Perhaps this Summer, you’re hoping to make your way out on the water. There are plenty of bodies of water in and around Massachusetts that could make their own case for a title such as the ‘Most Beautiful Lake’ in the state. It’s definitely one of the benefits of living in the Bay State. So, where exactly is this most beautiful lake, and what makes it so special that it gets to hold such a title?

The popular publication ‘Insider’ published the list of the ‘Most Beautiful Lakes in Every State‘. The publication described this particular lake in Massachusetts as, “Largely surrounded by year-round homes and summer cottages, the lake offers swimming as well as a launch for boats.” That description really doesn’t narrow it down for any lake throughout Massachusetts. It turn out that the most beautiful lake in Massachusetts is Lake Mattawa.

The lake is located in Orange, MA, which is in Franklin County. As someone who has lived in the Bay State for a little more than a year now, I wouldn’t have guessed that the town name where the most beautiful lake is would be Orange. The town also happens to be the spot of where the first automobile factory in the U.S. was.

The lake is on 118 acres and has a maximum depth of 43 feet, with an average depth of 17 feet. Lake Mattawa is typically stocked each Spring and Fall with both rainbow and brown trout. The lake also happens to have quite the reputation for producing trophy trout. Not only is the lake used for some boating and fishing, but families also enjoy the beach as well.

The Summer season is about to unofficially kickoff with this upcoming Memorial Day Weekend. Now you have an idea for what to do since the warmer temps are finally here in 2024. That way you can experience the most beautiful lake in Massachusetts.

BOSTON (AP) — A plan to create tuition-free, universal community college for all Massachusetts residents was up for discussion Tuesday as the state Senate launched debate on its proposed $57.9 billion budget for the new fiscal year.

Supporters, including Democratic Senate President Karen Spilka, say the plan dubbed MassEducate is aimed at increasing the state’s workforce while expanding opportunities for students across the state.

The proposal would set aside $75.5 million in new spending to cover tuition and fees, and offer a stipend of up to $1,200 for books, supplies, and other costs to students who make 125% or less of the median income in the state.

The Senate plan included in its Fiscal Year 2025 budget would continue to invest in programs created in the current-year budget, including $18 million in free nursing programs at community colleges and $24 million in free community college for residents over 25.

“We are investing in talent that is right here at home, and opening the workforce floodgates to employers who are starved for graduates, so Massachusetts keeps the competitive edge that we pride ourselves in,” Spilka said in statement when she unveiled the plan earlier this month.

Students would be eligible for the free tuition and fees and the stipend this coming fall semester if the proposal is included in the state’s final budget plan.

That’s far from certain.

The Massachusetts House, which has already approved its version of the state budget, did not include the proposal. Senate leaders will have to negotiate with the Democrat-led House to try to get the plan in the final version of the spending plan they ultimately send to Democratic Gov. Maura Healey.

The 15 community colleges in Massachusetts serve more than 90,000 students, about 70% of of whom attend school part-time, juggling work and family commitments.

Nearly half receive federal Pell grants. Those students, already eligible for a book stipend through state financial aid, would also be eligible for a stipend for books, supplies, and costs of attendance under the Senate plan for a combined $2,400 stipend per year.

Critics warn that the cost of the Senate’s community college plan could be hard to sustain.

“There is nothing as expensive as making something free. The cost will inevitably balloon and the taxpayers will forever be obligated to pay for this irresponsible decision,” said Paul Diego Craney, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance.

The Senate budget debate comes as state officials said the voter-approved “millionaire’s tax” – which imposes a 4% surtax on the portion of an individual’s annual income that exceeds $1 million — has already generated more than $1.8 billion in revenue for the current fiscal year with three months left to go, more than estimates.

The money is intended for transportation and education initiatives.

Massachusetts Teachers Association President Max Page and Vice President Deb McCarthy said in a written statement that the additional tax revenues is a vindication for the coalition of groups, including the MTA, that pushed for the measure.

“These funds are vitally needed so school districts can hire and retain the necessary staff to meet the needs of students and provide public educators, in pre-K through higher ed, with fair wages and modern working conditions, including access to paid family leave,” they said in a statement.

In a ruling against an upscale restaurant chain, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has affirmed its 2022 ruling that the COVID-19 virus does not trigger business interruption insurance because it does not cause “direct physical loss or damage.”

Davio’s restaurant chain sought to recover under its all-risk business policy issued by Strathmore Insurance Co. for businesses losses it suffered due to service restrictions and remediation efforts necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic

Strathmore, a subsidiary of Greater New York Mutual Insurance Co., denied Davio’s claims on the basis that the loss of business income was not “caused by direct physical loss of or damage to property,” as required under the policy. Davio’s filed suit and a Superior Court judge granted Strathmore’s motion to dismiss. The restaurants then appealed from the judgment of dismissal.

Strathmore was the defendant in the precedent-setting 2022 case in which it was sued by a different Boston-area restaurant group, Verveine Corp. The Verveine ruling was the first by a state supreme court on COVID-19-related business interruption claims filed against insurers across the country, the majority of which insurers have won.

Noting the similarities between the Verveine and Davio’s cases, the Supreme Judicial Court said it discerned “no reason to distinguish ” the Davio’s case from the Verveine case two years ago and affirmed that ruling.

Massachusetts: First State Top Court Gives Industry a Win in Covid-19 Claims Case

Davio’s claimed that the virus became physically present at its restaurants and the presence of the virus caused it to take “extraordinary measures,” which included “closing certain operations and services, substantially modifying others, restricting access to many of the properties, enforcing physical distancing, and undertaking extensive active efforts to repair, restore, and remediate the facilities.”

The restaurant firm also maintained that some surfaces and objects retained residual infectious virus even after cleaning, and “no amount of cleaning could prevent aerosolized infectious particles from attaching to surfaces after cleaning.”

However, the restaurants were able to continue operating “at reduced levels” during the COVID-19 pandemic. Davio’s locations include Boston’s Seaport, Foxboro, Lynnfield, Braintree and Chestnut Hill.

The high court faced the same question as it had addressed in Verveine — whether there was any “direct physical loss of or damage to” property — and again concluded that those words from the insurance policy require a physical alteration of the property and the COVID-19 virus did not physically alter or affect any of the insured property.

On the question of what constitutes a physical alteration of property, Verveine again provided the guidance that “property has not experienced physical loss or damage in the first place unless there needs to be active repair or remediation measures to correct the claimed damage or the business must move to a new location.”

Thus, the “evanescent presence of a harmful airborne substance that will quickly dissipate on its own, or surface-level contamination that can be removed by simple cleaning, does not physically alter or affect property.” In contrast, the “saturation, ingraining, or infiltration of a substance into the materials of a building or persistent pollution of a premises requiring active remediation efforts” does constitute a physical alteration.

The court noted that similar distinctions have been noted in COVID-19 insurance cases across the country and courts have reached the same conclusion “even when presented with detailed allegations regarding how the COVID-19 virus affects the air and surfaces around it.”

In Verveine, the Supreme Judicial Court assumed that the virus was physically present in the restaurants but explained that the suspension of business at the restaurants was “not in any way attributable to a direct physical effect on the plaintiffs’ property that can be described as loss or damage. As demonstrated by the restaurants’ continuing ability to provide takeout and other services, there were not physical effects on the property itself.”

Davio’s specifically alleged that “there have been hundreds (if not thousands) of infected guests on-site since the pandemic’s outset.” But the high court found that these allegations do not show that the virus physically altered or affected the insured property in any way. Rather, they show the “evanescent presence of a harmful airborne substance,” and that there was no direct physical loss or damage to property.

Related:

Topics
Massachusetts
COVID-19