Chris Lisinski of the State House News Service filed this report last week, which I thought was of interest: “House Democrats beat back a push July 7 to restore an 8-year term limit for the speakership. The House voted 35-125 to shoot down an amendment from Acton Democrat Rep. Tami Gouveia to the chamber’s late-arriving rules package for the 2021-2022 lawmaking session. Opponents criticized the proposed limit, which had been implemented and then repealed multiple times over the past three-plus decades, as an unnecessary ‘change for the sake of change’ that does not resonate as a major issue with voters. They said the House speaker needs to earn the votes of colleagues at the start of each session, when they elect their top leader. Its backers – including Gouveia, who is running for lieutenant governor in 2022 – argued that they were not taking aim personally at Speaker Ronald Mariano or his predecessor, Speaker Robert DeLeo, but instead wanted to guarantee regular transfers of power and greater opportunity for women or people of color to lead the chamber. The Senate president is subject to an 8-year term limit under that chamber’s existing rules.”

If we have a term limit for the Senate President, why not have one for the Speaker? It only makes sense.

I’m all in favor of terms limits for almost every political post. The reason is, I really believe elected office is a matter of public service, not necessarily simply a job.

I also believe there have been demonstrated issues with the abuse of power for this particular position. Do the names Thomas Finneran, Sal Di Masi and Charles Flaherty ring a bell? How about three consecutive speakers who ran afoul of the law?  

I’m not saying the current speaker should be tarred with the same brush in terms of talking about corruption. All I’m saying is if there are terms limits in the Senate, there should be terms limits in the House for leadership.

Term limits could be a deterrent for future problems in the General Court.

I once had a discussion with a friend of mine. He believes that it should not up to statue to control the length of service, but be up to the voters. If the voters in a district wish to keep a person in office than that is all that should be required.

I get it and appreciate that point of view. The problem is there are many solid hard-working elected officials, but there are those who take advantage of the system.

Term limits is simply one way to say this is not a career. It a way to encourage new people to participate in our democracy.

You can’t go home again

I recently had a bit of a shock as I drove up to Amherst through Hadley for the first time in a year-plus. Hadley has long been a retail center, but I wasn’t prepared for all of the additional chain stores that have opened up.

Wow. I believe they have more national chains represented than Northampton and maybe even Springfield.

As a kid, our family lived in Hadley in 1963-1965 in a rented house in Hockanum, which produced very happy memories. Years later, I went to UMass, commuting every day from our home in Granby and I drove through Hadley often.

The shift from early 1960s to the mid-1970s was noticeable. Hadley had the Mountain Farms Mall in the early 70s, providing a level of retail to that town and Amherst they had not seen before. That mall had been built on agricultural land.

I have to admit I loved that mall, as it had an AMC theater complex that became a home away from home.

In the late 1970s the Hampshire Mall came about, constructed on a nearby piece of farmland. I was working at the Daily Hampshire Gazette at the time and I recall a story that quoted one resident who favorably compared the new mall to Disney World.

This transformation I’ve witnessed over my life amazes me. Hadley was a quiet farming community – vegetables, including its famed asparagus, and dairies – but it has been developed into a retail center with a location that is clearly attractive to national companies.  

I would never have thought of it when I was a kid or a college student.