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
 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.

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.
Perhaps the Syracuse and Utica facilities have entirely different missions . . . but perhaps not.  

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.
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  
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?

Friday, August 20, 2010

A Tale of Two Mosques . . .

. . . One in Utica, NY . . . The other proposed for New York City.

2008-0813-1146p
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.
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.”
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.
 Per WKTV, Mr. Picente is also in denial . . .
Oneida County Executive Anthony Picente doesn't lend the report too much credence.

"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.
 
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.

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:
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.

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.

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.
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).

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.]

Friday, July 30, 2010

A $Million A Job . . . and Threatening Freedom

A $Million A Job . . . That's just about what New York taxpayers are being soaked to "create" jobs at the GlobalFoundaries chip plant in Malta. At a $Million a Job, that's enough to pay a worker $100,000 a year for 10 years . . . or $50,000 a year for 20 years.  The state appears to have committed the state's taxpayers to paying for this company's entire workforce.

This is nonsense . . . Blogger Jim Ostrowski out of the Buffalo area knows it, and he decided to do something about it by suing the state to stop the handouts. According to this YNN Story, the suit just received a green light at an appellate level.
Ostrowski said, "Those businesses that can't survive without subsidies, should go bankrupt fellas."

His basic argument is that the state Constitution forbids state money from going to private corporations.
Readers of this blog are familiar with that argument . . . It's been made here on several occasions in relation to:
 Article VIII of the State Constitution §1 provides:
"No county, city, town, village or school district shall give or loan any money or property to or in aid of any individual, or private corporation or association, or private undertaking, or become directly or indirectly the owner of stock in, or bonds of, any private corporation or association . . . "
The YNN Story indicates that the provision was added to the Constitution because people were upset that their money was going to support the railroads; however, ever since, courts have expanded what was allowed if it created a "public benefit" . . . We have seen this "public benefit" argument used to justify taking land from one person and giving it to another in Auburn.

Railroads create a clear "public benefit," but the constitutional provision was designed specifically to prevent public funds from being given to them and to other private entities. Almost any activity can be argued as somehow creating a "public benefit." When the power of government is used to take from one and give to another, to favor one person's activities over another's, that is oppression. . . .   It is obvious that somewhere along the line the courts have gotten off the track.

Per YNN  
the Attorney General's Office is asking for the appellate court's decision to be dismissed, but if not, for the state's highest court to hear the case right away because they say this case could jeopardize the state's potential economic recovery.
The Attorney General's job is to enforce the law (including the State's Constitution) and not worry about "potential economic recovery." When government becomes invested in one company, it is tempting for government to use its power to squash that company's competitors. This seems to have already happened with our Attorney General, and his misplaced priorities have already been commented upon (11/5/09).

Hopefully the Court of Appeals will acknowledge the oppressive environment that has been created, and start enforcing this constitutional provision as intended by its drafters.

If not, We the People will be placed in a terrible position.  We will  be forced either to accept more of governmental taking from one of us and giving to another . . . or to exercise Our Right to Abolish Our Government.  Help us avoid having to make that choice.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Master Disaster 5: Re-Education Camps, Anyone? . . .

If you want to feed at the public trough, NOTHING beats getting into the education business.  After all, there is always something that people don't know.   So a way of "creating jobs" would be to come up with reasons for people to learn things, and then ask government to hire people to teach these things.  The beauty of this plan is that it isn't even limited to our school systems. ANYONE can do it!

The draft Utica Master Plan gets an "A++" in creating reasons for education and training programs.

Here's a sampling of proposals that do not include those for the school system . . .

  • "Promote first-time homebuyer education." (p 28).
  • "Provide guidance and training for committee members in purpose, types, and legalities of zoning"  (p 28)  
  • "Provide guidance and training for committee members in purpose, types and legalities of codes and contractor licensing"(p.29)
  • "Provide Education and Training" related to promotion of the Green Building & Home Rehabilitation in its neighborhoods by incorporating Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Neighborhood Development principles, particularly "education and training of key design and construction personnel." (p 30).
  • "Provide guidance and training for committee members in four important CPTED design guidelines: Natural Surveillance, Natural Access Control, Territorial Reinforcement, and Maintenance "(p. 30).
  • "Provide education/training for homeowners and residents on property maintenance and code regulations requirements, and compliance." (p. 33)
  • "Provide seminars/workshops for leadership training, community development, code enforcement, and public safety." (p. 33)
  • "Provide guidance and training for citizen advisory committee members" in relation to development of a Community Improvement District (p. 34).
  • "Develop a tourism marketing plan and a tourism-readiness training program for staff in tourism industries and downtown business owners. (p.45) ... "and the community at large"(p.61)
  • "Develop a parking education and signage strategy for downtown" (p. 47)
  • "Enhance the current farmers market to include more components of the “Slow Food Movement,” using local farmers currently involved in the movement. Add educational components . . ." (p. 59)
With all the education and training "opportunities" in the Utica Master Plan, could there be Re-Education Camps in our future . . .
                  
                                 . . . for those of us who think that this is just a lot of 'hooey' ?

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Master Disaster 4: Reaching Out to Neighboring Municipalities . . .

. . . with the Dollars of Utica Residents and Businesses????

In the draft Utica Master Plan's "Housing and Neighborhood Development" section, "Goal 10" is to "Provide the highest level of public safety for the residents of Utica."  . . . . But to fulfill an underlying "objective" of "Efficiently deliver public safety resources to the neighborhoods of Utica," the Master Plan proposes to:
"Perform a shared services consolidation study to understand how emergency services, particularly fire and EMS, could be shared with neighboring communities." (p.35)
How does sharing services with neighboring communities efficiently deliver public safety resources to the neighborhoods of Utica? Why is delivery of services to neighboring communities even part of the UTICA Master Plan?

The "Infrastructure and Waterfront Development" section sounds a similar theme:
"GOAL 5: Adopt shared services consolidation agreements for road and sewer maintenance with neighboring communities  . . ."
"Perform a shared services consolidation study to understand how road and sewer maintenance services could be shared with neighboring communities . . ."  . . .
"Bring City of Utica and neighboring municipalities together to discuss collaboration and cooperation to determine the best ways to serve the area."  (Page 88).
Whose Master Plan is this, anyway? Utica's? or the "Mohawk Valley's"? 

Long-time readers of this Blog understand the relationship between the cost of services and population density: that municipal services are delivered efficiently only when the population is concentrated into a compact area . . . and that the per capita cost of services should increase the further people are spaced from each other and the further they are from the population center.

A consolidation will save suburban jurisdictions money because they will be come part of a larger organization. But what about Utica residents?

If Utica services are spread into outlying areas, overall costs for the services will increase at a greater rate than the added number of new customers would justify because the new customers will be located further away and spaced further apart (i.e., they are more costly to serve).  Utica residents, thus, could expect their taxes and various user fees to increase to subsidize services to suburban locations. This subsidy will make it easier for people and businesses to leave the City of Utica for suburban locations. That would reduce population density within Utica and increase costs to Utica residents for OTHER services that are not "shared." Utica will continue to become smaller and poorer.  

These "shared services" ideas make sense for persons in the suburbs, but they are nonsense for Uticans.  Utica residents will wind up giving and giving to help neighboring communities (like they already have been with water and sewer charges), but get zilch in return.


Who came up with these ideas? What is their agenda?

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Come Clean, New Hartford . . .

It seems like a week can't go by without some revelation suggesting corruption in New Hartford.

Late last week it was the Town Bookkeeper collecting retirement while collecting her regular salary.  In December 2008 we found out that the same bookkeeper was paid overtime even though she was an exempt employee. Of course, these two stories are connected and cumulative because today we find out that the Bookeeper's pension suddenly increased 29% -- more than likely due to the overtime.

The weird goings-on in New Hartford are not limited to the Bookkeeper.  We still do not have a satisfactory explanation on how The Hartford office building ever got the permissions to be built because it was located outside the New Hartford Business Park.  We still do not have an adequate explanation on the Fees In Lieu of Mitigation situation, where fees were collected and seemingly transferred from mitigating impacts of one development to others that were unrelated.

As noted on New Hartford Online,
Ms. Fairbrother supposedly retired on Friday, June 1, 2007, and according to Attorney Green's invoices, one day after she met with him to discuss "accounting/bookkeeping concerns".
This suggests that the former Town Attorney may have the information the public is looking for. The former Town Attorney certainly seems to have been involved in all of the situations where questions remain.
The Town paid a lot of money to the attorney for advice, including a lot of "memos" that he billed for in his invoices.  Where are the memos?  What is in them?  One may expect that the memos could reveal the key plays and players in all the questionable goings-on that are surfacing.

While the attorney cannot release this information on his own because of the attorney-client privilege, the Town as his client can DIRECT him to do so.

For some reason the Town Board has been reluctant to authorize release of this information to the public.

At this point, without a Town Board authorization to release this information, the public is justified in assuming that the individuals on the Town Board were somehow involved.

Sunday, July 18, 2010

Master Disaster 3: The Jargon-aut

“Our business is infested with idiots who try to impress by using pretentious jargon.” 
-- David Ogilvy (quote from ThinkExist.com)

If you like jargon, you will absolutely adore the draft Utica Master Plan . . .

  • "The City will promote Green Building & Home Rehabilitation in its neighborhoods by incorporating Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Neighborhood Development principles."  (p. 30).
  • "Adopt “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design” (CPTED) standards for neighborhoods by 2015, detailing action plans for each neighborhood." (p. 30)
  • "Institute a Community Incentive District (CID) grant or loan program." (p. 33). 
  • "Provide funding and support to build Neighborhood Associations, Block Coalitions, and community empowerment programs in all neighborhoods city-wide." (p.33).
  • "Implement “Safescape” principles to enhance sense of comfort and safety downtown." (p. 45).
  • "Offer a resource, perhaps through a BID (Business Improvement District), to help shop owners succeed." (p. 46).
  • "Implement Transportation Demand Management strategies to increase the efficiency of the transportation system." (p. 47).
  •  "Enhance the current farmers market to include more components of the “Slow Food Movement,” using local farmers currently involved in the movement." (p. 59).
  • "Consider establishment of a Land Bank program." (p. 75).
  • "Partner with business, labor and higher education institutions to make sure residents are trained in fields that align with regional cluster needs." (p. 76).
  • "Develop a new lighting ordinance consistent with Dark Sky principles." (p. 89).
  • "Adopt a Complete Streets Policy that provides streets that have facilities for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users and motorists, to the extent appropriate for the land use or the context of the street." (p. 91).
  • "Work with the New York State Department of Transportation to incorporate context sensitive solutions along the North-South Arterial." (p. 91 -- This one is my personal favorite jargon from the UMP -- What's your favorite?).
Who are they impressing? . . . and What are they hiding? 

(More "Master Disaster" series to come)

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Master Disaster 2: The Heavy Hand of Big Government . . .

Utica "peaked" during the 1950s with a population of over 100,000 and virtually all of the easily accessible land within its borders developed. Utica was the center of activity, and its people were relatively prosperous.  Today, after losing thousands of jobs and almost half its population we look upon Utica of that era with envy.

What made Utica-Past successful?   It was private enterprise . . . entrepreneurs who had ideas, found needs for those ideas to fill, and found places in Utica to turn those ideas into reality.  Private enterprise created many of our icons . . . like the Stanley Theater, the Munson-Williams-Proctor complex, Hotel Utica, and the Adirondack Bank Building. Private enterprise created most of Utica's cherished parks system - - - a gift from a loving family.    Even the Utica water system started out as a private company. 

Today, most of those icons are now on public assistance. What happened?

Perhaps it was an attitude inculcated in the generation raised during the Great Depression -- which also happened to be the first generation raised with mass media (radio). It was the "New Deal" era. People looked to the Government to solve all problems . . .

In the 1960s people got tired of the old and slow, and wanted new and fast . . . and people expected Government to make it happen.  How did that turn out?   Land was cleared for "Urban Renewal" and Arterial highways, taking people and businesses with it.   "Urban Renewal" turned out to be anything but. Some buildings were built at taxpayer expense in place of what was removed, but little was built by private enterprise -- and what was, was done on the cheap.  (Look at the cheap metal buildings on Columbia St. that went up in the Urban Renewal area. The old solid brick structures that were removed were far better.)  Arterial highways, instead of bringing people to Utica, took them away.  Most of the private activity that was taken for these projects left the city . . . forever.   Utica has been in decline ever since.

Later, in the 1980s, people felt that Government could cure social injustices and racial prejudices by closing neighborhood schools and busing school children across town to achieve a "racial-balance." . . . But society's ills existed more among the adults than the children, and Utica schools were already integrated by the junior and senior high school levels anyway, so what good did the busing accomplish?  While the good was questionable, the bad should have been obvious.  Schools lost their neighborhood context.  It became difficult for parents to participate in school activities. Classmates could no longer be playmates. Neighbors couldn't watch out for each others children when they were put on a cross-town bus and exchanged for strangers.  Networks of people important to the socialization of children became strained. Misbehavior became a problem.  Time that could have been spent in study or healthy play was wasted on school buses -- which disrupted city traffic and wasted other people's time. Before this happened, Utica schools were considered to be excellent.  Once the children were forced onto buses, some people felt that they might as well move to the suburbs where they could at least have more space and keep their children together with their friends.  The distinct advantages of Utica's neighborhood schools were lost forever in a failed social experiment.

Now Utica has a draft Master Plan, and hopes are high that it will lead to a turn around . . . but will it? Were the lessons from the past ever learned?  Here is a sampling of some recommendations that will give you the answer:
From the "Housing and Neighborhood Development" section:
The city will "create and adopt a mixed income housing model." All new housing developments will be required to include 20% "affordable" units.  "Affordable" housing units would be created in areas that are NOT Low to Moderate Income census tracts. A subsidized housing plan would also be instituted. (See p. 28).
To encourage more owner-occupied homes and increase compliance with codes,  Purchase-Rehab Loans and a 60% Grant – 40% Loan Program will be developed for current owner-occupied homeowners to help them remain in their current home.  (See p. 29).
Community Improvement Districts will be developed, apparently with some type of taxing authority to pay for "common" facilities, and an "Incentive/Penalty" program will be developed to reward (?) people for code compliance. (See p. 29).
A "mixed income model" may be a utopian goal . . . but isn't this just more heavy handed "social engineering" that is likely to produce results similar to forced busing?  Social engineering breeds resentment . . .

The idea that Utica needs "affordable housing" is idiotic. Utica's "affordable housing" is one of this region's few bright spots whenever the area is ranked among other parts of the country. It is always touted by the rose-colored glasses crowd. If any type of housing is in short supply within city limits, it is upscale housing.

Now what developer of upscale homes would put up with a "20% affordable" requirement? Developers usually look for a niche to fill.  The key question: would such a development even be marketable given human nature?  Undoubtedly, such forced-developments would have to be subsidized by the taxpayers.  What would that do to Utica's tax rate? And what would the tax rate do to Utica's attractiveness for new residents? ... or businesses?

The drafters of the Master Plan need to open their eyes and get in touch with reality. Plenty of people already are rehabbing their homes and bringing them into code compliance -- and perhaps creating "mixed income" neighborhoods in the process -- without an elaborate government handout program. ... The people happen to be Bosnian ... using skills learned in Europe ... but employing the good old-fashioned American Free Enterprise System to unleash their potential.  They are remaking the face of Utica.

People who need a Government loan/handout program to do what others are already doing are unmotivated, unlikely to produce anything of value, and are probably into projects just for the money.  The taxpayers do not need this burden . . . and a Government that insists on doing this may be suspected of simply using the handouts as a means of controlling a large block of people. 
The Draft Master Plan also proposes that Utica 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 the field. (See p. 30).
As laudable as "going green" is, shouldn't this be an individual choice? Those that want to "go green" will do it as they already have.  Since there are already state and federal incentives, why should Utica taxpayers take on promoting such a program?  The bottom line for Utica residents and businesses is money . . . affordability . . . sustainability in a FINANCIAL sense.  The city is already driving people away with its high costs.  Why would people come back to higher taxes for this?
To improve Downtown, the Master Plan proposes creation of a “Restaurant Row” that celebrates the diversity of the City’s ethnicity. (See p. 45)
Restaurant row? The entire city is already a smorgasbord of ethnic and gastronomic diversity, and its reputation is spreading by word of mouth beyond the region -- all the result of private enterprise.  If there is a niche in downtown for a "restaurant row" some enterprising soul will fill it.  The government has more important things to fill (fill potholes . . .  and keep us safe) than go into the restaurant promotion business.
To improve Downtown, the Master Plan also proposes creation of a public safety and visitor assistance program for downtown to build an atmosphere of safety, friendliness and goodwill; and develop a tourism marketing plan and a tourism-readiness training program for staff in tourism industries and downtown business owners. (See p. 45).
Aren't these things that the Chamber of Commerce (private industry) should be doing?  Oops . . . Utica's C of C is missing somewhere in the "Mohawk Valley."  Anyway, these things are NOT the responsibility of the taxpayer either.

The truly great things produced by society, those things that can transform a region for the good, are produced by private enterprise. Private enterprise thrives in an environment where there is maximum freedom.  In cities, because people are close together, there is always a potential for activities to conflict.  Master Plans address this when they provide a framework around which private enterprise can be organized - organizing activities so that they reinforce each other rather than detract from each other.  Master Plans will produce positive results when they ensure that private money, public money, and city service networks are used efficiently and provide maximum benefit in an environment of maximum freedom.    

This Master Plan is a step backward.  It wastes public money . . . It gives away too much. It relies too much on Government action. It controls too much. It does little to leverage private enterprise. 

People risked their lives to come to Utica  . . . to be in a place where they could be free. . .  and in their freedom, Utica is being renewed. Let's not mess up the progress that has been made. 

Utica does not need a Master Plan that will turn it into the places that our new residents fled from. 

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Master Disaster 1: Death By Committee

 “A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled.” -- Barnett Cocks 
“If you want to kill any idea in the world, get a committee working on it.” -- Charles F. Kettering. (Quotes from "Thinkexist.com")
The draft Utica Master Plan has finally been made public, giving us an opportunity to see its details. It's not like anything I've seen before.

The most striking feature is its institutionalization of/reliance upon committees:
  1. A citizen advisory committee to adopt a new zoning ordinance (Housing Goal 1 Objective 2)
  2. A citizen advisory task force and committee regarding adoption, regulation, enforcement, and implementation of city codes (Housing Goal 1 Objective 1)
  3. A citizen/"expert" panel to research current mixed income housing models and present options to the city (Housing Goal 2 Objective 1)
  4. A citizen advisory committee to create a "Community Improvement District" (Housing Goal 3 Objective 6)
  5. A citizen advisory committee to create "Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design" action plan (Housing Goal 5 Objective1)
  6. A Utica Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee to publish pedestrian and bike route maps, coordinate with transit companies and develop a "Trolly Line Trail" (Housing Goal 5 Objective 2)
  7. Establish a Food Policy Council (FPC) to foster community- wide implementation and development of urban agriculture (Housing Goal 6 Objective 2)
  8. A committee of artists and arts organizations to develop a sculpture trail (Recreation Goal 2).
  9. A Brownfield Redevelopment Ad Hoc Committee (Business &Technology  Goal 2)
  10. An Urban Redevelopment Ad Hoc Committee (Business &Technology  Goal 2)
On top of these is a committee of more committees: the Partnership Advisory Board with 6 standing committees:
  1. Housing & Neighborhood Development
  2. Downtown Development
  3. Parks, Recreation, Arts, Culture & Historic Preservation
  4. Community Infrastructure
  5. Business & Technology Development and Waterfront Development
  6. Finance and Fiscal Policy
SEVENTEEN committees are required to implement this Master Plan!  That is a testament to the lack of specificity in this plan as the committees are needed to, basically, make up the plan's details as they go along. I guess that is why the Master Plan is called a "living document"
"A committee is a group of people who individually can do nothing, but who, as a group, can meet and decide that nothing can be done." - Fred Allen

"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling to do the unnecessary." - Fred Allen

"A committee is a group that keeps minutes and loses hours." - Milton Berle



"And everything is controlled and everybody is a member of some committee, because then their watchdogs placed in the committees can control everything, what this person says or how this person think(s), you know." - Milos Forman (Quotes from Brainyquote.com)

[This article is first of a series that will take a critical look at different aspects of the Draft Master Plan -- Check back for more.]

Monday, July 12, 2010

Fields of Dreams . . . In Duplicate . . .

Per the OD, Harbor Point could be host to a complex of baseball fields, at least that seems to be the plan in the draft Utica Master Plan.
The city’s draft master plan outlines not only building a baseball stadium at Harbor Point, but relocating Greenman Estates and its baseball and softball fields from Burrstone Road near Utica College.. . .

It also says the space where Donovan Stadium currently sits at Murnane Field in South Utica could become a business park.
Query: Where did this idea originate?

It is eerily similar to what Oneida County did when it moved its airport from Whitestown to Rome.  Could the same people have been involved?  The M.O. seems to be "Let's spend taxpayer money (hopefully grant money) duplicating what we already have someplace else."   While there might be some merit to clustering the ball fields on the flats, is it really worth the cost of the duplication and the disruption of what currently exists?

2008-0710-1079pWhile the OD article implies that the Harbor Point site can only be used for ball fields, was there any study of this?  Only residential use is restricted, which leaves a host of other possible uses.  This site was blogged about in 2008. As you can see from the picture, the site has a "million dollar view" of downtown, and connecting Washington St. with Washington St. (NOT Seneca St. as proposed -- the two parts of Wash. St. are seen at right.) would give a strong visual connection with the heart of downtown ... essentially making Harbor Point part of downtown. This would suggest that Harbor Point might support uses that are much higher than ball-fields . . . such as a "downtown" office park with plenty of parking and a waterfront promenade!

Both Murnane Field/Donovan Stadium and Greenman Estates are part of the Utica Parks System and are located on Burrstone Road, which is an extension of the Memorial Parkway.  Eliminating both of these parks would seem to lessen the value of the Parkway itself as the "string" holding together Utica's "emerald necklace" of park lands (to borrow an idea from the Greater Boston area that was the inspiration of Utica's own park system).

It is common knowledge that Greenman Estates is under a deed restriction that prevents any use other than recreational for the Burrstone Road site.  Did any one tell the Master Plan drafters about it?

The Utica Business Park is half empty, the Bosert site is vacant, the Bendix site is vacant, and the Psych Center is half empty.  These places are all within a mile of either Murnane or Greenman, so the need for a "business park" at either location is questionable.

Could the location of Greenman Estates being across the street from Utica Collage and Murnane Field being across the Street from Faxton Hospital have anything to do with this proposal?  The genesis of this proposal is so shrouded that we are entitled to speculate.

Do the people of Utica want to give up their parks?

Is the Master Plan the "people's plan" . . . or just more of the same nonsense  from the same well-connected people who have been running the area into the ground for decades?

Thursday, July 08, 2010

400 Rain Barrels & 300 Trees . . .

400 Rain Barrels & 300 Trees . . . for $720,000, all from a State grant to help sewer issues.

Let's see . . . That works out to more than $1,000 per barrel or per tree!

(It's funny the perspective that a little math will give you on an issue).
(. . . and they say that New York is broke.)

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

Uncovering Utica's ORIGINAL Master Plan

The Utica Master Plan is in the news. After months of anticipation, draft recommendations have been made and revealed to the public for review and comment. You may love them or hate them, but what is important is that people are finally taking the initiative to map out Utica's physical layout, shaping the future for years to come.

The last 50 years in Utica have been shaped by the 1960 Master Plan, produced by a local Utica firm. That plan was strongly influenced by mid-20th century arterial highway and “urban renewal” ideas. We know how well those notions worked out. If anything, the last few decades should have taught us how important it is to get the plan right.

Both the arterials and urban renewal projects envisioned by the 1960 plan were a significant departure from Utica's first “Comprehensive Plan,” unveiled only 10 years earlier in 1950. That plan was produced after almost three years of work by the Bartholomew firm of St. Louis. Planning in Utica, however, goes back further.

In 1924 Utica adopted a comprehensive plan of Major Streets, Transportation, Recreation Facilities, and Zoning. Oriskany Street and portions of Broad Street, which were built over the old Erie Canal right-of-way, and many 1930s-era playgrounds and ball fields are the visible results of that plan.

Even earlier planning is found in Frederick Law Olmsted Jr's 1908 Report to the Utica Chamber of Commerce's Committee on Improving and Beautifying Utica. Mr. Olmsted, from Boston, championed parks and parkways; separate grades for railroads and streets (with the streets always on top so they would be open to the air); and several specific street additions or extensions. Olmsted's most significant recommendation is still visible today in the Parkway, although Mr. Olmsted would have had the Parkway almost encircle Utica on the east, south, and west.

Many of the streets and places, which give Utica its distinctive character, go back even earlier to the 19th century. While formal city plans from this era are unknown, comparisons of Utica's streets with those elsewhere suggest that many of these were likely planned as well and not accidental.

Our nation's capital,Washington, DC, is one of the most beautiful cities in the world. Monumental buildings aside, strongly contributing to that city's beauty is its layout of streets: a traditional grid overlain by diagonal avenues intersecting at circles or squares. Except for the Georgetown section which pre-existed, Washington was a planned new city, originally laid out in the 1790s by a Frenchman, Pierre L'Enfant, who must have been inspired by the boulevards and circles of Paris, another “most beautiful” city. Whether it is Washington or Paris, the circles and squares, often adorned with monuments, fountains, and parks, provide places for people to gather and socialize. The boulevards or avenues connecting these places open up vistas in between, with long viewpoints ensuring a feeling of spaciousness even in a densely populated city. The network of circles/squares and connecting avenues provides a navigational frame-of-reference for pedestrians and vehicles alike. The regular geometry imposes a feeling of order and lends a “sense of place.” The human design is most obvious when viewed from the air (or Google Maps), with the landscape of both cities punctuated by central points of activity and streets radiating from them like rays from stars. In fact, the location of the Arch of Triumph, on a circle in Paris where twelve avenues meet, is called Place de l'Étoile, which translates to “Star Place.” Talk about a reference point!

Unlike Washington, Utica was not preplanned but was laid out in sections as it grew. Street locations were highly influenced by trade routes and geographic features. Nevertheless, Utica's street layout – as it existed prior to installation of the State's arterial system – strongly suggested a conscious effort to impose order using some of the same classic design elements found in Washington and Paris.

Bagg's Square (now under the North Genesee St. bridge) was Utica's historic activity center. From it, Genesee Street extended southwestward along a trading route. Legend has it that John Butterfield, founder of companies that became American Express and Wells Fargo, insisted that Genesee Street be wide enough for one of his stagecoaches with a full team of horses to be able to make a U-turn. Regardless of the origin, Genesee Street's width is an unusual feature in a city of Utica's size. As intersecting streets were constructed, they intersected on a diagonal rather than at 90 degrees, eventually turning Genesee Street into a street that cut diagonally across a grid. If this was not a conscious effort to shape urban spaces as those found along the avenues of Washington, DC, the effect was similar, creating angular open areas such as Ellen Hanna Park (at the intersection of Genesee and Seneca Sts.) or Franklin Square, or leading to angular buildings such as the Black River Systems building or the Triangle Coffee Shop. Genesee Street's diagonal placement, its width, and long uninterrupted vistas along its length speak of its importance to the region and make it the ideal parade route and place for celebrations. The street layout created distinctive spaces, which led to distinctive buildings, all of which distinguish Downtown Utica from cities such as Syracuse or Rochester and give it a unique “sense of place.”



Another feature suggesting conscious design is the placement of Rutger Park (known as “The Hill” in the old days) at the southern end of John St., the northern end being at Bagg's Square. The occupants of No. 3 Rutger Park would have had an unobstructed view directly down John St. into Bagg's Square – and vice-versa -- implying the importance of the occupants of the mansion on The Hill.

By 1840, Whitesboro, Varick, and Liberty Streets intersected next to Chenango Basin, which was the intersection of the Chenango and Erie Canals. State Street extended south from the basin to Oneida Sq. The roads and canals all coming together produced another important place for local activity, which became Oriskany Circle after Oriskany St. replaced the Erie Canal in the early 20th century.

Other places of activity where several streets intersect are Oneida Square, Steuben Park, and Chancellor Square, all joined together by Park Avenue. Genesee Street tied Oneida Square to Baggs Square to form the axis that became Downtown Utica. A bypass of Downtown was formed to the west of Bagg's Square by Whitesboro and State Streets intersecting at Oriskany Circle. A bypass of Downtown was formed to the east of Bagg's Sq. by Main Street intersecting Park Avenue at the old site of Fort Schuyler.

The geometry of the connections among these squares and circle bares some similarity to that found in Washington or Paris, which seems to reflect a conscious effort to create an orderly urban environment. There was no formal master plan back then. The citizens who were in the position to influence the positioning of new streets perhaps duplicated what they had seen elsewhere in their travels. They were Utica's first master planners, and their plan was what they placed on the ground.

Some of the original master plan has been lost. Bagg's Square, Oriskany Circle, and the northern portion of Park Ave. either do not exist or are unrecognizable because they were displaced by the arterial system. Likewise, Whitesboro Street has been broken apart for the same reason. Now these areas either cannot support activities or are in steep decline.

As Utica evolves in the future, both government and private initiatives need to reinforce each other to produce a better overall result rather than work cross-purposes to each other. A good master plan will produce synergies and help avoid wasted efforts. A good master plan will encourage redevelopment by providing a vision of the future that allows people to see where they might fit in and make their own success. It will also inject predictability in Utica's future redevelopment, permitting investors to calculate what they will need to do to improve their own chances for success.

However, to be a successful plan, it must incorporate the elements of good urban design, particularly regular and repeating geometric elements that will impose a sense of order and space not only on a block or neighborhood basis but over the whole city. Utica has some of those elements, which must be protected, reinforced, extended, and/or recreated.

You can be part of a new generation of master planners. As you look at the proposals of the current draft master plan, think of Washington, Paris, and other desirable, livable places that you may have seen. What is consistent with what those places have done? What is inconsistent? From your own experiences, do you see harmful things? Are beneficial things left out? How can you make the plan better?

Whatever you do, do not keep your opinion to yourself. Make yourself heard. Visit the Utica Master Plan at http://www.uticamasterplan.org.

[The above article was originally published in the May, 2010 "Utica Phoenix." Pick up the July Phoenix to read  "Regionalization and Sustainable Infrastructure" -- an explanation why the area's "regionalization" practices are not sustainable.]

Thursday, July 01, 2010

What's Up with the Utica Master Plan?

Utica master plan delayed -- again 
The timeframe for an unveiling of the Roefaro administration's master plan for the city has been pushed back yet again, meaning it will likely be late summer before it can become an official city planning document.
It is better to be deliberative and to do it right, rather than quick for political expediency.  But there is pause for concern . . .

First, the the Mayor's proposal for a new Master Plan was brilliant.  The last full master plan was done in 1950, with an update in 1960.  Master plans provide a vision of the city's future, enabling investors to find their own niches.  They also provide guidance for public works projects should sources of money suddenly become available.  Case in point: the stimulus funds. Had a new master plan already been in place, Utica would have been better positioned to respond to the federal request for proposals. The mayor was correct to start Master Plan process. . . . and good planning takes time.

A rather large steering committee was named over a year ago, consultants went about conducting public meetings to gather ideas, a public website, http://www.uticamasterplan.org, with the past two master plans went up.  Things were progressing.

Various subcommittees of the steering committee were formed, each with its own focus. Neighborhood meetings concluded in January. The plan was discussed at City Hall in February. Some details of where the plan seemed to be going were released to the media such as extending the feel of the Memorial Parkway into West Utica and shortening the North Genesee St. bridge to reopen Baggs Square.  Curiously, however, none of the details were posted on the website for public consumption and reaction.

In April, an open house was conducted. That was promoted here.  Artistic renderings were released to the press, as were a few more details, such as the recommendation that EDGE have a permanently staffed office in Utica. If you had the time to go to the open house, you got to see grids prepared by the various subcommittees which listed the draft goals and paired them with proposed strategies for their accomplishment.  The proposed strategies contained the few tantalizing details that got into the press. But unless you went to that open house, you did not get a chance to see or comment upon them.

Again -- curiously -- these grids with strategies never were posted on the website for public consumption and reaction.

Understandably, the grids were works-in-progress, and did not represent the Master Plan . . . only the direction in which it was heading.  One would think that the subcommittees would have been interested in knowing the public reaction to their work.  Were they on the right track?  Were they representative of what the People of Utica wanted for their city?  Or were they bad ideas, with a potential to cause harm? The website would have been the ideal forum for airing the proposals and getting feed back.  It was not used. The ideas that seemed to generate excitement (or controversy) when they got into the press are no where to be seen on the Utica Master Plan Website for public reaction.

What had seemed to be an open process embracing the public's input now seems less so. 

What was the point of the neighborhood meetings?  What was the point of the subcommittees works?  How were ideas processed?  Ideas seemed to have been dumped into a big black box, and what happens to them while they are in the box, no one knows.  The process is not transparent.

The skeptic now comes out. 

We've been down this planning "road" before . . . as far back as the Calley [sp?] Commission in the early 1980s when the Utica Schools were consolidated (which entirely eliminated the neighborhood school concept and put all children on buses), but more recently with the New Hartford GEIS for the southern portion of the Town.  Elaborate public meeting processes were conducted in both, supposedly for public input.  But in the end, only the input that validated the ideas of those who controlled the process was accepted. In other words, the public participation was window dressing, to dupe the public into thinking that they played a significant role in the decisions that had already been made for them. 

Is that what is going on with the Utica Master Plan? 

It is too soon to say.  The plan's delay could mean either that the public is being listened to and it is taking time for the ideas to be put together . . . or that arms are being twisted and scripts are being written.

It would be better for all if the process were made transparent, and more information posted on the website.