Worcester County Freedom Trail

It is extremely unclear whether government hob-nobbing does any good for the business community. Rather than send Gov Patrick and his crew to China, we should send a contingent funded by the manufacturing community to make the outreach. At least Jack Healy from the Worcester MassMEP, the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, and manufacturers like Nypro know what, if anything, they need from the Chinese labor pool.

Instead, we get Gov Patrick spending inordinate amounts of money on over-the-top accomodations. This from the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune:

They traveled more than 15,000 miles to stay at the luxurious Grand Hyatt Beijing and St. Regis Shanghai, and enjoy cocktails, spring rolls and pork dumplings at the private China Club Beijing — where the “privileged few … step back in time to experience what China was like during the Qing Dynasty.”

The self-described delights of the China Club (“fit for an emperor”) and the sights of Beijing and Shanghai were incidental to the stated purpose of the trip to China by a delegation led by Gov. Deval Patrick.

The goal was to promote Bay State clean-energy companies and secure a coveted agreement for direct flights between Beijing and Boston, state officials say.

But the trip last December and Patrick’s plans to travel to Israel and India are raising questions about the value of the international trips that officials call trade missions but critics call junkets.

Trade missions were all but eliminated under Patrick’s predecessor, Gov. Mitt Romney, but are back on the agenda under Patrick.

The China trip cost a total of just over $312,000, with taxpayers paying $236,000 of that.

Expenses included $107,000 in airfare, $58,000 in hotel bills and $53,575 for “hospitality” and receptions, including $14,240 for the China Club shindig.

A $3,050 video crew documented the visit for posterity.

Patrick will travel to Israel in September to talk up the state’s biotech industry and its new $1 billion life sciences initiative. And in 2009, he plans to visit India, bringing high-ranking officials and business executives with him.

The trade missions are part of Patrick’s ambitious agenda to drum up business for Massachusetts.

But the value of these missions is hard to quantify, and state export data suggests they have had little impact on trade in the past.

Critics contend the trips are a waste of taxpayer dollars and are better left to private businesses.

“Most trade occurs between private entities,” said Steven Poftak, research director with the Pioneer Institute, a conservative think tank based in Boston. “These trips typically culminate in government-to-government contacts that don’t necessarily translate into revenue for private industry.”

MassGOP Executive Director Rob Willington said, “Taxpayer funded junkets like these are inexcusable when the people of Massachusetts are being crushed by skyrocketing property taxes and gas prices. Instead of spending $236,000 of our money on lavish trips, Governor Patrick should explain why he hasn’t delivered the property tax relief that Candidate Patrick promised.”

It appears that Senator John Kerry and Governor Deval Patrick would not fare well if their re-elections were held right now. No idea who’s going to run for Governor in the next election, but I do know that Kerry has a credible and serious opponent in Jeff Beatty.

According to a new Suffolk University poll:

If John Kerry were to face a strong candidate in running for re-election this fall, he might be vulnerable, as 51 percent of general election voters polled by 7NEWS/Suffolk University said it’s time to give someone else a chance, while 38 percent said the senator deserves to be reelected.  Nine percent were undecided, and 2 percent refused a response in the poll released today.

“This number signals to us a potential weakness; if the right candidate came along, John Kerry would be vulnerable,” said David Paleologos, director of the Political Research Center at Suffolk University. “The hook is that no credible candidate has challenged Kerry to date, and it all comes down to the choices on the actual ballot.”

Still, Kerry’s weakness could be seen in several key areas: 56 percent of independents — the largest voting block by far in Massachusetts — said it was time to give someone else a chance. This sentiment was shared by  55 percent of voters over age 55; 60 percent of those living in Worcester, Hampden, Hampshire, Berkshire and Franklin counties; and 61 percent of voters in Bristol, Plymouth, Norfolk, Barnstable, Dukes, and Nantucket counties.

An April 2007 7NEWS/Suffolk University poll showed that only 37 percent of Massachusetts likely voters believed Kerry deserved to be reelected, while 56 percent said it was time to give someone else a chance.

Governor Deval Patrick didn’t fare much better: 39 percent of respondents said that Patrick deserved a second term, while 41 percent said it was time to give someone else a chance, and 20 percent were undecided.  Patrick was weaker among men, independents, and the Southeastern Massachusetts/Cape Cod region.

It is a tragedy to see anyone lose their home, whether it’s a house or an apartment. But if you didn’t understand the obligations when you took out a mortgage, the government shouldn’t be bailing you out. Before you signed those papers, you knew whether or not you could afford the house. I’m a home owner so “been there-done that.” Even 20+ years ago, when my husband and I bought our first house, realtors were pushy. They were sure we could afford a house more than twice as expensive as the one we bought. Guess what? We knew we couldn’t. So we bought what we could afford and we paid our mortgage. Some years it was a struggle, other years it was easier.

I’m not sure I’m happy about the government stepping in between banks and homeowners now that foreclosures are on the rise. If banks did, indeed, fool people into a mortgage they couldn’t afford, then the banks will get what they deserve — holding the bag on an empty structure that isn’t going to sell for, well, quite some time now. If the bank was on the up-and-up about the terms of the mortgage and the homeowner got in over his/her head, then now is the time for that family to find something more affordable.

Forcing a judicial review will only add to the already overburdened courts. And I’m not sure what a 6 month reprieve will do for the overburdened consumer. Worcester already has the toughest laws when it comes to removing tenants. For landlords in Worcester, it’s almost impossible to remove a tenant, even when they destroy property, forget to pay the mortgage for months on end, etc.

This from Shaun Sutner in the Worcester Telegram:

With time running out to pass foreclosure legislation on Beacon Hill, city officials are asking state lawmakers to give them local authority to halt sub-prime foreclosures for six months, protect tenants in foreclosed buildings and force judicial review of foreclosures.

The two-year legislative session winds down at the end of next month, meaning that if a foreclosure bill now in committee does not come before legislators for a vote, it will have to wait until January to be considered again.

Meanwhile, the heavy pace of foreclosures and adjustable rate mortgage resets to much higher interest rates is continuing unabated, worrying city housing officials and city councilors who have expressed growing concern about vacant buildings spurring the decline of city neighborhoods.

The city saw 54 foreclosures in May, and they are expected to continue at the rate of about 50 a month into the foreseeable future, said Scott M. Hayman, the city’s housing director.

With more than 1,000 mortgages set to go up this year and another 534 to be reset next year, many renters also are likely to be affected as mortgage holders such as banks try to get out of the landlord business, Mr. Hayman said. Many mortgage holders try to get tenants out by offering them cash payments to move, but in many cases renters have a right to remain in the buildings, he said.

“The only one who can really tell them to move is the Housing Court,” Mr. Hayman said.

The City Council last week unanimously approved three home-rule petitions, modeled on similar measures in Boston, which would go further than a bill that has sat in the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee since April. Home rule requests are generally granted as a matter of course by the Legislature.

That measure, sponsored by state Rep. William Lantigua, D-Lawrence, and co-sponsored by Central Massachusetts state Reps. James J. O’Day, D-West Boylston, Jennifer M. Callahan, D-Sutton, and James B. Eldridge, D-Acton, would declare a 180-day moratorium on foreclosures of sub-prime mortgages that reset to dramatically higher rates.

The ordinances the city wants to be able to enforce include not only a moratorium, but also “just cause” evictions, which would prevent financial institutions from emptying properties after foreclosure if tenants are paying their rent on time; and mandating a review of foreclosures by Superior Court or Housing Court.

Such judicial review would allow mortgage payers to argue that they were victimized by deceptive or unfair mortgage practices, and also would allow judges to modify mortgages.