Why Brookline is cool again
For several reasons, Megan Stearman and her husband moved to Brookline seven years ago when they were expecting their first child. “It has a walkable business district,” says Stearman, “with great parks and playgrounds and it was affordable for a young family.”
They’re still there today, now with two young children, for those reasons and more. “We’ve since stayed in Brookline because we’ve got great neighbors – some who have lived here their whole lives, and some newbies like us.
“There is a rich diversity of people here and we love that our kids are able to interact with and learn from kids of different backgrounds, languages, and cultures,” says Stearman. “Plus who doesn’t love to be able to walk a few blocks for a Saturday brunch of donuts and tacos?”
Jocelyne and Joe Chahine might agree but they represent another segment of the Brookline population. Some say they have been on a 41-year-long honeymoon in Pittsburgh.
The Lebanese natives honeymooned in Pittsburgh after their wedding in 1974 when a civil war broke out in their home country. The couple sought asylum in Brookline, working with relatives at Pitaland and in the 80s they bought the store, moving it to its current location on Brookline Boulevard.
“We were always in Brookline,” says Donna Tweardy, their daughter and now office manager of Pitaland. Similar to many stores in Brookline, Pitaland is family-run, with siblings working alongside their parents.
It’s that kind of community: family-oriented, tight-knit and traditional and as authentic as they come. But now there’s an infusion of new businesses and energy and especially, young people like the Stearman family as well as singles moving in. The affordable houses in this walkable neighborhood in the South Hills—with its rumbly bricked streets and an enviable location close to downtown Pittsburgh—have attracted the young and young families, giving Brookline one of—if not the—largest population of under 18 in the city, according to some in the neighborhood.
Las Palmas attracts customers from all over Pittsburgh. Photo by Tracy Certo
It’s also a community that is becoming increasingly diverse. “Diversity is part of the richness of the Brookline community. There’s an openness to diversity, and the contribution that comes from diversity. You can see it as you go down Brookline Boulevard,” says Sister Janice Vanderneck of Casa San Jose, a community resource center for Latino immigrants.
For years, Sister Janice was searching for a location for her outreach program until St. Mark’s Lutheran Church on Brookline Boulevard offered its basement. Since then, Casa San Jose has had success partnering with local businesses such as Las Palmas, the hot destination Mexican grocery on Brookline Blvd. with the ever popular taco stand, and Cannon Coffee, a charming and welcoming spot which doubles as a community hub.
“We found a very welcoming place in Brookline,” says Sister Janice who is quick to offer that they welcome volunteers and they are always seeking bilingual Pittsburghers to help with weekly outreach programs.
At Cannon Coffee on Brookline Blvd. Photo by Tracy Certo
The New Brookline
“In the last five years, I’ve seen such a change, so much more of a nicer, community-based place. A lot more people are taking pride in the community. A lot more businesses are opening up and staying,” says Tweardy.
The major change has been the recent and extensive $5.3 million renovation of the long and broad Brookline Boulevard, giving the main street much-needed repairs, including extended sidewalks to accommodate more pedestrian traffic, modern lighting and landscaping, benches, bike racks and more.
It’s a main street many communities would die for.
While it has greatly enhanced the street, businesses suffered some losses while the boulevard was under construction.
During the renovations, business owners and community members alike worked together to keep the local businesses up and running, says Nathan Mallory, owner of Cannon Coffee and president of the Brookline Chamber of Commerce. Stores applied together for grants and instituted successful “shop local” campaigns during the 18-month period when store access was limited or nonexistent. “People came out of the woodwork for support during the construction,” he says.
Since the Boulevard reopened last summer, not only has there been an increase in pedestrian traffic but there has also been an increase in new businesses opening, says Mallory.
With 86 businesses on the Boulevard, which includes everything from Mateo’s, a small BYOB restaurant, to a modern and a beautiful new Carnegie Library, “We’re not trying to be the next Lawrenceville or Regent Square,” he says. “We’re emerging to be something uniquely our own.”
To get a feel for the place, Mallory suggests walking the Boulevard. The best strategy? Park at the top of Brookline Boulevard and walk down to the parklet that houses the iconic cannon so you can closely observe the street life and cluster of shops, houses and amenities. Note the welcome from business owners if you stop by.
Owner Nathan Mallory at Cannon Coffee.
“We’re very close knit,” explains manager of Wyld Chyld Tattoo, Rebekah Miller. “Brookline is different in that the business owners really look out for each other and others who live in our community. We also hold meetings from time to time and plan community events.”
In addition, “It has two private parks and its own community center,” says Tweardy. And Brookline regularly hosts holiday parades and festivals, uniting community members of all ages.
At Mallory’s Cannon Coffee on the Boulevard, it’s not just about a dose of caffeine. The shop is an excellent location to meet locals and become more involved in the community. “Cannon [Coffee] feels a little like home. It’s a springboard to stay engaged and connect with the community,” says Mallory.
The shop features Open Mic Nights, American Sign Language Socials and even vocational rehabilitation training. When Mallory recently applied for a Kiva business loan to expand the kitchen area, it became the fastest funded project to date.
BYOB Mateo’s is a small but popular dinner spot. Tracy Certo photo
“There are a lot of great businesses here,” Mallory says. “Pitaland has great baklava, Antonio’s has awesome pizza, and if you’re in the mood for something sweet, check out the Party Cake Shop. If you need a caffeine fix check out Cannon Coffee, and if you want to unwind with a beer, the Brookline Pub is your go-to place.”
The new, modern Carnegie Library provides a nice contrast on the Boulevard. Tracy Certo photo
The renovated Pitaland has a new café in the store, where shoppers can taste some of the pita freshly baked on site, along with a vast array of imported spices and traditional specialties such as hummus and baba ghannuj. Like Las Palmas, it’s a destination store that attracts customers from all over Pittsburgh.
Day trippers looking for a more structured visit can sign up for the ‘Burgh’s Bits & Bites Tour. The aptly named “Brookline: Pittsburgh’s Undiscovered Gem” was recently added to the company’s portfolio of tours, and it gives visitors a comprehensive taste of the neighborhood.
On Brookline Blvd. Photo by Tracy Certo
People from around the city and state are exploring Brookline for the first time on these trips, says Mallory, and he’s glad they’re visiting. “We want everyone to know what we have. We’ve worked hard, and we have something to brag about.”
See more about Brookline in this video by the Sprout Fund published earlier this week by NEXTpittsburgh.
NEXTpittsburgh staff contributed to this article.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)-
|
| After a decade of an agreement to curb its nuclear program, Iran will need no time at all to produce an atomic bomb, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday. Netanyahu spoke just one day after President Barack Obama made a similar statement in an interview with National Public Radio about the framework deal reached in Switzerland last week between Iran and six world powers, including the US. “Israel shares the view that upon the expiration of the nuclear agreement with Iran [or after the first decade] the latter’s breakout time to achieve nuclear weapons will be zero,” Netanyahu said. “This will be the inevitable result of the automatic lifting of the restrictions [on its nuclear program], which would enable Iran to achieve an industrial-grade production capability,” he said. Since the details of the framework agreement became clear, he has spoken out repeatedly against it and urged the six world powers to continue with the sanctions regime, until a better agreement can be reached with Iran. “The alternative to this bad agreement is not war but a good agreement, which can be achieved. But to do this, we have to stand firm and insist on the terms that will secure the safety of Israel, the region, and the world,” he said in a statement issued while touring the Negev during the Passover holiday. The US State Department and Israel believe Iran now has a breakout time of two to three months, which is the amount of time it would take for it to be ready to produce a nuclear weapon. A fact sheet initially put out by the State Department at the end of last week explaining the terms of the deal stated: “That timeline will be extended to at least one year, for a duration of at least 10 years, under this framework.” However, when the fact sheet referred to a one-year breakout, it meant only the first decade of the framework agreement – which is supposed to last for 25 years. Obama himself told NPR on Tuesday that the breakout time could drop down to zero after 13 to 15 years, due to the easing of some restrictions in the agreement. “What is a more relevant fear would be that in year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero,” Obama said. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf almost immediately tried to walk that comment back. She told reporters in Washington that the words were “a little mixed up” and that Obama was in a hypothetical way “referring to a scenario in which there was no deal.” She herself later linked the one-year breakout time to the first decade of the deal. “We’ve said, we needed to get to a year breakout – up to – at least a year breakout time for at least 10 years,” Harf said, adding that what happens afterward is still under negotiation. Obama himself was pretty clear in the interview that he was referencing changes in the deal that would occur at the latest by the 15th year. He put a positive spin on it, by explaining that the deal bought the region a 15-year insurance policy against a nuclear armed Iran. At that time, he said, the international community would also be in a much better position to combat any effort by Iran to develop nuclear weapons. “And then in years 13 and 14, it is possible that those breakout times would have been much shorter, but at that point we have much better ideas about what it is that their program involves. We have much more insight into their capabilities,” Obama said. A senior US official further clarified on Wednesday that for a 15-year period, Iran would be subject to very strict restrictions. “For instance, it cannot build new enrichment facilities or increase its enriched uranium stockpile,” the official said. “And inspections and transparency measures will continue well beyond 15 years – some for 25 years – with others lasting forever.” But already on Tuesday, Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz warned that the terms of the deal could in fact shorten Iran’s breakout time to less than two or three months, because it would be allowed to continue to do research and development work on advanced centrifuges that would significantly speed up its ability to produce the enriched uranium needed to build an atomic weapon. Netanyahu has warned about this zero breakout time after the first decade of the agreement since last month, when he spoke against the Iran deal before a joint session of Congress. During that congressional address he predicted that, after a decade, the breakout time for Iran to produce a nuclear weapon would be zero. “Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade,” Netanyahu said. “A decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it’s the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It’s the blink of an eye in the lives of our children.” A decade from now, he said, the sanctions against Iran would have been lifted and it would be “free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could produce many, many nuclear bombs.” At that point, he warned, “Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision. “My longtime friend, John Kerry, the secretary of state, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires,” Netanyahu said. “Now I want you to think about that,” he told Congress. “The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons, and this with full international legitimacy.” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3)Dangers to Democracy in the Prosecution of Senator Menendez
When a public figure is indicted on charges of alleged corruption, serious questions arise. Is the prosecution part of a growing and dangerous trend toward criminalizing policy differences? Does it endanger the free speech rights of contributors? Will it constrain the legislative branch from serving as a check and balance on the executive?
These questions are now being raised in the context of the prosecution of New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez, as they previously were in several other ill-advised prosecutions including those of former agriculture secretary Mike Espy, former presidential candidate John Edwards, the late Senator Ted Stevens, former Congressman Tom Delay and former Texas governor Rick Perry.
The reason these questions arise is not because there is no corruption in government. It is because the laws distinguishing between constitutionally protected political activities and illegal payments to office holders are vague and indeterminate. These laws give prosecutors enormous discretion to determine whether to prosecute questionable transactions. And the courts refuse to second guess prosecutorial decisions even in cases where selective prosecution based on improper considerations seems evident.
It is absolutely essential therefore, that prosecutors take responsibility for assuring that every prosecution of a public figure – most especially of public figures who are in disagreements with the executive branch– is based on hard, incontrovertible evidence that conclusively demonstrates that the elected official deliberately, willfully and knowingly crossed the line from constitutionally protected activity to felonious criminality. It is not enough to base prosecutions on the old saw that "where there's smoke there's fire." In cases involving public figures, the smoke may simply be a manifestation of politics as usual—the sort that allows political fundraisers and bundlers to make significant contributions in exchange for what they hope and expect will be access, support and patronage. Those prosecuting Senator Menendez seem not to have applied this rigorous test.
In a wide ranging 68 page indictment, Menendez is accused of accepting gifts—such as airline flights and hotel rooms—as well as PAC contributions from a Florida ophthalmologist, Salomon Melgen, a close personal friend many years. The government contends that, in exchange for these gifts, Senator Menendez met with administration officials in an effort to advance Dr. Melgen's interests in a Medicare billing dispute and a port security contract in the Dominican Republic. He is also accused of helping his friend's "girlfriends" obtain travel visas to the U.S But because of the long friendship between the Senator and Dr. Melgen, the government will have difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Senator's efforts on behalf of his friend were specifically motivated by gifts rather than by an
understandable, if not entirely praiseworthy, desire to help an old friend. Would it be enough if there were mixed motives? Motives are notoriously difficult to establish and a dangerous basis on which to rest a prosecution. I am reminded of the chicken who hoped for a world where his fellow chickens could cross a road without having their motives questioned!
The Supreme Court has recognized that political contributions are an aspect of freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment. In the Citizens United case, the Court said that "influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt. . . ." In other words, just because a donor contributes money and gives gifts does not mean that a politician must studiously ignore the donor's interest—financial or otherwise – in particular policy decisions. It should not be enough for the prosecution to show that a donor's contributions may have given him access to or influence over the Senator. Prosecutors should have to show that the donor and the Senator made an explicit agreement that a contribution was made in exchange for an official act. The prosecution should have to prove that Senator Menendez took actions that benefitted Dr. Melgen not because he thought the action was right, not because it was in keeping with his consistent positions in the past, not even because they were friends. The government should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those actions were taken pursuant to an agreement that they were given in exchange for the contributions. This will not be an easy burden to satisfy.
Until such time that campaigns are publicly funded, candidates will seek financial support from contributors, who contribute because they want to support a candidate who agrees with their goals, priorities or financial interests. Large contributions get the donor or bundler access and consideration that others lack. They sometimes get them ambassadorships or other political plums. This may not be the best system, but it is, in fact, our current lawful, if not commendable, system. Because so many contributions are motivated by the desire for personal gain, a prosecutor has enormous discretion to decide in any particular case whether prosecution is warranted, thus making such cases subject to politics.
The Menendez prosecution also threatens the role of congressional oversight. Our system of checks and balances depends on each branch being free to check the others. Senator Menendez has challenged the Administration's policy toward Cuba, expressed concerns over a nuclear deal being brokered with Iran, questioned why an agency would condone throwing good medicine in the garbage, and asked whether a foreign government or the private sector is better at port security. Senators should not have to fear that the Executive Branch will unleash prosecutors to go after politicians who are critical of the administration. Equally dangerous are prosecutors who seek to curry favor with the administration by prosecuting its enemies without even being told to do so.
To protect against unchecked power by the executive, the framers included the "speech or debate" clause in our Constitution, protecting Members of Congress from being prosecuted for exercising their legislative power, including oversight. These protections are fundamental to our system of checks and balances. A questionable prosecution against a disfavored legislator, based on campaign contributions from an old friend followed by actions that might benefit that friend, threatens this balance of power.
That is why all Americans, regardless of party affiliation, must be concerned about the criminalization of policy differences and the excessive discretion vested in those who prosecute elected officials.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
No comments:
Post a Comment