Tag Archives: Massachusetts

Religion & Slaves: 1600’s Atlantic Coast

Leave a reply

Atlantic-America-North-CoastMap of New Netherland, Virginia, and New England by Joan Vinckeboons (1639)

The religions mentioned herein were persecuted or outlawed in 1600’s Europe.

Boston, the “City on the Hill” was founded by Puritans in 1630 to mostly to serve god.  Other religions soon occupied New England, themselves also seeking freedom. The Back Bay was used through the 1640’s for the trade of seafood, slaves, and sugar. This challenged the Puritanical mores and ethics of “a just price for goods” to mitigate the “sway” of trade.

In the 1660’s, backlash from worldly gain forced many of Boston’s wealthy traders and religious dissenters elsewhere. Puritans left Boston earlier, settling New Haven in 1638, a slow-growing planned community. Many Quaker and Jewish merchants moved their fleets to the harbor of Newport, expanding their role in the slave trade and the manufacture of rope and sails.

Amsterdam began as Dutch fur post in 1625 and became a safe haven for the persecuted Jews of Portugal and Spain. In 1664, the British take New Amsterdam and rename it New York. Charleston was settled in 1670 by English Bermudans along secular lines to be a “great port towne.” It would attract a diverse lot of people trading rice, lumber, and African slaves.

The wealthy Quaker, William Penn, was granted land by Charles for debts owed to Penn’s father. He established Pennsylvania in 1682, a distance from Europe and New England as a refuge for Quakers. Considered a “green country town” in it’s early days, by 1800, Philadelphia and it’s suburbs would be the biggest city in North America.

Connecticut: Counties, But No County Government

Leave a reply

Originally published at Global Site Plans

Antique Connecticut Map shows borders of state's counties

Most of New England is made up of counties that predate the Declaration of Independence. However, these counties exist largely as geographical regions, with few reminders of their former county governments besides old courthouses, maps, and online administrative forms. The neighboring state of Rhode Island abandoned their county governance over 100 years earlier than Connecticut. Vermont and Massachusetts maintain a weak county government similar to what Connecticut once had, but theirs, too, is growing weaker.

At its height, Connecticut’s county government was responsible for liquor licenses, and services such as roads, jails, and courts. At the time county level government was abolished in Connecticut, it had little power, and was considered an ineffective “patronage” system of appointed commissioners. Many services that define county governance in other states were delegated to the state or towns.

In 1959, a Democrat-controlled legislature voted to end county government, and serving no other purpose but to manage county jails, the last elected position of county governance, the sheriff, was finally discarded in 2000. It’s a popular opinion that county governance is unnecessary because Connecticut is a small state.

It is often said that “Connecticut is split up into 169 little fiefdoms,” meaning that local governance is the responsibility of the separate 169 cities and towns. Each town provides its own services through taxation. If a small town is unable to operate an expensive service like a high school, it coordinates with surrounding towns for that service to be provided. To keep local tax rates as reasonable as possible, periphery services such as ambulances, animal control and tree maintenance are managed by multiple towns. This coordination is facilitated by Planning Regions, or “Regional Councils of Government,” commonly referred to in Connecticut as COGs.

Connecticut map showing OPM Re-designated Planning Regions

In Connecticut, COGs have developed as a way to help towns and municipalities looking for ways to reduce their operating costs. Regionalism is now a focus of state government and in an effort to perform more efficiently, the number of COGS has been reduced from 15 to 9 within the past few years. Interestingly, this is nearly the same number as counties, with similar geographic boundaries. In lieu of cost pinches, decreased town-level civic participation, and other considerations, I often wonder if regionalism could further be applied to school boards. In many states, school boards are the dominion of county government.

Occasionally, proposals to re-enact county government come forward, and given the fact that the COGs perform many of the functions of county governments elsewhere–and receive more responsibility every year–it might be worthwhile to ponder their need in Connecticut and what they should look like.

What does county government look like where you live? Does your county government have a large decision making role?

Credits: Images and Data linked to sources.

Boston’s Sewage System

Leave a reply

1.jpg
Like many contemporary industrial cities, Boston has had sewers for hundreds of years.  These early sewers, like those located in London, were privately owned and originally designed for draining water from cellars. There were conflicts over who owned these sewers and in 1709, the Massachusetts General Court stepped in and passed an act regulating their construction, as well as fees for their use.  As these sewers were designed for water drainage, no waste was allowed into the burgeoning sewer “system.”  Eventually, a more efficient waste system was needed for the growing city, and in 1833, these old sewers were pressed into service to serve that need. Problems would quickly arise because of stagnated sanitary waste, and it was quickly thought that adding rainwater from roofs would help to “flush” the sewers.  It was ineffective, and Boston would face the same waste disposal issue facing other growing industrial cities.  Cholera, typhoid and dysentery began to increase, and over time, it determined that an inadequate sewer system was to blame.  By 1875, a study would be conducted to find a remedy to this problem, and this would lead to the construction of the Boston Main Drainage System (BMDS).[1]

The BMDS was constructed from 1877 to 1884 to collect waste from local sewers and carry it, as well as runoff rainwater, through the city to pumping stations.  The waste and rainwater would travel a portion of the 25 mile system to the pumping stations, eventually reaching an offshore disposal point.  As Boston continued to grow, the sewer projects were expanded in size and scope. However, there were still areas of the city that were outside the service area. To address this need, the Metropolitan Sewerage System was formed in 1889, becoming the first modern sewer system of its kind.[2]  Although Metropolitan Boston’s sewer system was considered “one of the best in the country 100 years ago,” years of poor planning and neglect would nearly ruin it.  Wastewater, still “merely collected and deposited into Boston Harbor,” would pollute the area, causing ruinous damage to the clam and shellfish industries.

Eventually, it was decided to “treat” the waste before sending it out to sea with the high tide.[3] Offshore treatment facilities were built, further expanding the system.    A new outfall tunnel moves waste out of the harbor to a more distant and deeper water location in the Massachusetts Bay.  Diffuser heads now allow for 100 parts seawater to 1 part waste ratio, which serves the immediate needs of the Boston area.  These strategies have solved many of the centuries old questions of adequate waste removal, however for as advanced as they have become, sanitary waste still is still put in the water and sent out with the tide.[4]

1

 

Diffuser Cap:

Initial dilution of the effluent from the new diffusers is about 1 part treated effluent to 100 parts seawater.

Bibliography

Boston Water and Sewer Commission. http://www.bwsc.org/ABOUT_BWSC/systems/sewer/Sewer_history.asp  (13 January 2010).

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. http:/ /www.mwra.com/harbor/graphic/diffusers_linedrawing.gif  (13 January 2010).

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. http://www.mwra.com/harbor/html/outfall_update.htm (13 January 2010).

[1] Boston Water and Sewer Commission. http://www.bwsc.org/ABOUT_BWSC/systems/sewer/Sewer_history.asp  (13 January 2010).

[2] Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. http://www.mwra.com/harbor/html/outfall_update.htm (13 January 2010).

[3] Ibid.

[4] Boston Water and Sewer Commission.