Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion: News

Re: “[UPDATED] Warren's rough honeymoon

To Scott Wagner and concerned resident: You guys always go to the "Just b/c I criticize a person of color doesn't mean I am a Racist." Then you smooth it off with blacks always pull the race card, "It's reverse Racism." It's not only what you say but also when you say it only when there's a person of color is in the position. In the era of reconstruction the black political leaders where scrutinize as politicians who didn't have the intelligence to run government but the white southerners to them was qualified despite more than 90 percent of the white southerners who took there place after being illegally thrown out of office were 90 percent illiterate. Obama wasn't qualified he was just a community organizer despite he was a constitutional lawyer and the first Black president of Harvard law school and many in America felt fine with a vice president like Sarah Palin who couldn't answer one debate question. Mayor Warren wasn't qualified despite she's an attorney and has serve on city council as a member and president for many years. mayor Richards was qualified but he was out of touch with the minority community the majority population in Rochester. In addition, they were no controversy or scandal when former mayor Richards went against state ethical laws by holding the job as corporate council and serve as Mayor or when Democratic head Joe Morelle use his position to put his son in office. They were no controversy or scandal when Maggie Brooks hired her husband at the airport and hired all her friends to run county LDC's they were no controversy or scandal. So, as I stated in the beginning "It's not what you say but also when you say it when there's a person of color is in the position."

9 likes, 25 dislikes
Posted by Mitt Romney on 01/30/2014 at 5:34 PM

Re: “[UPDATED] Warren's rough honeymoon

This has nothing to do with race. Speeding has nothing to do with race. Hiring your uncle has nothing to do with race. Hiring someone clearly in conflict of interest for a position has nothing to do with race. Having African American reporters coming these stories wouldn't change anything if the reporter just reports the facts.

28 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by Tom Janowski on 01/30/2014 at 5:19 PM

Re: “[UPDATED] Warren's rough honeymoon

"Mitt Romney", I am offended by your implication of racism and / or sexism. For what it is worth, I supported Lovely Warren's candidacy and primary success in print (go read the City Newspaper archives for confirmation of this assertion). I am proud to support public servants in their endeavours where it is deserved, without respect to race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or any other personal preference. I am similarly unrestrained from criticism where it is deserved, without respect to race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or any other personal preference. To do otherwise in either case would be to display bias.
I stand by my comments about Lovely Warren. I believe she has made mistakes, and that she has inappropriately implicitly used the race and gender defense to attempt to silence criticism of those mistakes. I also believe that she can and should acknowledge those early missteps, learn from them, and go on to realize her potential to be a positive and unifying mayor for all Rochestarians.

31 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by Scott Wagner on 01/30/2014 at 4:09 PM

Re: “[UPDATED] Warren's rough honeymoon

I think Scott Wagner is spot on.. and as for "Mitt Romney," why is it not right for City residents (regardless of color) to question the conduct of the Mayor the last month without being labeled racist? We all have a vested interest in seeing Mayor Warren do well, but I think that we have a right to be disappointed about the lack of judgment and honesty

27 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Concerned Resident on 01/30/2014 at 3:01 PM

Re: “[UPDATED] Warren's rough honeymoon

“And wouldn’t a new downtown movie theatre hurt the Little Theatres? “

This question sums up this entire debacle. The Little Theatre is one movie theatre, and it has its own character and atmosphere. Why can’t there be another theatre with a different character and atmosphere? Why wouldn’t they be able to not only coexist, but thrive together? What if people watched movies at both theatres together regardless of what quadrant of the city they live in? *Gasp*

Rochester is a good city, but it will never be a great city until we can ask these difficult questions and eliminate the deep-seated fear of “the other side” that all Rochesterians experience.

8 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Alanna Klose on 01/30/2014 at 2:50 PM

Re: “[UPDATED] Warren's rough honeymoon

In addition, The City Newspaper along with the D&C and several Broadcast news outlet in Rochester needs to add much more persons of color to positions where they have more power on how the stories are written and reported because they all sound like media organizations of the segregation era. When are you guys going to come to the conclusion your representing a city that's 85 percent minority. Who are you guys writing news story for because it doesn't reflect the view and perspective of the majority population. Don't be like Kodak. They missed the technological curve in their profession don't miss the viewership curve in the media; specifically in the City of Rochester or you will be sorry. The minority communities are tired of this and just last week (the news is not reporting) many prominent community members, organizations and political office holders met in unification to somehow send a signal to Rochester media that they have to start becoming true journalists and stop reporting in ways to form an imaginary false depiction of Rochester instead of the reality.

13 likes, 28 dislikes
Posted by Mitt Romney on 01/30/2014 at 1:47 PM

Re: “[UPDATED] Warren's rough honeymoon

White residents are still suffering from seeing a person of color rise to position of substantial political power- You call it White Backlash, commonly known as Racism. In the 1800s' after during the era of Reconstruction- Whites formed organizations like the Ku Klux Clan where they used terriosm, including lynching, intimidation and Jim crow laws to remove blacks from political power after they won their seats rightfully and legally. When Obama became President they formed The Tea Party (modern day Ku Klux Klan) as a guise to ridicule the President with racial undertones and scrutinize his ideas and efforts as soon as he got in office. The things scrutinize were of such needed attention; sounds familiar. Bill Johnson had to endore being called names like gorilla or orangutan. Lovely Warren received so many racial threats to her life and to that of her family because the people of Rochester chose her to be their mayor, she done nothing else. Whites have always demonstrated that after a person of color rise to a position of significant political power- White Backlash is sure to follow but the sad thing for them is that Lovely is here to stay and you either get with it of continue to be on the sideline with the rest of your racist buddies. Rochester is a city with a lot of upside and we all should work as one, no matter what is your ethnicity to reach its apex.

15 likes, 30 dislikes
Posted by Mitt Romney on 01/30/2014 at 1:31 PM

Re: “[UPDATED] Warren's rough honeymoon

In less than one month in office, Lovely Warren has managed to amass an alarming number of ethical concerns - more than most elected local officials accumulate in an entire career. She has deflected, ignored, and mishandled most of these, and in doing so has incurred questions about her integrity and suitability for the office she holds.
At a cost of many times the average annual income of the people whom she pledged to serve, she created a personal "security" force comprised of personal family members and acquaintances. Her justification is based upon threats which she has failed to make public. She has escalated, rather than quelled, divisiveness by implying that those threats are based on race and gender bias - a direct violation of her campaign pledge to unify Rochester.
In a community accustomed to open government and accessibility, she alone has no published email address. "" is unacceptable - just as with every other city official, publishing and responding to "" is the only responsible way to serve the city.
I was very hopeful that a Warren administration would be a progressive and positive move for our City, but so far I have been overwhelmingly disappointed. Mayor Warren, your office represents a pledge to serve us, not a pedestal of privilege upon which to elevate yourself above us. You are expected to be responsible and responsive to us, and to earn our trust and respect. It's time you began to do so.

35 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by Scott Wagner on 01/30/2014 at 10:38 AM

Re: “[UPDATED] Warren's rough honeymoon

@John K, thanks for the laugh! On the other hand, Rob Ford has simply set the bar too low for pretty much everyone; put another way, he's wrecked the curve. Is it true that Canadians are taking perverse pride in this?

8 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Troll Whisperer on 01/29/2014 at 9:59 PM

Re: “[UPDATED] Warren's rough honeymoon

Former Rochestarian here, considering moving back home. Currently living in Toronto.

Does Mayor Warren...
a. Smoke crack on video?
b. Have a substance abuse problem?
c. Drive drunk?

Is the Mayor?
d. Cavorting around with drug dealers?
e. The suspect of an extortion/murder plot?
f. A joke in the international media?

If the answers to all these questions are NO (and shocker! they are!), then I'd be happy to give her the benefit of the doubt to these incredibly flimsy excuses for a "scandal" and give her the customary "first 100 days" in order to judge her leadership.

In the meantime, I'm almost certain that everyone in Rochester has actual things that they really should be spending their time worrying about.

24 likes, 18 dislikes
Posted by John K. on 01/29/2014 at 9:46 PM

Re: “[UPDATED] Warren's rough honeymoon

I wrote Chris Thomas but meant Andrew Brown.

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Tom Janowski on 01/29/2014 at 9:30 PM

Re: “[UPDATED] Warren's rough honeymoon

Here are my thoughts as I read this:

About 8 years ago, I was part of a group interviewing for part-time jobs. There were enough jobs for everyone there. A criminal background check was required. One person didn't get the job because the background check revealed he had lied on the application.

Even though I consider myself to be a very safe driver, there have been occasions as both driver and passenger that I also prefer not to talk about.

Lawyers are not ethicists. And vice versa.

Sheppard wanted to stay, but he had to go.

Police reorganization will cost more.

We're all patiently waiting for the red-light program to end.

I very much doubt that even one person from our neediest neighborhoods will be getting on a bus to go to work at Costco.

The "Undercover Boss" idea would have worked great for walking around the city without security.

Education........More money to be spent.

Don't worry downtown, neighborhoods won't be getting much.

Performing Arts Center?!! Movie Theatre?!! Waterpark?!!

The mayor seems to have a good understanding of what the neediest need.

5 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by Michael Bruton on 01/29/2014 at 3:56 PM

Re: “City of the gun

This was an extremely interesting presentation. It did much to dispel the myth that somehow the guns being used in crimes in Rochester are other than those owned by "law abiding" citizens. It turns out about 80% of the guns used here are legally purchased here. And that doesn't even touch on the number of children injured every year by the mishandling and improper storage of guns.

4 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by gary pudup on 01/29/2014 at 11:39 AM

Re: “[UPDATED] Warren's rough honeymoon

Sorry, but this interview was over for me with the answer to the first question. Yes, Lovely this is about you and your actions. How could your actions not be about you?

The rocky start is about Warren's lack of good leadership. She had to know hiring her uncle would be controvesial. She had to know being stopped for speeding TWICE was nothing but stupid. She had to know appointing Chris Thomas would be controversial because of the conflict of interest.

Warren and the people of Rochester need to remember the important fact that the people hired Warren. Taxpayers pay her salary. Warren is just an employee of the citizens of Rochester. People have every right to question her judgment and her actions.

Lovely is starting these fires and she is getting burned along with the people of Rochester.

47 likes, 12 dislikes
Posted by Tom Janowski on 01/29/2014 at 10:59 AM

Re: “Vargas warns board of $33 million to $46 million budget gap

A example would be when boces was awarded the contract for health services a position of coordinator of heath services was temporally created...This was to assist boces with the start of the has been 10 years....they no longer need this position at rcsd...As boces has their own coordinator....more wasted money

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by ky on 01/27/2014 at 12:13 PM

Re: “Vargas warns board of $33 million to $46 million budget gap

I agree with Tommy..consolidation of services would be cost effective

Posted by ky on 01/27/2014 at 12:04 PM

Re: “Warren explains security

Hey Rochester musician, hiring your family for a position no one else had a chance at is called nepatism and is expressly forbidden. Costing the tax payers another $140,000 is a joke.

8 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by hanley1732 on 01/23/2014 at 12:43 PM

Re: “Warren explains security

After she won, I had this fleeting thought: "She is going to drive to work like everybody else. Got to admire her for that."

12 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Michael Bruton on 01/22/2014 at 3:37 PM

Re: “Warren explains security

As has been pointed out in another discussion, I do hope that Lovely Warren has reported these credible threats to the police so they can investigate. Possibly even the FBI should be involved especially if there are racially-oriented threats against this public official. It seems that hiring security people to protect her makes sense, but I do hope that that is not the only thing that has been done in response to the threats she has reported receiving.

12 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Rochester Musician on 01/22/2014 at 1:26 PM

Re: “Warren explains security

I understand that the threats against Lovely Warren are real. I do not understand the need for two bodyguards. I assume that when Lovely is inside city hall, she is safe. When she travels away from city hall on official business, why doesn't RPD provide security.

There is still something very fundamental that bothers me about this situation. Lovely gets threats and deals with by hiring body guards at taxpayer expense. Most Rochestarians do not have specific or known threats against them. They have to wonder which car driving down the street might point a gun out the window to start shooting. Do the citizens of Rochester get for extra protection?

This could be an opportunity for Lovely to simply work on the bigger picture of threats of crime everyone faces and not put the focus on the extra special security she is giving herself.

8 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Tom Janowski on 01/22/2014 at 1:13 PM

Top Viewed Stories

© 2014 City Newspaper

Website powered by Foundation