Recent comments in /f/WorcesterMA

TriceraDoctor t1_isyqr7c wrote

They were F-15s. Saw them fly over Lake Q. I know there’s the 104th Air National Guard fighter wing near Springfield that has 15s, not sure if this was them. Nothing on their social media pages.

5

Notfromcorporate t1_isyp0io wrote

Reply to Things to do by therueller

There’s a record store right by the palladium called Joes, but it honestly sucks. Not the friendliest of people and the prices are a bit ridiculous.

For as much underground music that comes through the area, there’s really not much around it. No good legit record stores or anything like that

2

SmartSherbet t1_isymn35 wrote

Getting pretty tired of inconsiderate jerks (ranging from wedding people at Tatnuck Country Club to the military) pretending there's not a major city whose residents are all affected by their noisemaking.

−13

SmartSherbet t1_isymfe3 wrote

Vote yes. It'll cost the average homeowner about $35-40/year in property taxes, which will be bolstered by a statewide pool of real estate transaction surcharges that we gain access to if we enact the policy.

Worcester really, really needs this.

21

GabeD416 t1_isykkyw wrote

They’re two F-15s, they were circling over the area around the airport. A private jet landed there around the same time so I wonder if they were escorting it.

22

iterable t1_isyjjnu wrote

Saw one take off from airport or attempt to land. Pull up landing gear then drop it again. Don't know if just training or what but my pets are flipping the fuck out.

2

orzechod t1_isyg8mm wrote

then there's no direct financial impact to you, though I'm guessing your landlord will try to use this to justify yet another rent increase. (don't fall for it; the owner of a triple-decker worth $700K will only see their tax bill go up by something like $147 per year)

the benefits would be: nicer outdoor spaces, better historical preservation efforts, and more affordable housing. it's not a general slush fund; the money can only be spent on certain types of things. and as another reply to my comment mentioned, Worcester residents are already putting money into this fund (via surcharges on real-estate transactions) but never taking any money out of it (since we haven't signed on as a CPA community).

I'm voting yes on Q5. it'll cost me an extra $53 next year. I'll gladly pay $53 for better parks and more accessible housing.

17

NativeMasshole t1_isyfmz7 wrote

Oh, whoops. I'm on the outskirts of the county, so I'm in a different district. My 5 was just a single line about whether my rep should pursue a fee on carbon fuels to offset their impact. Didn't have any information at what point the fee would be imposed nor on what fuel applications.

3