Question 1 seeks to eliminate the state income tax. For more information, visit the state’s Information for Voters website.

In their argument against Question 1, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation notes that our tax dollars “pay for basic services like schools and teachers, health care, environmental protection, local aid that funds police and fire protection, nursing homes for the elderly, human services and infrastructure.” ‘Infrastructure’ is a pretty innocuous word, considering that in this case it covers clean drinking water, the roads we drive on, and numerous other aspects of our daily life.

All of this ‘stuff’ is there for our use when we need it, whether or not we’re cognizant of how it got there in the first place and who takes care of it. When we turn on the tap, we expect water to come out, and we expect it to be clean enough to use for drinking and bathing. If it snows, we know that our roads will be treated and plowed – perhaps not as quickly as we’d like, but it gets done.

And someone has to pay for it.

When I was younger, my dad liked to say, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” This statement always made me groan, because it meant that I was about to spend an afternoon raking leaves or painting the house in exchange for a ride to the mall. As an adult, this statement sounds less like a philosophy of indentured servitude, and more like reality – you’ve got to invest in the system to get something out of it.

Eliminating the state income tax would require some trade-offs. Perhaps the school day would be cut short to save money, and we’d need to start spending more time each week educating our children at home. Of course, in that instance we’d be getting more bang for our household buck, as property taxes would surely go up.

So what do you think about Question 1? If you’re in favor of Question 1, visit this post and thread.

A friend of mine, Stacey, made a good point when she noted that cutting the state income tax is “the equivalent of knowing that you would be spending one month in the forest, but eating most of your food the first night and having to go hungry for the rest of the time.”

Question 1 seeks to eliminate the state income tax. For more information, visit the state’s Information for Voters website.

According to the Committee for Small Government, the proponents of Question 1, eliminating the state income tax will boost the state economy by allowing taxpayers to keep (and spend) more of their paycheck, encouraging businesses to locate in Massachusetts and create more jobs, and attracting people to move to or remain in Massachusetts.

Perhaps what best appeals to voters is the suggestion that eliminating the income tax will subsequently eliminate government waste, as the state government is forced to contract and end “flawed, Big Government programs.”

When you pick up the local paper and read that the national economy is floundering, and then turn the page to read about state legislators stuffing their undergarments full of cash and state employees padding their paychecks by doing ‘favors,’ one can certainly begin to feel the pull of Question 1. How badly do we need all of these people to represent our interests and handle state business?

Of course, there are plenty of state legislators and employees who are not acting like pigs at the trough, and the majority of state employees enter public service knowing that they won’t get rich. Then again, if you’ve lived in Massachusetts long enough, you probably have at least one relative, neighbor, or friend who works a state job – say, a toll collector on the Mass Pike – and earns a surprising sum for the work actually being done. A $70,000 salary for someone to make change is rather high; in private industry, an employee paid $70,000 probably has the title of scientist or engineer.

When I went out looking for opinions on Question 1, most of the feedback that I received came from people planning to vote ‘No.’ Perhaps I didn’t get to the right people for ‘Yes’opinions, or perhaps many people do think that Question 1 is a bad idea.

What do you think? I’d particularly like to hear from people who support Question 1.

Tomorrow – the argument to vote ‘No’ on Question 1.

Some days, it’s really difficult to embrace life in Worcester. I love Worcester, and have no patience for incessant complaining about what the place has or doesn’t have. But every so often, Worcester makes itself difficult to love. Really difficult.

Like when it comes to CitySquare. Every time I read about CitySquare, I feel like I am listening to one of my best friends complain about their horrible, stagnant relationship, but since I know I can’t do anything about it, my mouth stays shut. Sometimes, I speak up, because I can’t take it anymore, and then my friend responds by telling me that the relationship has been looking up lately and is certain to improve soon. Inevitably, my friend calls one day to say that while she made every effort to save the relationship, her boyfriend has left her for one of her friends, and to make matters worse, it was a friend to whom she had always been a supportive cheerleader. While I’m comforting my friend, the evil voice in the back of my head asks: “Was this not inevitable? Fool.”

I had hopes for CitySquare. Not necessarily high hopes, but hopes nonetheless. Opening up the downtown, getting more people to work/shop/live in the area, filling the empty space left by the mall – neat. I don’t know that I’m sold on the ‘urban village’ concept, but sometimes, something is better than nothing.

But four years later, things are going nowhere. Every so often, people want to know what’s going on with CitySquare. The city council asks questions, requests reports, and meetings are scheduled. The developer visits, or maybe he doesn’t, and the situation is soothed and smoothed for a while. Everything will be fine, once the time is right, a few contracts are signed, and the moon is in the seventh house of Pluto.

And then the national economy starts to circle the drain. Investments are curtailed. Retailers halt expansion plans. A major employer in downtown Worcester makes plans to move, and makes it known that they’re looking for space.

Wait – could THEY move into CitySquare? Could this be the shot in the arm that the project has been waiting for, as it appears that we won’t be filling the village with the Gap and Applebee’s anytime soon?

Not if that employer moves to Gateway Park! Of course, we have no idea whether or not the developer really cares about the situation. The T&G has a good recap of the situation.

Like Charlie Brown, I just can’t take it anymore.

What do you think about CitySquare?

Getting rid of the Asian longhorned beetle has appeared to be a daunting task from the outset. We’ve learned that the ALB has been here longer than expected, spread farther than anticipated, and the only way to stop the spread is to get rid of host trees.

Yikes. Initially, there was talk of an eradication program similar to that used for an ALB infestation in New Jersey – eliminating both host trees and potential host trees near the infected tree, which amounted to a loss of 21,000 trees. A disheartening story in the T&G about the community in New Jersey that lost their trees made me think about how many beautiful trees we have throughout Worcester, and how the loss of many of those trees would feed a desolate, industrial look in the city.

Learning that only host trees will be removed, and potential host trees will be spared by being treated with a chemical which targets the ALB, brought relief. Relief that was wiped out once I pictured a USDA worker in a hazmat suit sticking a giant needle into one of the trees in front of my house.

Trees disappearing across Worcester: chilling. Trees receiving injections: creepy.

To be pragmatic, we don’t live in chemical-free environs now, and it’s tough to be completely green. If you use Advantage to treat fleas on your dog or cat, you’re already using Imidacloprid, the chemical that will be used on the trees. So if we can save the trees by using this chemical, rather than eliminating them completely – is it wrong to treat the trees?

Maybe. Use of Imidacloprid worries local beekeepers based on tentative links between use of Imidacloprid in Europe and Colony Collapse Disorder, a mysterious phenomenon of worker bees ‘disappearing’ from their hives. Disappearing bees may sound like a Hardy Boys mystery story, but if you think back to elementary school science classes, you’ll remember that bees are a key component in the pollination of our outdoor flora and fauna.

What do you think about the presence of the Asian longhorned beetle in Worcester, and the plans to get rid of the ALB? Practical, scary – or a bit of both?

A proposed order in front of the city council on 10/1 seeking to move the project forward by arranging talks between the city and the Worcester Sharks was delayed to allow time for community discussion. No further discussion was held at the 10/7 council meeting.

This project is an incredible opportunity for Worcester residents to make themselves heard with regard to a large development project in the city. It’s public land. We own it. It’s not a question of a developer on private land requiring permits and permissions, but a development that may or may not be good for the city being built on public land.

What do you think about the sports complex? What would you like to know?

Some of the questions on my mind:

Why would the skating rinks/batting cages/sportsplex need to be built on public park land? There are several sizeable parcels of land in the city ready for redevelopment. Why Lake Park?

Would the city and state continue to own the land, and the stakeholders – Sharks, Tornadoes, St. Vincent’s, etc. – own just the new buildings? Or would they buy the land – and for how much?

The idea of an ‘aquatics complex’ to replace closed pools has been discussed – would this be separate, or could it be included?

The ice skating rink behind city hall should be done soon. Would a new skating arena draw recreational skaters away from the city hall rink?

On some level, there seem to be indicators that people are not as fond of ‘megaplexes’ as they once were for generating business or attracting visitors. We’ve asked a developer to reformat the mall to be less like a fortress in the middle of downtown, and decry schools and hospitals for keeping their people on their campuses rather than encouraging them to be part of the city. Is a ‘sports complex’ the way to go? Isn’t there a chance that out-of-town people will come to the complex, do what they came to do, and return home?