Barnes Ave. Double Standards . . .

This is interesting.

State offers $1.07M to Barnes Ave. businesses. Five businesses have been cut off from access to the rest of the world with the closure of the Barnes Ave Bridge. But . . .

The state offered nearly $1.07 million to four of the five businesses.

Bob’s Barnes Ave. Auto Parts was offered $374,500, B&W Auto Parts $323,000, A-1 Auto Parts $277,000 and the Paris Gun Club $95,000.

According to the state, the city of Utica is responsible for compensating Controlled Waste Systems Inc. because its truck terminal fell within the city limits.

Why is Utica responsible for compensating the business in Utica (which hasn't been there long enough to pay much in the way of taxes) when the Town of Marcy (which has been receiving taxes from the businesses there for years and years) is not responsible?

Why the Double Standard?

The next step is removing 110,000 tires that remain strewn across the salvage yards. That job likely will be contracted out to a tire removal company, Litwhiler said. The cost of the removal will fall upon the property owners, he said.

“It’s more than going in there and just hauling them out with a truck,” he said. “There are mechanisms in place to recover those costs.”

Property owners are responsible for cleaning up their properties to meet environmental standards. But the STATE is now the property owner in equity because the STATE has condemned the property. So why is it now the dispossessed businesses' responsibility to move the tires when the STATE caused the dispossession.

Why the Double Standard?

Common sense and turf wars have caused this needless problem.

According to an article from last November

Completely repairing the bridge would cost about $3 million . . .

About $2 million of funding – primarily federal funding, combined with state and local contributions – was obtained years ago and could potentially be put toward addressing the issues. But instead, city engineers are proposing developing an alternative route to the properties across the bridge.

If the State can now come up with  $1 Million to take the properties, when added to the $2 Million previously obtained there would have been enough money to repair the bridge . . . to keep businesses in business . . . to keep taxes flowing to Marcy . . . and to keep the state's recreational facilities along the river and canal accessible to the public.

Is a little cooperation among different agencies, municipalities and the state too much to ask?

Outrageous!

Council haggles over fate of HSBC building.

The city’s leading economic development official told Common Council members Wednesday he’d like to see the city purchase the downtown former HSBC building for $350,000, for the purpose of demolishing it and turning it into a city-owned parking lot.  

 Randy Soggs, Urban and Economic Development commissioner, said the money for the purchase and demolition, an estimated total of roughly $700,000, would come from state money allocated for downtown parking.

The city needs to use every legal means possible to force the owner of the HSBC building to bring the building into compliance with codes and to recoup all costs related to having to deal with the nuisance on the property.

The city's proposal to pay the owner $100,000 more than the owner paid for the building has a distinct odor. The idea that someone would be permitted to benefit from neglect at taxpayer expense is simply outrageous. It will only encourage more of the same.

First it's proposing a housing development next to the proposed up ramp on the N-S Arterial.  Now this!

The proposals demonstrate that a successful businessman can be totally clueless when it comes to setting public policy and planning.

This guy has got to go!

Common Councilman James Zecca, D-2, has proposed legislation, currently in committee, that would halt demolition of all commercial buildings until the master plan passed.  

This is another crock of baloney. While I'll agree that demolition of this building should be stopped, there is NOTHING in the draft Master Plan that addresses this situation.

Rather, this debacle will be used to justify appointing a bunch of insiders to update the zoning ordinance and city code (because that is what the plan calls for). Undoubtedly the insiders will rewrite things to benefit themselves. The Master Plan RFP called for professional consultants to do a written technical review of the zoning ordinance and city code and to draft revisions for same, but it was never done. Instead the taxpayers received $325,000+ window dressing.

A Paucity of Planning for Public Parking . . .

I wondered why I heard someone complaining about finding parking when I walked past the train station yesterday. There has always been plenty of parking around the train station.Then I came upon the scene at left (click to enlarge) which was a big surprise.

The large public parking lot created at taxpayers' expense across the street from Union Station, the Children's Museum and the Oneida County DMV Office has apparently been sold to the owners of the Doyle Building and is now off limits to the public.

With the city of Utica so concerned about the availability of public parking these days, when/how did this happen?

It actually happened back in 2007 during the Julian administration . . .  AND it was approved by the Utica Common Council.  But did anyone from the public really understand what was going on?

Buried in a 6/21/07 article in the Utica OD "Could Park Avenue become a parking lot?" (use your library card for access) comes this tid-bit:

"UTICA COUNCIL NEWS ...
"The sale of 322-328 Main St. to Stuart A. Bannatyne for $50,000 was approved. Bannatyne plans to create additional parking for 330-334 Main St., the former Doyle Hardware building ."

The article makes it sound like Mr. Bannatyne is "creating" parking on the site, rather than purchasing existing public parking. Who would know what is on 322-328 Main?  Who would know that the developer's "working with the city to address parking issues" described in an earlier 4/25/07 article involved the sale of a public parking facility?

The public only gets an inkling of what happened after council approval of the sale from Councilman Ed Hill's statements in a 6/26/07 article "Council will look into Park Ave. plan"

Councilman Ed Hill, R-1, told the group at Wednesday night's Economic Development Committee meeting that he believes the idea to close a portion of the street [Park Avenue] was developed in secrecy.

Oneida County Executive Anthony Picente and Mayor Tim Julian, both Hill's fellow Republicans, should have first discussed the idea with the council before drawing up plans, Hill said.

"As a councilperson, it's been my experience that there's been no discussion between the mayor and myself," Hill said after the meeting. "I'm not trying to stymie progress, but I also have ideas and have talked to people."

The meeting ended following a shouting match between Hill and Julian. That occurred as Hill described what he said was a deal between city and county leaders to deed a county-owned parking lot near the former Doyle Hardware building to the city.

According to Hill, the deal was made so the city could then sell it to Stuart Bannatyne , the New York City developer who purchased the Doyle building. In return, the city would allow the closing of Park Avenue to meet the county's parking needs, Hill said.

"There's not a conspiracy on every corner, Ed," a frustrated Julian said loudly from his seat across the table. Moments later, Julian walked out.

Hill's fellow Republicans dismissed his statements and said his theory has no validity.

Even here, the article tells the public only that the parking lot is "near" the Doyle building.


The lack of transparency and odor of back-room dealing are troubling . . . but the real issue is a lack of planning that still remains even after more than $325,000 taxpayer dollars have been spent on the Utica Master Plan that is not a plan. 


There may be good reasons for giving the Doyle Building its own parking area, but imagine if Doyle was in the New Hartford Shopping Center.  What would it be like if the Shopping Center's vast parking lot were carved up into spaces designated for each tenant? It would become inconvenient because customers would have to drive around to find the spaces owned by the establishment they wanted to patronize. Some establishments might run out of spaces at particular times while other spaces go unoccupied. It might be such a bother that people would stay away.  Does not Utica run the risk of this happening at Baggs Square? 

The parking required by an area can be estimated from the kinds of activities contemplated and the square footage that will be occupied by those activities.


The answer is PLANNING for both uses and parking to ensure that there are enough spaces for all the land uses contemplated within a particular area. With sound planning a developer like Mr. Bannatyne might not feel the need to have to purchase and maintain a separate lot.  That reduces the cost of doing business. With sound planning, fewer spaces might need to be built, e.g. spaces serving the DMV during the day would be free to serve the restaurant crowd at night.  That increases efficiency.  

Being able to do things more efficiently used to be the driver behind the rise of cities. 


But Utica cannot be efficient without a REAL plan.  As long as Utica remains without a real plan, development will continue to require special deals --- or the development will go to the suburbs where developers will have more room to control their own environment.

The Undoing of West Utica . . .

The State DOT revealed its final design for the N-S Arterial remake last night at a meeting of the ArtsWest Alliance. . . .

It is going to be even worse than expected for West Utica!

While the bridge over Court St. and cut offs of Sunset Avenue and Warren Street are bad enough, the big surprise and disappointment was that the current single bridge over Oriskany Blvd., Lafayette and Columbia Streets will be replaced by separate bridges . . . with retaining walls holding up the Arterial in-between.

People have somewhat adapted to the current viaduct overhead.  There is plenty of room under the viaduct for light, air and people to pass through, and people are using the space as covered parking. But having the openness replaced with a stone wall . . . even one designed to look like it was built of stone blocks from the Chenango Canal . . . will further detract from and distinctly divide the neighborhood.

Another disappointment is that the northern intersection of Lincoln Ave with Court Street will be eliminated.  Lincoln will end at Roberts Street.  This seems to negate the one good thing that is being proposed: an extension of the dead end of Lincoln Ave to a new intersection with Burrstone Road -- restoring an old access point.

What drivers gain in greater speeds on the arterial, they lose in having to go out of their way to get on the Arterial -- or to go across the Arterial.

Interestingly, state officials were unable to estimate the maximum distance someone would have to detour to drive from one side of the Arterial to the other given the proposed street closures. Nor were they able to estimate the additional time such a detour would take. Ease of access is a major consideration in locating a business.  It should be clear from looking at a map that large areas of West Utica will become backwaters because they will be harder to get to and through.

State officials were also unable to estimate the loss in tax revenue to the City of Utica and the Utica City School District from the large number of property takings. How is the city expected to make up the revenue? They dismissed the question by noting that the City now owns many parcels.  No one thinks how many parcels have fallen into city ownership because of the uncertainty of what the Arterial remake would create.

As disappointing as the state's presentation was, the seeming acceptance by local elected officials and community activists was even more so.  They know what this project will do to West Utica because they have expressed their concerns in the past. They have the biggest stake in this issue and are looked upon to provide leadership.

They need to do so now.  An alternative to this project MUST be found.  Otherwise it will be the undoing of West Utica. 

Aren't We Maxed Out?

According to the OD yesterday, Congressman Hanna is co-sponsoring job legislation,  specifically, reauthorization of two programs to, according to a news release,  “offer competition-based awards to stimulate technological innovation among small private-sector businesses while providing government agencies new, cost-effective, technical and scientific solutions to meet their diverse needs, without extra federal spending.”  The links in the article go to federal programs offering grants.

While small businesses are the backbone of the economy, why do they need federal programs especially created just for them?  The same question goes for special programs for women and minority-owned businesses.  Special federal programs have been created to favor certain "classes" defined by the government as worthy of special treatment.

How about the class of people who don't want special treatment . . . who don't want a federal handout . . . who don't want special rules created just for "them?" . . . the ones who what to achieve success through their own resources?

In all these programs, some person or company gets a government hand or hand-out while some person/company's competitor does not. This both encourages businesses to get on the government dole (and control) and discourages those who want to engage in free competition on a level playing field.

Simply put, special programs for special people are costly ... both in dollars spent and in the discouragement given to those who do NOT want to be beholden to the government in running their businesses.


The country is maxed-out  . . . on its credit . . . . and on its patience with special treatment for special people, companies, and groups.

Utica in Limbo

 Future of downtown HSBC building in limbo.

Concerned with the condition of the former HSBC Bank building downtown, codes officials are working with the California-based owner to arrange an interior inspection.

 If the owners prohibit that, codes likely will issue a court order that could lead to the building’s demolition.

This does not bode well for Downtown Utica.

The building's bright white marble facade is replicated on another building's facade facing the little Ellen Hanna sculpture garden across Seneca Street. The public area created in between at the former southern end of Seneca Street, with its seating and stone checkerboard tables,  is a place for office workers to relax and socialize during breaks. The HSBC Building and the public area together create a uniquely urban space that you won't find in the suburbs.

One would think that the pleasant public space on the Seneca Street side and the ample parking area on the west side should make the HSBC Building prime office space. . . but the building sits vacant. Why?

No one is answering that question. . . . or even seems interested in answering that question.

If the building must be demolished, the property has at least one interested developer: the city.


 Urban and Economic Development Commissioner Randy Soggs said it could play into the city’s recently refocused vision for downtown parking, which now includes plans for surface lots instead of a parking garage. 

 “We need some more downtown parking,” he said. “If that building has to come down, there may be a way we can accomplish that at the same time as dealing with a potentially unsafe structure.”

The landmark City Center Building near by is also vacant, as is the first floor of the former Neisners Department Store next to the State Office Building.  Both have had a lot of money poured into them. City Center has been given an expensive marble facade. Neisners  has been given an arcaded front with unique curved display windows extending into the arcade.  Why are there no tenants?

While parking may be an issue for City Center and Neisners with both being on the east side of Genesee, it is NOT an issue for HSBC which has a large parking area next door. Yet all are vacant.

The fact that city officials find an opportunity for a parking lot in a landmark facing the wrecking ball is downright scary.  What happened to the Renaissance City? 

Instead of seeing another opportunity for parking, city officials need to see an opportunity for introspection. They need to answer the question why prime office space having ample parking has not attracted tenants. Only then will they have a clue on what to do with Downtown Utica. 

New Ghetto for West Utica!

Utica considers brownstone apartments on Lincoln Ave. According to this story, the "city" wants to build a 15-20 unit residential unit building on Lincoln Avenue for sale to low to moderate income tenants.

Who speaks for the city? How did this project get so far that "The process of vetting firms to do the architectural drawings will begin in the next few weeks . . ."?

“We felt the housing would fit in the neighborhood and help with the ongoing process of revitalization,” [Urban and Econ. Dev. Commr.] Soggs said.

Does Mr. Soggs really believe that housing next to an expressway will attract buyers?

As it stands now, NYSDOT is proposing to turn the Arterial into an expressway at this location. A "sculpture trail" along the route will not make up for the noise, lights, fumes and grime that come with an expressway. Just imagine the sounds of tractor trailers changing gears as they approach the ramp to the new Court Street overpass heading north. Yes . . . the sweet sounds of trucks will rock you to sleep! Put that in the "city's" marketing brochure.

Just because someone is "low income" does not mean they are dumb. People want their investments to grow. Housing next to an expressway is not likely to appreciate in value and not likely to sell.

High density housing (contrary to some councilperson's beliefs) has an appropriate place in urban design. Successful projects (i.e., where people would want to live and invest) would be associated with a Walkable Neighborhood where people can walk to services such as grocers and drugstores, and even to work.  The mix of uses, the infrastructure to support them, and the surrounding environment, however, need to be planned.

Where's the Plan?

Conspicuously absent from this story is any mention of the Utica Master Plan . . . probably because there IS NO PLAN.  There is nothing in the Master Plan which identifies this location as being appropriate for high density housing. Without an overarching plan for a walkable neighborhood, this project makes no sense.

Mr. Soggs claims there is a "demand" for this housing, but, if so, why are not private developers jumping to fill this niche? The apparent competition between Utica Economic Development and the Utica MHA is a strange twist.  Government distorts economic reality.


All this seems to do is enable certain people to dip into federal funds (which hopefully will be cut off soon). The project will turn into a New Washington Courts.

Utica deserves better.

Astroturf in Utica 3 . . .

"Make Them Pay" said the sign at today's protest outside of Congressman Hanna's Utica office. . . . They were protesting "tax cuts for the rich," which probably more precisely should be described as preserving existing tax treatment for the rich.

What they really are demanding are tax increases for the rich . . . the rich who already contribute the bulk of the national budget . . . the rich whose contributions allow 40% of the public not to pay any tax at all . . .  the rich whose contributions allow some low income people to get more in tax refunds than they ever contributed in tax withholdings... the rich who are NOT given the deductions that are permitted to low and moderate income people.  How is taking more from the rich fair?

Not surprisingly, this protest was arranged by "MoveOn.org" whose stock-in-trade is class warfare . . . the kind that ends in revolutions and totalitarian governments. MoveOn's strident, divisive, hateful speech  preys on envy.

Too bad . . . because it gets in the way of serious discussion and debate over needed changes to the tax code. For example, GE has raked in billions of profits without paying any taxes, while other companies and people pay taxes through the nose. . . It did so by taking advantage of loopholes placed in the code for specific purposes.  Are the purposes beneficial to the country . . . or just to GE?  GE has kept a lot of its capital overseas to avoid taxation here.  Is that good or bad for America?  How do other countries tax multinational corporations? Should corporations be taxed at all when their shareholders will pay taxes on the profits that are distributed? Should capital gains be taxed at a lesser rate than other income? Should tax deductions be given for state taxes or home mortgages?  Should tax breaks be given to people who can afford a hybrid vehicle when the vehicle already saves the owner money? Likewise breaks for solar panels and wind mills?

The tax code is exceedingly long and complex.  "Loopholes" are "special treatment" for certain interest groups.  Perhaps if many of the loopholes were eliminated, our perception of the tax code would be more fair. We need to discuss what needs to be changed, and what should be kept the same.  While there is little on which I agree with President Obama, I agree with him when he says he wants "the amount of taxes you pay isn't determined by what kind of accountant you can afford." (See Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically)

Playing class warfare is not only a distraction, it divides us . . . preventing us from talking to each other and discussing rationally the issues that face this country and reaching sound resolutions. 

Organizations like MoveOn that prey on emotions need to . . . Move On.

Maybe I Didn't Understand . . .

I was watching the Beck show the other evening listening to a conversation between Congressman Rangel (D-NY) and Judge Napolitano. When the subject of the national debt limit came up, I thought I heard Mr. Rangel say something like Congress has to raise the debt limit in order to borrow the money needed to pay the interest on the existing debt. I did a double take. Borrowing more money to pay for past borrowing? Maybe I didn't understand him correctly, but that's what it sounded like.

This morning I heard Congressman Hanna (R-NY) on WIBX. He indicated that congressmen did not want to admit it, but that they would end up approving an increase in the debt limit, and that Mr. Hanna favored doing so as well. Mr. Hanna explained that failing to approve the increase would be like a shopper going on a spree and then refusing to pay bill ... that the country's credit in the eyes of the rest of the world would suffer. Maybe I didn't understand him correctly because I was driving to work at the time and minding the traffic... but that's what it sounded like... It also sounded similar to what Congressman Rangel said.

Joseph Farah must have heard the same narrative out of Washington. In an Open letter to John Boehner on WorldNetDaily he responds:

"Saying no to more borrowing does not mean default on loan obligations."

To any of us with modest incomes "no to more borrowing" simply means to live within our means. Paying for past borrowing is something normal people budget for. If our means do not cover our budget, the budget must be made smaller by reducing planned spending ... but not by defaulting on past loans. That leads to bankruptcy.

Suggesting that the country will default on past loans if it does not raise the debt ceiling and borrow more is simply being irresponsible. How will the interest be paid on the new money borrowed? More borrowing in the future? As Joseph Farah says:

"It's time to stop cutting piecemeal. It is getting us nowhere. It is not responsible to keep borrowing – even if means borrowing less than in the past. You can't fix a debt problem through more borrowing."

But maybe we just don't understand.

Astroturf 'R' Us . . .

This is why taxpayers are losing sympathy for teachers.

The students should be in class . . . not on a picket line.

Budget Breakthrough . . . or Scam?

Mark Levin on Cavuto had a bit to say on yesterday's "breakthrough" . . .

 
So did Karl Rove (who is full of it, but Greta seems to understand what's at stake) .

What happens when the next stop toward our fiscal train-wreck is reached, the debt ceiling?  Will the Republicans approve using more debt to pay for ongoing programs? Is that why they were sent to Washington?  Will we ever reach anything even approaching Paul Ryan's budget (which might not even go far enough in spending cuts) when the next budget is due?

Our government continues to export our productivity, making it harder for people to find work. Our government burns our food as fuel in cars. Our government ignores costs in money and to our culture of programs which address "social issues" because to consider otherwise would be "divisive." Our government tries to regulate every aspect of our lives.  Our government insists on policing the world, but fails to police our borders. Etc. Etc.


Ultimately, our government pays for its malfeasance by stealing the value of the savings of its citizens by printing money.
 

When does it stop? 

Taking From People . . .

Mohawk Valley Edge is prepared to invoke the powers of eminent domain to essentially force a sale of 55 acres of Farmer's land on Hazard Road, in Marcy; land they say is essential to making the site to which they're trying to lure a nano tech center/chip fab plant more marketable.

"It would make it a lot stronger site," says Steven DiMeo, of the Edge.

Enough is enough. EDGE, Mr. Dimeo, and Oneida County have been given enough time and taxpayer money on this chip fab pipe dream. At one time we had a chance to land one . . . but this crew blew it, allowing Albany area politicians to walk all over us. It is time to move on.

Taking a family farm to make the county site "stronger" is not only nonsense, it is reprehensible.

Jigsaw Learning . . .

In the OD Today: Experienced teacher uses modern methods to get students learning

It’s called “jigsaw,” and requires students to perform tasks in groups, derive the tasks’ results and then teach what they learned to other students. . . . 

The jigsaw process, she said, almost creates an individualized education plan for each student regardless of that student’s level – helping teachers reach the lower-achieving students while still challenging the higher-achieving ones as they proceed through the lesson.

This begs the question, is it the teacher that is reaching the lower-achieving students or other students that are doing the job?  Who is being paid to transfer knowledge to the students?  Who is more likely to produce accurate information to the students?

The "Jigsaw Classroom" was originally conceived as a way to socially integrate different racial groups -- i.e., its objective was social engineering, not fostering the transfer of knowledge.  "Jigsaw" is a variant of the "cooperative learning" technique where students "construct their own knowledge."

"Jigsaw," "cooperative learning," and variations on the theme all work to reduce the importance of the teacher -- and the "older generation" -- as a source of knowledge. They also give a false perception of "expertise" to the student participants. These techniques have been around for about 40 years.

We have a serious problem with academics in this country, and with inexperienced "know-it-alls" running society's institutions.  Are these problems connected to these teaching techniques? 

Charter School Spells T-R-O-U-B-L-E for Utica

I'll be the last person to defend the track record of public schools. Simply put, they are not doing the job they have been given to do.  That said, Charter Schools -- at least New York State's version of them -- are NOT a viable alternative. Now Utica may have a Charter School in its future. Per the OD:

The schools’ lead applicant, Dr. Andy Lopez-Williams, specializes in children with autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The school would utilize methods developed by Lopez-Williams, but would be open to all students.

Per his website, Dr. Lopez-Williams has impressive credentials and experience, as well as a business that centers on providing services to individuals with autism. Certainly parents of autistic children would applaud having an alternative. The proposed school's prospectus reads well, seemingly promising something for everyone.

No reflection on Lopez-Williams, this spells big TROUBLE for Utica because of the way New York State funds and controls Charter Schools...

Taxation without representation. 

Utica taxpayers and residents will have NO referendum on the new school . . .and NO means of control over the school.  Rather, if the school gets a charter from the State, Utica's overburdened taxpayers will be stuck paying for it.

Dual public school system 

Utica is having enough trouble keeping one school system going.  Saddling the taxpayers with the cost of a second will drive more people and jobs out of town, threatening the city's economic viability.

Creation of another special interest group looking for a handout.

The New York Charter Schools Association is already complaining that its per student level of funding is less than that of regular public schools. You will hear this complaint more with a local charter school.

Poor oversight.

Local school boards have difficulties exacting performance out of their schools. Do people really believe that licensing authorities in Albany are capable of doing a better job?

Fragmentation of the curriculum with "designer schools"

An example is Chicago's "green" school.  Taxpayers could be forced to pay for charter schools for every social cause, political agenda, or interest.

Taxpayer funding of private business endeavors and experimentation.

If educators think they have a good idea, they should bear the risks of implementing it, not the taxpayers. Taxpayers should not be forced to fund someone's experiments. Let the marketplace rather than a state board determine "success."

Charter Schools are part of the legacy of the Republican Gov. Patacki years, but they have been expanded by his Democrat  successors.  Fittingly, Albany has the greatest number of them. Fred Lebrun of the Times Union has written several articles worth reading:

• Cost of charter schools puts Albany in spiraling tax trap
•  SCHOOLS OF HARD KNOCKS
•  EDUCATION INITIATIVE IS NOT NEEDED
  

If the public schools are failing, the answer is to fix them, not create a taxpayer-funded, elite-controlled alternative system.  If fixing them is not an option, then try issuing vouchers that can be used at private schools ... Vouchers may still create a funding headache for local school districts, but they will put in charge the persons most likely to find success for students: their Parents.

There is something very wrong with our government when one man can go to a State board to force an entire city pay for his personal dream.  The Charter School law needs to be changed to give residents of local school districts the say over if and how a Charter School will be implemented.  

Losing the Tea Party . . .

Last November, the Republicans retook the House of Representatives, swept into office by the Tea Party Movement, which wants less government, less spending, and less borrowing.  Those Republicans seem to be alienating the core of those supporters with talk of reducing proposed budget cuts from 100 billion to only 33 billion dollars.  Now Judson Phillips, CEO of Tea Party Nation, (who does not speak for everyone who identifies themselves as part of the Tea Party) is calling for a Tea Party Insurrection in an editorial on World Net Daily.

The time-honored Republican tradition of surrender is in full swing in Washington today.

The problem is, the American people and the tea-party movement did not send Republicans to Washington to surrender. We sent them to cut the budget. . . . 

When Washington hits the debt ceiling in a few days, our national debt will be 100 percent of our gross domestic product. In plain, non-lawyer English, this means that to pay off our national debt, it would take every cent of wealth America generates in 2011. There is a term for this; it is called insolvency. . . .

Debt at 100 percent of GDP is something of a psychological marker. If we are not going to stop spending now, when will we? . . . 

It is not enough to simply to replace bad leadership. We must put good leadership in its place. . . . So far, we cannot say that we have put good leadership in its place.

Many conservative Republicans stayed home during the last presidential election, unhappy with their candidate who could have been labeled "Progressive Lite."

The voters want a choice, not different versions of the same thing.

It looks like lack of choice is going to happen again.

... unless some Reagan Democrats join the party.

Astroturf in Utica 2 . . .

Another day, another public employee protest in "solidarity" with Wisconsin teachers depicted in the OD.

It's interesting how local unionists can raise a noisy ruckus over the partial loss of bargaining rights (limited to certain employee benefits) by employees in a state that is 1200 miles away.  Yet, without a word from them over many years, their Federal government entered into foreign trade deals which cost the jobs of literally thousands of Upstate New Yorkers, many of whom were union members, who either are no longer here, or can no longer afford to pay the salaries of the protesters.  Why would a protest like this attract public sympathy in an area like ours where incomes are low, but taxation is high?

Is union leadership really concerned with the well being of their members . . . or with the political power that an organized society brings? 

What's the real agenda?

 ==o O o==

April 3 update: 
Matt Tabor had an interesting post on this subject: It's For the Kids (and My 15% Pay Raise).

The City of New Hartford?

Recently County Executive Picente proposed changing the sales tax distribution if the State imposes a property tax cap.  In a display of bravado, Town Supervisor Tyksinski responded with a threat to incorporate  New Hartford as a city, which would give it a larger share of the sales tax take.

It is an interesting proposal.

Mr. Tyksinski believes that there would be more than enough money from the sales tax revenue to cover the additional costs associated with more roads to maintain and having a professional fire department.

The big question is what happens to the villages?  According to the newspaper article, The Village of New Hartford and Village of New York Mills would first have to dissolve into the Town. Village residents might be enticed to do this because dissolution would eliminate duplicative taxation. Right now village residents pay for their own services, and often pay for duplicate services in the unincorporated areas of the Town (e.g. New York Mills residents pay for both a Village library and a Town library). While dissolution into a Town would preserve village residents liabilities to fix their sewer systems (as we heard when Whitesboro proposed a dissolution), later incorporation into a city may turn these into city-wide liabilities. Actually, that might be a fair result because as it stands now, development in the unincorporated areas of the Town depends on removal of storm water from village sewers. The Villages could off-load a $14+ Million responsibility to make sewer repairs onto City of New Hartford residents.

Then there is the possibility that the Villages might not want to be incorporated into a city. New York Mills would be the biggest question in this regard. Straddling two towns, it is doubtful that its residents would be willing to split NYM in two. In addition, there is no "love" in NYM for NH because NYM residents get little for their town taxes. NYM has the density to support municipal services.  Being left OUT of the City of New Hartford would do NYM residents a big favor by eliminating the duplicate taxation.

Perhaps NYM could incorporate itself as a city, too and eliminate all Town taxes within its borders... AND grab a larger share of sales tax revenue just like NH!

This City idea is something to consider! Lets all become cities!

Linking Jobs and Education . . . and Cork Harvesting

As a prelude to a hearing days later, an OD guest editorial "Local Innovation Key to Region's Economic Recovery" authored by Congressmen John Kline (R-MN), chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and Richard Hanna, a member of that committee, links jobs creation with higher education. The editorial presents the well known facts that people who are educated (1) generally have greater incomes and (2) are more likely to be employed -- implying that education will trigger job growth. . . .  But is that implication true?

Portugal illustrates the relationship between education and jobs. With an economy based on harvesting cork and stitching shoes, few bothered to go to school, resulting in only 28% of the people completing high-school. With its people too uneducated and too specialized to adapt to a changing world, new jobs bypassed the country. Now the country can't pay its bills and needs a bailout.  (See WSJ: A Nation of Dropouts Shakes Europe).

The Greater Utica area and the US are not Portugal . . . yet. The US high school completion rate is 89% -- about 80% in Oneida County.  In Greater Utica the jobs are not staying away because of an uneducated population. Rather, the educated population is leaving because the jobs are not here. Ask any student.  They will tell you -- as they did at last Monday's SUNYIT forum "Our Community, Our Future."

Our computers get repaired by techs in India and our MRIs sometimes get read by experts there. We are not losing only low skilled jobs, but also highly skilled jobs that require a good education.  With jobs of all education levels moving to other states or being exported,  local and US joblessness are issues of State and National policies - NOT education.   

Two divergent views on education and jobs were heard at last Tuesday's hearing.  Government officials and academics want the education system tooled for turning out workers for specific industry clusters. However, John Bay, someone who actually does hiring for a local business said:

. . . that for his business, he prefers graduates whose educations encompassed a broad interest in science, math and technology instead of targeted training for one job.

“Our problems are open-ended,” Bay said. “We have graduates who are solving problems that have never been solved before.”

Government bureaucrats govern and academics transmit knowledge; they do not know how to create jobs.  At best, they can only try to plan for jobs based on their current knowledge -- but no one knows what the next big need or opportunity will be.  That's why centralized government planning fails.   The businessman has it right.  Our students need a solid education foundation to be able to adapt to change -- whatever the change is -- to solve problems that have never been solved before.

Wedding our education system to specialties risks us turning into Portugal. The cybersecurity and aircraft maintenance of today may turn into tomorrow's cork harvesting and shoe stitching.

Lastly, should education even be a Federal Issue?  

Laurie Rogers alluded to this in an article about Spokane's math curriculum posted on Education News.org this past week.

After more than 20 years of absolute commitment to a “reform” approach to K-12 mathematics, our nation has a serious math problem. Students suffer from high remediation rates in math in college, low pass rates on state math tests, low levels of math skills, high student anxiety toward mathematics, and high dropout rates.

It's actually more like 40 years... and the same thing can be said about other disciplines. (Read City Journal, What Happens in Vagueness Stays in Vagueness about our problem with English).  Federal dollars have completely changed the face of education with the pursuit of money substituting for the pursuit of student competencies.  Local decision making became distorted by the money. Every academic seems to have a new theory to try and gets a grant for doing it.We have breakfast and lunch programs, socialization programs, and government intrusion into private lives. Schools have become laboratories and push everything but knowledge. Now, after breaking the education system, the Federal government wants to push a national core curriculum.

The country did well without Federal involvement in education. The system was responsive to parental and local community needs.  Once the Federal government became involved, we have been in decline ever since. 

The real role of the Federal government in education policy should be to leave it to the states.

A Two State Solution?

A friend sent me a link to the following article from the Binghamton newspaper: Lawmakers seek two-state solution for N.Y.

Should New York become two states?

 And once again, some state lawmakers have introduced a bill that would allow counties to hold a referendum on whether the state should be separated into upstate and downstate.

Looking at the population stats released yesterday, it is clear that Upstate NY -- above the NYC area and west of the taxpayer-subsidized Capital District -- is in trouble.  This does not make sense given the growth in the rest of the country and Upstate having the natural resources, unless downstate-mentored state policies are holding us back. Unfortunately,  the US Supreme Court says that we cannot have the form of government that worked up until the 1960s.

Is the "Two State Solution" our only option?

Breaking a 60 Year Losing Streak!

A real surprise was in the 2010 Census statistics released today:  Utica actually grew a bit to 62,235, up 2.6%!  Certainly it's not a big increase and it is too early to say Utica has turned a corner.  Nevertheless, when you consider that this is the first increase since 1950 when the population was 101,531, maybe the naysayers were just a little too quick to write Utica off as dead.

Utica fared better than the Mainline Thruway cities to the west which all declined, the worst being Buffalo which lost another 10.7%.  The Capital District cities pretty much grew, led by a 7.0% increase in Schenectady.

Maybe we can actually be just a little less sad!

More NY statistics are available at USA Today.

Keep Spending Our Money . . .

The Sentinel reports that $8 million in borrowing was approved by the OC Legislature with nary a word. You guessed it . . . more will be going to that albatross, Griffiss "International" Airport, along with other projects. Interestingly, there was some hesitation on approving projects for sewer district compliance with the state consent order. . . . even though the County benefited from non-compliance with the law by expanding the tax base in Utica's suburbs . . . even though the County will foist all the costs against the innocent sewer users when it was the County that caused/allowed the violations to occur. (Shouldn't county tax taxpayers in Rome and Boonville chip in for this, too?  Their legislators oversaw sewer district operations and looked the other way while the law was broken.)

In a somewhat related Sentinel story, officials are being updated on the progress at the Marcy Nanocenter.

EDGE has been developing the vacant land to attract a high-tech company for more than a decade. The objective is to make the site "shovel ready" so that construction could begin in short order after a company picks the Marcy location things like zoning approvals and environmental clearances are being sought in advance.

The 300-acre Marcy NanoCenter meets industry needs with sewer, water, redundant electrical supply, gas and telecommunications in immediate proximity, says EDGE.

The OD reports that construction is about to begin.

It is odd that this site was advertised to the world as being "shovel ready" back when Patacki was governor, and now it is not.

Not discussed are State concerns that the water supply is inadequate for such a facility. There are questions whether an additional 3 million gallons of water per day can be withdrawn from the Hinckley Reservoir without adversely impacting West Canada Creek given the other demands on those water bodies (such as the Canal for which Hinckley was constructed).  I understand that now a sewer-consent order related problem is being raised with bringing sewer service to this site.

At this point, starting construction without first resolving the sewer and water issues is foolish . . . but typical for this county. The County motto seems to be, "Spend money now, ask questions later." 

Marcy Nano has become a career project for certain officials. They need to produce. . . and maybe get realistic on what might fit that site that won't impose burdens on the water and sewer systems. My understanding is that the Buffalo area just lost a huge Verizon data center due to a disgruntled neighbor. That's not manufacturing.  Did anyone go after that?

Number Ten . . .

On MoneyWatch's list of the SADDEST cities in the US is Utica-Rome! Now there's something our elected leaders can be proud of!

Cuomo, Jr.'s Shoreham ?

With the unfortunate happenings in Japan, you just knew that this was going to be next: It's too risky to keep Indian Point nuclear power plant open: Gov. Cuomo .

So what is the alternative?

When Mr. Cuomo, Sr. shut down the Shoreham nuke plant on LI (after it was built but before it could be put into service) what was the solution? Why, get power from Upstate NY, of course! So the Utica area was given the Marcy South power line, which not only marred the scenic beauty of this valley, but increased Upstate NY power costs to the point where Upstate could no longer compete with similar areas for jobs, or hold on to the jobs it had. Economic decline followed. So what will it be now? Cover the Upstate landscape with windmills and power lines?

People can understand Downstate residents wanting to shut Indian Point. Perhaps it should be closed. But what do the Governor and Downstate residents propose to take its place? Coal burning plants, apparently, are also targets for shut down in state policy.

Perhaps it's time for the Governor and Downstate residents to start thinking about limiting Downstate growth. Growth there has already in some respects exceeded the capacity of the land to support it. The Downstate-mentored policies that put Upstate in a tailspin can be reversed, and replaced with policies that encourage growth to take place in the Upstate region. Perhaps Upstate's shrunken cities (with big infrastructures) can be brought back to life.

If Downstate wants to send Upstate its Growth, I'm sure it will find a willing audience.

Astroturf in Utica . . .

No . . . They are not putting artificial turf in front of city hall . . . But they did put on an artificial "grassroots" protest in Utica. "They" being George Soros funded "MoveOn.Org" and members of the well-paid New Hartford Teachers Association. The object of the protest being the government cutback on some collective bargaining rights and a tax cut for "the rich" - - in Wisconsin!  Per the WIBX story, MoveOn.org regional organizer Kevin Nugent commented:

 . . . it's like the redistribution of weatlth, but from the poor to the rich. It’s backward . . .

Gee . . . that's just like Utica residents paying water and sewer charges that subsidize the suburban infrastructure. Or the New Hartford School District agreeing that payments in lieu of taxes can be used by a big developer to build roads in his development . . . Can we expect New Hartford Teachers Association picketers protesting at the next Water Authority, or OC Legislators, or NH Town Board meetings to protest these redistributions of wealth? They might have an impact locally.

I didn't think so.

"The middle class was built by unionists, people who organized and fought for fare wages and affordable health care. To undo 40 or 50 years of hard work by labor unions, really undoes the American Dream,” said Jaime McNair, president of the New Hartford Teachers Association.

Wow, what propaganda! If this is what is teaching our children, no wonder why everything is so screwed up. What built the middle class was Freedom . . . where people were free to try new things with a minimum of government intrusion and taxation . . . with those finding success eventually employing others raising their standards of living. It is no coincidence that powerful unions seem to be located in high tax states where the economies are in the worst shape . . . Places like Michigan . . . and New York. Unions are an anachronism in this day of modern labor laws.

Want better wages and better treatment from employers?  Encourage more employment with less taxation, less regulation, and less unionization.  When enough employers come into an area and start competing for the same labor pool, wages will go up to attract workers and treatment will improve. Even government wages would have to go up. . . . and the public will go along with it because they will be making more too.

The unions are not interested in the workers, they are interested in the political power that the workers can give them.

Ambulance Chasing . . .

There has been a barrage of advertising by Kunkel Ambulance on TV, Radio, Print and Internet,  pointing to  "Alarming Facts about Utica's Ambulance Service,"  to convince Utica leaders to discontinue the service. Among Kunkel's bullet points . . .

• This taxpayer-supported service has been conducted without a Certificate of Need, which is required by law ...
• At a time when healthcare costs are astronomical, the City is often charging healthcare plans more than double what Kunkel Ambulance charges
• Overtime costs for the fire department have skyrocketed to over a million dollars from $296,619 before the start of the City-run ambulance service. The City cites the ambulance service as a revenue generator without factoring in these costs!
• The City of Utica says the ambulance service brings in revenue. But at what COST? Revenue is not profit. Revenue means nothing without factoring in the true costs of running the program.
• Expenses of labor and overtime are not listed as costs. There is no business that does not consider labor a cost.
• Operating expenses are totally excluded or understated on their budget sheets. Such as the cost of repairs for a whole year, listed at only $2,000.00!
• The costs for all of the legal battles the City initiated against the State of New York are not included. . . . 
  

Are Kunkel's allegations biased? Of course! Kunkel is an interested party and not a news organization. They are trying to knock off their competition.

But are the allegations true? If so, what does it mean for Utica's taxpayers?  What does it mean for the cost of health-insurance in this area?  Utica taxes are already too high and drive businesses away. Utica area health insurance rates are already significantly higher than other areas ... which increases the cost of doing business here for those companies providing health insurance for their employees.

No one is saying that the services provided by Utica firefighters and EMTs are not professional or of other than highest quality.  But the public need for them has already been determined to be lacking, and a number of complaints have been made of sky-high charges.

Kunkel's arguments make sense. The true costs have yet to be calculated. If this service increases taxpayers' costs  . . . and/or increases area residents' health insurance costs, then the increased value city residents and insurance purchasers receive in return must be clearly identified if the service is to be kept in existence. If there is no added value for the added cost, then end the service.
 
Utica going into the Ambulance business sounds like New Hartford going into the private security business: great ways for certain employees to puff up their overtime and, ultimately, their pensions, while placing all the risks on the taxpayer.

The Utica Master Plan calls for studies to extend this and other services to neighboring municipalities.  Again, at what costs?  It appears that some people at City Hall are empire building on the backs of the taxpayers.

The City is supposedly in this venture to make money. But money for whom?

Pondering Parking ... and Park Ave.

Per the OD over the weekend: Plans might be off for downtown Utica parking garage

At his “State of the City” address in May, Mayor David Roefaro called plans for a downtown parking garage his “most ambitious project for the city.”

While it’s still a possibility, Roefaro said for the first time this week that it’s now likely the city will move in a different direction entirely.

The reason, he said, is that the $10 million cost of building the garage is prohibitive, and some of the money could possibly be better spent on a series of surface parking lots.

The "prohibitive cost" claim does not add up. The garage was supposed to be funded by grants which were already in hand.  There is nothing in the story that even suggests that any of these grants may have been lost.  In fact, it seems to reaffirm that they still are there when it states that half of the money will still be used for a Centro transfer facility at the same Bleecker/Charlotte location and that the other half can now be available for surface parking.

This sudden change in City direction coincides with the City's appointment of a new economic development director.  Simultaneously, per the article's side bar we learn . . .

Oneida County [Executive] Anthony Picente said the city’s plans to explore all options for downtown parking are an opportunity to renew his call to close Park Avenue near the Oneida County Office Building and build more parking there.

 Picente said the only thing the county would need from the city for the project – estimated at $2 million when the Common Council voted it down in 2007 – is to convey the street to the county. But he said some of the roughly $4.5 million the city has in grant money for downtown parking could be used to help.

Are the appointment of a new ED director and Mr. Picente's call connected? We seem to remember the same plays at the end of the Julian administration when buildings couldn't come down fast enough to create more parking.  (In fact, the destruction was one of the reasons why people voted for Mr. Roefaro, who appeared sensitive to what was happening.)  Is the mayor a semi-figurehead?  Allowed to do things his way just "so far" until the regional "powers that be" behind the scenes decide to step in?

The "change in direction" makes no sense unless regional politics is considered.  The grant money was intended to solve a downtown Utica parking problem for buildings along Genesee, not to solve the County's parking problem on Park Ave.  

But now, apparently, the County expects Utica residents to give up the grant, give up the downtown garage, give up more buildings to the bulldozer, and give up a street, to cater to the needs of those in the County's court/office complex.  It sounds like more Oneida County trashing Utica. And the current Democrat mayor's going along with it is just like the prior Republican mayor's going along with it.

The County "powers that be" in the courthouse spent $40 million renovating the interior of the courthouse for their own comfort and aesthetic pleasure, but left the exterior a pig sty and didn't bother to address  parking. That's the regard they have for their hosts. Now they want the citizens of Utica to fix parking for them.

Enough is enough.

An Example of What?

According to the OD: New Hartford, Rome sharing sets example . . .

An intermunicipal agreement between the city of Rome and town of New Hartford is exactly the type of cooperation between governments that is necessary as leaders search for ways to save taxpayers money. . . .

 In this case, New Hartford will pay Rome $3,750 per month for one year for the handling of information technology work. Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski said that’s about 25 percent less than what it previously paid another information technology company.

But, wait, this isn't Rome renting out potentially underutilized employees and equipment to N.H.  . . . A "public/private partnership" is involved.

According to the article, Rome contracts with M.A. Polce Consulting for this work, paying Polce $12,000 per month. New Hartford would pay Rome to partake of Rome's contract. The article seems to imply that Polce won't increase its price to Rome for all the extra New Hartford work that Rome will dump on Polce. . . . Does that imply that Polce potentially had underutilized employees and equipment that Romans were paying for? 

Company President Michael Polce said his firm will absorb much of the extra work because the business supports the idea of municipal shared services

 . . . but there is no such thing as a "free lunch." According to last week's Sentinel article on this subject:

Polce’s contract with Rome for 2010 was $138,000. The contract for 2011 has not been approved yet.

What happens if Polce increases its price to Rome? Will Romans wind up subsidizing New Hartford? In addition:

The town would have access to the city’s servers, applications . . . .  

If New Hartford were to integrate with Rome for IT purposes, Rome’s servers, which are currently at City Hall, would likely be relocated to Polce’s offices.

Polce having control of the servers would seem to give Polce a leg up in any bidding for future IT services with Both N.H. and Rome. . . Which leads to another question . . .

Why did New Hartford not put its IT work out for competitive bidding? IT is becoming more competitive every day.  Did New Hartford allow Polce to avoid competitive bidding via an inter-municipal agreement with Rome? What happens if something isn't done properly? Does New Hartford go against Rome? or Polce? Could New Hartford have reached a similar deal by going to competitive bidding?

Perhaps it's just me being overly skeptical and/or negative about a "public/private partnership", but it seems rather odd that New Hartford has to get Polce's services through Rome rather than dealing directly with them.

The OD cites this an an example of savings through consolidation. Could it really be an example of something else?

Tricycles, Unicycles, and Shoes Will Be Next!

A friend brought this piece of legislative nonsense (Bill A0529) from Queens Assemblyman DenDekker to my attention: NYS to license Bicycles!

According to the State Assembly website, if passed into law:

Personal bicycles shall be issued a license plate upon passing an inspection by the department. The inspection shall require that the bicycles conform to the lamp and equipment requirements of section twelve hundred thirty-six of this chapter. The license plates shall be twenty-five dollars the first year and shall reduce to five dollars each year thereafter.

The alleged justification, of course, is that this is all for our own good!

... it is essential that the state of New York be able to identify the bicycle riders. The issuance of license plates will ensure personal protection for cases such as bicycle theft or bicycle accidents, to name a few. 

Does anyone really think that the State of New York will "ensure personal protection?"  If anyone does, I have a bridge in Utica (on Barnes Ave.) to sell them. 

If this makes sense for New York City, then New York City can pass a local law requiring licenses. In Utica, we already have more than enough government intrusion into our everyday lives.

Roundabout Go-Around . . .

It's enough to make your head spin! Do we or don't we? Is the Oneida Square proposed roundabout a good idea or not?

I've been skeptical of the Roundabout, but now I am about 85% sold on it. The Glens Falls footage presented at the Mayor/DOT public hearing a few weeks ago showed that it works very well there where several major state routes come together. This is similar footage . . .

The 15% of me that is unsure is where Genesee St is proposed to be narrowed to one lane in each direction in the blocks entering the roundabout. I'm not sure how that will work out. Looking at Google Maps using "street view" for Glens Falls, and moving it around I could not see where any of the Glens Falls routes narrow from 2 traffic lanes in each direction to one. That may be a significant difference when trying to compare Glens Falls with what is proposed for Utica.

This needs to be explored further.

In addition, traffic in Utica lately seems somewhat reduced from former levels.  Will the roundabout be able to handle an increase in traffic generated by a healthy downtown?

The people whom this Roundabout is supposed to help -- the businesses and residents of the Oneida Square neighborhood -- need to be convinced first.  They should not be made to feel that the project is being shoved down their throats.   
 - - - - 
11PM Update from WIBX: Mayor Makes Final Roundabout Pitch 

"... by the time the meeting was over, nearly 3 hours after it began, most seemed to be satifisied that a roundabout is the right way to go."

Wow -- 3 hours! But it seems to have been worth it. A little controversy doesn't hurt . . . especially when consensus is reached.

Concerned Citizens . . . For Utica!

Concerned Citizens for Honest and Open Government (CCHOG), by now well-known for shedding light on the goings-on in New Hartford, has started to shine light on City of Utica issues.

There have been several posts regarding the draft Utica Master Plan: 1/6 Hidden Agendas?  1/18 Neighborhoods & Parks,  2/17 Infrastructure and Waterfront Development. Also posts on the Housing Visions proposal: 1/17 Housing Projects in Utica, 1/11 Housing Visions 500K-600K Per 2-Family Unit.

Today begins perhaps CCHOG's biggest Utica endeavor yet:  Analyses of the 2010 City of Utica Assessment Database. Residential assessments are made available for download today in an Excel Spreadsheet format. (If you do not have Excel, a free program that opens Excel spreadsheets is available from OpenOffice.org.) Commercial and Government properties will be presented soon.

Some people will find this data extremely interesting.

Thank you, Concerned Citizens for making this information available!

Big Government In a Small City . . .

Per the OD: Proposal regarding secondhand dealers irks Utica businesses

A proposal to license businesses that buy and sell second-hand merchandise was met with criticism Thursday by those who would be affected. 

 . . .  There also is a $750 annual fee involved. 

By requiring business owners to keep records of buyers and to hold inventory for roughly two weeks before selling it, and by regulating the hours of business, Hauck said the proposal was an attempt to cut off one of the ways stolen goods are sold.

“This is not trying to cut business,” he said. “This is not trying to hurt anybody.”

While the intent may not be to hurt anybody and to prevent the trafficking of stolen goods, the fact is that these "big government" style requirements will hurt many small business people.  Many small entrepreneurs cannot afford the $750 annual fee and do not have the means of dealing with extra paperwork.

Utica is the place in the region that is best suited to the small entrepreneur.  Placing additional burdens on them either puts them out of business . . . or pushes them over the city line into New Hartford or Whitestown.

Big Government in a small city simply does not work.  

A Bad Habit . . .

Bad habits are hard to break.  Ask any smoker trying to quit.  Governments have bad habits, too . . . Like the addiction to suburban development at the expense of cities, exemplified in today's OD story Increased Access to New Hartford Business Park.

How strange is it that our state transportation leaders are considering more access off a state highway in New Hartford, and LESS access in the City of Utica.  If this cannot be seen as a prime cause of urban sprawl, then our leaders are not looking.

"Parochial" Planning in New Hartford?

The Observer Dispatch gets it wrong again with its editorial Our view: New Hartford should rescind planning law - AT ISSUE: Pick board members based on what they know, not where they live

The editors at the OD have proclaimed the Town of New Hartford's 1996 law which requires the Town’s Planning Board to include a member from the villages of New Hartford and New York Mills as being "simply bad policy" because:

* Planning board members should be appointed based on what they know, not where they live in the town. . . . 

* Parochial appointments to municipal boards make no sense. . . . 

While having knowledgeable members could be a plus, planning board work is not "rocket science" and does not demand any particular expertise.  What it demands are dedicated members who are willing to put in the time to educate themselves about the issues . . . and people who are not afraid to think for themselves.

In a Town as diverse as New Hartford, guaranteed membership from the Villages makes PERFECT sense.  "Here's why:"

* Village residents reside in densely populated areas with an older public infrastructure when compared with the rest of the Town.  The needs of Village residents are, thus, distinctly different from the unincorporated areas of the Town.

* Village residents subsidize most of the Town's operations because Village residents get their services directly through their villages, yet have to pay the Town to provide the same services for other Town residents.  For example, Village residents pay the Village to plow their own streets, but have to pay the Town to plow the Town's roads.

The Planning Board determines which projects get built in the Town, impacting the demand for Town services. As the demand for duplicative Town services increases, Village residents' subsidy of Town services increases. Village residents should have a voice in determining those projects they subsidize. In addition, projects in outlying areas of the Town are often sprawl, drawing people and economic activity out of the Villages. Fewer people in the Villages causes higher taxes in the Villages because their infrastructure is already built and does not shrink with decreasing population.

The Parochialism complained of . . . is really on the part of the OD editors . . . They invariably take the viewpoint that favors further development in the Town.

Until the OD editors understand that the denser-populated areas (Utica and the Villages)  have been subsidizing development in unincorporated Town areas for the last 50 years, they will continue to back bad public policy decisions -- such as the proposal to remove the village resident requirement.

-o0o-

Speaking about New Hartford, New Hartford Online has an update on the New Hartford Business Park. Guess what? More taxpayer subsidies!

Netbooks in School . . .

Just a couple comments on MLK school in Utica distributing netbooks to all students

First, they can be a distraction from the essential learning that must take place in the elementary years. One school district in the Syracuse area already tried something similar with laptops, and abandoned the project.

Second, they are conditioning students to become dependent on electronic media for their knowledge rather than print media. Electronic media can be easily changed as anyone familiar with "find and replace" commands in writing software can attest. Are we setting up our children for government manipulation?

Like a Print by Currier and Ives . . .

Millers Mills had their annual ice harvest today. If it weren't for all the modern video recording and photo equipment people were packing, you would think it was 1895! After watching all the work to cut and haul the ice blocks from Unadilla Lake, you won't take modern refrigeration for granted any more.



[Click on the photos to view other sizes or to download]

Where Did the Trillion$$$$ Go?

Alan Grayson may have redeemed himself with this episode where he questions the Inspector General of the Federal Reserve . . .
Clip courtesy of the "Daily Bail"

Griffiss: Oneida County's Big Mistake

Tonight's OD: Officials debate how to maximize Griffiss International Airport

The decision to move the county airport from the Whitestown airfield was, quite simply, wrong.  It made absolutely no sense to think that a region of declining population could support a significantly larger facility . . . But the lure of available Federal grants to spend proved irresistible . . . which lead to a disastrous decision.

Now we are stuck subsidizing a facility that too big for our needs . . . the cost of which contributes to our high rate of taxation . . . which taxation deters businesses from setting up shop here without all kinds of government "incentives" . . . with the cost of the incentives further contributing to our high rate of taxation . . . As the 19th highest taxed county in the Nation based on the percent of home value paid in taxes, this will not end well for us.


The significant investments already made in the airport seem to become justification for exacting even more money from the taxpayers . . . to hopefully buy that one thing that will make everything work out alright.

Oneida County seems to be in a death spiral that it cannot get out of. Hopefully our officials will figure out a way to make the most out of their Big Mistake. . . before we crash.

NaNO?

From the Sentinel: ‘No-no Nano’ except in Albany? Locals touting Marcy sure hope not

Ken Adams, the new governor’s pick to oversee economic development, said recently the state needs to re-evaluate its strategy to avoid the "political fantasy" that every region can attract any employer or industry it may desire. He specifically cited nanotechnology . . .

"We need to be viewed in an entirely different light, if we want to attract investments from other states and other countries," said Adams. "And that means being very clear that the Capital Region, for example, is the official home for nanoscale science. Period. If someone comes along and says ‘ want to do nanoscale science in Syracuse,’ they should be taken out to the wood shed. You can’t do it."

Let's stop the POLITICIANS' fantasy that ANY region -- including the Capital District -- can have "economic development" subsidized on the taxpayer's dime!

It simply is not fair that the taxpayers in Buffalo, Syracuse and Utica should be forced to prop-up a computer chip plant and the nanotechnology industry in Albany.

The government has no business picking winners and losers . . . Whether it is one city or region over another . . . or one company over another . . . or one industry sector over another.

Give us taxpayers ALL a break by ending the special "economic development" programs, ending the tax incentives, ending the infrastructure subsidies, and firing all the so-called "economic development" officials that we have. The programs, incentives, subsidies and officials are all GOVERNMENT, and it is too much GOVERNMENT that is driving people and businesses away.

Less is More.

No Golf Today . . .

But still plenty to do in Utica.

Reminding We . . .

Utica's new congressman took the opportunity a week ago to mark his first month in office with an editorial in the Observer Dispatch - Guest view: Our nation is ‘at the tipping point’.

Predictably, he is being hit in the "comments" section of the article on-line for his vote to repeal Obamacare because, for some, the idea of another federal entitlement is just fine. However, the whole point of last November's election result was the fact that the majority of voters do not approve of more government involvement in their lives and the out-of-control spending that Obamacare would bring. Voting for Republicans was the only way for many voters to voice their displeasure with their government's direction . . . not that the voters actually supported the things that many Republicans were proposing to do.

What we cannot do is tax, borrow, and spend our way into prosperity. Government spending is a drain on real consumption and investment. Your money is best left in your hands; the government is not entitled to your money simply because the government makes poor decisions and its costs go up.

The congressman's view that money is best left in private hands -- that more money going to the government winds up being lost in poor decisions -- is right on the mark.

He is correct when he says . . .

" . . . I also believe we are at a tipping point in this country . . ."

However, he also says . . .

"We are deluding ourselves if we believe that we are somehow entitled to a higher standard of living than the rest of the world. We must make better choices and aggressively prepare our children to compete in the new global economy. We can do that through putting an increased emphasis on education."

Are "we" delusional? Do "we" believe we are entitled to a higher standard of living than the rest of the world? Have "we" made poor choices? Do "we" need to be more aggressive? Do "we" need the federal government to educate us?

Just whom is this "we"?

While there will always be those in our society, rich and poor alike, who have a sense of "entitlement," that is not the traditional American view. This country was founded by "rugged individualists." Our society expected "self-reliance," not government reliance . . . and certainly not government being used to further private interests. We expected our government to protect us, but to otherwise leave us alone. Our society's value of the individual was crystalized in our Constitution's acknowledgement that we have individual freedoms which come from God, that we are the source of the government's power, and that the power we gave to government was limited to certain enumerated things that individuals cannot do for themselves, but which are necessary to protect our individual freedoms -- such as provide for the national defense and regulate commerce.

If we developed a higher standard of living than most of the rest of the world, it is because we, as individuals, had the ability to earn it. How? We had the freedom to do it! Our freedoms allowed and encouraged us to work harder, be more productive, and be more innovative. Our government did not mollycoddle us with a lot of entitlements which reduce productivity in other countries (e.g, the short work weeks, early retirements, and month long vacation shut-downs common in Europe).  Our government did its part, however, by protecting our freedoms from those who would destroy them, whether they be foreign or domestic, and whether by force or by economic means.

If our national standard of living seems threatened, perhaps it is because the national government has failed to do the limited job we gave it to do. Perhaps it has failed to properly regulate interstate commerce by allowing some companies to become "to big to fail" . . . or to become so large that their economic power rivals that of government with the capability of crushing individual efforts. Perhaps it has failed to properly regulate foreign commerce, placing economic theory and a "global" perspective above preserving an environment where individual citizens can find productive activities to engage themselves in. Perhaps it has spent too much and become too indebted to foreign interests which do not share our value of individual freedoms, thereby placing our freedoms at risk through economic means. Perhaps the federal government has become too involved in things it was never intended to be involved in . . . such as education, using federal tax money to turn our schools into social service centers, create student "rights" that undermine parental rights, control large blocks of voters with grant-funded jobs, and promote a national "agenda" above the individual.

The "we" that brought our nation to its "tipping point" are those who have been designated as our policy makers, whether they are in the legislative, executive or judicial branches of government.  . . . "We the People" just need to remind them of that.

US Sides with Russia Against Britain?

I just don't know what to make of this . . .

WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets

Throw our friends under the bus to make peace with our enemies?

Getting Federal Government Under Control . . .

A couple of stories in the OD tonight with local impact give some hope that the Federal Government cannot do just anything it wants.

Ruling could block future NYRIs

A lawsuit filed in 2007 by the local organization Communities Against Regional Interconnects (CARI), along with other groups from across the nation, has now taken down the federal law that once gave NYRI a fighting chance.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled Tuesday the U.S. Department of Energy had wrongly created “corridors” in which the federal government could trump state law on power-line siting. There were several such corridors designated across the nation.

The court said the Department of Energy did not properly consult the states where the corridors would be located and failed to do environmental reviews of the corridors.

It's one thing to regulate interstate commerce. It's quite another to force it to take place in one's backyard. . . . But isn't the 9th Circuit the one that is most often reversed?

Changes to Map of Oneida Nation reservation reversed

Changes to the U.S. Census maps that increased the Oneida Indian Nation’s reservation from 32 acres to more than 300,000 acres have been reversed, the U.S. Census Bureau confirmed Thursday. . . . 

It turned out that in a routine Census map updating process in 2010, the Nation had requested that the boundaries of its reservation be redrawn to show the full extent of its original reservation, which was established in 1794.

While the Oneidas may be outraged that the map change has been reversed, most of the public was outraged when the change was surreptitiously made . . . and now we find out at the Nation's mere request.  These things impact people.  If changes should be made, the process for making them should be transparent.