Hey, there! Log in / Register
Citizen complaint of the day: You're going to make them shut the Arboretum, aren't you?
By adamg on Sat, 05/02/2020 - 3:25pm
To try to reduce the number of people in the Arnold Arboretum at one time, the city and state put up sawhorses and signs along Bussey Street and the Arborway to ban parking. Several concerned citizens filed 311 complaints today (like this one) that people have simply moved the sawhorses so they can go for a walk.
Earlier:
Ned Friedman seems like a nice guy, don't make him angry.
Neighborhoods:
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
Bear
Not until the bear eats the deer.
Takes a special kind of arrogance.....
To get out of your car and move a police barricade so you can illegally park........
Willing to bet...
They didn't use a blinker either
Yup!
It sure as hell does! Some people have a hell of a lot of gall!
out in front of my place
if the street is blocked off for repairs, people routinely move the barriers to drive up the street. And then they do a three point turn to get back to where the street isn't blocked and encounter the people who followed them past the now relocated barrier.
My neighbors and I frequently joke about setting out lawn chairs and bringing out the beer.
Seriously. From now on I'm
Seriously. From now on I'm just going to link back to this post any time someone tries to post on here about "entitled bicyclists/pedestrians/etc."
Allow me
Please allow me to introduce this as evidence that all drivers are selfish jerks.
Yep... ALL of ‘em.
Now think about it while after you go to your room without any supper.
Simple solution
Open up all parks and beaches for walking along with cemeteries and golf courses this will allow for more open space. I thought I found a hidden gem in the old Quincy quarries but even that was packed with rock climbers and dog walkers.
So how many infections can be
So how many infections can be scientifically proven to have occurred outdoors?
All this heavy handed crap is going to do is get people to rebel and not take more important precautions indoors seriously.
Found the sea lion
Do you know what the word "precaution" means?
we are jumping the shark
If 98% of people dying have underlying conditions :
https://whdh.com/news/nearly-every-mass-coronavirus-death-was-patient-wi..." title="https://whdh.com/news/nearly-every-mass-coronavirus-death-was-patient-wi...
And 99% of people dying are over the age of 50:
https://www.boston.com/news/coronavirus/2020/04/27/massachusetts-covid-1...
Something tells me there's a far smarter way to deal with this situation.
That's just those who are dying
I'm not too keen on being put on an ventilator and possible having permanent lung, heart, and circulatory damage—or even a stroke, as we're now seeing in young people—even if I were guaranteed to survive the experience.
We don’t know
What we don’t know.
It's all in proportion
Is that a rational fear based on statistics or a fear of extreme anecdotes from the media? My guess is, depending on age and health, there are 157 other things that people should be more worried about than COVID.
Sure
But how many of those are so easily preventable?
Really!?!?
The social distancing and the order to wear face masks when out in public were implemented for a reason: The Covid-19 Virus is extraordinarily infectious, and even more deadly and contagious than the seasonal flu. It's not an irrational fear that's fabricated and stoked by the media--it's a true-blue pandemic which has to be taken seriously. I'll also add that even healthy, young people are getting seriously ill and dying from the Covid-19 virus, as well. Don't kid yourself.
Mass Mask Hysteria
That's why it was implemented. There is zero evidence that this virus transmits easily or at all from passive interactions. In fact, the science of aerosolization of the virus, contact tracing efforts to date and viral load requirements indicate that you are probably more likely to be bit by a shark on Cape Cod than get the virus from walking down the street - or through the Arboretum.
Show me the numbers - a grand total of 46 people under the age of 50 have died in Mass from COVID-19 according to the stats (and none under the age of 20). If the numbers re. underlying conditions hold, about 45 of them had underlying conditions making them more vulnerable. While there are roughly 70,000 confirmed cases, the antibody studies that have been done indicate that probably hundreds of thousands of people have been infected. That death is certainly a tragedy for the family. It's not the foundation of public policy. The science and the stats do not support the hysteria.
One thing that will be interesting about the infectiousness of this. There is a massive outbreak of coronavirus at a Walmart in Worcester - about 25% of the workers. A good test of the viral load needed to infect others will be a spike or lack thereof of COVID-19 in the recent customers to that store over the next couple of weeks. If it comes - perhaps it is as infectious (at least indoors) as people fear. If it doesn't, it demonstrates that transient exposure to the virus is not a material risk even indoors and we'll have to revisit a lot of these policies.
Remember - goal one is to flatten the curve. Goal two is maintaining the economy. Reducing infections and eliminating deaths are only significant stats to achieving those two goals - otherwise we all might as well go live under a rock.
Must disagree
Stevil: Are you an epidemiologist? Are you a medical doctor?
Trying to understand your point I get the impression that:
1. you deny we are experiencing a pandemic
2. that since the minority of deaths have been amongst the youngest, and the death rate rises as we grow older, that there is less reason to be concerned about the overall death rate. In other words, the only people who matter are those least likely to die.
Of those who die due to underlying conditions or age...sad but not important.
In other words, a flat curve is fine. How high the curve is unimportant. How many people die each day is not important. Just get that graph line to stop rising; a flat line looks better than a rising line (who cares if 100 people per day continue to die).
The economy! Of course. The economy is so vastly more important than the 10s, 100s or ultimately millions of lives that will be cut short due to coronavirus, so long as the economy is strong.
Better than an epidemiologist
Numbers geek. It's not that complicated - while more data would be better, we can draw a few clear and unambiguous conclusions. Barring mitigating underlying conditions (that are pretty well known at this point), those under 50 are probably dozens more times likely to get shot and killed or maimed in Boston than die or suffer serious complications of the Rona. You are probably hundreds more times likely to be killed or maimed in a car accident. It's a long list from there.
And yes, the economy is more important than hundreds or even thousands of people dying. Maybe more than that (one group that studies this put the social value of a life at $9 million - i.e. the point beyond which government will issue regulations to restrict the further loss of life - given we've done easily $5 trillion of damage to the economy, if I put my zeroes in the right place we'd have to exceed half a million deaths to justify what we've done so far).
Doubt that - wait until a few banks fail and see what happens. Guaranteed millions and millions of people will prefer to take their chances with the rona and that's just in the US. The pain is just beginning around the world and could easily put billions in agony beyond what you can imagine. I think we'll figure something out before it gets that bad - but rest assured, if we keep this up, we will redistribute the wealth - to the people with guns.
There's a right way and wrong way to get out of this - opening golf courses, then barber shops, then retail shops etc. is not it. You'll appreciate you do this by people from low risk to high and then do everything you can as you scroll through that to protect the vulnerable. The approach we are taking across the board is idiotic and will result in more pain, death and yes, economic ruin.
Simpler words
What do you believe is the correct response for the city, state and nation?
Practical steps. What do you advise we do today?
By the way, do subscribe to the economic theories of James Buchanan, the economist?
People, not businesses
Every state is opening by designating "safe" industries. No industry is "safe" if at risk people start going there - golf courses, hair cuts - whatever.
Instead of businesses - you rank households on risk factors - age, medical issues, medications - the CDC can come up with that. Then you open up those households as long as we don't spike the curve. If the curve spikes - then you dial back one segment of the population, but you can probably get 2/3 or more back to work in 30 days doing this with marginal impact on the hospital system (at least relative to now).
If you are, for example, Risk 1 - everyone in the house under 50 and no other major health issues, just go back to living your life. Want to social distance, wear a mask, I don't care. A very small number of these people will get sick and an extremely small number will die. But you will not spike the curve with this demographic and it is probably a very large portion of the workforce (plus almost all students).
Risk level 2 - households under 50 with low risk levels and healthy households aged 50-65 go back to the workforce and living their lives.
Risk level 3 households under 50 with high risk and those 50-65 with low risk underlying conditions.
and so on until you reach people in nursing homes who quite honestly in my opinion, should be taken care of by caretakers in full out hazmat suits. these people are not going outside and getting sick - it's getting brought in by healthcare workers and we need to protect these people (including family members of mine in senior homes).
Opening up this business, then that business just brings the vulnerable out and that is about the worst thing we can do. We'll get a bad second wave, shut down again and then we can pretty much turn out the lights. People are going to get sick. People are going to die. Possibly including me. But the alternative might be far, far worse if we don't act quickly.
You didn't answer the question...
...about James Buchanan. I'm wondering that myself.
No
Never heard of him. but looks like interesting body of work. I love behavioral economics.
Here's the false alternative problem
The problem with this analysis, focusing on your $5 trillion of economic damage figure, is your implicit argument that the damage is caused by our response to the virus rather than by the virus itself, that, in an alternative universe in which nobody had ordered business closure, stay-at-home, masks, etc. that none of that $5 trillion of damage would have happened.
That's obviously not true: had nobody ordered business closures or stay-at-home, people would still be avoiding airplanes, restaurants, shopping centers, movies, concerts, etc. Businesses would be curtailing travel, meetings, etc. Huge sectors of the economy (airlines, hotels, etc.) would still be reeling.
The whole "this cure is worse than the disease" argument is intellectually sloppy in the extreme.
I'm on the better safe than sorry side....
Because I really don't know, so I'm going with the medical experts over the anarcho-capitalist.
But I do think if the government didn't order this shutdown, many businesses, especially this week would be opening back up and that "5 trillion" number would be cut significantly.
There is probably a number somewhere (we won't ever know exactly, and it won't be for years) about how a damaged economy affects death rates in terms of suicides, poverty, hunger, unemployment, etc. But again, I think simply we are still in the better safe than sorry time.
Saw a CNN headline about "what if there isn't a vaccine for years" article. I mean think about that. If that is the case I don't think we will have a choice but to open up 90% of the economy. Concerts, movies, sporting events, crowded nightclubs (what % do they make up) might be the ones left out for a significant amount of time.
Anarcho capitalist
Pete, these are the numbers, 99% of those who died were over 50. 99% of those who died had underlying conditions. I don't have the numbers available, but reasonable to assume the serious illness part is similar.
Why is the Earth shut down for healthy people under 50 when the odds of dying from the disease are .0001 (and move that decimal one more space if you use confirmed cases in the denominator and probably one more if we had a real count of the tru number if cases)? That makes me an anarchist? I think it makes the medical "experts" morons.
Sorry Stevil,
Not calling you out here, just raising the question to Bob's scenario about what would happen if the government didn't force anyone to close.
But in response to your question, I still think we don't know, because we have no idea how many more people would have gotten sick if we didn't shut down on March 12th (or what ever date we did).
I'm just predicting here. I think Baker opens up slowly and by June 15th, everything will be open except for concerts, sporting events, nightclubs, etc. And if our death rate stays the same, schools will open up as well. Just my guess.
Not talking about march 12th
Talking about how we move forward. We've learned a lot in the interim Pete - and have some really solid stats. And those stats indicate very clearly there is a much better way to manage this, but nobody is questioning the groupthink that's going on among the country's govs.
I hope you're right and we can reopen. But I'm proposing a barbell approach. Unless the government is hiding something we have a huge "minimal risk" side and a huge "astronomical risk side" with a thin middle (unhealthy middle aged people and healthy slightly older people). But instead of managing to the two demographic mountains in the graph very distinctly and carefully evaluating the risks to those in the middle, we are lumping it all into one big graph. My stats professors would be having a cow.
Lol, of course
Always a relevant XKCD.
You don't need to be a financial planner
To balance a checkbook.
And you dont need to be able to balance a checkbook
to know that dead people don't do a great job as part of the labor force. Or at paying taxes.
Workers aren't dying
That's the whole point of letting healthy young people go back to work. And living their lives.
Liar
You forgot to make that into a bullshit wall of words, so your lie was too obvious. Workers are dying. It's in the news, you idiot.
Broadly speaking
If you've seen my other posts, I'm talking healthy people under 50 - so yes - I'm excluding people with underlying conditions and to some extent people over 50 still in the workforce, although even they aren't dying in large numbers.
47 people under the age of 50 have reportedly died from this. indeed workers are dying, but far and away, they are not dying from coronavirus. Something or someone else is getting to them first.
"And yes, the economy is more
"And yes, the economy is more important than hundreds or even thousands of people dying."
NO.
We are a civilized nation that does not need to sacrifice lives for economic activity. Jobs and the economy can recover. Dead people who couldn't get medical care because the hospitals are overwhelmed cannot.
If this goes on more than x amount of months though....
You can't say that jobs or the economy would recover.
Hmm...
I take it, then, that you are.
It all boils down to how many dollars are worth one human life. There is a powerful faction that values its money higher than other people's lives, and they are in the driver's seat in many parts of this country, but, thankfully, not in Massachusetts.
There's a lot of misery to be
There's a lot of misery to be had between health and literally dying.
Oh, in that case
Yeah, let's just take the old and infirm out back and shoot them now to save ourselves the time and effort of protecting them.
Would help Social Security and Medicare
I still believe that a fundamental component of what seems to be the dominant economic theory includes reducing if not eliminating Social Security and Medicare, as well as Medicaid, SNAP and any other government assistance programs. This theory of a health economy matured during Reagan and has been riding high since then.
What better way than a disease which decimates the population which is to be reduced? Not implying that coronavirus is some planned virus. Leave that to conspiracy theorists who believe that Elvis and JFK are on an island.
But when presented with a natural opportunity to achieve social and economic goals of decreasing a certain population, what better opportunity than a major disease that results in that goal? All that has to be done is NOTHING. Do nothing for a few months. Let the disease run rampant. Tens of thousands of deaths of elderly. Automatic reduction in the future demands on Social Security and Medicare.
Then should we encourage people to start smoking?
The idea that encouraging people to get sick is economically beneficial to the survivors is woefully mistaken, I think. There are secondary economic effects of millions of people getting sick that have to be taken into account. Production and distribution of food and other vital supplies would be disrupted, for one. There might even be breakdowns in social order, such as widespread looting or riots in the streets.
Mistaken does not mean incorrect
Whether that social-economic theory would have terrible secondary effect does not mean that the theory itself is disproven. While it sounds like an extreme theory I believe that it explains much of the past 44 years.
Social Security is a third rail of politics. Modifying it always is sensitive. The ideas of turning Social Security into a commercial investment program is always shot down. Politically doing more than nibbling at the edges of Social Security has always been potentially politically explosive.
Some of the most powerful people in the nation have advocated for decades that Social Security is a form of "rent-seeking." They believe that requiring employers' to contribute to FICA is unfair taxation. I'm specifically referring to the powerful who follow James Buchanan's social-economic theories. That includes the William and the late David Koch, Rupert Murdoch and the entire cabal that would include Trump as their president (McConnell, Federalist Society jurists, etc.).
The religious portion of the cabal that holds Trump as it's leader follow a different social and economic philosopohy which does not necessarily match what the powerful want. The simplified difference is that the wealthy and already powerful want to maintain their positions as individuals and families. The religious folks want power but in corporate form. That form includes the homogenization of the nation (i.e., convert to Fundamental and Evangelical Christianity, follow the accepted rules of that definition or...disappear).
While the followers of Graham and Falwell juniors would object to the idea of helping the elderly and infirm die off, they allow themselves to accept that the propaganda and philosophical twisting propounded by the extreme media, including Fox, personalities such as Limbaugh, etc. Why would people do that? For the same reason that tens of thousands of southerners died in the Civil War: they were persuaded that their lives would be destroyed by northerners if they stayed in the republic.
When power is the goal all means are justified.
Social security is not
Social security is not government assistance for retirees. They paid into the system while working all those years. Now the junkies drunks and lazy pieces of shitnwho never worked a day in their lives, yet claim SSDI? Take them out back and burn them alive.
Please forgive the comparison:
The NAZIs played with a similar idea. They used trucks. Bundle infirm, mentally challenged into trucks. Connect a tube from the exhaust to the truck's container. Quick death by asphyxiation. Only when that proved to be too slow was the idea of the extermination camps developed.
Not that Americans would support an active method of reducing the population. Well, except for eugenicists in the early 20th century, Indian haters of the 19th century, neo-NAZIS and white supremacists today, most Americans would revolt against the idea of genocide of given populations. But when nature provides a method - then nature does what otherwise could not be done.
However, the same result of hastneing the decline of the elderly and chronically ill population can be accomplished by limiting, reducing or eliminating health care. The argument against health care for everyone is very much part of the Trump Inc. philosophy.
over 50
Wow - so having just turned 50 two weeks ago it's great to start to get a taste of the callous disregard younger people have for older people right out of the gate. *hobbles off on walker for nap*
Economic efficiency
Are you at the peak or past the peak of your economic performance? That has been the direction of dominating economic theory since Reagan. It has reached its peak (and hopefully will diminish) under the rule of people such as the two Koch brothers who back the Kocktopus, Paul Ryan and his buds, Rand Paul, Mitch McConnell and of course their public clown, D. Trump, and everyone who has the most to gain by supporting their social and economic philosophy.
A philosophy that boils down to an initial question: Are you producing more wealth than taking? Doesn't matter how, whether via working, investments, rents and what not. If you answer yes to that question then you qualify as having basic value. If no then you are not of value (or me for that matter).
Simpsons
Homer: "Old people need to be isolated so we can examine what nutrients they have that we can extract for our use."
Marge: "Homer, I want you to stop reading that Ross Perot pamphlet."
It is the envy of the have-nots for the haves, methinks.
If I'm not mistaken, boomers own most of the wealth in this country. They grew up in an era when capitalism was still generating wealth, which it has largely ceased to do in this country over the past half century. We don't create wealth today so much as redistribute it. The Everett casino, for instance, so widely touted as a source of local jobs, is in fact a black hole sucking wealth out of the local economy.
Slight disagreement
I disagree that "boomers' own most of the wealth in the nation. That paints with a broad brush. Anyone who is elderly today is from the boomer generation.
The 1% not only are not just boomers, they are actually only 1% of the rest of the population. Putting the focus on "boomers" take the focus away from the people who are powerful and are generating the propaganda and anxiety that manipulates 10s of millions of voters. Mitch McConnell is not a boomer. Sheldon Addison is not a boomer. On the other side many of the newest millionaires and billionaires are not boomers. Mark Zuckerberg is not a boomer. Jeff Bezos is barely a boomer. Warren Buffet is not a boomer.
I see The Ride is paked there
I see The Ride is paked there. What do the angry commenters think about disabled people having access to the Arboretum? Do you think they should be banned as well?
Meanwhile, back on 311 ...
Cute, but...
This is the flaw of the 311 system. It can be used anonymously to target a population or make false accusations against someone or an address.
There is a need for anonymous whistle-blowing for felony crimes due to fear of retribution and that is why such a number exists for reports. But 311 calls should require you to be identified and take responsibility for the complaint you are making.
It's not like Swatting
making a 311 request is not like swatting. Nobody is going to be arrested, ticketed, fined, or harrassed solely on the basis of a 311 request. Make a 311 call falsely accusing your neighbor of illegal trash out or illegal parking, and what you're going to get at most is a city inspector taking a look and then saying "no violation found, case closed"
This site loves to celebrate
This site loves to celebrate the rat and all the social distancing warriors.
Why is everyone you hate a "warrior"...
...while those assholes that threatened the Michigan legislature with guns are apparently "patriots"?
Support the towing industry
Good opportunity for towing companies to earn some income. But is the Arborway city or state?
Either way just tow the vehicles. This is not a time to just give warnings.
The Arborway belongs to the state, if I'm not mistaken
Isn't it a former MDC roadway? Aren't those managed by DCR nowadays?
Arborway is MassDOT from the
Arborway is MassDOT from the Centre St rotary to Morton St, DCR north of Centre St. The carriage road along the north side of the Arborway between Centre St and South St is DCR.
Let's pick this apart
1) We'll start with the cars. On this one, I'll mock the public for being basic bitches. You own an automobile, which nominally frees you to visit any outdoor attraction that you like, gas can be found for under two bucks per gallon, and it's Saturday...and your big idea is the Arboretum, as if it isn't near where a plurality of people live in a small area, and you're the first person to have the idea.
These are the same people who, in the infancy of this whole mess, deftly pointed out to everyone that the popular name of the ailment is also the name of a popular beer with which other people are familiar.
2) I think most driving adults can be parsed into the following categories:
- Currently working from home and setting their own hours
- Currently working from home and tethered to a desk
- Essential workers reporting to work 9-5 Monday-Friday
- Essential workers who aren't necessarily working from 9-5 Monday-Friday
- People laid off because there's no work to be done and because their company is not making enough money to keep them around through this
I'm #3 and at a liberty to visit the Arboretum during any damn operating hours that I please. So you know when I went? (Expletive) Thursday. It was not cold, and the sun was not beating down oppressively. I parked on the Bussey side on the first try (with no posted restrictions on the street or in the small lot right at the gate), and walked up the hill where the Asian stuff is. I could have capably met distancing guidelines if I were 20 feet wide.
Why did I go on Thursday? See #1. Not hard to zag when everyone else zigs. I'm a near-breakeven horseplayer during my furlough for precisely the same reason (which also explains why I'm visiting parks on non-Saturdays.) If we have a virus going around, but also the free time to do stuff, the answer is to do stuff when the fewest people are expected to do it, right? That way, you can do the stuff, but also reduce your exposure to this thing that kills people.
3) Now that I've taken down the people, the state: Funny how I drew that conclusion from #2 without any nudging from government. Seriously, government, which I seldom praise, has sent into motion a series of events which have given us all the chance to not only alter what might have been broken about how we live our lives, but to stop and consider how we might live our lives better.
Today, our solution was to, in a state with natural areas abound, all congregate in the same one, in spite of the advice of scientific leaders. I think that ticketing/towing cars is an odious move, but I would have been completely on board with the meter maid taking down all the plate numbers, tracing the registrants, and then circulating said list to local hospitals so that the hospitals can make them sit and wait behind everyone else in line for care if they need it. Why assess a regressive tax when you can just let the private sector punish them with terrible service in the face of the outcome that they should be avoiding, but aren't?
Celebrate voluntary acts, and stay contrarian, everybody.
Bravo, Will
Everything you said is precisely true.
People are going to be dumb, selfish, ignorant, defiant, and clueless. That's on them - it's their loss and they'll learn the hard way, either by fines or hospitalization (either by getting the virus themselves or giving it to people they know).
There are many of us, however, who don't want to be in perpetual house arrest or curled into a fetal position. We want to take breaks away from our houses to get fresh air, and walk away from the constant stream of self-interested speculation, press conferences and fear porn. The ones who will know exactly what to do to avoid getting or spreading the disease will take appropriate action - and within their own means.
Well......
The dumb, selfish, defiant, willfully ignorant and clueless will not only end up learning the hard way through fines, hospitalization, or whatever, but these motherfuckers will end up taking others with them, as well. They just don't fucking give a shit.
They're human beings like any other
No one likes to feel trapped in their homes. And if we had a federal government that had done its job, the virus could have been contained before it spread so widely that stay-at-home orders were the only way to slow it down.
But that didn't happen, and so we are where we are. I have no idea how likely it is that one can get sick by going to a crowded Arboretum. I've been taking to going for walks early in the morning, before too many other people are out. But the bottom line is that here we are, living with a virus in our midst that can kill us or make us sick for a very long time, and there's neither a cure nor a vaccine. It's not our fault, but here we are.
I’ll tell ya...
Thank God for U-Hub or the world would never have gotten a chance to read how it’s Will against the world.
Why is driving to the
Why is driving to the Arboretum considered more risky than taking the T? Should they close all the Arboretum entrances on the T station side to discourage people from riding in close quarters on the train to get there? If the problem is too many people going there, isn't the T much more efficient at moving large groups of people than cars?
These lazy turds should have
These lazy turds should have their licenses suspended. Stay in your own damn neighborhood. You already got the forest hills cemetery closed. The people who live within walking distance need this park and the rest need to GTFO.
Enough with the bitching
Enough with the bitching about Forest Hills Cemetery! It's a cemetery! That's their line of work - their bread & butter. If they were nice enough to ever have been open to side things, that's bonus! That ends when they have to concentrate on their prime thing.
A compromise
Let us all agree that the residents of Forest Hills Cemetery should stay in their own damn neighborhood.
They can neither catch nor transmit the virus
They're already dead.
We don't have a zombie-causing virus.
Yet.
They closed the cemetery........
because of the ignorant behavior of some of the visitors.......it's a place where people have buried their dead relatives, and paid good money to do so - the very idea of people having picnics there and allowing their children to climb the trees, many of which are many years old, rivaling those at the Arnold Arboretum as well as children climbing on the monuments? Reeks of disrespect and entitlement.
The people who regularly visit there are now locked out due to your total disregard. Thanks, folks. Won't be long before they need to close the Arboretum as well.
"Stay in your own damn neighborhood"
What a gross and unpleasant thing to say.
Yeh, well they should stay where they belong.
The social distancing order was put in place for a damned good reason.
Beg to differ
One can still "socially distance" when in neighborhoods other than one's own.
“They should stay where they belong”
Oh, so much could be read into that subject line.
Why do people within walking
Why do people within walking distance need this park, any more than everyone else in greater Boston would need an arboretum which they don't have within walking distance?
And who's to say that the people who drove don't live within walking distance?
Really?
It's not that people within walking distance "need" this park more, it's that blocking parking limits the number of people who can go there at once.
In case you've forgotten, there's a public health emergency out there, our state has more Covid-19 cases than all of Canada (which has more than four times as many people) and people are dying at a fast rate out there, even if we're not having New York-style ER disasters because we've flattened the curve - by staying home.
Inconvenience? Yes. Me, I wish I could go to Sullivan's, get some clam strips and sit by the water watching the boats go by. Sucks. Dying would suck more, though.
Or are you saying you live in a place with absolutely no green spaces within walking distance?
Ok, but I was responding to
Ok, but I was responding to Kinopio's comment:
"The people who live within walking distance need this park and the rest need to GTFO."
I don't have an arboretum or other park of that size within walking distance of my house. If I shouldn't need to go to an arboretum, neither do people who live near the Arnold Arboretum. It's not the only green space near them either.
The arboretum wasn't created
The arboretum wasn't created for the people of Jamaica Plain, Roslindale, or any other adjacent neighborhood. It doesn't limit visitors to residents of Boston, of the metro area, or the state of Massachusetts. Every time I visit I always remark at how many different languages I hear being spoken. It's for everyone, though that doesn't mean everyone needs to go at once.
Today
It’ll be 75 degrees today and next weekend looks cold so no way people are going waste a rare nice Sunday huddling indoors.
I don't understand the urge
I don't understand the urge for people to drive to a park during a pandemic. I get that people don't want to be inside on a nice day, but the nice thing about outside is that it exists everywhere that's not inside. Why can't people just take a walk in their own neighborhoods, or of they're feeling ambitious, walk or bike somewhere a bit further? This is not going to last forever. I just don't understand the urge to get in the car and drive around for recreational purposes right now.
For many city dwellers, the
For many city dwellers, the park options accessible by foot are often little more than vacant lots and patches of grass covered in dog pee and goose poop - or spaces primarily occupied by closed-off athletic fields and playgrounds.
The Arboretum is a world-class outdoor space. If it was easily accessible to you, you'd go.