Monday, March 26, 2007

Nonsense in New Hartford

More stories and opinion pieces about New Hartford's proposed bonding appeared in the local press this week -- sure to reach a crescendo in the next couple days before Thursday's vote. People rely on the press when making up their minds what to vote for. However, it becomes a real problem when the reporting is inaccurate.

In today's OD:

"Proposition No. 5 on Thursday's ballot suggests the purchase of 1 Oxford Crossing for $1 million and $500,000 to fund improvements and renovations at the new building and at the current court facility."

The problem is, Proposition No. 5 "suggests" nothing of the sort. It reads:

"Shall the bond resolution dated January 17, 2007, authorizing the issuance of $1,500,000 serial bonds to pay the cost of the acquisition of building located at 1 Oxford Crossing and renovation thereof for use as a police station and to house Codes Enforcement and Zoning, Planner - Planning Board, Assessors and Engineering and authorizing renovations thereof, including site improvement, original furnishings, equipment, machinery, apparatus, appurtenances, and other improvements and expenses incidental thereto and authorizing such specific object or purpose . . . . ."

There is nothing whatsoever about a Court, nor about renovating space at any facility other than at 1 Oxford Crossing. Bait-and-Switch???

More inaccuracy:

"With the population in New Hartford increasing over the years, the police department and court have suffered a space crunch."

The fact is, New Hartford's population has dropped. Some people, and some newspapers apparently, will say anything to get what they want.


Edmund J. Wiatr, Jr. said...

You are 100% correct. The Observer Dispatch reporter's writing continue to be biased towards anything the Town's Republican officials deem worthy - in their minds.

It becomes irresponsible writing by this O.D. Reporter who can be contradicted because of a taping of the meeting whereby Judge Tormey was present and spoke.

Chinki, do you recall that you were out of the meeting room for quite some time?

Anonymous said...

You're correct about the population change: town population has decreased by 2% since 1990. The O-D failed to acknowledge the occurring phenomenon that is plainly evident: commercial sprawl in New Hartford has led to more crime.

Is there a greater burden placed on the town court now as compared to 20 years ago? Certainly.

Is the town being completely upfront and analytical about identifying and addressing their needs? Probably not.

Anonymous said...

I agree that the reporting is very inaccurate. I know people who have been quoted in stories, and they did not say what the OD "interprets" them as saying.

And would someone tell me why an OD reporter would refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of the town board meeting? Odd.

Mrs Mecomber said...

This reporting error is not the result of the OD reporter leaving the meeting for a few minutes. For one, she was in the meeting the entire time that the court facilities was discussed by the judges. And two, the Oxford Rd. Bond Proposition is 100% public knowledge and has been published numerous times, and is therefore readily available.

This is either a misrepresentation through ignorance or intention. I tend to believe it is ignorance, because the hooplah on a new court building with 24-caret facilities was pushed to no end. The presentation was rather muddy, and seemed to blend right in with the Bond Propositions that were being presented.