The View From Prospect Hill for the week of June 28

   The great fluff fiasco of 2006 brings to mind another recent political dust-up of this year ‚Äì the great stickball saga.
    In February, Rebekah Gewirtz stirred up controversy when she proposed that a sign reading ”NO STICK BALL PLAYING AGAINST HOUSE OR FENCE‚Äù be hung in the yard of the Benjamin Brown Elementary School. Gewirtz had received a call from a constituent complaining of home run balls banging against her vinyl siding and rattling the house.

    And, thus, with one simple resolution, Gewirtz set off a month-long debate on the subject of stickball, a timeless pastime for urban youth. Ward 5 Alderman Sean O‚ÄôDonovan, in particular, lobbied for the simple, stripped-down sport to continue in Somerville after a constituent contacted him.
   Now, four months later, state Sen. Jarrett T. Barrios has given the scandal sheets another silly subject to scrutinize.
   Barrios initially proposed an amendment specifically banning fluff from school lunches in the Commonwealth. After receiving attention from major media outlets as far away as Seattle and criticism from colleagues, Barrios has reportedly abandoned his crusade against fluff in the lunch room.
   Why do these pols make it so easy for us to criticize them? Why do they focus on relatively meaningless issues when this city (and state) is quickly losing its population and  reputation as a leading community?
   Simple. They listen.
   Gewirtz and O‚ÄôDonovan were listening to constituents and Barrios was listening to his son tell him a food made up of 50% sugar was being served as a main course in the school cafeteria.
The pols took some heat but the issues they touted were important to at least one of their constituents, thus, O’Donovan, Gewirtz and Barrios advocated for them.
And you can’t beat that with a stickball bat.