They're horses and it's still BS
 

I am blown away and don't know what to say, except this is BS.
New bridge over Route 24 in Randolph is for horses only - The Boston Globe

If they seriously think they are only going to let horses use that bridge, they are as clueless as they are stupid.
I would be the first to spread the word amongst mountain bike trail blazers that there's a new trail to be blazed. I would love to see them TRY and stop them!

BRIDGEGATE

$4.6 million bridge being built by the state for horses

THIS smells very much like a bridge over Rt1 in foxboro........... It sounds like it's benefiting two riding stables more than anything else.

lotta money in equestrian crap.....

they should have spent the money on a new fishing peir

Does Deval ride a horse?

Umm, I think the economic return on Foxboro is significant. This, nossomuch. Sometimes you spend to make. Some just spend.

This money was already in the budget. Also, this is a situation where there had been a bridge which was in disrepair. They are replacing it, not just deciding to spend taxpayer $ on a whole new bridge. Think about how much public money is spent on equestrian activities. It's not even a fraction of what is spent on fishing, and I bet most of you think there isn't enough spent on fishing.

huh? Economic return to where? Bob Kraft's pocket?

$4.6 million for that bridge seems outrageous, they couldn't do it for less? I don't think the way the economy is going things like this should happen, whether it was in the budget or not. The thing I hate about budgets is they allot money and it has to be spent. If they don't spend what they are given then they aren't given as much the next year thus they always use their budget in order to receive more the next year. The thing that gets me is it doesn't seem to matter whether or not the spending is wise or necessary.
I hate the way a state agency will put in for a 10 percent increase and then only get a 5percent increase and the papers report that their budget got slashed because they didn't get the 10 percent they requested:confused:

2 words

PREVAILING WAGE

This is the single STUPIDEST law ever signed onto the books in Ma.

Soulds like a campaign kick back to me !:uhuh:

We pay for it !!! and still they steal from the us. Equestrian activities....are you nuts?

I got a better idea to make the state some money.

Build a GLUE FACTORY

You sound like someone who doesn't own horses.

This thread is a good test for how many people actually read the article.

-spence

It looks like a good bridge. Something to be proud of

A commenter in the Fox "report" said it best: "Wow, you people are easy to manipulate. All the reporter has to do is call it a "Bridge for Horses" and all the rest of the facts go straight out the window"

I did....I'm putting a deer stand off it:)

How about we fix the friggin pot hole off 140 onto rt 95 north.... :fury:

Like 99.98% of us tax payers

Buckman, you'd be surprised at how much horse owners contribute in taxes, and there is very little public money spent on anything related to horses. Much more is spent on things that cater to other "hobbies" that don't contribute to taxes. Skateboarding is done by a very small part of the population, yet communities spend tax dollars on skate parks. How about your bike path in Mansfield? What percentage of the population uses that? Your head would explode if you saw all the different ways in which your tax dollars were spent.

The bike path in Mansfield is used by hundreds everyday. The skateboard park, like most, are built with donated money. Feel free to post up the surprising numbers of what horse owners pay in horse related taxes. Sportsman pay huge amounts, as you know.

Why don't you just admit that you don't like horses? I'm assuming that you have no idea how many people ride in the area that the bridge was replaced. It's probably a lot more than you would expect.

So, your estimate that hundreds use the bike path every day makes it a worthwhile tax funded project? Does that estimate include all the people using the path during the crappy weather and in the winter? I'd guess that the amount of use versus the number of people paying for it is probably less than you think.

As for taxes, stables pay high taxes because they're taxed at the business rate, not residential. Residential horse owners are taxed at the residential rate, but in order to keep horses on your property, you must own a minimum amount of land. The more land you own, the more taxes you pay.

Buckman's position is an example of "it doesn't benefit me so I think it's a waste." I think this is a fine opinion to have but instead of making up frivolous numbers and 'facts', just state that you disagree.

Personally, I support the project. It's a project that kept people employed, preserves access for anyone in the state to all areas of the Blue Hills and allows more oversized trucks to use that section of Rt 24.

Let's not forget that the local stables are commercial enterprises that pay taxes. Also, keeping horses is not cheap. Between vet appointments every 6-12 months, having the shoes replaced every 3-6 months, feed and all the other expenses, they generate tax dollars just like any other business. They also have employees (more tax money) and typically pay for services (vet/shoeing) from local providers and as such, keep that money in the community.

For the record, I've never been around horses, but my mother worked on a farm that bred and boarded them when she was a kid.

Oh....your Mom worked with horses.....I can't compete with that.

I love horses.

Alot of horses are kept on land that pays little to no taxes.

This horse walks into a bar. The bartender says, "hey buddy, why the long face?"


still one of the best jokes ever.

I like hores, too.

I didn't know this was a competition. I thought it was you making up facts without any real information.

I'm sure there are people who complain when the state uses tax money to maintain parking areas that are used primarily by fishermen or hunters. How is this any different?