It's not Time Warner that's blocking FIOS. That one is a legacy of an old deal between Frontier and Verizon.
Time Warner can do whatever they want because they got this City by the short hairs! How about writing an article about their monopoly and how they block Verizon FIOS from coming in? Or how they are going to have to change their business model to allowing the subscriber to choose what channels to pay for, in order to compete against the internet. DOWN WITH TIME WARNER!!!
I had the pleasure and honor of working with City Councilman Tim Mains, and later with Principal Mains (at School 50). While we probably didn't agree on every issue, I found him to be one of the most honorable and hard-working public servants in our community. Jamestown's gain is most certainly our loss.
Tim scrutinized every budget line - a tradition now followed by Carolee Conklin. He listened to speakers, engaged with the community, and supported public policy decisions that benefited city residents. And he did all of his work with compassion, understanding and a dry sense of humor.
I wish him well, but he will be missed.
With the single stream recycling, how much of the material, especially paper, will be contaminated? People don't always properly clean containers now but mixing dirty containers with the paper will just cause more problems.
My only hope with new bicycle boulevards are that they are clearly marked AND clearly lit at night. Some of the inhospitable streets are in some neighborhoods where after-dark/before-dawn riding can have more than one danger, or at least the appearance of it. Fernwood may be a nice street, but some of the other streets that run parallel to Clifford are less so.
Another option might be to re-design sidewalks so that they are easier to ride (make them wider, pave the bike parts to do away with the seams).
The article fails to mention the gross conflict of interest we now have with Waste Management now managing both recycling and waste disposal (until this year, WM did not manage county recycling). What's the incentive to promote recycling if you make money either way?
First we get: "county officials ... [have] applied to the Department of Environmental Conservation for permission to add .. ", and then: "County officials say they expect the approval process to take about three years". Is it an application or an approval process? Sounds like it's just a matter of going through the motions. How nice for the landfill proponents.
"Mill Seat currently captures about 70 percent of the landfill gas and burns it in generators to produce electricity, which cuts down on the landfill's methane emissions" -- burning the methane emits CO2, thereby contributing to climate change. It is better to burn it for energy than not, but far better to not be creating the methane in the first place. There are far better destinations for our organic waste than a landfill. Sadly, the county sees it as a "win" since the big picture as usual eludes them.
While I applaud Monroe County’s efforts at recycling, I do not believe that a landfill, any landfill, is an “environmentally sound” way to dispose of waste. The Zero Waste committee of the Rochester Sierra Club has hosted a park cleanup in the county’s yearly ‘PickUpTheParks’ program for four years. Our group and many other groups and residents cheered the long-awaited decision by Monroe County to recycle #3-#7 plastics.
Monroe County’s eco-park, a residential drop-off point for recyclables and hazardous waste, is an incredible service that all residents should use. Everyone can dispose of paints and old gasoline and other environmentally hazardous stuff. However, according to an eco-park representative, only 1% of the public is availing themselves of this critical service. That is unacceptable, and one has to wonder where the other 99% are dumping their hazardous waste.
Landfills as a waste option are becoming suspect. Yes, they’ve come a long way from the toxic garbage dumps of the past. And of course Monroe County does need to provide the public with a waste removal system. They do not have the luxury of eliminating landfilling as a waste option at present, so landfills may well be a necessary evil at this point.
But landfills are never ‘environmentally sound’ and we should be moving away from them as quickly as possible. When we try to solve our energy and waste problems by capturing and then burning the methane gases that naturally accompany landfills, the public gets the false impression that this solves either problem. What it does is perpetuate landfills as a basic component of waste management thus sweeping our waste, energy, and resource problems under the rug.
It is a better idea to get rid of the idea of landfills and instead find ways to recycle those things we toss into them. Recycling our waste—organic, furniture, plastics, aluminum, etc.—would provide a wealth of resources for businesses, instead of having to further deplete our natural resources.
“Landfills are the largest source of anthropogenic methane emissions in the U.S., and the impact of landfill emissions in the short term is grossly underestimated — methane is 72 times more potent than CO2 over a 20-year time frame.” (Page 7, Stop Trashing the Climate)
Also, this is interesting “…according to an audit, 69 percent of county households participate in recycling, while 53 percent of Rochester residents participate.” It’s interesting because in Buffalo, where the press follows recycling rates very closely, they have a recycling rate of only 13.6 percent. The national average is 34 percent. Hard to believe we are wildly above the national average.
Anyway, I am in total agreement with Mr. Garland’s statement about updating plans on landfills, which includes “…develop public education programs about proper disposal, recycling, or reuse of different wastes.” Not only should there be widespread education about proper waste disposal, I believe our local media should step up to the plate and provide this educational component free of charge, as it is in the public interest.
Would like to see City report in depth on recycling efforts and progress in Monroe County, including an insider's view of current recycling technology and challenges.
Often times transportation planning firms will identify routes based on level of service measurements and determine which are most necessary for filling out a bike network considering city funding limitations. While it would be nice for the city to do this one in house with public suggestions, I'm not sure they have the manpower or the expertise to assess the routes and determine which they can actually afford to implement.
This needs to be treated like a serious health issue. Instead of simply addressing the noticeable symptoms, we need to get the the root of the problem. And that would be the simply fact we live in a throw away society because it is convenient and landfills are usually out of sight and out of mind.
It seems we had it right to begin with...before plastic. Remember glass milk bottles that were returned, washed and reused?
It would be great if Elmwood Ave could be made safer for bicyclists. The 30MPH speed limit is totally ignored by most drivers and the shoulder is narrow.
These are a great idea, but I don't know why we need to pay a design firm to identify them. I ride to work and all over the city, and I pretty quickly identified by riding on them which streets would make good "Bike Boulevards". For example, Harvard St instead of Park, Pearl instead of Monroe, Averill and Meigs instead of Alexander and Goodman. Just look at a map and you can easily identify your own bike boulevards.
Buffalo has one of these that is pretty nice http://buffalorising.com/2012/09/linwood-avenue_-_the-bigger-picture/
Bicycle boulevards for Rochester, NY will be a major jump forward in making Rochester a bicycle friendly community. These boulevards will increase bicycle safety and help make active transportation (walking and bicycling) a real transportation option in our city. They will increase the value of homes, promote a healthier lifestyle, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and overall make Rochester an even more pleasant place to live.
The program has an 85 t0 90 % drop out rate and the reasons are unclear? In science you do experiments and learn from them and try to make progress by designing new experiments. It's not satisfactory that the reasons are unclear. The experiment may have failed but the fact that nothing was learned is the bigger failure. Are we just wasting time and money? If someone from the U of R or RIT or David Cay Johnson studied the program would their results also be unclear?
I'm just glad it's already been designated a landmark, so that particular fight is off the table.
I like WILLSVOICE's idea of a school of Journalism and New Media. I like that idea as a Rochester City School located in the former printing press area. If residents of the building had priority in regards to being able to choose that school, we might be able to develop a micro-community of highly-skilled, highly-educated people who would like to stay downtown be able to because their children could go to a school they had decent access to.
And, based on the experience at SOTA, we can see what happens when we aggregate a large percentage of middle and upper class families in one school - we can buck the poor trend the other schools are suffering (for reasons beyond just missing that demographic).
We've got to find ways to duplicate the SOTA model - which isn't necessarily to offer a SOTA2, but to find a way to get middle/upper-class families to send their kids to an RCSD school in large enough numbers to pull the less-advantaged students up instead of the other way around. Trust me; it ain't the arts, it ain't the faculty (who are great, but no better or worse than most other schools in our district), it's the families (and especially the parents).
Perhaps a school of journalism and new media , along with a branch of Gannett's Newseum, funded by the Gannett Foundation, would be a goos use of the building?
First of all, Gannett began to diminish it's footprint in downtown Rochester years ago, despite the D&C Editorial Page articles on downtown revival, first moving to Roslyn, VA, across the Potomac River from Washington,DC, and then out to the sprawing, grid-locked outer burbs of Fairfax,VA, and the D&C printing facility to a suburban office park in Greece. They are hardly still a Rochester company, as identified by local television media during their daily stock market reports. Second, make no mistake about it, an empty building will make a very large hole at a critical downtown intersection. Secondly, there is no mention of the proposed Rochester Canal District, where the Gannett Building is located. This area designation might just help give a marketing edge to any new tenant should the Canal District plan ever be adopted by the City of Rochester and a strategic planning and investment effort gain momentum.
Faith Temple is currently located on Elmwood Avenue in Brighton. They bought the property next to Buckland Park with the intention of building a new sanctuary, school, and senior housing. But that hasn't been built yet and church officials plan to pursue a different approach. That's why they want to sell the land.
Website powered by Foundation