Blarney Blowout 2014

 

AFD Central Station 9:30 a.m.

Scroll down for updates

Scene along North Pleasant/Fearing  about an hour before the riot

Original Post:  10:00 a.m.

The Dunkin Donuts drive thrus all over the area are swamped with college aged youth, probably pregaming with caffeine, and throngs of them are moving on foot from UMass central campus north towards Townhouse Apartments, scene of last years Blarney Blowout riot.

 Security already gathered at Townhouse Apartments 9:45 a.m.

 Crowd already line up downtown bar 10:15 a.m.

Security was already on scene at Townhouse and APD is out in force.  Already between Amherst and UMass police a half-dozen students have been arrested for alchol violations.  

Ch 22 shooting kids hanging on a balcony (and getting them fired up) 10:00 a.m.

APD arresting one for liquor law violation North Pleasant Street 10:20 a.m.

It's gonna be a l-o-n-g day.

#####

UPDATE 5:00 p.m.

 

APD Chief Livingstone (white hat) leading the troops (note tear gas plume in road)

 Yes I stayed close behind the folks with the (tear gas) guns

Around 2:30 p.m. riot clad police moved into a crowd of over 2,000 that had gathered behind a Frat House on the corner of Fearing Street and North Pleasant.  Police had to shut down N. Pleasant Street, the main road through the heart of UMass/Amherst for almost 15 minutes while trying to clear the huge gathering. 

Large crowd on the site of the infamous former Frat Row

Normally busy with cars N. Pleasant looking toward UMass

Yes, tear gas was fired (carefully) into the crowd to facilitate their cooperation. 

2 under arrest Fearing Street/North Pleasant

Arrest in front of Frat House on North Pleasant Street 

 

Half dozen Mass State Police vehicles are parked at APD headquarters

Blarney Blowout: Eve Of Destruction?

Townhouse quad this morning:  Calm before the storm?

Unfortunately the "Blarney Blowout" is a state of mind.  And unlike the Hobart Hoedown, which was always pretty much grounded in a certain narrow location, you really can't lock down the entire town.

 Hobart Ln:  Note sign height to avoid souvenir hunters

Perhaps the Select Board should have nipped things in the bud by pulling the liquor license of McMurphy's and Stackers three years ago when they first dreamed up this abomination.  Town officials (and the mainstream media) have been behind the curve on this issue since inception.

 Gazette trying to make up for last year

So here we are now, the day before the biggest party event of the year.  Yes, this time town and UMass officials have done an avalanche of advance messaging, dutifully carried by the mainstream media.

But nobody hired a shaman (or the CIA) to bring us a blizzard tomorrow.  The predicted weather is for the best day we've seen in a l-o-n-g while. And in this case, good weather is a cop's worst enemy.

 McMurphy's this morning:  note absence of Blarney Blowout advertising

Police and private security will try to be proactive and keep crowds from growing to the massive throng was saw at the Townhouse quad area last year.  But that may not be all that easy or even legal since the constitution does guarantee the  "freedom to assemble in public places."

Or as the hard core rowdies might put it, "Fight for your right to p-a-r-t-y."   Probably not what our Founding Fathers had in mind, however.

Daily Collegian with helpful Blarney Blowout advice  (They forgot "Don't drink and drive!")

 

Even the damn lawyers are into it

Downtown bars loading up Noon Friday

Can You See Me Now?

Lights, cameras, action

Amherst Public School buses and vans will become more secure next year if the Joint Capital Planning Committee approves the $54,000 request made this morning by Ron Bohonowicz, Direct or Facilities, for a digital camera system to outfit 9 buses and 14 vans owned by the School Department.

Each vehicle would be outfitted with three cameras: one on the driver, one on the stair entry/exit to the vehicle and one showing the entire back passenger section.  A 4th camera could also be added in the future to show outside the bus to record cars that don't stop when the school bus stops.

The units are equipped to record both audio and video, but would only be reviewed if there was a reported problem.  Even the police would need permission of Superintendent Maria Geryk to review a recording.   

The cameras would help reduce instances of bullying.  South Hadley, made notorious over bullying, installed them a while back, and according to Bohonowicz it "substantially improved the situation."

Bohonowicz also told the committee the contract for the company that provides the other 31 buses used to transport school children is up next year, and he may write into a new contract the provision that all buses be camera equipped. 

If the JCPC approves the $54,000 request it still must pass muster with the Town Manager and then Town Meeting before the money could be spent in the new Fiscal Year starting July 1st.

Interestingly the two School Committee members in the JCPC said their Committee had not yet discussed the "policy question" of having cameras recording the actions of minor children. 

Decisions, Decisions

Could Amherst voters decide fate of $15/hour Minimum Wage hike?

UPDATE (Friday morning):

The Town Clerk just confirmed that even if the Select Board set the referendum election for September 9, the date of the State Primary, it would only result in "minimal savings."  The cost for the Special Town Election would still be around $10,000 vs a normal stand alone election cost of $12,000.  

Separate ballots would still have to be printed and the number of check in and check out workers at every precinct would need to double.

#####

After reading this morning's article Matthew Cunningham-Cook, the optimistic architect of the $15/hr minimum wage hike for all Amherst laborers, wished to add an interesting point:

If Town Meeting should reject his article at the March 19 Special Town Meeting he will "referendum" that decision by collecting 880 signatures within five business days and bring it directly to the voters of Amherst in a Special Election that will cost taxpayers $12,000.

Since he's already collected 200 signatures to force the $15/hour minimum wage warrant article on a Special Town Meeting, his threat is not to be ignored.

And when I mentioned how difficult it can be he responded, "That's true.  We're a big group and five business days afterwards would be the 26th.  Collecting signatures on election day(3/25)  is pretty easy."

The Town Clerk confirms his deadline analysis and agrees she can't stop folks from collecting signatures near a voting precinct unless they are interfering with voters.

The rule stating no electioneering within 100 feet of a voting precinct on election day would not apply since this issue has nothing to do with what's on the election ballot.

Since 1998 only twice has a Town Meeting action been referendumed by collecting the signatures of 5% of active voters:  The Parking Garage in town center and the Soccer Fields on Potwine Lane.

Both capital items had Town Meeting approval, and the referendum was an attempt to overturn that approval.

Both referendums failed.  In fact, in order to pass at least 18% of registered voters have to vote "yes," otherwise it automatically fails.  And Amherst only turns out over 18% at a local election if there's a (much needed) change in government question on the ballot or a Proposition 2.5 Override Question. 

The really interesting thing happens if Town Meeting fails to muster a quorum on March 19.  Obviously the lone article is then pocket vetoed, but there would be nothing to referendum.

And unlike the scene in "House of Cards," you can't send out police to drag Town Meeting members to the Amherst Regional Middle School to attain a quorum.

The Town Clerk has asked the Town Manager to ask the Town Attorney for guidance, since there's nothing in state law at the moment to address this quirk.  In other words, how long does the Moderator wait before he announces there's no quorum, and hence no meeting?

Perhaps the safest route would be for Town Meeting to approve the article (only requires a simple majority), thereby avoiding a $12,000 Special Town Election, thus sending it on to the State Legislature where it will be Dead On Arrival. 

Fight The Power

UMass is -- by far -- the town's largest employer

I received the following press release last night from UMass Grad Student Matthew Cunningham-Cook regarding the Only In Amherst minimum wage hike to $15/hour warrant article Town Meeting will vote on March 19 (if they get a quorum).

According to Mr. Cunningham-Cook the bylaw, unlike most town ordinances, is a "home rule petition" that further requires State Legislature approval so it would then apply to the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, the #1 employer in town.

Mr Cunningham-Cook is a contestant for Town Meeting but since the local town election is a week after the Special Town Meeting, he will not be able to support it on the floor of Town Meeting. 

It will be interesting to see if he can find a single business owner in town who would agree that student workers with "more money in their pockets" would translate into more business.  As it would take a tremendous boost in business to offset the steep increase in overhead brought on by the new increase in the cost of labor.

For most small businesses, the #1 overhead cost is labor.

#####

AMHERST, MA-- The Student Labor Action Project at the University of Massachusetts - Amherst is launching a multifaceted campaign to end poverty through higher wages.

Amherst's poverty rate is 20.2%: overwhelmingly composed of students, as only 7.2% of families in Amherst are below the poverty line. At the same time, UMass is a huge employer, with nearly all of the university's 21,000 undergraduate students working on campus in one capacity or another.

Almost all work for less than $10/hour-- nowhere near enough to afford the cost of living in Amherst, where rents for a room frequently exceed $800/month.

Nationwide, fast food workers have gone on strike for a minimum wage of $15/hour. Sea-Tac, Washington just passed a ballot initiative mandating a minimum wage of $15/hour, and activists in Seattle are organizing to put an initiative on the 2014 ballot there as well.

SLAP is planning to replicate these successes here in Amherst, where the poverty rate has reached crisis levels, all while bloated administrative salaries extract funds out of the pockets of student workers and contribute significantly to the gentrification of the Pioneer Valley. (Men's basketball coach Derek Kellogg tops the list at $719,664. All told, 224 UMass employees make more than $200,000 per year.)

Our campaign has begun by collecting the requisite signatures to call a Special Town Meeting for a home rule petition to the legislature which would grant the Town of Amherst the power to implement a minimum wage of $15 per hour.

We are also launching an aggressive pressure campaign to make UMass may pay the $15 an hour minimum wage in the event that that the home rule petition fails to pass the legislature.

We are calling for inclusive language including the entire Town of Amherst because 1) small businesses in the Town will gain a massive source of new revenue were UMass' undergraduate student workers to have 50% more money in their pocket, and 2) we believe all employers should be held to the same standard of providing a living wage, which only $15/hour can achieve.

Given that UMass has 21,000 undergraduates with Amherst's population at 37,000, the overwhelming majority of low-wage employees are employed by UMass.

The Special Town Meeting has been called by the Select Board for March 19 at 7 PM for the Middle School Auditorium. We encourage all supporters to attend.

Amherst is a microcosm of the global trend of increasing wealth inequality, which the United Nations Development Program recently said "can undermine the very foundations of development and social and domestic peace."

UMass SLAP is a joint project of Jobs with Justice and the United States Student Association. Most of us work low-wage jobs on the UMass campus. This campaign is also supported by the Amherst Area Workers Rights Committee.

Death and Taxes

The Zombie tax increase that refuses to die returns to Town Meeting this spring courtesy of a citizens petition signed by ten registered voters. 

Amherst first passed the Community Preservation Act, a sort of sneaky way around Prop 2 1/2, in 2001 at  the 1% level, then increased it to 1.5% in 2006, but failed to double that to 3% in 2008.

Now it's back for another go at 3% -- the highest allowed by state law.

CPA money, plus a 28% match with state money, can only be used for affordable housing, open space and historical preservation.  Each of the three categories must be allotted at least 10% annually and the other 70% can then go back to any one of the three categories, or for recreation.

This year about $500,000 will be raised between local taxpayers and the 28% state matching funds.

The tax is unfair to business because homeowners get an exemption of the first $100,000 in valuation but commercial property owners do not.  And Amherst also recently passed a Business Improvement District in the downtown that also increased the property taxes paid by commercial property owners.

Can you imagine if the $15/hour minimum wage bylaw and the extra 1.5% CPA property tax surcharge are both enacted by Town Meeting?  Amherst town center will become a ghost town.

Rental Registration Sabotage

The new Rental Registration Bylaw, overwhelmingly passed by Amherst Town Meeting last spring with a start date of January 1st, would come to a screeching halt if this "citizens petition" article is passed by Town Meeting this coming spring.

"Death by delay" is a tactic commonly used by NIMBYs and other parties with vested interests -- and there's no interest like self interest. 

Of course this article, even though it only took ten signatures to make the Annual Warrant, would still require a majority of Town Meeting support to pass.

And since the original article passed resoundingly on a voice vote (so no standing count was needed), what sounded to me like two-thirds, it's hard to imagine so many would now backtrack to support this obstructionism.