Political Appointments, Qualifications, and the American DreamPart I: Blagojevich and Kennedy

The novelist, Richard Ford, once wrote, “Luck is infatuated with efficiency.” Against all odds, luck gets things done. (That’s, after all, what makes it luck.) Political appointments are a lot like luck. They, too, are efficient. They, too, get things done. As if by magic, shoulders get tapped, appointments are made, positions are filled, and life goes on.  

Over and against luck and political power is the American Dream, essentially, an ideology which couples the work ethic and equal opportunity. Work hard, play by the rules, pay your dues, build up your qualifications, and, when an opportunity arises, your time will come. Are political appointments compatible with the American Dream? What do politicians mean when they say an aspiring appointee is qualified for a particular position? Where does loyalty fall in democratic theory? Appointments are the talk of the day in politics. We are devoting two posts, one looking at the national scene, and a second, at the local situation.  

Nationally, we’ve seen Governor Blagojevich of Illinois arrested, in part, for the way he is allegedly handling the appointment of Barack Obama’s replacement in the U.S. Senate. As president-elect, Obama resigned his Senate seat in order to be inaugurated President, January 20, 2009. F.B.I. reports suggest what Blagojevich has in mind is for the seat to go to the highest bidder. The one most qualified would be the one who could do the most good for Blagojevich, whether that be campaign fund raising, appointments to positions, even possibly outright cash payments to the Governor, it has been suggested.  

Facing criminal prosecution, and even impeachment, Blagojevich might well resign. Party leaders in the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois have hoped for that, and Obama has even called for it. However, in a surprise move, the Governor now says that he is hunkering down, that he is not resigning, and that he will fight the charges. He wants to subpoena Rahm Emanuel, a product of the Chicago machine now headed to the White House as Chief of Staff for the new president. Having had the whistle blown on him, perhaps Blagojevich is now the one blowing the whistle. Let the public hear what insiders have to say, under oath, about how all this works. What exactly was said about Obama’s personal preference for the post, Valerie Jarrett, or Jesse Jackson, Jr., son of civil rights icon Jess Jackson? Does any Chicago Land politician really want a trial with the whole world tuned in to the inner workings of the machine, even if Blagojevich is a renegade? If Blagojevich is guilty, then shame on him, but to the extent that he just carried ‘machine politics’ too far, then shame on the other cogs as well.

In another surprise move, Blagojevich, yesterday, announced the appointment of Roland Burris, former Illinois attorney general, to the seat. If the appointment holds, Burris would be the one and only African-American in the U.S. Senate. Disingenuous or not, this move, severely complicates the matter as critics of Blagojevich must now weigh the merits of the appointment, against the process tainted by various accusations of wrong doing on the part of the governor.

Back in New York State, with New York’s junior U.S. Senate seat likely to be vacated with the presumed confirmation of Hillary Clinton as U.S. Secretary of State, Governor Paterson is now pondering her successor. He, too, pundits advise, is weighing the personal and political benefits of the various prospects. Paterson, who was Lieutenant Governor, assumed the governorship upon the resignation of Eliot Spitzer earlier this year, has declared himself a candidate for re-election in 2011. He is looking for someone who can help his interests, including campaign fund raising and vote getting, for whoever he picks for the Senate seat would likely be on the ballot with him. We are in a strange moment: A governor not elected to that office would select a U.S. Senator who would not be elected to that office (at least temporarily, until November, when a special election to complete the remainder of the Clinton’s term would be held) and together the two incumbents would seek a proper election to his/her respective office. Paterson is also looking for a strong advocate for New York in Washington, D.C., who could help steer bailout funding our way.  

Caroline Kennedy, 51, daughter of the late President John Kennedy, has made her interest in the post known, and has been actively seeking the appointment. She’s been the frontrunner for the non-election, but once she came out of seclusion and under the scrutiny of the press, her candidacy has lost some luster. She’s been questioned about her qualifications, and doubts about her have emerged.  

In a series of media interviews over the past few days Kennedy answered questions, essentially for the first time. Turns out she doesn’t have much to say about herself and the great issues of the day. She has also been ridiculed for her frequent pauses in her speech. Public speaking experts say that her speech pattern is distracting and hurts her credibility, as if she needs time to search for what she wants to say. Overall, it’s as if she’s been not in a Kennedy spotlight, but a Kennedy fog all these years. It’s almost as if she is trying to portray herself as the sympathetic figure. “…I come into this thinking I have to work twice as hard as anyone else. Nobody’s entitled to anything, certainly not me. There are many qualified people in this. And so, I am an unconventional choice. I understand that I haven’t pursued the traditional path. But I think that in our public life today, we’re starting to see there are many ways into public life and public service. All our institutions are less hierarchical than they used to be.”

When asked about her qualifications, she lists her accomplishments as a writer, mother, and fundraiser. Now that her qualifications are better known, she appears less qualified. Kennedy has contributed heavily to various Democratic candidates. She gave $4,600 to Obama’s campaign; $1,000 to Christopher Dodd; $5,000 to Hillary’s Senate race, and $2,300 to Hillary’s presidential run. The Kennedy name is not about name recognition, as much as it is about a family network formed over a half century of political life at every level.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines qualification as “a quality, an ability, or an accomplishment that makes a person suitable for a particular position or task.” Suitable means “appropriate to a purpose or an occasion.” And appropriate means “suitable.” In an equal opportunity situation, qualifications for a post would be stated in advance, interested parties would come forward with credentials verifying their qualifications, and then the most qualified would be selected.
In the political realm, though, things are different. Qualifications for a position are usually not articulated, and when they are, hardly ever in advance. And no one ever argues that this particular person under consideration is most qualified. Merely qualified, which begs the question of how qualified, is good enough. And in the political realm, political qualifications count a great deal. Political weight can tip the scale in favor of an otherwise weak, but plausible candidate.

Presidential candidate John McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, offered a sensational demonstration of these points. As governor of Alaska for a brief period and mayor and city councilor of a small Alaskan town for some years, political supporters said she was qualified, while her detractors said no, even though she had more years in office and more executive experience than Obama, and far more years in office than Hillary Clinton. Problem was, when she opened her mouth, it was clear that whatever experience she had had, it did not translate to knowledge, perspective, insight and understanding. Much the same is happening with Caroline Kennedy. On the other hand, whatever their experience, Obama and Hillary become more impressive when they speak; Clinton with her knowledge and Obama with his inspiration.

Blagojevich may survive as governor and Kennedy may well fail in her brief, shining moment of a run for the U.S. Senate. The scenarios may be on opposite ends of a continuum of how political appointments work, but both situations give us pause as we reflect on the meaning of qualifications in democracy, because they are not all that far apart in what they reveal about our political lives

Steps In The Right Direction: A Look Back at 2008 and Suggestions for 'Moving Forward' in 2009

NoStringsGeneva launched 2008 with a series of New Year’s resolutions for the new Council. We called for improvement in five areas:

1. That ‘executive session’ as the norm for Council meetings would be stopped, reserving such sessions for when the narrow conditions set for them by the Open Meetings Law were met.
2. That Council should conduct itself with professionalism and decorum, focusing statements on public actions and the public record, rather than personalities and personal attacks.
3. That financial disclosure forms would be filed by Councilors and management staff disclosing any real or perceived interests in organizations or private firms that have, or may be seeking, support from or business with the City.
4. That Council operates as a body of the whole, meaning that public business should not be conducted by subgroups of Council (along with staff) unless there is a specifically designated and publicly announced committee to do so.
5. That the Mayor and Councilors recognize their status as role models in the community and do not seek to exempt themselves from the law.

While Council did make progress in each area, there is still room for improvement. Executive sessions have been curtailed, but controversy around the Bergmann Plan and other issues show the need for more transparency in government. There were still some raucus Council meetings, with the demeanor of of individual Councilors still questionable, and personal attacks were still too frequent, even if confined to non-televised worksessions. The new Mayor is far less tolerant of Councilors being roughed up in public so that has brought some much needed protection and professionalism to the table. An enhanced Code of Ethics, which includes provisions for full financial disclosures, passed a first reading and will be back on Council's agenda in early 2009, so we are hopeful that the Code will be implemented. But, one councilor was front-page news with his chronic failure to comply with City codes in his role as landlord while a community agency saw its properties shut down for similar violations. The key moving forward will be equity and fairness in both policy-making and enforcement.

With the former Mayor, City Manager, and City Attorney now absent from the scene, most of the year was spent in searches, for new City staff and for coherence in the Council. So, a lot of the new Council’s time was dedicated to ‘cleaning house’, even if much of it was involuntary. Then, of course, there was the lakefront. We’ve made our opinion on that matter quite clear, including our recent post that garnered comments from both the Mayor and community-based participants in the decision making process.

A few additional details on some of these points:

First, we would note that, with the exception of the meetings to discuss and interview the applicants for the City Manager’s position, Council did not engage in many executive sessions. From the time the new City Manager came on board (July 1st) through the end of 2008, City Council convened eight (8) executive sessions out of nineteen (19) meetings. Several of those sessions were for reviewing resumes and interviewing candidates for the City Attorney position, others were to discuss the Town of Geneva’s lawsuit against the City regarding sewer rates.   Not only have there been fewer executive sessions, Council has been better about indicating the purpose of the session, again, as called for in Open Meetings Law. These are positive developments to be sure!

The enhanced code of ethics for Council and all City employees, if implemented and complied with, should go a long way towards addressing several issues. A financial disclosure form will be on Council’s table at the January meeting when the code of ethics is slated to become law and the City Manager also created a rubric of specific behavioral guidelines to give Council, staff, and the public a better understanding of the expectations of the conduct of public business.

What will 2009 bring? Well, we have a few suggestions:


1. As our upcoming post on trust will discuss, the Mayor and Council have a responsibility to engage the public in a meaningful way, and that includes interacting with the public. The two keys here are being responsive and being respectful. In order to achieve those two objectives, Council has to create and maintain an environment that fosters respectful dialogue. We believe this is an area where improvement can occur in 2009 if Councilors are prepared to not only let the public speak their mind, but to be responsive, in dialogue, to what the public is saying. Responsiveness can take many forms, and it is as important in between meetings as it is during the open sessions themselves.
2. The City Charter indicates that the Mayor shall act as the head of Council and chair Council meetings. On at least three occasions, the Mayor has turned that responsibility over to the City Manager, who freely participates in Council meetings, as if he were an elected representative of the people, which he is not. This is not to say that the City Manager's contributions are ill-conceived, in fact, quite the opposite. But we believe Mayor Einstein is perfectly capable of running meetings, no matter the format, and he ought to be alert to the dangerous precedent of the turning the legislative body over to the executive. It not only sets up an inversion of power that leaves the public confused, but it lets Councilors off the hook for carrying their own weight in the legislative agenda-setting that they were elected to do. This will mean that Mayor Einstein should be more assertive in his leadership of discussions and in moving the agenda along in a productive way. On that note, while the new agenda format is a great tool in bringing focus to various parts of the meeting and clarifying, for all involved, the purpose of particular items, additional attention is needed under the unfinished business section and Council reports to ensure that Councilors are not simply using ‘TV time’ to give an appearance of Council activity, where it is either otherwise absent or not appropriately placed.
3. There were several early announcements from the Mayor about new committees and initiatives. We are concerned about the Green committee. As we stated before, it appears the Ethics committee is about to get up and running, but the status of the Green committee is not as clear. Current economic conditions, combined with the ongoing necessity of attentiveness to environmental issues, makes this an issue that should get going sooner rather than later. The Mayor has the ability to bring together representatives from a variety of key organizations and charge them with developing innovative solutions that will both improve overall environmental practices within the City and also save money in the long term on operational costs. We are also hoping that the Youth Council, an effort to engage teenagers in the civic process, will be taken seriously by Councilors. 
4. This year’s budget development was a great process and yielded the first true zero-tax-increase budget in years (neither an increase in the tax rate nor across the board increases in property assessments). The ongoing monitoring of the budget’s objectiveswill be essential.  Most important, in our view, is tracking the property owner’s return on investment. The first priority area of the budget was ‘value for the tax dollar.’ As we discussed in a previous post  this is a function of both tax dollars paid into the system and city services rendered to the residents. Keeping an eye on this, and balancing effectiveness with efficiency will be key in 2009.

What Will the Lakefront Look Like in 10 Years? Ted Baker Asks the Bloggers

Our most recent interview on Finger Lakes Morning News focused on--what else?--lakefront development. Host Ted Baker led off with a discussion of a post that highlighted a new argument offered in support of Building 12. The argument was, in short, that lakefront condos were key to bringing college graduates back home to Geneva. Augustine repeated the theme of the post, that it is not a lack of housing--at least, not lakefront condos.--keeping people from returning, but rather a lack of jobs.

Capraro rightly pointed out that Geneva has a strong service industry, including education and tourism, that provides a core set of jobs for graduates. People taking those jobs shouldn’t be looking for a suburban enclave, and if the right housing were available, they’d likely prefer downtown. To that end, repopulating the downtown core and improving conditions in Geneva’s existing neighborhoods must take precedence over new construction on one of our best assets.

Ted then asked us to respond to resident Cynthia Hsu’s appearance on the show earlier in the week. He characterized Hsu as the voice of “the opposition,” but Capraro was quick to point out that she is a vocal advocate for public participation, and while the public may not agree on every point, there is consistent agreement amongst the public that their voices should be heard and taken into consideration. This, Capraro said, is indicative of a renewed sense of civic engagement locally, regionally, and even on the national level.

Augustine stated that, from Council’s perspective, public participation is both necessary but sometimes hard to take. When the public agrees with the direction things are going, everything’s wonderful. But in reality, people are more likely to speak up when they disagree with things. At that point, she said, it’s the responsibility of the Council to consider the ideas and arguments being presented without getting their hackles up about the way in which the ideas or arguments are being presented. A forthcoming post on trust and public participation will shed some more light on those ideas.

As he closed the interview, Ted asked us what we thought the lakefront would look like in 2015 or 2020, about 10 years down the road. Augustine responded that she hoped that a focus on downtown would have paid dividends by then, and Capraro emphasized that enhanced programming on the lakefront would mean seeing more people on the lakefront and coming from there into downtown (and vice versa). Some exciting prospects, and definitely possible so long as Geneva’s government and her people are moving in tandem towards that shared vision.

We are truly grateful for Ted Baker, WGVA (1240AM), and all the staff at the Finger Lakes Radio Group for continuing to allow us a forum to discuss these pressing issues. We know that Ted is doing his best to bring a fact-based point of view on a variety of public issues, and that he takes his role as a member of the press seriously as it relates to good governing. This interview is available for your listening pleasure in the NoStrings Radio Archive. We look forward to continuing the tradition in 2009!

If You Build It, They Will Come...Back?

The first of two public hearings for any amendments to the Master Plan was held earlier this month at the Geneva Middle/High School Auditorium. Due to an equipment malfunction on FLTV’s sound board, their recording turned out to be video-only, and therefore won’t be shown on Channel 12.

We continue to be impressed with the “public intelligence” displayed at these meetings where the comments from community members are often far more insightful than anything we hear from Council. But, just when we thought there was no one left who supported Building 12, a group has come forward asking Council to adopt the plan ‘as is’ (with Building 12 included) for the sake of Geneva’s children.

David Linger, a non-resident who lives in Liverpool, outside of Syracuse, but owns property in Geneva, highlighted his partner, Wendy Marsh, and her high school classmates as the kind of people that need to come back to live in Geneva.

He said something to the effect that no one on Council was taking into consideration the needs and interests of younger people, people who grew up in the area and would like to make it their home(s) permanently. Really? No one?

Actually, having grown up in Geneva and looking out for the interest of multi-generational locals, including family, seems to be the key to success on this Council and in this City. If anything it is 'outsiders', folks who weren’t born here, that aren't always considered. Virtually the entire Council was born and raised in Geneva and attended school here: D’Amico, Valentino, Cosentino, Greco, Alcock, and O'Malley. Hagerman and Augustine went to neighboring high schools, leaving only the Mayor as a true 'outsider.' We'd say the 'local perspective' is well-represented (in quantity).

Linger went on to say that condominiums on the lakefront were the kind of thing that would “draw people back” for more than just a short stay for a class reunion. A few more speakers joined Linger’s call to “think of the children” and build condos. that would “bring our kids back to live here.” Again, we ask, “Really?”

Could it really be the case that Geneva’s children, who go off to college and earn advanced degrees and settle in other areas would return in droves to repopulate the area--if only there were condos on the lakefront to accommodate them? We think not, and we’ll offer a few reasons of our own for our readers to consider and comment on.

Let’s just put the obvious out there: Geneva’s children aren’t leaving the area to chase condos., they’re leaving to chase down good jobs. Augustine’s no spring chicken (she’s already 31 for Heaven’s sake!) but it wasn’t that long ago that she was talking with her college friends about what they were all going to do after graduation. And Capraro is currently helping his two boys through this same decision-making process. There are basically two options: continue on with school for a Masters or Doctorate, or go to work. Many graduates take off from their college towns to bigger cities like Boston, Washington, Raleigh, Denver, or somewhere on the west coast. They are driven, not by the pursuit of a great condo., but by the search for a great job.

At some point, those college graduates will reach a point where they are thinking about ‘settling down’ and it is then that we believe Geneva--as it currently exists--is best poised to “bring them home.” Geneva is a great place to raise a family, to re-establish or to create some roots. Which brings us to our second point, people returning to Geneva with their families aren’t coming back to live in lakefront condos., they’re coming back to live in neighborhoods (see our previous post on that). Even the Bergmann representative, who made the initial unveiling of “Building #12” at the Ramada this summer, described the lakefront condo. market as ‘empty nesters.’

So, while it was interesting to hear this new take on the need to build lakefront condos., we don’t find it to be a very compelling argument. We appreciate David Linger and Wendy Marsh’s efforts to improve the downtown by purchasing and renovating key properties. We think those efforts will do a lot towards attracting new businesses and new residents to the area. But in the big picture, people who are concerned with creating a City that our children will either stay in, or return to, should follow our lead in calling for more progressive and dynamic economic development strategies and improved neighborhood conditions.

Bloggers to Discuss Reactions to Lakefront Post

Capraro and Augustine will be making their regularly scheduled radio appearance on Ted Baker's morning show this Friday, December 19th. While Ted doesn't give out the questions ahead of time, he's sure to take up the issues raised on an old lakefront post that has garnered the recent attention of community activists and the Mayor. Click here to read the post and their comments, and tune in to WGVA (1240AM) Friday morning.

Reclaiming the Lakefront, the Downtown, and the Truth:Talking with Ted on WGVA

Last Friday, we participated in our monthly exchange with Ted Baker on the Finger Lakes Morning News (1240AM WGVA). As many of his guests in recent weeks have done, we spoke about the Bergmann plan. Ted had our most recent post on the issue on his screen and we discussed some of the ways in which the plan could be brought back on track, after being almost driven into a ditch by the last minute addition (and front page illustration) of “Building 12.”

In discussing that fateful addition, it was noted that Bergmann claimed to be solving the ‘interconnectivity problem’ between downtown and the lakefront. But, as Augustine said again, this time on air, you’re unlikely to find “anybody in downtown Geneva who is confused as to where the lake is” which shows that the real problem that needs to be solved is how to make *downtown* the attraction that people on the lakefront want to find. Capraro went on to point out that this problem extends beyond just tourists and is instead the puzzle that needs to be solved for year round Geneva residents, as well.

So, with discussion of the plan appropriately refocused on the downtown elements, we highlighted a few of our recommendations, including the need to prioritize access to the upper floors of downtown buildings, an idea that was first raised publicly by Councilor Lou Cosentino, and air conditioning for the Smith Opera House. We hope that these changes can somehow find a home in the amended document that Council will consider adopting as its new Master Plan.

At the end of the day, the lingering criticisms of the Bergmann plan are centered on the last minute turn it took from a collaborative public visioning project to a product that couldn’t resist the heavy influence of ‘stakeholders’ who were “overdetermining” the outcome. Having laid out a way to remedy that, we turned our attention to other issues in the public interest. We previewed a few upcoming posts related to Freedom of Information requests, specifically our continued inquiry into the nature and content of the former Manager’s “proffer agreement” with the New York State Attorney General’s office. Listen for yourself by visiting the Finger Lakes Daily News on-demand radio page and we'll get the spot added to the NoStringsGeneva Radio Archive soon. Stay tuned!"

What Is This Plan? And Who is Its Master?

As we detailed in a previous post, three distinct views on the Lakefront/Downtown Development Plan emerged during the first Council meeting devoted exclusively to that topic. At the Ramada Inn, the majority of speakers indicated general support for most elements of the plan. The major exception was the now infamous “Building #12.”

Since that time, Augustine held a ward meeting to further explore the plan and to seek input on amendments that she would offer to the proposed document. It took us by surprise to hear Rob Gladden, Executive Director of the Geneva Area Chamber of Commerce, say that “no one wants Building #12” and that Bergmann Associates, the consultants who drew up the plan, “did the City a real disservice” by including that building.

While we agree with Gladden’s statement at the ward meeting, it seemed to directly contradict his, and the Chamber Board members’ statements at the earlier meeting at the Ramada. As you might recall, it was the Chamber of Commerce that was most adamant that the plan be approved “as is” and that the City seize on the opportunity to commence the work on Building 12, using the state money delivered by Senator Nozzolio.

Just prior to that meeting, the Chamber put out a newsletter in which it called opponents of Building 12 people who didn’t care about job creation or taxes or progress. In other words, in the Chamber’s eyes, anyone who opposed Building 12, was anti-Geneva, anti-Nozzolio, and anti “free money”. (Though we don’t agree that state money is ‘free money’...just look at the State’s debt and its impact on the economy to see the price we pay, not just in taxes, but in long term service cuts to pay for some of these member items),

With Gladden’s, and presumably his board’s, change of heart on Building 12, the City Council took up the issue of amending the plan at its November 12th work session. At the start of the meeting, City Manager Horn distributed a series of staff amendments to the plan, for Council consideration. The amendments were primarily aimed at setting additional parameters for development on the East Castle Street parcel adjacent to the Ramada. Rather than striking "Building 12” altogether, the document proposed a five point test for any building that might go on that site.

The five elements were: 1. Positive contribution to downtown’s economic viability; 2. Rigorous architectual review to ensure that any building is complementary to the existing downtown architecture; 3. A purpose (use) that is distinct from, yet complementary to, downtown. (This was later amended to read “excluding residential uses”); 4. A project that had few negative environmental impacts, if any, with a preference for projects that use sustainable building practices, such as LEED certification; and 5. A priority consideration on projects that dedicate additional space (above and beyond the required 40 ft. waterfront right-of-way) for public use and have plans to maintain and enhance that public space.

We believe that these principles are sound and should guide the review of all development projects in and around the downtown area (with the exception of #5 that is applicable only on the East side of Rtes. 5 &20). However, there are two issues that need to be resolved.

First, the amendment, in current form is more of a guiding document for the issuance of RFP’s and/or review of development proposals than a master plan document. Here’s why: by Horn’s own description, a master plan is supposed to be a broad vision statement. And that’s where we believe much of the consternation about the Bergmann plan is coming into play.

In their totality, the 28 oversized pages of the plan, as presented, contain much more than just a master plan. They contain a community narrative portion (pages 1-6) and an individual project justification component (pages 12-27). Although the former (narrative) component is fairly straightforward, the latter element provides a level of detail that subjects itself to unnecessary scrutiny. To put it another way, one part of the plan says “some elements must wait” and another part of the plan says “here’s how you proceed with each element.” It’s an inherent contradiction.

The picture, the grand sketch of possible projects, supports a community focus on the second part of the plan while ignoring the critical work of the “Policy and Action Items” section (pages 7-11). But, in reality, it is the text of pages 7-11 that should be most appropriately considered as an amendment to the city’s existing master plan document.

We encourage readers to download the plan from the city’s website or peruse the copy on hand at the Geneva Public Library, and read this section. As a broad overview, the plan provides the following four Policy Areas:

1. Downtown Revitalization. This includes improving coordination between the City and BID, enhancing the local and regional image of downtown Geneva, continuing to improve the physical appearance of downtown, efforts to increase pedestrians, and capitalizing on Geneva’s location within the Finger Lakes region.
2. Connect Downtown and the Lakefront. The three objectives here are to mitigate the impact of traffic on 5&20, enhance visual connection between downtown and the lakefront, and physically connect the downtown and lakefront areas.
3. Waterfront Programming. This includes improving water-dependent and water-enhanced uses, enhancing pedestrian connectivity, making the waterfront a destination, and capital improvements to enhance the user experience of the lakefront.
4. Recreation and Open Space. This focuses on improving the experience in downtown and the lakefront, creating a cohesive system of public and recreational space, and encouraging year-round use of public spaces.

These policy areas are, on their face, relatively non-controversial. They seem to most like common sense suggestions. And, as they say, “the devil is in the details” so reviewing each action item beneath those priority areas, we find only three references to actions that would lead to a building like “Building #12”.

First, Policy Area 1, Action Item A-2 states “explore the feasibility and programming of an Ecological Interpretive Center within the Visitor’s Center along the lakefront.” This does not mean to pursue a center within the current Chamber of Commerce building. Instead, the plan assumes that a new Visitor’s Center, on the lakefront, made possible by the Nozzolio earmark is a foregone conclusion. We believe that item should be revised to read “explore the feasibility, programming, and location of an Ecological Interpretive Center on or near the lakefront.”

Next, is Policy Area 2, Action Item C-1, which reads “promote development in key locations along East Castle Street that would provide the continuation of downtown’s urban form into the lakefront zone and provide strong linkages between downtown and the lakefront.” A proposal is currently on the table to tack on “except residential development” to the end, but we actually believe that the statement should be rewritten to read “pursue only those development opportunities along East Castle Street that conform to the standards laid out in the attached RFP guidelines” (that would be the document we previously referenced).

Last, is Policy Area 3, Action Item C-4, which reads “create a taskforce on the programmatic elements of a Visitor’s and/or Interpretive Center adjacent to the lakefront that will draw visitors into Geneva and provide information to enhance their experience while in the area.” We believe that should be rewritten to read, “create a taskforce on the programmatic elements and best location of a Visitor’s Center and/or Interpretve Center that will draw visitors into Geneva and provide information to enhance their experience while in the area.”

We would also suggest the addition of two action items:

First, to Policy Area 1, we would add (consistent with our previous posts and the comments of Councilor Cosentino) “Pursue funding opportunities and collaborative efforts to improve upper-floor access to downtown buildings, including elevators.”

Second, to Policy Area 2 (and 4) we would add, “Sponsor design competitions, on a national scale, to bring significant public art pieces to focal points within the downtown and along the lakefront.” This has been mentioned at several meetings and meets several of the stated objectives.

With these changes, Council would effectively regain control of this process, which means that the final document would achieve its dual purpose of solidifying a public vision for downtown and the lakefront and also communicate to the development community what standards and opportunities they can expect in doing business with the City.

Bloggers' Friday Morning Radio Appearance

Tune in to our Friday morning radio interview, live with Ted Baker on the Finger Lakes Morning News.

Friday, November 21st
8:35am
1240AM WGVA

As always, our past radio appearances are available in the NoStringsGeneva Radio Archive.

Obama is not Masked: He is the Mask

Since Election Day, the nation has been absorbed with two concerns: first, reaction to the election of Barack Obama, and then, speculation on how he will govern. Now that reality has set in, everyone is trying to figure out if the man who was elected by the people is the same man who will govern the country. In other words, was Obama for real, or was he wearing a mask? Obama was real enough, but he may have been the mask others were wearing.

Everyone agrees Obama’s election was historic. It goes without saying that the election of the first African-American president would be an important event in history. But, while Obama’s African-American identity was a component of public discourse about the campaign during the campaign, particularly in reference to voter demographics and opinion poll results, race and civil rights were not per se platform issues of the campaign.  

The media, though, used those issues to frame most of their depictions of a jubilant electorate in morning after coverage. Obama’s win was a triumph of civil rights, they suggested, by their collective choices of coverage, more so than a triumph of a skilled, charismatic black man who was right on the economy, the war, and health care.  

It’s almost as if McCain himself had set the stage with his election night concession speech: “This is an historic election, and I recognize the special significance it has for African-Americans and for the special pride that must be theirs tonight,” he told his supporters. True, Obama’s election was a milestone for African-Americans, but it was also a benchmark for all Americans and for our democracy. Even First Lady Laura Bush could express pride in the presence of a black man in the White House.  

In short, mixed race election night crowds in Chicago’s Grant Park and predominantly black gatherings on the streets of Harlem outside the Apollo Theater together tell the American tale of Obama’s victory.  

At this juncture, insights about how Obama will govern have been divined from his personnel decisions. Let’s take a look. His campaign was run by chief campaign strategist David Axelrod and national campaign manager David Plouffe. They’ll follow Obama into the White House as political advisors.
Other campaign staffers were drawn from Obama’s own 2004 Senate campaign, and from the ranks of those with close ties to former Democratic leaders Gephardt, Daschel, and Gore, and former Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry. 

Heading Obama’s transition team is John Podesta, who was President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff from 1998 to 2001, and who, in the final hours of Clinton’s presidency, worked with him on a series of controversial pardons. Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-5th district) will be Obama’s White House chief of staff. Emanuel is a product of Chicago’s Democratic machine, and a close friend of Axelrod. Known for playing hard ball, and getting things done, he was senior political adviser to Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1998.

As of this post, Hillary Clinton is under consideration for Secretary of State, as is Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico. Hillary is an interesting case study in opposition. She was the front runner, presumptive, even inevitable, Democratic nominee from the get-go. Her campaign was run by a number of seasoned Clintonian operatives from the 1990s and a group of women from Hillaryland, the designation for her domain as First Lady. Patti Solis Doyle, and then Maggie Williams, was her campaign manager. Mark Penn was her political strategist. Harold Ickes was senior advisor and her “Karl Rove.”

According to Joshua Green in The Atlantic, the front runner failed to achieve the nomination because of her failure at decision making and executive functioning, which were, ironically, the strengths touted in her campaign. It appears that her staff was busy fighting with each other, presumably because they thought victory was inevitable, and their main concern was not winning the nomination but being in line for rewards.  

It appears that Obama’s winning team chose him as much as he chose them. Somehow, aggressive guys who had worked fro Bill Clinton, like Axelrod and Emanuel, aligned themselves with Obama and not Hillary, the other Clinton. Perhaps they saw in Obama the authentic, human face of change-- hope and change—and put it on themselves, as their mask. Obama became the go between, between the American electorate and a re-constituted, powerful Democratic machine, an alternative to both the Clintons and to the Republicans.

Anonymous Comment Challenges Readers and Bloggers

We are posting the following comment without attribution. As our editorial policy states, "comments must be signed in order to be posted. In rare instances, we will post an anonymous response if the author provides us with a compelling reason not to be identified." The author of the comment has identified him/herself to us and has provided reasonable grounds for an anonymous posting.

Here is the comment:

1. It feels like the city's residents think of themselves as second class citizens. Is this the case? Why might this be?
2. Few people in the city seem to take care of their property. Even in upscale areas like along Oak Or Maxwell, the homes are tired, not recently painted. What's that about?
3. How come you guys keep building drug stores? Another [Rite Aid]? What's up with that?

Click the 'responses' tab below to leave your answers.

Obama, McCain, Self Control and Political Success

Professional golfers know the hazards of losing self control. It can cost them millions in earnings. It’s clear, “managing your emotions” is key for success. Politicians, too, know what can go wrong when they give in to temptation, or otherwise let their guard down. President Bill Clinton was impeached in the aftermath of a reckless affair with a White House intern. New York Governor Elliot Spitzer resigned following the disclosure that he cavorted with a prostitute, and John Edwards betrayed his ethics and his wife when he hooked up with a videographer he met in some bar on the campaign trail.
As this year’s presidential race comes to a close, regardless of the outcome, Obama will be credited with running a virtually flawless campaign, from organization on the ground and fund raising, to message and delivery in every theater. McCain did not fare so well. Though he takes pride as an alleged maverick and underdog, and in his ability to rebound, most of his setbacks have been of his own making. He has come to be seen as impatient, impulsive, and impetuous. The pundits are now saying Obama was disciplined-- right through the final hours of the campaign, while McCain floundered.

For all his intellect, oratory, and empathy, and however much he was advantaged by the disastrous approval ratings of President Bush and the melt down of the economy, what would win the race for Obama was his self control. He’s made a few gaffs-- a stray line in Pennsylvania about folks “clinging to religion and guns” in the face of adversity, and an off-the-cuff remark on a rope line to Joe the Plumber about “spreading wealth;” but, for the most part, what came out, and came across, was what he intended. He was in control.

McCain, on the other hand, fumbled on a regular basis. Prior to the campaign, he had a reputation in the Senate as a hot head in need of anger management counseling. His choice of a running mate— both how he made the decision and its substance—was a leap of faith. Sure, he was looking for a woman and for someone who could shore up the conservative base, but this particular, unvetted conservative woman can only be seen as the rash choice of, as one columnist concluded, a smitten man. Then there was his frenetic response to the financial bail-out crisis: suspending his campaign, but doing little leg work in the capital to resolve things; pulling a no show with David Letterman. During the TV debates, his body language, his grimacing and wandering around stage, and his hostile and condescending phraseology put him in a bad light.

How do we account for these differences? Sociologist Richard Majors, in Cool Pose, discusses the dilemma faced by black men coping with racism: if they are complicit in the dominant culture, they are marginalized; but, if they are defiant, they, too, are marginalized. Cool pose is a defiant posture, which, seeks some sort of control in the face of oppression. At its functional best, it does give some control, but, on balance, it is mostly dysfunctional.
In the twists and turns of his life course, Obama found a cool pose of his own-- not overly complicit and not too defiant-- and that was through self control. It appears that when he enrolled in Columbia University, and withdrew deeply into his studies, his activism was intellectualized and his personal and political anger was tempered by self control, the foundations of his political success were being built.

McCain, on the other hand, raised in a hegemonic family of military elites and long tenured in the clubby U.S. Senate, never learned self control. Whether it was a deeply troubled relationship with his father or his terrible abuse as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, his anger seems to have been unresolved, and a insurmountable obstacle to his own self control. He was able to get away with it for a long time, until the tenacious, relentless, and unforgiving lens that is a presidential campaign captured him too many times out of control.

Ironically, something of the same was true for Obama’s own running mate, Joe Biden. Biden failed in the Democratic presidential primary race, in part, because of a comment he had made about Obama as discussed here:

"Joe Biden is set to launch his second run for the presidency today but it will likely be overshadowed by some candid comments made in an interview with Jason Horowitz of the New York Observer.

Most noteworthy is what he says about Barack Obama: 'I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.'

Not surprisingly, Matt Drudge is all over it."

Ironically, it was Obama’s self control that Biden was inadvertently caricaturing which brought about the success which brought Biden back into the race.

Surely this, and other issues will factor into our decision as we 'pull the lever' tomorrow, Election Day.  Remember to cast your ballot, and to know your voter rights before you even step foot into the booth.  

Congratulations to the Philadelphia Phillies, the 2008 World Champions of baseball.

Special Congratulations to Jamie Moyer, Phillies starting pitcher for Game 3, last Saturday!

Moyer, age 45, got his start in professional baseball with the Geneva Cubs in McDonough Park back in 1984. Not to be outdone by the Phillies, Tampa Bay Bench Coach, Dave Martinez, was a member of the 1983 Geneva Cubs.

Long live baseball in Geneva, and a special shout out to Johnny-O, Geneva's Mr. Baseball who was on board then and now!

Q: "Why the 'Incessant' Focus on Taxes?"A: Because Taxes are the Best Indicator of how Government Is, or Is Not, Working

In response to a recent post, we received a fair question from one of our readers: "Why the incessant focus on taxes, as if the only issue is that "they are too high," and, thus, by inference, "if they were lower, all would be better in the City of Geneva?"

In most cases we respond to comments in kind, meaning that we post a response comment that gets tucked below the initial question underneath the initial post. Sometimes, if people aren't looking specifically for the comments, they get a bit lost in the shuffle. But this question brought us right to the heart of the blog and our mission. As we discussed our response, we realized that the answer to his/her question merited a free-standing, full post.

Let us launch into this post with an acknowledgement that our commentator is right. We do obsess about taxes. Here’s why. For us, our blog is essentially about accountability, whether it pertains literally to government spending and taxing, or, more generally, to government’s fidelity to the democratic process, fairness, objectivity, professionalism, etc.: whatever the appropriate criteria and context for a particular action. We believe the essence of accountability is responsibility for one’s actions, which means being able to justify them to the satisfaction of various constituencies.

That means we end often end up following the money. After all, the law allows government to tax us, and we are obligated to pay, or risk loss of property or incarceration. So, we expect that taxation and corresponding spending will be appropriate, serving the best interest of the community, and not slanted toward personal profit of any individual or group, for example.

Our outrageously high city property tax rate, among the highest in the United States makes the issue more pressing. Under these conditions, who can afford a tax increase? Even if new tax revenue were to be well spent, if folks cannot afford it, it's no bargain.  The only people we know who seem not to complain about taxes are tax-and-spenders who think government spending is inherently good and who can usually, themselves, comfortably afford it.

Now, let's take a look at the two parts of the question, in reverse order. First, we're not saying that lower taxes would make everything better. As you know, taxes are a function of both the tax rate and property assessments. So, even if the rate stayed the same, a severe drop in assessed value would mean that taxes would be lower. That would not be a good situation; hopefully, there's unanimous agreement on that.

So when we say we want taxes to be lower, we are speaking of the rate. And there are a couple of ways that could happen, either through reduced spending (so the tax levy, the amount to be raised, is lower) or through increased property assessments, or through increased revenue from non-property tax sources, or some combination of those.

That situation, a reduced tax rate, gets to the heart of the first point of your comment. We focus on the tax issue because it's the best indicator, in our view, of how local government is, or is not, working. It is a part of a larger whole.

We maintain that the City of Geneva's taxes have been too high because they do not represent the best possible value for the tax dollars paid. We've observed so much waste, inefficiency, and free spending in government that we feel the only way to reign it all in is to slow down the intake.

In addition to wasteful spending, there has been an over-reliance on increased assessments that are based on blips in market value, not actual neighborhood improvements. There has been a lack of creativity in pursuing alternate sources of revenue, shared services, and efficiency. Remember when the City told the Attorney General's Office that purchasing a used bucket truck from a Councilor was a 'good deal' for taxpayers, because it saved at least $200 each to change light bulbs in some City locations? $200 to change a light bulb? By the way, we also question whether the truck was really acquired for that purpose and how frequently it’s used in that way.

We are also concerned about property values and marketability of property in the City. High taxes are a significant factor in depressed property values in the City, which have increased only about 1% a year for the past ten years. That means if you bought a house ten years ago, it is likely only worth about 10% more now; that's well below inflation, and doesn't take into account the national home mortgage crisis.

Another impact of high taxes is in the area of economic development. Private citizens and businesses seem to prefer to buy in the town, where quality of life approximates that of the City—because we are essentially one community—but taxes are much lower. Consequently, increases in population and economic growth have hit the town, to the detriment of the City, all because taxes are lower in the town.

That is why we offered guarded praise to the City Manager and Council for this year's budget. Not simply because the tax rate stayed the same, but for the first time in our collective memory, the Council and Manager developed a set of priorities that take the financial challenges seriously and get the city poised for new and improved operations--putting money into programs that work and avoiding, whenever possible, taking on more crippling debt, focusing on programs that help taxpayers and their neighborhoods instead of handing out tax breaks to benefit a small group of investors, making open and well-considered decisions instead of back room deals for the good ol’ boys.

So, it's not that we think that lowering taxes will make everything better. Instead, we believe that we will see lower taxes when everything in Geneva is done in a better way.

Just so we end on a consistent note—namely, more worries about taxes—we’ll close with concern over the economic picture, and its possible long term impact on City taxpayers. The downturn of the national, state and local economy is sure to have consequences.  Sales tax revenue will go down. While state officials have pledged not to touch state aid to cities, that is not guaranteed. If the market downturn persists, in a year or two, City tax payers could get hit with an increase in what the City must pay into the state pension fund to make up for investment losses or decreases in earnings. So we recognize that the City must operate within constraints, but a public understanding of those constraints and some consensus-building around priorities is, in our view, a sound approach.

Accountability 101, Part 4: A Clean Process is the First Step Towards a 'Clean Site'

During our October 17th radio appearance, WGVA morning host Ted Baker presented us with a riddle: “How many Councils does it take to tear down an old gas station?” You can hear how we answered by clicking on this radio archive link; essentially, we said it only takes one Council acting in good faith, in the public eye, and with adequate funding to implement its decision, no matter which way it were to come down on the issue.

The City has itself to blame for the mess. As we’ve explained here, in a series of posts on the topic over several months the “quagmire” the current Council finds itself in is a function of three things:

1. Making a back room deal with a developer;
2. Acquiring property without adequate public disclosure; and
3. Trying to create a process that fits a predetermined outcome.

Council acquired the building willfully-- through an active petition, not merely through tax default action, as many still wrongly believe-- to make good on a back room deal. The old gas station had been sitting there for years, unused and with taxes unpaid, but a federal income tax lien in the property allowed the City to avoid taking possession of it and incurring responsibility for environmental clean up.

It was one of those buildings which brought passerbys to say, “I wish they’d do something with that before it’s too late,” but the federal government had more pressing matters and just let the building languish.

Then, sometime around 2002, a budding arts development group (the Geneva Arts Development Council) decided that the building would be a great ticket area and lobby for the imagined performing arts center they contemplated building on the land between 305 Main Street and the Smith Opera House.

A series of small group meetings with various local leaders-- including Chris Iversen, Carl Fribolin, Alaine Espenscheid, Rich Rising, Clark Cannon, and Bob Schick—took place to discuss acquisition of the vacant building. The arts group had limited resources and didn’t want to spend money paying off all of the liens on the property. They wanted to save their money for the renovation of the property. So, they asked the City to petition the federal government to discharge the liens and allow the City to retake the property based on its very delinquent property taxes.

At the time, the City Manager told Council about a report from Fire Chief Ralph DeBolt stating that the underground storage tanks on the site had been removed and/or filled in. City Manager Rich Rising also said that the Director of Public Works, Gordy Eddington, had gotten some ‘preliminary estimates’ on the site cleanup and, therefore, Council was told by Rising, any environmental liability on the site was “very small.” It was so small, he said, that the arts group would provide the City up to $50,000, which conceivably would more than cover the City’s clean up expense-- as long as the City conveyed the building and the clean land around it, to the arts group for $1.

However, consultants hired by the arts group to do a feasibilty study for the performing arts facility concluded that the facility wouldn’t be viable (you can read their report here) and would actually drain resources from the existing Smith Opera House, putting that landmark building in jeopardy. Unfortunately, Council did not heed this warning and directed City Attorney Clark Cannon to pursue taking ownership of the property.

There were several other development proposals from the arts group in that time period, but all involved the reuse of the existing building. When Capraro re-joined City Council in late 2006, Rising conducted the new Council ‘orientation’ session, stating that the Council policy on 305 Main Street was the see the existing building stabilized and reused, given its prominent placement on Geneva’s Main Street.

But then the development deal fell through, the Council realized the mess (literally) it had gotten City taxpayers into, and instead of admitting its error and trying to make it right,Rising led the Council majority down the path towards demolition, trying to ‘make the facts fit the theory.’

So why wasn’t the building immediately demolished? Because the City Council got sticker shock from the cost to demolish the building. The cost to demolish was, in fact, much higher than the initial estimates to clean up the site with the building in place. So Rising encouraged the City Council to apply for grants from the EPA and the DEC for site cleanup that included demolition. But, those agencies are giving out your taxpayer dollars, and they want some assurance that the projects are being done in the most responsible way possible.

The City was awarded both grants, pending completion of this review. The City has not yet accepted the DEC money, but it has started working with the EPA. As our previous post indicated, the EPA is not content with the information provided regarding demolition.  To say it another way, a federal agency has deemed that the information that Council based its demolition decision on is actually not a compelling case for demolition. The EPA wants the City to demonstrate that it has seriously developed and discussed alternatives to demolition.

So, unless the City wants to reject a federal EPA grant and leave City taxpayers on the hook for the environmental cleanup, it has to follow the EPA’s requirement that it explore all options related to cleaning up the soil without demolishing the building.

After voting for a $16+ million spending plan for the 2009 budget, they proceeded to argue for about an hour about spending $2,400 on the ‘alternatives assessment’ that’s needed for the EPA. But what was there to argue about? A private (as in non-tax-payer) agency provided all but $4,400 of the study’s cost through a grant that the City Council agreed they should apply for. The Landmark Society of Rochester (again, a non-taxpayer-funded agency) kicked in another $2,000, leaving a gap of $2,400. As we wrote about earlier, this study is part of the process to draw down the $250,000 EPA cleanup grant. But instead of just saying “okay, $2,400 investment for $250,000 in grant funds seems to make sense,” the Council majority refused to pony up the money. Never fear, the Geneva Historical Society came to the rescue, agreeing to pay the $2,400 balance if the City refused.

So, you might ask yourself, “If there was a gap, and the gap was covered by the Historical Society, what else was there to argue about for an hour?” Well, it seems that some Councilors are still uncomfortable with the idea that there might actually be an option to remediate the soil that doesn’t involve demolition. But why? Why are some people so stuck on demolishing that building when there’s no plan for reusing the site and everyone agrees that it will not be an attractive site for developers given the size and grade of the land?

Imagine, in an ideal world, a Council that said “here we are, we’re a new group, and we find ourselves with this piece of land with a troubled history. Let’s put aside the baggage of the past and just look at the situation with a fresh set of eyes.” What do you think a responsible group of public-policy-makers should do in that situation? Would you think it was reasonable for them to say “let’s look at the options, look at the funding sources for each option, look at the return on investment for each option (with regard to property tax, impact on Main Street, etc.) and then have an open, public discussion to select the best course of action?” Or, would you prefer that the group say, “you know, that building’s not our problem. The previous group wanted it down and we’re just going to charge ahead in fulfilling their wish.”

Why must Geneva’s residents, under a new Council, be forced to suffer the tax implications of the mistaken decisions of the prior Council?

Praise and Blame: The Bloggers' Perspective

Our Friday morning radio appearance with WGVA’s Ted Baker covered a lot of ground. We led off with discussion of the 2009 City Budget which was carried by Council with no tax increase. This year’s budget is a legitimate “0%” tax increase budget. People’s taxes are not going up. Contrast this with the 2008, which saw no increase in the tax rate, but an over 7% increase in property assessments, resulting in most Genevans paying at least 7% more property tax. That budget (which Capraro and Augustine voted against) brought unwarranted praise for Council.

Capraro went on to extend guarded praise for the new City Manager, Matt Horn, who, in contrast to his predecessor, created a transparent budget process that insisted Council articulate its priorities and responded with a responsible spending plan that tracked with those priorities--without raising taxes!

Of course, in the context of a declining economy, Capraro said he is "not optimistic" that revenue projections--particularly sales tax and state aid--will be as high as anticipated and again stressed the need to look at budgeting solutions other than future property tax increases, such as shared services and alternative sources of revenue.

We were then given a riddle, "How many councils does it take to tear down an old gas station?" We'll answer this more fully in a future post, but the short answer is: It only takes one Council acting in good faith, in the public eye, and with adequate funding to implement its decision, either way.

Ted then asked us about the lakefront plan, as proposed. While it is absolutely clear that the community has reject Building 12, the most important point is that Council needs get the process gets back on track with regard to weighing community values against special interests. We indicated a way that Council could discuss and act on the plan in a responsible, praise-worthy fashion instead of bringing upon themselves the blame of the community for letting outside forces unduly alter the outcome.

Listen to this, and our former radio appearances by visiting the NoStringsGeneva Radio Archive.

Can City Council Hold the Line on Property Taxes?

In our previous two posts about the 2009 budget process, ("Council Visioning" and "Budgeting Around Priorities") we indicated that if the new City Manager followed the priorities that Council set, we expected a 0% tax increase. And that’s 0% talking both about the tax rate and the rate of reassessment, not the kind of “back door tax increase” that one of our readers called last year’s political stunt (you can read the comment here).

Truth be told, we weren’t sure it would happen. In years past, just when it looked clear what the next logical, reasonable step would be, we’d end up unpleasantly surprised by some new kink in the works. So, we had to look twice when the budget proposal was released. You can read it for yourself here.

This year the only assessment increases come from individual properties that have undertaken significant improvements. The total increase to the assessment rolls was less than 1/2 of 1 percent. In municipal finance terms that means that, if the tax rate stays the same, people’s tax bills stay the same. It’s called ‘holding the line’ on taxes. This fact sheet put out by the NYS Office of Real Property Services provides some more explanation of how your property taxes are calculated.

The 2009 City budget proposal, as put forward by City Manager Horn, does not call for an increase in the tax rate. No assessment increase + No rate increase = No tax increase. Really. No doublespeak like last year’s “no tax increase” budget, no “back door increase”, just a stable balanced budget.

How was it done? The major change appears to be a restructuring of retiree health benefits. Currently the City pays 100% of the premiums for a health insurance product that provides rather limited coverage. The upside of the current plan seems to be its prescription drug benefit. However, there exists a better plan that covers more diagnostic services and specialist appointments as well as better hospitalization and supplement benefits like vision, but has a more costly prescription co-pay schedule. That makes the premium the City pays significantly lower. Staff could have made the argument that changing plans but continuing to pay 100% of the premiums was a good deal for retirees and a good deal for taxpayers. But staff understood the importance of that prescription drug benefit to the retirees and wanted to share some of the City’s cost savings in a way that was sensitive to those concerns. Therefore, in addition to paying 100% of the health care premiums, the new proposal is that each retiree receives an annual health saving account of $750. This should cover the difference between the current prescription copays and the new plan. Let’s take an example of a retiree who needs 6 prescriptions per month. The current health insurance plan has a flat $2/month co-pay. So that retiree currently pays $12/month out of pocket, or $144 annually. The new plan uses a three tier system with the most expensive class of drugs carrying a $40 co-pay. But the new plan also allows prescriptions to be filled with a 90 day supply rather than 30 days. So let’s assume that our hypothetical retiree’s prescriptions are mostly expensive, name brand drugs at the top end of the tier. That means total co-pays of about $185 every three months, or $740 annually. With the $750 HSA, this retiree not only has all of his/her prescriptions covered (saving the $144 out of pocket currently paid) but also has $10 to spend on things like gym memberships or other health related items. A side-by-side comparison of the two plans appears on pages 14-15 of the budget message.

The budget also brings the police department to full strength but postpones the hiring of that community aide position that was a last-minute addition to the 2008 budget. The restructuring of the City Attorney position also yields a cost savings as Council agreed to eliminate the full time secretary position and the benefits associated with that.

But the 2009 budget isn’t all about cuts, it’s about priorities. Like we said in a previous post, the first priority Council established at its worksession was increasing value for the tax dollar. Keeping taxes stable and maintaining the same level of service means that the value of the tax dollar doesn’t decrease, but it would take some additional initiatives to show an increase value. Enter “GenevaWorx.” This program, making its debut in the 2009 budget proposal is an effort to use the City’s GIS programs in a way that coordinates city efforts on yet another priority area: Improving Neighborhood Conditions. You know the expression, “the left hand doesn’t know what the right is doing?” Well, sometimes this describes the operations of city government. Code enforcement doesn’t always know that the property with multiple code violations also happens to be the one that is getting notices from the Comptroller’s office for tax delinquencies or the one the Police department has been called out to every Friday night. Having this information brought together in one system will allow staff, Council, and the public to diagnose and address conditions that threaten neighborhood health.

The one area in the budget that shows no change from 2008 is ‘outside agencies.’ But, if history is any guide, it is this segment of the budget that receives the most attention and is most likely to result in changes that potentially increase the tax rate. We’ll have more to say about that, about the appropriation of city tax dollars to community agencies, but for now we hope that City Council can take a look at their work, at the budget process, and commit to its logical outcome: Voting in favor of the 2009 no-tax-increase budget.

Lakefront Meeting Gives Voice to "Public Intelligence" on Lakefront

The regular business portion of the October 1st City Council meeting was eclipsed by a community-based talk-in on the Bergmann draft of the Downtown/Lakefront Plan, facilitated by City Manager Matt Horn. Talk about civic engagement, the banquet room at the Ramada was filled to capacity with interested citizens there to speak and/or to listen.

It was not the typical ‘public comment’ format of Council meetings, where people approach Council, like an attorney approaching the bench, and state their case, with a belated reply from this or that Councilor, later in the meeting, after folks had gone home.

Instead, the Bergmann proposal was divided into six main components, and each component was given its own place on the agenda. Members of the public could speak about that aspect of the project, Councilors could share their views and reactions to what was said, and then everyone would move on to the next component. In the interest of time, speakers were asked not to re-state a position that had already been articulated. The idea was to solicit what Ken Camera calls “public intelligence,” signaling that from the public many intelligent ideas can be found.

Unfortunately, meeting planners did not foresee the time the process would take and discussion of the project’s “Building 12” component went on toward midnight and Council reaction was tabled for another day. Following the logic of the project, the placement of Building 12 on the agenda made sense; but, in hindsight, it’s clear Building 12 merits its own meeting.

When it came to discussing Building 12-- the condo/visitor’s center/interpretive center/parking garage/retail/commercial/catch all building on the lakefront-- not everyone followed the rules, and something of an auditory illusion was created. Those expressing opposition to Building 12 limited their comments to new ideas that hadn’t been previously expressed, while the Chamber of Commerce, the entity that would have its offices in the new building and would staff the visitor’s center component, took multiple turns at the microphone expressing the same point: Build It Now!

According to the Finger Lakes Times (in their editorial opinion piece of October 3rd), this meant that just as many people supported the building as opposed it. Not so (on the numbers), and not so simple (on the reasons)!

From the discussion, three points of view emerged. Here is our attempt to explain and assess them. First, our description of each:

Don’t Build It, or Anything, on the Lakefront: The argument here is that the lakefront is a public asset because it is public. That doing things to enhance the public access to the lake, like a low-impact marina (no repair or gasoline functions), a beach, improved seating areas and walking paths, public art and family-friendly spaces will attract tourists and residents alike and continue to draw people to Geneva who then spend their time and money in our community.

Build Something Limited, but Dynamic: The argument here is that putting a major facility, like the ‘interpretive center’ or museum on the lakefront near the Ramada would, in addition to the public additions named above, be something that could catalyze downtown by providing the kind of dynamic link that would get people moving back and forth across Rtes. 5&20. Within this view, there are some people who think condominiums might be some part of this, and others who favor a standalone facility. But the reason offered in favor of condos. is usually just to offset the operating costs of the public facility and it’s not clear that such a subsidy would be necessary, or if it is necessary, that it would have to come from property taxes, so condos. shouldn’t be seen as the main point of agreement amongst people who fall into this category.

Start Building #12 Now, Before It’s Too Late: The argument here is that we have $5 million in State money that needs to be used now. We also have a visitor’s center that needs to be relocated (because it seems there is unanimous consent in the community that the Chamber no longer belongs in its current city-owned location). Apparently there is some thought that the visitor’s center must be on the lakefront, along with the Chamber of Commerce offices. Because none of these uses are money-makers, we need some commercial and residential space to carry the costs. This option might best be called “Status-Quo-Plus.” It’s status quo because Geneva would still have a building on the lakefront housing the Chamber of Commerce, but it’s ‘plus’ because it that building would be larger and more obtrusive, but it’s status quo because any tax revenue gains would go back into supporting the increased cost of operations,

From this discussion, it was easy to see why Councilor Lou Cosentino was met with such contempt when he tried to start the discussion with a show of hands for people who were “pro-development” vs. people who were “anti-development.” Despite the Chamber of Commerce’s attempts (via its pre-meeting newsletter and some statements from its leadership) to characterize the discussion in this way, it’s just not that simple.

Lucky for Geneva, the attendance at the meeting was high, and the audience seemed willing to engage in a thoughtful consideration of the complexities of the various plan components. Now the City waits to see how the Council adjusts the plan to reflect those realities. We’ll have more to say on the matter, but first, we encourage your feedback on whether our reconstruction of the arguments adequately and accurately captures what you are hearing out there.

Marketing Geneva: We Have What Others Want

Sometimes it’s easy to fall into a ‘woe is Geneva’ frame of mind. Yes, our taxes are high but so is our quality of life, depending on what you’re looking for. Different populations want different things from their communities. We addressed an earlier post “ReThinking City Living” to the needs of young families and did a post on the benefits of downtown living for those seeking a more urban cultural experience [link to ‘downtown’ post]. There’s another group that gets a lot of media attention nationally, but not much attention locally and that’s the ‘baby boomers.’ Each year, Money Magazine issues a report on the “Best Places to Retire.”

The most recent list is prefaced with the following:
“Many baby boomers dream of retiring somewhere by the water. These half-dozen places are on a lake, a river or an ocean - yet won't sink your retirement budget.”

In addition to affordable housing stock, these retirement recommendations also focus on communities with “top-notch health care, loads of culture, lots of green space.” Although Rochester, NY and several downstate communities made the list in 2006, we didn’t find any cities in New York State on the list for 2008. It is worth noting that this is Money Magazine, so when they’re picking a handful of communities to feature they’re likely to go for places with lower taxes, but even when that’s factored into things, we believe that Geneva meets all of the magazine’s criteria as one of the best, and here’s why:

1. You can by more house for less money in Geneva than in most of the places featured.
2. Geneva has its own hospital, with a cardiac practice affiliated with Rochester General Hospital, and is within an easy drive to several highly ranked facilities for various specialties.
3. There are an abundance of golf courses, public tennis courts, and other recreational opportunities.
4. The lakefront is open, accessible and quite active.
5. The Smith Opera House and the local groups affiliated with the performing arts and the Colleges bring a variety of cultural offerings into the community; additional events from festivals to Broadway shows are available year round within a short driving distance.
6. Visiting grandchildren would have lots of things to see and do.
7. The community is ethnically and racially diverse, including the influx of people affiliated with the Colleges, Hospital, and Experiment Station.
8. Downtown features retail, restaurants, and eclectic offerings such as a Natural Foods store, clothing, shoes, and jewelry.
9. The climate is temperate, yet allowing the full experience of all four seasons.
10. Natural beauty is all around, not just at the lakefront but the entire region.
11. Geneva sits at the natural center of a growing wine region providing social, educational, and other opportunities.

So, by most of Money magazine’s key measurements, Geneva is the ideal place for retirees to relocate. But there are a few things that Money is looking for that Geneva lacks. First and foremost is a stable economic environment as it relates to taxes. Based on the city manager’s initial budget proposal, we might be working towards improving that situation, but the tax rate is still a deterrent for many prospective residents. Second, we do not have a sufficient selection of downtown housing (not to be confused with the proposed lakefront ‘suburb’ of downtown). Baby boomers, the research shows, are drawn to housing in a “pedestrian-friendly town center.” They are also drawn to communities that have made a commitment to green and sustainable development practices, because that demostrates a commitment to health and longevity. For instance, Fort Collins, Colorado and the surrounding area gets a nod for its commitment to clean air. These are conditions and initiatives that Geneva can do immediately and successfully. Our downtown buildings and infrastructure are the raw materials we can cultivate.

Perhaps the real challenge Geneva faces in attracting the attention and investment of baby boomers is a matter of self-perception. We need to break of out of the “take whatever we can get” attitude and move towards a “deliver what we deserve” point of view.

Nozzolio (Rightly) Defers to Community-Based Planning Efforts in the City of Geneva

One unintended positive outcome of the City of Geneva’s downtown/lakefront planning process underway this year is that State Senator Mike Nozzolio is now leaving it up to local planners and the City Council to designate the location of a proposed visitors’ center. That’s as it should be.

Earlier this year, the Senator had secured from the New York legislature a series of earmarks for a number of what we felt were worthwhile projects for our community, announced as the “21st Century Geneva Initiative.” Back then, the Senator had announced the center would be on the lakefront, even though we were in the midst of a planning process involving two outside consultants, and that had not been decided. Nozzolio had set up a shadow committee and convened meetings to discuss the lakefront building's operations, even though City Council has never taken up the issue for discussion.

One consultant, Fairweather, placed the center on the lakefront into his feasibility report (concluding that the standalone facility was not feasible); and the other consulting firm, Bergmann, followed suit and incorporated it into their major planning document currently undergoing public scrutiny.

Then, as noted in a previous post, the Nozzolio website re-positioned the visitors center, changing its location from the lakefront to downtown. When or why that happened, we're not sure, but it is significant because the Fairweather and Bergmann documents—the central planning documents of the City— had given its location on the lakefront, and much of the plan for lakefront development, specifically "Building #12,” followed from that.

At last night’s City Council meeting, the Mayor announced that a phone conversation between him and Senator Nozzolio's staff had yielded yet another take on the plan-- the location for the visitors center was now unspecified. The center would be located, the public was told, where Council decided-- if, indeed, it were to become part of the plan. And, as reported by the local paper, Nozzolio's staff denied assertions by Chamber of Commerce leadership that the money would evaporate in short order.

To be absolutely clear about this issue, here’s what Nozzolio's website says, today, October 2, 2008:

"New Finger Lakes Visitor Center in Geneva

A new Finger Lakes Visitor Center located in Geneva will be a signature building for the Finger Lakes region that will serve as a destination for tourists and the Finger Lakes region. The Center will be interactive for visitors and will place an emphasis on the natural beauty of our area as well as the wineries in the region. The Geneva Chamber of Commerce will relocate to the new facility and will continue their work to promote tourism in the region. The Visitor Center will be state-of-the-art and will serve as a destination for all those seeking information on the many attractions of the Finger Lakes region.

The Finger Lakes Visitor Center will be modeled after the very successful New York Wine and Culinary Center in Canandaigua, which highlights the food and wines produced in New York State."

This speaks well for civic engagement and represents a vote of conficdence in community-based planning, now well under way in the City. Thank you, Senator Nozzolio, for listening to the voices of your constituents and responding to their needs.

Budgeting Around Priorities: Can the City Budget Work for City Residents?

Earlier this year, City Manager Matt Horn asked Council to establish a set of priorities for the City that he could draw on when drafting his proposed budget for 2009. “Value for the Tax Dollar” was on the list. If that means no tax increases without a corresponding increase in City services, we’re counting on a “0%” increase in taxes for next year. Especially because Horn has brought straight talk and real numbers to the City’s financial planning process.

In 2006, New York decided that municipalities receiving state aid should be required to submit a multi-year financial plan and keep closer tabs on economic conditions. We thought (and still think) that this is a common sense approach to municipal finance that enhances accountability in government.

In watching our multi year planning for the City of Geneva unfold, we worry the City is headed for a serious financial crisis. The 7%, on average, increase in property values last year put off the inevitable reckoning because tax payers and the local paper focused on the slight increase in the tax rate, and not the size of the check they had to write.

That allowed Council and the City administration to believe its own PR that it was somehow holding the line on taxes. Most people’s tax bills went way up and city spending continued to grow at a faster rate than revenue did. Tax and spend? Why it was tax, spend, and borrow some more. Payment will be due.

The City’s plan (which you can read here) assumes more increases in property values. Geneva, as much the result of the City Council’s own actions as state tax law, almost 60% of its property off of the tax rolls. Some of that includes the government-mandated exemptions for schools, hospitals, colleges, and churches, but there are also big ticket properties that have been granted exemptions such as Guardian Industries, the Ramada, the Hampton Inn, and the Finger Lakes Development Corporation’s Lyceum Street project. You can read more about this topic here.

The growth in assessment is in the remaining parcels--the ones that pay the local, county, and school property taxes. Remember, the tax bill you receive is a function of two things: the tax rate and your property assessment (see our previous post that describes this relationship in more detail).

So, when the City Council is looking at revenue projections for the City, they should be interested in both factors. Property assessments are largely driven by the real estate market. To put it simply: a stronger market means that homes sell for higher prices which means that the relative value of a street increases and home values are likely to go up; if the market takes a tumble and people are selling their homes for less, then the equity of surrounding properties can also take a hit.

Of course, other factors go into home values, and we believe that the City Council is correct in adopting ‘neighborhood improvement’ as a strategic priority because not only do city residents deserve quality neighborhoods, they also deserve to have their home values protected from sharp declines that can negatively impact their overall financial condition.

We’ve said that a multiyear plan is a good idea. But it must be a data-driven analysis. In preparation for the 2009 budget (which will be presented for public comment on October 8th) the new City Manager discussed the city’s current economic conditions at a Council worksession in August. Unlike past years when the City Manager seemed to pull numbers and projects out of thin air and Council had to specifically request documentation to support those numbers and projects, this time the presentation didn’t result in additional requests for information. Was it because Council was asleep at the wheel? No, It was because the Manager actually presented all of the data in raw form and then showed how his calculations and assumptions were drawn from there. In other words, he gave a thorough, transparent, and complete assessment.

The city’s taxable assessment did not grow the 2% projected last budget cycle. It grew less than 1%, in fact, less than .5%. The city’s health insurance liability is growing at a rate of over 17%. Fuel costs increased over 90%, salaries are predicted to rise over 4%, and debt service for all of those projects continues its steady upward climb (with over $1.8 million city dollars going towards debt in 2009).

All of those numbers are best described as a “gap.” It’s a gap between what we expect to receive as revenue and what we expect to spend, if we continue doing business the way it has always been done. Usually the ‘gap’ is filled by increasing taxes. Last year, the City got the increased tax revenue through rising assessments, but this year that won’t be an option. Because your tax bill is calculated by multiplying your assessment by the tax rate, if assessments stay the same, that means the rate must go up, right? But Council’s lead off worksession on the budget identified ‘increasing value for the tax dollar’ as a priority. If services stay the same but the tax rate goes up, the value for the tax dollar is actually declining. The city manager’s budget proposal should provide some solutions to this dilemma, but it’s ultimately up to City Council to break with the old pattern because we know that business as usual hasn’t worked.