Worcester Business Journal

28 Worcester Business Journal • May 9, 2016 www.wbjournal.com Join the WBJ's LinkedIn discussion group by scanning the code to the left on your smartphone. To scan the code, you need the NeoReader. Visit get.neoreader.com to download it onto your phone. Want to participate in the conversation? F L A S H P O L L T A L K B A C K EMINENT DOMAIN The Worcester Redevelopment Authority's decision to possibly use eminent domain to enforce its vision for land use over 118 acres in the city has raised the ire of property owners. "I don't think the government has the right, but, the precedent has already been set. Ironically there are two cases I know of, one in Connecticut and one in California, where in the end, after all the lawsuits and the weeping, everything was torn down and leveled, the plans were scrapped and now the land just sits as empty lots. But, of course, that would never happen here in Massachusetts, would it?"" Anonymous WBJ poll commenter WORCESTER BIZ STARTS WalletHub has ranked Worcester as the second-best city in New England to start a business, right after Boston. The Central Massachusetts city ranked 33rd overall – ahead of Denver, Dallas, Miami and Memphis – mostly because of its colleges and access to resources. "Congrats Worcester.... now build that access road to the airport from the Mass Pike and watch the economy boom!" Facebook commenter Jeffrey DeSocio Do you support downtown redevelopment if it includes taking land from owners by eminent domain? Eminent domain should be used when necessary I n April, the Worcester Redevelopment Authority released its downtown revitalization plan, which covers 118 acres of land. As a part of this proposed revitalization, city officials said they will attempt to work with specific property owners to improve their locations but also said land could be taken from property owners by eminent domain if necessary. When asked, WBJ readers said eminent domain is warranted under certain circumstances. COMMENTS: A Massachusetts Senate-backed bill would see the age for purchasing tobacco raised to 21 across the state. It follows age increases that have already been implemented in communities like Boston and is aimed at improving the health of youth and preventing them from smoking. However, business organizations have argued that it will not actually reduce tobacco use, but it will cost the state jobs. When polled, the majority of WBJ readers said the tobacco-purchasing age should remain at 18. Let 18 year olds buy cigarettes Do you think the Massachusetts tobacco-purchasing age should be raised to 21? COMMENTS: Yes. Following a cohesive strategy is the only way to make real progress with redevelopment. 30% Yes. We need to take steps to bring down health costs for us all. 29% No. If you can vote and fight in a war, you should be able to buy tobacco. 54% "Eminent domain traditionally is reserved for crucial public projects, e.g. roads, water supply, schools - where there is no alternative. Ousting owners against their will and turning their property over to others who might pay more handsome taxes is profoundly un-American. Enforcement of existing ordinances would solve many of the problems." 11% "Sometimes progress is painful, but this situation needs to be looked at locally and regionally. The city of Worcester is reinventing itself from an old industrial manufacturing city to a new vibrant college, medical, high-tech, sports minded and arts community." "Eminent domain is helpful for any master planning. It has been a method to fulfill successful community planning models for centuries in Europe." Yes. Some land owners are negligent and should have their property put to better use. 24% No. Who is to say what the best use of a property truly is? 14% "I don't believe anyone should smoke. However, how can you really control this when it is so easy to drive over the border and get cigarettes in other states?" "The government needs to mind its own business. They will all solicit an 18 year old's vote and allow them to fight and die for our freedom, and then tell them they don't have the brains to make their own decisions. Really???" "Less regulation and laws – our government doesn't know what's good for us." No. Taking people's land is overstepping the government's authority. 35% Yes. Teenagers aren't capable of understanding the long-term health and financial risks. No. Legitimate retailers will suffer as teenagers will result to illicit means to buy tobacco. 3%

• Cover