A Wooden Nickel . . .

People are irate over the Beeches-Turning Stone deal where the State Liquor Authority has given permission for the owner of the Beeches to reap untold amounts of dollars from the liquor concession at the casino while the owner's wife, Assemblywoman Destito, sits on a government panel that oversees State Liquor Authority legislation, formerly sat on a committee that oversaw the casino, and is still part of the same state government that now refuses to collect its taxes from the casino.   

Mrs. Destito has remained in power for so long because the Republicans have put up fake candidates to run against her. The last one didn't campaign, didn't show up for one of his WIBX shows, and didn't know the issues when he did. 

On another level, one of last bills that Mr. Boehlert pushed in Congress was to require mandatory mental health testing in schools.  Now Mr. Arcuri is pushing the healthcare reform that will put all your private health records on federal computers.  Both are unnecessary, unwaranted, and unconstitutional intrusions into people's privacy and their everyday lives. 

The Republicans and Democrats have become different sides of the same coin. They've both enriched their friends at your expense, and used the government to accumulate more power over you,  taking away your freedom. 

A pox on both their houses.

Sit Down and Shut Up . . .

That seems to be what the Town Board of New Hartford is telling its residents with its proposed set of new rules for maintaining decorum at board meetings.

Look -- No one is saying that the Town Board doesn't have the authority to institute rules to maintain order at public meetings. But does anyone really believe that these rules, particularly rules that are proposed by Mr. Payne, are needed to "ensure the safety of our residents and town employees" ? While some statements may be passionate -- on both sides -- this is hardly a safety issue.

And his statement that the new rules are not targeted toward any particular group is incredible.

Everyone knows that Concerned Citizens have been a pain in the proverbial butt for Mr. Payne, Mr. Reed, Ms. Krupa, and Mr. Reynolds. . . .

Simply put, New Hartford does not have a crowd problem with its meetings. There is no real problem to be solved. Ergo, the only purpose of these rules is to get Concerned Citizens . . . and You . . . to Sit Down and Shut Up.

(More from Concerned Citizens.)

Get a Grip On the Slippery Slope, Mr. Griffo . . .

In response to the video-taped fight that appeared on You Tube the other day, Per WKTV Sen. Griffo and Mayor Roefaro want new legislation to make the person holding the camera guilty of a crime.

While most people are outraged at what happened, and outraged that the fight may have been staged for posting on the internet as entertainment, Mr. Griffo is ignoring what his legislation might lead to: Infringement on the Freedom of Speech.

Sure I understand that not all speech is Constitutionally protected -- you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater unless there is one -- but in this day and age THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ENTERTAINMENT AND NEWS IS OFTEN A FINE LINE.

There are other laws that allow the authorities to go after the cameraman. If he participated in the staging of the event, then he aided it --he is an accomplice.

Mr. Griffo's law would discourage anyone from videotaping any fight . . . in turn discouraging the production of evidence that would assist the police in apprehending the responsible parties and throwing them in jail.

More pernicious is the lack of knowledge by the general public of such events that such a law would encourage . . . which would allow the mayor and police chief to portray the safety of the city in whatever terms they wish. There will be no evidence to the contrary.

The public has a right to know what is happening in their community. Mr. Griffo's law will make it easier for some criminal acts to go unnoticed.

The Last Exit for West Utica . . .

This was the place to be: the best neighborhood, in the best city, in the best state, in the greatest country ... or so it seemed during my growing-up years in post-WWII 1950s West Utica. It was far from being the richest neighborhood in town. It was solidly working-class -- but it was comfortable and it was safe. 

The houses were small, on small lots, but well cared for. Many had nice gardens. There were plenty of jobs near by - at Boserts, the Brewery, the State Hospital, Globe Mill, Bendix, and GE. Schools were also nearby - Washington, Lincoln, and Kernan. And we had neighborhood parks: Addison Miller, with its swimming pool, playground, tennis and basketball courts, and wide open playing fields, Pixley Park with a wading pool, and several tiny parks. We could get our dose of culture at the M-W-P Institute. There were good eateries too: Lyntons, Kohler's, Deller's, and Spilka's, each with a strong neighborhood clientele. You could pretty much walk to most places that you had to go to - and we did - in the process becoming familiar with each other, each other's families, and our surroundings. With familiarity came security, because if someone or something was out of place, he, she or it would be noticed. Good jobs, good schools, good friends and neighbors, and good places to spend time with them -- what more could anyone want?  

But change happened. While it did not happen overnight, and there were many causes, it is easy to mark the beginning of West Utica's decline: New York State's opening of the North-South Arterial. 

Built in the 1960s at the same time as the Interstate System, this limited-access highway was thought by most to be "progress" -- an homage to the automobile and the call of the open road, promising to whisk us to where we wanted to go with a minimum of delay. I remember the rush of excitement peddling my bicycle down the wide stretches of fresh pavement a few days before its opening, and the excitement renewed with the first automobile trip. Of course, not everyone was happy with the new road because there was a three-quarter mile stretch with several cross streets and stop lights, the result of pressure brought by some "backward" people living nearby who were afraid that an elevated highway would be the end of their neighborhood. It is only now, almost a half-century later, that one realizes they were right.

While the road had its intended result of relieving Genesee Street of traffic, it also brought heavy traffic and noise to an area that did not previously have it. The road was utilitarian in appearance, doing the job but not attractively. While some cross streets were maintained, others were cut off, creating a barrier to pedestrians and traffic and dividing the neighborhood in two. Meanwhile, the road facilitated suburban areas siphoning off residents and businesses. The proximity of West Utica to the Downtown business center was no longer an advantage when the road placed outlying areas an equal number of minutes away, but made some local streets more difficult to reach. The end result may have been fine for motorists and suburban growth, but poor for pedestrians, neighbors, and the economic vitality of the city.  
  
Another "whammy" to West Utica came from downsizing of the State Hospital. Long a source of stable, well-paying jobs, doors were shut, removing many families'sources of income. Exacerbating West Utica's problems was the release of many former mental patients into the community who were ill equipped to cope with the demands of everyday life and did not interact well with other residents. The hospital site itself became an eyesore with boarded-up buildings, discouraging others from investing in properties nearby. 

West Utica has steadily declined over the years, its population dwindling and those remaining becoming increasingly poorer and troubled. Boarded up or burned out houses are no longer unusual, and most areas suffer from various levels of disrepair. Crime has become a problem. While the portions closest to Utica College, the Utica Business Park, and the Faxton-St.Lukes Campuses are still relatively trouble free (demonstrating that proximity to good jobs has a beneficial effect), a murder, a recent drug bust, and an increase in short term temporary residents have raised concerns that these areas, too, will go the way of the rest.  

Some, seeing the decline, may be tempted to write off West Utica entirely, but that would be a mistake. First of all, it must not be forgotten that people live there, and no matter how poor they may be, they are still entitled to be treated by their government with respect, dignity, and justice. Second, it would be a waste of the valuable infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, sidewalks, etc.) that is already in place. The infrastructure is capable of supporting higher levels of activity, and requires more activity to pay its maintenance costs.

While Utica and all of Upstate have declined over the years, it is clear that bad decisions have made West Utica's conditions worse. Recognizing the cause-and-effect relationships gives hope that future mistakes can be avoided, and that the situation may eventually be turned around with better choices.

Current events provide an unprecedented opportunity for change that will make things either better or worse depending on the choices made. The former Bosert's site has been recently cleared and several acres are now ready for redevelopment. Buildings at the State Hospital site are also being raised, creating another large tract that could be put to reuse. What happens at these sites will affect the entire neighborhood. Unfortunately no plans are currently in place for either site.
  
The biggest opportunity (or threat) is the programmed reconstruction of the North-South Arterial which is nearing the end of its useful life. At one point, plans had been narrowed to a depressed expressway or a multi-way boulevard, either of which would have remedied some of the neighborhood's problems with the current road. The existing street grid would have been maintained, the ability of pedestrians and traffic to cross from one side to the other would have been enhanced, visual barriers would have been eliminated, and the process of reconnecting the neighborhood on both sides would have begun. With this arrangement, one can envision the M-W-P/Pratt/Player's Theater arts-centered area seamlessly integrating with the Varick Street area to make West-Utica a regional destination for arts and entertainment.

However, in a seeming "bait-and-switch," the State Dept. of Transportation has recently revised its proposals to an expressway, providing various excuses for rejecting both the depressed highway and multi-way boulevard concepts. The expressway would eliminate crossings at Sunset Avenue and Warren Streets. Only crossings at Noyes and Oswego Streets would remain -- for now. In recognition that pedestrians need to cross, a couple footbridges are proposed -- but does anyone other than DOT really expect them to be actually used? The proposal will effectively build a wall across the middle of West Utica, making large areas more difficult to access and substantially reducing the potential for redevelopment. The West Utica neighborhood will be sacrificed merely to shave three minutes off suburban commutes. 

It is interesting that while officials in Utica are still talking expressways, those in other cities are discarding them. San Francisco replaced an earthquake-damaged freeway with Octavia Boulevard, and a dismal neighborhood suddenly blossomed, attracting all kinds of investment. New York City replaced the West Side Highway with a boulevard, with similar results. It seems that planners everywhere else but here have gotten the message that expressways through developed neighborhoods will kill them, that inter-city traffic is better routed to go around rather than through city neighborhoods, and that heavy local traffic can be handled with boulevards. Even Syracuse is now considering eliminating Interstate 81 from its downtown area and replacing it with a boulevard.  

In what may be a lucky coincidence, Utica just kicked off development of its master plan, 50 years after the last one was done. It is expected to take about a year to complete. Here is an opportunity to address Boserts, the State Hospital, and the Arterial, and plan for these sites to work for the benefit of West Utica. Given the State's desire to redo the Arterial soon, there is no time to waste. If the State must hold up on its plans for a year or two and revise them again, so be it. A delay is better than having to live for the next fifty years with a mistake.

Today, the West Utica of 50 years ago would probably be called "walkable," "sustainable," or even "green" -- the qualities that people look for in communities now. Political pressures, fads, lack of information, and failure to see likely consequences led to the poor decisions that caused the neighborhood's decline. The cleanup of the Bosert's site, clearing of much of the old State Hospital grounds, and the need to replace the Arterial, all occurring while Utica revises its Master Plan presents one of the best opportunities -- and maybe the last opportunity -- to give back to West Utica those qualities that have been lost. We, the Public cannot depend on our leaders and civil servants to automatically make the right decisions for us. We need to discuss these issues, be involved in the process, and insist that they work for us.

To paraphrase lyrics from an old Gene Pitney song, this is the last exit for West Utica -- the last chance to turn around.

[This article was originally published in the July, 2009 "Utica Phoenix." Be sure to pick up the August "Phoenix" now available in a newsrack near you.]

For more information on development of the Utica Master Plan, go to http://www.uticamasterplan.org (a link is in the Blogroll at left).  Meetings are planned for every neighborhood. . . . Participate . . . It's Your City . . . and YOUR FUTURE.

Dealing With Development . . .

Per today's OD, the New Hartford Planning Board got an earful at last night's meeting where the recommendations contained in a "Generic Environmental Impact Statement" for the southern portion of the town were discussed.

It is good that the Planning Board is listening to the public . . . but disappointing that the PB seems to be unable to "make its case" to control development.

The speakers at the hearing, which lasted nearly three hours, opposed the study’s recommendation to implement a 5-acre zoning in the area.

Most of them were farmers or large land-owners from the area south of the village of New Hartford. They said their land was an important asset and they wanted the freedom to sell it whatever way they wished.

While landowners may feel entitled to do whatever they want to do with their land, they (1) are not entitled to public assistance when doing it and (2) are not entitled to do things that cause harm to others.

What should now be obvious in our area of declining population, when waterlines, sewer lines, roads, and public services are extended into the countryside, they are subsidized by the taxes and fees imposed on those living in the population centers. The further out the infrastructure and services go, the greater the per capita cost of government for everyone. That is a form of public assistance to developers. We have already exceeded what is affordable here.

Without public water and sewer, the ability to build in outlying areas would already be somewhat limited and might even eliminate the need for the 5 acre zoning. Unfortunately, we've lost control of where waterlines and sewer lines go -- each spun off into their own agencies -- so land use regulations become a necessary evil.

New Hartford has some major problems coping with the effects of development -- stormwater runoff being one of the biggest. Developments are created on former farmlands, enriching their former landowners, but the taxpayers get stuck with having to build and maintain new drainage systems to accommodate the runoff from the new developments. There is something wrong with this system. The proposed 5-acre requirement is an attempt to address the issue.

I happen to disagree with the 5-acre requirement, too, but not for the reasons expressed by the landowners. Although clustering of development will be permitted, it is not required. Five-acre lots could encourage development that is very spread out -- exacerbating the costs associated with urban sprawl. A better way to control storm water is to control the land use itself, allowing only so much to be covered with impervious surfaces and requiring maintenance of adequate stands of forests or other vegetation to control runoff.

To address the concerns expressed by the landowners: Whether one invests in stocks or in land, there is no guarantee of a return on the investment .. and there certainly should be no guarantee paid for by the taxpayers.

To address the concerns of the Planning Board: You need to do a better job explaining why your plans are needed ... and go back to the drawing board and come up with alternatives to 5 acre lots for controlling runoff.

Why Should Utica Tolerate This, Mayor Roefaro?

High Speed Fail --

Per the OD Today Congressman Arcuri is advocating for High-Speed Rail in our area, with train stops in Utica and Rome. The reason for this:

Arcuri likened it to the economic boon provided by the Erie Canal.

“It’s about smart business, it’s about reliability and it’s about transportation,” Arcuri said.

It's really about trying to buy public support with empty words that have no facts to substantiate them.

While Mr. Arcuri should be applauded for fighting for this area's piece of the national High Speed Rail Pie, let's not kid ourselves. This will be no Erie Canal.

The Erie Canal created an economic boom because it delivered (1) significantly faster transportation at (2) significantly less cost than other modes existing at the time. In fact, in terms of miles traveled per gallon of fuel required, the canal is still the cheapest mode of transportation even after 175 years! That was a pretty amazing breakthrough.

Here there is no breakthrough. The speed increase is insignificant compared with Thruway travel when portal to portal travel time is considered. In fact, unless someone lives across the street from the train stop, travel time may be longer.

No one is even attempting to claim that this mode of transportation will be cheaper than alternatives. Considering the cost of conventional train tickets compared with bus tickets, chances are it will be considerably more expensive.

So against the currently available alternatives, high-speed rail really is no alternative...unless high-speed rail is being compared against future alternatives.

Perhaps Mr. Arcuri and his congressional cohorts are preparing us for a future where gas will be $20/gallon. Then, perhaps, High Speed Rail would be viable.

If that is the future that Congress is preparing us for . . . perhaps we should keep that in mind come November 2010.

Waiving the Privilege . . . In New Hartford??

The law contains a number of privileges that allow people to refuse to testify or otherwise disclose information on certain subjects. Many evolved over time and were intended to protect certain relationships or advance certain purposes that were thought to be of more value to our society than the inconvenience of not being able to get information from a particular source. Among privileges are the doctor-patient privilege, the priest-penitant privilege, spousal privilege, attorney-client privilege, and, of course, the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Each has its own set of requirements that must be met for the privilege to apply.

The attorney-client privilege is particularly interesting and, at the moment, evolving to possibly change the prohibition on disclosure of client confidences when the attorney is told by the client that he or she committed a crime. Regardless, the privilege is there for the reason of ensuring that clients are able to mount defenses and ensure that justice is served.

The attorney who works for the government has a rather unique position. Who is the "client" that he or she is supposed to protect? The employing governmental entity? Or the particular agency or even an office within an agency within the governmental entity for whom the attorney works? Or the people in the government who ask the attorney's advice? . . . . Or the public from whom the government derives its powers? Interesting questions, no?

The attorney who holds decisionmaking authority for a governmental entity has an even more "interesting" position because there is a difference between "lawyering" and "policy-making" with communications re the former likely protected and the latter likely not protected -- but the line between the two can be blurred at times.

Why bring all this up? ... Keep reading ...

The "Who Knew What and When?" situation re the New Hartford Business Park still lacks satisfactory explanation even after today's Observer Dispatch's "time-line of discovery" that "The Hartford" Building is actually located outside the boundaries of the Business Park.

According to the article, the Town Planner now claims that he sought a zoning change from the Town Board at its August 8, 2007, meeting to put "The Hartford" into the Business Park, but (according to the newspaper) there is no record of this -- and just a month later he wrote a letter to the developer saying that The Hartford was inside the Business Park -- and a year after that he told Councilwoman Krupa that The Hartford was inside the park.

With the Town Planner's credibility shot by his own conflicting statements ... Is he covering his own error, or being made a scapegoat?

New Hartford Online has kindly posted a list of the Town Attorney's Invoices for the Business Park... over $60,000 worth! Their frequency and the number of memoranda directed to the Planning Board and the Town Board on Business Park matters such as SEQR compliance (which is now admitted in another article today as having been defective) should provide a much better timeline of what exactly happened, when, and who is responsible.

The frequency of invoices for memoranda when compared with the relative lack of requests for legal advice reflected in the Town Board and Planning Board minutes makes one wonder whether the attorney was giving legal advice on request, or doing it in an unsolicited fashion . . . suggesting that he may have crossed the line from legal advisor to policy maker (the function of elected officials and not hired help). Certainly the NH Town Attorney's concurrent position of Chairman of the Town's Republican Committee which hand-picked most of the Town Board and the Town Supervisor raises the spectre that there is more going on than giving legal advice and drawing papers. In all these billings, was the Town Attorney really working for the duly elected Town government?

No doubt, if anyone tried to FOIL any of these memoranda, the likely response would be a refusal based on "attorney-client privilege." Since New Hartford seems to go to great lengths to prevent disclosure of anything, a refusal here would be a "cakewalk" legally.

But a funny thing about privileges: THEY CAN BE WAIVED by the protected party. For the Attorney-Client privilege, although the attorney MUST assert it, it can be WAIVED by the Client. So here we have a Town Board, all elected officials that are supposed to be doing the Public's business. If they have nothing to hide, they should waive the privilege. We also have a Town Planning Board, again, doing the Public's business . . . and a Town Supervisor... the same arguments.

The Public Paid for all these legal memos etc $60,000+. The Public should see what it bought with its money. What reason could there be for asserting the privilege, especially now that it is clear that someone screwed up big-time?

Another funny thing about privileges: When they are asserted without good reason, THEY CAN LEAD TO A NEGATIVE INFERENCE. This applies both in courts of law and, more important, The Court of Public Opinion.

If the Observer-Dispatch is serious about getting to the bottom of this fiasco, it will ask the Town Board to waive any attorney-client privilege existing between the Town and the Town Attorney, and FOIL all the alleged memoranda written by the Town Attorney.

Just seeing which officials vote NO or otherwise resist disclosure will tell a story in and of itself.

0 - O - 0

POST SCRIPT: I reread today's OD article and this line caught my eye:

Planning reviews for Adler’s park were overseen by the panel, with no Planning Board involvement, even though some parcels were outside the original boundaries. [emphasis supplied]

That statement is absolutely false as a review of the Planning Board's minutes makes amply clear. Mr. Adler came before the Planning Board for a "Preliminary Site Plan Review" on March 27, 2006 and a lengthy discussion ensued. (scroll to p 4). The Planning Board was updated on June 12, 2006 (see p 5). On July 17, 2006 the Planning Board granted Preliminary Approval to the New Hartford Business Park (see pp 8-9). On September 11, 2006 Mr. Adler received a "Final Site Plan Review" of the New Hartford Business Park from the Planning Board.

According to its minutes, the Planning Board was very involved.

Who's water are you carrying, Observer-Dispatch??? This is the second time in the last 6 weeks  that you've tried to say that the Planning Board had nothing to do with this project.

Is your Business Park series an exposé or an elaborate cover-up?

Cathy has more on this topic on NH Online Blog.

Talking Down Downtown . . .

I couldn't just let Sunday's OD op-ed piece, Revive Focus on Utica's Gateway Area go without comment here.

While it was nice to see recognition given to the new signs of life in the Uptown, Varick, Bleecker-Mohawk areas of Utica, the complaints about Downtown were a reprise of similar complaints last September when the lack of a drug store was seen as a problem.

What downtown Utica needs to create is something similar to downtown New Hartford. A few pubs and restaurants, some women’s clothing stores, a pharmacy and maybe a tailor and a shoe-repair shop. None by itself will draw visitors seven days per week, but in combination, they likely would.

Downtown New Hartford???? At best "Downtown NH" is four-and-a-half corners and is really a neighborhood center for the Village of NH and for South Utica -- much like the other areas that the OD identified above. In fact, the entire village of New Hartford could probably fit within the area regarded as Downtown Utica. It is absolutely ridiculous for the OD to try to compare the two.

In the longer run, downtown might need more. A modernized Aud. A youth recreation center with ice and turf similar to one proposed by hockey star Robert Esche a few years back. And, someday, maybe a well-built and modern downtown stadium to serve high school, college and even maybe a pro baseball team. Dreaming for the long term is something Utica needs to do a lot more of.

I hate it when the OD preaches to Utica leaders about what they should do, especially when it requires Utica residents to spend money that they do not have. Why should anyone in Utica listen to the OD? It has undermined the health of the city at every possible opportunity. OD has the nerve to tell Utica to dream while it has stomped on Utica's dreams for years.

A modernized Aud? Youth center with ice? Or a Stadium? Where does OD think Utica will get the funds from? The OD didn't write one word in support of then-mayor Julian's idea of SUNYIT putting its new field house downtown, even while other SUNY campuses were locating facilities to revive their nearby downtowns. In fact, it immediately wrote to squelch the idea.

I don't remember hearing any support from the OD for putting the Homeland Security Center or the State Data Center in Utica even though a large tax-exempt state campus sits in West Utica with half the buildings boarded up. Where's the push for Utica? Where's the outrage at the State-Slumlord?

Professional sports? What about professional hockey that the OD discouraged back in 2002, and discouraged again in 2005?

The OD pontificates, preaches, and points fingers at Utica, but, when it comes to Utica needing a hand, it does not lift even a pinky. . . . But it insists that Utica residents have to support regionalized sewer and water systems where Uticans lose more than they get back -- that Uticans must do this to enable the suburbs to grow their tax bases (while it erodes Utica's tax base). Where has OD ever told Uticans that Uticans are supporting through County tax breaks the very suburban developments that only draw more businesses out of Utica?

Over and over when the subject at public meetings turns to what Utica needs most, invariably someone mentions a new newspaper.

Utica's Downtown got the way it is over a period of many years. Downtown Utica's fabric was ripped apart by past 'improvement' projects that only made things worse. Can anyone remember 'Urban Renewal Project #1' 40 years ago and all the buildings that were demolished -- with many properties remaning vacant even today? How about the E-W Arterial, N-S Arterial, and all the 'improvements' to Oriskany Blvd that, to be sure, got traffic to flow better but which (1) ate up valuable land, (2) made some places harder to get to and (3) (poison for any 'Downtown' ) harder to walk to? It's OK to rip a city apart to shave a couple minutes off a suburban commute but what about the people and businesses nearby?  They were invisible. Where was the OD when these decisions were made? Was there any analysis? Now the OD seems to think that government can create grocery, retail or drugstores out of thin air -- but it can only create environments that will hopefully lead to these things settling in.

If the OD is not going to contribute to Utica's well being with balanced in-depth analysis and reporting on its news pages, and sincerely advocate for Utica's well-being on its editorial pages (instead of taking cheap shots like the stupid comparison with New Hartford), OD should keep its mouth shut.

Uticans are tired of the OD biting the hands that feed it.

Western Whitestown Water . . .

"Be careful of what you ask for" is one of the messages in today's OD piece "Water Woes in Whitestown."

The "poster child" used to justify MVWA's expansion to Verona was Camelot Village. For some reason, the needs of these people for water somehow justified a 16 mile pipeline. When MVWA got tied up in court, the people looked to Rome which had mains only a short distance away.

Now some of the people in Whitestown who are passed by the water line want to get water from that line, but government bureaucracy is in the way.

They and their town should know that Transportation Corporation Law §42 provides that water-works corporations 'shall supply each city, town or village through which the conduits or mains of such corporation may pass, or wherein such corporation may have organized, and the inhabitants thereof, with pure and wholesome water, at reasonable rates.' With the mandatory 'shall,' it would appear that under this law, Rome, which is acting as a water works corporation, can be compelled to supply these Whitestown residents. Of course, these people should expect to have to pay a fair share of the cost of the pipeline.

Now that the water line is in use in Camelot Village, people there have soggy back yards because they aren't drinking the water beneath them.

So be careful of what you ask for ... and make sure to do a thorough environmental review of your project.

Partnership, Linking, Collaboration, Leveraging . . .

"Partnership," "linking," "collaboration," "leveraging". . . all positive sounding buzz words that can be found in the Sentinel's coverage yesterday of the big announcement of ... What was it that they call it???

The cross-regional partnership will develop a state-of-the-art high tech business incubator/technology accelerator at SUNYIT.

The words being used to describe this venture should be red-flags that taxpayer money is about to be blown, and that it will be a lucky break if anything of lasting value results.

It is not just the (partial) string of broken promises listed in yesterday's post that makes many skeptical.

A First cause for skepticism is the conflicting sizes given for the new building presented in various press accounts: 60,000 square feet in an Albany Business Journal article and the initial OD posting, and 200,000 square feet today. That is a pretty significant difference to not know which -- a signal that maybe this is just another half-baked "pie-in-the-sky" announcement like we've heard before.

A Second cause for skepticism is that it's not clear exactly what they will build at SUNYIT. What is "a state-of-the-art high tech business incubator/technology accelerator" anyway? The Albany Business Journal describes it this way:

The 60,000 square foot facility at SUNYIT will act as a commercialization center and business incubator to attract chip suppliers and contractors. It will also house class labs, faculty offices and other support space for the college’s School of Information Systems and Engineering Technology.

While even that description is vague, the part about the class labs, faculty offices and support space for the college at least gives a partial picture. Per Today's Sentinel (thank heaven for the Sentinel getting some details!):

the center will include a coveted "clean room" facility that provides a specialized environment for developing chip technologies ...

That could be encouraging because it sounds like it is something relatively unique in the region (which might attract business users) -- but is that really the case? What is the market for a "clean room" and where are competing "clean rooms?" Can companies use clean rooms but be located elsewhere? And if this is an "incubator," of sorts, isn't that what Griffiss Institute turned into after its "world class" research facility amounted to zero? About the only things that seem to hatch from "incubators" around here are jobs for our industrial development officials.

Per today's Sentinel:

The partnership also creates a joint educational and training curriculum between the SUNYIT School of Information Systems and Engineering Technology and the Albany college that would prepare workers for careers in computer chip integration and deployment.

. . . And That is the Third cause for skepticism: We've seen "educational partnerships" before in the "Griffiss Institute" and the "Center for Brownfield Studies" and a "joint curriculum" with the latter. While "partnerships" and "joint"-anything may sound good, they ignore the reality that educational institutions DO compete with each other. In the case of Griffiss Institute and Brownfield Center, they never worked out.

It seems that we are being led down a well trodden path -- again.

I Don't Believe You Anymore . . .

Circa 2000: Marcy Chip Fab

2001: Center for Brownfield Studies

2002: Griffiss Institute

2005: Homeland Security Training Center

2006: State Data Center

Today: The Computer Chip Hybrid Integration Partnership
(meaning that we LOST the chip packaging center)

I Don't Believe You Anymore!

You Can Depend On Oneida County . . .

. . . to piddle away your tax money. "$5,000 grant to help Verona complete firefighter training complex."

"The Verona Volunteer Fire Department has been awarded a $5,000 grant to complete the Western Oneida County firefighter training complex, County Executive Anthony Picente Jr. announced Tuesday."

The WESTERN Oneida County training complex?

Whatever happened to the 'Eastern' Oneida County training complex . . . and what is it that makes it unusable to those in 'Western' OC? Come to think of it, Boonville would seem to be one of the furthest points in the county . . . Is there a 'Northern' OC complex? If not, maybe there should be one of those too . . .

I'm tired of all this waste of my tax dollars.

Update: The Sentinel reports:

"Oneida County has at least four existing training facilities. "

"AT LEAST ????!!!"

You Can't Depend On Oneida County . . .

... to do what you should be doing for yourself. At least that is the message that you should get from today's OD headline story "Whitestown business park tenants ‘frustrated’." Apparently the infrastructure and other things at the old Oneida County Airport Industrial Park are being neglected.

Among the concerns is that the park has received little attention compared to the Griffiss Business and Technology Park in Rome since 2006, when the county airport was moved from Whitestown to Griffiss, said Frank Giotto, chairman of the Oneida County Industrial Park Association. . .

Apparently the Whitestown park can't be found on the Mohawk Valley EDGE homepage.

“It’s like they’re deliberately excluding us in any of their plans and development,” Giotto said.

Welcome to the club, Mr. Giotto. Herkimer County felt that way some time ago. Utica should feel that way, too, but its leaders seem to be too preoccupied with getting around civil service laws to notice. EDGE will favor whatever municipalities are favored by Oneida County leadership -- which are not necessarily the municipalities of the residents who are paying most of the bill. This is the problem when services become "regionalized" -- the people paying the bills aren't necessarily the ones getting the benefits.

Since Whitestown would get a boost to its tax base from any development at the old airport, shouldn't Whitestown take on this responsibility? Probably not -- Whitestown is likely not big enough to take this on financially.

BUT GREATER UTICA COULD.

Today's story is an example of what Greater Utica gets from Utica and its suburbs continuing to move in their own directions rather than as one. They insist on maintaining separate existences, depending on the County whenever a 'Greater Utica' area solution is required. The County, of course, cannot be depended upon because it answers to interests that are outside Greater Utica.

This is the root of the problem with EDGE, the root of the problem with the Sewer District, and the root of the problem with the Water Authority. If Greater Utica were unified, EDGE would be a 'has been,' and the reason for the existence of the sewer district and water authority would be eliminated.

A consolidated Municipality of Greater Utica could take on a lot of what has been kicked up to the county level: Water, sewer, marketing of industrial sites -- maybe even the airport! Things might even be better managed because there would be less incentive to expand services into new areas (creating too much infrastructure to be supported by a dwindling population).

Mr. Giotto, of course, knows all this because he literally "wrote the book" on consolidation of Greater Utica -- "Medievil Madness." I hope he doesn't mind, but I'm posting it here because his former website is down (fortunately I thought to make a copy). It is an excellent, entertaining read, and proposes a roadmap for consolidation.

Now may be the time for this plan or something similar. . .

The residents of all the little burgs, hamlets and boros that make up Greater Utica should wake up to the fact that they CAN take control of their destiny -- if they only merged.

Water Water Everywhere . . . .

“Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink?” That is the question some people are probably asking themselves following Judge Hester's recent ruling in the water fight among the Mohawk Valley Water Authority, the State of New York, and others, that places a limit on the amount of water that the Authority can take out of the Hinckley Reservoir. With all of our lakes, streams, and snowy and rainy weather, why is this even an issue? Why should there be a limit at all? What are the ruling's implications for our region's future? A bit of law and history help the ruling make sense.

In New York State, rights to water are private property associated with ownership of land bordering a stream, which cannot be taken away without just compensation. The landowner has a right to the full flow of the stream, undiminished in quantity or quality by others, whether or not the landowner actually uses the water in any manner. These so-called “riparian rights” allow the landowner to fish, swim, boat, use the water to turn a mill wheel, and use the water on his or her property for various purposes, including domestic and agricultural uses, as long as the flow and quality of water in the stream are left substantially unchanged for other riparian landowners downstream.

Diverting water for use as a municipal water supply is not a riparian right because it diminishes the amount of water remaining in the stream for others. A company or municipality wanting to do this must first acquire the right to do so from all of the riparian landowners downstream that are likely to be affected. The landowners may agree to sell all or part of their riparian rights, or agree to diversions only under certain conditions, such as their always having enough water for crops or livestock, or that diversions may take place only when the flow in the stream is above a certain level.

Utica and its suburbs get their water from the M.V. Water Authority, which gets its water from Hinckley Reservoir on the West Canada Creek. At the time the water system was set up in the early 1900s, the private water company that eventually became the Authority purchased various riparian rights from the landowners along West Canada Creek. While many agreements were short and written to the company's favor, others protected the special interests of the various landowners such as agriculture. A few went into great detail to spell out that the company would only be allowed to draw water when flow in the creek was above 333 cubic feet per second (cfs) and that, if water was to be diverted when flow was below this amount, the company would have to release water from its own storage reservoir upstream in an amount equal to its diversion. This would restore the flow in the creek to what it would be under natural conditions.

Complicating this set up was New York State's simultaneous need for water from the West Canada Creek, and damming of the creek at Hinckley to create a 25 billion gallon reservoir, making a reliable supply for its Barge Canal. The conflicts and lawsuits that arose between the water company and State were ultimately settled by an agreement signed in December, 1917. Among its terms, the agreement reserved a water flow of 75 cfs for the water company's use, permitted the company to use the State's reservoir as a transporting agent and settling basin for water, and permitted the company to put its water intakes in the State's dam. However, the company's right to draw water from Hinckley was conditioned upon the company both maintaining water storage capacity upstream of Hinckley and releasing water from storage into Hinckley when flows in the West Canada Creek were low, defined to be 335 cfs (or slightly greater than the trigger flow in some of the company's agreements with private land owners). To ensure that the company had enough water to add to Hinckley to make up for what it was removing, the agreement required that upstream storage be increased in stages as the company's withdrawals increased. At the maximum withdrawal rate of 75 cfs, the company was required to have 6 billion gallons of storage (or almost one quarter of the design capacity of Hinckley Reservoir itself). The agreement stated that the provisions were intended to protect the State from any claims and demands of lower riparian owners which might arise out of the water company's diversions. In essence, this was both parties' acknowledgement that the riparian owners along the creek below the dam still had rights that had to be respected. The agreement also stated that if the company did not comply with the requirements, it had no right to take water from Hinckley.

History happens. In the late 1930s, the water system was purchased by the growing City of Utica. Withdrawals from Hinckley increased. At mid-century with a population of 100,000, Utica was essentially at “full build out,” with little room for growth. It was also at this time that withdrawals had reached a level where the upstream storage capacity required by the 1917 agreement should have been increased. It was not, in perhaps the earliest example of how the city-suburban municipal boundary stands in the way of Greater Utica's progress. With suburban areas unwilling to be annexed to the City of Utica, there was simply no benefit for Utica residents to take on the substantial cost and risks of expanding the water supply to enable growth, expansion of tax bases, and attraction of development in areas outside the city. Utica had already paid for an expensive water supply system that was adequate for its own needs.

In spite of this, growth in the suburbs continued, causing increased withdrawals and the missing of another storage milestone. Fear that increasing population in Oneida and Herkimer Counties would cause water shortages led to a 1968 comprehensive study which concluded that Hinckley Reservoir (with the prescribed expanded upstream storage facilities) should be reserved for Utica and environs and parts of Herkimer County. It also concluded that central Oneida County should be served by the Rome supply, and that western Oneida County should be served by Lake Ontario and other western sources.

In the mid-1980s, disputes arose between Utica and its suburbs over water rates, which Utica lost. Suffice it to say that Utica residents' status as the owners of the water system vs. suburban residents' status as mere customers, and the burdens associated with bringing water over greater distances to less densely populated suburban areas, went unrecognized. The owners of the system were denied a return on not only their investment, but also on the risks they were taking as the operators of a complex regional system. If an incentive was lacking to make changes that would benefit the suburbs before, the rate disputes made the situation worse.

With the pressure of the cost of a new federally-mandated filtration plant, and a local press that incessantly painted Utica as being 'tight-fisted,' uncooperative, and unwilling to think regionally, the City of Utica threw in the towel in the 1990s and sold the water system to the newly created M. V. Water Authority for a quick buck. Although Utica residents' burden of being sole owners of the system was now shared with others, they still bore half of the cost of buying the water system from themselves, and of maintaining it because they used half of the water. While Utica residents make up 50% of the Authority's 12-member governing board, two of them are picked by the county legislature, and two of the non-city members are picked by the County Executive. Since only a small portion of the county is served by this water system, the county involvement tilts the board toward an expansionist “pro-developer” philosophy with blind spots on issues of urban sprawl and proper allocation of water supply.

This became evident in 2003 when the Authority applied to the Department of Environmental Conservation to expand its water service to areas in Westmoreland, Kirkland, Frankfort, and Schuyler; agreed to supply water to the Town of Verona; and announced an intent to sell water to the City of Sherrill and Village of Vernon, which were customers of the City of Oneida system. Most of these areas were outside the Authority's service area and had alternative supplies available that were identified in the 1968 study. Verona's own engineers essentially concurred with the study, concluding it made more sense to get water from Rome, or from the Onondaga County Water Authority (L. Ontario). Camelot Village in Westmoreland, which had contaminated wells, was used to promote the need for the M. V. Water Authority's proposed cross-county pipeline – all while City of Rome mains were only one quarter mile away! The Authority's plans were contrary to the recommendations of the 1968 study, and, per that study, could leave the Utica area short of water, if the mid-century growth rate were to resume.

Meanwhile, in 2002, the Authority had destroyed its only storage reservoir upstream of Hinckley to avoid costly repairs, not seeing it as essential to operations, and, apparently, not comprehending its planned role in allowing mixed uses of the West Canada Creek to co-exist. The combination of the destruction of the storage reservoir with planned system extensions got the State Canal Corp.'s attention. However, instead of moving to ameliorate the potential impacts of the Authority's faux-pas, the State used the situation to attempt to extort a per-gallon charge from the Authority (and us ratepayers). It was strictly about money. The Authority responded with a lawsuit. In the meantime, the nature of the developing problem began to sink in with landowners along the creek, fishermen, boaters, camp operators, and others who derive a living or pleasure from its flows. Old agreements surfaced. It became apparent that the Authority was not playing by the rules, and that its plans were a threat to continued mixed uses.

Finally, we receive Judge Hester's ruling that the State's inaction for many years would stop it from preventing the Authority from continuing to divert water consistent with its use and practice over the years, which the judge defined to be “not to exceed 35 cfs,” which converts to 22.6 million gallons per day (MGD). However, the Judge rejected the Authority's claim to 75 cfs, saying that the Authority “is not entitled to divert a flow in the amount of 75 cfs of water without providing compensation flow according to the terms of the 1917 Agreement.”

True to its expansionist philosophy, the Authority spins the judge's limitation on withdrawals as an authorization to further expand the system. It cites its “average daily demand” (ADD) of 19 MGD, rounds the judge's limit up to 23 MGD, and concludes it can add 4 MGD worth of new users. The Authority fails to tell the public that it estimated in 2002 that its actual withdrawals from Hinckley were 21 MGD, with the difference from ADD attributed to production water uses at the Water Treatment Plant and leakage in the reservoirs and transmission systems. It also fails to tell the public that its “Maximum Daily Demand” is 25 MGD, and already exceeds the judge's limit.

The Authority also fails to tell the public that the higher historical demand occurred when the system was smaller than now, before industries left town. If the Authority spreads out even more to add 4 MGD of new users to reach the limit, what happens if some of the older properties revert to industrial use? Will the Authority deny them water? Ration water? Increase rates? Or simply violate the judge's limit and hope no one is watching? The judge's limit was merely to preserve the status quo, to buy time, and not to authorize an expansion.

The practical effect of the judge's limit is that this region's growth is now capped where it stands. The Marcy “Nanotech” site becomes useless for its intended purpose because the 3 MGD needed by a “chip-fab” is not available.

Obviously, the help of all stake holders is needed to solve our water shortage, but the search for a solution must not be orchestrated by the Water Authority. It is only interested in growing its business.

[This article was originally published in the June, 2009 "Utica Phoenix." Be sure to pick up this month's "Phoenix" to read "Last Exit for West Utica" ... available now in a newsrack near you.]

They Asked About the Map!!!

"The Hartford not in park’s boundaries"
Officials: Panel shouldn’t have had final say on building plan

Nice Job, OD!

Did "The Hartford" Fall Thru a Crack? Part 2

This is a followup to September 2008's post on the New Hartford Business Park.

The picture on the left comes from the November, 1999, Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the New Hartford Business Park. The picture in the middle was drawn last fall for "The Hartford" development, with "The Hartford" building and parking lot sitting in a projection to the right side of the photo (i.e., to the right of the area marked "Orchard" in the first photo). The third picture is from the Town Code §118-41.1, and shows that the official boundaries of the Business Park District are the same as those depicted in the FEIS.

What this proves is that "The Hartford's" office building and parking lot are NOT within the boundaries of New Hartford's "Business Park District" and, therefore, should have been reviewed by the Planning Board irregardless of the "private panel" that the Observer-Dispatch now complains about.

Either someone does not know how to read a map, or it did not matter what was on the map.

The letter from the Town Planner to Mr. Adler indicates that Town "Staff" reviewed his proposal and approved of it, including the location of the building.

It is hard to believe that no one on Staff looked at the map, and that no one on Staff looked at the Environmental Impact Statement for the Business Park District. Either you have to accept the proposition that Town Staff is incompetent or lazy, OR THEY WERE INSTRUCTED WHAT TO DO. The impression is the latter, that like the pressure to get a light on Rt 840, this project was rushed through.

Between what is posted here and what is posted on New Hartford Online Blog, there is more than enough material for either the Observer-Dispatch or the Utica Daily News to question Town Officials on what really went down, if either cares to do so. The logical starting points would be the Town Planner and the Town Engineer.

- - - -

5PM Update: Looks like they've circled the wagons and are now closing the barn door (inviting public involvement) after the horse has been let out (approval of "the Hartford" office building)[sorry for mixing metaphors].

Members of the group, including Donovan, Town Planner Kurt Schwenzfeier and Town Engineer John Meagher, met Thursday morning, along with Town Supervisor Earle Reed to discuss the issue. . .

Schwenzfeier called the meeting “excellent and obviously necessary.” . . .“We have done nothing wrong in our current procedures,” he said.

Reed said the town’s objectives had been honorable. . . .

He noted that The Hartford, with its many well paid jobs, had been considering leaving New Hartford before deciding to locate at the business park.

“If we had lost the Hartford, it would have been a terrible blow,” he said.

A Terrible enough Blow to ignore the requirements of SEQRA?

A Terrible enough Blow to ignore the fact that the office building and parking lot are OUTSIDE of the Business Park District -- and, therefore, subject to Planning Board Approval and not the Approval of the special committee?

The O-D appears to be participating in a smokescreen . . .

YOU DIDN'T ASK ABOUT THE MAP, O-D . . . WHAT ABOUT THE MAP?

The Price of Profit and Pride . . .

New Hartford Planning Board Chairman Jerome Donovan had an editorial in the Sunday O-D where he supposedly encourages discussion of several "key issues" by Town Supervisor candidates, but essentially uses the space to push for a big expansion in Town Government. If it were up to Mr. Donovan, New Hartford would have:

1) A professional Town Manager in addition to the Town Supervisor
2) A Town Comptroller
3) A Staff Attorney
4) Additional clerical staff for the codes, engineering and planning department
5) More office space for said departments
6) A new Town Courthouse

To make his point, he states:

Does anyone honestly believe that New Hartford — the largest town in the county with a population of 21,000 and the retail hub with a budget of $15 million — should be governed using the same model as the town of Ava, population 750?

I don't know about Ava's "model," but a more apt comparison would be the "New Hartford" model -- circa 1990 -- when New Hartford had almost 1,000 more residents. How can fewer residents now require so much more government?

The ready answer is that it is the price of New Hartford's recent "development" -- the price associated with being "the retail hub" for the region -- and the price of all the newer neighborhoods sprouting all over the hillsides. However, since the number of residents is declining, exactly who is benefiting from and who is driving the development?

Some insights are offered by an article from Chris Leo, U. Winnipeg: "If Cities Can't Regulate Urban Growth, Urbanizing Municipalities Certainly Can't."

Mr. Leo discusses how city councils, which make the decisions that determine growth of cities,

"frequently lack the political will to resist the blandishments of developers, in practice, we are allowing the cost accounting of individual development companies to play a major role in determining the growth of cities.

The question of whether the location and design of a new development responds to environmental concerns, and maximizes the city's ability to maintain the viability of its network of infrastructure and services, is unlikely to be high on an individual developer's list of concerns. The developer's responsibility is to shareholders, not the city as a whole."

Mr. Leo goes on to explain that the situation is even worse in communities which are in the process of urbanizing, where numerous individual residents can make fortunes by subdividing farmland for development. The objectives of even the best intended plans get forgotten under pressures from those who hope to gain.

This certainly describes New Hartford, where the objective of the business park district to create manufacturing sites (that was stated in the district's Environmental Impact Statement) was overlooked by the Planning Board (along with other things) when it gave Final Site Plan Approval to an office park instead.

The Town has set its course in response to pressures exerted by those residents who would profit from Town actions, or who would seek to build monuments to themselves or their families. These persons pander to the pride of local officials when they tout, e.g., the Town's new status as "the regional retail hub" -- but that status has not helped the average Town resident, and, arguably, has adversely impacted the average resident's quality of life. These persons have insisted on growing New Hartford to be a competitor of Utica instead of being a bedroom community suburb of Utica.

Eventually the Town will need what Utica has: a formal engineering department, a legal department, a professional fire department (with EMTs) and - of course - a courthouse -- all duplicative of what is already available in Utica just a couple miles away.

Duplicating Utica won't improve things. More government won't improve things. These will only increase fixed costs so much that the entire region will become more non-competitive than it already is.

New Hartfordians are going to have to decide just how much they are willing to pay for private profit and pride.

O-D Hogwash in New Hartford . . .

Now we "find out" that a "Little-known panel OK'd the Hartford Building" in the privately owned New Hartford Business Park.

A virtually unknown town committee approved the development and construction of The Hartford Financial Services building in recent years, in a process that skirted traditional Planning Board approvals.

Who is the Observer-Dispatch kidding? What agenda is the O-D trying to advance?

I can't say if there was or was not a "little-known panel" that "OK'd" things, but most certainly plans for the entire Business Park DID come before the Planning Board -- several times -- and were Approved. It's right there in the Planning Board minutes.

Mr. Adler came before the Planning Board for a "Preliminary Site Plan Review" on March 27, 2006 and a lengthy discussion ensued. (scroll to p 4). The Planning Board was updated on June 12, 2006 (see p 5). On July 17, 2006 the Planning Board granted Preliminary Approval to the New Hartford Business Park (see pp 8-9). On September 11, 2006 Mr. Adler appeared for a "Final Site Plan Review" of the New Hartford Business Park, the Planning Board voted to "close SEQR," Preliminary Approval was given for Phase I of the project, and Final Approval was given for Phase I contingent on the developer providing an agreement for a future Town road (see pp 2-4).

The Planning Board never looked at any site-specific plans, Donovan said.

Really? Then what was the "Final Site Plan Review" and approval in the Planning Board Minutes all about? Does the Planning Board give final approval to plans it does not see? This would be laughable if it weren't so inexcusable.

Of course, as this blogger previously pointed out, "The Hartford's" building is on a plot of land that was before the Planning Board in 2006 (see tax map ID ##s in the minutes), but NOT included in the original 1999 Environmental Impact Statement for the previously proposed business park district. The Planning Board, however, chose to rely on the 1999 EIS, oblivious to the change in footprint of the project (now extending outside the area considered for the business park district), and oblivious to several other changes from what was proposed in the EIS. Obviously, the paid Planning Board did not bother to read the Environmental Impact Statement even though it was their responsibility to ensure compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act.

This was clearly a failure of the Planning Board on a massive scale.

Technically, the building permits and the certificate of occupancy that were issued for this building, and all PILOTS and special arrangements for financing roads are void for non-compliance with the SEQRA -- but who would do anything about it? Private people aren't going to spend their money to make the Town follow the rules.

The Planning Board Minutes are mysteriously silent about the workings of the "little known panel" . . . but the Planning Board clearly had responsibility under SEQRA.

Now that irregularities are coming to the surface, the O-Ds "little known panel" is a convenient deflection of the Planning Board's failure.

It's Not What You Know . . .

. . . but Who you Know as the old saying goes . . . born out again this week in Daniel Labella's appointment to Police Chief by Mayor Roefaro.  

The mysterious dropping out of would-be competitors really isn't mysterious in local politics. People involved know what decision has been made long before it is publicly announced, so there is no point in fighting the inevitable.  The only challange is to make the decision "legal." 

While civil servants understand how the process works -- that the highest score on a civil service test does NOT guarantee an appointment to a position -- what went on here would seem extraordinary and questionable to most civil servants:

There were two different Civil Service Tests with different eligibility requirements. 

Usually eligibility requirements for a test are the eligibility requirements for the job. In Utica one has to be a Deputy Chief first before taking the City's test to become Chief, so how does one take a County exam without the eligibility requirement and qualify to become a City Police Chief?

It makes no sense.

The two tests were different, the County test being shorter that the city test .  So how is comparing the scores from two very different tests valid?

That's more nonsense. 

If one is sick for a Civil Service test, its usually tough luck ... you take it the next time it is given. No so here . . . a special session was created for this County test for Mr. LaBella.

That's just crazy.

For some people, this is the straw that breaks the camel's back.  They are calling for the recall of Mayor Roefaro. More power to them! It's good to see the public, especially the unusually complacent Utica public, get motivated. . . .

But the public should make sure that they are not merely treating the symptom of a bigger sickness. . . . or playing into the hands of others.

Notice the County's involvement above.  This particular appointment could not have occurred without County collusion.  

There is much more wrong here than meets the eye . . . it goes beyond Utica's borders and involves BOTH political parties.

Keep your eye at the County level . . . The County preserves local fiefdom's powers.