I agree. The city leaders needs to let the citizens have more say in these big time decisions.
Let's just hope that City Hall doesn't have anything to do with this. They were the ones who threw the stick in the spokes the last time we almost cleaned up this corner.
We have many serious problems, both in Rochester and nationally. Statistics suggest we’re becoming a third-world nation.
This didn’t happen by accident. It happened because public policy is now controlled by big-money special interests, corporations treated as people. It’s absurd and would be funny if the resulting pain and suffering weren’t so sad.
This is class warfare, instigated and promoted by a small subset of the rich against society at large, using elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, as tools. Ordinary people are sold out and preyed upon.
It doesn’t have to be this way. We, as a people, can make a different choice. And make no mistake, it is a choice. We can choose to reclaim control of our public policy. We can choose to have public policy serve our needs, the needs of ordinary people, rather than the needs of big-money special interests at our expense.
Will voting for establishment candidates, Democrats and Republicans, change this? No. They are constitutionally unable to forge public policy to benefit people at the expense of big-money special interests.
If you agree, then we must stop wasting our votes on Democrats or Republicans that come pre-bought and paid for by big-money special interests. Our past voting behavior has brought us here. By voting for candidates from other parties, like Alex White, the green party mayoral candidate, we can reclaim public policy for ordinary people.
Our posterity will thank us.
It is imperative that we as a community seek to preserve and rehabilitate what part of our history we still have left. These places can be anchors for neighborhoods, offering new life, as should be protected at all costs
A decade ago I called for a return to nonpartisan board elections, a far better governance reform than mayoral control. A return to neighborhood schools has also long been warranted. Having spent several years (to no avail) howling at the moon in support of these ideas, it is nice to see them taken up again. Thanks to Van for raising them, and to City newspaper for drawing attention to them.
Predictions? Easy - Richards by a mile. Gantt has already pulled the race card and this thing just got started. Whites vote and they dont like being called racist. There is also no love lost between Gantt and our growing Latino community. Frankly, it is an absolute wonder that Gantt has survived this long. He destroyed Wade Norwood's chances years ago and he has already torpedoed Lovely's. When you bring incompetent failure Cynthia Elliott to your announcement, you've said more than enough about where your priorities lie.
Lovely is as lovely as her name implies, and for better or worse, she's one of the more competent Council members, but she has minimal executive leadership qualities. The only vision she has exhibited is a desire to steer City contracts to minority-owned businesses, not necessarily minority workers, regardless of whether or not they're from Rochester. She makes a valid point about getting more out of developers and businesses that are subsidized by the City, but Richards has already been making that point. Her insinuation that Richards has ignored the neighborhoods is disingenuous at best. From the marina in Charlotte, to the FIS Areas, El Camino Trail, upcoming investments on La Avenida, Portland Ave, and Thurston Rd, to Brooks Landing, Collegetown, Erie Harbor, Culver Rd Armory, Eastman Business Park, and Susan B Anthony, Richards' administration has been doing good things all over our city. And besides, anyone who doesn't understand that we cannot have a strong city without a vibrant downtown should not claim to have vision.
Basically, this comes down to an unaccomplished lawyer / politician who feels entitled to be Mayor versus a highly successful lawyer with years of executive experience and private sector knowledge. Is there anything more to discuss? Yes, what the Hell is Lovely thinking?
No doubt mommy and daddy are just thrilled at how their little darlings amuse themselves while squandering the family's savings and/or piling up Himalayas of debt.
Speaking of the latter, I love the comment that debt is "not caused by students". True, borrowers are not responsible for higher ed's scandalous waste and ruinous price inflation. But borrowers—by definition—are solely responsible for taking on debt.
Drill, baby, drill !!
I don't really see Warren or Richards being of particular use to this city. Sure, Lovely is young, energetic, and feels "new" but she is a Gantt underling. Gantt embodies the democratic disfunction of NY. Anyone who associates so closely with him I can't imagine being much different. Richards is just an old, rich guy. He's fulfilled the monopoly man accusations that were brought against him in the campgain. He panders to big business while giving away money and tax breaks, but brings nothing of value for the citizens. Now he'll turn around and cut workers and services because he gave away tax base. Alex White is probably the city's best chance. He's inexperienced and a little further left than I'd like, but he is good at talking in facts and supporting his view. He can show where the city has given away tax breaks, where there is trimmable fat in city hall, and how to balance a budget. He's the only real business person of the 3. Warren is a life long political creature (we have too many of them in city hall already), Richards is a white collar businessman who just hooks up his other white collar businessman buddies then bails with his golden parachute, White actually owns a small business. I hope White is given a serious look. Anyone who sees him at the voice of the customer sessions the next month should talk to him, you'd be surprised how smart he is and in tune.
Here is my predictions...Lovely Warren will put together a great campaign and others may jump into the primary. If this gets to be a 3 or 4 way, Tom Richards will not stay in because, he is not one to run in a tough race. Sadly, though Mr. Richards is a good man, he has not accomplished anything but arguing with people (except Dutch Summers) in his time in office. MCC, a wonderful jewel of our community, has become the cause of strife. The Philharmonic is on the brink of failure, and he is silent. RBTL is leaving. Midtown is a hole in the ground. Crime is rampant.
As a result of the Richards withdrawal (or losing in a two way election), Joe Morelle will leave as chair of our party. City will endorse Richards. The teachers union will support Richards because they can control him on Mayoral control. By the end of the race, the division within the Democratic party will be terrible!
Our best chance to clean up things is a new broom!
My prediction is that, who ever wins, the city will lose. And after 6 months of posturing, finger-pointing and infighting between now and the primary the public won't really care who wins.
I hope that at some point the media will ask Richards and Warren to cite their accomplishments and qualifications for office. In both cases I anticipate a VERY short list.
All we need now is for Mr. Fast Ferry, Bill Johnson, to announce his candidacy.
The shield piece looks like a take off on the Amerks logo. There are also posters with Uncle Sam wearing a "Gingerbeard Approved" button with a tag line of "I want you to be creative".
I've seen pieces throughout downtown, the East End, South Wedge, and as far away as Eastview Mall.
what's interesting about the smokey the bear poster is that it is placed over bad graffiti and the poster itself is poorly done graffiti
There is nothing wrong with students’ youthful idealism especially when they are correct in trying to protect their health, environment, and their future. They have learned that inevitably return on investment in renewable energy will trump investment in diminishing fossil fuels. So let our students show us how to fix our economy, our climate, our health, our security, that improves future prospects for us all. They know that there is no future in a wrecked environment, ruined aquifers, tar-sands, pipelines, strip coal mines, offshore oil drilling, hydraulic fracking, and nuclear power; or in endless energy resource wars. Renewable energy technology is here now, and it is affordable. All it needs is a fraction of the start-up funding that fossil fuel companies continue to receive from our government.
BTW, exorbitant student debt is a different issue that is not caused by students.
The teacher's job is to teach. The administrator's job is to administer. Let's leave them where they are.
Nice work comrades, soon we can move to destroy capitalism completely.
It's not so much about a 'church' as it is about what this architecture symbolizes as a cultural building block of the Rochester-German society and its contribution to the success of our region. Kudos to the Rochester Zoning Board and the National Register of Historic Places for supporting our history legacy, and for reminding us of our social values. For me this building still resonates with my dad's voice as a member of the German Liederkranz Club.
Without seeing fully-developed, complete, clear details regarding this proposed idea, I would not automatically support, nor oppose the concept of teacher-led schools. However, the article below raises a number of critically important questions.
For example, if teachers, rather than "central office administration and principals" will run schools --- then does that mean some of the very high-priced positions that "principals [and especially] central office administrators" currently hold will be eliminated? And if not, then what (exact, specific) type of "new" duties will the freed-up principals and central office administrators perform?
It is also critically important for us to categorically, unequivocally reject the notion that "we have tried everything else [to improve city schools]." In addition to the idea that's proposed here, there are many, many other things that we have NOT tried. For example, we have not tried developing systemic / systematic (as opposed to piecemeal) pedagogical mechanisms and approaches that focus (with laser like precision) on early literacy-development (reading, writing, math at or above grade level all along the K-12-way) beginning in kindergarten, which is especially important, since we know that so many of our students enter the system (right from the very beginning) lagging far, far below social and academic developmental-levels that they should be at upon entering school.
We also have not tried development and implementation of serious, effective, required, staff education / development, which also needs to be focused with laser-like precision on doing everything necessary and possible to ensure that administrators, teachers, and support staff gain in-depth knowledge, understanding, and genuine appreciation of the collective, historical experiences and cultures of the majority of those whom they teach. I want to be crystal-clear on this point. What I am saying, and what we know is that, with regard to knowledge, understanding, and certainly genuine appreciation (since people are not likely to appreciate anything that that have little or no knowledge or understanding of), there is a definite historical / cultural divide between the majority of Rochester City School District teachers and administrators in particular, and the majority of black, and other students of color, whom they teach. We also know that acquisition/ development of knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the collective-historical-experiences and cultures of one's students, is an important aspect of effective pedagogy.
Thirdly, we have not tried supporting development of serious, systematic, focused, and at least to some degree, independent mechanisms aimed at helping to organize and engage Rochester City School District parents in decision-making processes (at every level of the education system). The latter point is connected to one of the strangest parts of the article below, i.e., the article does not mention parents at all. Supposedly,according to the content, one of the outcomes of teacher-led schools is "greater collaboration between teachers and students." What about greater collaboration between teachers and those who are ultimately responsible for students, i.e., parents? We know (without any doubt what-so-ever) that when teachers, and educators in general, and parents build positive and meaningful relationships, the chances that students will be successful are significantly increased. Thus, if the idea discussed in this article represents another of those cases in which top-level RCSD administrators and union representatives plan to use a strictly (ala-All-City-High, bi-lateral approach) in the process of developing the proposed initiative, and not including parents, other than a few hand-picked "representatives" who usually have no real or concrete connections to the masses of parents --- then I would oppose the idea on those grounds alone. We are way beyond the days in which administrators and union leaders should be making bilateral decisions about the lives and futures of our children without serious, substantial, parent involvement, especially since we know (without any doubt what-so-ever) that such involvement matters greatly.
Additionally, the following quote is most interesting "After a close examination of 11 teacher-led schools, Farris-Berg and her co-author found that autonomy can lead to greater accountability, Farris-Berg said." What's so interesting about it is that there are no details offered regarding the "11 teacher-led schools," which were "examined" --- not even their names.
Also, based on what I have read and heard about her, Dr. Deborah Meier is knowledgeable about urban education. However, I'm not so sure that (if this idea comes to fruition) she should be the only one (exclusively) "working with teachers and schools interested in developing a proposal for teacher-led schools in Rochester." As far as I know, Dr. Meier does not operate in accordance with African centered perspectives and approaches, which is, as noted above, very, very important. However there are many very knowledgeable scholars in the field of urban education who do possess outstanding African centric perspectives and expertise --- such as New York Sate Regent Emeritus, Dr Adelaide Sanford, Dr. Gloria Ladson-Billings, Dr. Molefi Asante, Dr. Maulana Karenga, and so many more.
Lastly, no matter who is hired for this task, it is vitally important to lay out (in plain public view) right from the start, the total costs, and exactly what the costs are suppose to produce (in specific, fine, details). The last thing we need is another well-intended, super-expensive experiment that produces nothing at all.
Excellent timing with this article given this news from Bloomberg, as of March 20th:
"Investors stand to lose most of the $1.28 billion they put into Suntech Power Holdings Co. (STP) after the solar manufacturer said it wouldn’t resist a bankruptcy petition filed in China.
The company, based in Wuxi, outside Shanghai, had more than $2 billion in debt and defaulted on $541 million in bonds due on March 15, prompting eight Chinese banks to ask a local court to push Suntech’s main unit into insolvency."
I'm glad the college kids interviewed in this article aren't managing my retirement funds, throwing money in operations like the one above just because it "feels like the right thing to do." What's more, this kind of reasoning does help explain why this generation has such a problem with student debt. Then again, experience is the best teacher, and if they lost their shirts with their own money, they might discover that emotion can be toxic when it comes to investing.
Ginger Beard has hit up Park Ave as well. Also some spots by Village Gate.
Website powered by Foundation