| Author | Post |
|---|
thinkfirst
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 09:03 pm |
|
| That's PARTIALLY true. We tend to eat at all the restaurants a few times in a year, but pretty much go to the same 2 or 3 regularly. I would think that's more like it. And I see strangers there mostly. We eat out 2-3 nights a week. With 12,000 people there are plenty of eaters- but it sure is NOT our job to support the restaurants. We're lucky we CAN eat out. It isn't our job to support the local stores either. It's the business owners job to cater to the community. This is not a charity. Some people forget that. Last edited on Mon Jul 6th, 2009 01:12 am by thinkfirst
|
Y O Y
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 27th, 2009 |
| Location: | In Your Face |
| Posts: | 197 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 07:32 pm |
|
HarveyC wrote: Y O Y wrote: LiberalMinded wrote: 4Godncountry wrote:
I don't want to drift to far off of thread, but in speaking to someone today they made these observations. Being someone who does eat out in Cambridge, almost weekly, their comments make perfect sense. They are noticing that the same folks for the most part are rotating between Restaurants locally, which is what they do. Each time that another Restaurant opens, it merely spreads the same folks (for the most part) thinner, and actually hurts all the restaurants. Again, this is not my observation, I don't patronize them anyway (downtown). I however, do agree with him, it makes sense. I think I have been saying for a while that Cambridge just cannot support the amount of Restaurant/Bars that Mainstreet is proposing. I just thought that another person's perspective on this was interesting, and on target.
If you and a few others decided to socialize and bring business to downtown instead of bring 'ol sticks in the mud this wouldn't be an observation, would it?
I just love how some people have this idea that since they don't think something will be successful, no one should even try.
Why bother? is such a positive and helpful position to take.
THE POINT IS CAMBRIDGE CAN NOT SUPPORT TOO MANY ANYTHINGS.
NO CHANGE ATTITUDES KEEP THE STATUS QUO.
I STILL THINK WE NEED MORE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND LESS FACADE.
And just wheres the money for more cops coming from you? Its the judges that let the crooks go and the recycling is repeated over and over.
THE PAPERS REPORTED SEVERAL MILLION IS AVAILABLE FOR REVITALIZATION.
START BY SPENDING MORE ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND LESS ON FACADES.
DO YOU REALLY CARE WHAT A BUILDING LOOKS LIKE IF YOU CAN GET A BARGAIN THERE?
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS SELL FACADES. MERCHANTS SELL MERCHANDISE. IF IT'S GOOD AND A BARGAIN PEOPLE WILL COME.
BASIC BUSINESS 101.
|
HarveyC
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 11th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 190 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 06:22 pm |
|
Y O Y wrote: LiberalMinded wrote: 4Godncountry wrote:
I don't want to drift to far off of thread, but in speaking to someone today they made these observations. Being someone who does eat out in Cambridge, almost weekly, their comments make perfect sense. They are noticing that the same folks for the most part are rotating between Restaurants locally, which is what they do. Each time that another Restaurant opens, it merely spreads the same folks (for the most part) thinner, and actually hurts all the restaurants. Again, this is not my observation, I don't patronize them anyway (downtown). I however, do agree with him, it makes sense. I think I have been saying for a while that Cambridge just cannot support the amount of Restaurant/Bars that Mainstreet is proposing. I just thought that another person's perspective on this was interesting, and on target.
If you and a few others decided to socialize and bring business to downtown instead of bring 'ol sticks in the mud this wouldn't be an observation, would it?
I just love how some people have this idea that since they don't think something will be successful, no one should even try.
Why bother? is such a positive and helpful position to take.
THE POINT IS CAMBRIDGE CAN NOT SUPPORT TOO MANY ANYTHINGS.
NO CHANGE ATTITUDES KEEP THE STATUS QUO.
I STILL THINK WE NEED MORE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND LESS FACADE.
And just wheres the money for more cops coming from you? Its the judges that let the crooks go and the recycling is repeated over and over.
|
Y O Y
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 27th, 2009 |
| Location: | In Your Face |
| Posts: | 197 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 06:16 pm |
|
LiberalMinded wrote: 4Godncountry wrote:
I don't want to drift to far off of thread, but in speaking to someone today they made these observations. Being someone who does eat out in Cambridge, almost weekly, their comments make perfect sense. They are noticing that the same folks for the most part are rotating between Restaurants locally, which is what they do. Each time that another Restaurant opens, it merely spreads the same folks (for the most part) thinner, and actually hurts all the restaurants. Again, this is not my observation, I don't patronize them anyway (downtown). I however, do agree with him, it makes sense. I think I have been saying for a while that Cambridge just cannot support the amount of Restaurant/Bars that Mainstreet is proposing. I just thought that another person's perspective on this was interesting, and on target.
If you and a few others decided to socialize and bring business to downtown instead of bring 'ol sticks in the mud this wouldn't be an observation, would it?
I just love how some people have this idea that since they don't think something will be successful, no one should even try.
Why bother? is such a positive and helpful position to take.
THE POINT IS CAMBRIDGE CAN NOT SUPPORT TOO MANY ANYTHINGS.
NO CHANGE ATTITUDES KEEP THE STATUS QUO.
I STILL THINK WE NEED MORE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND LESS FACADE.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 01:51 pm |
|
LiberalMinded wrote:
That looks like you agree with 4G's friend's observation there.
Which is not that a restaurant with booze was silly to open because of a lack of business but that any restaurant was silly to open because of a lack of business.
This is correct, this issue, is not so much about alcohol, but more about the ability to support more restaurants...downtown. We here and read about all the "new" businesses that have opened, but in essence they really, for the most part are only re-placement businesses. Jimmy and Sooks replaced Cambridge Grill. Millies just changed ownership, as did Town and country, which is now shut down. The Mexican Restaurant by the drawbridge, made it all of 4 months. All of this after a big BOLC debacle about a liquor license there (they approved this, contrary to some who say they don't approve any). The Restaurant behind Hardees is gone. ALL of the above DID have Liquor licenses, with the exception of millies (not sure if they had Liquor license or not). I have a friend that ran a rather successful restaurant for years in Cambridge, he has told me on many occasions, that Cambridge just cannot support all of these eateries. He sold out several years ago..several attempts by others to make a go at the same location have failed.
As you can see, we are not growing restaurants, but actually declining. Cambridge just cannot support all of these restaurants. Several of these are local places, which are frequented by locals. Traveling folk on Rt 50, are not going to drift downtown to eat. There is not enough tourism, and quite frankly, unless something really interesting, that has a wide appeal comes here, we will never be a tourist destination, at least in the numbers needed to support all the proposed restaurants in the City and County.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 05:40 am |
|
LM writes...
Novel is a word that is open to interpretation. What is novel to one person may be someone else's 'been there done that'. This hasn't been here.
It is up to the person who is taking the risk. No, it's up to the public as to what is novel for their community. Think money has all the power.
The person with the bucks should do their homework and find out what was tried and what failed and why. Then try something that community has not seen and would itself be an attraction.
Cambridge has had enough of the "I've got the money" attitude.
Good night and God bless,
Pete
Pete
|
LiberalMinded
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 05:32 am |
|
Pete Macinta wrote:
LM writes... And who is in charge of deciding what is novel? You? Try common sense. When something is novel, you'll know it.
Or the person who made the investment and is putting their money where their mouth is?
The person who has money, but he/she needs to have common sense to what novel is. Money doesn't always cut it.
God bless,
Pete
Novel is a word that is open to interpretation. What is novel to one person may be someone else's 'been there done that'.
It is up to the person who is taking the risk.Last edited on Sat Jul 4th, 2009 05:33 am by LiberalMinded
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 05:17 am |
|
LM writes... And who is in charge of deciding what is novel? You? Try common sense. When something is novel, you'll know it.
Or the person who made the investment and is putting their money where their mouth is?
The person who has money, but he/she needs to have common sense to what novel is. Money doesn't always cut it.
God bless,
Pete
|
LiberalMinded
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 05:13 am |
|
| I changed things up to word it better. Answer my new response instead, please.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 05:11 am |
|
LM writes...
So really, I didn't put any words in your mouth at all. Ok, let me say it this way -- you've ignored what I said before -- or at least forgot.
Also- so what if they decide to not put something new and novel there? So what if someone decides to open the most predictable and boring place on earth? That is their choice - they are the ones taking a huge risk and investing all their money. They should be cheered for taking such a brave leap instead of being poo pooed by those who think their idea is silly. Who said silly? And who's poo poo anyone?
It's just the inconvenient truth.
Just where o where are the people going to come from to patronize more restaurants?
God bless,
Pete
|
LiberalMinded
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 05:04 am |
|
Pete Macinta wrote:
LM writes...
That looks like you agree with 4G's friend's observation there.
Which is not that a restaurant with booze was silly to open because of a lack of business but that any restaurant was silly to open because of a lack of business. Correct. Because what is usually developed lacks innovation.
Neither him or I said if something novel would open.
Open up the usual and you won't have much after awhile.
Go with the novel, that's better.
God bless,
Pete
So really, I didn't put any words in your mouth at all.
And who is in charge of deciding what is novel? You? Or the person who made the investment and is putting their money where their mouth is?
Last edited on Sat Jul 4th, 2009 05:08 am by LiberalMinded
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 05:00 am |
|
LM writes...
That looks like you agree with 4G's friend's observation there.
Which is not that a restaurant with booze was silly to open because of a lack of business but that any restaurant was silly to open because of a lack of business. Correct. Because what is usually developed lacks innovation.
Neither him or I said if something novel would open.
Open up the usual and you won't have much after awhile.
Go with the novel, that's better.
God bless,
Pete
|
LiberalMinded
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 04:54 am |
|
Pete Macinta wrote:
LM writes...
What else am I supposed to get from this? There are far too many restaurants and booze - please don't open anymore. Correct. Have you been downtown lately? Do you even live here. I have in mind you live in PA.
4G wrote that there isn't enough business - please don't open anymore. I don't know if he wrote please don't open anymore.
Which is exactly what I was observing - there are too many already, please don't open anymore. There isn't enough business and they will fail. That's right. What else did you mean by this besides that? Exactly that.
But we did not say this...
I just love how some people have this idea that since they don't think something will be successful, no one should even try. At least not I, because, if you remember from the months before, I specifically said if one was innovative they would do well, even with a restaurant. I have, what I think, is a great idea for one-- and alcohol free--with a great family atmosphere.
God bless,
Pete
The original post and your reply.
4GNC writes...
I don't want to drift to far off of thread, but in speaking to someone today they made these observations. Being someone who does eat out in Cambridge, almost weekly, their comments make perfect sense. They are noticing that the same folks for the most part are rotating between Restaurants locally, which is what they do. Each time that another Restaurant opens, it merely spreads the same folks (for the most part) thinner, and actually hurts all the restaurants. Again, this is not my observation, I don't patronize them anyway (downtown). I however, do agree with him, it makes sense. I think I have been saying for a while that Cambridge just cannot support the amount of Restaurant/Bars that Mainstreet is proposing. I just thought that another person's perspective on this was interesting, and on target.
Aye. This is probably an "inconvenient truth" for some.
God bless,
Pete
That looks like you agree with 4G's friend's observation there.
Which is not that a restaurant with booze was silly to open because of a lack of business but that any restaurant was silly to open because of a lack of business.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 04:46 am |
|
LM writes...
What else am I supposed to get from this? There are far too many restaurants and booze - please don't open anymore. Correct. Have you been downtown lately? Do you even live here. I have in mind you live in PA.
4G wrote that there isn't enough business - please don't open anymore. I don't know if he wrote please don't open anymore.
Which is exactly what I was observing - there are too many already, please don't open anymore. There isn't enough business and they will fail. That's right. What else did you mean by this besides that? Exactly that.
But we did not say this...
I just love how some people have this idea that since they don't think something will be successful, no one should even try. At least not I, because, if you remember from the months before, I specifically said if one was innovative they would do well, even with a restaurant. I have, what I think, is a great idea for one-- and alcohol free--with a great family atmosphere.
God bless,
Pete
|
LiberalMinded
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 04:40 am |
|
Pete Macinta wrote:
Neither of us said that. Please do not put words in our mouths.
I've said it before, there's too many restaurants as it is -- and far too much booze.
God bless,
Pete
What else am I supposed to get from this? There are far too many restaurants and booze - please don't open anymore.
4G wrote that there isn't enough business - please don't open anymore.
Which is exactly what I was criticizing - this observation that there are too many already, please don't open anymore. There isn't enough business and they will fail.
What else did you mean by this besides that?Last edited on Sat Jul 4th, 2009 04:43 am by LiberalMinded
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 04:35 am |
|
LM writes...
If you and a few others decided to socialize and bring business to downtown instead of bring 'ol sticks in the mud this wouldn't be an observation, would it? Hey, I don't have the money.
I just love how some people have this idea that since they don't think something will be successful, no one should even try. Neither of us said that. Please do not put words in our mouths.
I've said it before, there's too many restaurants as it is -- and far too much booze.
God bless,
Pete
|
LiberalMinded
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 04:31 am |
|
4Godncountry wrote:
I don't want to drift to far off of thread, but in speaking to someone today they made these observations. Being someone who does eat out in Cambridge, almost weekly, their comments make perfect sense. They are noticing that the same folks for the most part are rotating between Restaurants locally, which is what they do. Each time that another Restaurant opens, it merely spreads the same folks (for the most part) thinner, and actually hurts all the restaurants. Again, this is not my observation, I don't patronize them anyway (downtown). I however, do agree with him, it makes sense. I think I have been saying for a while that Cambridge just cannot support the amount of Restaurant/Bars that Mainstreet is proposing. I just thought that another person's perspective on this was interesting, and on target.
If you and a few others decided to socialize and bring business to downtown instead of bring 'ol sticks in the mud this wouldn't be an observation, would it?
I just love how some people have this idea that since they don't think something will be successful, no one should even try.
Why bother? is such a positive and helpful position to take.Last edited on Sat Jul 4th, 2009 04:33 am by LiberalMinded
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 04:26 am |
|
Pete Macinta wrote: 4GNC writes...
I don't want to drift to far off of thread, but in speaking to someone today they made these observations. Being someone who does eat out in Cambridge, almost weekly, their comments make perfect sense. They are noticing that the same folks for the most part are rotating between Restaurants locally, which is what they do. Each time that another Restaurant opens, it merely spreads the same folks (for the most part) thinner, and actually hurts all the restaurants. Again, this is not my observation, I don't patronize them anyway (downtown). I however, do agree with him, it makes sense. I think I have been saying for a while that Cambridge just cannot support the amount of Restaurant/Bars that Mainstreet is proposing. I just thought that another person's perspective on this was interesting, and on target. Aye. This is probably an "inconvenient truth" for some .
God bless,
Pete
You are correct Pete, but this is from someone who has been doing this for years, he see's the faces, and knows the crowd. He pointed out that Jimmy and Sooks replaced an existing Restaurant, so the effect was minimized in that case.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 04:18 am |
|
4GNC writes...
I don't want to drift to far off of thread, but in speaking to someone today they made these observations. Being someone who does eat out in Cambridge, almost weekly, their comments make perfect sense. They are noticing that the same folks for the most part are rotating between Restaurants locally, which is what they do. Each time that another Restaurant opens, it merely spreads the same folks (for the most part) thinner, and actually hurts all the restaurants. Again, this is not my observation, I don't patronize them anyway (downtown). I however, do agree with him, it makes sense. I think I have been saying for a while that Cambridge just cannot support the amount of Restaurant/Bars that Mainstreet is proposing. I just thought that another person's perspective on this was interesting, and on target. Aye. This is probably an "inconvenient truth" for some.
God bless,
Pete
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 04:03 am |
|
| I don't want to drift to far off of thread, but in speaking to someone today they made these observations. Being someone who does eat out in Cambridge, almost weekly, their comments make perfect sense. They are noticing that the same folks for the most part are rotating between Restaurants locally, which is what they do. Each time that another Restaurant opens, it merely spreads the same folks (for the most part) thinner, and actually hurts all the restaurants. Again, this is not my observation, I don't patronize them anyway (downtown). I however, do agree with him, it makes sense. I think I have been saying for a while that Cambridge just cannot support the amount of Restaurant/Bars that Mainstreet is proposing. I just thought that another person's perspective on this was interesting, and on target.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 05:01 am |
|
loch ness wrote: Pete and 4GNC, you guys would probably save time if you just pick up the phone and talk to each other...
I was hoping you could add light on the subject. I am sure you know how much the City and county budget is for Mainstreet, besides as Pete so aptly mentioned, This is not just about myself and Pete, even we do not agree on everything. This is about getting truthful information to the public.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 09:57 pm |
|
Save time, aye. But then our fellow newszappers would not know what we are discussing, nor would they be able to participate in the discussion.
God bless,
Pete
|
loch ness
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 09:41 pm |
|
| Pete and 4GNC, you guys would probably save time if you just pick up the phone and talk to each other...
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 08:43 pm |
|
Sorry. I have no clue.
God bless,
Pete
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 08:24 pm |
|
| Pete, I found the funding, or "grant matching" for Mainstreet and Maple street in the May 12, 2008 Minutes. This was from the former council. The money was to come from the City's contribution to Mainstreet, whatever that was. I guess my next question, is given the recent "belt tightening" in the City budget, what is the City contribution to Mainstreet, in the up-coming budget? I haven't been able to find this. Do you have any idea? Last years matching grants, for the two projects mentioned above were $10,00 and $15,000 respectfully. This was only these two projects. I am not sure what the amount was in the past budget.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 07:06 pm |
|
No, sorry, but when I get a chance I can research it. You might want to try what I do sometimes. In this case, I would go to google, and enter the following into the search:
"Cambridge, MD" "City Council" Stanley Maple
I think that vote occured under the present council.
I would simply use Maple since I would not know if their minutes would say Maple Street or Maple St.
I would use Stanley since I figure the vote occured for the current council.
Well, I just went to google to get you the base link to look for, but this might be the session we need...
http://www.ci.cambridge.md.us/minutes/2008/12-22-08_minutes.htm
God bless,
Pete
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:48 pm |
|
Pete Macinta wrote: LOL! I thought you could guess. Ricky Travers.
I guess I should have said that though.
God bless,
Pete
I new it was either Mr. Travers (an ex-efficio member of Mainstreet) or Mr. Newcomb. I pretty well figured though it was Mr. Travers...par for the course! Thanks for the info. I don't suppose you know the breakdown on the City vote?
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:45 pm |
|
LOL! I thought you could guess. Ricky Travers.
I guess I should have said that though.
God bless,
Pete
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:42 pm |
|
Pete Macinta wrote: 4GNC asks ...
Speaking of Which, did the County Council vote on the Mainstreet funding? I have not heard. Denied, this time 4 to 1. I asked two reps afterwards why -- reasons was for as I stated below. I was told that the Cambridge City Council had also denied essentially the same request. It dealt with the Maple Street project, which, I understand, was alread funded by grant money. The 5K Main Street was requesting was extra.
God bless,
Pete
May I ask who cast the 1 yes vote?
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:33 pm |
|
4GNC asks ...
Speaking of Which, did the County Council vote on the Mainstreet funding? I have not heard. Denied, this time 4 to 1. I asked two reps afterwards why -- reasons was for as I stated below. I was told that the Cambridge City Council had also denied essentially the same request. It dealt with the Maple Street project, which, I understand, was alread funded by grant money. The 5K Main Street was requesting was extra.
God bless,
Pete
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:17 pm |
|
Y O Y wrote: HEY PEOPLE WHICH MAIN STREET ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
THERE IS MORE THAN ONE YOU KNOW.
Mainstreet is an Organization. The Mainstreet organization we are speaking of is currently in Cambridge, since it has been designated as such to receive funding.
Speaking of Which, did the County Council vote on the Mainstreet funding? I have not heard.
Last edited on Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:19 pm by 4Godncountry
|
Y O Y
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 27th, 2009 |
| Location: | In Your Face |
| Posts: | 197 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 06:12 pm |
|
HEY PEOPLE WHICH MAIN STREET ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
THERE IS MORE THAN ONE YOU KNOW.
|
yakspy
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 02:05 am |
|
| Hey Farmer why don't you take a picture of the sign and post it here?
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 01:45 am |
|
Pete Macinta wrote: Frankly, no, that is not too hard for me to comprehend.
BTW, despite the fact I argue with you quite a bit, if you are who I think you are, IMO you are a very hard worker and I do give you credit for that.
God bless,
Pete
Pete, I know you understand this, but I don't think they quite get it. I have never said that the volunteers were not hard workers, I have never said that some things they do in town are not nice. What I am saying is that all of this "good" does not give the organization the right to run the town, and local politics at their whim. I have also stated that Mainstreet needs to look at other options besides the one and only thing that we have seen from them in the past year (the proposed restaurant at 450 Race).
I have also questioned the overall motivation of some of the property owners who are also mainstreet members, and politicians in both the City and county government. I and many others are a bit skeptical of their ability to police themselves honestly, and in the best interest of ALL the citizens of the City, and county. This is what should be important...what is really best for the citizens of the City. Folks should not be to comfortable with the current situation.
Edited to spell check...I hit send to soon..!
Last edited on Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 01:46 am by 4Godncountry
|
Jimmi Crack Corn
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 41 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 1st, 2009 04:20 pm |
|
4Godncountry wrote:
No Axe to grind,
Really?
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 1st, 2009 04:32 am |
|
Frankly, no, that is not too hard for me to comprehend.
BTW, despite the fact I argue with you quite a bit, if you are who I think you are, IMO you are a very hard worker and I do give you credit for that.
God bless,
Pete
|
loch ness
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 1st, 2009 04:28 am |
|
| I know it may be hard for your to comprehend Pete since I so strongly supported the liquor law change, but I have my own church I can volunteer at. Thanks though.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 1st, 2009 03:28 am |
|
LN writes to 4GNC....
I see you didn't take me up on the offer to volunteer to help out at the Taste of Cambridge. Maybe you should take the first step and volunteer to do something at his church.
All worldly endeavors will be gone in the future.
The spiritual matters are the ones that count for all eternity.
God bless,
Pete
|
loch ness
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 1st, 2009 03:07 am |
|
| I see you didn't take me up on the offer to volunteer to help out at the Taste of Cambridge.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 09:22 pm |
|
loch ness wrote: Grind away on that axe, 4GNC.
First, you leave out the most important aspect of the definition as stated in the code..."Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status."
There is nothing "educational", about what Mainstreet has done. They have indeed violated the clause of the Irs, when they involved themselves in meetings, online polls, and the propagation of Rallies. All of this, and printing excerpts in the newsletter, telling folks to support the liquor change, not educating them on it. Again, you are to close to this to see the problems that are associated with what Mainstreet has done.
No Axe to grind, just being educational, and informative, something Mainstreet is not. As an example please go to the link, and look up the article on Liquor law change. See for yourself. this is just one example, check out the other issues and you will see that what I have said is correct.
http://www.cambridgemainstreet.com/uploads/MainStNews_Aug21_08.pdf
Last edited on Tue Jun 30th, 2009 09:34 pm by 4Godncountry
|
loch ness
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 06:51 am |
|
Grind away on that axe, 4GNC.
First, you leave out the most important aspect of the definition as stated in the code..."Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status."
Second, the last thing volunteers and members of Main Street want to do is do battle in the Council or fight political battles or influence elections. Sadly, the organization HAD to waste a lot of time fighting for the past year to get a ridiculous law changed because it had such a clear and detrimental impact upon the city's historic commercial district. Thankfully that battle is over, so they do not have to advocate for such change.
You really spend a lot of your time worrying about Main Street and what they do. Maybe you should consider volunteering for The Taste of Cambridge on July 11th to see if you can help out downtown.
|
EYE SORE
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 29th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 112 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 03:37 am |
|
| Stupid topic who cares about an empty building?
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 03:24 am |
|
loch ness wrote: With the exception of Sue, you all have things so laughably wrong and twisted (Pete's favorite word) that it's barely worth commenting.
As I stated very early on, the sign in the window was in no way related to Main Street, nor would have Main Street supported it. As you can already see with the discussion below, the sign angered some on the Council. They, like 4GNC and Pete, immediately connected the the two as being one and the same. WRONG.
It doesn't matter that the City was also behind the liquor law change 100%, as was the Town of Secretary. Will some on the County Council cut-off all funds for Cambridge or Secretary just because they were "on the same side" as the Developer in liquor law battle? Of course not. That's why it's unfortunate that the Council would want to rebuke Main Street just because of one individual's opinion about their decisions. They, above all, should be subject to political challenges and questions and commentary on their decisions. Government 101.
If some on the Council want to be petty in their decision-making, and not fund good programs that reap benefits to their community and constituents than that is unfortunate. If they have other, more objective reasons, so be it.
In your statement, you say the city was behind the change 100%. Your statement should have read the Mayor and City Council were behind the change 100%. They in no way spoke for the community, especially since they gave their support prior to asking the public for comment. Secondly, 2 members of the council are members of Mainstreet, one a voting board member. This statement carries absolutely no weight!
It would appear that others tie the developer to Mainstreet, as well. Besides say all you want, we ALL know that the developers sentiment towards those mentioned in the sign is the opinion of probably every member of MainStreet. One only has to read the Mainstreet Newsletter to come to this conclusion (past issues).
Lastly, I notice that you shy away from addressing the political nature that Mainstreet is taking on, especially concerning the Liquor Law. One only has to read the Charter to understand that this is forbidden by the non-profit 501C3 status that MainStreet currently enjoys. The following should prove interesting:
Exemption Requirement
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
"An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation." IRS code on 501C3 organizations, and foundations.
Just take a look at MainStreet Newsletters, and anyone can see that the above has taken place numerous times. I admire your loyalty to the organization, but IMO, it is clouding your judgement on what is really happening. Step away and take a look from the outside, and I think it would clear your vision.
edited to make smaller!
Last edited on Tue Jun 30th, 2009 03:26 am by 4Godncountry
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 03:03 am |
|
LN writes...
No energy to debate. ! What do you mean? Uh, maybe I can interest you in the vitamin supplements I take!
Any takers on this? Send me a PM.
God bless,
Pete
|
loch ness
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 02:57 am |
|
| Fine Pete, fine. Whatever. No energy to debate. I'm sure you're right as usual.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 02:46 am |
|
LN writes...
I refuse to use your silly copy and paste function. If you didn't directly make the connection, then I apologize. But your point is usually pretty clear in that you link the developer's actions with Main Street's actions as though they are always in concert, and that is not the case. Not so. That's not the point I have brought out. IMO, you're kind of muddling what I clearly said.
And it's not MY copy and paste function. It's done out of courtesy and respect for both the person one is discussing things with and new readers to thread.
As for budgets, etc., I would never go about the business of saying "What's more important" in the budget. It's a never-ending question, and you could never get a budget passed if you do that.
Fine for you. Beside's that's kind of my point. If one group gets full funding, they all should.
We elect officials for vision and the big picture. If you don't want to have a vibrant city center, that is itself a destination and a hub for businesses, residents, and tourists, as well as a job and tax-renevue producing engine at the core of the County seat, then you mights as well not care about anything else for Cambridge.
And Dorchester County is not solely comprised of Cambridge. Hurlock, Vienna, Church Creek and the rest are important in their own right.
God bless,
Pete
|
dumplin
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 124 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 02:42 am |
|
Pete Macinta wrote: Dumplin writes...
why should they continue to give to main street? Imo, they should when they can, but Main Street, unless there is a bonafide emergency, should wait for the next budget.
In other words the budget for fiscal year that is about to start is set. IMO, don't mess with it, because if the council says, ok, will give you all the funding you wanted to any group, they have to do it to all.
God bless,
Pete
Pete, I edited my post. I meant this year when budget was approved and other things were cut that IMO are more important for the now. Again, I think the biggest thing is (Will find out for sure tomorrow night I guess) is that the money allotted to them has already been given. they are asking for money for what they already received.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 02:38 am |
|
Dumplin writes...
why should they continue to give to main street? Imo, they should when they can, but Main Street, unless there is a bonafide emergency, should wait for the next budget.
In other words the budget for fiscal year that is about to start is set. IMO, don't mess with it, because if the council says, ok, will give you all the funding you wanted to any group, they have to do it to all.
God bless,
Pete
|
loch ness
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 02:37 am |
|
I refuse to use your silly copy and paste function. If you didn't directly make the connection, then I apologize. But your point is usually pretty clear in that you link the developer's actions with Main Street's actions as though they are always in concert, and that is not the case.
As for budgets, etc., I would never go about the business of saying "What's more important" in the budget. It's a never-ending question, and you could never get a budget passed if you do that.
We elect officials for vision and the big picture. If you don't want to have a vibrant city center, that is itself a destination and a hub for businesses, residents, and tourists, as well as a job and tax-renevue producing engine at the core of the County seat, then you mights as well not care about anything else for Cambridge.
|
dumplin
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 124 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 02:30 am |
|
| Agreed, Pete. Again, I think they (Main Street) have received funding they asked for. Great for the main street, but in economic times we have to cut back on Board of Ed, Police Department and employees get no raises or COLA , why should they continue to give to main street this year when the budget is already set? Last edited on Tue Jun 30th, 2009 02:40 am by dumplin
|
Current time is 04:25 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 5   |
|
|
|