Something Done Right...

The Oneida County Farmers' Market opens Saturday by the old Railway Express Agency building adjacent to Utica's Union Station. It's understood that the market will eventually be in the REA building once it is renovated.

This is great news! Who doesn't like fresh food?

While some are concerned about competition with the Utica Farmers' Market  located in Chancellor Park on Bleecker Street  on Wednesdays, Utica seems large enough to support both markets -- especially considering the large foreign born population for whom such markets were a daily occurrence in the "old country."

What is especially exciting about this development is the new use being given to an old building. The building always seemed to be tailor made to be a market . . . the subject of blog posts here in 2006 and 2007.

I don't get to say it very often about Oneida County, but this seems to be something done right!

Pillaging Park Ave. for Parking

More is in the news today about the city's parking "plan." The plan to convert Park Avenue into a County  parking lot is particularly disturbing.

The plan to close Park Avenue for parking gained serious consideration in 2007 before the Common Council decided not to vote on it. It requires the approval of the Common Council and Oneida County Legislature to move forward.

Some of the concerns from four years ago have not changed – including that Park Avenue connects two of the city’s most historic parks: Chancellor Square Park and Rutger-Steuben Park. “Why the push for all this stuff now?” said Michael Bosak, president of the Landmarks Society of Greater Utica. “Why not wait for a new administration to come in rather than make decisions that can’t be turned around.”

Bosak also expressed concern about the traffic flow on John and Rutger streets if Park Avenue is closed.

The plans call for a walking trail where the road once was to keep the connectivity between the parks, Soggs said. It would result in about 90 new spaces, up from the roughly 500 currently there.

Park Avenue is important to Utica's well being for both its function and form.

The 1950 Utica Master Plan's transportation section identifies Park Avenue as an important distributor street.  Park Ave. performs this function by channeling traffic coming from the east around the Central Business District and moving it down to Oneida Square.   The new Roundabout at Oneida Square will only improve this function. It is counterproductive to improve traffic functioning at one end of Park Ave. while completely blocking traffic at the other.

Park Ave. also serves as a visual axis, connecting Oneida Square, Steuben Park, and Chancellor Park (and, formerly, the site of Old Fort Schuyler before the E-W Arterial disrupted it). This is historic urban design. It is part of what gives Utica its distinctive character. It made Utica attractive at one point and can do so again if the design elements are reinforced with things as simple as plantings of street trees. The street width is an essential part of the design. People will not want to set up shop in Utica if it is unattractive.  This old design needs to be dusted off and re-polished.  Footpath "connectivity" simply does not do it.

“Nothing will work for us unless we have Park Avenue,” [County Executive Picente] said. “I don’t even want to talk about Charlotte Street unless we can do the Park Avenue plan.”

Excuse me, Mr. County Executive, but why should Utica have to give up a traffic artery merely to provide parking for the County Buildings? Creating parking on Park Avenue will not make Downtown more attractive to private development. Did not the County just spend 40 million dollars renovating the interior of the Courthouse (while leaving the exterior as ugly as ever)? Has not the county spent over $100 million on its airport in Rome?  Why can not the County spend $10 million and build a County parking garage in Utica?


Oh, I get it.  It's because it's in Utica.

The Picture of a Parking Problem?

The proposal to tear down the landmark HSBC building to create parking has brought the parking issue front and center again. . . . But a picture is worth a thousand words...



Pam Jardieu was kind enough to work up this picture of Downtown Utica's parking situation. Blue = existing parking garages, green = existing surface parking, red = PROPOSED additional surface lots.

The picture shows there is plenty of parking in Downtown Utica.

So there should be no need to destroy a landmark . . . nor to re-propose the blockage of Park Avenue and disrupt hundreds of motorists.

There may be parking issues in Downtown Utica, but there is plenty of parking.

The problems may be that certain places have a high demand at certain times, that much of the parking is privately owned and may be underutilized, and that many of the public lots and garages are for pay.

The City and County have now created a new parking problem for the general public at the train station by turning a free public lot over to private hands.

No expertise has been brought to bear on the issue. Our public officials are winging it and don't have a clue.

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!