Correcting Council’s “Revisionist History” with Real Facts

As described in our post about the last City Council meeting (Hindsight is 20/20) a number of claims were made under the guise of “New Business” that we didn’t get a chance to respond to. There had been a public hearing about the Kirkwood property that night, but no discussion of it was had until after members of the congregation and their attorney had left. If we had known that the end of the meeting would turn into a public hearing on us and our blog, we would have been prepared to respond in the following way:

First, we were criticized for posting images of the Kirkwood property and church membership. Those photographs were offered to inform the public what and whom was being discussed. The church is at the end of a dead end street and the site for sale can only be accessed from their private property. The argument for not selling the land to the church was based on the land’s potential for ‘a larger economic development use.’ Councilor Greco says that the pictures were offensive and embarrassing to the church and its neighbors. How so? The permission to access the site and to take the pictures was given by the church and there aren’t any pictures of the neighbors, so where’s the problem?

Next, Councilor Greco invoked an urban legend regarding the 9/11 memorial that is now located in Canandaigua. He claims it didn’t get placed in Geneva because Council objected to the image of prayer on it. In reality, the monument was proposed to be located in the former park on the corner of Lake and Exchange Street. Why do we refer to it as the “former park?” Because the Hampton Inn now sits where the park used to be. When the Fratto family approached the city about the monument, we were already in the midst of discussions about the Hampton Inn (in the back room). But we were told that those discussions were “confidential” and couldn’t be shared with the public. If we had accepted the monument, it would have been dug up and moved somewhere six months later, which seemed inappropriate treatment for a monument. But we couldn’t share that reasoning with the public, so other people filled in the blanks (including the Finger Lakes Times) and started a rumor that it was denied because it depicted prayer. Council declined the monument (as a majority), for reasons having nothing to do with prayer. It would be nice if Councilor Greco would deal in facts rather than rumors.

Then Councilors Greco and D’Amico attempt to discredit us with their assertion that we, Augustine and Capraro, somehow refused to participate in the neighborhood meeting between the church and its neighbors. Here's what council was told in a memo from the City Manager:

“Clr. Greco, in conjunction with Mark Venuti and the Kirkwood Ave residents, has organized a meeting on Tuesday (6pm) with the owners of the Church. It will be held in the Church.”

The City Manager in no way indicated that this meeting was a public meeting that other councilors could attend. In fact, if we had attended, there would have been a quorum present, meaning that the meeting would have been in violation of the Open Meetings Law and everyone would have had to go home because there was no public notice of the meeting provided. Even the Times' city reporter, Craig Fox, wasn’t told about the meeting, which really communicated to us that this was a closed-door session. Funny that other councilors seemed to have received a special invitation to attend.

In his typed out speech, Councilor Schroeder attacked Augustine by accusing her of opposing various projects because she “smelled a rat.” Let’s check the City Council record. The first was the Lyons National Bank project. Multiple councilors (Augustine included) expressed concerns about the speed with which Council was being asked to approve the project, and with the apparent lack of concern being shown to local businesses being affected by the project. Augustine was especially angered to hear that the project had been in the works for almost a year before Council was informed. A year certainly would have been plenty of time to bring the business owners along and prepare them for the changes. At no time did Augustine claim to “smell a rat.” After the project was approved, several residents and business owners came forward with concerns that management staff at the new bank had been employed by the City during the time the bank project was being considered. This information came as news to many on council, Augustine included. It never factored into the public discussion of the project, but perhaps it should have.

Schroeder went on to criticize Augustine for joining Councilor Nyrop in opposing tax breaks for the Lyceum Street Housing project. The reason for the opposition was clearly explained: Geneva cannot afford to give tax breaks to profit-making entities. The proposed housing was not low-income by local standards, it was in direct competition with private rental opportunities. Again, concerned citizens raised the issue that the City Manager was a board member of the very entity requesting the Payment in Lieu of Tax (PILOT) agreement. But this was not the reason Nyrop and Augustine voted ‘no;’ perhaps it should have been? Schroeder also mentioned the debate about the Main St. gas station, which has already been discussed here and the former firehouse behind city hall which is the subject of an upcoming post. Augustine didn’t vote against projects because she “smelled a rat” or suspected a “conspiracy.” She voted against projects that were done in haste or without the best interests of the community at heart.

It’s clear that some Councilors are using the same old tactics of personal politics to draw attention away from the facts; but we can’t figure out what purpose that serves.