What to do With County's Surplus?

Herkimer County is finding itself in an odd position this year having a budget surplus while the recession has taken its toll on government pocketbooks everywhere. The Evening Telegram is reporting that the County will have a $666,000 year end surplus due to the infusion of $1.9 Million in Stimulus Medicaid funding. This takes place even as every one of Herkimer County's revenue streams in down, including a $800,000 drop in sales tax revenue from last year. The article also says that this money will continue until 2012, leaving Herkimer County in a position to have a surplus for the next few years as they will be paying a lower share of Medicaid costs, something that the County has complained of having to pay for in the past. So now, thanks to the Stimulus, the buck has been passed onto the Federal Government to pay for Medicaid, leaving us with an extra $666,000 this year and possibly more in the years to come.

I have compiled a short list of things that the County could use the money for in order to get the most out of it, instead of handing everyone in the County a check for $10.24. This list is in no way exhaustive, but hopefully will get people thinking about creative ways to allow us to benefit from the Federal Government's decision to fund Medicaid. I'd also be curious as to what our readers think should be done with this money, so share your ideas with us. Here it goes:

1. Set up a pool of money to help fund Medicaid programs once the Stimulus money stops flowing in in 2012. This would guarantee our ability to pay for programs that we are mandated to pay for without raising taxes. Hopefully by that point in time the economy will have rebounded and we won't have to worry about budgeting shortfalls, but to play it safe we should be prepared. One of the main ways in which governments can ensure economic stability is by saving money during periods when they have lots of revenue, and then pumping it back into programs when times are tough. In our case this is reversed, but the same principal applies.

2. Put a down payment on the new jail. Everyone is complaining about how much it is going to cost to construct the new jail (about $30 million the last I checked), so why not get started on paying it off while we have the money without having to raise taxes. If we are lucky and can continue to have surpluses like this through 2012, then we could fund the first few years worth of payments on the facility without any extra tax payer involvement. We would also see an immediate decrease in the $1 million a year that we are spending boarding prisoners out, so we could put $1 million more towards the jail each year just due to the facility being constructed, meaning that we could be well ahead on our payments for the facility due to this good fortune.

3. Invest in energy efficiency measures for County facilities. Once again I am beating this horse to death, but by using this years surplus to conduct an energy audit of the County's facilities and begin implementing the solutions offered, we could lower the cost of government, thus lowering taxes in the long run. We could use surpluses in the next few years to continue with improvements and make this an ongoing project aimed at saving tax payer dollars in the long run.

4. Distribute it to the Towns in order to help them finish the projects that are on hold due to lower than expected sales tax revenue. The Telegram just ran an article outlining the Town of German Flatts' wish list for projects, so why not give them the means to do so. The Towns are already hurting from the lack of funds available to them this year as it is, so the surplus could be used to make up this gap.

5. Fund projects that have been started but never finished. One that jumps out at me is the paving of the Canal Trail from the German Flatts Town Park to MOVAC. This trail is used by a lot of people and has become a huge asset to our community, so why not finish paving it with this money.

6. Budget it into next years operating expenses to ease the pain of reductions that have been facing every governmental entity in the country. This would mean that the $666,000 would just be included in next years budget projections, thus the County would have a larger operating budget without having to raise taxes. This would give various county Agencies the money they need to operate at full capacity, and the County could even allow them to make bids for upgrades to equipment so that they could serve County residents even better in the future.

So these are just a few ideas that I have come up with for ways that this money could best be spent. Even though there may be some good investments that can be made, we need to see what exactly County leaders will decide to do with the money. In times of economic turmoil there will be a lot of negative sentiment towards a governmental entity having a surplus since the people have less, so it is going to take some real leadership to tell the people that this surplus is not of our doing, but rather a gift, so to speak, from the federal government. It will not be here forever and we need to make sure that we get the maximum return for our investments.

But I guess we will have to wait and see where it ends up.

Transportation Follies

The Evening Telegram recently ran a front page article outlining a public hearing that the Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Study held at HCCC, and what was discussed at the meeting.  The article read much like a layout of the general transportation issues that will face our area over the next 20 years, as they are currently working on a twenty year master plan to bring us through to 2030.  This means that this study is going to be a big deal, and drive which way our transportation policy will move, forwards towards a new focus on alternative means of transportation as a hedge against future increase in fuel prices, or continuing on with more of the same (thus leaving adapting for the future for a last minute scramble when the next oil spike hits).

But amongst this article there was one paragraph that literally made me spit out my coffee this morning:

Discussion from the floor pointed to the seeming inevitability of converting the length of Route 5S from Little Falls to Ilion into a four-lane highway. “It is something that we have pushed for years,” said County Administrator, “But so far, nothing has been done to address it.” Currently, the approximately 25-mile stretch from Little Falls to Utica takes about an hour’s worth of driving time. 

I sure hope that is some form of a typo.  Four lanes from Frankfort to Mohawk would make sense, seeing as it already is a dedicated highway, but all the way to Little Falls?!?  This is the most pressing transportation issue that will face our County for the next twenty years?  I have just a few points to make about why this is the most ludicrous concept of transportation policy that I have ever heard of, and I won't even mention the fact that it was deemed "Inevitable":

1. Where the heck is the money going to come from a project of this magnitude?  This project would entail buying up a large right of way on both sides of the road, constructing two new lanes on either sides, changing intersections with side roads, and building two new four lane bridges over the Thruway.  That is going to be a hefty sum, and if the County won't spend $30 million for a jail that they are mandated to construct, I do not see this kind of money coming into play.

2. The local political scene does not have the will-power to use eminent domain in order to continue the Canal Trail past MOVAC towards Ilion, so where are they going to obtain the power to use it to construct this.  Converting this stretch of road to a 4 lane highway would mean buying a large right of way on both sides of the current road, which will bring it dangerously close to many homes that are currently there, if not forcing the demolition of said homes.  I do not forsee Herkimer County forcing individuals out of their homes in order to allow the 5,188 residents of Little Falls quicker access to Utica.

3. Is there actually a demand for this?  Little Falls currently has 5,188 residents who would benefit from constructing this road, which would shave their commute time to Utica.  The next question is, how many people commute from Little Falls to Utica on a basis regular enough to justify the expense of this project?  This seems a little like a bridge to now-where type of transportation project to me.

4. Is it really that hard to get from Little Falls to Utica on 5S.  The article says that it is 25 miles, of which the first say 7 or 8 is two lane 55 MPH state highway to Mohawk, followed by 2 or 3 miles of dedicated two lane highway, and then the rest being a four lane highway.  This stretch has the capacity that it needs already between the Valley and Utica, where this commuting route gains the majority of its users.  Little Falls if farther away from Utica, thus it does not have the convenience of having a four lane highway the entire route.

5. Our region is loosing population which makes it even harder to justify spending this kind of money on a project that will serve fewer people than we already have.

So there you go folks.  If this is what you want our elected officials talking about when it comes to transportation issues that allow business as usual.  I have already posted about the online transit survey, and now, more than ever since we know what kind of crazy ideas are being discussed, we need to make our voice heard.  This area can take some simple steps to improve transportation options that do not involve large scale "white elephants".  A twenty year plan is just that, a plan.  It does not have to include crazy futuristic ideas of what we could possibly do, it, more importantly, needs to give us a road map to a reasonable transportation future.

We are having trouble finding money to maintain the roads that we already have, so the last thing we need is to build more roads.  If we focus our attention on road maintenance and issues such as improving safety for biking and pedestrians, we would spend a lot less money on transportation and have higher quality roadways and communities.  So lets stop dreaming of new 4 lane highways to no-where, and develop a sensible plan that puts people first and helps make the transition to the low carbon economy.

Oneida Indian Nation Awarded Energy Efficiency Stimulus Grant

I am coming close to beating the energy efficiency horse dead on this blog, but at least someone finally got it right. The Oneida Indian Nation is receiving $83,500 in Stimulus money to install solar street lighting through their Village of the White Pines, which provides low income housing to Nation citizens. This will eliminate the need for the Oneida's to pay for lighting the streets in their village, creating a substantial savings for the Tribe, with no cost to them.

I have written at length on here about how our local governments should have been applying for Stimulus money to conduct energy efficiency projects ever since one of my first posts on Ilion's LED street lighting on Barringer Road. So now it appears as though one local government has taken my advice and jumped on board the Stimulus gravy train, the only problem being that it is not one of our local governments. If one of our local entities had applied for this grant, not only would they have lower electricity costs, but they would not be paying anything for some of their street lighting. The Federal government literally is handing out solar streetlights to local governments that apply for them, and we lost out.

For the "lower our taxes at all costs" crowd this would have been perfect, for local officials could have heralded these new lights as a means to lower tax rates in the future as the entity could have passed the electricity savings onto residents.

In typical fashion, the Utica OD has a poll on their website asking whether or not people believe that the Oneida Indian Nation should be allowed to receive stimulus funds. As per usual, the vast majority, at the time I checked 85% were against the idea of giving the Oneida's federal stimulus funds. But, if they are the only entity in the area that applied for this type of funding, then who else is the federal government going to give these grants to. The money is already appropriated, thus it needs to be spent, and the Oneidas were the only entity that felt it worth their while to apply. So now they are the ones that are going to benefit.

C'est la vie.

On Local Journalism

I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. I usually believe that people make decisions in good faith and when I do notice something that seems to be a little out of the ordinary, I attribute it to them not catching their mistake. This being said, the quality of the journalism coming out of our area's two biggest news sources, the Evening Telegram and the Observer Dispatch, seems to be slipping. The reason I say this is due to the fact that, to me, there appears to be a large upswing in the amount of sensationalizing that is taking place on stories that do not need to be sensationalized. When I read the newspaper I want the facts laid out in front of me, and then possibly the opinion of someone on each side of the issue, with the paper telling me how much weight each argument has behind it.

Example: In a story covering anthropogenic climate change, mention the fact that there is a consensus within the scientific community over the fact that climate change is being caused due to human activities, but still include the wacko's opinion who denies this. In this example I know that there are some people who disagree with climate change being caused by humans, but there is much less weight behind this argument due to fact that the scientific community believes that humans are causing climate change.

The main reason that I can see this taking place is the fact that, lets face it, the print media is slowly dieing. I love reading the newspaper as much as anyone else, but more and more people are turning to the Internet for all of their news due to the fact that it is free and allows one to obtain information instantaneously, as opposed to finding out about it the next day. This puts newspapers in a bind, for their traditional journalistic methods are not producing enough revenue for them to pay the bills.  This leads to sensationalist headlines and spins on stories that they believe people want to hear, whether this is demonizing a new idea, or covering a past story, such as Woodstock '99.

Now onto the recent example that has made me think about what is happening to our local media outlets. It was the story on the cover of Saturday's Evening Telegram, in which it discussed the effects that Friday's increase in the Federal minimum wage would have upon our local community. This seems like a logical article, for it is a current event, and by focusing the article on the national legislation's local effects, you keep people interested because it points out how it may affect their lives.

Lets just start with the title of the article: "Minimum Wage Increase Not Good News For Everyone"  This alone allows the reader to see that the front page article of the Telegram has a bias from the outset. 

Now onto the article: What I have a problem with in this article is the fact that instead of reporting the actual debate over the issue, having interviews with both employers and employees who receive the minimum wage; the article solely focuses on County Administrator Jim Wallace speaking about how this will affect the County Youth Bureau Employment Program.  The article is completely one sided with Wallace, understandably, talking about how this has hampered the County's ability to hire as many youth people as they would like due to the fact that they have to pay all of them more, thus cutting about 65 slots overall. And this is a shame, because in tough economic times we should be attempting to give opportunities to as many youth as possible with employment opportunities in the private sector being almost non-existent.

But, this article does not address the fact that there are millions of Americans that are going to benefit from this increase in wages. In fact, as inferred by the title, it is out to disprove this myth that minimum wage employees are out in the streets dancing with their new found riches.  This obviously is not the case, and if it were not for the federal government having a minimum wage, workers in Kansas would only get paid $2.65 an hour, and no that's not a typo. This increase is going to help some families to be able to pay their rent AND their utilities this month, it will allow some families to finally have three square meals a day, and while this is by no means a living wage, I feel as though this is going to have more benefits than consequences (the increase in wages will have more of a positive effect than the negative consequences of employers hiring less employees due to having to pay a higher rate for their labor).  But no where in the Telegram article does it mention this, nor have a quote from any employees mentioning these facts.  It is decidedly biased.

 Thus, the average reader is left with the impression that there are 65 youth out roaming the streets of Herkimer and it is the direct results of the Democrats in Congress back in 2007 conspiring to take down the Herkimer County Youth Bureau.  I can almost hear it now, just as Julie McCaulley must have imagined it, John Kerry and Chuck Schumer walking the halls of the capitol for the vote on the bill, "You know Chuck, I really hope that we can put more kids in the streets of Herkimer, that County's Youth Bureau really needs to pay more and hire less kids."

To me this is not the type of story that should be on the front page of a news outlet, albeit a small town newspaper.  If they are going to run a story on the minimum wage increase it should include both sides of the story, with both employers talking about the pain of paying more (say a pizza place), and the employees talking about how it will help to pay for necessities.  The title alone suggests that the Telegram is out to sell copies and not inform me of how this will effect all of us here in the Mohawk Valley.  

The problem with this is the fact that the Telegram is pandering to their conservative audience with a front page article such as this.  They know that the people in this County hate it when the government tells them that they need to change their ways, so thus, why not focus a story entirely on how the Governments new program that is designed to help people, will in fact have negative consequences.  The fact that the only subject matter they could find to focus the story on is the Youth Bureau is truth in and of itself how ludicrous an assertion it is an increase in the minimum wage is bad policy due to the fact that the County can't hire 65 more youth.

But this highlights the uphill battle that we progressives are fighting to gain a stronghold in this area.  The region's voters mainly get their information from the Telegram, and the Telegram knows this provides them with the slant that they want.  Thus creating a viscous cycle in which we see our conservative population gaining their talking points and belief from their "news", without even having to turn on Fox News.  It is almost impossible for us to counter-act this trend, for even though we may read everything with a critical eye, your average area voter does not.  

So the take away message from this is that we need to find a way to get our message across to the region's population.  Many people would be receptive to the solutions that we have to offer, if only they had not read an article in which only their State Senator was the only person quoted in the article and opposes it, and thus their mind is made up before we even get to them.  But if we keep our heads up, and our community grows, we will find innovative solutions to the problem.  Here's to having hope anyway.

Recent Poll: All State Senators Screwed Come November 2010

The Times Union is reporting today on a recent poll by the Siena Research Institute that shows that, unsurprisingly, 77% of voters are upset at the Senate for their 4 1/2 week stalemate. Those 77% also felt that nothing had been accomplished during that period and only 18% thought that it was good that the Senators worked out their differences (what planet those 18% were living on during that month is beyond me). The question as to who was to blame for the stalemate was mixed, with 21% of respondents answering Pedro Espada, 18% identifying Republican Senators as a Group, and only 12% saying that Paterson was directly responsible for this mess (some people must really hate Paterson to the point that they will blame him for everything that has gone wrong in Albany regardless of the fact that this took place in an entirely different branch of State government).

The poll also asked respondents how the stalemate would play out in the November 2010 elections and 62% predicted that it would play a significant role. When asked if they would support an incumbent or a challenger if the election were to be held today 40% responded that they would support the challenger, while only 31% said the incumbent. This means that negative sentiment regarding the stalemate has actually gotten to the point that more people would vote for a random challenger than an incumbent. This is astonishing considering how hard it seems to be to unseat incumbents. I mean Seward has been in office for 22 years now.

The poll also brought light upon how people feel about Paterson's decision to appoint Richard "who the heck is he" Ravitch to the post of Lieutenant Governor. 51% of respondents supported Paterson in his decision to appoint Ravitch. 25% of respondents also stated that they felt Paterson did a "Great deal" to end the stalemate, while 34% thought that he played a minor role. Regardless, this means that 64% of respondents believe that Paterson was part of the solution.

So, now to try and make sense of these numbers. The first thing that jumps out at one is that all Senators, regardless of political affiliation, are in trouble. It seems as though Republican senators are going to have a harder time in November, however, as people view them as being more at fault for this situation than they do the Democrats.

It also means that Paterson's actions towards the end of the stalemate, including withholding pay, calling session on weekends and the 4th of July, and eventually appealing to the people and appointing a Lieutenant Governor, resonated well with the general populace. This is something that I had hoped would happen as someone in Albany finally took strong action against the childish behavior of the Senate. The problem is that the majority of New Yorkers have such a negative opinion of Paterson that they automatically will have a negative opinion of anything he does, including bringing an end to the Senate stalemate. So Paterson ultimately did make some gains through this, with 51% of the people agreeing with his decision to appoint a Lieutenant Governor, which is surprising given that his approval ratings have been stuck in the low 20% range, but it still will not be enough to change people's minds about the job that he is doing. I believe that, unless he somehow pulls off some major reforms (ex. Gay Marriage, property tax reform, shrink the cost of state government, some major environmental/infrastructure bond measure, etc.), he is dead in the water come next November. The Times Union has even reported that many Union heads are hesitant in backing him in the next election because they do not want to support a candidate that is going to loose. This means that in the next few months we are most likely going to see Andrew Cuomo come out and make it official that he is going to challenge Paterson in a primary, with almost the entire Democratic Party pressuring him to step aside. My prediction is that Paterson won't step aside, given his combative stance on most issues so far, and ride out the primary, ultimately loosing miserably to Cuomo, but at least having challenged him.

In terms of the Senate, it is anybody's guess what is going to happen in November 2010. One thing does stand though; this is going to be the year of the challengers. I am hoping that the Democrats will be able to retain their majority, given that most people associate the Republicans with the fiasco, but if there is overwhelming anti-incumbent sentiments, it is all up in the air.

November 2010 is also shaping up to be the first viable opportunity in twenty years for a challenger to rise up against Jim Seward. Seward has continually come out in favor of his party's actions, the first major decision he has made that a majority of his constituents are opposed to. It also appears as though a progressive community is beginning to form in the area, making it much more likely that if we are able to have a charismatic, energetic, articulate, and optimistic progressive candidate to run against him, that he will have some form of support (aside from the tiny Democratic committees in the districts county's). So here is to November 2010, hopefully a date that will remain in our memories as the time when politics shifted towards the progressive end of the spectrum.

All signs point to Seward

(Note: This is an updated piece on the earlier article Stimulating Seward, which I reworked in response to his most recent letter to the Evening Telegram, which can be found at his blog here)

Once again, Senator Seward has jumped on the Republican anti-stimulus bandwagon, this time crying foul over proposed spending on road signs: “I thought the stimulus money was supposed to put people back to work. I fail to see how posting a...road sign is accomplishing that goal.” According to Seward, because the estimated $1 million in spending on sign does not provide healthcare for small businesses or jobs for out of work moms and dads, it is a shameful government waste. Under this logic, it isn't unreasonable to assume that Seward has anticipated the creation of 787 billion jobs under the stimulus. Unfortunately for our esteemed Senator, he has greatly misunderstood the premise of the stimulus funding and, yet again, has made himself seem foolish to his constituency.

The premise of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is to stimulate demand through government spending. In other words, consumers aren't spending, so government has to pick up the slack through the stimulus bill to try and increase aggregate demand enough to cover the current output gap. In a perfect world, all $787 billion would be dedicated to job creation, but its secondary purpose of job preservation would be forgotten. The $1 million for signs, representing a mere 0.14% of the $713.1 million of stimulus funds allocated to New York for transportation spending, still finds its way into the economy, keeping DOT workers in jobs, providing orders for steel and paint suppliers, and circulating through the state in several rounds of spending. This spending does not occur in a vacuum, as much as Seward would like us to think. Every dollar has an effect and every stimulus dollar spent has and will play a role in our recovery, especially as less than half of the stimulus funding has been spent.

Senator Seward should not be preaching cost-cutting and oversight simply out of spite, especially for a man who voted against the recent local government consolidation bill (A.8501). Rather than acknowledging a positive move to spark demand, Seward has joined his Republican colleagues in proving their economic ignorance and poor political tact. The Senator claims that it is “outrageous and hypocritical to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer dollars on unnecessary signage,” but I would argue it is every bit as outrageous and hypocritical to waste our dollars paying Mr. Seward and his fellow Republicans as they grasped at their last shreds of political power in Albany over the last five weeks while accomplishing nothing. All signs are pointing to hypocrisy and ignorance on the part of Jim Seward, and will hopefully point out the door after the next election.

Opening Post

As a matter of introduction, let me first briefly explain how I came to The Herkimer County Progressive, and then I will give a few pertinent details as to what you may expect from me and my post.

I was contacted by Brendan Woodruff who has been active in the local area for many years. Woodruff is a high school friend who I have maintained ties with. Upon reading some of my editorials submitted to the local Evening Telegram, Woodruff felt I would be a good addition to the Progressive. Because I believe that our democracy needs to be constantly upheld, I am open to using all possible avenues to reach people, to hold meaningful conversations about our region and our nation as a whole, and to disseminate useful, accurate information. That is my mission while working on this blog.

As for my personal ideology, I open by stating I tend to be progressive to liberal in many of my views, although I come from a conservative background and in some areas will not sit entirely in a "Democratic" camp. I am a registered Independent, which indicates my affiliation with people who, rather than making decisions based completely along party lines, tend to investigate the issues before making a final call. If a Republican candidate demonstrates an ability which surpasses his or her Democratic or other opponent, I will support that candidate. There is a caveat: I have not run across such a Republican lately. On economics, I support mixed economies which lean more socialist than capitalist and look to European models of government as demonstrations of how a 21st century government can be made to work for the people rather than the select few who happen to wield economic might. I do not mean by this that I feel we should photocopy Germany's government and put it in place of our own. The United States' Government, and the many State Governments and the components which they are comprised of, are unique in the world, and I am not foolish enough to assume that one system will fit each environment. We need to work in our own ways and develop our own programs and systems, remodeling our bureaucracy so as to produce similar results while maintaining our national culture and idiosyncrasy. I support President Obama, but am discouraged by his apparent lack of initiative concerning Don't Ask, Don't Tell, his attempts to rely on Bush legal strategies in court, including the old "state secrets" routine, and his blind eye towards what was clearly illegal activity on the part of the Bush White House pertaining to torture and indefinite imprisonment. Nevertheless, I have hopes for our President, and there is nothing to which we should cling more fervently than hope as it so easily dissipates.

I am on course to establishing a career in journalism, so you will find this blog attempts to comport itself in such a manner. I will emphasize facts, as there is no more useful weapon against misinformation. I look forward to the work there is to be done in our area, keeping our federal, state, and local politicians in constant spotlight and local citizens informed.

Its summer...

...therefore, it's construction season in New York! This isn't only limited to ARRA projects, signs, and bridges, though. Our blog is undergoing a slight renovation as well to update the look, feel, and layout of the site. Comments and suggestions are welcome!

A Solution For The State's New Tax On Municipal Power

When public officials in our area learned of an increase in the tax on municipal electricity rates, from .5% to 2%, their reaction was typical for Mohawk Valley politicians.  Local mayors were quoted in multiple Evening Telegram articles as claiming that the State continues in its efforts to crush our economic development goals.  As we are tightening our fiscal belts, the State continues to have a bloated budget that is born upon the backs of our residents.  Also predictably, our state level officials were quick to point the blame at the secretive budget process that three Democrats made behind closed doors.  

But not a single person was quoted as having any kind of solution to this problem, in fact I am almost close to declaring that the few nice hot days we have had recently are due to the hot air that our elected officials have been spouting off about this issue.  But then again true leadership skills are possessed by very few in politics, the kind that would cause a leader to step back from an economic blow such as this, which I will not deny will hurt the residents of this area, and attempt to rally people behind a solution.  The State will always be able to deal us economic blows such as this if we do nothing but complain about them.  

So here is where I have decided to play policy entrepeneur and give our elected officials an idea as to how they can come out looking even better in their consituents eyes than if they did nothing more than shake their fist at the big mean State.

The main reason why this 1.5% tax increase on municipal electricity rates is going to hurt our areas residents is because we are doing nothing to use less electricity.  If every resident simply knew a few easy tips and tricks to save 1.5% of their monthly electricity usage, then this tax increase would be moot.  The State would gain the money that they need to attempt to balance a massive budget shortfall and our residents would not feel the effects of it, or better yet, actually see their electricity rates decrease, due to them now consuming less electricity.  But then again the solutions that I am going to now suggest may involve some small forms of behaviorial modification, and thus, to the Michael Steele, John Boehner, Rush Limbaugh crowd, constitute socialism.  Then again, just because your local government may attempt to help you save some energy doesn't mean that you have to actually lower your usage at all, in fact, just to spite those who are making an economically informed decision, you can leave your lights on 24/7, and no energy efficiency police are going to come and arrest you.  

So onto my proposed actions that local governments could be taking in order to help residents use less energy, and thus negate the effects of the 1.5% tax increase that they are now facing:

1. Each municipality, or better yet a group of them together, could band together and contract with an energy auditor to go into people's homes and tell them how they could make it more energy efficient.  The contract could be for a specific period of time, say a month, and the municipality(s) could allow residents to know that this service is being offered, via mail, and have them sign up for a time to have their house audited.  Often times auditors are able to point out small changes that a household can make that add up to big savings, and if a family was really into the ideas that he/she has pitched, then they may have the ability to take out a micro-loan from the auditor's company to pay for improvements.  The family would see a very quick pay-back from the upgrades and would have lower electricity bills in the future.

                 -If the municipalities do not have the funds to provide this service to their residents they may be able to negotiate a "group rate", in which the municipality will inform their residents of an energy auditor's services, and he/she will provide them to municipal residents at a lower cost due to the municipality's free publicity.

2. Purchase CFL light bulbs for municipal residents to install in their homes.  CFL's are a cheap way to allow a municipality to show its citizens that they care enough about their plight of higher electricity rates that they are willing to help them take the first step in making their homes more energy efficient.  In most cases people will be more apt to go out an make small changes to make their homes more efficient if they see someone leading the way and giving them a tool to begin the process.

3. Create and distribute informational pamphlets on how each home can save electricity.  The beginning could be worded something like this:

Dear Resident:  With the State having decided to raise the tax on municipal electricity, we here at [insert municipality] have decided to help give you the tools to help you make your home more energy efficient, and thus offset the cost of the tax.  We have no ability to control what the State decides to tax, but we do have the power to negate the effects of such decisions if we are all able to lower our electricity consumption.  To get you started in your energy efficiency make over we have included this CFL lightbulb, which uses 70% less electricity than normal light bulbs.

Even if you are distributing literature on energy efficiency, it would be a nice gesture to include a CFL to show that you care and are willing to help residents combat the State's decision to tax our electricity.  This type of wording allows municipal residents to get the feeling that their local officials are attempting to do all that they can to help protect them from the terrible policies of the big bad State of New York.  Thus, local officials look even better than if they did nothing but blow hot air about the State since they are offering their assistance to residents to do something about the problem.  You would be surprised how many people are willing to make changes if only they were given the tools necessary to do so.

So here are just a few ways in which our political leaders could have flipped what amounts to a terrible situation to every one's advantage, including their own.  Personally, if Mark Cushman was quoted on the front page of the Telegram as saying, "The State has thrown a curve ball our way, but if we as a village come together, we can negate the effects of this tax by all making our homes more energy efficient." I would have felt as though someone was there to help lead us against the State.  The traditional us vs. them mentality that Americans so cherish these days.  But alas, we are stuck with more of the same, and with a bad situation comes even more economic pain for our areas residents once their electricity bills begin to come in.  Opportunity lost once again.

*Note: If any local political leaders read this post and decide to enact any of these ideas, do so freely and with my wholehearted consent.  I honestly just want to see our areas residents helped as best they can be without seeking any credit.

Time to Rethink Wal*Mart?

We here in the Mohawk Valley are very familiar with the Smiling Yellow face that is always rolling back our prices, putting small mom and pop establishments out of business, and not offering any of their employees livable wages or health care.  But within the last few months the epitome of corporate greed has done an almost about face and now is proving that they may be one of the most important advocates for progressive change in the country.  Now, most of this is most likely coming out of self-interest, and their recent actions on the environment and health care seem to support this assertion, but one cannot argue that it is becoming much harder to hate Wal*Mart today than it was a year ago, albeit I will always loath driving in their parking lot.  So without further ado, here are the reasons Wal*Mart is turning over a new leaf so to speak:

On the environmental front:

1. Wal*Mart is currently in the process of setting up the retail industry's first sustainability index for all of the products that it sells.  This will give consumers the ability to not only choose a product by its label or price, but now by the carbon footprint as well.  This initiative will work threefold to reduce emissions by:

                      

            -Allowing consumers who often say that they want to purchase green products to actually be able to buy green products.  Most consumers don't know exactly which product is the greenest and are subject to "greenwashing" by companies that put claims on their labels that they are green.  Now the consumer will be able to move beyond marketing and get the actual facts.  Mrs. O'Leary now has the choice of buying the frozen spinach that has a carbon footprint of 250 lbs. or 765 lbs. for roughly the same price.  While die-hard anti-Wal*Mart/sprawl advocates may still avoid the store, many of the trendy "bumper sticker environmentalists" will eat this right out of their hand.  I can hear the conversation taking place in a Clinton McMansion now over a glass of Charles Shaw: "Why yes, the carbon footprint of the entire meal was one 678 lbs., we like to think about our planet when making our shopping choices."

            -It will force companies that currently marketing their products as being green to actually make their products be green.  Now consumers will simply buy the other company's product that has a much lower carbon footprint.  This will create competition amongst companies that are supplying goods to Wal*Mart to create the greenest product of its kind on the shelf.  

      

            -It will force other retailers to do the same thing, potentially changing the entire retail industry as we know it.  Currently companies strive to make products that are cheap and, of late, that are "green".  A retail store might put in a few CFL's or lower its temperature in the winter, but now the entire stores supply chain will be forced to clean up its act as well as they list the carbon footprint of each product.  Hannaford seems to have carved out a niche as the trendy place to buy groceries, so the last thing they will let happen is to have Wal*Mart out "eco" them with an index such as this, so thus they will have their own. 

Put quite simply, this initiative could lead to the biggest reduction in emissions that this country has ever seen (and not only this country, China as well for most of Wal*Mart's goods are manufactured there, thus giving them a much larger carbon footprint than American made goods).  By scoring products based upon their carbon footprint, the entire supply chain for US retailers will begin to look for ways in which they can cut their emissions to make their products score higher, thus meaning that Wal*Mart may be able to do what the government has not: force emissions reductions through almost every sector of the economy.

2. Wal*Mart is now the nation's largest purchaser of locally grown produce.  This means that now people are able to support local farmers when buying their groceries at Wal*Mart.  Even though this may only make up a fraction of the produce that Wal*Mart sells, it is a step in the right direction, for it means that local farmers will have a much larger market for their produce, meaning that Wal*Mart, depending on the price they actually pay the farmers for the goods, could be beneficial for our local farmers.  Although I still prefer doing my business directly with the farmers at farmers markets.

This will not only benefit local farmers and consumers but we could see a huge reduction in emissions if this expands due to the fact that the transportation network to deliver our food to our plates will shrink.  Instead of the lettuce I had in my salad coming from the incredibly water intensive and unsustainable farming practices of the Southern California desert, it came from right here in Schyuler, it would eliminate the emissions of my lettuce traveling cross country, hell I haven't even traveled cross-country yet.

Health Care:

Wal*Mart, in a rare move being seen with a Union (they do not allow their employees to unionize, and even shut down a store in Quebec after the workers created their own union and brought it to the management), has announced that it is in support of Obama's plan for employer mandated health coverage for all employees, including part time ones.  

The retail giant has also said that it is in support of the creation of a public plan, and allowing businesses to buy insurance for their employees through the public option should private companies not be able to meet cost cutting requirements, the so called "trigger" amendment.

      

The company believes that by enlarging the size of the pool of insured workers that the price will come down enough to offset the continual rise in benefits that it pays to its administrative staff.  So thus it will actually be cheaper for Wal*Mart to cover all of its employees under a mandate than it would be to continue to offer benefits only to its managment staff.

It has also said that it supports having mandated universal coverage by 2012, a lofty goal that not even the president or members of congress are advocating, except those who are co-sponsors of HR 676, which is the single payer bill.

Conclusion:

While I am still not a fan of the Wal*Mart business model, which has served to send our manufacturing jobs overseas due to their ability to tell companies what they will sell their manufactured goods for, increase sprawl and our dependency on the automobile, and refuse to give their employees living wages and health care, they do seem to be making efforts at rebutting their tarnished image.  There are millions of Americans who rely on the chain's low prices to be able to make ends meet, but if it wasn't for Wal*Mart's emergence into our market would their plight be as bad as it is?  

To me it feels as though the chain will never be able to make up for the amount of job losses and sprawl that it has created, but I do have to applaud them for beginning to make some important changes, even if they are for its own self-interest.  And who knows, ten years down the road our nation may move in a positive direction thanks to Wal*Mart, words I never thought that I would be writing. 

Stimulating Seward

Once again, Senator Seward has written to the Herkimer Telegram, this time griping about stimulus signage purchased by New York to mark ARRA-related construction sites or repaired stretches of road or bridges. Doing his best government watchdog impression, Seward ranted that the stimulus was for job creation only, not "a shameless plug that wastes the public’s money." According to Seward, because the estimated $1 million does not provide healthcare for out of work parents, it is shameful government waste. The money, however, represents a mere 0.14% of the $713.1 million allocated to NY for transportation related expenses, which included $44.6 million for "transportation enhancement projects," for the enhancements to projects with cultural, historical, or aesthetic significance. Signage marking projects with ARRA funding would naturally come from this specifically designated funding. By protesting this small step towards economic recovery, Seward has once again joined the Republican bandwagon in Washington and Albany in denouncing any spending that is not immediately accompanied by job creation and is ignoring the indirect effects of this signage spending.

Seward is, once again, mistaken when it comes to the stimulus. The idea of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is to stimulate demand through government spending in various sectors of the economy. Funding provided to firms, such as the State DOT, enables them to hire extra workers for these expansive stimulus-related projects. Funding for these projects of "aesthetic significance", e.g. the ARRA signage, is not wasted, however. This $1 million still flows into the pockets of DOT workers or related firms that made the 500 signs, and the spending effect is multiplied, with revenue from the spending flowing through many different firms once the workers who made the signs see it in their paychecks.

Senator Seward is taking his accountability banner to ridiculous levels with this anti-stimulus rant. One of the guidelines of ARRA (H.R. 1 from THOMAS) is to preserve [italics added] and create jobs and promote economic recovery." 787 billion jobs are not being created with this spending, but spending $1 million on signage may be a boost to the state DOT who most likely would have seen a dropoff in sign creation due to a lower recessionary budget.

Jim Seward does not need to preach transparency and cost-cutting for transparency and cost cutting's sake, especially for a man who voted against a potentially huge cost-cutting bill to help eliminate unneeded levels of local government (A. 8501, a government consolidation bill). Rather than denouncing a positive move to spark demand through government spending, Seward has taken another opportunity to again prove his economic ignorance and poor political tact without proposing an alternative to the problem.

Adirondack Study Offers Lessons for the Mohawk Valley

When talk of climate change arises there is always talk of how the lush forests of the Northeast act as a large carbon sink that is capable of storing a lot of the carbon that we emit, but exactly how much carbon do our forests capture? This was the focus of a first ever greenhouse gas audit of the Adirondack Park, whose findings were just released. The study found that the Adirondack's, which are the largest intact forest in the northeast, are capable of absorbing 600,000 tons of carbon annually. This is not a small amount by any means, but it is tiny in comparison to New York States annual emissions of 200 million tons.

This may seem like superfluous information, but the study also included a lot of other information that is pertinent to the carbon footprint of our region. In terms of standards of living, the Adirondack region is very similar in nature to that of us here in the Mohawk Valley, with many having to drive long distances to receive services as well as having a similar climate.

The study found that the average Adirondacker emits 16 tons of CO2 annually, which is much less than the national average of 25 tons. This is surprising since those who live in the Adirondacks often are forced to drive long distances to get to work, the store, or to school, which one would think would equate to the region having much higher per capita emissions. One also has to take into account the fact that the climate in the Adirondack's is colder than most areas of the country, so thus it would seem as though emissions would also be higher due to higher heating fuel consumption.

This means that we here in the Mohawk Valley are likely emitting, on average, around 16 tons of CO2 per person per year. The main purpose of this study was to find out ways in which the Adirondack Park, as a large rural area, will be able to transition to the "low carbon" economy of the future. This type of forward thinking and planning has been lacking in this area, but this may not be a bad thing if our neighbors to the north are actively studying how to make this transition. We can very easily imitate steps that they are taking to lower their emissions due to the similarity between the two regions.

For example: The Village of Lake Placid has recently taken measures that have cut electricity use by 10% by taking two relatively simple steps.

1. The Village subsidized the purchase of over 200,000 CLF light bulbs for its business and residents, and allowed local organizations to sell them as fund raisers, such as the Boy Scouts. This not only facilitated the switch of over 200,000 traditional bulbs to CLF's, but also helped local organizations to raise money for their endeavours, a win-win.

2. The Village also began a refrigerator replacement program in which it subsidized the purchase of new energy efficient refrigerators for residents. Once a new model was installed, the Village would then dispose of the older inefficient model to make sure that it was not used again in some one's basement, thus ensuring energy savings.

We here in the Mohawk Valley should take notice of other town's experiences with innovative programs like this, especially after the State's decision to increase the tax on municipal power. Instead of proposing ideas to cut our electricity usage, and thus negate the tax increases effect on consumer's wallets, our local leaders all did nothing more than complain about the State attempting to tax them to death. Our local municipal power authorities and local governmental entities could easily replicate the type of program that Lake Placid enacted to serve as a hedge against future rate hikes or taxes that would only create more economic pain to our citizens.

While this study was not specifically about our area, we are able to use the knowledge gained from it to help us transition into the "low carbon" economy. Rural areas are going to face many of the same problems in the future as energy prices rise and people become more mindful of their impact on the environment. We here in the Mohawk Valley need to begin planning how we are going to move forward on our own, even if we are able to gain knowledge from experiments that have taken place elsewhere. For if we are not preparing for the future, then we will always be reacting to whatever unpleasant surprise comes out way, whether it be an increase in electricity taxes or worse yet: the unknown.

A Local Stimulus Wish List

The Evening Telegram tonight ran a piece entitled "What could stimulus money do locally?" The article, which was surprisingly thought out and researched (IMO), details four local projects in desperate need of stimulating and broke them down with a cost/benefit analysis. Here are the highlights:

• Philip St. bridge in Ilion (right before the high school), which needs replacing to ease traffic flow, safety, and flood reinforcement.
• Union Tools rehabilitation, aimed at drawing potential suitors by improving the site and removing any health hazards. This could be a boom or bust, considering the scurried chlorine plant deal that fell through after improvements were not made in a timely manner. Could be a bridge to nowhere-type project, where Frankfort ends up with a partially restored factory site that remains unoccupied with no benefits to the community.
• Village of Herkimer wastewater treatment plant (on S. Washington St.) This seems like a no-brainer, with efficiency and performance upgrades that would expand services to outlying areas and save money in the long run.
• Ilion Water Filtration Plant, a third of which does not function due to being outdated due to age. Also a no-brainer project, as this would effectively decrease water costs for Ilion and outlying areas and could help with high lime content in our water.
  

Two other communities, Richfield Springs and Schuyler, received money for wastewater treatment facility upgrades. Ilion is currently awaiting Dept. of Health assessments to increase the likelihood of stimulus funding, and Herkimer is looking into low-interest loans to achieve water treatment plant upgrades, so these two projects seem to be the most likely to see completion in the short term. The Philip St. bridge is a nightmare for Ilion HS and the surrounding neighborhood, as well as a safety hazard for drivers and pedestrians alike, so I would be surprised if this problem wasn't addressed before winter.

Aside from the mentioned Richfield and Schuyler water facility grants, stimulus money in CNY has primarily been focused on road maintenance and upgrades, like the beautification projects in Herkimer and Dolgeville and resurfacing on 28 between Newport and Poland. Projects like these echo the "shovel-ready" nature of transportation funding, which is a double-edged sword for the state. Roads in need of repair are fixed, but at a high environmental cost but with potential economic benefit. Like the article hints at, however, other projects in the area are being neglected in favor of highway maintenance. I've taken the liberty of considering a few projects with a CBA for the consideration of stimulus officials:

• Extension of the canal trail, which has proven to be an excellent recreation activity since its construction a few years ago. Working on obtaining land use rights on the western side of the Herkimer/Mohawk bridge would be the logical extension, or perhaps a spur on the river side near the fishing access on S. Washington.
• While on a recreation note, refurbishing roads and trails in Russell Park, the valley's only real park and trail facility in the area. A nature trail constructed by IHS/MHS or BOCES program students would only add to the EXCEL projects going on at the high school currently.
• Adapting major thoroughfares to make them more bicycle-friendly. Side streets are already biker-friendly, but it is a nightmare trying to cross the 5S intersection in Mohawk, State St. in Herkimer, Otsego St. in Ilion, or anywhere on 5S to access the canal trail. Adding bike lanes, longer lights, and more pedestrian-friendly walkways would encourage foot and bike traffic and make it easier to access recreation facilities like the canal trail.
• Permanent bike racks at business centers in the Valley.
• Continuing the development of Albany St. into the Herb Philipson's end. Parking is difficult with sections of broken down sidewalk and potholes, and not to mention poorly placed telephone poles. Developing this area in the same way as Albany St would encourage more foot traffic off State St, which is not pedestrian friendly, ease traffic flow, and force the car dealership at the end of the block to clean up its act or consolidate show space on the sidewalk to make way for greenery, bricked walkways, and even an outside eating area for the snack bar at the end of the block.
• WPA-inspired cleanup of Main St. Herkimer, focusing on the areas between the historic four corners and Albany St. Main St is a hole, for lack of a better term, with several good businesses that suffer from a bad location. Integrating the four corners and government areas with already developed stretches of Albany St. would make downtown Herkimer a more attractive place, especially now that HCCC is seeing a boom in enrolment and quality apartments are needed. Toss in a mural or two on apartment buildings and you have yourself an old fashioned WPA project.
  

Well, thats a few for now, and I'm sure I will be adding to this list in the future. The important lesson, though, is that the stimulus is meant to stimulate all areas of the local economy, not just transportation. Our area has a few good things going for it, and we need to use this easy money to exploit these attractions and make major thoroughfares more visually appealing, pedestrian and bike-friendly, and capitalizing on local established attractions instead of trying to force more industry or jobs into a poor area for manufacturing.

Action Alert! Call Seward and Tell Him That His Actions Have Not Strengthened Upstate

So far we here at the HCP have focused on commenting on the political scene in order to bring progressive issues to the forefront of people's minds and possibly even sway a few local politicians who may be trolling around the site. But now it is time to move beyond that and unveil our new found cohesive progressive community to the local political scene. One of my ultimate goals is to create an organization that will run alongside this site called the Mohawk Valley Action Network, which will act as a way for all of us to work together to bring about change in the area based upon our ability to collectively influence our elected officials. We can consider this a test run of how that may work with the community that we have built so far.

Senator Seward once again had an editorial in the Evening Telegram last night that highlighted his efforts to portray the events that have taken place in the Senate over the past five weeks in a positive light by saying that now Upstate will have a voice in the "reformed" Senate. He mentions the fact that before the coup the top three in Albany were all downstaters who wrote a "downstate" budget, but during this crisis not once did you ever hear Seward or any other Upstate politician's names in the negotiating process. Now the top three are all from New York City and even the two Democrats whom Seward welcomed with open arms to lead his coalition were from the City (Espanda is from the Bronx and Monserrate is from Queens).

So in the face of this blatant hypocrisy I ask you all to take five minutes today to call Seward's Herkimer office and tell them that you are disgusted with the way that he has conducted himself during the crisis and then tried to sell it as a victory to the people of Central New York. Here are some quick talking points to get you started:

1. During the entire fiasco he did nothing but write articles for local papers championing the "reform coalition" and then blaming the Democrats for the stalemate when it was his party that overthrew the Senate to allow Espada to seek political gain. Let him know that you want a Representative that exerts his leadership skills in the face of a crisis, instead of running the other way.

2. He decided to embrace, as a leader of his coalition, a man who is under investigation for funneling tax payer money to himself through a non-profit medical clinic in the Bronx that he set up.

3. Tell him that you do not feel that his actions are going to strengthen Upstate interests in the Senate, but rather harm our chances of having our voice heard since he acted as nothing more than a partisan politician who did not even bother to negotiate with the other side or be involved with a solution.

4. Call him out on his blatant disregard of the facts that now, just as before, all of the major players in New York State Government are from Downstate. This coup did nothing to change that at all.

The number at his Herkimer Office is : 866-1632

If for some reason they say that there is no one there to take your comment, tell them that you have the right to leave a comment and that you will. If for some reason they won't accept this then you can call his Albany office at: (518) 455-3131

There are your orders should you choose to accept them. In many cases with a small office such as the one in Herkimer it only takes a few phone calls to make them begin to get nervous about the way that their constituents feel because nobody ever takes the time to call them and give them their opinion. This will also be the first instance of a progressive mass action in this area that I can remember, meaning that we are starting a "grassroots internet movement" that you hear so much about in the news now-a-days. We may not be starting a Twitter riot such as those in Moldova, but we can make our elected officials begin to take notice and get nervous about the fact that progressives are finally organizing their efforts. We now have the ability to gain the upper hand in the technology wars when it comes to local politics, so lets embrace it and have our voice finally be heard!

Mr. Seward's Response

After the last editorial in the Evening Telegram by our State Senator I was in a state of dissillusion over the fact that he was capable of uttering such nonsense and expecting us to believe it.  To me this editorial made me fell as though Seward thought that all of his constituents were dumb enough to believe whatever he said about the big bad Democrats who had taken over the Senate.  In it, he launched into a tirade about how the new "reform coalition" was going to usher in a new era in Albany due to the Democrats six months of taking advantage of the perks of being the majority party.

So enraged as I was, I marched over to his Herkimer office and performed my civic duty by leaving a comment with one of his staffers.  I talked about how I felt that Seward was in a perfect position to show his leadership skills and bring about an end to the crisis, instead of just sitting back and launching partisan attacks.  I want my representatives to be leaders, not hacks, was the essence of my remarks.  

So a few days ago I received a written response from the Senator to my comments and it was this letter that proved to me that this man is not fit for office.  So without further ado, here is his letter in full:

Dear Mr. Woodruff:

Thank you for your frank comments relative to the senate's stalemate.  I welcome all points of view, even the critical ones.

The senate, as you know, is divided 31-31.  That has never happened before in New York and it's exceedingly rare in our country to have an even;y divided house of a state legislature.  We need to share power and work in a meaningful way to pass important legislation.  Se, we're in unfamiliar territory, and I am doing my best to work out a solution that gets the senate back to work.

But we need a long term solution so that this problem does not recur later this week, this month, this year or next year.

A one-day solution, being sought by Senate Democrats, would only cause a repeat of this governing crisis in the future.  We need a real, long-term solution in place that ends the senate stalemate so we can convene session, pass legislation and meet in the future to deal with our crumbling state budget.  The governor and comptroller have warned that the state budget is billions of dollars out of balance right now, and I will not support budget fixes that raise taxes.

In recognition of the 31-31 split, the senate reform coalition has proposed a bipartisan operating agreement that equally splits the leadership and resources of the senate.  We propose placing eight year term limits on Committee chairs and six year term limits on Senate leaders.  There would be co-chairs of Senate Committees with equal conference membership on committees.

In order to finish the legislative session and complete the job you elected me to do, I have proposed having an impartial arbitrator make a decision to end the impasse.

You elected me to stand up for our area, no matter what.  My actions in supporting bipartisan leadership in the senate, restoring some political and geographic balance, and steering our state in a new direction were taken with that sacred trust in mind, especially on the heels of a budget that was done in secret and raised all kinds of taxes and fees -  including property taxes.

We will work this out.

Thanks again for your thoughts.  I won't ask you to agree, but you deserve a full explanation.

Sincerely yours,

Jim Seward

[beginning partisan rant]

Shut the F**K up about property taxes for one minute and stick to the issue at hand.  This man literally thinks that by saying that the Democrats are the reason for your property taxes rising that he will curry favor with every constituent.  In my opinion, his endless droning about property taxes is actually causing them increase because of the fact that he is just blowing hot air about the issue instead of actually working on it in a meaningful way.  

So there you have it, Jim Seward's explanation for why he behaved the way that he did during the Senate crisis, although, his position seems to have changed from his article in today's Telegram in which he talks about how ethics reform will come about due to the Democrats having control of the Senate, the exact thing he had been saying was impossible for the past five weeks.

[end partisan rant]

But there is more on that to come soon as I am currently penning my own editorial for the Evening Telegram.

On healthcare...

Brief post on a post by Paul Krugman on the healthcare debate.

One of the biggest arguments against a national healthcare plan is that it is step one on the road to "socialism." Last I or anyone else checked, the government already pays for 46% of healthcare in the US, greater than the 35% paid for by private citizens. Check out this chart from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services and scroll down to the bottom chart.

Its also important to note that healthcare markets do not function like regular competitive markets do. A public option would not bankrupt insurance carriers; rather, it would force them to reckon with a low-cost, no frills option that many individuals without insurance (myself included), would most likely choose over a massively expensive private insurance plan.

So what did we actually gain?

Late yesterday afternoon, rogue Democrat Senator Pedro Espada Jr., the main culprit behind the month plus of inaction and ineptitude in the New York State Senate after his controversial party change, followed in the footsteps of fellow rogue Sen. Hiram Monserrate of Queens and returned to the folds of the Democratic Party, returning to them their rightfully won majority in the Senate and breaking the 31-31 deadlock. According to Espada, his month long endeavor in the reform coalition led to a "transformational change that will empower all Senators." Based on reports out so far from Albany, the only Senator who has undergone a transformational change is Espada himself, who was promoted to majority leader, replacing Malcolm Smith, whom Espada had previously been at odds with and cited as a major reason for his defection.

So after five weeks of political stalemate, what did New York, the Senate, and the public actually gain? From what I can tell, very little. Lets quickly take stock of the damage done so far by Espada and the 61 other Senators who went along with his little power grab game:

• Hundreds of bills held up in the legislative process
• Wasted tax dollars spent paying Senators taking a five week break from legislation
• Budget crises in cities and villages across the state
• Democratic inaction
• Potential for dozens of incumbent losses in next year's elections

And on the other side of the box score, lets examine what was gained:

• Senator Espada is the new Majority Leader (for now)
• Malcolm Smith retains Pro-Tem position (for now)
• A clearer view of which Senators have the best interests of their constituents in mind

That last point is a loaded one. The number of Senators keeping their constituents in mind during the leadership crisis is zero. The biggest gain, however, goes to the voting public, which was dragged through five weeks of mystery, hypocrisy, spin, lies, and ineptitude, only to emerge five weeks behind schedule with an unstable majority and no progress made on any bills to speak of.

If someone had moved to upstate New York from, say, Iran (with its sharia-based government), on June 8, and tried to understand New York State government by reading the newspapers, he or she would have gotten the impression that the state was run by two men from the Bronx and Queens with tax issues and a governor who had virtually no power over these two men. When this Iranian was called upon to vote in next year's Senate elections, he or she would not see the names of the man from the Bronx or the man from Queens on the ledger. Instead, he would see a list of white men whom he or she had never heard of or read about in the papers. The Iranian would be clueless as to the role of his vote in determining legislation, become extraordinarily confused, and most likely return to Iran, where the political situation is much more stable.

What is the moral of this hypothetical anecdote? Where were the other 58 Senators (excepting Malcolm Smith and Dean Skelos, two other gentlemen who seemingly ran the legislature during the crisis) during this standoff? What were their roles, other than going to the soda machine? If anybody won during this leadership crisis, it certainly was not any of these 58 individuals who were neither seen nor heard in Albany, much less their home districts, during the five weeks of turmoil. Glorious Leader Jim Seward, in his five weeks of living in Albany, doing no work, and still drawing a paycheck, issued ONE statement to his constituents in the form of a politically slanted letter to the Evening Telegram. Joe Griffo was also conspicuously MIA during these five weeks. The biggest lesson learned from the turmoil was that the voting public has elected 58 individuals with no desire to step forth into a leadership position, no desire to stand out from the crowd, no desire to make an independent political statement, no desire to issue statements detracting from party lines, no desire to help their home constituencies, no desire to fulfill their sworn duties as New York State Senators, and no desire to be re-elected. The past five weeks was ample time for a Senator, or coalition of Senators not involved in the leadership struggle, to step up, make their voices heard, and state "enough is enough!" Our Senate is not run by Pedro Espada Jr., Hiram Monserrate, Malcolm Smith, and Dean Skelos, although you would hardly know it during the crisis. The other 52 elected officials missed out on an opportunity to become a voice of change and power in the Senate, and these 52 Senators have missed out on an opportunity to be reelected when their terms are up.

So what was gained in the five weeks of leadership struggle? Ultimately, a stronger Senate with individuals who are ready to lead the state in a positive direction. Fortunately for the voting public, it just won't be any of these current clowns.

Paterson Takes Action With Lieutenant Governor Appointment

At a 5 PM statewide address tonight Gov. Paterson announced that in an attempt to help alleviate the current gridlock in the Senate he is appointing Richard Ravitch as Lieutenant Governor.  Paterson cited the now month long gridlock and questions over who would be his successor should he become incapacitated as his main reasons for making the appointment.  As it stands now, if Paterson were to become incapacitated there is no one clear person who would take over, which would only cause more chaos within the State's already dysfunctional state.

Ravitch, who I am going to assume no one has ever heard of up until this point, has served in a number of governmental positions dealing with urban development, most notably as a member of Lyndon Johnson's cabinet and as the head of the MTA from 1979 to 1983.  

I am sure that I am in as much of a state of shock right now by Paterson's address as are the rest of our readers, but I am beginning to make some sense of what Paterson's logic is in acting in this bold manner, which may not even be legal.  There is an active debate going on amongst constitutional scholars as to whether or not the Governor has the power to appoint a Lieutenant Governor should there be a vacancy, but a couple of people have advised him that it is allowable, so he is taking this opportunity to go straight to the people of New York and show them that he is taking a strong stand towards bringing stability back into New York politics.  

So far Paterson has suffered just as much loss of support as members of the Senate when it comes to the stalemate due to the fact that even though he has talked tough, nothing has come of it.  This move is definitely designed to allow him to bypass the Senate and show the people of New York that he is going to bring in an outsider to help find a resolution and clear up the question of who will be his successor should something happen to him.  Paterson also made this decision knowing that Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has come out against such an action, meaning that this allows him to make a decision that goes against what Cuomo is advocating for, and thus allowing people to differentiate their opinions when the almost certain primary showdown occurs.  Up until now Paterson has not said anything different than Cuomo and people are far more receptive to what Cuomo has to say because he is not running the State right now.  Paterson had to eventually do something to differentiate himself from Cuomo and taking a strong stand in the Senate controversy may be just the thing to curry him favor with the public.

I believe that the people in New York are ready for someone to jump in and take control of what is going on because it is making a complete mockery of us.  Now Cities, Towns, and the people themselves are suffering because of these shenanigans, and we need a strong armed leader to go to the people and say, look, you may be skeptical of someone exerting a lot of power, but in this instance it is absolutely necessary since negotiations are not working.  The only problem with this is that the people of the State may want this, but they also hate Paterson, so anything that he does will be criticized by all.  There seem to be very few these days who take what he has to say seriously due to his almost lame duck status.

After a full month of the Senate not being in session and rumors swirling everywhere about who would take over the Governorship should something happen to Paterson, it is time for a strong armed approach to this conflict.  The courts have repeatedly shown that they do not want to make any strong rulings and the Senate is not capable at all of drafting a compromise, so it was up to Paterson to finally make a firm decisions  He came right out and said that there is no President of the Senate, it is split 31-31, and that is that.  He is now appointing a new Lieutenant Governor who does not have any direct ties to Albany so lets get down to business. 

 My hope is that the people of New York will be receptive to his message and support him in his attempt to find a solution to the Senate crisis, for if it was up to me I would be in the Concourse in Albany with a barrel of hot tar and some feathers ready for the next Senator to walk by, but then I would be acting just as immature as they are.

More Good News Coming Out of Utica

It seems as though the City of Utica has recently taken my advice about focusing development in concentrated areas to heart following a story in Today's OD.  The article discusses new development that is taking place in "Uptown Utica" (the area surrounding the Uptown Theater).  Over the past few years a couple of coffee shops and restaurants have sprung up near the theater and it is increasingly becoming a hangout for the coffee/movie crowd.  The most recent development will be the opening of the Green Onion Pub.

My hope is that this will soon become one of Utica's new "hubs", with the Uptown Theater being the center around which coffee shops and restaurants will spring up.  Currently there is no place in the area where one can hang out and have coffee/meal and then catch a flick.  The only area close to this is the suburban car-centric abyss that is The Orchard in New Hartford.  If I want to drive to a mass produced movie theater and chain restaurant that has sprouted out of a field, I can do that anywhere in Upstate New York, but if I want to hang out at a nice local coffee shop and watch a movie in a historic movie theater I can only do that on Genesee Street in Utica.  

As I have stated before, one of the key elements to real economic development is having a community that people want to actually move their business to, and if the City is able to support the growth in this area then it will only increase our ability to entice new businesses to the area.  The City may even want to look into a "Greenway" project for this area to make it look nicer and to make it more pedestrian friendly.  The planting of trees, slowing of traffic, new lighting, and benches can only help to expand the businesses willing to take up residence here instead of in car centric New Hartford.  This also serves to allow tax dollars to flow into Utica's coffers instead of New Hartford's, thus allowing the City to embark on new projects that will only help to continue this [more sustainable] type of development.

I have been critical of other "Greenway" projects recently, including those in Herkimer and Dolgeville, but in this case there is a vision for the area and recent economic development to support it.  This is opposed to the other projects which are serving to improve an area in the hopes that businesses will come.  Thus Utica has a horse in front of it's cart while we are constructing an $800,000 cart in the hopes of enticing a horse to our shiny new cart.  The idea of being able to walk around a nice area, get a meal or coffee, and see a movie in a relaxing setting sounds pretty good to me.

Right now it seems as though Utica is beginning to focus its development around three main "hub" areas that will only see more people and business in the future as they grow.  The bar and pub crowd will find their way to Varick Street, the coffee house/movie crowd will head "Uptown", and the Theater and dinner crowd will make their way to the area surrounding the Stanley.  If the City is truly interested in creating a few focused development neighborhoods then they should begin to promote improvement projects in these areas alongside the investment that the private sector is making, for you can build all of the restaurants/bars/shops that you want, but if the correct infrastructure for true urban development isn't there, people may not come.  This could also lead to people moving back into the City from the suburbs, or allow young people to stay in Utica as opposed to leaving as we can provide an "urban" atmosphere right here in Utica that they will want to live in.  I, for one, am liking what I am seeing happening in Utica and if the trend continues our luck around here may begin to turn around once the economy improves.

Coup Du Nord? Old Forge Residents Upset Over Tax Dollars Not Being Spent There

Recently over 20 Department heads from various Herkimer County agencies hosted a meeting in Old Forge designed to inform those living in the Town of Webb where their property taxes go. Residents of Webb have grumbled for years about the fact that they pay a lot more in taxes than they receive in services from the County (all towns are dependant on the County to fund their operations, thus there is not a way for Webb residents to hold onto their actual share of property tax revenue since the County distributes it amongst all the towns), and now the County had decided to host a meeting telling the residents just what their tax dollars fund. Property taxes from the Town of Webb amounted to $9.8 million in 2009, out of the County's total revenue of $23.5 million. Thus the Town of Webb provides 41.6% of the County's entire property tax revenue.

Here comes the main problem, one that plagues many Adirondack communities today; most of the tax revenue that is generated comes from vacation homes and not from actual year round residents. This impacts Old Forge especially hard since the population base of the County is outside of the park, making it very hard to justify providing $9.8 million worth of services for a year round population of only 1,912 residents. Herkimer County is a relatively poor County by New York standards, and with the multitude of unfunded state mandates that have been handed down in recent years, it becomes impossible for Herkimer County to allot $9.8 million to the Town of Webb.

Another problem in this case is the fact that the Town of Webb is literally disconnected from the rest of Herkimer County. If someone from Webb was to want to utilize a service offered by the County, say to receive social services or unemployment insurance, they would have to drive into Oneida County and through that County's seat (Utica, where Oneida County residents can receive their services) to get to Herkimer. This long drive would be very difficult on the budgets of those most in need as they attempt to get the services that they are applying for as they would then have to add gas expenditures to the list of necessities.

The main two concerns of the residents of Webb that attended the meeting are the highways in the town and medical transport services for residents that need to go to medical centers farther away. These are two areas where real reform can be made to allow Webb to see that they are getting something out of their tax dollars. The County currently only maintains two roads in the Town of Webb and has a garage there to maintain them, so why not just turn over control of those roads to the town and have them maintain all roads within the town. This allows the County Highway Department to focus on the Southern end of the County, while the Town's could be given more funding to maintain the entire network in the North. The County can also provide the Town with more funds for medical transport relatively easily, thus alleviating two of the residents main concerns relatively painlessly.

Overall there appears to be no real solution to the problem of Adirondack communities such as Webb sending their tax dollars elsewhere. Webb is a unique case due to the fact that it is completely separated from the rest of the County, but even if they were to secede and join another County, say Hamilton or Lewis, their tax dollars would continue to finance expensive unfunded State mandates that all Counties face. When most of the tax money from these communities is generated from vacation homes, it makes it hard to justify expenditures on the same level as tax revenue due to the small size of the year round population. Thus making it so that tax money will always be redistributed to other areas.

The best case scenario for all parties involved may actually be to allow the Town of Webb more autonomy over their affairs and more funding to do so. It would be simple, and make economic sense, to hand over control of the two County roads in the town to the town, provide better medical transport for the Town's residents, and it may even be possible to provide the Town with a County or State employee capable of handling social services or unemployment claims. This would allow residents of the Town to obtain the services they need from their County government, without having to travel over an hour to Herkimer. Economically this may seem a stretch to be funding new positions in Webb, but since their town does make up over 40% of our tax base, it can be justified. In the end it seems as though the squabbles over tax money coming from Webb will always continue, but if the County and Town are willing to open a dialogue and negotiate a way to provide better services to the Town then we will be able to take care of this problem, without both sides acting as immature as the Senate and gridlocking the process of reform with grandiose claims of secession.

To the victor...

I don't mean to continue beating this dead horse, since there are very few developments in the Coup of 2009, but this current debacle reeks of desperation on the part of the Republicans in the State Senate. Essentially, the GOP made a mad dash for power to counteract two (well, more than two) changes faced by the party:

• Fewer member items, a natural result of being the minority party
• A changing Republican demographic

Last year, NYC was one of the few areas in New York that saw any sort of population increase, mainly coming from an increase in immigration to the city. This inherently favors the Democrats, as immigrants and non-English speaking New Yorkers tend to vote for a party that does not consist solely of 60+ white men. Concurrently, upstate and western New York, traditional conservative areas, have seen large population exoduses, mainly as a result of an unsustainable tax level coupled with massive job losses in the past few decades, mainly blue collar.

As the GOP voting base in upstate continues to leave due to the inability of Rep. Senators to make good on campaign promises to keep jobs in the state that would simultaneously keep their constituency strong, Democrats are seeing an influx of immigrant minorities that traditionally make up a large portion of Democrat voters. Republican Senators in Albany clearly realize the problems facing their delegation in the new few decades, and have taken steps in the past month to remedy the potentially politically devastating situation for the party: mainly, by instituting a policy of equality in terms of member items. After decades of being the majority party in Albany, the minority Democrats tended to come up with the short straw when it came to pet project funds and member item budgets to the tune of millions of dollars in difference (see our earlier post on discrepancies in member item budgets). Facing the probability of being in the clear minority after next years' elections, Senate Republicans made a move to equalize these member items, led by Binghamton Republican Tom Libous:

"For myself, this is very much about the rules changes“These rule changes will make every senator relevant and effective so he or she can pass legislation and have equitable resources for their district in the future.”

Of course, Libous was forced to acknowledge this hypocritical statement by the interviewing reporter, going on to state that the Republicans never asked for member item equality while in the majority. Libous legitimized his position by continuing on to say:

“I’m not justifying the way we ran the house,” Mr. Libous said. “I’m telling you it’s wrong and we should change it. What we did to the Democrats all those years was not right.”

Gee whiz. One whiff of being in the minority and the GOP is already begging for the equality they ignored for several decades while in power. I'll be interested to see how this plays out over the next few...months, probably, and definitely looking forward to the 2010 elections to rule out any possibility of a Republican uprising, even if they had a dozen Pedro Espadas that want to join the GOP coalition.