Tim, I'd like to know who among Brizard's sharpest critics speak kindly of him today. Anyone who works (or worked) at RCSD remembers him as a ruthless dictator who did incalculable damage to the system. Take a look at the data before he arrived. Now take a look at the data after he arrived. Never (to date) in the District's history has one person done so much damage in so short a time; those are the facts of the case, for anyone who actually cares to examine them.
By the way, and as but one very small point on this rogue regime, did "the kids" whom he spoke of so frequently, really need his monthly car allowance to go from $500 per month to $800 (he wanted $1,000 per month)? I guess the kids needed him to drive something nicer than the $51,000 Acura MDX that RCSD leased for him.
You've captured it Tim!
This proposal is meaningless and useless. It gives the RPD no authority or power which it does not already possess. Nor does it deal with the drug problem any more (or less) effecuvely then current policies. McFadden is grandstanding and only fools will pay any attention to him.
The Donald "Birther" Trump. Who could be a more perfect poster child to represent the mental meltdown so obvious in the Republican Party?
A businessman instead of King Andrew? I'm for that!
Much easier to be a politician than a community leader. Politicians manage words on paper. Community leaders aspires to change the hearts and minds of the people.
According to the legislation’s language, a “drug free zone” can be established for a maximum of 120 hours (5 days). What is unclear is why such zones need to be formally designated as the legislation does not appear to give the RPD any powers or authority (constitutional or unconstitutional) which they do not already possess to utilize in any part of the city where they believe that drug dealing is taking place. Or does McFadden believe that enclosing an area in yellow police line tape will scare off dealers and their patrons?
This will work about as well as declaring places 'gun-free zones' and thinking people will be any safer there. What is the purpose of posting an area as a 'drug free zone'? Drug dealers, who are already breaking the law by dealing in illegal drugs, won't be deterred from breaking a 'so-called drug-free zone law. It just adds another potential charge to selling drugs that will be pleaded down or the fine will simply be paid.
McFadden states “People are too comfortable in some of these neighborhoods in breaking the law”. Another puny threat with huge constitutionality questions isn't going to help make anyone uncomfortable.
I cannot fully express how bad of an idea I think this is. And it's illegal - not just on constitutional grounds, but I believe an illegal use of zoning codes
What a great idea! Adam McFadden is a visionary leader.
I must agree that this is not a good idea. In my humble, but staunch opinion --- the last thing we need is another war on petite, street-level, drug dealers. We know what that has reaped over the past 4 or 5 decades --- jails and prisons filled with mainly black and Hispanic youth (many of whom are literally slinging drugs as a means of survival) --- since in many cases they have little to no education; no job skills, and often, no hope --- while the real culprits behind the multi-trillion dollar, illegal drug industry continue to go free. It IS time for a war on drugs (a real one) --- on the big-shot, supper-wealthy, mafia-types who ship drugs into the harbors, and fly them into the private airstrips of this corrupt nation --- by the ton-loads. I have often wondered --- how is it that young children in our neighborhoods can tell you where the illegal drug spots are, but the Rochester Police Department, Monroe County Sheriffs, New York State Police, FBI, CIA, ATF, Secret Service, Homeland Security, and other law enforcement agencies that we have probably never even heard of (with all of their sophisticated intelligence-gathering methods, and super-technology --- technology which I once heard Dick Gregory say can spot a gnat on a dog's behind from outer space) --- can't seem to find the illegal drugs that flow through Rochester, and other urban communities --- like water flows from High Falls? I would propose as an alternative --- that y'all (city and county leaders) help pull people together who are sick-and-tired-of-being-sick-and-tired of our neighborhoods being flooded with illegal drugs, and weapons, and develop a comprehensive plan by which we make a concerted, collective, deadly serious demand that those listed above do more to solve the problem NOW --- by going to the root, as opposed to continuing to fiddle around the edges. WE NEED A MOVEMENT.
We're already dealing with an out of control police force, and Councilmember Adam McFadden's solution is to give Chief Sheppard and his thugs a blank check to sweep the streets? How about some real solutions like ending the Drug War and a serious conversation on ending the school-to-prison-pipeline.
Two points: Lovely Warren should debate Alex White, and equating public debate between candidates with private editorial endorsement processes is ridiculous.
That Warren is heavily favored to win is no excuse for ducking debates. She was heavily favored to lose the primary and we saw what happened. Moreover, who is favored to win has nothing to do with it. Ms. Warren has a moral obligation. Forums which took place during the primary do not excuse her from such scrutiny in the general. A debate between Alex and Lovely would be good for them both, and for the city. I hope Lovely will reconsider, and honor the desire for a more inclusive civic life here, which helped drive her own primary victory. I would qualify this by pointing out that the format, the rules, the questioners, and other such matters, are legitimate topics for negotiation and clarity between campaigns and debate sponsors. Advance attention has not always been given such matters in the past, and fair play has been diminished.
I take strong exception to Christine's assertion that failure to seek editorial endorsement of a publication is similar to ducking public debate. This community suffers from power being too closely held by manifestly unserious people. This was vividly on display last summer, when an unconsciously humorous sense of entitlement was expressed by one of our local Press Lords. City publisher Towler attempted to smear Lovely Warren as implying she had this newspaper's endorsement when she did not. I am not a supporter of Warren, but Warren did no such thing. Warren accurately quoted flattering things City newspaper, which endorsed Mayor Richards, had said about her. Towler's response was to grumpily suggest she would never say anything favorable again about a candidate she didn't endorse. This is a very revealing insight into Towler's thinking, and ought to establish her as exactly the sort of Rochester "opinion leader" we all should pay less attention to.
To go hat in hand to Ms. Towler, Mr. Lawrence, or any other self serving and self selected arbiter of the "public interest," to privately plead for their support, is NOT the same thing as a lengthy and uncensored public debate between candidates.
These "endorsement processes" are particularly demeaning to candidates, and their supporters, who observe a lack of open mindedness, or even simple honesty, by the stewards of such media outlets. It is lunacy to expect such candidates to legitimize such media outlets, or the temporary stewards of such outlets, particularly in this era of more partisan media, and declining standards of media conduct. A journalistic institution that conducts itself ethically will usually command the trust, respect, and cooperation extended a mediating institution in a community. Institutions that do not conduct themselves reasonably -- and City and the D&C certainly do not -- will find candidates, community leaders, and the public in general stepping around them, and it is long overdue here.
Must be why they call this the silly season! Lovely Warren didn't start campaigning last month, she started campaigning last SPRING. And I know she has already debated Alex White in a public place before now because I was there. Anyone who doesn't know anything about her or her plans by this time, has either been living under a rock or not paying attention. Don't blame her, blame yourself.
Looks to me like she has learned how to play the game effectively. Many in this community walk away from, refuse to or blatantly ignore the rules of the game. They make their own as they go along. I've witnessed it numerous times. Personally, I think she should debate.
Lovely overcame one major hurdle which was to defeat Richards, whom should have never ran for re-election.
This is where the rubber meets the road.....Two's company and three's a crowd.
I am appalled! What kind of mayor is she going to be??? It appears she already thinks herself ABOVE the political process. JUST what Rochester needs in it's next Mayor. DISLIKE.
What in the heck would "Warren's policies" have to do with "failing schools?"
You got the wrong candidate. The three (3) candidates who have a combined incumbency-record of nearly twenty (20) years; are up for reelection on November 5th, and are responsible for developing, and overseeing "policies" to address "failing schools" are:
- Mr. Jose Cruz
- Mr. Van White
- Ms. Cynthia Elliott
Prior to the September 10th Democratic Party Primary Election, community members sponsored at least six (6) school board candidates forums. Mr. Jose Cruz did NOT participate in a single forum. A City Newspaper reporter covered at least three of the above referenced forums, and did NOT write a single word about Mr. Cruz's conspicuous absence.
So, apparently, only CERTAIN "people seeking public office have a responsibility to subject themselves to a thorough vetting by the public.
STOP BEING POLITICAL HYPOCRITES!
You should never gamble with the certain and steadfast equality of a pension for a dialuted form of reason of prosperity .You all should strike not just for yourselves but for also the uncertain future of every working man in america being shredded little by little everything that is good
As a working man are virtue and values are giving to assure the product of are ideas grow and prosper so shall the princple and value of our lives should be after our service to continue the virtue.
Good for the workers for standing firm against an inferior offer being made by Wegmans. The truck drivers, warehouse employees, and bakery workers who have unionized with the Teamsters are right not to take a payout and a shadowy retirement plan in lieu of a guaranteed pension that ensures a lifetime of financial security. And shame on Wegmans for attempting to use their vaunted local brand to try to pull this chicanery on their own workforce.
Imagine if current mayor Tom Richards had refused to debate Warren during the Dem primary? After all, her campaign seemed hopeless. Or imagine if he'd continued campaigning on a minor party label (as he might've done after losing the primary). What would Warren have done then? I tend to think that we ought to be as expansive as possible. And so I agree with the City Newspaper on this. Lovely Warren should debate Alex White. Warren claims to be vaguely progressive ... if that is vaguely accurate, she ought to be embracing public discussion of the many matters confronting the city.
Website powered by Foundation