Recent Comments
Re: “Nazareth’s Bethlehem exhibit depicts every day (occupied) life”
A great exhibit. But why, oh why, does our government who supposedly supports freedom fund the oppression of an entire people? The exhibit shows the real faces of this oppression. I hope Rochesterians will visit this important exhibit and contemplate what our own government is really doing.
Re: “The long, long road for Cobbs Hill Village”
Rochester Management, Inc is NOT making any money on this deal. They are a state-chartered non-profit who provides affordable housing to seniors and others in our region (see: http://rochestermanagement.com/about/ ). Improving affordable housing is their goal, not making a profit.
I can tell you not all existing residents oppose the project since many spoke in favor of the housing upgrade at the April 3rd public meeting. Plus all existing residents will be grand-fathered in at their current rents and future residents can decide if the increased rent is worth it to live in a park setting.
Agreed that bigger is not always better, but who am I to say that services for senior citizens should be frozen at 1950's levels. Also agree that the project should not be intrusive on the park, especially buildings not being taller than the surrounding trees.
I just find the NIMBY attitude to not have senior citizens living in my back yard a heartless, mean-spirited position.
Re: “The long, long road for Cobbs Hill Village”
Shame on our community for opposing improvements for some of our most vulnerable citizens, especially those who say tear down the existing senior housing. I would expect this from Donald Trump, not my neighbors. I'm embarrassed to be part of a neighborhood association that is leading this negative campaign--the Upper Monroe Neighborhood Association.
Re: “Coalition says keep Cobbs Hill Village”
Michelle, I would be glad to send the June 16th Upper Monroe Neighborhood Association letter if I knew how to reach you.
I realize there is a new coalition since I attended the first organizational meeting. Thank heavens the "new coalition" has changed its position from the original UMNA position to allow residents to at least stay in their existing housing and not "return this land back to parkland." While this is an improvement, I still have a problem with not allowing improved housing conditions for senior citizens. How would you like someone telling you that you could not make improvements to your own home, especially its aging mechanical systems? Is this really an unnecessary rebuild?
On a positive note, I have heard a Cobbs Hill Village tenants association is being formed. Let's let the existing residents, not outsiders, decide after they hear all the facts, including use of new housing voucher programs to insure their rent will not be increased.
Re: “Coalition says keep Cobbs Hill Village”
Richard, I don't believe you read the June 16th UMNA letter to the City. To quote:
"Seeing that Rochester Management intends to tear down all 6 of the existing buildings, this is a unique opportunity to return this land to parkland....The proposed buildings would be suitable for parcels in the new Inner Loop where public transportation is abundant, or on the many other available sites. We do not have a shortage of housing in Rochester."
Sounds like NIMBY, not a fabrication, to me.
Re: “Coalition says keep Cobbs Hill Village”
Shame on this coalition for opposing ANY senior housing in our Upper Monroe neighborhood. If the position of the coalition is the same as expressed in the June 16, 2016 UMNA letter to the City, then it is nothing more than a heartless NIMBY (not in my backyard)--no improved apartments and return of the existing senior housing back to parkland. In fact they even say, move the seniors down to the Inner Loop land. What kind of a society are we becoming when we oppose senior housing. I'm disgusted with this group.
Re: “Planning Commission approves revised plan for Cobbs Hill Village”
I applaud the City Planning Commission for its compassionate decision to support low income senior housing on a private site that has been low income housing for half a century. Why evict the existing 60 residents by 2041 as suggested by the Coalition for Cobbs Hill Park in their statement to the City Planning Commission (and by Mr Regans comment above for eventually returning this section of the park back to its original intent.) The bitter opposition is indeed putting the value of trees over the value of our most vulnerable senior citizens I hope both City Council and the Mayor support this wise Planning Commission decision.