Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion: News: Last 30 Days
Re: “Rochester's poisoned past”
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?
Re: “Rochester's poisoned past”
The legacy of corporations doing the wrong thing.
Re: “Rochester's poisoned past”
That picture looks like the end of "The Alphabet Killer"
Re: “Owners of Craft Company No. 6 speak out against University Ave. project”
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.
Re: “Hemlock-Canadice plan not clear enough on drilling”
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’.
Re: “The Hemlock-Canadice balancing act”
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.
Re: “Owners of Craft Company No. 6 speak out against University Ave. project”
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.
Re: “Owners of Craft Company No. 6 speak out against University Ave. project”
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.
Re: “Rochester's apartment boom”
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.
Re: “Richards gives sober State of the City address, with an appearance by Spider-Man”
Hi darlingdyan - In short, no. The speech was not delayed this year and is usually given during this season.
Re: “Richards gives sober State of the City address, with an appearance by Spider-Man”
Spiderman at a "sober" State of the City address? What happened? Was Bozo the Clown busy?
Re: “Richards gives sober State of the City address, with an appearance by Spider-Man”
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.
Re: “Owners of Craft Company No. 6 speak out against University Ave. project”
Ms. Tow;er - City provides a "Feedback" section for this type of letter. So why is it be published under the "News" category?
Re: “Owners of Craft Company No. 6 speak out against University Ave. project”
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.
Re: “Directory dilemma”
I encourage all to go around their neighborhoods, jot down the address of those places that still have phone books sitting on porches (after two months) and ask the phone company to come and pick those up.
Re: “Rochester's apartment boom”
All this building would be fine if it was being done with private money. The problem is that the city is offering a diverse package of loans, grants, land give-aways, and tax breaks.For example, Voters Block is getting the land for free, $1.3 million in cash, and a tax rate at roughly a fifth of what other rental properties in the area are paying. Furthermore, many of these loans are really grants and many others are forgiven after a period of time. Let us not forget the city often does infrastructure improvement around these projects for millions more, such as the river promenade behind Erie Harbor. The result is that the city does not recoup the money they give to get these developers to build in any reasonable time period, say twenty or even fifty years! Meanwhile these neighborhoods the city calls "less than desirable" fund this development. While money is easy for these projects to obtain, it is next to impossible for people in these "less than desirable” neighborhoods to get money for repair. The worst thing is that at one time the city money was used for neighborhood improvement loans, which prevented the blight that is now destroying our neighborhoods and every elected official in the city of Rochester has approved these subsidies to large developments.
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.
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: “City budget cuts Mounted Patrol, 311 hours”
Squandering taxpayer money. Andy needs to pay a visit and clean house!