Mr. Hanna and Mr. Arcuri squared off in their debate for the 24th District congressional seat at MVCC last evening . . . What a difference a lack of five superfluous candidates makes! It was much more informative than that circus Monday night at Hofstra ... although the adage that "There is no such thing as a stupid question" was disproven when someone asked "We have a Department of War, would you support creation of a Department of Peace?"
Everyone has their own opinion of who "won" or "lost." To me the debate was a "draw" -- both men were prepared -- both delivered their points well. Both seemed to agree on many issues. Both appeared capable. Where they differ is on philosophy.
The decision will come down to what the voters believe should be the size of the role of Federal Government in their lives.
If you believe in more Federal involvement, Mr. Arcuri is your man. If you believe in less government involvement and more reliance on the private sector to satisfy needs, Mr. Hanna is your man.
It's that simple.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
The Dud Debate . . .
Last night voters were subjected to the most agonizing hour-and-a-half of this election season's programming . . . perhaps of any election season. That was the NY Gubernatorial "Debate" . . . and the term "debate" is used very loosely.
Paladino supporters certainly must be disappointed in their candidate's lack of performance last evening. Per YNN:
OK, so we know that in the speaking department, Cuomo is hands down the better speaker of the two. (To be honest, I thought Madam Davis won the debate over all, but she is not a viable candidate and some of her positions are just nonsense). However, a good speaker does not automatically point to who would be a good governor. . . .
And we, the voting audience, did not get a chance to really see what the principal two candidates stand for . . . how they think. . . because of the absolutely ridiculous spectacle of having seven candidates on the stage at once.
I felt like I was watching a 3 ring circus. The whole "debate" was a farce. It should have been Paladino vs Cuomo. Then we would have seen the real issues developed. There was simply no chance for that to be done under the format that was chosen.
As lousy a speaker as Paladino is, I think he still would go for a one-on-one debate with Cuomo -- and Cuomo would refuse.
Paladino supporters certainly must be disappointed in their candidate's lack of performance last evening. Per YNN:
It was almost as if Carl Paladino, the fiery Republican, turned the fire extinguisher on himself. He also left the stage mid-debate for a bathroom break, stumbled over words and at times, confused Medicaid and Medicare.As for his main challenger, Andrew Cuomo:
The Democrat kept stately and bland, offering few specific commitments, animated most when speaking about ethics.Paladino clearly is not an orator and appeared uncomfortable. His wild hand gesturing was distracting. Cuomo, on the other hand, was glib but non-substantive.
OK, so we know that in the speaking department, Cuomo is hands down the better speaker of the two. (To be honest, I thought Madam Davis won the debate over all, but she is not a viable candidate and some of her positions are just nonsense). However, a good speaker does not automatically point to who would be a good governor. . . .
And we, the voting audience, did not get a chance to really see what the principal two candidates stand for . . . how they think. . . because of the absolutely ridiculous spectacle of having seven candidates on the stage at once.
I felt like I was watching a 3 ring circus. The whole "debate" was a farce. It should have been Paladino vs Cuomo. Then we would have seen the real issues developed. There was simply no chance for that to be done under the format that was chosen.
As lousy a speaker as Paladino is, I think he still would go for a one-on-one debate with Cuomo -- and Cuomo would refuse.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
We've Been Waiting for You . . .
Autumn Color arrives in Utica . . .
Valley View Golf Club, Utica, October 12, 2010.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
He Was Only Being Honest . . .
Did Carl Paladino blow it? The sense of most of the talking heads on O'Reilly last night was that he unnecessarily alienated a group of people when he came out against gay marriage.
Per a WCBS report . . .
The gubernatorial candidates clearly are on opposite sides in what people on Fox would call "The Culture Wars." Cuomo and a representative from GLAAD criticized Paladino's remarks . . .
Actually it is Mr. Cuomo and Ms. Barrios who are pitting groups against each other. Mr. Paladino never said it is OK to discriminate, never said it is OK to commit violent acts, and never said it is OK for gay kids to kill themselves. All he said is that he did not believe that gay marriage was a "valid" option. He was only being honest about his beliefs.
Given the fact that 6,000 years of human tradition is on Mr. Paladino's side, it is presumptuous for Mr. Cuomo, Ms. Barrios, and a number of legislating judges across the nation to say otherwise.
The discussion of "gay marriage" gets off track when it focuses on "rights." Marriage was never intended for the purpose of conferring "rights" on individuals. Rather, marriage was instituted to perpetuate society by injecting stability into a union because of its potential for children. Since two people of the same sex have no potential to procreate, it makes no sense to apply the concept of "marriage" to them... i.e. as Mr. Paladino says, it is not a "valid" option.
It's refreshing to see a candidate being himself -- warts and all -- rather than someone who is carefully managed to always say the right things to the right people. This will be an interesting election.
Per a WCBS report . . .
Paladino tried to give out lollipops at Monday’s Columbus Day parade, but he was mobbed by reporters after he told a Brooklyn Hassidic group he didn’t want kids “brainwashed” into thinking gay marriage is a “valid” option. . . .Meanwhile Andrew Cuomo was marching in a "gay pride" parade with his two daughters (it was National Coming Out Day).
“I unequivocally support all gay rights, all gay rights except the right to be married. I’m a Catholic and I believe in Catholic values,” Paladino said.
“Have you ever been to one? The men wear little Speedos and they grind on each other. Would you take your children there? I don’t think so,” Paladino said.Carl has a point there. Most people would feel it inappropriate to expose their children to such behavior. . . .
The gubernatorial candidates clearly are on opposite sides in what people on Fox would call "The Culture Wars." Cuomo and a representative from GLAAD criticized Paladino's remarks . . .
“They were reckless in light of all the recent violence that we’ve had. They were divisive. They were the worst cynical politics trying to pit people against one another, trying to pit groups against one another,” Cuomo said. “It is repugnant to the content of what New York is.” . . .
“We’re sending a message to young people that it’s okay to discriminate, it’s okay to commit violent acts, that it’s okay for gay kids to kill themselves and that’s not okay, particularly in a place in a country that supposedly values all of us,” said Jarrett Barrios of The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
Actually it is Mr. Cuomo and Ms. Barrios who are pitting groups against each other. Mr. Paladino never said it is OK to discriminate, never said it is OK to commit violent acts, and never said it is OK for gay kids to kill themselves. All he said is that he did not believe that gay marriage was a "valid" option. He was only being honest about his beliefs.
Given the fact that 6,000 years of human tradition is on Mr. Paladino's side, it is presumptuous for Mr. Cuomo, Ms. Barrios, and a number of legislating judges across the nation to say otherwise.
The discussion of "gay marriage" gets off track when it focuses on "rights." Marriage was never intended for the purpose of conferring "rights" on individuals. Rather, marriage was instituted to perpetuate society by injecting stability into a union because of its potential for children. Since two people of the same sex have no potential to procreate, it makes no sense to apply the concept of "marriage" to them... i.e. as Mr. Paladino says, it is not a "valid" option.
It's refreshing to see a candidate being himself -- warts and all -- rather than someone who is carefully managed to always say the right things to the right people. This will be an interesting election.
Chinese Garlic . . .
A few weeks ago I went through my annual ritual of harvesting basil from my garden to make a year's worth of pesto sauce (basil + olive oil + garlic which I blend and freeze into cubes for later use). This year my garlic did not do well, so I went to the local grocer for the garlic.
Surprisingly, in spite of all the garlic that is grown locally, the only garlic I could find came from . . . China!
Not having the time to shop the farm stands, I reluctantly purchased the Chinese garlic even though the possibility of contamination from poorly managed Chinese landfills crossed my mind. Admittedly, it was good smelling garlic, and the price was right . . . but it got me thinking about the increasing prevalence of foreign-grown produce on local shelves . . . the inconvenience attached to finding locally grown produce . . . and the decimation of local agriculture.
Something is very very wrong when it is easier to purchase garlic grown 12,000 miles away than garlic grown 12 miles away.
Those thoughts led to thoughts about the decline in locally produced goods, such as men's suits from Joseph and Feiss, radios from General Electric, garden tools from Union Fork, and textiles from many now-closed plants. In fact, I recently replaced my old broken Union hoe (made locally) with a new Union hoe (made in China). It was upsetting.
"Free Trade" has been a mantra chanted by both political parties in recent decades. Not having majored in economics, it is difficult to counter the statement in Wikipedia:
The reality, however, is that "society" is not global. Different cultures place importance on different things, which is reflected in their countries' laws. We have laws to protect the environment, and to protect workers, but other countries do not. Our laws raise production costs here in relation to those elsewhere. That causes production to move elsewhere. While some Americans complain that other countries engage in unfair trade practices by subsidizing their agricultural production, subsidizing strategic industries such as steel production, or by manipulating their currencies, aren't we doing the reverse with our environmental and labor laws? If we did away with our labor and environmental protections, would that not arguably be a subsidy?
To paraphrase a common saying, "Free Trade isn't Free."
The cost is to our culture and the things we consider important. What we gain in a clean environment and decently paid workers, we lose in jobs and wealth. . . .
And ultimately lose in National Security.
It is simply amazing that national leaders seem clueless to the security implications of Free Trade. With most of our manufacturing capacity -- and increasingly agricultural capacity -- exported offshore, what is left to protect us if we get into a war? We survived and succeeded during WWI and WWII because we had peacetime manufacturing and agricultural capacity that could be converted to wartime use. What is there to convert now?
Software engineers cannot feed or clothe us.
We are vulnerable and need to do something about it.
Surprisingly, in spite of all the garlic that is grown locally, the only garlic I could find came from . . . China!
Not having the time to shop the farm stands, I reluctantly purchased the Chinese garlic even though the possibility of contamination from poorly managed Chinese landfills crossed my mind. Admittedly, it was good smelling garlic, and the price was right . . . but it got me thinking about the increasing prevalence of foreign-grown produce on local shelves . . . the inconvenience attached to finding locally grown produce . . . and the decimation of local agriculture.
Something is very very wrong when it is easier to purchase garlic grown 12,000 miles away than garlic grown 12 miles away.
Those thoughts led to thoughts about the decline in locally produced goods, such as men's suits from Joseph and Feiss, radios from General Electric, garden tools from Union Fork, and textiles from many now-closed plants. In fact, I recently replaced my old broken Union hoe (made locally) with a new Union hoe (made in China). It was upsetting.
"Free Trade" has been a mantra chanted by both political parties in recent decades. Not having majored in economics, it is difficult to counter the statement in Wikipedia:
"[T]he broad consensus among members of the economics profession in the U.S. is that free trade is a large and unambiguous net gain for society.""Consensus" is often a matter of perspective. I can accept the above statement if "gain" is confined to getting products into the hands of consumers at the lowest possible cost, and "society" is global.
The reality, however, is that "society" is not global. Different cultures place importance on different things, which is reflected in their countries' laws. We have laws to protect the environment, and to protect workers, but other countries do not. Our laws raise production costs here in relation to those elsewhere. That causes production to move elsewhere. While some Americans complain that other countries engage in unfair trade practices by subsidizing their agricultural production, subsidizing strategic industries such as steel production, or by manipulating their currencies, aren't we doing the reverse with our environmental and labor laws? If we did away with our labor and environmental protections, would that not arguably be a subsidy?
To paraphrase a common saying, "Free Trade isn't Free."
The cost is to our culture and the things we consider important. What we gain in a clean environment and decently paid workers, we lose in jobs and wealth. . . .
And ultimately lose in National Security.
It is simply amazing that national leaders seem clueless to the security implications of Free Trade. With most of our manufacturing capacity -- and increasingly agricultural capacity -- exported offshore, what is left to protect us if we get into a war? We survived and succeeded during WWI and WWII because we had peacetime manufacturing and agricultural capacity that could be converted to wartime use. What is there to convert now?
Software engineers cannot feed or clothe us.
We are vulnerable and need to do something about it.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Like the Keystone Cops . . .
Only NOT FUNNY . . . .
At least that was the thought that came to mind when reading that the much vaunted Marcy NanoCenter construction has been delayed.
The wetlands permit, water, and sewer issues were all avoidable and should never have happened.
That they were allowed to develop and fester demonstrates the utter cluelessness of Oneida County leadership when it comes to dealing with environmental issues. Marketing Marcy NanoCenter without first coming to grips with the environmental issues not only wastes the taxpayers' money, it will cause ill will toward the County by prospective NanoCenter tenants because their time is being wasted.
There is no legislative quick fix to all this (although the County is trying). Any attempt to take a shortcut through state-level legislation will only make the situation more complicated and expensive than it already is. THERE ARE NO SHORT CUTS.
Its time to admit that mistakes were made, correct them, and move on. . . . and just maybe some heads should roll, too . . .
At least that was the thought that came to mind when reading that the much vaunted Marcy NanoCenter construction has been delayed.
More than $27 million has been committed to the development of the Marcy NanoCenter site, but construction has yet to begin because the plans are needlessly tied up in the government regulatory process, Mohawk Valley EDGE President Steven DiMeo said."Needlessly," perhaps, but the blame needs to be placed squarely on Mr. DiMeo and our County level leaders (from Mr. Picente back through Mr. Eannace).
Among the delays has been the permitting process with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Buffalo District, DiMeo said.Well, it was MV EDGE that pulled the wetlands application and put it on the shelf back in 2002, possibly costing us the Global Foundries chip plant that went to Malta. EDGE let its application languish for four plus years and now it's an issue?
The DEC is looking into whether there would be any problems with water availability.Y'er darn tootin' there's an issue of not enough water. Thank Mr. Becher of the MVWA and Oneida County Leadership which has been calling the shots at MVWA for that one. It was pointed out over two years ago that given the capacity of the filtration plant, if MVWA's plans to expand to Verona were approved, there would be NO water for the Chip-Fab site. Since then, Judge Hester's ruling limits MVWA's take from Hinckley reservoir to significantly less than the filtration plant is capable of processing... I.e., MVWA/Oneida County's bungling of obligations has created a water shortage.
The Oneida County Sewer District is under a state consent order due to the sewer system spilling sewage into the Mohawk River during certain levels of rainfall. Because the system is already over capacity, the DEC is looking into whether the Marcy NanoCenter would add to the problems.Oneida County sewer district officials knew for years that the illegal hookup of separated sanitary waste lines into a Combined Sewer Overflow was causing an unacceptable spillage of sewage into the Mohawk River. Without a doubt, they looked away because the hookups permitted New Hartford and the County to grow their tax base (never mind that it was really sprawl that exacerbated Utica's financial problems and created demand for other services (at more cost) in the suburbs). Mr. Picente exacerbated the problem by rushing into the Consent Order with DEC before giving the public a chance to have input (which may have opened his eyes to some issues -- but Mr. Picente avoids involving people who may have expertise on an issue because he cannot control them). Oneida County and Mr. Picente's mismanagement of the sewer district and Consent Order have created another issue that the Marcy NanoCenter must deal with.
The wetlands permit, water, and sewer issues were all avoidable and should never have happened.
That they were allowed to develop and fester demonstrates the utter cluelessness of Oneida County leadership when it comes to dealing with environmental issues. Marketing Marcy NanoCenter without first coming to grips with the environmental issues not only wastes the taxpayers' money, it will cause ill will toward the County by prospective NanoCenter tenants because their time is being wasted.
There is no legislative quick fix to all this (although the County is trying). Any attempt to take a shortcut through state-level legislation will only make the situation more complicated and expensive than it already is. THERE ARE NO SHORT CUTS.
Its time to admit that mistakes were made, correct them, and move on. . . . and just maybe some heads should roll, too . . .
Friday, October 08, 2010
Ignorance By Design 4 . . .
From the American Thinker: Do American History Teachers Value Feelings over Knowledge?
Think about it.
Nearly half of American history teachers believe it is less important that their students understand the common history, ideas, rights, and responsibilities that tie the country together as Americans than that they learn to celebrate the unique identities and experiences of its different ethnic, religious, and immigrant groups. . . .
Given that feelings trump facts in so many classrooms, is it any wonder that there has been such a precipitous decline in Americans' knowledge of their own country's history?
Think about it.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
OIN Anti-Townsend Mailer . . . Backfires . . .
At least with this voter.
Per the Utica Daily News, the Oneida Indian Nation has acknowledged sending the mailing that complains that Oneida County Sheriff Candidate Mr. Townsend voted "Against Protecting Students from Bullying and Harassment" not once -- but twice -- while he was Assemblyman.
Politically, the proponent of the mailing is seriously out of touch. Mr. Townsend's rejection of Assembly Bill A03661 is exactly the type of action that kept getting him re-elected time after time after time.
The law Mr. Townsend voted against is called the "Dignity for All Students Act" and supposedly would prevent bullying and harassment. The act defines several characteristics of students as being protected (race, color, weight, national origin, ethnic group, religion, religious practice, disability, sexual orientation, gender, and sex); requires state regulations, school district policies, sensitivity training of school personnel, student curriculum in "tolerance" etc. in each grade K through 12, and minimum suspensions for student transgressors; would create an "incident reporting" system; and, of course, provide grants to school districts. The law may be well intended, BUT . . .
"You can't legislate morality."
Human behavior and interactions are very complex and every situation is unique. We already have the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, and numerous statutes on the books that already inform us parents, students, and those who run our schools, of what is acceptable and not acceptable behavior. Adding twenty more pages of regulations will not improve the situation. Trying to regulate all activities in all situations with special rules is not only a futile exercise, but counter productive. It's like the "zero tolerance" ("zero brains" I call them) policies on "weapons" that require suspension of a kid who might innocently forget his cub scout jack knife in his pocket.
This law will not prevent bullying . . . but it WILL create a bureaucratic nightmare and a lot more spending.
Laws do not prevent bullying. Capable teachers and administrators do.
Administrators that need to cling to a rule book to enforce proper behavior frankly have no business running our schools.
Cheers to Mr. Townsend for rejecting another prescriptive, intrusive, "feel good," but ultimately ineffective, expensive and counterproductive law.
Meanwhile, OIN needs to stick to running its world class casino, golf courses, and other wonderful venues, and to stay out of politics . . . or it runs the risk of becoming another Barbra Streisand -- who should just shut up and sing.
Per the Utica Daily News, the Oneida Indian Nation has acknowledged sending the mailing that complains that Oneida County Sheriff Candidate Mr. Townsend voted "Against Protecting Students from Bullying and Harassment" not once -- but twice -- while he was Assemblyman.
Politically, the proponent of the mailing is seriously out of touch. Mr. Townsend's rejection of Assembly Bill A03661 is exactly the type of action that kept getting him re-elected time after time after time.
The law Mr. Townsend voted against is called the "Dignity for All Students Act" and supposedly would prevent bullying and harassment. The act defines several characteristics of students as being protected (race, color, weight, national origin, ethnic group, religion, religious practice, disability, sexual orientation, gender, and sex); requires state regulations, school district policies, sensitivity training of school personnel, student curriculum in "tolerance" etc. in each grade K through 12, and minimum suspensions for student transgressors; would create an "incident reporting" system; and, of course, provide grants to school districts. The law may be well intended, BUT . . .
"You can't legislate morality."
Human behavior and interactions are very complex and every situation is unique. We already have the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, and numerous statutes on the books that already inform us parents, students, and those who run our schools, of what is acceptable and not acceptable behavior. Adding twenty more pages of regulations will not improve the situation. Trying to regulate all activities in all situations with special rules is not only a futile exercise, but counter productive. It's like the "zero tolerance" ("zero brains" I call them) policies on "weapons" that require suspension of a kid who might innocently forget his cub scout jack knife in his pocket.
This law will not prevent bullying . . . but it WILL create a bureaucratic nightmare and a lot more spending.
Laws do not prevent bullying. Capable teachers and administrators do.
Administrators that need to cling to a rule book to enforce proper behavior frankly have no business running our schools.
Cheers to Mr. Townsend for rejecting another prescriptive, intrusive, "feel good," but ultimately ineffective, expensive and counterproductive law.
Meanwhile, OIN needs to stick to running its world class casino, golf courses, and other wonderful venues, and to stay out of politics . . . or it runs the risk of becoming another Barbra Streisand -- who should just shut up and sing.
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
HUD Throwing Good Money After Bad . . .
This is unbelievable. Mr. Arcuri announces that Utica will receive a HUD grant for over $4.2 million . . . in spite of $Millions of HUD monies having allegedly been misspent by Gro-West. Obviously corruption is not a problem for Mr. Arcuri nor for HUD -- as long as the political connections are correct -- otherwise why is more money being doled out?
Now the "Affordable Housing" requirements of the new Utica Master Plan suddenly make sense. They're the excuse to keep the pipeline of corruption flowing with federal taxpayers' money.
All the more reason why State officials need to be brought in to investigate the situation . . . but then again, do you really think Attorney General Andrew Cuomo wants to make his Utica and Washington friends look bad?
Now the "Affordable Housing" requirements of the new Utica Master Plan suddenly make sense. They're the excuse to keep the pipeline of corruption flowing with federal taxpayers' money.
All the more reason why State officials need to be brought in to investigate the situation . . . but then again, do you really think Attorney General Andrew Cuomo wants to make his Utica and Washington friends look bad?
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
No Pressure . . .
What the Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption Alarmists have in store for us "Deniers" and Skeptics. . .
N o t . F u n n y . a t . A l l
N o t . F u n n y . a t . A l l
Ignorance By Design 3 . . .
From Today's OD: Utica school staff and students ride for a healthy lifetyle .
The Healthy Bike Ride for Kids is an annual bicycle event in which teachers, staff and students cycle through Utica to raise awareness of the benefits of a healthy lifestyle . . .Your tax dollars hard at work. Instead of diagramming sentences, the kids get to watch teacher ride a bike . . .
Monday, October 04, 2010
Ignorance By Design 2 . . .
The US Department of Education started about 30 years ago during the Carter Administration. Until then, education policy was completely left up to the states. . . . and properly so because the US Constitution gives no role to the Federal Government. Since then, the national government has used the "power of the purse" and states' addiction to federal money to gain ever more control over our schools.
While the intent of federal involvement may have been good, the results have not. For example, federal rules requiring education of special-ed students in the "least restrictive environment" properly kept the handicapped with their classes whenever possible -- but often resulted in more adults being added to the classrooms creating distractions. Federal funds for handicapped students encouraged school districts to find more "handicapped" students to generate more money for themselves -- students who were only "handicapped" by schools failing to educate them in the first place. Federal rules on student privacy have become barriers to police agencies trying to maintain the public order and to tuition-paying parents trying to get information on their older students' performance. However, free access is given to selected not-for-profit social agencies pushing their services.
And then there are the academic results. Students coming out of the "system" these days knowing less substantive knowledge than their parents should be proof enough that Federal involvement has worsened education, not improved it.
Now, the Department of Education is planning even more control. From EducationNews.Org ..
Eye-popping power grab: Licensing of U.S. colleges
People should be free to pay for the higher education that they want. If an institution gives the public what they pay for, it will be rewarded by the public. If the institution fails to do so, it will fail to attract students. Simple as that.
If the government is going to involve itself in dictating curriculum to adults, then it is dictating what knowledge people will be able to acquire for themselves.
. . . and you thought all these moves were not a conspiracy.
While the intent of federal involvement may have been good, the results have not. For example, federal rules requiring education of special-ed students in the "least restrictive environment" properly kept the handicapped with their classes whenever possible -- but often resulted in more adults being added to the classrooms creating distractions. Federal funds for handicapped students encouraged school districts to find more "handicapped" students to generate more money for themselves -- students who were only "handicapped" by schools failing to educate them in the first place. Federal rules on student privacy have become barriers to police agencies trying to maintain the public order and to tuition-paying parents trying to get information on their older students' performance. However, free access is given to selected not-for-profit social agencies pushing their services.
And then there are the academic results. Students coming out of the "system" these days knowing less substantive knowledge than their parents should be proof enough that Federal involvement has worsened education, not improved it.
Now, the Department of Education is planning even more control. From EducationNews.Org ..
Eye-popping power grab: Licensing of U.S. colleges
Under the proposed federal rule change, institutions of higher education "would be required to have a document of state approval … to operate an educational program, including programs leading to a degree or certificate," explained an analysis by Shapri D. LoMaglio for the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities.
People should be free to pay for the higher education that they want. If an institution gives the public what they pay for, it will be rewarded by the public. If the institution fails to do so, it will fail to attract students. Simple as that.
If the government is going to involve itself in dictating curriculum to adults, then it is dictating what knowledge people will be able to acquire for themselves.
. . . and you thought all these moves were not a conspiracy.
Sunday, October 03, 2010
Ignorance By Design . . .
Professor Nassar's guest OD editorial, "We need to pave the way for good teachers," is a good read.
I agree with Mr. Nassar. Except for courses on how to do lesson plans and and use materials in the classroom, most of the education courses I took years ago were a waste of time.
What Mr. Nassar does not realize is that the education establishment does not value subject matter "knowledge" as it did 40-50 years ago. In fact, it devalues it. Now the emphasis is on "performance" often judged by subjective rubrics. Students now often work with each other to "construct" their own knowledge, the teacher's role having been reduced to mere facilitator. That explains why teachers receive no respect and classrooms have become unruly.
This does three things that are of benefit to those running the Government:
I agree with Mr. Nassar. Except for courses on how to do lesson plans and and use materials in the classroom, most of the education courses I took years ago were a waste of time.
What Mr. Nassar does not realize is that the education establishment does not value subject matter "knowledge" as it did 40-50 years ago. In fact, it devalues it. Now the emphasis is on "performance" often judged by subjective rubrics. Students now often work with each other to "construct" their own knowledge, the teacher's role having been reduced to mere facilitator. That explains why teachers receive no respect and classrooms have become unruly.
This does three things that are of benefit to those running the Government:
- The flow of knowledge from one generation to the next is cut, leaving students ignorant. That makes them easy to manipulate both in the workplace and politically later in life.
- They are trained to work with each other -- good preparation for the workplace of tomorrow where they will be expected to perform but not question what they are doing.
- A need is created to vastly expand the numbers of workers in the classroom. Emphasis on "performance" requires smaller classrooms and numerous aides so that student activities may be properly supervised. This gives those controlling the school system political leverage in their communities because so many paychecks depend on them.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
State Taxpayers Finance Faxton-St.Lukes Expansion
Per the Utica Daily News . . .
Hospitals are private businesses that get plenty of our insurance money. With New York State supposedly broke, why are grants like this the responsibility of the taxpayers?
Or is this just more of Big Government taking over . . . Everything?
Faxton-St. Luke's Healthcare was just awarded $31.3 million from the state as part of a competitive grant. . . .I'm happy that the $$$ is coming here instead of going to someplace else. But if Utica is getting $31 Million, you can be sure that other communities across the state are getting similar grants. (Eg. Watertown just got $34 Million.)
With the money, the hospital will renovate the St. Luke's Home and build a new building on its New Hartford campus.
Hospitals are private businesses that get plenty of our insurance money. With New York State supposedly broke, why are grants like this the responsibility of the taxpayers?
Or is this just more of Big Government taking over . . . Everything?
Oneida County Movin' On Up . . .
Oneida County is movin' on up . . . Moving Up to Spot #19 among the most heavily taxed counties in the nation when property taxes are are calculated as a percentage of home value. In last year's tally we were 24. The good news is that taxes are "only" 2.31% of home value as opposed to 2.4% -- most likely because average home values increased from $91500 to $106,600. The bad news is that property taxes here are taking a greater percentage of our incomes, increasing from 4.0% to 4.4%.
No wonder people and jobs constantly leave. With numbers like these, "economic development" is a waste of time and money.
This does not even take into account our sky-high sales tax, sewer taxes, water fees, and utility costs.
Thank you Oneida County, our wonderful "international airport," towns, villages and cities. Watch out Monroe County (Rochester) . . . We're shooting to take over your #1 spot.
Read more at The Tax Foundation.
No wonder people and jobs constantly leave. With numbers like these, "economic development" is a waste of time and money.
This does not even take into account our sky-high sales tax, sewer taxes, water fees, and utility costs.
Thank you Oneida County, our wonderful "international airport," towns, villages and cities. Watch out Monroe County (Rochester) . . . We're shooting to take over your #1 spot.
Read more at The Tax Foundation.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Gonna Do What We Wanna Do . . .
At least that is the message coming loud and clear from the New Hartford Town Ruling Class as it ignores the wishes of the peasants -- er taxpayers -- to cater to the desires of a developer and of those who want to see Town government grow and grow.
When a declining population is encouraged through taxpayer subsidies and special benefits to spread itself over twice the geographic area, it makes the cost of supplying municipal services to that population skyrocket. That is why taxes must go up in both Utica and New Hartford.
Developers and Town officials have benefited from New Hartford's pro-sprawl policies. The taxpayers of New Hartford and of neighboring communities losing economic activity to New Hartford have lost. These policies hurt the average taxpayer. They must end.
“This is sprawl, that’s all this is,” said Frank Montecalvo of Comenale Crescent in New York Mills, some of which is in New Hartford. “We’re financing sprawl.” . . .
But that view is not shared by town Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski, who said many of the concerns expressed Monday were misplaced. . . .
“This is a project that’s not going to cost the taxpayers, and they’ll receive the benefit,” he said.U Betcha this is sprawl and the Town Supervisor is spouting nonsense. Taxpayers WILL pay because PILOTs and FILM are monies that belong to the taxpayers. As noted here last week . . .
Payments In Lieu of Taxes that go to pay for a road that is ONLY needed by the Business Park are payments that are NOT available to pay for the demand on police and fire protection that the project will generate. . . . Fees in Lieu of Mitigation collected from developers of other projects are Town funds intended to be used to mitigate the impacts of those other projects. Guess who winds up either paying to mitigate the impacts of the other projects or tolerating the environmental degradation of the other projects?The New Hartford Business Park started out in 1999 as an industrial park - a place for manufacturing. People regionally felt that it would be worth the investment because of the shortage of building sites that meet the specifications for modern manufacturing plants. Instead the people only got another office park -- something not in short supply -- which only entices economic activity to move from one part of this region of declining population to another.
When a declining population is encouraged through taxpayer subsidies and special benefits to spread itself over twice the geographic area, it makes the cost of supplying municipal services to that population skyrocket. That is why taxes must go up in both Utica and New Hartford.
Developers and Town officials have benefited from New Hartford's pro-sprawl policies. The taxpayers of New Hartford and of neighboring communities losing economic activity to New Hartford have lost. These policies hurt the average taxpayer. They must end.
Utica is Among the Best
Last week CNBC.com reported that Utica is the Number 6 BEST in the Country for Starter Homes.
Not only is Utica among the best in price, buyers can look forward to the value of their homes appreciating as well!
So WHY, then, does the Utica Master Plan propose to require "affordable housing" in all new housing developments . . . and propose to construct "affordable housing" in neighborhoods that are not currently low to moderate income tracts?
WHO would benefit from such requirements? WHAT AGENDA is being pushed?
Zillow median home value: $100,900
Month-over-month change: +1.07%
Avg monthly mortgage payment: $490.16
Mortgage payment as % of income: 13%
Unemployment rate: 7.1%
Cost of living: 88.40
In upstate New York, Utica has seen five consecutive months of significant monthly appreciation, with the most recent month-over-month increase above 1%. Both cost of living and the unemployment rate are much lower than the national average, while median home values stand at just over 55% of the national average
Not only is Utica among the best in price, buyers can look forward to the value of their homes appreciating as well!
So WHY, then, does the Utica Master Plan propose to require "affordable housing" in all new housing developments . . . and propose to construct "affordable housing" in neighborhoods that are not currently low to moderate income tracts?
WHO would benefit from such requirements? WHAT AGENDA is being pushed?
Monday, September 27, 2010
Boost Upstate - Remove the Tolls
From an article in Crain's New York about the "accidental candidate" for governor, Carl Paladino, comes this bit of information. . . .
Those original Thruway bonds have been paid off for us in Utica, Rome, Amsterdam, Syracuse and Rochester, too. It's time to do away with the Thruway Authority and the Tolls.
It's time to take steps that make Upstate New York competitive again.
The Interstate 190 tolls were a passionate cause for Buffalo commuters in 2005. They thought it unfair that they were the only upstate residents who had to pay a New York State Thruway toll to enter their city. The money, they argued, didn't even stay in Buffalo. It was sent downstate to pay for maintenance of Interstate 84.
State legislators didn't respond to complaints. The derisively named Western New York Commuter Tax remained. In 2005, Mr. Paladino got involved. . . .
Mr. Paladino had told his lawyer, “Find me a bulletproof case.” The smoking gun was a decades-old law mandating that tolls be removed when the original bonds for that portion of the Thruway were repaid. That had happened in 1996. Mr. Paladino sued, and the state Thruway Authority removed the tolls.The Thruway Tolls are a tax on anything that moves by truck between the major cities of Upstate New York. That puts businesses that ship by truck in main line Upstate cities at a competitive disadvantage to those in places such as Tennessee which have no tolls on their interstate highways.
“I think those experiences illustrate our capabilities,” Mr. Paladino says. “I'm a very determined person. I will do my homework. I will learn all the facts best I can. There's no challenge I can't take on.”
Those original Thruway bonds have been paid off for us in Utica, Rome, Amsterdam, Syracuse and Rochester, too. It's time to do away with the Thruway Authority and the Tolls.
It's time to take steps that make Upstate New York competitive again.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Not Taken In . . .
Judging from the comments posted to the OD Article "Election watch: Arcuri ad takes aim at Hanna’s business activities," the public simply is not buying the mud-slinging that the Democrat Machine is selling and Mr. Arcuri is approving.
People know that when candidates and their surrogates resort to slinging mud, they have nothing more intelligent to say.
Let's focus on the issues, folks, not the personalities.
People know that when candidates and their surrogates resort to slinging mud, they have nothing more intelligent to say.
Let's focus on the issues, folks, not the personalities.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
NH Business Park - What Is the Public Price?
The New Hartford Business Park is back in the news. This time it's about a proposed ramp on and off Route 840 that will be the subject of a public hearing Sept. 27 6PM at Butler Hall.
The Environmental Assessment is on the Town Website as is a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS).
The Assessment indicates that the project will generate Sewage that will be discharged into the Mohawk River, that 40,000 gallons of water will be used per day, that traffic will be generated that is significantly above present levels, and that a demand for community provided services such as police and fire protection will be created. The assessment claims that the impact of effluent being transported to inadequate facilities and a requirement for new or expansion of existing waste treatment/storage facilities can be adequately mitigated by a project change. It claims that the use of water can be adequately mitigated. It claims that project incompatibility with existing drainage patterns can be adequately mitigated.
Curiously, the assessment claims that NO local state or federal funding will be involved.
Although it is sort of a shell game, the Taxpayers ARE paying for this.
Payments In Lieu of Taxes that go to pay for a road that is ONLY needed by the Business Park are payments that are NOT available to pay for the demand on police and fire protection that the project will generate. Guess who picks up the police and fire tab? The SEIS does not disclose this.
Fees in Lieu of Mitigation collected from developers of other projects are Town funds intended to be used to mitigate the impacts of those other projects. Guess who winds up either paying to mitigate the impacts of the other projects or tolerating the environmental degradation of the other projects? The SEIS does not disclose this.
Guess Who will be paying to upgrade the sewage system to mitigate the additional sewage load? The SEIS does not disclose this.
Although the project claims that it will create 2,000 jobs, where will the jobs come from? More than likely, local jobs will merely move from one place in the region to another. . . . That is nothing more than sprawl. The SEIS does not disclose this . . .
Guess Who pays for more sprawl?
Previous estimates have put the project – which includes extending Clinton Street into the business park and building a Woods Highway extension to Route 840 – at roughly $800,000.
That would be partly funded by a payment-in-lieu of taxes agreement with the hotel and could also be supplemented by existing fees-in-lieu of mitigation funds held by the town, according to the study.
The Environmental Assessment is on the Town Website as is a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS).
The Assessment indicates that the project will generate Sewage that will be discharged into the Mohawk River, that 40,000 gallons of water will be used per day, that traffic will be generated that is significantly above present levels, and that a demand for community provided services such as police and fire protection will be created. The assessment claims that the impact of effluent being transported to inadequate facilities and a requirement for new or expansion of existing waste treatment/storage facilities can be adequately mitigated by a project change. It claims that the use of water can be adequately mitigated. It claims that project incompatibility with existing drainage patterns can be adequately mitigated.
Curiously, the assessment claims that NO local state or federal funding will be involved.
Although it is sort of a shell game, the Taxpayers ARE paying for this.
Payments In Lieu of Taxes that go to pay for a road that is ONLY needed by the Business Park are payments that are NOT available to pay for the demand on police and fire protection that the project will generate. Guess who picks up the police and fire tab? The SEIS does not disclose this.
Fees in Lieu of Mitigation collected from developers of other projects are Town funds intended to be used to mitigate the impacts of those other projects. Guess who winds up either paying to mitigate the impacts of the other projects or tolerating the environmental degradation of the other projects? The SEIS does not disclose this.
Guess Who will be paying to upgrade the sewage system to mitigate the additional sewage load? The SEIS does not disclose this.
Although the project claims that it will create 2,000 jobs, where will the jobs come from? More than likely, local jobs will merely move from one place in the region to another. . . . That is nothing more than sprawl. The SEIS does not disclose this . . .
Guess Who pays for more sprawl?
Monday, September 20, 2010
Wetlands, Schmetlands . . .
It's nice to see our federal representatives bring a full court press on getting the Army Corps of Engineers to move on the Marcy Nanotech wetlands permit. ACE will not give a permit until EDGE finds a developer . . . but EDGE probably won't find a developer until it gets the permit.
But as noted here back in June, EDGE has too many subsidiary players for ACE, or the taxpayers to keep track of ...
That said, there is another issue in this brave new world of Federal Government take over of our lives: Why is there even federal regulation of wetlands?
New York State has an extensive regulatory framework over wetlands. They are all mapped so people are put on notice of where they are. They also are all at least 12 acres in size, so they are significant. Why is it the FEDERAL government's business to regulate smaller wet spots -- and even some not so wet spots -- to begin with?
So while Messrs. Arcuri and Schumer and Ms. Gillibrand should be thanked for getting behind EDGE (something Mr. Boehlert did not do when his party was in charge in Albany and Washington), perhaps they should be questioned on the Federal interest in these minuscule wetlands.
Perhaps it's time for them to end some of the Federal involvement in our lives and let the States do their job in their own way.
But as noted here back in June, EDGE has too many subsidiary players for ACE, or the taxpayers to keep track of ...
With the "wheels within wheels" approach, just whom would the Army Corps hold accountable to ensure that all permit conditions are complied with? SUNYIT? EDGE? Fort Schuyler Management (with no track record, no assets, and no individual co-signers to secure performance)? An unknown developer or tenant for the site?EDGE -- which shelved this permit application back in 2002 -- which kept the Marcy site from being "shovel ready" -- which allowed the Luther Forest Technology Park in former Sen. Joe Bruno's district to leap from the drawing board over Marcy to full development -- needs to be more transparent in its operations.
That said, there is another issue in this brave new world of Federal Government take over of our lives: Why is there even federal regulation of wetlands?
New York State has an extensive regulatory framework over wetlands. They are all mapped so people are put on notice of where they are. They also are all at least 12 acres in size, so they are significant. Why is it the FEDERAL government's business to regulate smaller wet spots -- and even some not so wet spots -- to begin with?
So while Messrs. Arcuri and Schumer and Ms. Gillibrand should be thanked for getting behind EDGE (something Mr. Boehlert did not do when his party was in charge in Albany and Washington), perhaps they should be questioned on the Federal interest in these minuscule wetlands.
Perhaps it's time for them to end some of the Federal involvement in our lives and let the States do their job in their own way.
Friday, September 17, 2010
No More Global Warming . . .
Now its "Global Climate Disruption."
They hope that we just refer to the new White House-approved label instead of looking at the facts.
I opt for something more accurate: "Mother Nature."
They hope that we just refer to the new White House-approved label instead of looking at the facts.
I opt for something more accurate: "Mother Nature."
Thursday, September 16, 2010
What's With the City Council?
Utica council won’t seek state help with GroWest
The Gro-West situation cries out for an investigation by an organization that is TOTALLY DISCONNECTED from the local political/business scene -- and not a locally picked law/consulting firm which itself has profited from the handling of government grants (see the 990 link in the linked story).
What are they trying to hide?
A resolution asking various state agencies to launch their own investigations into GroWest Inc. was voted down by the city’s Common Council on Wednesday after it was proposed by two council members. . . .
Mayor David Roefaro and Corporation Counsel Linda Sullivan Fatata echoed the sentiments of opposing council members when they said the city’s only involvement with GroWest was through federal money, and that HUD and the FBI should be allowed to proceed without the state getting involved.
The Gro-West situation cries out for an investigation by an organization that is TOTALLY DISCONNECTED from the local political/business scene -- and not a locally picked law/consulting firm which itself has profited from the handling of government grants (see the 990 link in the linked story).
What are they trying to hide?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
The Voting Booth Metaphor . . .
New Yorkers faced their new voting machines yesterday. After the usual sign in, you are given a paper ballot, go to a little booth to fill in circles with a black pencil for your choices (being very careful to stay inside the circles), then walk to a machine and feed it the ballot.
With the old voting machines that were used for around 80 years, it was ...
It now takes 5 times as long to cast a ballot as it used to. . . . and with all the high tech equipment and paper manipulation probably costs the taxpayers a lot more too. It seem that the more we "progress," the further behind we get.
The new voting process is more complicated. It takes more of your time and more of your money. . . .
Isn't this just like the government that designed it?
With the old voting machines that were used for around 80 years, it was ...
bing-bing-bing whoosh/ding
. . . and you were done. You closed the curtain, pulled the levers for your choices, and registered the ballot by opening the curtain. It now takes 5 times as long to cast a ballot as it used to. . . . and with all the high tech equipment and paper manipulation probably costs the taxpayers a lot more too. It seem that the more we "progress," the further behind we get.
The new voting process is more complicated. It takes more of your time and more of your money. . . .
Isn't this just like the government that designed it?
A REAL "People's" Revolution . . .
His opponent had a double digit lead . . . and then on election eve the pollsters said they were in a "dead heat."
How wrong they were!
Political outsider Carl Paladino wins the GOP gubernatorial primary by a 2 to 1 margin!
They say that Andrew Cuomo is unbeatable . . . but "they" were wrong last night.
It promises to be a very interesting election season folks. Paladino is the first real threat in memory to the status quo of a government that has become too big, too controlling, too arrogant, too expensive, and too immune to change (regardless of what party holds the governorship) . . . . Paladino is also a threat to the many connected elite of both party stripes who have grown rich off the taxpayers. The insiders will throw everything that they have at this guy to discredit him.
The people's desire for change in the "ruling class" is carrying over to local elections as well. The ever-popular Dave Townsend was never a member of the "ruling class" because they always kept trying to get rid of him as Assemblyman. But people genuinely want leaders who can think for themselves, so they kept electing him. . . . and have now elected him again to run for sheriff in spite of a clear attempt by party "insiders" to defeat him in a primary. Claudia Tenney, another "outsider," appears to have won over insider George Joseph, whom we can thank for our expensive new airport and destroyed old airport. Claudia has an ability to engage on the issues that people are looking for. Change is also coming to the Democrats, too. Mike Hennessy constantly was a thorn in the side of the County Republicrat Establishment. He also is a man who can think for himself . . . so the people have picked him to run for senator.
Paladino, Townsend, Tenney, and Hennessy all think for themselves . . . THAT is why they won their primaries.
This year we may finally have debates on Issues rather than Personalities.
How wrong they were!
Political outsider Carl Paladino wins the GOP gubernatorial primary by a 2 to 1 margin!
They say that Andrew Cuomo is unbeatable . . . but "they" were wrong last night.
It promises to be a very interesting election season folks. Paladino is the first real threat in memory to the status quo of a government that has become too big, too controlling, too arrogant, too expensive, and too immune to change (regardless of what party holds the governorship) . . . . Paladino is also a threat to the many connected elite of both party stripes who have grown rich off the taxpayers. The insiders will throw everything that they have at this guy to discredit him.
The people's desire for change in the "ruling class" is carrying over to local elections as well. The ever-popular Dave Townsend was never a member of the "ruling class" because they always kept trying to get rid of him as Assemblyman. But people genuinely want leaders who can think for themselves, so they kept electing him. . . . and have now elected him again to run for sheriff in spite of a clear attempt by party "insiders" to defeat him in a primary. Claudia Tenney, another "outsider," appears to have won over insider George Joseph, whom we can thank for our expensive new airport and destroyed old airport. Claudia has an ability to engage on the issues that people are looking for. Change is also coming to the Democrats, too. Mike Hennessy constantly was a thorn in the side of the County Republicrat Establishment. He also is a man who can think for himself . . . so the people have picked him to run for senator.
Paladino, Townsend, Tenney, and Hennessy all think for themselves . . . THAT is why they won their primaries.
This year we may finally have debates on Issues rather than Personalities.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Utica's Not-So-Green Master Plan* . . .
*[This is the un-edited version of my article for the September 2010 Utica Phoenix which was shortened due to space constraints.]
Utica's much anticipated Master Plan finally has been released to the public. Clearly, a new master plan was overdue, with the last being 50 years ago, following another 10 years earlier. One of the first, written by famed landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. in 1908, guided Utica's development for the first half of the 20th Century, helping to propel Utica in an orderly fashion to a city of 100,000.
The importance of a master plan cannot be overstated. A root cause of many of Utica's problems, such as population loss, poverty, declining education levels, high taxes and fees, and blight, is the significant decline of private-sector economic activity within Utica's borders. Without the means to an income, people leave. As Utica evolves in the future, government and private initiatives need coordination (not partnership) to reinforce each other and avoid waste, which will encourage growth of the private-sector economy. A good master plan fosters coordination by providing an easily understandable vision of the future that informs government leaders of priorities, while allowing private entities to see where they fit in. A good master plan speeds government decision making and makes its actions more predictable, permitting private investors to calculate what they need to do to improve their own chances for success. A good master plan produces an environment where private activity can sustain itself with a minimum of government intrusion and without the infusion of taxpayer dollars. A good master plan learns lessons from history and avoids the mistakes of the past.
Unfortunately, the Utica Master Plan provides no coherent vision and substitutes a cumbersome unpredictable process in its place. The Plan injects government into what should be private-sector decisions and responsibilities. The Plan repeats past mistakes, exacerbating sprawl with its associated costs and environmental degradation. Overall, the Plan is more about a regional clique maintaining its control over Utica's future than about making it a better future.
Rendering the Electorate Irrelevant
The lack of vision in the Utica Master Plan becomes obvious upon comparison with the 1950 and 1960 plans. The older plans had maps, which showed the existing and then the proposed street and transportation systems, parks, residential areas, industrial sites, other land uses, and public facilities. Proposals were clearly defined and explained, many including cost estimates. The City Council knew exactly what it was approving when it approved the plans. The programs were clear to the officials who would implement them. If you wanted to build a manufacturing plant, start a restaurant or retail establishment, or buy a house, you could look at the master plan and know how your plans would be affected. You would know if your street was going to be widened, buildings would be demolished, or a park built near by.
Not so with the new Utica Master Plan. Except for a handful of poorly explained proposals that appear to be little more than excuses for glitzy artist renderings, the new Plan proposes a 'grab-bag' of vague concepts and “strategies” that seem uncoordinated and difficult to picture. This appears intentional.
While Utica's older master plans could be read and understood by anyone, the new Utica Master Plan is like Hans Christian Andersen's The Emperor's New Clothes: only the 'worthy' who can interpret its words will be able to see the “vision” it represents ... and most will be too embarrassed to say that they cannot.
Instead of saying what it means, the Utica Master Plan hides behind jargon to describe its intent. “Safescape principles” will enhance our sense of comfort and safety downtown. “Transportation Demand Management strategies” will be implemented to increase the efficiency of the transportation system. A lighting ordinance will be developed that is consistent with “Dark Sky principles.” “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design” standards will be adopted for each neighborhood. The city will adopt a “Complete Streets Policy” and work with the NYS Dept. of Transportation to “incorporate context sensitive solutions” along the North-South Arterial. These are only examples. Jargon obscures agendas. It will be anyone's guess how these “principles,” “strategies,” “standards,” and “solutions” will be translated into laws or bricks and mortar on the ground ... although certain insiders undoubtedly know.
The esoteric language implies that planning for the city's future is beyond the comprehension of mere elected officials and members of public bodies, such as planning or zoning boards, that would traditionally oversee the substance of a master plan. Instead, an elite corps, which will be given specialized training, will be appointed to interpret and implement the Utica Master Plan. This corps will be spread among at least seventeen committees or groups that could be counted on the Master Plan's pages. The most important, the “Utica Master Plan Partnership Advisory Board Executive Committee,” is placed by the Master Plan on an equal level with our elected Executive Branch and Common Council!
The message is obvious. The People's elected representatives cannot be trusted with decisions over Utica's future, so an elite group will be appointed to make these decisions for them, which the representatives will be expected to rubber-stamp. This is rubbish, of course. A good master plan needs neither interpretation nor specialized committees for its implementation.
The Utica Master Plan seems less a vision of the city's future and more an attempt to render the People's elected representatives irrelevant, while private agendas get advanced.
Intrusive Government
The Utica Master Plan boldly goes where other plans have not – and should not – by imposing requirements or making taxpayers pay for things that have more to do with political agendas than city planning.
For example, the Utica Master Plan requires new housing developments to include 20% “affordable units,” and dictates that “affordable housing” will be created in areas that are not now low-to-moderate income census tracts, with the objective of achieving a “mixed income model” in city housing.
First, these requirements presuppose a questionable need. Whenever the Utica region is ranked against others in the country, the affordability of its housing is always a top selling point -- and everyone knows that most of the “affordable” housing is within city limits. (Is it just coincidence that “affordable housing” is proposed for Utica, while New Hartford's recent plan proposed 5-acre-minimum sized lots? Where did these ideas originate?) If anything, Utica needs more upscale housing – housing that would generate increased tax revenue for the city, while having a minimal impact on its services. To compete, Utica needs more upscale choices, otherwise people looking for a better home will find them in New Hartford or another suburb, taking their tax dollars with them.
Second, these requirements purport to dictate to people that they must live in a neighborhood conforming to a “mixed income model.” People resent government tinkering with their freedom of association. Past “social engineering” backfired and created more problems than it solved. For example, the “forced busing” of Utica school children not only failed to achieve a utopian vision of racial balance in Utica schools, it destroyed one of Utica's greatest assets, neighborhood schools, and led to parental dis-involvement, socialization/behavioral issues, a lot of wasted time on a bus, traffic congestion ... and flight to the suburbs.
Third, the proposals presume to know the marketplace. However, developers only come to an area where they can make a profit. If the “mixed income model” is viable, there will be no need to write it into the Master Plan because people will do it. If it is not viable, it will require either constant infusion of taxpayer cash to keep it going, or the government doing things itself. Either way will doom Utica, which is barely able to afford basic services (let alone prepare brownfields for redevelopment), to spend a ton of money on social experimentation.
Other proposals in the Utica Master Plan similarly take a paternalistic view of Utica residents and businesses. Government must tell them what is good for them, how they must do things, and/or government will do things for them. Under the Master Plan, government will promote “Green Building & Home Rehabilitation” in its neighborhoods by incorporating “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Neighborhood Development” principles, and provide "education and training" in that field. Government will educate people on the “Slow Food Movement” and how to be a first-time home buyer. Government will develop a “restaurant row,” a tourism marketing plan and a tourism-readiness training program for staff in tourism industries, downtown business owners, and the community at large. Government will provide grants and loans to people to bring their properties up to code.
People and private businesses will do these things on their own, if they make sense and are economically viable. Requiring people to do these things, or having the government do these things for them, will impose unnecessary burdens and costs, favor one business or person over another, or foster dependency. Government involvement or “partnering” with private businesses is especially troublesome. It not only runs the risk of violating Article VIII of the State Constitution, it tempts the government to abuse its power – to crush its “partners'” competitors.
All these items smack of “Big Government” – but geographically, Utica is small government. To avoid the costs and government manipulation, people will simply move to one of the surrounding towns like they have been doing for the past 50 years. How does that help Utica … or the region?
Unlearned Lessons
The Utica Master Plan notes Utica's population loss, its low income and education attainment levels, low percentage of owner-occupied homes, the relocation of jobs to other parts of the country, and the relocation of employers and residents to suburban areas. It goes into mind-numbing demographic detail with facts and figures to describe Utica's current state. It also touts the area's positives, presenting the sub-text that, if we just build on and promote the positives, all the problems will go away.
Glaringly, the Plan entirely omits information that ordinary people would consider essential: the cost just to be here -- the cost of local government (taxes); the cost of power, water, sewer, etc.; the cost of local regulations; the foregoing costs computed as a percentage of local income and of property value; the foregoing costs and percentages as compared with other regions in the country. Regardless of our beautiful landscape, our relative freedom from natural calamities, our outstanding menu of outdoor activities, our rich and easily accessible cultural venues, our ethnic diversity, our great restaurants and other charms; and regardless of how much we improve and promote them; jobs, and the “creative class” that the Master Plan says it wants to attract, will not come to Utica until the cost of just being here is brought in line with the parts of the country that are growing.
By omitting the cost information, the Plan sidesteps the questions of “Why are costs here so high?” and the inevitable “Who is responsible?” that follows. Decisions of the past and their consequences, particularly ones at the local and regional levels, are left unexamined, allowing those who profited from them (including some key players in the drafting of the Master Plan) to continue undisturbed, while dooming Utica to extend its history of decline.
Being “Green” Where It Really Counts
The Utica Master Plan paints itself “green” by offering strategies to protect the environment. While welcome, they are trivial compared to the environmental consequences of the Big Picture.
While Utica's major problem is economic decline, the Region's major problem is urban sprawl – and the two are directly linked. Rolf Pendall in his Brookings Institute paper “Sprawl Without Growth – The Upstate Paradox” documented that urbanized acreage in Central NY grew 45% in the 15 years between 1982 and 1997, while the population fell. You know from your own memory that this trend has continued in the 13 years since. It does not take a Rhodes Scholar to know that, if a declining population spreads itself over twice the area, taxes for municipal services must skyrocket, making the region uncompetitive. As people leave Utica, the fewer left behind must pay more to support what exists. Meanwhile, suburban jurisdictions must take on new expenses related to their “growth.”
Sprawl imposes environmental costs on everyone. People are deprived of potential food sources when farmland and orchards become shopping areas and parking lots. Wildlife habitat is forever destroyed. Storm water runoff increases, leading to flooding and water pollution. People must travel farther in their day-to-day errands, using more fuel and adding to air pollution. Traffic congestion and noise move into outlying areas. Buildings are abandoned in the inner city, exposing people to vermin, hazardous materials, and fires.
The Utica Master Plan fails to discuss sprawl. That allows the Plan to ignore the local policy decisions that helped drive sprawl such as: (1) the configuration of the Arterial system, which simultaneously made city neighborhoods difficult to navigate, while paving the way to undeveloped outlying areas; (2) the destruction of literally hundreds of tax-generating properties for Arterial and Urban Renewal projects, which forced relocations to outlying areas; (3) the “regionalization” of the water and sewer systems, which uses Utica residents' fees to subsidize extension of services to outlying areas; (4) County programs, which offer incentives for development in outlying areas. The Plan does not mention the State's proposed taking of 80 additional properties and closing off more streets for the N-S Arterial remake. The Plan is silent on County incentives for suburban and rural greenfield development. Like old Urban Renewal, the Plan will destroy a stadium and a park with several ball fields, so they can be rebuilt elsewhere. The Plan will regionalize fire, EMT, and road and sewer maintenance so Uticans can support suburban development. The Plan is for more sprawl because it continues the policies that helped to create it.
Not the People's Plan
Since the Master Plan avoids a hard look at the policy decisions that contributed to economic decline and sprawl, the status quo will be maintained. Many have benefited from that status quo. Their fingerprints are all over the Plan … and the Utica Master Plan will keep them in control.
Utica's much anticipated Master Plan finally has been released to the public. Clearly, a new master plan was overdue, with the last being 50 years ago, following another 10 years earlier. One of the first, written by famed landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. in 1908, guided Utica's development for the first half of the 20th Century, helping to propel Utica in an orderly fashion to a city of 100,000.
The importance of a master plan cannot be overstated. A root cause of many of Utica's problems, such as population loss, poverty, declining education levels, high taxes and fees, and blight, is the significant decline of private-sector economic activity within Utica's borders. Without the means to an income, people leave. As Utica evolves in the future, government and private initiatives need coordination (not partnership) to reinforce each other and avoid waste, which will encourage growth of the private-sector economy. A good master plan fosters coordination by providing an easily understandable vision of the future that informs government leaders of priorities, while allowing private entities to see where they fit in. A good master plan speeds government decision making and makes its actions more predictable, permitting private investors to calculate what they need to do to improve their own chances for success. A good master plan produces an environment where private activity can sustain itself with a minimum of government intrusion and without the infusion of taxpayer dollars. A good master plan learns lessons from history and avoids the mistakes of the past.
Unfortunately, the Utica Master Plan provides no coherent vision and substitutes a cumbersome unpredictable process in its place. The Plan injects government into what should be private-sector decisions and responsibilities. The Plan repeats past mistakes, exacerbating sprawl with its associated costs and environmental degradation. Overall, the Plan is more about a regional clique maintaining its control over Utica's future than about making it a better future.
Rendering the Electorate Irrelevant
The lack of vision in the Utica Master Plan becomes obvious upon comparison with the 1950 and 1960 plans. The older plans had maps, which showed the existing and then the proposed street and transportation systems, parks, residential areas, industrial sites, other land uses, and public facilities. Proposals were clearly defined and explained, many including cost estimates. The City Council knew exactly what it was approving when it approved the plans. The programs were clear to the officials who would implement them. If you wanted to build a manufacturing plant, start a restaurant or retail establishment, or buy a house, you could look at the master plan and know how your plans would be affected. You would know if your street was going to be widened, buildings would be demolished, or a park built near by.
Not so with the new Utica Master Plan. Except for a handful of poorly explained proposals that appear to be little more than excuses for glitzy artist renderings, the new Plan proposes a 'grab-bag' of vague concepts and “strategies” that seem uncoordinated and difficult to picture. This appears intentional.
While Utica's older master plans could be read and understood by anyone, the new Utica Master Plan is like Hans Christian Andersen's The Emperor's New Clothes: only the 'worthy' who can interpret its words will be able to see the “vision” it represents ... and most will be too embarrassed to say that they cannot.
Instead of saying what it means, the Utica Master Plan hides behind jargon to describe its intent. “Safescape principles” will enhance our sense of comfort and safety downtown. “Transportation Demand Management strategies” will be implemented to increase the efficiency of the transportation system. A lighting ordinance will be developed that is consistent with “Dark Sky principles.” “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design” standards will be adopted for each neighborhood. The city will adopt a “Complete Streets Policy” and work with the NYS Dept. of Transportation to “incorporate context sensitive solutions” along the North-South Arterial. These are only examples. Jargon obscures agendas. It will be anyone's guess how these “principles,” “strategies,” “standards,” and “solutions” will be translated into laws or bricks and mortar on the ground ... although certain insiders undoubtedly know.
The esoteric language implies that planning for the city's future is beyond the comprehension of mere elected officials and members of public bodies, such as planning or zoning boards, that would traditionally oversee the substance of a master plan. Instead, an elite corps, which will be given specialized training, will be appointed to interpret and implement the Utica Master Plan. This corps will be spread among at least seventeen committees or groups that could be counted on the Master Plan's pages. The most important, the “Utica Master Plan Partnership Advisory Board Executive Committee,” is placed by the Master Plan on an equal level with our elected Executive Branch and Common Council!
The message is obvious. The People's elected representatives cannot be trusted with decisions over Utica's future, so an elite group will be appointed to make these decisions for them, which the representatives will be expected to rubber-stamp. This is rubbish, of course. A good master plan needs neither interpretation nor specialized committees for its implementation.
The Utica Master Plan seems less a vision of the city's future and more an attempt to render the People's elected representatives irrelevant, while private agendas get advanced.
Intrusive Government
The Utica Master Plan boldly goes where other plans have not – and should not – by imposing requirements or making taxpayers pay for things that have more to do with political agendas than city planning.
For example, the Utica Master Plan requires new housing developments to include 20% “affordable units,” and dictates that “affordable housing” will be created in areas that are not now low-to-moderate income census tracts, with the objective of achieving a “mixed income model” in city housing.
First, these requirements presuppose a questionable need. Whenever the Utica region is ranked against others in the country, the affordability of its housing is always a top selling point -- and everyone knows that most of the “affordable” housing is within city limits. (Is it just coincidence that “affordable housing” is proposed for Utica, while New Hartford's recent plan proposed 5-acre-minimum sized lots? Where did these ideas originate?) If anything, Utica needs more upscale housing – housing that would generate increased tax revenue for the city, while having a minimal impact on its services. To compete, Utica needs more upscale choices, otherwise people looking for a better home will find them in New Hartford or another suburb, taking their tax dollars with them.
Second, these requirements purport to dictate to people that they must live in a neighborhood conforming to a “mixed income model.” People resent government tinkering with their freedom of association. Past “social engineering” backfired and created more problems than it solved. For example, the “forced busing” of Utica school children not only failed to achieve a utopian vision of racial balance in Utica schools, it destroyed one of Utica's greatest assets, neighborhood schools, and led to parental dis-involvement, socialization/behavioral issues, a lot of wasted time on a bus, traffic congestion ... and flight to the suburbs.
Third, the proposals presume to know the marketplace. However, developers only come to an area where they can make a profit. If the “mixed income model” is viable, there will be no need to write it into the Master Plan because people will do it. If it is not viable, it will require either constant infusion of taxpayer cash to keep it going, or the government doing things itself. Either way will doom Utica, which is barely able to afford basic services (let alone prepare brownfields for redevelopment), to spend a ton of money on social experimentation.
Other proposals in the Utica Master Plan similarly take a paternalistic view of Utica residents and businesses. Government must tell them what is good for them, how they must do things, and/or government will do things for them. Under the Master Plan, government will promote “Green Building & Home Rehabilitation” in its neighborhoods by incorporating “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Neighborhood Development” principles, and provide "education and training" in that field. Government will educate people on the “Slow Food Movement” and how to be a first-time home buyer. Government will develop a “restaurant row,” a tourism marketing plan and a tourism-readiness training program for staff in tourism industries, downtown business owners, and the community at large. Government will provide grants and loans to people to bring their properties up to code.
People and private businesses will do these things on their own, if they make sense and are economically viable. Requiring people to do these things, or having the government do these things for them, will impose unnecessary burdens and costs, favor one business or person over another, or foster dependency. Government involvement or “partnering” with private businesses is especially troublesome. It not only runs the risk of violating Article VIII of the State Constitution, it tempts the government to abuse its power – to crush its “partners'” competitors.
All these items smack of “Big Government” – but geographically, Utica is small government. To avoid the costs and government manipulation, people will simply move to one of the surrounding towns like they have been doing for the past 50 years. How does that help Utica … or the region?
Unlearned Lessons
The Utica Master Plan notes Utica's population loss, its low income and education attainment levels, low percentage of owner-occupied homes, the relocation of jobs to other parts of the country, and the relocation of employers and residents to suburban areas. It goes into mind-numbing demographic detail with facts and figures to describe Utica's current state. It also touts the area's positives, presenting the sub-text that, if we just build on and promote the positives, all the problems will go away.
Glaringly, the Plan entirely omits information that ordinary people would consider essential: the cost just to be here -- the cost of local government (taxes); the cost of power, water, sewer, etc.; the cost of local regulations; the foregoing costs computed as a percentage of local income and of property value; the foregoing costs and percentages as compared with other regions in the country. Regardless of our beautiful landscape, our relative freedom from natural calamities, our outstanding menu of outdoor activities, our rich and easily accessible cultural venues, our ethnic diversity, our great restaurants and other charms; and regardless of how much we improve and promote them; jobs, and the “creative class” that the Master Plan says it wants to attract, will not come to Utica until the cost of just being here is brought in line with the parts of the country that are growing.
By omitting the cost information, the Plan sidesteps the questions of “Why are costs here so high?” and the inevitable “Who is responsible?” that follows. Decisions of the past and their consequences, particularly ones at the local and regional levels, are left unexamined, allowing those who profited from them (including some key players in the drafting of the Master Plan) to continue undisturbed, while dooming Utica to extend its history of decline.
Being “Green” Where It Really Counts
The Utica Master Plan paints itself “green” by offering strategies to protect the environment. While welcome, they are trivial compared to the environmental consequences of the Big Picture.
While Utica's major problem is economic decline, the Region's major problem is urban sprawl – and the two are directly linked. Rolf Pendall in his Brookings Institute paper “Sprawl Without Growth – The Upstate Paradox” documented that urbanized acreage in Central NY grew 45% in the 15 years between 1982 and 1997, while the population fell. You know from your own memory that this trend has continued in the 13 years since. It does not take a Rhodes Scholar to know that, if a declining population spreads itself over twice the area, taxes for municipal services must skyrocket, making the region uncompetitive. As people leave Utica, the fewer left behind must pay more to support what exists. Meanwhile, suburban jurisdictions must take on new expenses related to their “growth.”
Sprawl imposes environmental costs on everyone. People are deprived of potential food sources when farmland and orchards become shopping areas and parking lots. Wildlife habitat is forever destroyed. Storm water runoff increases, leading to flooding and water pollution. People must travel farther in their day-to-day errands, using more fuel and adding to air pollution. Traffic congestion and noise move into outlying areas. Buildings are abandoned in the inner city, exposing people to vermin, hazardous materials, and fires.
The Utica Master Plan fails to discuss sprawl. That allows the Plan to ignore the local policy decisions that helped drive sprawl such as: (1) the configuration of the Arterial system, which simultaneously made city neighborhoods difficult to navigate, while paving the way to undeveloped outlying areas; (2) the destruction of literally hundreds of tax-generating properties for Arterial and Urban Renewal projects, which forced relocations to outlying areas; (3) the “regionalization” of the water and sewer systems, which uses Utica residents' fees to subsidize extension of services to outlying areas; (4) County programs, which offer incentives for development in outlying areas. The Plan does not mention the State's proposed taking of 80 additional properties and closing off more streets for the N-S Arterial remake. The Plan is silent on County incentives for suburban and rural greenfield development. Like old Urban Renewal, the Plan will destroy a stadium and a park with several ball fields, so they can be rebuilt elsewhere. The Plan will regionalize fire, EMT, and road and sewer maintenance so Uticans can support suburban development. The Plan is for more sprawl because it continues the policies that helped to create it.
Not the People's Plan
Since the Master Plan avoids a hard look at the policy decisions that contributed to economic decline and sprawl, the status quo will be maintained. Many have benefited from that status quo. Their fingerprints are all over the Plan … and the Utica Master Plan will keep them in control.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Tale of Two Mosques . . . A Sequel
In last month's Tale of Two Mosques, the local acceptance of the Utica mosque was contrasted with the widespread opposition to the proposed New York City "Ground Zero" mosque. Both cities have long embraced diversity, so accusations of bigotry as motivating mosque-opponents in the latter simply do not ring true. The comparison revealed that the mosque developers in each place took a different approach, respecting the sensibilities and sensitivities of the local people in Utica, and not caring about local impacts whatsoever in New York City.
Some Muslims are starting to publicly say that the "Ground Zero" mosque is a bad idea.
On this ninth anniversary of the 9-11 attacks we will be inundated with images of that horrific day. As you watch the pictures of the buildings burning and then collapsing, of people jumping to their deaths, of others fleeing for their lives, you know three things: (1) many people have been emotionally scarred forever from that event; (2) a mosque at 'Ground Zero' WILL be perceived by those who wish to do this country harm as a symbol of conquest and an encouragement for more attacks; and (3) a mosque at 'Ground Zero' advanced as a matter of religious "right" rather than as an apology for a misuse of Islam will inflict further emotional distress on the community.
I suggested that someone should test the limits of free speech and freedom of religion by suing to enjoin the "Ground Zero" mosque on a theory of "intentional infliction of emotional distress" -- a common law tort.
According to an article posted yesterday on WorldNetDaily, that suit has been brought.
Lawsuit: Ground Zero mosque would be 'terror'
Claims 'it is intended to carry out continuing psychological warfare'
It will be interesting to see how the courts respond to these allegations. Frankly, I am not expecting that this challenge will be successful . . . The courts, particularly state courts, will probably look at this merely as a "rights" issue rather than a "warfare" issue. Courts are not accustomed to dealing with warfare.
At some point, however, it must be recognized that exercising rights under certain circumstances can be warfare. When that happens, does our constitution require our nation to be completely vulnerable to psychological attack?
How should the line of what is or is not to be permitted be drawn?
Some Muslims are starting to publicly say that the "Ground Zero" mosque is a bad idea.
On this ninth anniversary of the 9-11 attacks we will be inundated with images of that horrific day. As you watch the pictures of the buildings burning and then collapsing, of people jumping to their deaths, of others fleeing for their lives, you know three things: (1) many people have been emotionally scarred forever from that event; (2) a mosque at 'Ground Zero' WILL be perceived by those who wish to do this country harm as a symbol of conquest and an encouragement for more attacks; and (3) a mosque at 'Ground Zero' advanced as a matter of religious "right" rather than as an apology for a misuse of Islam will inflict further emotional distress on the community.
I suggested that someone should test the limits of free speech and freedom of religion by suing to enjoin the "Ground Zero" mosque on a theory of "intentional infliction of emotional distress" -- a common law tort.
According to an article posted yesterday on WorldNetDaily, that suit has been brought.
Lawsuit: Ground Zero mosque would be 'terror'
Claims 'it is intended to carry out continuing psychological warfare'
The case was filed today by Vincent Forras, representing himself, a "first responder" who was injured during the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks just a block away from the proposed mosque site.
Working with the case is Larry Klayman, president of Freedom Watch USA.
The action, not the first filed over the proposal, alleges the project would be a "nuisance" and would result in "intentional infliction of emotional distress." . . .
It is known, the claim states, "that al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations like to and do return to the 'scene' of prior terror attacks, to show that they can continue their campaign with impunity, thereby instilling greater terror and severe emotional distress on the populace. That is why the World Trade Center was attacked more than once and why assets and persons at Ground Zero are likely to be attacked again."
"It is also why the Ground Zero mosque [supporters] want to put an Islamic center specifically at that location – in order to show the world that 'they' can do it again … and to perpetrate continuing and heightened psychological terror on the victims," the case says.
It will be interesting to see how the courts respond to these allegations. Frankly, I am not expecting that this challenge will be successful . . . The courts, particularly state courts, will probably look at this merely as a "rights" issue rather than a "warfare" issue. Courts are not accustomed to dealing with warfare.
At some point, however, it must be recognized that exercising rights under certain circumstances can be warfare. When that happens, does our constitution require our nation to be completely vulnerable to psychological attack?
How should the line of what is or is not to be permitted be drawn?
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Heads Up: State Nanotech Lab in Syracuse . . .
Per the Post Standard today: New York state plans to spend $28 million to create nanotechnology lab in Salina
We have become somewhat jaded in the Mohawk Valley with New York State announcements. More information is needed here.
The state will invest $28 million to turn a former General Electric Co. laboratory in Salina into a nanotechnology research and development facility projected to employ up to 250 people. . . .
Last year, the state announced plans to create a business incubator and technology accelerator at State University Institute of Technology in Utica in partnership with Albany’s NanoTech center.In July 2009 the Utica (SUNYIT) facilities were announced . Per the OD:
An important component of the new facility at SUNYIT would be a 10,000-square-foot space called a clean room.Perhaps the Syracuse and Utica facilities have entirely different missions . . . but perhaps not.
The room, which would have the proper environment for scientists to research and make tools needed by nanochip manufacturers, would be the only one of its kind west of the Hudson Valley, Silver said.
We have become somewhat jaded in the Mohawk Valley with New York State announcements. More information is needed here.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Massive . Government . Failure
We read about Canajoharie today, how its residents are facing a $2,700 annual increase in fees and taxes now that the Beech-Nut plant, through a heavily taxpayer-sponsored "economic development" program, has left town for a new site 20 miles away.
The amazing thing about this is that significant impacts on Village water and sewer rates were forecast at least two years ago when the move was still being discussed. Why was this not taken into account and dealt with when the State and Montgomery County officials were putting together their package of incentives for Beech-Nut to move to near Amsterdam?
Earlier, why was this situation even allowed to develop where an entire village became enslaved to providing water and sewer facilities to such a large user? Those services are under State supervision, where there are "experts" who should be looking at these issues. Using 86% of the water/sewer plant capacity, Beechnut should have been the owner of those facilities, not the taxpayers. Ownership would have been an incentive for them to stay put.
There are two lessons to be learned: (1) Government and businesses should not be partners. (2) Government ineptness creates most of our economic problems.
This is a massive failure of government ... a village government that should never have been expected to provide water and sewer services for such a large user, state government which mandates the water and sewer facilities that are needed, and state and county governments who are so focused on 'jobs' that they do not understand the larger impacts of what they are doing.
An audit released earlier this month by state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli found that Beech-Nut used 86 percent of the village’s water and wastewater treatment facilities, and provided 11 percent of its general fund tax revenues.
To offset Beech-Nut’s loss, auditors said each household could see an increase of $2,700 in taxes and water and sewer bills for years to come.
DiNapoli called that “unsustainable,” adding the village has sought help from larger levels of government with no success.
The amazing thing about this is that significant impacts on Village water and sewer rates were forecast at least two years ago when the move was still being discussed. Why was this not taken into account and dealt with when the State and Montgomery County officials were putting together their package of incentives for Beech-Nut to move to near Amsterdam?
Earlier, why was this situation even allowed to develop where an entire village became enslaved to providing water and sewer facilities to such a large user? Those services are under State supervision, where there are "experts" who should be looking at these issues. Using 86% of the water/sewer plant capacity, Beechnut should have been the owner of those facilities, not the taxpayers. Ownership would have been an incentive for them to stay put.
There are two lessons to be learned: (1) Government and businesses should not be partners. (2) Government ineptness creates most of our economic problems.
This is a massive failure of government ... a village government that should never have been expected to provide water and sewer services for such a large user, state government which mandates the water and sewer facilities that are needed, and state and county governments who are so focused on 'jobs' that they do not understand the larger impacts of what they are doing.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Helpful Corruption . . .
Schumer pushing for Fort Drum veterans to be treated at Sitrin
But while it may make sense for the soldiers to be treated closer to Ft. Drum, and it is helpful for the local economy (and for one of the biggest and most influential not-for-profit behemoths in the Mohawk Valley), look at the process being followed. "Sitrin and Fort Drum officials have been meeting about the plan. . . "
What ever happened to competitive bidding?
This privately negotiated process creates a dependency between Sitrin (with perhaps hundreds of voting employees) and Mr. Schumer (and any other politician that helps broker this deal). When people become beholden to certain individuals for their livelihoods, they will vote as though their lives depend on it . . . because they do.
Sitrin may be the best vendor because they do good work . . . but let that come through in a competitive process. If Sitrin wins on its merits, votes would not have been bought.
But as it stands now, this looks like corruption . . . helpful . . . but corruption none-the-less.
U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., called Tuesday for some military veterans from Fort Drum with post traumatic stress disorder to be treated locally at Sitrin Health Care.
Currently, all such veterans requiring treatment go to Texas, but allowing some of them to be treated at Sitrin would help Sitrin and allow the veterans to receive “world-class service” closer to Fort Drum, Schumer said. . . .
Sitrin and Fort Drum officials have been meeting about the plan, and Sitrin also has been looking into the possibility of receiving veterans from other military bases, said Rosemary Bonacci, Sitrin’s vice president of development and communications.It is nice to see Mr. Schumer (of all people) pushing to privatize the government's provision of treatment for these heros.
But while it may make sense for the soldiers to be treated closer to Ft. Drum, and it is helpful for the local economy (and for one of the biggest and most influential not-for-profit behemoths in the Mohawk Valley), look at the process being followed. "Sitrin and Fort Drum officials have been meeting about the plan. . . "
What ever happened to competitive bidding?
This privately negotiated process creates a dependency between Sitrin (with perhaps hundreds of voting employees) and Mr. Schumer (and any other politician that helps broker this deal). When people become beholden to certain individuals for their livelihoods, they will vote as though their lives depend on it . . . because they do.
Sitrin may be the best vendor because they do good work . . . but let that come through in a competitive process. If Sitrin wins on its merits, votes would not have been bought.
But as it stands now, this looks like corruption . . . helpful . . . but corruption none-the-less.
“It makes sense for everybody,” Schumer said.Corruption usually does.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Same Old New Hartford . . .
JUST when we started to think that New Hartford may have turned a corner toward a new era of transparency, we get THIS:
New Hartford library board approves agreement with town
Agreement? What agreement? Where are the details? Who decided for the Town and how?
Does the "Agreement" require the Library to make full disclosure of all the Financial information FOILed by Concerned Citizens of New Hartford for Honest and Open Government ... or is it silent on the issue, and maintains enough "status quo" on the Library Board so that nothing will change? (We're still interested why the Library's Form 990 discusses "leasehold" improvements)
Looks like the Wagons have been Circled.
8/24 UPDATE --
A reliable source indicates that the agreement merely reappoints most of the prior Library Board save one slot going to Mr. Wiatr of Concerned Citizens, and releases money from the town to the library. That's it!
With no significant changes in a Library Board that was clearly operating outside of Town authority and oversight, Wiatr is put in a position of having his time wasted (perhaps to keep him out of "trouble"?). . . . and Taxpayers are stuck funding a group of people who are unwilling to open their books (finance books, not library books).
This makes one wonder what was the point of Mr. Tyksinski's drama over the library? A "dog-and-pony show" put on because the library board got caught.? . . .Or a distraction from the REAL issue of why the Library Board has failed to open its books to the public?
New Hartford library board approves agreement with town
Agreement? What agreement? Where are the details? Who decided for the Town and how?
Does the "Agreement" require the Library to make full disclosure of all the Financial information FOILed by Concerned Citizens of New Hartford for Honest and Open Government ... or is it silent on the issue, and maintains enough "status quo" on the Library Board so that nothing will change? (We're still interested why the Library's Form 990 discusses "leasehold" improvements)
Looks like the Wagons have been Circled.
8/24 UPDATE --
A reliable source indicates that the agreement merely reappoints most of the prior Library Board save one slot going to Mr. Wiatr of Concerned Citizens, and releases money from the town to the library. That's it!
With no significant changes in a Library Board that was clearly operating outside of Town authority and oversight, Wiatr is put in a position of having his time wasted (perhaps to keep him out of "trouble"?). . . . and Taxpayers are stuck funding a group of people who are unwilling to open their books (finance books, not library books).
This makes one wonder what was the point of Mr. Tyksinski's drama over the library? A "dog-and-pony show" put on because the library board got caught.? . . .Or a distraction from the REAL issue of why the Library Board has failed to open its books to the public?
Friday, August 20, 2010
A Tale of Two Mosques . . .
. . . One in Utica, NY . . . The other proposed for New York City.
The Utica mosque was started in 2008 -- a transformation of the former Central Methodist Church. This went on with hardly a raised eyebrow. Today its appearance has completely changed, being faced with light and dark gray stucco with an added minaret . . . literally towering over the Utica City Hall next door.
The mosque has been and is a welcome addition to Utica. Uticans can be happy that an historic landmark has been saved. . . . Members of the former Methodist Church are happy that a building that housed many memories for them would continue to exist with its life as a house of worship (although a different religion) continued. The new mosque symbolizes an acceptance and integration of former Bosnian refugees into Utica and our American way of life. We are one people out of many.
The Utica mosque is something we all can be proud of for what it symbolizes about Utica and America. . . . We welcome newcomers, we recognize the importance of Faith in our community and our country, and we adhere to our Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.
Then there is the $100 million mosque proposed for two blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center in New York City. It has been intensely debated in New York, locally, and nationally. Prominent politicians including President Obama, Andrew Cuomo, and Mayor Bloomberg have come out in favor of the mosque, citing the US Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion.
The majority of Americans, however, are opposed. Some politicians, perhaps sensing the political wind, are opposed. Is the majority wrong? Are the opposing politicians succumbing to mob rule?
Many are torn over this issue. People who are committed to all that America stands for feel a bit guilty for not wanting this mosque to be built . . . but they know that something feels wrong, yet they can't quite put their finger on it.
The key is that freedom of religion, like the freedom of speech also guaranteed under the First Amendment, has its limits. The Constitution is not a license to commit a civil wrong -- a tort -- a breach of duty owed to society. The human sacrifices of ancient Aztec religion can be constitutionally prohibited. Harassing phone calls can be constitutionally enjoined.
People intuitively know that the proposed mosque in New York City has nothing to do with freedom of religion or freedom of speech.
Context is everything. Proponents of the NYC mosque do not want to even consider alternative locations. Why is this site so important that no other will do? No real explanation has been noted. Meanwhile, in Utica, the proponents of the Utica mosque took great pains to respect and fit in with the residents of their new home city. A recent NY Times story questioned whether Uticans would have felt the same if the local muslims were more arab-looking rather than european. It has nothing to do with looks, NY Times, since very many of arab descent have resided here for most of the 20th Century. It has everything to do with attitude. Does a group want to be part of this miracle of freedom we call America ... or destroy it?
A conclusion reasonable people can reach is that the NYC mosque is intended to inflict emotional harm on the citizens of the nation's largest city who were already harmed on 9-11. Rather than trying to integrate with and become part of America and its citizens, the proponents of this mosque, when they insist on this location, are trying to harm America and its citizens.
What other purpose could there be for insisting that the mosque has to be built on that site?
Intentional infliction of emotional distress has been classified as a tort.
A suit to enjoin the mosque probably would test the limits of the First Amendment . . . but there is an appropriate argument to be made there . . . and someone should be making it.
The Utica mosque was started in 2008 -- a transformation of the former Central Methodist Church. This went on with hardly a raised eyebrow. Today its appearance has completely changed, being faced with light and dark gray stucco with an added minaret . . . literally towering over the Utica City Hall next door.
The mosque has been and is a welcome addition to Utica. Uticans can be happy that an historic landmark has been saved. . . . Members of the former Methodist Church are happy that a building that housed many memories for them would continue to exist with its life as a house of worship (although a different religion) continued. The new mosque symbolizes an acceptance and integration of former Bosnian refugees into Utica and our American way of life. We are one people out of many.
The Utica mosque is something we all can be proud of for what it symbolizes about Utica and America. . . . We welcome newcomers, we recognize the importance of Faith in our community and our country, and we adhere to our Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.
Then there is the $100 million mosque proposed for two blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center in New York City. It has been intensely debated in New York, locally, and nationally. Prominent politicians including President Obama, Andrew Cuomo, and Mayor Bloomberg have come out in favor of the mosque, citing the US Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion.
The majority of Americans, however, are opposed. Some politicians, perhaps sensing the political wind, are opposed. Is the majority wrong? Are the opposing politicians succumbing to mob rule?
Many are torn over this issue. People who are committed to all that America stands for feel a bit guilty for not wanting this mosque to be built . . . but they know that something feels wrong, yet they can't quite put their finger on it.
The key is that freedom of religion, like the freedom of speech also guaranteed under the First Amendment, has its limits. The Constitution is not a license to commit a civil wrong -- a tort -- a breach of duty owed to society. The human sacrifices of ancient Aztec religion can be constitutionally prohibited. Harassing phone calls can be constitutionally enjoined.
People intuitively know that the proposed mosque in New York City has nothing to do with freedom of religion or freedom of speech.
Context is everything. Proponents of the NYC mosque do not want to even consider alternative locations. Why is this site so important that no other will do? No real explanation has been noted. Meanwhile, in Utica, the proponents of the Utica mosque took great pains to respect and fit in with the residents of their new home city. A recent NY Times story questioned whether Uticans would have felt the same if the local muslims were more arab-looking rather than european. It has nothing to do with looks, NY Times, since very many of arab descent have resided here for most of the 20th Century. It has everything to do with attitude. Does a group want to be part of this miracle of freedom we call America ... or destroy it?
A conclusion reasonable people can reach is that the NYC mosque is intended to inflict emotional harm on the citizens of the nation's largest city who were already harmed on 9-11. Rather than trying to integrate with and become part of America and its citizens, the proponents of this mosque, when they insist on this location, are trying to harm America and its citizens.
What other purpose could there be for insisting that the mosque has to be built on that site?
Intentional infliction of emotional distress has been classified as a tort.
A suit to enjoin the mosque probably would test the limits of the First Amendment . . . but there is an appropriate argument to be made there . . . and someone should be making it.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Utica and County Leaders Have Their Heads . . .
. . . In the Sand.
For the second time in three months, local leaders just refuse to accept what appear to be unbiased opinions on this region's viability. In May it was Forbes.
Today it is Moodys according to stories in the OD and on WKTV.
Until leadership takes off the rose-colored glasses and starts acknowledging just how bad off we are, nothing will ever change.
For the second time in three months, local leaders just refuse to accept what appear to be unbiased opinions on this region's viability. In May it was Forbes.
Today it is Moodys according to stories in the OD and on WKTV.
Out 384 metro areas, the local region was one of only 22 two deemed by Moody’s to be in danger.The danger being described as sliding into a double-dip recession. (This raises the question of when was the last time this area was OUT of recession?)
And yet, “we are not really at risk like Moody’s portrays us to be,” Roefaro told Erin Burnett, host of CNBC’s “Street Signs.”Per WKTV, Mr. Picente is also in denial . . .
Roefaro — along with John Engen, mayor of Missoula, Mont — were interviewed, and Roefaro focused on jobs he says he’s added downtown, the opening of new small businesses in the city and the progress at Harbor Point in North Utica.
Oneida County Executive Anthony Picente doesn't lend the report too much credence.Local leaders for years have avoided benchmarking Utica-Rome Metro against other parts of the country . . . and local media has been happy to play along with it. That has allowed the same old faces to use the same old policies which has led to the same old place: economic decline.
"When you look at the map and you look at the areas that were designated, there really is no rhyme or reason, or doesn't point to anything significantly that has reacted to any type of recession," Picente said.
Until leadership takes off the rose-colored glasses and starts acknowledging just how bad off we are, nothing will ever change.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Carrying Regionalism a Bit Too Far
From the Watertown Daily Times:
I wonder why the Mohawk Valley Chamber of Commerce hasn't folded itself into CenterState since it seems to subscribe to the same regional philosophy. Why not add EDGE, too, since it already cooperates with the now former MDA on the "Creative Core" marketing concept.
And since all of Upstate is pretty bad from Amsterdam to Buffalo, why stop with just Central NY?
Does anyone really believe this nonsense?
The Metropolitan Development Association of Syracuse and Central New York, which represented the 200 largest companies and institutions in Central New York, and the Greater Syracuse Chamber of Commerce completed the move in May to become CenterState Corporation for Economic Opportunity. . . .
The area covered includes Jefferson, Lewis and St. Lawrence counties and runs from the St. Lawrence River to Tompkins County and from Utica to the eastern Finger Lakes.At least Greater Utica is now no longer the only place to have its Chamber of Commerce hide its geographic identity inside an amorphous regional "blob." But including Utica in with Syracuse??
Bringing a business to Ithaca should make economic developers in the north country happy because it could mean growth for the entire region.If new businesses in Ithaca are good for Watertown, I guess it is less of a stretch to imagine that bringing businesses to Syracuse will be good for Utica . . . or vice versa?
I wonder why the Mohawk Valley Chamber of Commerce hasn't folded itself into CenterState since it seems to subscribe to the same regional philosophy. Why not add EDGE, too, since it already cooperates with the now former MDA on the "Creative Core" marketing concept.
And since all of Upstate is pretty bad from Amsterdam to Buffalo, why stop with just Central NY?
Does anyone really believe this nonsense?
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Too Much Government -- and Not Enough . . .
Everyone wants our old buildings saved and given new life. . . . to preserve architectural heritage . . . to reuse the surrounding supporting public infrastructure of streets, sidewalks, water and sewer lines . . . to inhibit urban sprawl and avoid the costs and environmental degradation associated with sprawl.
Unfortunately when someone tries to save old buildings -- giving the public all the benefits listed above -- too often their government works against them. This is what happened in a story that appeared in yesterday's OD: CharlesTown project in jeopardy.
This is where the role of government really needs to be thought out. Anyone purchasing an old building willingly accepts the costs of remodeling and bringing it up to modern standards. The costs are calculated into the purchase price offered. However, if government is going to make the process of recycling old buildings unpredictable, buyers will not be able to perform the calculation and will be frightened away. And if the government makes the price too expensive, there will be NO redevelopment.
Government needs to do a better job of making the building recycling process predictable and affordable. If this is not done, the public will be stuck with a legacy of hazardous decaying structures ... and have to sprawl further out on to green fields in the countryside.
Unfortunately when someone tries to save old buildings -- giving the public all the benefits listed above -- too often their government works against them. This is what happened in a story that appeared in yesterday's OD: CharlesTown project in jeopardy.
Cancilla, a local attorney, purchased CharlesTown in late 2007, and planned to make it into a retail and residential development that would once again be an asset to the area.EPA's involvement is a troubling sign . . . You can be sure that when government does the work itself, it will be more expensive, and not necessarily of better quality (e.g. the now demolished State Office Building parking garage that did not even last 30 years).
But the state departments of Labor and Environmental Conservation halted demolition of buildings on the eastern end of the complex in early 2008 after they discovered the company doing the work didn’t have the necessary permits and hadn’t taken proper safety precautions, according to a federal Environmental Protection Agency report.
A subsequent investigation found not only asbestos in and around the buildings, but also toxic polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs.
The EPA ordered Cancilla to secure the site and is now looking to do the work itself, the developer said.
This is where the role of government really needs to be thought out. Anyone purchasing an old building willingly accepts the costs of remodeling and bringing it up to modern standards. The costs are calculated into the purchase price offered. However, if government is going to make the process of recycling old buildings unpredictable, buyers will not be able to perform the calculation and will be frightened away. And if the government makes the price too expensive, there will be NO redevelopment.
Government needs to do a better job of making the building recycling process predictable and affordable. If this is not done, the public will be stuck with a legacy of hazardous decaying structures ... and have to sprawl further out on to green fields in the countryside.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Regionalization and Sustainable Infrastructure
The words we use have meanings beyond their definitions, with connotations of good and bad depending on our experiences. We unconsciously rely on the connotations in reaching conclusions on the subjects discussed. Sometimes the connotations become a substitute for further study of an issue. The words can shape public opinion and, ultimately, produce a result through legislative action. "Regionalization" and "sustainability" are two of those words.
“Regionalization” became a fashionable word in late 20th century local conversations. It was promoted as the antidote to “parochialism” – a narrow self-interest or selfishness that some municipalities seemed to have – something bad. “Regionalization” implemented “regionalism” to imply that communities would take a broader perspective in their decision-making, cooperate with each other, share with each other, and achieve something for the greater good. In an age of high taxation, sharing municipal services through a regionalized approach has been offered as a way to extend services to more people at less cost.
“Sustainability” and related terms are words that are just now becoming fashionable, often used in connection with renewable resources. If something is “unsustainable” it cannot keep itself going or cannot be allowed to continue. It is something bad. If something is “sustainable” it has the ability to keep itself going with little or no effort – something good. If sustainability could be built into municipal services, governments would not have to worry about keeping the services going or increasing taxes.
Although “regionalization,” “sustainability,” and their opposites have connotations of good and bad, the connotations arise in a different manner. “Regionalization's” connotation arises from one's upbringing -- a sense of fair play. We were all taught to share. “Sustainability,” however, is something that can be measured, at least relatively if not quantitatively. If a resource is used faster than it can be replenished, the use is unsustainable – bad; but used at a slower rate makes it sustainable – it can continue forever – good. “Sustainability” lends itself to evaluation, “regionalization” does not.
Concepts of sustainability, if not the word itself, have long been used in reference to public infrastructure. Public water and sewer systems are usually found in cities and villages because the systems require a certain minimum population density to be sustainable (affordable). The amount of money available to a community obviously plays a role, with wealthier communities able to sustain more infrastructure than those less wealthy. In rural areas population density is low and public water and sewer services are seldom seen.
In the early 1990s, Utica was portrayed in local media as being parochial regarding its water supply - not wanting to share its resource with surrounding communities – not wanting to play fair. Those controlling the information flow, because they resided in the suburbs, viewed the situation from a suburban perspective, and used the “regionalization” idea to advocate for regional ownership of the Utica water supply system to make it easier for the surrounding communities to obtain water for growth. Many believed this was fair to Utica because regionalization would not only pay Utica for its system, but also remove from Utica the responsibility of having to pay off the debt for a new filtration plant. Costs could be spread over a larger area. Since Utica city finances were precarious, receiving money for its water system and getting rid of the filtration plant debt provided city leaders some relief. Shedding their parochial image made it so much the better for city leaders. So it was done ... and the Mohawk Valley Water Authority was born. A quarter century earlier similar situations took place when the Oneida County Part County Sewer District was formed and when the City of Utica cooperated with New York State to build the regional arterial highway system. All these seemed like good moves from a regionalization perspective – but were they good in the sense of creating a sustainable regional community?
SUSTAINABILITY MUST BE DETERMINED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE RESIDENTS WHO PAY THE BILLS AND NOT THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS INVOLVED. This is because people will simply pack up and leave if their costs become unaffordable, taking their money – the lifeblood of services – with them. In the case of the regionalized water system, Utica leaders got temporary financial relief and suburban leaders got easier access to water. The Residents of all areas, however, have continued to pay the bills – as they always had – and costs have continued to increase. Sustainable?
Supplying water and sewer services to suburban locations costs more than locations within Utica because (1) water must travel greater distances through more pipes to go to and from suburban locations and (2) the number of customers per square mile is usually less, due to larger lot sizes. It requires more pipes per person to supply suburban areas with water and sewer services than in the city. It logically follows that suburban users should pay higher water and sewer rates to sustain services over the greater distances and lower population densities involved. However, because these services are now governed regionally (suburban representatives on boards would be loathe to accept higher rates for their constituents), rates for water and county sewer services throughout the Greater Utica area have been kept the same for everyone. This means that residents of the population centers (Utica and the Villages) pay to maintain more infrastructure than they actually use to enable unincorporated areas of Towns to receive services.
Another example of an infrastructure change that increased costs for Utica residents was installation of the State arterial highway system. At the time the arterials were initially designed, the bulk of the region's population and business was within Utica's corporate limits. At 100,000 people, Utica was only about 4,000 people short of being "full." Utica residents did not need the arterials because almost every one and every thing was close by. Instead, the roads were built to keep the regional economy growing -- which is probably why the Chamber of Commerce endorsed the state's plan, while at least one Utica mayor questioned its value. Faster connections to and from Utica suburbs would not have benefitted Utica residents at that time because there was little in the suburbs for them. After 45 years, the arterial did not result in “growth” but merely sprawl. People and economic activity merely redistributed themselves across the landscape.
What made the arterials a problem for Utica was that DEVELOPED properties in a city (almost at capacity) had to be demolished to install the system. This PERMANENTLY removed them from the tax rolls and necessarily increased the cost of maintaining municipal infrastructure for the remaining property owners. Many city streets became cut off and traffic was re-routed. Former busy thoroughfares became virtual dead-ends or ghost towns. While these streets had their value for carrying traffic drastically reduced, the streets still needed to be plowed and maintained. City neighborhoods, including business areas, became less convenient for residents and customers - another cost since "time is money." The increased costs resulted in lower property values -- another cost. Rising costs made remaining in Utica unsustainable for many people, and population declined. Meanwhile, the owners of suburban properties saw their values rise at little cost because arterials in the suburbs took little developed property.
Although residents of Towns have received the benefits of highway, water, and sewer services subsidized by Utica residents, the scheme that produced this result -- New York State's laws and policies -- have produced negative results for them as well. This will become increasingly apparent as time goes on.
Long time New Hartford residents, for example, may remember when there was NO Town tax. This was back when most town residents were clustered in the Villages of New Hartford or New York Mills, which had municipal services. As conditions in Utica became unsustainable, many Uticans moved to unincorporated areas of the Towns. This required (or provided an excuse for) Town government to expand, which led to Town taxes. Because Village residents are also residents of Towns, they were taxed, too, to help pay for Town services to the new Town residents, even though they were already paying their Villages for similar services. In other words, Village residents pay for more government than they need and subsidize Town government. Like Utica, village populations have declined from their highs, and for many people, the Villages have become unsustainable.
As Town taxes increase to meet the increasing demands of more development, living in the Towns will become an unsustainable proposition for some people, and they will move to the next town. If past policies continue, water, sewers, and highways will follow these people, again subsidized by the residents remaining behind who either are wealthy enough to pay the costs or are too poor to leave.
Like a smoke ring, the urbanized area will continue to expand outward across the landscape, gobbling up green fields and leaving behind underutilized infrastructure . . . until it all disintegrates.
We have already witnessed the beginning of this process. Populations of suburban towns have topped out, being relatively steady for 20 years. Regional populations have declined, with Oneida County having lost 40,000 and Utica-Rome metro down by more. WE HAVE ALREADY BECOME UNSUSTAINABLE.
The Greater Utica area is not alone. The policies, which subsidize suburban growth at the expense of central cities and villages, prevail across Upstate New York and are rooted in how New York State organizes local government. They have resulted in Upstate having some of the worst cases of urban sprawl in the country, requiring dwindling regional populations to support an ever expanding infrastructure (see “Sprawl without Growth – the Upstate Paradox” by Rolf Pendall of Cornell on the Brookings Institution's website at http://www.brookings.edu). Because of the inordinate amount of public infrastructure this region and other Upstate regions must support, it is no surprise that, when calculated as a percentage of home value, Oneida County ranks as the 24th most heavily taxed county IN THE NATION and that twenty of the twenty-three counties more heavily taxed are also in Upstate New York. In contrast, because state policies reflect the dominance of Downstate legislators in state government, Downstate counties ranked well and are still growing in population. Nassau is 237, Suffolk is 292, Westchester is 354, Queens is 1,382, New York (Manhattan) is 1,547, and Kings (Brooklyn) is 1,553. (See the Tax Foundation at http://www.taxfoundation.org).
Although our problem with sprawl is rooted in state policies, understanding the nature of the problem gives us the tools to halt the process and, hopefully, eventually return this region back to sustainability. Programs designed to create growth ever further from central cities must immediately cease. Residents should not support "growth" that is merely moving people or business out of Utica or Rome. If any incentive is given for business development, it should only be at brownfield sites that already have the infrastructure to support development in place. Plans to consolidate police or EMT services must be rejected, if they impose higher costs on Utica or Village residents. Plans to move responsibility for services to the County level must be rejected, if they increase costs to Utica or Village residents or minimize their voices in government. Planning efforts, such as the Utica Master Plan and New Hartford GEIS, must address sustainability both for the jurisdictions doing the planning and for the region as a whole.
Ultimately, the best chance to restore the area to sustainability would be to build regional sustainability right into local government through a merger of all local governments that SHARE A COMMON INFRASTRUCTURE. The new government needs to be given the responsibility for this infrastructure (primarily water and sewer services, but all "regionalized" services focused on the Utica area should be included). The elected representatives leading this new government will have a better perspective of what is sustainable for the region as a whole because they will be responsible for ALL municipal services throughout the area. They will be more likely to put the brakes on developments which impose more costs on area residents.
Without the merger of local governments as described above, the coordination required to achieve the same result will be next to impossible to achieve. . . and like an expanding smoke ring, Greater Utica will eventually disintegrate.
[The above article was originally published in the July 2010 Utica Phoenix.]
“Regionalization” became a fashionable word in late 20th century local conversations. It was promoted as the antidote to “parochialism” – a narrow self-interest or selfishness that some municipalities seemed to have – something bad. “Regionalization” implemented “regionalism” to imply that communities would take a broader perspective in their decision-making, cooperate with each other, share with each other, and achieve something for the greater good. In an age of high taxation, sharing municipal services through a regionalized approach has been offered as a way to extend services to more people at less cost.
“Sustainability” and related terms are words that are just now becoming fashionable, often used in connection with renewable resources. If something is “unsustainable” it cannot keep itself going or cannot be allowed to continue. It is something bad. If something is “sustainable” it has the ability to keep itself going with little or no effort – something good. If sustainability could be built into municipal services, governments would not have to worry about keeping the services going or increasing taxes.
Although “regionalization,” “sustainability,” and their opposites have connotations of good and bad, the connotations arise in a different manner. “Regionalization's” connotation arises from one's upbringing -- a sense of fair play. We were all taught to share. “Sustainability,” however, is something that can be measured, at least relatively if not quantitatively. If a resource is used faster than it can be replenished, the use is unsustainable – bad; but used at a slower rate makes it sustainable – it can continue forever – good. “Sustainability” lends itself to evaluation, “regionalization” does not.
Concepts of sustainability, if not the word itself, have long been used in reference to public infrastructure. Public water and sewer systems are usually found in cities and villages because the systems require a certain minimum population density to be sustainable (affordable). The amount of money available to a community obviously plays a role, with wealthier communities able to sustain more infrastructure than those less wealthy. In rural areas population density is low and public water and sewer services are seldom seen.
In the early 1990s, Utica was portrayed in local media as being parochial regarding its water supply - not wanting to share its resource with surrounding communities – not wanting to play fair. Those controlling the information flow, because they resided in the suburbs, viewed the situation from a suburban perspective, and used the “regionalization” idea to advocate for regional ownership of the Utica water supply system to make it easier for the surrounding communities to obtain water for growth. Many believed this was fair to Utica because regionalization would not only pay Utica for its system, but also remove from Utica the responsibility of having to pay off the debt for a new filtration plant. Costs could be spread over a larger area. Since Utica city finances were precarious, receiving money for its water system and getting rid of the filtration plant debt provided city leaders some relief. Shedding their parochial image made it so much the better for city leaders. So it was done ... and the Mohawk Valley Water Authority was born. A quarter century earlier similar situations took place when the Oneida County Part County Sewer District was formed and when the City of Utica cooperated with New York State to build the regional arterial highway system. All these seemed like good moves from a regionalization perspective – but were they good in the sense of creating a sustainable regional community?
SUSTAINABILITY MUST BE DETERMINED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE RESIDENTS WHO PAY THE BILLS AND NOT THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS INVOLVED. This is because people will simply pack up and leave if their costs become unaffordable, taking their money – the lifeblood of services – with them. In the case of the regionalized water system, Utica leaders got temporary financial relief and suburban leaders got easier access to water. The Residents of all areas, however, have continued to pay the bills – as they always had – and costs have continued to increase. Sustainable?
Supplying water and sewer services to suburban locations costs more than locations within Utica because (1) water must travel greater distances through more pipes to go to and from suburban locations and (2) the number of customers per square mile is usually less, due to larger lot sizes. It requires more pipes per person to supply suburban areas with water and sewer services than in the city. It logically follows that suburban users should pay higher water and sewer rates to sustain services over the greater distances and lower population densities involved. However, because these services are now governed regionally (suburban representatives on boards would be loathe to accept higher rates for their constituents), rates for water and county sewer services throughout the Greater Utica area have been kept the same for everyone. This means that residents of the population centers (Utica and the Villages) pay to maintain more infrastructure than they actually use to enable unincorporated areas of Towns to receive services.
Another example of an infrastructure change that increased costs for Utica residents was installation of the State arterial highway system. At the time the arterials were initially designed, the bulk of the region's population and business was within Utica's corporate limits. At 100,000 people, Utica was only about 4,000 people short of being "full." Utica residents did not need the arterials because almost every one and every thing was close by. Instead, the roads were built to keep the regional economy growing -- which is probably why the Chamber of Commerce endorsed the state's plan, while at least one Utica mayor questioned its value. Faster connections to and from Utica suburbs would not have benefitted Utica residents at that time because there was little in the suburbs for them. After 45 years, the arterial did not result in “growth” but merely sprawl. People and economic activity merely redistributed themselves across the landscape.
What made the arterials a problem for Utica was that DEVELOPED properties in a city (almost at capacity) had to be demolished to install the system. This PERMANENTLY removed them from the tax rolls and necessarily increased the cost of maintaining municipal infrastructure for the remaining property owners. Many city streets became cut off and traffic was re-routed. Former busy thoroughfares became virtual dead-ends or ghost towns. While these streets had their value for carrying traffic drastically reduced, the streets still needed to be plowed and maintained. City neighborhoods, including business areas, became less convenient for residents and customers - another cost since "time is money." The increased costs resulted in lower property values -- another cost. Rising costs made remaining in Utica unsustainable for many people, and population declined. Meanwhile, the owners of suburban properties saw their values rise at little cost because arterials in the suburbs took little developed property.
Although residents of Towns have received the benefits of highway, water, and sewer services subsidized by Utica residents, the scheme that produced this result -- New York State's laws and policies -- have produced negative results for them as well. This will become increasingly apparent as time goes on.
Long time New Hartford residents, for example, may remember when there was NO Town tax. This was back when most town residents were clustered in the Villages of New Hartford or New York Mills, which had municipal services. As conditions in Utica became unsustainable, many Uticans moved to unincorporated areas of the Towns. This required (or provided an excuse for) Town government to expand, which led to Town taxes. Because Village residents are also residents of Towns, they were taxed, too, to help pay for Town services to the new Town residents, even though they were already paying their Villages for similar services. In other words, Village residents pay for more government than they need and subsidize Town government. Like Utica, village populations have declined from their highs, and for many people, the Villages have become unsustainable.
As Town taxes increase to meet the increasing demands of more development, living in the Towns will become an unsustainable proposition for some people, and they will move to the next town. If past policies continue, water, sewers, and highways will follow these people, again subsidized by the residents remaining behind who either are wealthy enough to pay the costs or are too poor to leave.
Like a smoke ring, the urbanized area will continue to expand outward across the landscape, gobbling up green fields and leaving behind underutilized infrastructure . . . until it all disintegrates.
We have already witnessed the beginning of this process. Populations of suburban towns have topped out, being relatively steady for 20 years. Regional populations have declined, with Oneida County having lost 40,000 and Utica-Rome metro down by more. WE HAVE ALREADY BECOME UNSUSTAINABLE.
The Greater Utica area is not alone. The policies, which subsidize suburban growth at the expense of central cities and villages, prevail across Upstate New York and are rooted in how New York State organizes local government. They have resulted in Upstate having some of the worst cases of urban sprawl in the country, requiring dwindling regional populations to support an ever expanding infrastructure (see “Sprawl without Growth – the Upstate Paradox” by Rolf Pendall of Cornell on the Brookings Institution's website at http://www.brookings.edu). Because of the inordinate amount of public infrastructure this region and other Upstate regions must support, it is no surprise that, when calculated as a percentage of home value, Oneida County ranks as the 24th most heavily taxed county IN THE NATION and that twenty of the twenty-three counties more heavily taxed are also in Upstate New York. In contrast, because state policies reflect the dominance of Downstate legislators in state government, Downstate counties ranked well and are still growing in population. Nassau is 237, Suffolk is 292, Westchester is 354, Queens is 1,382, New York (Manhattan) is 1,547, and Kings (Brooklyn) is 1,553. (See the Tax Foundation at http://www.taxfoundation.org).
Although our problem with sprawl is rooted in state policies, understanding the nature of the problem gives us the tools to halt the process and, hopefully, eventually return this region back to sustainability. Programs designed to create growth ever further from central cities must immediately cease. Residents should not support "growth" that is merely moving people or business out of Utica or Rome. If any incentive is given for business development, it should only be at brownfield sites that already have the infrastructure to support development in place. Plans to consolidate police or EMT services must be rejected, if they impose higher costs on Utica or Village residents. Plans to move responsibility for services to the County level must be rejected, if they increase costs to Utica or Village residents or minimize their voices in government. Planning efforts, such as the Utica Master Plan and New Hartford GEIS, must address sustainability both for the jurisdictions doing the planning and for the region as a whole.
Ultimately, the best chance to restore the area to sustainability would be to build regional sustainability right into local government through a merger of all local governments that SHARE A COMMON INFRASTRUCTURE. The new government needs to be given the responsibility for this infrastructure (primarily water and sewer services, but all "regionalized" services focused on the Utica area should be included). The elected representatives leading this new government will have a better perspective of what is sustainable for the region as a whole because they will be responsible for ALL municipal services throughout the area. They will be more likely to put the brakes on developments which impose more costs on area residents.
Without the merger of local governments as described above, the coordination required to achieve the same result will be next to impossible to achieve. . . and like an expanding smoke ring, Greater Utica will eventually disintegrate.
[The above article was originally published in the July 2010 Utica Phoenix.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)