Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion: News
Re: “Rochester's apartment boom”
One problem I see is that most of these new apartment buildings going in are for affluent, mass consumption-oriented young professionals and retirees. There's only so many people in Rochester willing to shell out $1,500 and up in rent every month. What about housing for people who earn under 30k a year? What are they supposed to do, live in a cardboard box? You're not thinking Rochester. Let's get real. How many people can afford to pay $3,000 a month in rent for these sleek, beautiful apartments?
Re: “Rochester's apartment boom”
Anyone ever do the financial analysis of costs total of rent versus own?
The apartment building owner has all the usual expenses, plus depreciation, to offset revenue, where the homeowner does not.
In addition to being at an asset cost disadvantage, the homeowner feels the property tax sting quite directly.
I'm thinking there's interest in apartments because it's a better deal than home ownership.
Re: “NOTA opposes apartment plan for University Ave.”
This development would be much better located at the corner of Atlantic & Fairmount, on the run down vacant lots controlled by the MUCCC. There, future residents would be much more likely to walk or bike to destinations, rather than the farther removed Monroe Voiture property. But that is the developer's call.
My big problem with this and other apartment proposals is the amount of parking "required" to make the proposal "viable." It seems as though our city is finally on the rebound, with more and more interest in development. Now would be a good time to start thinking about how to rid this city of its car-dependency. Parking lots are not our city's path to vibrancy. If we cannot improve our prospects for car-free living, our current rebound will be very short-lived. This means continuing the City's push for better walking and bicycling, but also incentivizing active first-floor uses, expanding car-sharing opportunities (ZipCar), starting a bike-sharing program, and working with RGRTA on more and better transit options (i.e., increased bus frequency, Bus Rapid Transit, Streetcar, and yes, even light rail). It will also require smarter land use planning on the regional level to discourage Victor-style sprawl and instead, build more compact communities that have a fighting chance at being transit-supportive.
Re: “East End garage needs millions in repairs, quickly”
I wonder how long Richards and the city council have been sitting on this problem? A cynic might suggest that they’ve known for years and could have corrected it for far less but that repairs were repeatedly deferred in order to avoid negatively impacting past city budgets until it couldn’t be hidden any longer. Perhaps City can ask the mayor’s office for details?
Re: “NOTA opposes apartment plan for University Ave.”
Funny when j.a.m. accuses anybody about - get this - misrepresenting anything; this hours after characterizing the Neighborhood of the Arts as a "rotting urban wasteland."
Re: “NOTA opposes apartment plan for University Ave.”
@Nathan: I live there, so I'm well familiar (and btw would be thrilled not to have to drive out to the suburbs to get to Wal-Mart). The point is that, when it comes to economic need or viability, a rational person would trust the investor risking his own capital before the assorted cranks, naysayers and ax-grinders. You can go on about "aesthetics" and "development at any cost," but you ought to be terrified of ending up another failed city.
@Troll: You completely misrepresented my earlier comment, whose meaning was plain enough and I won't belabor.
Re: “NOTA opposes apartment plan for University Ave.”
@Nathan, funny how in a mere two days j.a.m. can go from calling Neighborhood of the Arts "downright bucolic" to a "rotting urban wasteland." "Rotting urban wasteland" - Really? This is a great area, one that has steadily improved in the past generation, thanks in part to folks like NOTA. We've seen the real urban blight caused by some developers who managed to get the last word. By contrast, neighborhood associations in our city have been the real life-blood and glue. So thanks, Nathan, for expressing this so well.
Re: “NOTA opposes apartment plan for University Ave.”
This is exactly like what I was looking for when I still lived in this neighborhood. As part of the young professional demographic the city so desperately wants to retain, I was tired of the endless succession of dumpy absentee-landlord college student apartments around East/Park/Monroe. Anything that was in even halfway decent shape either had insane rents or was snatched up immediately. The neighborhood could use more higher income young tenants. Don't hate on renters - these are the people with well-paying jobs! Shame on the Eastman House for offering up yet another parking lot as the only viable alternative.
Re: “NOTA opposes apartment plan for University Ave.”
@j.a.m.: I am heavily vested in the city. I'm not sure you know this area very well. It is one of the few sections of Rochester that is not on the welfare dole. This particular development is not an improvement for the immediate area. What we do see, is a giant footprint that it will reduce our property values and increase apartment inventory (which will reduce rents and likely make the overall neighborhood less desirable). As I said before, in a region and city that is seeing zero population growth, a ton of new living spaces are coming online in the next few years, this development will only canabalize other renters and help to decrease the value of those other new developments and existing rental prices in the neighborhood. There is value in preserving the aesthetics and livability of an area. Development at any cost is not worthwhile. Why not invite wal-mart to build on this property adjacent to the Eastman House. I know of neighborhoods in Henrietta fighting rezoning near RIT to preserve their own property values while Henreitta has a chance to increase its tax base if it rezones.
Re: “NOTA opposes apartment plan for University Ave.”
@Nathan: If somebody thinks this development would create greater value at another site, they're perfectly free to put their money where their mouth is. Otherwise, that decision belongs to those who are in fact putting their own resources at risk to improve the city.
Re: “NOTA opposes apartment plan for University Ave.”
Good for NOTA. That Morgan plan does nothing to enhance the neighborhood. The Morgan apartment building would likely cannabablize likely residents from other parts of the city (including downtown). Unlike other areas of the city, the area surrounding the Eastman House is not in need of further gentrification. There are plenty of areas nearby that could use the developement, but preserving the Eastman House and its surrounding environment should be the most important factor for the longevity and success of the area.
Re: “NOTA opposes apartment plan for University Ave.”
Highly disappointed.
Re: “East End garage needs millions in repairs, quickly”
An expose? The members are public appointees and serve as volunteers. They include the Mayor, County Exec., Council President, Legislature President, and city and county appointees.
Re: “Child subsidies stay”
@Melissa: Both the article and a previous comment refer to "low income families". Also, both the article and the comment say the program's purpose is to allow parents (presumably, both parents) to participate in the workforce. Workforce participation may or may not be a worthy goal, but don't say it's in the best interests of the children. The "quality environment" that the very young deserve is at home with their own mothers, not strangers.
Re: “Child subsidies stay”
@ j.a.m. This program is for middle class families who do NOT qualify for any other assistance. All children should have a chance at quality childcare no matter what their family makes.
Thank you to our elected officials!!!
Re: “NOTA opposes apartment plan for University Ave.”
Do you want an economically viable city with a stable population and tax base, or yet another rotting urban wasteland? This kind of mindless, cranky political meddling will end in nothing but misery. It's just insane. The next prospective investor will learn the lesson.
A word to the wise ought to be sufficient: Detroit.
Re: “Turned off to teaching”
Tim: I agree with you 100%. Becoming a teacher is a very costly and time-consuming process, especially considering the relatively low salary. In addition to completing two degrees, you have to pay to take three state certification exams ($90 each), get fingerprinted ($100), and pay about $50 for the certificate itself. Plus the requirements are constantly changing - I had a hard time getting straight answers about anything when I was studying to be a teacher.
To clarify my previous comment, NYSED does make reference to "provisional" and "permanent" certification, but this is the old pathway. (I think it changed over around 2006. Anyone certified before then is grandfathered in.) Now it's "initial" and "professional," with the professional certificate requiring 175 hours of professional development every 5 years.
Thanks for the article. :)
Re: “East End garage needs millions in repairs, quickly”
Have you ever done an expose on who is one the Cultural Commission, what they are paid and what they have spent?
Re: “Turned off to teaching”
A fact missing from this account is that Rochester has more schools of education per capita than any other city in the country in an area with steady K-12 enrollment decline. And despite what Dr. Hursch thinks, many are diploma mills and have taken no responsibility for the lack of quality of their graduates' teaching. Another fact missing is that none of the private ed schools in Rochester were willing to submit data on their admissions in a national study on the quality of teacher prep programs. http://www.nctq.org/transparency.do?stateId=33. Easy to claim you are selective and fabulous in the dark. These college kids are taking on a lot of debt--they deserve to know about the quality of their teacher prep program.
Re: “Owners of Craft Company No. 6 speak out against University Ave. project”
Excellent, well-reasoned, accurately supported OPPOSITION shared by a majority of us who actually live in this area, who have participated in public meetings and discussions regarding all aspects of this proposal, and who have spent years of work and our own money to help make this area what it is today. It is troubling that some are apparently insensitive to the importance of GEH as a National Landmark, internationally significant museum, and arguably Rochester's most important cultural asset. It's also disturbing that the value and needed full protection of our Preservation District, on the National Register of Historic Places, has to be defended.