Recent Comments
Re: “Our choice for Rochester mayor: Lovely Warren”
"Poverty, unemployment, loss of business and industry, low academic achievement, violence, tension over police oversight and community relations, racism: No mayor and no City Council can solve those problems quickly or easily, or on their own, for that matter."
Yet you cite little Warren has done to alleviate these problems. You even cite her lack of transparency as problematic.
Creating a business over four years is not transformative. Advocating is not action. And all the jobs you mention are outside the city, or located far from the people who need them. A van pool to send people to another county is a success? Really? And you cite the work of others with the Inner Loop as her success: it was federal funds that brought that to fruition.
Diversity in a police department helps, but is not inclusive of accountability. Sheppard has a terrible record on this.
We need ethics and vision. Warren has provided neither.
As for Barnhart, you suggest a 50% property tax cut would be devastating. Based on what grounds? Did you even *talk* to an economist? Or did you just decide that on your own?
And by passing the buck on the child care issue to the county, families with children will continue to struggle. "Not our problem!" Well Sheppard hasn't done anything about it. Finally, you cite Barnhart's lack of management experience: yet her campaign has been a huge threat to an incumbent mayor and a county legislator, both with special interests. How would that be possible if she wasn't a skilled manager?
Given the little the current leaders have done, it's time we broke the division in Rochester and embraced vision and ethics. Or we can embrace and contribute to mediocrity and self-entitlement.
Re: “To reach city's potential, rethink what is possible”
Regarding Gaddy:
-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.
Re: “To reach city's potential, rethink what is possible”
So you'll put it on the main page for two weeks like Sheppard, I assume?
Re: “To reach city's potential, rethink what is possible”
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?
Re: “[UPDATED] This week in the mayor's race: Friday, February 17”
What's Jim Sheppard's take on Rochester being a sanctuary city?
Re: “Should the city sell its water?”
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.
Re: “It's Warren's party now”
They're not Trumpian tactics if what is being said is true.
If it's not, be free to make that case.