Recent Comments
Re: “Support's growing for reform of police oversight”
There is a balance in policing that no one likes and it is tilting further from the correct position. City residents have to decide where priorities lie.
Two facts I find irrefutable are : 1) Heavy handed police tactics DO reduce crime AND 2) No one likes the freedoms lost with the same heavy handed tactics.
We have seen examples of violent areas made nearly uninhabitable by crimes, taken back by policies such as stop and frisk. No one like it when it happens to them but it works.
I don't like getting stopped. Sometimes I think the police are being jerks with me and sometimes I want them to go after those they are not going after. No one likes when they are the target of police. We think they should go after someone else.
To me, articles which favor additional police scrutiny asks the balance to shift further from what actually slows crime. City property values have declined and will continue to decline. Violence on city streets will increase and more people will die.
It seems to me that if we are actually to save lives, we would understand the need to re-balance police control towards what may be inconvenient.
I think if people were sincere about wanting to save lives they would use what works even if that means arguing in court that you were targeted unfairly or someone didn't arrest you nicely. Truly saving lives involves voluntary surrender of freedoms to restore order.
Re: “We’re not making a dent in our high poverty rate”
Reports like this should be an indictment of the effort. They simply show that the effort was a failure. They also show that 60 years of the same types of efforts are failures. A failure is just as important as a success because they help you to decide what you should not do.
For some reason, with poverty, we confuse intention with results. The results have been disastrous, yet the solution always seems to be to do more of what failed last time.
Leftist philosophers and politicians consider themselves virtuous when they suggest socialist policy. They completely ignore two facts: 1) For 70 years, Socialist systems around the world have produced more poverty than any other system besides dictatorship. 2) Free market systems have produced the largest uplifting of the common man than any other system in history. Standards of living and freedoms produced are unrivaled.
Each system can be argued to be unfair in some way. Free markets because some benefit more than others and Socialists because a few benefit enormously while nearly everyone else become destitute.
If the focus was actually on helping the poor, we should start by asking, "In the history of the world, what system has helped the common man more than any other?" And " Is any other system even close?" The answer is clearly: free markets and no, nothing comes close.
No matter how you feel about that truth, if you suggest an alternative, you are not trying to solve the problem, and you are not learning from failures.
Re: “For Parcel 5: a theater topped by apartments”
That the city would be considering an unfunded proposal over a private funds risked proposal is the only evidence I need to see. How many times have we seen this touted mix of private funds mixed with public tax dollars proposal to make an unsustainable business? (You could call them state grants, but I will call them tax dollars because they are)
BTW: Thank You! to Tom Golisano for his extensive philanthropy but the answer to everything in this region cannot be use Tom Golisano's money.
The reason we use business proposals is that scrutiny uncovers flaws that would make businesses unsustainable. For politicians to ignore that scrutiny is just irresponsible stewardship. The city does not need to build another project that loses tax dollars. If the project is actually sustainable, let someone take the risk with private equity and reap potential rewards.
We have a shrinking population and a shrinking tax base and the city should adjust to meet the actual projected demand for services. The best the city can do for its citizens is not ferry service or more theaters. Government service are at best limited to those services private firms cannot provide. Policing, parks and courts are examples of these. Each time the city tries to involve themselves in social issues; the result is lackluster, if not negative, progress. Yet they suggest more of the same.
No One looks after someone elses money as carefully as they look after his or her own. Here is another example of someone trying to spend someone elses money to get something they think would be cool, but not cool enough to pay for it themselves. Am I the only one who can spot a trend?
Re: “Perspectives: James Norman”
Yet another article to point out problems with no new solutions. The problem is rooted in 60 years of failed government policy followed by more government policy. Even the article suggests that the answer lies in more government intervention, not less. This as it clearly points out the major problem is lack of jobs.
How about a drastically new approach? Why not embrace the conservative policies that have an unprecedented track record for uplifting the common man? Nothing in history has come close. Yet the left seems to embrace those policies which, barring dictatorship, have a 70 year proven history of creating abject poverty extremes.
The fact that so many readers will dismiss this suggestion because, although based on Fact, they just dont like the idea. The Robin Hood concept has produced only negative results. Class envy and victimization politics has done no good. Blaming conservatives has done no good. The suggestions seem to always be : More arts, more social programs, and more taxes! Why does this area continuously Reject policies that have created the greatest improvement in prosperity for the poor?
Good intentions are over-rated, Yet we seem fixed on them. We look for good intent, while ignoring poor results and see only bad intent in conservatives without regard to the results despite the history of good results that objective viewer would see clearly. Dont mistake the will for the deed!
Most government programs which purport to help, only hurt! Yet this entire area continues to press for more. And those fed up with trying to help other see the facts just leave.
Re: “Creating high-quality schools”
Like many well-meaning people, Professor Noguera is at times correct, but not for the reasons he suggests and that is why his methods will not produce results any more than the efforts of UR or Geneseo. All of these efforts answer a lack of demand with more supply.
Nogueras approach (like nearly every approach we see in school improvement) will fail due to lack of demand. Lack of demand for the educational product is continuously answered with perceived improvements in supply. When there is still a lack of demand after the 50th iteration, we get another design aimed at supply.
The demand shortage is evidenced by the lack of desire to either pay for the product or to work to achieve what the product requires. When students manifest demand limits, schools statistically point to data that suggests that what students want is wrong. Schools dont supply what students want, they tell students what they think they ought to want! It reminds me of Dr. Seuss constantly offering green eggs and ham.
Of course It is up to adults to let students know that there is a substantial earning differential with college degrees and that a strong high school program can prepare them for that. This is where Professor Noguera is correct. College educated parents often do provide demand.
But sometimes adults are misguiding students. Adults should not be dishonest or uninformed enough to suggest that state bare minimum requirements to graduate high school (ushered in by nearly every superintendent in the state to pad their own stats) are actually inadequate preparation for university level programs.
After deceptively poor preparation, many Schools encourage students to graduate with $100+K in debt to get diplomas, some of which are completely unmarketable. That is irresponsible.
So how do we change Demand? Im going to make some bold claim: Graduation rates would rise to over 80 % if schools permanently expelled the students who are only there to threaten, disrupt and break laws. If students want to learn to make an honorable living working manually, LET THEM! Private schools have 2 major advantages: 1) Demand, as evidenced by a willingness to pay for the product, and 2) Ability to remove criminals and elements that lead to a bad school environment. This includes trade schools.
Did you just ask what will happen to the 20% ? That is the normal reaction. Rather than to stipulate that 80 +% graduation rate would be a great improvement, we stick to our under 50% with some specious sense of virtue that hasnt helped anyone.
Stop pretending the answer to poor demand is more supply. Answer the real demand with adequate supply.