Not for nothing but you forgot to mention Roc City Roller Derby is also involved..
At our request, the city's spokesperson, Gary Walker, sent us this response to Alex White's comment:
I would advise Mr. White to watch the budget address on City 12 or to read it on line on the City’s website. The difference is the sun-setting of grant funded programs, that often saw DRYS as just a pass through to other organizations. (i.e. Teen Pregnancy, etc)
A simple call to this office would have cleared the matter up – would that it be a goal of his to clear the misconception up.
Here’ is the Mayor’s text from his budget address:
This year the City is making a significant investment in the Department of Recreation and Youth Services. While the overall DRYS budget is smaller than last year’s that is due to the decrease in grant funds in the amount of $738,700. However, the City investment in DRYS will increase by $437,200. These additional investments include:
· Additional Pathways to Peace staffing;
· The re-development of an after-school program at Edgerton;
· A new after-school program at School 17.
So the actual City supported investment is DRYS is $437,000.
Like many I was excited to hear increased finding for recreation and youth services as this has been shown to reduce crime, increase school results, and build neighborhoods. Unfortunately the budget decreases funding for the department not increases it as reported. On page 61 of the 2013-2014 budget it clearly shows
2012-13 2013-14 Variance Percent
Recreation & Youth Services 11,416,100 11,114,600 -301,500 -2.6
Which is s decrease in funding for recreation. Meanwhile registration and use are both up 15%! Spray park attendance, beach attendance, and pool use are all up. The need for services like summer food, after school academy, and pregnancy services to youths are not decreasing.
Over the past 7 years the department has been trimmed dramatically. There has been closure of programs, cuts in staff at the remaining programs and reduction is services provided. This year seems more the same and cuts to recreation and youth services will never be part of a plan to improve our city.
Typo: the URL should be www.rocpridegames.com .
Squandering taxpayer money. Andy needs to pay a visit and clean house!
Nowhere does the author mention the fact that the cost of cleaning up these brownfields is hardly ever paid for by the polluters themselves. Instead, it's the taxpayers that have to foot the bill. Ain't capitalism great?
The legacy of corporations doing the wrong thing.
That picture looks like the end of "The Alphabet Killer"
This is a journalism ethics two-fer.
First, City is so interested in carrying water for GEH that they publish this form letter as original content from the Craft Co.
Second, unlike other letters to the editor in City, they put this opinion piece in the news section.
Coupled with the non-disclosure of contributions to GEH, as well as the non-disclosure that the Towlers own rental property in the neighborhood, one wonders if there are any ethical standards at City, other than whatever the Towlers feel is right, is right.
Over a century ago, in its wisdom and foresight the City of Rochester cleared the shorelines of Canadice and Hemlock Lakes to ensure a pristine and untainted source of drinking water for its residents. That tradition must now be defended to protect these lakes from unscrupulous exploitation by carpetbagger hydrofrackers that would use these lakes for their private sewer. Remember Love Canal? It is still leaching toxins into our Niagara River and Lake Ontario ‘drinking water’.
Another odd statement from an elected official. OK, so it is nice Mayor Richards beleive no fracking should take place in the Hemlock-Canadice State Forest, but what is up with the idea that high levels of protection could interfere with with routine maintenance?
I just do not trust Mayor Richards or anyone else who wants to leave some loose ends in the management plan to allow for maintenance. It sounds to me many people want some doors (loopholes) left open for something (development??) to happen in the future.
Everyone who attended the Springwater public meeting was fully aware of the need for maintencance and things like erosion protection, but all this can be put in writing....JUST PUT IT IN WRITING right along side all the very clear and specific protections the public is demanding. It is really simple, but pliticians do not like simple.
I live in this neighborhood and I own rental property in this neighborhood. I'm happy that this is being proposed and I hope it is built. Urban areasa are only urban areas if you have density. And much like a gravitational field, the more mass you have the more gets attracted to your location. How a business owner (ie. Craft Company No6) can arge so against their own self interest is beyond me. I don't know how they stay in business now with the little traffic I see there. I would think they'd be begging for this development.
I didn't realize there was a building ban near firehouses. Funny, all the other city firehouses seem to do just fine in busy neighborhoods. I really grow tired of this NIMBY attitude in Rochester, this section of University Ave is nothing like the "East Ave Preservation District", this apartment plan more than fits in and will only benefit the neighborhood. People go to George Eastman to look in, not out, and the viewshed won't be largely affected. Besides GE himself was all for the progress of this City, he wouldn't want it stifled in his name by a bunch of NIMBYS.
1.) Might be the only valid complaint, however the neighborhood is filled with LARGE 3 story buildings and the new building would be in the area of several multi-story buildings
2.)Sounds like NIMBYS have stifled progress for too long.
3.)See above paragraph
4.)Invented issue, there is landscape screening the building from the GEH
5.) Not entirely true, the highrise at University and Goodman and the FlatIron building at Univesity and Atlantic would be bigger.
6.)This is true of almost all buildings on that stretch of University Ave.
7.) Valid point, but new trees will be planted and hardly seems like a valid reason to stop the project. Retool yes, stop no.
8.) Semi-true, this is a popular, urban neighborhood parking can be tough. Its a sign of an active neighborhood where people want to be. However, street parking on University is easy to find the majority of the time. Second this is more a symptom of a regional dependence on the car and our unwillingness to bike/walk/bus even the shortest of distances. The parking will be able to handle residents which is good enough.
9.) So what? Rush hour is 20 minutes in Rochester, again its a sign of vibrancy. Also part of #8 and the automobile dependence.
10.) Can be handled with traffic engineering and street design.
11.) A problem that's yet to happen, handle it when it occurs. Again a very minor problem. People cut through parking lots on corners to avoid lights, does that mean we ban corner gas stations? Reaching at straws
12.) Another invented problem, RFD has firehouses on Monroe Ave, Lyell Ave, North Clinton, Hudson, Dewey, North Goodman, Genesee, South, and Wisconsin which frequently goes through the E. Main intersection. All dense neighborhoods with busy vehicular traffic with no problems.
13.) Minor problem, needs to be retooled, no need to scrap the project,
There you go, a point by point rebuttal. These concerns are all fabricated or overblown.
Brett Garwood is obviously out of touch, along with the city's demo program. They are destroying fragile neighborhoods and ensuring the will never return without significant city reinvestment (luckily City Hall can funnel that money through their friends and campaign donors). People will buy older homes with small yards and no driveways, if they wouldn't Park Ave, Susan B Anthony, and the South Wedge would be empty. Ironically, the South Wedge is seeing a major boom, Park Ave is doing fine as ever, and Susan B. Anthony is seeing a lot of interest. City Hall is way out of touch, people are moving or staying in the city because of the neighborhoods. City Hall is trying to suburbanize JOSANA and other neighborhoods, Sorry but if I want a suburban house I'll go to the 'burbs. This wanton destruction of at risk neighborhoods needs to stop. Its a waste of money and many of the houses demo'd are in good shape while actual dilapidated houses are left standing. Less money could be used to get the house back into use and it would contribute to the tax rolls. No one wants to live in a neighborhood where the street is 50% empty. The only neighborhoods that have seen natural, organic revitalization are those that remain largely intact. Corn Hill has only seen a resurgence because of massive city and private investment.
Alex White makes a good point about the loans, subsidies, grants, and infrastructure improvements the city does. Most of the projects subtract from the city coffers, not add. College Town costs Rochester $17 mill in street improvements, and we won't even see a penny in tax "profit" until 20 years down the road. That's if the developer doesn't default on the $20 million loan that city got on their behalf (just like Sibley and Wilmot), which well be stuck with if they fail to pay.
Hi darlingdyan - In short, no. The speech was not delayed this year and is usually given during this season.
Spiderman at a "sober" State of the City address? What happened? Was Bozo the Clown busy?
Am I missing something? Isn't the State of the City (or Nation or State or School District) done in January? Delaying this address for campaign season is a BLATANTLY POLITICAL MOVE for the self-described apolitical public servant.
Oh and I've read Warren's ed plan and heard her speak on education... being honest about school outcomes is hardly "trashing the district." What has Richards done on education except make excuses for the district and show up to some of the photo opps when Vargas makes home visits to truants.
Ms. Tow;er - City provides a "Feedback" section for this type of letter. So why is it be published under the "News" category?
Ms Allinger and Mr Stam have "weighed in" with an opinion that was written and issued by the George Eastman House at their opposition website: https://sites.google.com/a/geh.org/933-university/home/what-you-can/write-a-letter. They are certainly entitled to go on record with their agreement with the GEH position, but highlighting it here, with that headline, creates a false impression of this being an opinion developed independently from the anti-project PR campaign emanating from GEH.
Website powered by Foundation