sell your ride
post your service
sell your stuff
post your class
browse all jobs
post a job
homes for sale
for sale by owner
post your listing
Throw them in jail. That's the answer. That has done so well in the past. Society has nothing to do with accepting how our culture views alcohol and how each new person born into this world is polluting their minds in that.
This guy's opinion is like putting a bandaid on a guy whose had his legs blown off. Duh... dis'ell fix it.
Sad to see 7Days using the phrase "More Sour Grapes"(letters-to-the-editor-5-27-15).
Big Heavy World Director James Lockridge is a huge asset to budding musicians throughout all Vermont.
BHW offers recording studio space for recording albums to bands/musicians. BHW Lends a van for bands to move equipment to and from a performance. BHW even has a radio station "The Radiator", where anyone can sign up and host a real show. BHW is truly Big and with a Heavy effect- heavy in a nurturing, healthy, real way.
Mr. Lockridge has proved his dedication and passion for the Arts year after year. I am startled to see 7Days suggest that his public call for a conversation about re-assessing the administrative decision process of Our City of Burlington Arts Department: a “Sour Grape”. I believe in the right to participate in a critical dialogue about how to improve on the shortfalls of Our public resources; to me this is a "Fresh Grape", and yum! a tart one!
There is much more than a personal bickering match between two respected Arts administrators going on in town here. There is a constructive community conversation going on, a community vision of how to support Art in the City, and is moving this conversation and strategies along in new nurturing ways.
A historical context of our local and regional arts has been provided in these recent articles and dialogues. Let’s share the new ideas for improving the arts organizing and support structures throughout the City and Vermont. Truly, Ms. Kraft and Mr. Lockridge are local stars. Please help widen and deepen the field of vision. The sky is bright. Thank you 7Days for taking on hard topics, engaging your readership into lively involvements. ~ ibnar Avilix, artist along Pine, Burlington,VT.
So now the reviewers can't review? They need to sit around the campfire and sing Kumbyia? I have money to spend, a little, a lot....i read a review- IT IS UP TO ME HOW I TAKE THAT PERSON'S OPINION! If it's a movie and Rick Kisonak hates it - I GO- cause I know he is the polor opposite of what I like. BUT THAT IS WHAT A REVIEW IS FOR......its not to placate a hi=omtown business simply for that fact. we all want good reviews- but you take the good with the bad- AND ALL with a grain of salt.
Well stated, Lillie Bleau!
Michael Colby [Unpopular Position, 3/4/15] nailed it. Thank you Michael, and James.
Big show in state gov that now they are serious about cleaning up the lake. Part of the problem is that cites and towns can not regulate pesticide use, and state regulations have not been updated in 20 years. Proposed revisions are reviewed by the industry BEFORE they are put out for public comment.
I live in an area where every chemical put on property washes directly into Lake Champlain. Wherever we live, chemicals on our farm fields, lawns, gardens, and driveways wash into a watershed. State is lagging in regulation, and they are too cozy with the regulated industry and business interests.
Jackie Weinstock, I'm a manly, man and I don't drink girly, girl drinks. I also think there are bigger things in life to be upset about. So put down that drink of yours with the umbrella in it, throw back a shot of Jack and save the world.
LAY OF THE FREE PRESS? are you kidding me- that paper is a pile of wasted ink- seriously- they raise the price on that piece of crap? nobody reads it- how can you it is such a jumbled mess....and although Brett Hallenbeck's reviews were dreadful- not to have the arts at all? sERIOUSLY- CIRCULATION OF 25,000? aND SELLING OFF AS MUCH PROPERTY AS THEY CAN? downhill all the way .
Mr Williamson should really stop spreading lies and misinformation.
But then again, Mr Williamson was instrumental in the Chicago Handgun Ban in the 80's.
We know how many innocent people have been killed in Illinois since the 80s when the law-abiding citizens were disarmed.
We don't want that happening here!
Where do Chicago guns come from? Illinois.
See page 7 of the ATF report.
More Illinois guns come from Florida and Texas than Vermont, we don't even rate in the top 15!
Sad that people move to Vermont to change our peaceful way of life and create the same problems they left behind in the state they moved out of.
That's just wrong.
Mr Williamson has done it again. He has been going around Vermont telling this story as well as other rhetoric for as log as he has lived here. He moved here just a few years ago from Chicago where he was instrumental in putting the anti gun laws in place there. Since then that city has become the murder capitol of the U.S. and now he is trying to do it here. Mr Williamson is not just a volunteer for gunsense he is also a board member of the New England Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence. This is a division of Brady the most anti gun organization in the nation where he makes a really good living. There are many reports by federal and state agencies showing that Vermont is the safest state in the nation as far as firearms are concerned.
Mr Willamson I have asked this before and I am now asking again. WILL YOU DEBATE ME ON THIS MATTER.
Gun Owners of Vermont
Say it isn't so!
Do I have to take you to school again like I did for the CAP Bill 5 years ago?
Where are you getting your info? Using % to fudge the numbers AGAIN?
Here is some light reading
The Boston Globe reported on April 24, that Massachusetts is the source of 46 percent
of the handguns in Boston that were traced back to the gun's state of origin. In spite of
the extremely restrictive Massachusetts gun control laws.
Mr. Williamson's statements are untrue. As others have stated, a recent report by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives showed that Vermont is NOT a major source of illegal guns in other states.
Mr. Williamson of Gun Sense spreading fear, not facts. Read the BATF report.
Appparently Mr. Williamson missed the BATF report that shows that Vermont is not a major source of illegal guns in New England. Either that or, more likely, he chooses to ignore it.
Strange that some bicyclists that bemoan their treatment by careless motorists can be insensitive to the effect they have on other users who share our recreational paths. It is perhaps unfortunate that our recreational paths are called bike paths. They were clearly intended for and are used for multiple activities--walking, running, rollerblading and biking. Considering the paths are used by people of all ages and that fast approaching bicycles are actually very hard to "sense" approaching, I think a verbal warning or bell is sensible for courtesy and safety. It is great to see that Local Motion encourages the use of voice or bell warnings and that so many cyclists do indeed give warning--on the waterfront path at least. Walker and Cyclists
Seth Steinzor and Sean Moran: There is a reason it is called the BIKE path, not a sidewalk or pedestrian path. As a cyclist, skateboarder and pedestrian, I never have issues with someone passing on the left without warning. The bike paths are quite wide, and as long as one walks to the far right, there should not be a problem. The notion of being in danger of being 'smashed' by 'reaching your arm out at that moment' or 'stepping to the side' or 'stumbling' is ridiculous - why would you reach your arm out on a busy bike path? It is not that difficult to use your senses and awareness to see if a cyclist is approaching. Seth, If you are so sick of dodging bikes on the bike path, perhaps it may time to get yourself a bike, or stick to pedestrian paths like sidewalks. Thanks!
So agree with Seth!
I agree with Ms. Becker's comments that a bike path designed as a public recreational space is unsuitable for many individuals seeking to commute via bicycle or ride/train on road bikes at high speed. If you don't mind a longer ride or proceeding at a leisurely pace that allows you to dodge dogs, young kids, inattentive joy-riders, and oncoming bike path traffic, then perhaps the bike path is your thoroughfare of choice. For anyone going on a serious ride or trying to reach a destination on-time, don't ride the bike path. That's not why it's there and you're more likely to put others in danger and just end up more frustrated.
I strongly disagree with Mr. Gallucci's comments that sidewalks are where cyclists belong. I think sidewalks certainly have their place for cyclists some of the time, depending on the user, their bike, and the goals of the ride. As I wrote previously it's not always sensible to throw pedestrians and high-speed cyclists together on the same narrow piece of real estate. They ticket people for riding bikes along the Rt. 127 beltline between Colchester and Burlington, where the shoulders are quite wide but vehicle speeds exceed 50mph. At least the bike path is pretty smooth and somewhat wider than your typical city sidewalk. Mr. Gallucci states that when people are expected to behave in a responsible and civil manner, they most often do. This is meant to lend weight to his argument that pedestrians and cyclists sharing the sidewalk should be easy to accomplish. But can this not also apply to motorists and cyclists sharing the roads? Why would you not expect motorists and cyclist, by and large, to act responsibly and with civility if you expect it of pedestrians and cyclists? I am not an advocate for dedicated bike lanes and carving out a dedicated cyclist infrastructure through the heart of cities and towns. I do support the notion that all users of a common infrastructure should be responsible for supporting it in accordance with their impact and that all those obliged to follow the same rules (of the road) have equal enforcement of those obligations placed on them. More than anything though, I support motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians not behaving like douchebags to each other. That will go the furthest toward proper sharing of common thoroughfares.
@Tony G of "Sidewalk Works": An interesting concept but I interpret it as an attempt to not deal with the issue by shifting the challenge away from car-loving roads.
First, we'll have to rename sideWALKS to something else.
Side(walks) will need a LOT of work; do you want to drive your car down roads equivalent to the quality to many of the side(walks) in the area? Many are incredibly lumpy/bumpy, sometimes with poor transitions at intersections and given the narrowness for existing two-way pedestrian traffic we'll see a culture war there with foot traffic complaining about cyclists whizzing by.
Also, would you want to drive your car down a road where drivers will be pulling their car noses out without looking until they are well into your lane of traffic flow? That is what any cyclist riding along a side(walk) will have to be constantly concerned over.
I'll take bike lanes that don't randomly end, please.
Sean Moran, I could not agree with you more. I too am a cyclist and enjoy riding in the nice weather. All too often I see cyclists, whether I'm driving or riding, violating traffic laws that they are legally obliged to follow. They do things like not signaling their turns, running stop signs, switching between the street and sidewalk as their whims change. This reckless behavior doesn't do anything to endear cyclists to motorists, not to mention raising the risk of an accident. And when it's a car vs bike situation the cyclist will always lose, making such reckless cycling behavior even harder to understand. I'm a "share the road" supporter and, in that vein, I would support cyclists paying a nominal fee to register their bikes every 1 or 2 years. After all, they are utilizing the vast majority of the same infrastructure as cars and trucks. I would also like to see increased enforcement of traffic laws as it pertains to cyclists. If cyclists are subject to the same laws as motorists, then they should be just as likely to be pulled-over as well. Just like with motorists, I think it's a small proportion of cyclists who are either just completely oblivious or completely obnoxious when on the road but that small proportion has a big impact on peoples' perception.
I'm all for maintaining the existing road system but wow, an amazingly selfish and simple-minded, car-loving message from @Nancy Berger above. Which is the more economically friendly solution: roads or bike co-sharing bike lanes? Throw in the overall health benefits from well thought out bike lanes and voila, the answer is apparent.
Throw them in jail. That's the answer. That has done so well in the past. Society has nothing…