the most and the most get only the least.
The claims that if a person does not buy a car, does not go on vacations, does own telecommunications equipment or use related services, enjoy a meal out or go to sports (and I'll include arts events) they would have more disposable income to save and invest is true. However why should only those with enough wealth to afford all of these expenses and still have money left over be the only ones who get to own a car, go on vacation, visit a ball game or art museum, etc. and save? By maintaining economic classes where to save money means to live within means that are severely limited as compared to what wealthier people can enjoy is to say, "Sorry, you have to stay home, exclusively use pitiful public transportation to get to work, school or the doctor, may not enjoy a vacation with your family, etc., all because you are not fortunate enough to afford all this and more."
This discussion of wealth also ignores a large sector of society: the elderly. What of the elderly who after raising families, sending children to college, etc. but also retire from jobs that do not have pensions, that did not provide enjoy for retirement and who did not earn enough to enjoy large Social Security pensions? Are they also to blame for being older and poorer?
Ignoring economic and tax policies that direct wealth into few hands, as well as ignoring economic structural changes (the massive shift of manufacturing jobs to the nations that support extremely low wages) creates an illusion that the wealthy who take advantage of these changes are pure good people who just happen to fall into wealth. It puts the blame on people who work and yet till do not earn the incomes to maintain a middle class life style and still save money.
It also ignores other grossly out of whack economic trends such as insanely inflation in higher education and medicine. It ignores a legal system that is biased against anyone of lessor means because the Supreme Court has made suits against wealthier organizations hard by restricting class action suits and by maintaining a legal system that boils down to wars of attrition of rich against non-rich because the wealthier can afford to extend legal battles while non-wealthy can not.
The wealth alway have advantages over the non-wealthy. But as an economy and society we have evolved to giving far greater advantage to the wealth at the expense of our own interests by electing governments that want to consolidate wealth and power into the fewest hands from Reagan onward and accepting as though fated that the wealthy should be wealthier and the rest should be poorer.
It's the UHub way
Stevil, I think you're well aware that rich-bashing is the UHub way (whatever "rich" is").
Ghostbusters
Those residents are gonna have to have Ghostbusters on speed dial for all the bad karma that'll be raining down on their heads.
This is so wrong
If the residents are doing the hard work of ignoring the fact of 492 horrible, untimely deaths on the spot where they live, a simple plaque shouldn't be that big a challenge to ignore, too.
But apparently they blame the plaque for their problem. Forgetting turns out to be extremely hard work, no matter how nice their homes are, nestled on a site of mass death and grief.
The residents need to realize that the plaque is not the problem. History is their problem. Moving the plaque doesn't change much except to create trouble for long-suffering survivors and others who care about commemorating history and will never let it be forgotten. Moving the plaque simply produces outrage and anger. Now the residents will need to learn to ignore contemporary bad feelings on top of historical horror.
They must simply work harder on their forgetfulness. Nobody fell for the wreath/gawking tourist reasoning, by the way.
The plaque should be put back. The residents should then take themselves shopping for awesome new stuff.
Tourists? What tourists?
People peeking in windows? The last time I made a pilgrimage to visit the spot, maybe three years ago, the place was absolutely deserted and I walked around a while too.
As Mayor Menino used to say: "Hogmosh!"
I call BS on the tourist argument.
I'll call it louder once the first unit shows up on Airbnb.
This is coconuts!
I'm going to walk by every week and leave a coconut at the original site of the plaque until it's put back.
History does have a purpose:
It's something that people can and ought to learn from, so that the same mistakes that caused incidents like the Coconut Grove fire, the Hotel Vendome fire, and other grisly events like it are not made in the future.
The lessons to be learned
The lessons to be learned from Cocoanut Grove are 1) be careful with flammable building material and 2) make sure your emergency exit doors swing out and not in.
I don't think a little plaque in Boston is going to make a difference in maintaining that awareness in fire codes worldwide. If anything, the fire's wikipedia page does that.
Bostonians (and UHub posters in especially) have a quasi-religious attitude towards old things. Not that it's a bad thing, but they also carry an attitude that anyone uninterested in preservation is backwards and unenlightened. In the 50's and 60's there was an opposite prevailing attitude - shed the old, in with the new, clean slate. There are pros and cons to both ways of doing things, but I think it's naive to think one view is correct and the other incorrect.
condescending and elitist
"We now occupy these homes with our families as part of the Bay Village neighborhood and would like to enjoy our homes in peace, without tragic memories, hanging wreaths at our doors and tourists peeking into our houses" has got to be one of the most condescending, elitist, "let them eat cake" comments I have ever heard. What idiots. There are no hanging wreaths or aggressive tourists in that area at all. The Cocoanut Grove plaque was small, respectful and even optimistic. It should have remained. Irrespective of the "rich vs. poor" argument, the people who move into urban luxury condos seem to be a special breed of snowflake who want to live in an urban environment yet at the same time remain in their elite bubble. Remember the bozos, reported right here on U Hub, in the luxury housing adjacent to the Boston Garden who were complaining that it was too noisy and that they and their precious children had a right to peace and quiet? Um, you moved in next door to the Boston Garden you jerk. You have waived your right to peace and quiet. period.
Wreaths
We should start hanging wreaths.
Candlelight vigil?
Annually?
You know, with hymns and a reading of all the names of the victims and tributes to the heroes?
I'd be there
I can only assume that people
I can only assume that people will show up with wreaths and flowers and start peeking into their windows now.
Why not get the facts straight FIRST
I live a few blocks away from the site and walk by it several times a day.
The Globe has a lot of facts wrong. The story could benefit from some corrections.
Fact. The city has done nothing to commemorate the tragedy except send a pol or two around when the neighborhood association (yes, those ugly rich people-except they're not all ugly and rich) have made efforts to memorialize the fire.
Fact. The neighborhood association paid for and put in the original plaque.
Fact. The neighborhood proposed and championed renaming the alley off Shawmut in memory of the fire.
Fact. The plaque was originally put in the wrong location. It was meant to be on the site of the revolving doors where so many died. Its new location isn't there -- but it's closer.
Fact. Before the new condos went in, the site was an eyesore - A PARKING LOT. Oh, and remember this was prime streetwalker territory until just a few years ago. I was part of "whistle patrols" and that parking lot was very busy...
Fact. Yes, lots of rich people have bought condos there. I think they're insane. IMHO the site is cursed and haunted - the Revere staff claim to have seen stuff.
Fact. The developer pushed to have the plaque moved, not the residents. And, given that the plaque was privately donated and placed by a private organization on someone else's land, guess who wins? Maybe the wonderful folks living elsewhere in the city should have actually done something constructive and public to memorialize the tragedy in the last 80 years...
Next stop Dudley
The rich are on the march:
Southie the middle class is gone baby gone
South end the middle class is gone baby gone
North end the middle class is gone baby gone
The seaport the middle class is gone baby gone
Roxbury get ready to be evicted