WKTV ran a "debate" of sorts between Anthony Brindisi and Greg Johnson, the candidates for the 116th Assembly seat that was vacated by RoAnn Destito. Neither appeared particularly engaged or engaging. Mr. Brindisi had his non-specific talking points. Mr. Johnson talked about enhancing Griffiss Airport as our job-maker, but failed to relate this Oneida County-Republican-elite dream to the job of state assemblyman.
What I would have liked to have seen is an articulation of how New York State policies harm our area in ways that have not been been broadcast ad nauseum. Forcing people to pay tolls to use Upstate's Thruway "Main Street" does not attract jobs. Maintaining a campus of decrepit buildings and dumping mental patients on the streets of west Utica, does not attract people to the neighborhood. Sending Upstate-generated "cheap" hydropower to well-heeled Downstate does allow Upstate's rates to be competitive for the types of industries Upstate is cut out for.
I became a bit hopeful when Carl Paladino endorsed Johnson, figuring that Johnson would exhibit Carl's fighting spirit (which, eg., got the Thruway tolls removed from a section near Buffalo). I did not see that last night, however. Now it appears that voters are faced with choosing between a Democrat ideologue and an Oneida-County-Republican (more parochial than a regular Republican) ideologue.
Faced with this choice, logic dictates pulling the lever for Mr. Brindisi.
This is not an endorsement of Mr. Brindisi ... but, like RoAnn, being a member of the majority party in the Assembly would give him an advantage in accomplishing something for this district.
What do you think?
4 comments:
For better or worse, it makes no pragmatic sense to send a Republican to the Democrat controlled Assembly. That would simply reduce our influence as small as it may be.
It would appear that our choices are
Vote for Mr. Brindisi who will vote as directed by Sheldon Silver on any issue of substance and thus have no actual influence.
or
Vote for Mr. Johnson who will vote against Mr. Silver on any issue of substance and thus have no actual influence.
I suppose Mr. Brindisi will get some sort of "leadership" post and thus cost us an extra $20K a year or so.
Did it make any difference that Utica didn't have a rep for the important half of the legislative session? Perhaps we could save all the fuss and expense by leaving the position vacant.
Is there anything good on TV that day?
Anthony will win. He was honest and I thought did a great job. Mr. Johnson, on the other hand, is irrelevant in his thought process concerning the air port. Why put money in a sinking ship. It is also much cheaper to keep functionally mentally ill people out of institutional care. We are already proving that with elderly.What is needed is more low income housing. We also need more faith based groups to come forward in service and make real those 1000 points of light.
Anonymous: It may be "cheaper" to keep "functionally" mentally ill people out of institutional care, but what is the impact to city neighborhoods when they are put onto the streets? A psychiatrist's definition of "functional" may not be what most people would consider "functional" -- particularly when the state concentrates an unusually high population of these people into one neighborhood. The comparison with the elderly is preposterous. The state merely wants to save a buck at the expense of its neighbors in west Utica and should be condemned for doing so.
Utica is #1 in the nation for "affordable housing" so why should Utica need more of it? Where does that idea come from? Sounds like an excuse to line one's pockets with federal grant money.
We don't need more "faith based groups" to do charity. We need an expansion of the private economic sector so that fewer people have to depend on charity, and to enable people to donate more to charity.
Anonymous - You want to turn Utica into a magnet for social problems so you can earn a living catering to them and keep them out of your own suburban neighborhood.
Post a Comment