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!*
Sucgolfbal--When did Rachel Barnhart call someone names?
I'm not sure what policy plans Mr. Sheppard has put forward. He's suggested some pretty hostile policies in the past, such as stop and frisk.
Barnhart currently works to help raise money for the poor. She could have easily gone back to journalism. She doesn't need a job. She's also been a Democrat since she was 18.
So what does she do that makes you think she's a Republican? Demanding more of our local leadership? Creating programs to help the poor instead of tax incentives for people buying $300,000 condos? Serving the poor?
"The two have quarreled publicly in the past and neither is known for backing down or for playing nice just to make people comfortable." Why are women always expected to "play nice"? Sheppard gets a pass on playing nice just because he left after Warren won the mayoral election?
And when was Barnhart actually mean to Warren? Barnhart reported what the mayor did, which was newsworthy, then even met with Warren.
"Some Democrats say..." Oh yeah? Care to say who? If "some Democrats" want to provide their take on the election, let them come out and say so. There's no need to enable them to provide conspiracy theories without consequence. And why would someone stall a career, resist attempts to buy her out, and raise $150,000+ just so someone else has a chance to win? That's lunacy.
All Comments »
Website powered by Foundation.