-He's not on Barnhart's campaign.
-He did create a PAC to help Lovely Warren win. He got no benefit for his donations.
-He donated the maximum legal amount towards Barnhart's campaign. He did *not* do what he did with Lovely Warren's campaign, which was create a PAC and then send out tens of thousands of dollars worth of mailers.
-Gaddy's contribution was a small fraction of what Barnhart raised.
-Barnhart made a statement saying that he's not on the campaign. As such, he has nothing to benefit.
-Are you certain Sheppard and Warren aren't getting special interest money?
-Financial disclosures aren't available until July; how do you know Gaddy donated this time around? You should provide City with your source.
Also, Barnhart said she wants to eliminate campaign contributions from contractors. If the other candidates are so separated from special interests, they should have no problem making the same promise.
Oh, and in case the horse isn't dead yet--Gaddy's not on Barnhart's campaign.
So you'll put it on the main page for two weeks like Sheppard, I assume?
City, I have a question: why have Sheppard's op-ed front and center for weeks, only to bury Barnhart's?
You've shown you're biased in favor of Sheppard. Again. Why?
What's Jim Sheppard's take on Rochester being a sanctuary city?
This article is awful.
First, it doesn't analyze any of the potential benefits of selling the water authority. Selling an asset will make sense if it spurs investment and growth, which Rochester desperately needs. Businesses do it every day. Banks do it all the time with mortgages, bonds, and other assets.
Second, why wasn't Barnhart's campaign contacted for comment? Barnhart could have told the author that a thorough study could have been done and making sure the taxpayers' are protected, including seats on the MCWA. Why then contact Warren's administrators, who clearly don't want Barnhart to run?
The idea that our water would be jeopardized by selling it to the county is ridiculous.
The County has bought a lot of water capacity over the years, supplying water and treatment as far out as Batavia. They clearly have an interest in this service, and the WA would add capacity that is clearly in demand.
The city is the fifth poorest in the country, with an unemployment rate of 14%. We can either be transparent and use available resources to address these problems, or we can remain poor. Given the biased content of this article, City Newspaper seems to prefer the latter.
Louise Slaughter lost four times before she won. Lovely Warren also lost. Were they professional office chasers too? What about Zephyr Teachout?
Besides, if we apply Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is this: Barnhart wants to make the city a better place.
The water system produces only $5 million a year. Yes, it's something, but we need to think big and make drastic changes if we want this city to get back on its feet in our lifetime. Why not ask how much consolidating the city water system would bring in before dismissing it?
The permitting process in the city is ridiculous. Business owners have to fight for little changes, then the city complains if they draw too much business! You cannot tell me that efficiencies cannot be made.
It is insane to reject someone who is persuasive, smart, and driven to solve the city's problems just because she didn't serve time on city council. What experience is so necessary that city council is a prerequisite for mayor? The real issue is that certain parties benefit from the current setup; Rachel wants to help *everyone!*
All Comments »
Website powered by Foundation.