Hey John Smith did you ever live in Greece off Denise?
Wow I attended this meeting and I wasn't sure any questions were answered. The city did have people speaking but they seldom answered the questions. The key problem here is that many people in this area have been involved with this process and this is not what they were working on. Again and again they asked why the unique nature of the area was not considered by this project and Mark Gregor never had an answer. When the zoning was proposed the questions of height was raised and council members and city officials promised they would not allow towers in the port district. Well apparently things have changed. Mark Gregor started out explaining how they did not want rental in this project but could not explain how the townhouses in the plan are not listed as for sale units. The city was clear there will be no subsidized or low income housing though there will be some market rate. They maintained this even though the builder claims they will apply for Low Income Housing Tax Credits. As for questions about emergency services the city did admit they may need to examine this. Many wanted to know what studies were done to show a demand for this sort of building and the poor Mark Gregor could only claim that he was sure the developer had done this. Finally when asked about the city's financial contribution to this project they claimed that is open to negotiations but would not rule out tens of millions of dollars of city funds in the form of grants and loans. While on tax breaks they did mention developments in Empire Zones get huge breaks but failed to mention this is also in an Empire Zone.
With all this evasion and misinformation it should not be surprising that the public is angry over this. Despite years of working with residents the city did not mention the idea of towers until recently. They failed to get input and seem to have raced into this without considering how city services will be stretched in Charlotte by such a project. Like all projects the cities financial obligations and tax returns were not mentioned and so as usual the public was unable to weigh the benefits verse the costs. So the public was asked to trust the city to make this right but unfortunately too many of the residents had been disappointed or deceived too often in this area and they are unwilling to continue to just believe.
I think the cities reasoning for building a high density development project is valid and well thought out.
I think if people are upset about the high rises they should consider moving to the town of hamlin which likely won't be the site of high density development in the foreseeable future.
Rochester Musician --
A cycle track is different from a bike path, but the distinction is subtle. Bear with me while I try to explain. Bike paths are completely detached from streets, but cycle tracks actually tie in to intersections. They're a bit like parallel, bike-only streets.
If you go to the second section of this article, it explains a little bit about what a cycle track is: http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/roch…
If you have any further questions, please post them and I'll do my best to answer them!
I can understand people being skeptical. However, let me ask a question that might bring out a positive -- if the school is at 1800 now, and is reduced to 1000 students, presumably by eliminating disruptive and/or non-motivated students, will the 1000 that are left get a much better education than those same 1000 students are getting under the present situation? If so, isn't this good, at least for those 1000 students? And if the 800 who were eliminated were indeed ones who were disrupting the experience for those who wanted to focus on learning, I can't say this is a bad thing.
"Cycle track" -- is that a 2014 term for "bike path"? Or something totally different?
Well, by "laying off" 800 out of 1800 students, it wouldn't be hard to get from a graduation rate of 67%.
"Anything would be an improvement" is the attitude that gets a bunch of grifting consultants selling a fairy tale that even Disney wouldn't make hired.
Norwood could be a good idea. He's bright, African-American (yes, that IS important) and has connections. I don't see Sandy Frankel as doing any good for the part right now. She was ineffective at best as a county-wide candidate and smacks of upper class suburban elitism. She would hardly be a vigorous partisan. And she is also in her 70s. Though age should not a barrier, having a younger leader would be helpful to set a new style and new tone. Someone who's been in politics for over 20 years won't help. And Frankel ran Brighton in a nasty and arrogant way. She would be more divide-and-defeat, as Joe has been. Garretson could be a good leader but he is untested in county-wide politics. What is his record in Greece? What's their cash flow? Are they growing enrollment? Getting grassroot volunteers involved and keeping them? Are they pounding the pavement to get Pudup's name recognition up and make sure his fundraising will be robust so he can compete and win election to the Assembly? Or are they abusing and taking the volunteers and progressives for granted, as Morelle has done for the last eight years?
It's about time to get control of the Lilac festival if it isn't too late already. I've felt less safe in the crowd the last couple of years and I wasn't planning on going this year, although I'm still undecided about being searched and tagged. The problem with the Lilac festival is overcrowding and groups of loud and pushy youths without any adult supervision. It just creates the potential for trouble. Not to mention the people who still insist on bringing their dogs to the festival. What is it with them? Dogs can't enjoy the flowers and crafts. They end up tripping people with their leashes and barking and fighting with other dogs. Just leave them home!
Lies! A violent fight broke out right in front of my family the festival was full of loud, rude people the fight was right in the middle of the park we saw it the city is trying to make light of it so people continue to go and spend their money this festival is no longer for families and children
If it's important to clarify how goals will be achieved, then that same standard should be applied to those who defend the status quo. The fact of the matter is, anything would be an improvement. When your ship is sinking, you don't need "slow and selective" measures — you need to act. Kicking out the unions and getting rid of the personnel who created this mess would be a refreshing start.
The free market rewarded Mr. Keiller for his talents.There's delicious irony there, one supposes. And America's public schools thrive, much to the dismay of the right wing zealots and privatizers. This is especially true in Monroe County, which for generations have had schools recognized as among the finest in our country.
Oh, the delicious irony of citing a multimillionaire who owes his fortune to corn-pone nostalgia and taxpayer-subsidized media!
In any case, you can't vandalize what's ruined. There's simply no rational basis to believe that the broken, obsolete 19th-Century model of "public education" is the only one, or the best we can do now.
"When you attack public education, you are attacking the mortar that holds the community together. You're not a conservative; you're a vandal." - Garrison Keiller
If you're so sure that a majority of families actually prefer to have their little darlings indoctrinated in government schools, then why not abolish the monopoly and introduce a level playing field with free and fair competition? After all, you'll still have your 83% market share, right?
(Don't worry, it's a rhetorical question.)
@b.d.g., you stated, "The people qualified to make decisions in an individual child's best interests [are her family]." - and approximately 83% of our American families have concluded that public schools are in their families best interests and act accordingly.
@Whisper: Sure, the little red schoolhouse may have served its purpose back in the day of little houses on the prairie. But it hardly follows that a broken, obsolete government monopoly is still the best we can do in the 21st Century. (And yes, the system is as broken and obsolete in rich communities as in poor ones.)
This just in: America decided century before last that we want quality public schools - sort of like the rest of the Western democracies. Poll after poll after poll shows this. Is Brighton Central School "broken and obsolete"? Um, nope. Pittsford? Nope . Rush-Henrietta? Nope. School of the Arts? World of Inquiry? Nope to all of them. No amount of right-wing ideology changes this. No amount of Randian narcissism changes this. Real conservatives (note the small "c") value culture and institutions - and social covenants.
You don't need a Ph.D. to recognize that the government school monopoly is utterly "broken and obsolete". Everybody knows that. It's past time to separate school and state. The people qualified to make decisions in an individual child's best interests are not the politicians and bureaucrats and social engineers and union agitators, but the family who know her and love her, and who are responsible for guiding her to maturity.
Website powered by Foundation