redd-this

redd-this t1_je0oud3 wrote

There’s still plenty of parking available for that train. Lot has not filled up once yet (ridership is def popular and increasing, though). And no not creepy at all. They have tons of temp lighting and installing the permanent lighting. It’s wide open and well lit in my opinion. Parking closer to the entrance may be less creepy but the far side of the lot isn’t bad at all.

16

redd-this t1_jaiz8x7 wrote

Not to be a jerk or anything but don’t you think introducing and naming your study as inequitable invites a bias? Seems like in the infant stages of your project you’re setting yourself up for a confirmation bias of the data or at least priming the pump for respondents to view the system as having inequality. While there may ultimately be inequity your study is going to draw scrutiny for how it’s set up.. just my uninvited 2 cent.

19

redd-this t1_jaest4l wrote

Do we really? Wouldn’t a livable wage and a working economy that reflects the local cost of living make a bit more sense? Seriously though, lowering the cost of living here isn’t going to deter transplants.. it would make it so much worse.

−1

redd-this t1_j9ozbx0 wrote

Who would ever want to live in Springfield, Brockton or Lawrence? These poor cities are now going to thrive because more people without disposable income are able to move there? Yea no thanks on that idea. As an aside mass general law chapter 40B mandates municipalities maintain 10% of housing inventory as affordable housing otherwise a developer shall be issued a building permit for such homes. All of these communities are slightly above 10%. May not be the case but this may be the last blitz you see on these types of developments before the municipalities change direction and those markets are flooded with regular market homes. But anyways, the point is no one wants to live in those dumps.

34