The snow removal continues tonight, beginning at midnight and continuing into Wednesday morning. Below is the schedule. (Click on the image to enlarge.) For many streets, it's a matter of parking on the side you didn't park on last night.
.jpg)
When in doubt, look for the orange "No Parking" signs. Cars must be on the appropriate side of the street by 11:00 p.m. or risk being ticketed AND towed.
Let's look beyond 12534 for a minute... to another blue state, blue town, centuries old, founded on manufacturing and now dealing with tourism and all the typical 2025 challenges... like Hudson.
ReplyDeleteSee below a City Manager managed city as old as Hudson, in the North East, notify their taxpayers and residents during snow storms:
https://www.portsmouthnh.gov/publicworks/snowstorm-response-guide
You can get notified via email, or text, or FB, or voicemail, with geo targeted information.
Specific snow storm considerations with color coded maps, with granularity for time of day snow removal windows:
https://www.portsmouthnh.gov/publicworks/parkportsmouth/snow-impacts
P.s. This other city lowered taxes this year (Hudson raised by 3.9%), and have much lower tax per dollar of home value than Hudson:
https://www.portsmouthnh.gov/city/press-releases/city-portsmouth-nh-property-tax-rate-set-1151
Guess more taxes does not mean better services... paging TH and DM.
p.s. Rob Perry, this is not a broadside against you or the hardworking guys of DPW...
This highlights opportunities for cross-department collaboration, improved communication, and simply shares higher standards, better outcomes, in a City managed for decades... by a City Manager.
The only place anyone suggested that "higher taxes equal better services" is in your own head, where the rent is free but the foundation is cracked.
DeleteThat’s disingenuous, Tom: the underlying thesis of your prior argument boiled down to “grants are good because . . ..”. Grants are 100% sourced with tax dollars. Ergo more grants (thus more taxes) yields more good. At least stand by your argument. And why the ad hominem language? It advances nothing.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete🤣
DeleteWe showed you the data from a city where lower taxes actually bought superior services.
That isn’t a fantasy, that’s a market reality in cities with a non-partisan City Manager and competent elected leaders.
And regarding our "head", if you went looking for "free rent" again and found a cracked foundation, you checked into the wrong building.
But we forgive the navigation error, it happens a lot with Mapquest...
And we are still waiting for you to offer any of your own ideas on how to improve Hudson.
~
Previous comment updated to remove a joke about Minnesota. In case you are actually from there we did not want to be insensitive.
Friedman - I think if you take another look at my comments in that thread, you'll find that what I actually wrote was, "grants exist and here's how they're funded". You could make a case that my underlying thesis was "the goods and services that grants provide are good". I'll stand by that. If local taxes / charitable donations provided 100% of the funding needed for those goods and services, then grants wouldn't need to exist. But since, for example, the City of Hudson is unlikely to be able to do things like upgrade its sewers with just local tax dollars (or theoretical contributions from suddenly altruistic wealthy folks), then yes, it's good that grants exist.
DeleteI would also point out that not *all* grants are funded with tax dollars, but of course the grants being discussed in that thread are and were.
The ad hominem amused me. And please; Gossips commenters (including that one, and you yourself) have pilloried plenty of their neighbors over the years.
I agree with you about grants — for the most part they are a public good which, like all significant undertakings, must be properly managed to be effective and minimize negative outcomes and externalities.
DeleteAs for ad hominem attacks — I try to limit them to elected officials and their appointees, as necessary. I think politicians need to be spoken to plainly so there is no ambiguity. At least that’s what I try to do.
TH, could you please rename your Blogger profile to Anonymous 1 or Anonymous XYZ?
DeleteIt will help avoid confusion since we already have five Peters here and there are other "anonymous".
Qualified anonymity (Gossips approved) is great in our books, but a consistent pseudonym helps. See Union Jack.
Regarding ad hominem: We agree with John that it is not ideal. However, HCS only hits back with banter and targeted wit once attacked ad hominem.
If rebuttal comments focus on the issue, data, or policy, we respond in kind, and occasionally kindness.
But beware of picking a verbal fight with graduates of Commonwealth prep schools where multilingual putdowns were served alongside the morning toast.
Re: grants,. We respectfully disagree.
"Free" money is never free. It creates unbudgeted maintenance costs and enforces foreign priorities from Albany or lobbyists like Peter Frank rather than the voters.
It creates a dead weight loss where people without skin in the game spend someone else's money on someone else.
Grants = the worst quadrant of the Milton Friedman matrix:
https://politicalinfographic.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-four-ways-money-can-be-spent-by.html
Africa was built/ruined on grants. Europe on taxes. America, at its best, on savings, solvency, and bonds.
Bonds require proof that a municipality is a going concern rather than a charity case.
I'm sure Rob is taking notes!
ReplyDeleteI'm fortunate to have off-street parking behind my building. If I ever sell the place, I'll add another $4.2 million to the price for that feature, LOL... PJ
ReplyDeleteNOTE TO THE FORMER "TOM HAMMOND": Now that you have changed your pseudonym to "Anonymous," your comments will no longer be published.
ReplyDelete