By adamg on Wed., 8/7/2019 - 12:59 pm
NBC Boston reports on the verdicts against Kenneth Brissette and Timothy Sullivan, in a trial stemming from the early days of the Walsh administration, when Boston Calling was still held on City Hall Plaza.
Neighborhoods:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
They didn't withhold permits,
By cinnamngrl
Thu, 08/08/2019 - 12:10pm
They didn't withhold permits, neither guy had that power.
The difference, of course...
By Bob Leponge
Wed, 08/07/2019 - 5:08pm
The difference, of course, is that the requirement to hire a union police detail is an official policy of the city government, derived through a (mostly) transparent process, and enacted by an elected government that is accountable to the voters. This particular bit of coercion was none of those things.
Details are extortion
By Daan
Wed, 08/07/2019 - 9:26pm
There was a controversy centuries ago about whether a naughty priest's sacraments were invalidated due to the priest's sin. The decision was that the sinner had no effect on the sacrament.
Just because police details are part of law does not make the details not extortion. That just legitimizes what would otherwise be called graft.
These two fellas are definitely feeling
By HolyMolyCodPiece
Wed, 08/07/2019 - 3:44pm
blue da ba dee da ba daa
Da ba dee da ba daa, da ba dee da ba daa, da ba dee da ba daa
Da ba dee da ba daa, da ba dee da ba daa, da ba dee da ba daa
blue da ba dee da ba daa
Da ba dee da ba daa, da ba dee da ba daa, da ba dee da ba daa
Da ba dee da ba daa, da ba dee da ba daa, da ba dee da ba daa
Uhub feature request
By Bob Leponge
Wed, 08/07/2019 - 5:09pm
Adam, could you please either give us an "ignore" feature or else be more diligent about shutting this shit off?
I kinda agree
By Gary C
Wed, 08/07/2019 - 5:28pm
And yet (as I wrote this) 2 people Liked the above.
Use the same “ignore†you use
By thomas
Wed, 08/07/2019 - 7:31pm
Use the same “ignore†you use in real life
The "ignore" that I use in real life
By Bob Leponge
Wed, 08/07/2019 - 7:54pm
One "ignore" that I use in real life is that I pay money to buy books and to subscribe to newspapers and magazines, whose publishers use some of that money to hire editors, whose job is in part to filter out, from the massive stream of unsolicited shit that is submitted for publication, the occasional gem worth looking at.
Another "ignore" that I use in real life is that I direct my eyeballs and my clicks toward online content that has a high gem-to-shit ratio; the owners of that online content in turn monetize my eyeballs and clicks by selling them to advertisers; if the gem-to-shit ratio of any particular content source falls too low, I start to ignore that source, thereby taking away my eyeballs and my clicks and the associated revenue stream.
You don’t sound tedious at all
By thomas
Wed, 08/07/2019 - 8:18pm
You don’t sound tedious at all
that's exactly what I'm talkin about.
By Bob Leponge
Wed, 08/07/2019 - 8:38pm
The requested "ignore" feature would spare you the tedium of ever having to see my posts or even to be reminded of my existence.
Yet Thomas,
By Daan
Wed, 08/07/2019 - 9:29pm
the lack of substance makes your quip dull.
This verdict is a travesty
By Cutter
Wed, 08/07/2019 - 9:32pm
This was an absolutely novel, over-reaching application of the Hobbs Act and the verdict almost certainly won't hold up on appeal.
If it does, though, it will have devastating impacts on cities' and towns' efforts to extract concessions from companies looking to profit off activities in the public realm, including open space and affordable housing.
Anyone not a hardcore libertarian who is cheering this on really needs to think harder.
The key distinction here that many are missing...
By Bob Leponge
Wed, 08/07/2019 - 10:02pm
... is the difference between, on the one hand, a city or town choosing to enact and enforce a policy that requires some specific act, for example, hiring union labor, versus, on the other hand, a city or town employee threatening to withhold a permit unless the applicant performs some specific act that is not required by city or town regulations.
Wrong
By RalphM (not verified)
Wed, 08/07/2019 - 10:32pm
You must not have followed the trail closely because the “victims†testified that they were never threatened nor ever felt there was an effort underway to harm them financially. These two had no power to withhold permits even if they wanted to. The scenario you’re describing is not what happened here according to the very facts presented at trial. They’re scapegoats.
Not a workable distinction in practice
By Cutter
Thu, 08/08/2019 - 7:07am
Well, no evidence was presented that they threatened to withhold permits.
But in any case, it's not so clear a distinction. As an example, it's impossible for any city's zoning code to anticipate every acceptable use or community advantage. So cities negotiate for public benefits with every developer that proposes anything of significance before they'll release permits.
Exactly correct
By RalphM (not verified)
Wed, 08/07/2019 - 10:20pm
Exactly correct. What happens the next time a city official tells a developer to add more affordable housing to a project or the zoning permit won’t be issued? Is that a federal crime now? It’s basically the same thing alleged here: city officials forcing unwanted costs onto a private entity that it didn’t want to bear in order to secure a city permit. This has far reaching and damaging implications for city government going forward; this is not just about whether or not you like Marty Walsh.
No profit?
By merlinmurph
Thu, 08/08/2019 - 7:24am
So, companies hosting, say, a concert, shouldn't be allowed to profit? If so, would the city reimburse any losses?
Any business endeavor involves risk. For a concert, all kinds of things can happen that could jeopardize profit - weather, external events, band not showing up, etc. You expect a company to assume all that risk with no expectation of profit?
I think you misread
By anon (not verified)
Thu, 08/08/2019 - 9:16am
No OP, but I believe the argument is that the verdict is unfair and, if upheld, will chill future efforts of cities/towns to negotiate with profit-seeking ventures requiring public space or services.
They didn't say they couldn't profit.
By boo_urns
Thu, 08/08/2019 - 11:20am
Just seems to indicate that their are guidelines and whatnot that a business would need to meet. After all, NO business is entitled to the money of the taxpayers.
Union or not, conspiracy and
By anon (not verified)
Thu, 08/08/2019 - 6:44am
Union or not, conspiracy and corruption are conspiracy and corruption. It's called organized crime.
Police details aren't mandatory, just cheaper
By O-FISH-L
Thu, 08/08/2019 - 1:01pm
One of Governor Deval Patrick's major accomplishments was the civilian flagger bill which allows for flagmen instead of police officers at many road construction sites. Unfortunately, the flaggers have proven equally or more expensive with none of the powers that are vested in our police officers. Much like Boston Calling, contractors have opted for the less expensive option, police details. If two Walsh buffoons (or anyone else) intimidated a road crew that had a flagger and made them also hire a detail, I would hope for federal prosecution there too.
To compare our brave police officers with the trade unions is a non-starter since public employees can opt out of the union thanks to the Janus decision. Road contractors and bar managers calling to schedule a detail have no idea if the officer that will be sent has opted out of the union. The City "Hall of Shame" case proved Walsh's aides demanded union hiring, something not possible in the case of police details.
New Boston Post? The hub of (radical) conservative thought
By Daan
Thu, 08/08/2019 - 9:19pm
A non-partisan web site that focuses on conservative opinions.
Even if flaggers are paid $50 an hour (what cops on details earn I believe) imagine how many people with low skills could be earning a decent income. A income that can help them pay their own way to develop more skills.
Fishy, why do you want to deprive people with low skills from earning a decent living? The brave police already have full time jobs. Awfully selfish of them to demand that they take jobs that low skilled unemployed people can do.
Using government power for personal gain
By Nowy Liberté (not verified)
Thu, 08/08/2019 - 1:20pm
OK perhaps the two city employees didn't get a handful of $100's to stuff into their underwear*1,2 as was the case of recent miscreants caught by the Feds -- and not by the local yokel DA, nor Massachusetts erstwhile Attorney Generals
Nonetheless the two recent felons [they have been convicted so they are no longer alleged]-- were working not for the City and its citizens -- their employer --- but instead they were working on behalf of the Unions. These are the same Unions that provide the foot soldiers to insure the reliable reelection of the politicians -- that is the ultimate criminal act.
What the US Attorney and not the Suffolk County DA or Massachusetts Attorney General recognized is that City Employees are not paid to work on behalf of Unions whether private or public sector. The US Attorney recognized that what the two miscreants did was steal from the taxpayers of the City [and the Commonwealth and US through various transfers] -- how they did it isn't important.
This is just corrupt behavior at the city level -- where the mayor's aids have absolute authority -- as Lord Acton said -- "absolute power corrupts absolutely"*3
So much for Winthrop's "City on a Hill"*4 -- perhaps he was referring to a Landfill
*1 from
https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=6...
about State Rep. Dianne Wilkerson
*2 from wiki about Boston City Councilor Charles "Chuck" Turner
*3 from
https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/absolute-power...
*4 from the wiki on John Winthrop’s “City upon a Hill,†1630
There was no personal gain
By RalphM (not verified)
Fri, 08/09/2019 - 8:40am
There was no personal gain here. At most, a financial benefit accrued to a third party (union) to which these two had zero financial ties. To say the benefit was political to Walsh makes a mockery of what federal extortion actually is. This case is a joke.
Pages
Add comment