Increase In DMV User Fees An Unfortunate Necessity

The State is in a fiscal crisis. This is a fact. Also a fact, according to the State Comptrollers Office New York is on a path to be $20 billion behind in infrastructure upkeep over the next 20 years. What does this mean? That our bridges will be used beyond their useful lifespans without replacement, thus putting all of us who drive at risk from a Minnesota type bridge collapse, our roads will have even more potholes, and people will complain about how the State is doing nothing to fix it.

Beginning on Tuesday the State is raising user fees on motor vehicle registration as well as on drivers licence renewals. The State is also requiring that all motor vehicle owners need to purchase new licence plates starting on April 1st, 2010. The cost to register your vehicle will rise from $44 currently to $55, an $11 increase. The cost of renewing your drivers licence will now cost $62.50, up from $50 currently. And when registering your vehicle after April 1st there is a one time $25 fee for the new license plates.



Now, no one likes to pay more for anything that is considered a government service, but lets attempt to put these new charges into perspective. Over a 10 year period one will pay an extra $110 in vehicle registration fees and an extra $12.50 for the increase in drivers licence renewal since that only needs to be done once every 8 years, meaning that it will only happen once in the 10 year period in question. This means that these fee increases add up to $125.50 over the next ten years, and when coupled with the new license plate fee total $155.50 over 10 years. This is not a huge sum by any means. It equals $15.55 each year.

This fee also only applies to those who own and operate motor vehicles. Now, living in Upstate New York cars are almost our only option to travel anywhere, but there are people who live in cities that either can't afford to, or choose not to drive, so thus this increase only affects those who use the roads.

Here is what the Observer Dispatch, with a sensationalist headline once again (DMV Fees To Skyrocket Tuesday), had to say about what these fees are going to be used for:

“This is one of the many difficult decisions which were needed to address the $20 billion deficit, which was the largest in the state’s history,” Anderson said.

This is the first time registration fees have increased since 1998, and the first time driver’s license fees have increased since 1992, Anderson said.

The revenue will be directed to the Dedicated Highway and Bridge Trust Fund, which is used for road improvement projects and DMV operations, he said.

So the increase in user fees will go directly into repairing our bridges and highways, of which at the current rate are going to be under invested in by $20 billion by 2020, putting us all at risk. This means that the State is going to use this increase in the fees for those who drive to make the infrastructure for driving safer. This is being done without a tax increase and may avoid the need to raise taxes on all, including those who don't drive or use the infrastructure. It is an unfortunate fact of life that we need to all pay for the things that our government provides us with and I would much rather have a user fee based system than an increase in taxes on all. $15.50 a year over the next ten years is not an exorbitant sum to pay to help keep out infrastructure in working order.

The problem that I see with this plan is the fact that not one political figure is making this argument to the citizens of New York. The only argument that I see justifying this expense is from David Valesky, who states:

State Sen. David Valesky, D-Oneida, said the state’s large deficit forced officials “to make some tough budget choices, which require shared sacrifice on the part of all New Yorkers.”

Valesky said he and his colleagues eliminated $1.3 billion in taxes and fees Paterson had proposed on items such as soda.

So instead of telling people that they are paying an extra $15.50 a year to keep the infrastructure they use in safe working order, he acts defensively and makes a weak argument for shared sacrifice while claiming that he stopped big bad Gov. Paterson from raising even more taxes. If he made the argument that I made people would understand that there is a need to spend this extra money, it is not only the fairest way to pay for our road infrastructure, but it is also necessary. We are not dumb, if you let people know exactly what the money is going towards, without me having to research it, they will be more understanding of the increase.

Herkimer County District Spotlight: Disctrict 1

We're back with our second installment of the District Spotlight series. This installment, however is quite unique. Upon asking both candidates for office (Republican John Piseck, and Democrat/Independent Gary Hartman) to fill out the questionnaire, Incumbent Piseck told me that his challenger was not on the ballot, We went ahead and e-mailed the challenger who assured us that although he was blocked out from running on the democratic line, he would be running as a democrat-endorsed independant. That was good enough for us to consider this race a contested one, and I once again sent out the questions to both candidates. This time, once again I did not receive a response from the incumbent. I decided to put a hold on posting Mr. Hartmans answers to the site. However, after consideration and discussion with my fellow bloggers, I felt as though it would be a disservice to the readers to not let them get to know at least one of the candidates in this race, so here is a close-up on challenger Gary Hartman in the District 1 race for County Legislature.

1. What most compelled you to run for County Legislature?

I was compelled to run for legislator due to the urgent need for change in county government.

My ten years of experience as a village official give me a unique and valuable perspective as to how county and local governments can work together to benefit those that we all serve.

Many decisions made by the county leadership have a profound impact on how, and at what cost to local taxpayers, villages and townships provide essential services to our constituents. For example, in June 2006, the county legislature voted to withhold a 1% share of the sales tax that historically had been distributed to the city, towns, and villages. They put the municipalities’ share in the county’s general fund. The county leaders decided to shift the responsibility of dealing with the county’s fiscal shortfalls down to the city, village, & town boards. That action cost Village of Herkimer taxpayers $43,000 in 2006 and an equal or greater amount in the years following. Mohawk and other municipalities have taken a big hit as well. The county leaders’ stated rationale for taking the 1% share from the local governments was a perceived enormously large increase in the county’s Medicaid costs in 2006. To this day, that money has not been restored to the localities despite the fact that the state capped the county’s Medicaid payment in 2006 and the county’s perceived cost increase never materialized.

The county never alerted city, village, & town officials about their pending action. We were tipped off by someone outside the county leadership, a day or two before the vote. Subsequently, I and others called all 17 legislators the eve of the vote on the matter. Most of the majority members were closed-minded. The majority of them did not understand, or care about, the impact that the pending action had on our budget and our taxpayers. Others expressed their support only to change their mind after their closed door caucus immediately preceding the floor vote.

My colleagues on the Herkimer village board together with other municipal officials have made countless attempts to build a more open and mutually beneficial relationship with the county to no avail.

Residents throughout the county are hungry for a county government that will be straightforward and honest with them and welcome their input. I have decided that it is time to use my experience to build that relationship from within county government as a member of the legislature.

With a few Independent & proactive Legislators like Helen Rose & Joe Chilelli now in the Legislature, I feel that now is the time that we can make progress toward a more open-minded, transparent, and constituent-friendly county government.

I look forward to playing a role in changing the way the county operates in order to open up the process to everyone. The public has made it clear that now is the time to make that change. That is why I am running at this time.

2. What, in your eyes, is the single most important issue facing the county? Why do you feel this way?


The single most important issue facing the county is the need to open up the process of governing. Decisions affecting all of us are made by a four or five-men-in-a-room leadership council who is anointed by one political party. Majority caucuses are closed. Residents, local officials, and legislators outside the leadership circle, are often kept in the dark. Debate, discussion, and the exchange of ideas, are frowned upon and often treated with disdain. I have personally been the subject of the wrath generated by the disdain for open dialogue over the past two decades as a public official and earlier as an active community-minded county resident.

I firmly believe that prolonged, hot-button, issues such as the jail snafu would have been satisfactorily resolved long ago had the county leaders been straightforward, honest, and open with residents, local officials, and fellow legislators, and invited shared ideas, from the beginning. They could have addressed the concerns raised by raised by residents and garnered support for a solution. They created opposition everywhere by a closed-minded and often secretive process.

The jail is just one example of a flawed process and closed-minded government that has stalled any resolution of pending matters. I look forward to working with legislators and others to promote a positive change in how county government operates.


3. For the ten years that the jail has been an issue, the sentiment among most voters is that they want a jail, but not in their own back yards. Would you be 100% opposed to a jail being built in your legislative district.

I have often thought about that. I can sincerely state that I personally would not have had a problem with a modern jail constructed at the site where the Wal-Mart plaza now stands, for example. The plaza is about a city block from my house. My statement may be suspect because the plaza is already there and there appears to be no other open site available in my neighborhood. However, I am confident in saying that I could live with a jail nearby if certain conditions are met. Obviously I would want concrete assurances that security, aesthetic and other concerns were addressed prior to construction. I would also want an honest answer from the county leadership as to the size of the facility and whether they would be recruiting federal prisoners and inmates from other facilities.

Having said that, the foregoing is only my personal view; as a representative, I would be compelled to listen to, respect, and carefully weigh my neighbor’s views before I took a position on the matter.

I do understand the concerns raised by residents that live in the areas where some of the “proposed sites” are/were. I firmly believe that jail would be built by now had the county leadership welcomed neighboring residents input and worked with them to address and alleviate their concerns. Instead, individuals in the subject neighborhoods who spoke up were treated as adversaries by county leaders.

Based on my experience with state agencies, I did believe all along that, if the corrections agency mandated that a new jail be constructed, it must be built. However, as time goes on, it becomes less clear as to whether there was a mandate and, if so, whether the size etc. was ever mandated. There have been conflicting reports from the few legislative leaders that seem to be driving the jail site selection process. A few of those leaders have given different answers at various times to the mandate question, as well as questions related to proposed size, operating costs, and whether federal inmates will be welcome to live there.

Fellow legislators that have been asking critical questions get the same run around as the public. A chosen few leaders must know the answers. There must be some reason, or a host of reasons, that they are blatantly leaving everybody in the dark. It is difficult for anyone to support jail construction anywhere under those circumstances.

I also believe that a new jail site should provide for expansion in the future. In 1978, Legislator Patrick Reardon stood on the floor of the legislature and warned that the present jail would become obsolete in a relatively short period of time because there was no room for expansion. How prophetic. His warnings went unheeded. Consequently, twenty years after construction, the jail became obsolete and the process began to find a new site. Additionally, new office buildings were constructed where there was no room for expansion. Consequently, county offices are scattered throughout the area and the county is paying high rent due to inadequate space and planning. We have to look at the long term and not make the same mistakes again. We don’t need to go through the same painful process 10 or 20 years down the road.

Furthermore, I would not support new jail construction anywhere, unless the municipality(s) affected by lost revenue created by the addition of more tax exempt county property are adequately compensated. Such compensation is imperative to ease the heavy burden that will be placed on local taxpayers that fund essential services such as police and fire protection, water & sewer service, and road maintenance etc.

4. Herkimer County's County Administrator position could be criticized as being un-democratic, as the position is appointed instead of elected. Do you believe Herkimer County would benefit in instituting a County Executive position, similar to Oneida County, in which voters select the person to fill the position?

I have not taken a position on the on the County Administrator vs. County Executive issue as I have not yet researched the matter thoroughly yet. I intend to do so in the next few weeks. I do want to discuss the issue with officials in other counties to get their views on the pros and cons of their executive branch selection process.

I have seen some evidence that an appointed executive may become too entrenched and beholden to a few members of the legislature leadership. However, I will keep an open mind until I gather more information.

I will take a position on the matter following further research. I will ensure that the public is well aware of my position in adequate time before the election.

5. If elected, what do you hope to accomplish most as a County Legislator?

I intend to use my experience together with my passion for research and public service to promote a more efficient and constituent friendly county government.

I will work with other open-minded legislators to open up the process and encourage residents’ input. As a village board member, I have seen first hand that, if you encourage residents’ input and have an open exchange of ideas, positive solutions to outstanding issues are often the result.

I have a history of bringing members of both major parties at all levels of government together to work toward a common goal. I have also worked with various agencies from Albany to Washington and brought them together with bi-partisan groups of officials to address problems facing my constituents. I have no problem working with anyone, regardless of party affiliation and/or viewpoint. I also have never had a problem expressing a different view than members of my own party. In the end, we can all reach us consensus and move on. Working together we can accomplish a great deal.

I hope to join other legislators like Ms. Rose and Mr. Chilelli to promote and facilitate necessary change in county government. Now is the time for that change, the public has made that clear.

Local Government Run-Amok

The typical argument put forward by those in power in our area is that we should have local control of as many issues as possible. This is due to the fact that local officials know the issues that affect their region the most, and thus would be able to create better solutions to problems that arise than some Albany bureaucrat.

When taken at face value this makes sense; the Mayor of Frankfort has a much more in depth knowledge of the issues surrounding developing the old Union Tool site than John Doe from a State Agency who grew up in Nassau County and now lives in Clifton Park. He may have a report in front of him outlining the situation, but he has never been here and does not know what peoples opinions would be about various options. Thus, we now have a very decentralized system where State and Federal authorities generally give money to local entities that ultimately make the decisions as to how money will be spent to develop their area.

Now out of the theoretical and into the real situation. Our region has targeted the "Pumpkin Patch" area on the South side of Route 5-S in Frankfort as an area that has the potential to bring in a potential large employer. This makes sense given the fact that it is right next to the current Frankfort Industrial Park and is a large tract of land that could easily be hooked up to municipal utilities, thus making it cheaper to do business here. As an added bonus the area is currently an "Empire Zone", which means that instead of paying full taxes on the property, any potential employer would be able to make PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) payments to local entities in exchange for a guaranteed number of jobs and economic activity.

When put like this the "Pumpkin Patch" practically sells itself. But instead, this piece of land has become contested terrain since the idea was born due to the number of local entities that are involved in the process. The Herkimer Telegram ran a story tonight outlining the areas attempts to bring municipal utilities to the site in order to make it attractive to potential large businesses. The problem being that someone needs to pay to bring the utilities to the site. Also a major problem: the amount of different entities that are involved in the process.

So lets take a look at the players in this situation:

The site is currently owned by the Herkimer County Industrial Development Agency (IDA), which is charged with developing the property and selling it to potential large business entities. But the IDA only owns the site, it has no control over what those with the power to bring utilities to the site decide.

The Village of Frankfort would be providing municipal services, such as sewer, water, and power to the site and thus would have to foot part of the bill for an extension of such services. The Village would receive benefits from the investment, such as an increase in jobs and possible their tax base if employees move into the Village, but it is also worried that the new jail may be sited here. Thus, they may not be incredibly supportive of bringing utilities to the site out of fear that the County might put a jail in their backyard.

The property itself is located in the Town of Frankfort, thus meaning that they have the most to gain in terms of tax base, jobs, and prestige when this project comes to fruition. They are also being asked to foot the bill for bringing utilities to the site since it is located within their jurisdiction, but are hesitant to put up the funds until it is guaranteed that the jail won't be placed there if an employer falls through.

The Frankfort-Schyuler School District also become involved due to the fact that the site is located in their district. Thus, they will have a say when it comes time to hammer out a PILOT deal with the new employer because the school will be receiving PILOT payments instead of property taxes from the new entity. In the article it is cited that school districts usually get about 65% of PILOT payments.

So as of now there are four different entities involved in bringing municipal utilities to the site and it is in the best interest of all of them to work together to finish the project. There is one small problem however; they don't trust one another. So while this project would benefit the entire area, not just Frankfort or Herkimer County, the Town and Village are afraid that the jail may be built at the site if the Town pays for the utilities to be extended and negotiations with an employer break down. The IDA wants to see a return on its investment in the property and would love to be able to sweeten any deal with cheap power and sewer, but is beholden to the Town and Village to fund the project. The school district would love to have 65% of whatever PILOT agreement is negotiated for this would add a lot of funds to their coffers.

This is a perfect example of how allowing for a large amount of local control leads to gridlock. The more entities that are involved in a project, the less likely it is that the project will come to fruition. If the County IDA was completely in charge of this project then it would fund the extension of utilities to the site due to the fact that they want the project to move forward and know that this needs to be done. Instead, they are now beholden to the Town of Frankfort to fund the program and due to local squabbles, which are the rule as opposed to the exception, the project has not yet taken place. This is exactly why we need to begin to streamline the political process in New York State.

So while taxpayer dollars have been spent acquiring the site, marketing it to outside firms, and it has been taken off the tax rolls, we have nothing to show for it due to the fact that various local governmental entities are fighting amongst themselves. While true that each are fighting for what is in their best interest; for the IDA bringing cheap power to the site, and for the Town avoiding getting stuck with the jail, this has led to gridlock. There is a time and a place for local concerns but in too many situations petty squabbles arise between local government agencies that hurt all of us.

Unfortunately, I cannot offer a solution to this problem due to the complicated nature of our current system of local governance. As I have stated before, there are a lot of concerns that local government can address best, but there are also many issues which are better handled through a central authority that has the power to make a project happen. Eventually we will have to find a solution to this problem, for while we have too many hands in each pot, there are other states that are taking the initiative and taking the jobs that we so desperately need.

The Senate Coup Attempt Is Costing Us More Than Money

It seem as though we just can't get away from the Senate Coup.  The recent unveiling of the Senate's new payroll came as  shock to most of us at a time when the State is in a dire fiscal situation, but this represents only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to fallout from the traumatic event.  I speculate that we will see more stories like a recent one coming out of the Times Union about programs that were on the fast track that seem to have fallen off the face of the earth due to the shake up.  

Recently it was the environmental community coming out and complaining about multiple pieces of legislation that had been passed by the Assembly but have yet to be taken up by the Senate due to the Coup, exemplifying once again that the Senate is no where near being back in working order.  The main list of programs that have been backlogged by the Senate are:

-A mandatory recycling program for electronics that would allow consumers to be able to take their old electronic devices to any retailer in order to have them recycled.  This would allow electronic devices to stay out of the normal waste stream and have their components recycled and disposed of properly due to the fact that most electronics contain various heavy metals such as mercury, that can leech into water supplies or get into the air if they are burned.

-A resolution to have the State cut their carbon emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, the level at which scientists agree we need to adapt to stop the most dramatic effects of climate change.  Many other states, cities, and nations have adapted this target and this would allow New York State to join them.

-A new version of the "Bigger Better Bottle Bill" that would have actually gone into effect.  The State's sorry attempt to create a program to put a deposit on all single use beverage containers failed due to State leaders including a provision that would have forced producers to put a New York specific UPC label on each container, which was thrown out by a Federal Judge.

-The largest piece of legislation that now has been put on hold indefinitely is a program that would set up a weatherization fund that would give grants to home owners and small businesses to make their facilities more energy efficient.  The legislation passed the Assembly UNANIMOUSLY, which is incredible given today's partisan atmosphere, and would have started with $112 million in grants and give out billions over the coming decades.

I have been beating the environmental drum for a long time now and it is truly disheartening to see that the Senate Democrats have yet to take up any of these pieces of legislation.    These policies would have an immediate positive impact on all New Yorkers by not only increasing recycling rates of plastics, glass, and electronics, but it would also allow us to begin cutting our energy usage through efficiency measures.  It would create jobs in the weatherization industry and improve home prices for people who have their houses weatherized.  The State would also receive funds through the new bottle bill due to the fact that the original legislation contained a provision that would have the State take 80% of unclaimed deposits and put it towards environmental initiatives, such as the weatherization program.

At a time when the State faces major challenges to stay solvent it is completely irresponsible for the Senate to not be acting on legislation that was passed by the assembly.  The people of this state elected our Senators to create smart policy that would help us progress into the 21st Century, whether it be through improving our environment or overhauling our health care system.  But as of now, our elected leaders are failing us and we are the ones who suffer from their incompetence.

The New Dust Bowl

The year is 1929. Times are good. Business is booming, to the extent that President Coolidge declares "the chief business of the American people is business." Farmers are producing an incredible amount of food, thanks to new cultivation techniques, technology, and demand. The Roaring 20s are in full swing, and life is good.

Black Tuesday. Good...not so much. At first, people view the decline as a temporary setback. As more and more banks and businesses fail, people begin to realize that this downturn may be worse than originally thought and start to tighten their belts. So much so that nobody buys anything...including food. Massive stockpiles accumulate, and farmers keep producing more thanks to the previously mentioned reasons along with dreams of high prices next year. When prices don't return to previous astronomical levels, farmers merely produce more and more to recoup lost profits. Only no profits are made, no food is bought, and thousands of farmers go bankrupt. Then there was the Dust Bowl, but that's a whole different story.

Flash forward to now. Senator Kirsten Gillebrand has recently announced a new and improved MILC Act (Milk Income Loss Contract), complete with higher subsidies tied to inflation and higher payments to farmers if the price per hundredweight of milk drops below $16.94 (I have no idea what a hundredweight is, nor how cheap $16.94 is for a hundredweight, but its safe to assume this is a very low price floor for the sale of milk by farmers). In April of 2008, farmers received $18.76 per hundredweight, equivalent to $1.62 per gallon. This past April, that price dropped to roughly $1.00 per gallon (PostStandard).

The culprit for this drop in prices? The all-too familiar villain, supply and demand. In case farmers in the area hadn't noticed, we are in a recession. Even a reader with the most rudimentary knowledge of economics would assume that demand for milk would decrease, as milk is a normal good whose demand is positively tied to income. If income falls, people will find substitutes for milk, especially in impoverished areas like central New York. Prices for milk are artificially high to begin with, thanks to government subsidies, and have fallen due to a decrease in demand during the recession. Farmers, however, have continued to pump out hundredweights of milk to the tune of 12.7 billion pounds in 2008, a 2.7% increase from 2007 and good enough for third in the nation. Given that the recession started in December 2007, officially, an increase in supply from the peak of an expansion combined with a decrease in demand stemming from a recession has served to drive the price of milk down.

The logical move in this scenario, then, would be to cut supply starting in the new year of 2008. Obviously, we weren't aware we were in a recession until this past December of 2008 when it was officially declared, so I'll cut a little slack for that slip up. To continue to push production well into the fall and winter, though, when it had become clear that the economy was not going up anytime soon, is irresponsible, and now these same farmers clamoring for no healthcare reform (assuming a fundamentally conservative farming community) is now clamoring for government intervention to prop up milk prices through an increase in MILC subsidies.

During the Depression, FDR slaughtered hundreds of thousands of pigs to drive up the price of meat to counteract oversupply. Millions of pounds of grain rotted in depots and warehouses while nobody bought, yet millions more Americans went hungry. Economics doesn't make sense sometimes, especially when the needs of a minuscule yet disproportionately powerful lobby (farmers) are able to play to the sympathies of Albany and Washington. I don't hate farmers, in fact I go through about a gallon of milk a week myself, but the same profit motive that blinded agriculture during the Dust Bowl and Depression has come back full swing, and it is going to cost consumers still buying milk. I can't find the citation (I had it the other week, but didn't catch the URL), but in 2008, there were more World of Warcraft players in the US than farmers, yet farmers wield power in Congress disproportionate to their numbers, mostly thanks to the romanticized vision held by urbanites and yuppies of farmers taming the land and feeding the country. Lost on politicians, though, are images of massive milk factories with hundreds of head of cattle, pumping out milk 24/7, paying attention to only the price of milk. Milk prices are naturally going to have ups and downs, and farms may go under, but they will always rebound. Just like the gradual loss of manufacturing to overseas, small farmers may just be destined to not succeed in the modern dairy market. Opportunities abound in corn, soy, and other agricultural goods, but the days of farmers commanding so much power in Congress are about to end.

New Poll: Constituents Believe Our Politicians are no Match Compared to Those From 50 Years Ago

The Siena Research Institute has once again turned out an interesting poll which asked voters what they thought of our state's current politicians compared to those of 50 years ago. The respondents to this survey believed that our elected officials of yesteryear were superior to those that we have in office now, but this should come as no surprise to anyone after the way in which the Senate has been behaving. Here are the key responses from the pool:

1. When asked about the level of integrity of political figures 54% said that they felt that the politicians today have less integrity of those past and only 7% said that they thought our politicians had more integrity.

2. 54% of respondents also felt that our current politicians have less work ethic than those in the past with only 11% saying that today's have more.

3. 44% also stated that they feel that our officials are less fair than those in the past. Only 11% said that today's politicians are more fair. This is hardly surprising given the fact that the Times Union released the Senate staff payrolls today.

So we now know that people are feeling nostalgic for the era of Rockefeller and LBJ, but how will this sentiment affect the current political landscape? First off, people are naturally going to like officials of the past better due to the fact that they are not dealing with current contentious issues and the issues that past officials dealt with are now water under the bridge (who remembers that school busing was once a hot button issue during the 1960's that LBJ had to deal with).

The more interesting part of this poll, and the part that pertains to us here in Herkimer County is the demographic breakdown of the people who feel that we should throw out all of our officials and start anew. Overall 54% agreed that we should kick everyone out of office, a number that seems steep for a State with a Democratic majority and a State government run entirely by the Democrats. When broken down into the key constituent groups of Herkimer County, and more broadly Central New York, we see an even larger consensus on getting rid of our officials:

-68% of Upstate voters believe that we should throw out our officials.

-73% of Republicans support the idea (Although this should come as no surprise since the Republicans are out of power and throwing out our officials who presumably bring about a Republican led government).

-60% of white voters believe that we should get rid of our officials.

-And finally 63% of those aged 55 or older believe that we should can our State government.


Thus the overwhelming majority of Herkimer County voters fall into the category of wanting to oust the entire State leadership. I have written before about how November 2010 will now be a very interesting time with the populace upset at the Senate as it is, but now there seems to be wide spread support for change of any kind. The question that still remains to be seen, and won't be until the first polls come out during the election cycle, whether or not residents will be willing to support someone new over our entrenched incumbents.

Lets face it, almost everyone in the 51st Senate District may disapprove of the way that Jim Seward handled the Senate fiasco, but almost everyone in the district has also received some sort of perk from him over the years. It could be a new Town Barn, playground, or even new football pads if you are involved with Greene County Pop Warner (complete with re-election sticker on the outside). People like it when they have a politician who they believe has clout due to the fact that they are "bringing home the bacon", but I believe that it is still going to be tough for our incumbents to be ousted (even if polls say something entirely different). Any candidate that runs against our state officials is going to need to prove to the people that they are just as able to provide a voice for our area, most likely a conservative one, as someone who has years of experience.

Only time will tell if this is possible, but once again, November 2010 will be interesting to say the least.

A Little Political Theory on a Saturday

(Note: This post is not meant in any way to be elitist even though it may come off as being so.  I am merely attempting to characterize what I feel is a major lapse in our public education system and how this may be leading to the nonsensical "debates" that have been taking place recently on the national stage)

All of us that have gone through the New York State public education system can attest to the amount of time spent instructing us about how our government works and why it is the greatest system in the world.  In elementary school we learned the basic history of our nation including important dates such as 1776 and 1865.  Then in middle school we were taught about the three branches of government and how ingenious the system of checks and balances is.  Federalism was the new name of the game when we took American history in 11th grade and finally all of this historical information was supposed to allow us to learn even more in depth about how our nation works in 12th grade when we spent half of the year in a class entitled "government".

But what does government class really teach us?  When I went through the class the main focus seemed to be to reiterate exactly how our nation's government is set up.  Involved in this was a repeat of federalism, the system of checks and balances, knowing how old one must be to become a senator (30), and why we should all do our civic duty and vote once we turned 18.  It seemed very cut and dry, here is how the government works, now you are educated and can go vote because it is what all the cool and important people do.

To me this seems to leave an incredibly huge gap that has allowed the recent rise of the "nihilist right" to emerge.  It is because of the fact that we are never taught how policy works.  Yes I know that the executive branch has veto power over any piece of legislation that is brought before it, but I had no idea how the piece of legislation works.  It is on this point where the majority of our population has never received any formal education.  Our current education system seems so scared of seeming partisan in any way that we do not teach our students how legislation works.  For example:

A teacher presents the Social Security system.  They tell the students that this piece of legislation was passed during the Great Depression as a means to provide support to the disabled and elderly.  The system works by collecting taxes out of the working population (in the form of FICA), and then when one turns 62 they can then collect (theoretically) the same amount that they paid in.  In this way you are paying a tax while you work, but then are supported when you retire.  

Presenting large pieces of legislation in this light does not endorse or condom the legislation at all, and it allows students to understand how our society works.  This will also get the students used to terms often used in policy debates, so that when they hear a politician speak of a new initiative they understand how it works.  

The most important part of policy thought that we should be teaching our students is how programs are funded.  The debate these days has literally come down to people saying that they do not support any government action if it involves spending money, no matter where the money comes from.  This happens because people are never taught that there are government programs and operations that exist based upon user fees and that tax payer dollars are never used at all.  

One local example of this would be the controversy over a fence that was constructed by Valley View golf course in Utica.  Valley View is owned by the City of Utica, but it is operated using greens fees as well as income from their banquet operations.  Residents objected to a $4,000 fence that was constructed around the golf carts because they thought that it did not match the local scenery, so the course removed the fence and donated it to the City to use for a few local play grounds.  On the Observer Dispatch's comment panel there were many who just kept going on about how the City should not be funding a golf course and that the fence coming back to Utica made sense since it was the City's money that paid for the fence.  This is of course false, as Valley View literally lost $4,000 of its own money and the City gained a few brand new fences from greens fees paid for by the residents who golf.  The taxpayers of the City were handed a new $4,000 fence from the greens fees paid by local golfers, but the people who were complaining were never taught that public entities can exist without tax payer support.

So now that we know that our population has never been taught how policy works we can see how this logically lends itself to the modern day "nihilist right".  Back in the 1940's thru 1960's the Republican party was filled with moderates who were willing to comprise and see that there are instances where government involvement is warranted as opposed to what we have now which equates to nothing more than people shouting that anything the government does is wrong.  This new group of "conservatives" has been created due to the fact that our public education system does not teach our students how policy works.  

How do we fix this?  First, we need to change the government class curriculum in schools to include how policy works.  It seems to me that our educations system is so frightened of even appearing to be biased that it never mentions policy at all and this needs to change.  There is nothing biased about explaining to students how important programs such as social security and medicare/medicaid work.  This new curriculum can include how the government funds itself and how the policy cycles work.  Students could then create their own policy solutions to problems and include in them how they will be funded, who they will effect the most, and how they will affect society in the long run.  They could even send their proposals to their representatives at the appropriate level of government, for who knows, one of our students may develop the policy answer to climate change.

This is an overly simplified opinion of one way in which the uneducated anti-government mass that is currently taking over the Republican Party has formed.  Of course education alone is not the answer to creating an educated citizenry that is willing to debate the issues in a mature, fact based manner; but it is a start.  The main problem that we will have in achieving this goal in this nation is based in our culture.  You can force a student to sit in a classroom and learn how policy works, but you can't force them to absorb it.  A teacher does not have more sway with a student than a parent who tells their child that those elitist liberal teachers are full of lies.  Unfortunately, there is a growing gap in this country between those who cherish an education and those who don't, and this is unacceptable.  

My hope is that we will eventually begin to not only see our school system teach our students how policy works, but also that our population will begin to want to become more educated.  If one chooses to not learn how the world around them works then those who do will only take advantage of this and stack the deck against them.  I sincerely hope that our nation begins to realize that we all have to work together to solve our problems, for health care is now just the tip of the iceberg, and if we all begin to educate ourselves a little more, we can find the solutions to our nations ills.

Town Hall Meeting Reactions

Rabble Rabble Rabble! That was the order of the day at the Town Hall meeting on health care hosted by Congressman Michael Arcuri at MVCC. We here at the HCP were there to let our positions be known and also to see what the local political landscape of the area looked like at a time when most working people couldn't make it.

Our vantage point from the balcony

We arrived at around 3:25 to make sure that we would be able to get seats (one of his staffers advised us to show up about half an hour early) and we were met with a gigantic line. We then took our seats in the balcony waiting for the debate to begin. There was a telling moment here, as the seven of us sat there (all under the age of 23), when a man sitting behind us asked us why we were there due to the fact that we appeared to be the only group of young people visible from the balcony. It then dawned on me that the reason we were there was because of the fact that any health care decision that is made is something that we are going to have to spend our entire adult lives living with. If anything, the room should have been packed with young people (if they were able to get off of work to go).

Our own Tom Scudder attempting to ask a question

Many of those in the audience during the meeting yelled about getting the government out of their lives and about how they didn't want "socialism", but how many of them are actually going to be around in twenty or thirty years when the health care system is comprising such a large proportion of our GDP that our wages have gone through the floor due to employee contributions towards health care rising astronomically? They will have had there last twenty years with a broken system, but then the young people of today will be stuck between a rock and a hard place. I don't mean to be cynical or saying that these people's opinions should not be taken into account, but you cannot have a constructive long term solution created entirely by those who realistically cannot see themselves being active players in society fifteen to twenty years down the road. The policies that will be created will have no foresight or consideration for our health systems longevity. There needs to be a mix of ages involved in every policy decision to allow for both wisdom and foresight to shine through.

A constituent asking a question above us

This being said I was impressed by the make up of the audience, as it was about evenly split on the most contentious part of the plan: the public option. Many of those in favor of a single payer system (which is currently off the table except for the 86 co-sponsors of H.R. 676) or for the public option sited the 48 million uninsured Americans, many of who are hard working and willing to contribute if they made enough money to be able to. Moral, as well as statistical arguments, were made to support these options and Arcuri seemed to be able to dodge being pinned down on the specifics of the program that he will ultimately support.


The other side of the isle made some good points as well (such as on tort reform and other tweaks that will ultimately be part of the solution), but then there were some people who just plain won't listen to reason. Here is why the "debate" is not actually a true debate. Person after person continued to ask about how we are going to give illegal immigrants benefits under this law and finally Arcuri took out the bill and read the passage saying that this is simply not the case. People continue to boo him and cough "bullshit" after he did this, meaning that he read them a fact and they simply choose to ignore it. For a debate to be a debate both sides must accept facts, even if the facts do not support the position they take, because otherwise you are literally saying "Nothing anyone says is true, I only listen to myself and I know they most about health care". How can any kind of sane policy come out of people ignoring facts. Another example is the fact that according to the World Health Organization the United States has the 37th best health system in the world and person after person continued to say that we have the best system in the world. It simply is not true, and if you are blinded by pure patriotism thinking that anything we do is the best, we will never be able to fix anything. We all need to accept certain facts about the debate and then tailor the debate around those.


Besides a few key observations surrounding the ongoing debate I felt that for the most part people seemed to be open to any form of a solution so long as it deals with the issue. I now believe that a key, charismatic, figure needs to step forward and take this issue head on and make it theirs (Obama are you listening). The impression that I get is that people want to have some sort of a reform but neither side has a leader on their side (I suppose you can call Glen Beck or Rush a leader but then you are giving them political legitimacy) and their followers are all over the place. The left leaning side wants a form of government run insurance for those (including some of our writers) who cannot afford private insurance, but no one has proposed a concrete plan saying here it is. This leads to the left tearing itself apart over different solutions and not unifying behind one strong policy. The right, meanwhile, is mainly comprised of those who just want to say no to anything with a few moderates who know that change is needed but fear they will loose something from this change.

The HCP Team and supporters: From left Sean Mulkerne, Will Welch, Danielle Pearson, Lauren Pielecha, Brendan Woodruff, Tom Scudder, and Jack Pritchard

After the meeting ended we stood outside and mingled with the people as they walked out, handing out flyers and talking to anyone interested in some healthy debate. I met a lot of good people that are also working towards creating a cohesive progressive community and it made me both incredibly happy to know that we are not alone out there, but also sad knowing that I am soon off to Grad school and will have to handle our local affairs from afar. Overall it was a great experience and I am glad that Arcuri decided to hold a meeting here even if many others have gotten out of hand. There may not have been much that was accomplished, but if all who went to the meeting came away as energized as we did then it was indeed a success.

The Public Good Argument for Healthcare

Good turnout at the town hall meeting tonight, and excellent showing by all with the HCP. Our views were well represented in a well spoken and well thought out manner, and those opposed to health reform came across as ranting idiots. See our post on the meeting for further details.

I got to thinking during the debate, mostly while I had my hand raised for 45 minutes without a response from the elderly moderator, that the idea of a public good comes into play with the healthcare reform debate. Simply put, public goods are goods that are inefficiently provided by the private sector, but are essential services, and are thus provided by the government and paid through tax dollars. Defense, fire services, and national parks are classic examples. If fire companies were private, they could easily develop a profit motive and put out fires only for the highest bidder, while others are left out in the cold when their house burns next door to a privatized fire station. Hence, our tax dollars pay for these valuable municipal services that would otherwise be inefficiently and inequitably provided by the private sector.

Public goods are classified in two categories: non rival and non excludable goods. Excludability implies that producers or sellers charge a price and therefore deny the good to those unwilling to pay the price. Rival implies that one person's consumption of a good or service diminishes the supply available to others. Any private good, like a toy or gas, is rival and excludable. Public goods run into issues with free riders, which are individuals who use the good without payment and do not contribute to the fair share of costs. If you use the canal trail to run or bike, you are a free rider.

The existence of public goods derives itself from a market failure. Essentially, private institutions, in this case the insurance companies, fail to supply their goods in an adequate amount. Only government has the ability to coerce payment through taxation, and therefore has the potential to supply the good at the optimum level. A clear market failure has occurred in the healthcare industry, evidenced by the existence of 50 million or so uninsured Americans. Healthcare is not distributed properly, equitable standards need to be in place, and government is more apt to provide true universal healthcare due to the absence of the profit motive.

Essentially, at the heart of the matter, is the fact that healthcare companies are incapable of providing healthcare to all Americans. Healthcare is both rival and excludable, but is a necessary good, much like fire safety and national defense. Americans have a right, whether it is in the Constitutions or not, to live a healthy lifestyle without undue cost. Therefore, full government control of healthcare, or the very least a public option, is in order to eliminate the problems with the current private system.

Majority of New Yorkers Want to Oust Their State Senator

This story goes in the "no sh*t Sherlock" category, as a recent poll conducted by Quinnipiac University finds that 49% of respondents believe that the entire State Senate should be thrown out and replaced. Only 40% of respondents believed that their own individual Senator deserved to be re-elected.

The poll also broke down people's responses by party and regional affiliation. The one statistic that I found most interesting is that Republicans want to throw their State Senators out more than Democrats, with 54% of Republicans wanting to oust their Senator and 35% wanting to keep them. This is in contrast to 54% of Democrats who want to keep their Senator while 34% want to get rid of theirs. This proves that the Republican's strategy to grab for a power sharing deal has back fired horribly as the people, especially their own party faithful, view the coup attempt for what it really was; five weeks of waste. It seems as though ideology may also play a role in this as Republicans, who favor smaller government, want their officials thrown out, while Democrats, who realize that government is necessary for societies survival, are more lenient with their elected officials.

Then there is the Upstate and Downstate figures, which seem to also come up as the gap is widening between the two regions. 53% of Upstate voters want to oust their Senator as opposed to 38% who would keep theirs. In New York City 42% thought that their Senator should be re-elected, while 43% thought they should be ousted. The NYC numbers are not surprising as there is a huge Democratic majority in almost all districts and Democrats already represent these districts. Thus, an NYC voter, who has grown up in a Two-Party System, thinks that by ousting their Senator they would be electing a Republican, something that is unpalatable to them. Upstate Districts, while mainly conservative, are more apt to go either way depending on the strength of the candidates for each party.

So what does this mean for us here in the 51st Senate District? First off, November 2010 represents our best possibility to oust Jim Seward in his 22 years in the Senate. This poll shows that Upstate voters are clearly dismayed with the way that their Senators have behaved and are seemingly willing to oust their representatives, if only in a poll at this point. The main question that remains is whether or not these conservative voters are dismayed enough with Seward's behave to vote in a moderate Democrat. The main factor that will determine whether or not Seward is able to hold on to his seat is the strength and savvy of his opponent, for he/she is going to have to be able to not only attack Seward for his actions, but also have a balanced message that doesn't alienate our conservative base.

November 2010 here we come!

Michael Arcuri will be hosting a town hall meeting tomorrow at 4:00 at the IT Theater at MVCC, 1101 Sherman Drive, Utica, at 4:00 on the healthcare issue.

Arcuri's town hall meeting at MVCC will be his 21^st town hall in 2009 and will allow constituents to make comments and ask questions to provide a healthy and civilized discourse regarding healthcare reform. Arcuri has spent the month of August traveling the district and meeting with stakeholders in the healthcare industry including doctors, nurses and hospital administrators. Arcuri will continue to host town hall meetings across the 24^th Congressional District before Congress returns to session after Labor Day.

Hope to see you all there.

The Costs of Reorganization

The Times Union ran an extremely interesting piece today on what the reorganization of Senate leadership since the coup has cost the taxpayers of New York.

The grand total (in the last month or so): $568,957.

This half million dollar plus total comes as a result of new hires and staff raises to bring staff salaries in line with those of traditional Senate leadership. Essentially, more leaders equals more salary costs for the State. Some highlights of new salary adjustments and hires:

• Democratic Conference Leader John Sampson gave his publicist a $30,000 raise, bringing her salary to roughly $90,000.
• Pedro Espada's son was hired for a Sampson-approved $120,000 position during the state hiring freeze. Espada III has since resigned.
• Sampson's special assistant received a $22,000 raise
• Senate Majority Deputy Secretaries both received two raises, one during the coup, totaling $32,000. Both now make $140,000.
• A top Malcolm Smith aide, already the highest paid staffer in the Senate, was given a $16,000 raise, bringing his total salary to $177,000. Smith's base salary, according to See Through NY, is $80,000.

The $568K does not take into account backdated raises that were approved before the coup, this figure is the base cost for moving forward since the coup.

Every press release that comes from the Senate now has three press officers' names at the top, a result of the three-headed leadership monster created after the coup.

This bugs me. Not only did the Republicans waste our time and money by staging this ridiculous uprising, but now the Democrats are abusing their newly-won leadership positions by giving pay raises and new jobs to staffers at a time when the rest of the state is in a hiring freeze. Espada had the gall to give his son a cushy $120K job, which he allegedly did not even show up for! This is just another instance of Senate waste taken to the unnecessary extreme combined with a spiteful attitude towards the Republican minority who lost the coup attempt. Our state leadership has become a travesty while openly mocking the virtues of transparency while the state goes through one of its worst budget crises in history. It is more than clear that there are no men in Albany (I'm looking in your direction, Senator Seward) that have the ethical fortitude to step up and bring to the public's attention the gross inadequacies of the Senate and take a stand against wasteful spending, an ignorant and backward minority party, and a comical majority and leadership. 2010 elections simply can't come soon enough.

Executive Order 25: Unleashing a Monster?

On Friday afternoon Paterson dropped a bit of a bombshell that seems to have gone largely unnoticed by the mainstream media (I actually had to go onto NPR's website to find any information on the action after listening to a piece about it).  The Governor was busy signing Executive Orders this week as just one day after signing an executive order for the State to decrease it's CO2 emissions 80% from their 1990 levels by 2050 (the reduction scientists say is necessary to avert total disaster), the good Governor signed Executive Order 25.  

The order creates "A Regulatory Review and Reform Program" that has been given the task of reviewing all of the "rules and paperwork requirements" of every State Agency in order to find and remove "unsound and unduly burdensome or costly rules and paperwork".  The committee has been charged with first starting with the Department of Agriculture and Markets, before moving onto Environmental Conservation, Health, Labor, State, Taxation and finance, and the State Liquor Authority.  After reviews of these agencies have been completed the committee can then review agencies of their choosing until they have reviewed every agency within State Government.   The chair of the new Review Committee will be the Secretary of the Governor (Lawrence Schwartz, for those of you like me who have never heard of this man). 

So essentially Paterson has created an independent review commission within the Executive Branch to evaluate whether or not the "rules and paperwork" of each agency are sound and duly (too bad they aren't looking for Schultz and Dooley.  Sorry, the Utican in me coming out).  On the surface this seems like a great idea for this will allow for the removal of archaic and antiquated laws that are still on the books but serve no real purpose anymore.  Thus, this can be viewed as a spring cleaning of the Executive Branch's rules and paperwork.

The committee will have the ability to essentially purge each agency of all information that they deem necessary, with each agency forced to give up any information that the committee asks for.  This once again also makes sense, for if we are going to assess whether or not a rule or certain  paperwork is necessary, we need as much information as possible.  The committee must also have an open comment session for the public and special interests to comment on any rule or paperwork within an agency, thus allowing the public and special interests to have input into whether or not a certain rule is necessary.

This sounds all fine and dandy, but the question that matters is how much power does this new committee actually have.  If this were just an exploratory committee that would report to the Governor (who could sign future executive orders abolishing certain rules and paperwork) or if it were to put bill proposals in front of the Legislature, then there would be appropriate oversight on this committee.  But this is not the case as is observed from the last sentence of Section 8 of the Order:

        Upon receipt of the completed agency reports, the Review Committee may take 

        such action as it deems appropriate, including requesting additional agency 

        analysis or public input and directing the agency to alter, reappraise or repeal 

        particular rules or paperwork requirements.

This means that upon reviewing an agencies rules and paperwork requirements that the committee may single handedly abolish any rule or paperwork that they see fit without any oversight whatsoever.  If kept within the spirit of the Order this would mean that the committee would most likely streamline paperwork processes and erase a few old laws from the books.  But as we too often know, people in government seem to often forge the spirit of a law when enacting it.

This will especially be a problem considering the fact that special interests are given input into this process.  So now the power to repeal any rule or regulation that may be interpreted as being burdensome is in the hands of a small committee with absolutely no oversight.  This is simply too much power in the hands of a few men.  I completely agree that we have many rules and regulations on the books that should be done away with, but many are designed to be burdensome to special interests because it is in the public's interest to have them not behave in certain manners.  

The most glaring example of this would be environmental regulations in which companies can easily argue that the regulations put in place are burdensome, because they are supposed to be.  But now, since special interest's opinions are supposed to be incorporated into the decision making process, we find ourselves with a committee that could easily abolish many of the environmental protections (or any other regulation for that matter) that are necessary because of the very nature of regulations themselves.

We shall see in the coming year just how much power this committee will be willing to exert as it decides what rules and paperwork to axe.  My hope is that this will turn out to be a great way to streamline government and make our state agencies much more efficient, but I am leery about what may come out of this due to the lack of oversight of the committee.  This is a classic governmental Catch-22; for there is no way of knowing if you will agree with the suggestions that the committee will make.  If you have too much oversight over the committee it will be harder for the decisions that you want to come to fruition, but if you give it too much power there may be lots of actions taken that you don't agree with.

Rabble rabble rabble!

Finally, after weeks of trouble brewing, it finally happened: the first town hall healthcare debate fight! In terms of violence, it was no UFC 100. In terms of scandal, incredulity, and outright stupidity, these town hall blathering idiots may as well be Muhammad Ali blasting George Foreman before the Thrilla in Manila. So far, these "townhall meetings" have consisted of one or two extremely vocal Conservative opponents of healthcare reform yelling at the panelists, usually consisting of at least one Senator or Rep. To illustrate the idiocy of these ranters, I submit as evidence the following quip from Paul Krugman:

"There was a telling incident at a town hall held by Representative Gene Green, D-Tex. An activist turned to his fellow attendees and asked if they “oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.” Nearly all did. Then Representative Green asked how many of those present were on Medicare. Almost half raised their hands."

Apparently, these GOP-led protesters lack a sense of irony, especially when they shout "this is America!" in a crowded debate, thus stymieing the freedom of debate and negotiation that forms the backbone of the Constitution. These true "Americans" have, so far in the debate over healthcare reform, contributed the following to these civil negotiations:

• Shouting
• Taunting
• Effigies of Congressmen
• Death threats
  

So much for civil liberties and public debate. Many times, these Astroturf protesters have forced Congressmen to cancel appearances or debates about the issue. So far, Upstate New York has yet to see a raucous debate, but that has not stopped the flood of editorials and letters to the editor from local papers. Usually, like many from the OD, the anti-healthcare writers say something to the tune of "wake up, America!" or "when will Americans realize..." or "do something before it's too late!" Our local flag-waving, Bible-belting, truck-driving populace has little or no interest in considering the consequences of inaction, or even the consequences of watering down the healthcare bill.

The writers and affiliates of the Herkimer County Progressive will gladly keep you posted on upcoming events and debates about the healthcare issue in our community. Hopefully, our Congressmen, over their August recess, will provide opportunities for town hall debates over healthcare. If this does occur, we need to rally for the cause of intelligent, civil debate and attend these meetings. The HCP will keep you posted on future schedules of such meetings.

Herkimer County District Spotlight: District 3

Today we will be kicking off our district spotlight series, in which we send out a questionnaire to the candidates for County Legislature, and post their answers for you to see. We're starting off this series with a focus on District 3, which covers election districts 6 7 and 9 of Herkimer. The two candidates for this position are incumbent legislator Joseph Chilelli and challenger Steve Keblish. Posted below are the two candidates responses to our brief survey, and hopefully if you live in this district this will provide some insight as to your options come election day

Mr Chilelli:

1.What most compelled you to run for County Legislature?

Chilelli:The county Jail and how the Legislature was handling the process and lack of public input.


2.What, in your eyes, is the single most important issue facing the county? Why do you feel this way?

Chilelli: The county Jail. At such a high cost it is the most expensive project in the counties history, if we get it wrong it will effect every other project and future expense that the county will face. The taxpayers cannot afford any further tax increase. I could think of a lot of other positive projects that the county could spend $30-35 million dollars on.

3. For the ten years that the jail has been an issue, the sentiment among most voters is that they want a jail, but not in their own back yards. Would you be 100% opposed to a jail being built in your legislative district?

Chilelli: I think with this question you are badly misinformed. The majority of taxpayers I have talked too are against building this Jail because of the cost involved. Those who would be living near one of the proposed Jail sites have an added reason on top of the cost factor. The county wide survey we conducted earlier this year confirmed that it is not only the people who would live near the jail site but those throughout the county who do not want any reason for there taxes to increase. To answer your question I would not be opposed to building a Jail on the PC site if the citizens living around there are in favor of and are accepting of a Jail next to them. That would be step one in a 3 step process for me to vote in favor of supporting a Jail at this time.

4. Herkimer County's County Administrator position could be criticized as being un-democratic, as the position is appointed instead of elected. Do you believe Herkimer County would benefit in instituting a County Executive position, similar to Oneida County, in which voters select the person to fill the position?

Chilelli:I absolutely think the County Administrators position should be an elected one and not appointed. He/She should answer directly to the people of the county and not the majority party.

5. If elected, what do you hope to accomplish most as a County Legislator?
Chilelli: If re-elected I hope to move many issues forward but I am only one person among 17 and without another 8 votes on my side I cannot accomplish anything. I would hope that the people of this county will elect common sense individuals that will make there own decisions and listen to the people they suppose to serve instead of the majority party in power.

And as for Challenger Mr. Keblish

1.What most compelled you to run for County Legislature?

Keblish: I decided to run last November. I was really disappointed that moderate Republicans like John McCain and Richard Hanna had lost their races. It was a sign that things were really moving in the wrong direction. So I made up my mind to return to Herkimer at the conclusion of my deployment in Afghanistan and do what I could to start reforming the way we conduct public affairs here.

I want to give a voice to those who want new ideas, efficiency, communication, and restraint in government. I want to provide representation for young people, people who may not be property owners yet, but still have a vested interest in the growth and renewal of our county.

2.What, in your eyes, is the single most important issue facing the county? Why do you feel this way?

Keblish: The economy. Overall, things are moving in the wrong direction: our county is declining in population, young people are moving away, we’ve lost manufacturing jobs which recent gains have not replaced, and the strain on social services is increasing. Our local economy is going to require a revolution fueled by education, innovation, and hard work. Without that revolution our problems will only grow worse.

3. For the ten years that the jail has been an issue, the sentiment among most voters is that they want a jail, but not in their own back yards. Would you be 100% opposed to a jail being built in your legislative district?

Keblish: As I was going door to door for petitions, I found many people wanted the jail in their back yard if only it meant getting the issue resolved. My two biggest concerns are resolving the issue and looking out for the taxpayers of Herkimer.

As the county seat, most county offices and departments reside here. This takes property off the tax roles. More then 50% of the Town’s assessed value is tax exempt, placing a heavier burden on the remaining property tax payers. A jail would also create a heavier demand on utilities.
The jail could be a big opportunity if placed in the right place. Proponents of the jail have pointed to business parks that thrive around the utilities and police presence a jail brings in. That opportunity would be squandered if located in the P&C site as there is not enough room for expansion.

The other issue is proximity. One of the biggest problems that come with boarding out our prisoners is the liability and cost that comes with transporting them. The current jail, conveniently, is right next to the court house. Whether the new jail goes in Herkimer or Old Forge, it won’t be as easy as it is now. This raises a few questions: How far is too far for practicality? Will one mile be that much easier than 10 miles? Can we colocate the court with the jail in such a way to save us money? If the answers all point to locating the jail in Herkimer, it will be harder to make the case for sites like the Schuyler business park.

4. Herkimer County's County Administrator position could be criticized as being un-democratic, as the position is appointed instead of elected. Do you believe Herkimer County would benefit in instituting a County Executive position, similar to Oneida County, in which voters select the person to fill the position?

Keblish: The county administrator position could just as quickly be praised for being un-political. One thing I have learned about government is that it is easier to hold an employee accountable than it is to hold an elected official. When things go wrong in Washington or Albany, for instance, notice how quickly and easily members of one branch of government will blame the other. The executive will blame the legislature, the legislature will blame the courts, etc, etc. Then add partisanship, the media, and special interests to the mix. The ability of the voter to hold elected officials accountable is quickly undermined.

Now compare what we typically see in Washington and Albany (or even in Oneida County) to what happens in Herkimer. County employees answer to the county administrator, the county administrator answers to the legislature, and the legislature answers to the people. The relationships are straightforward. If someone screws up, they can’t look to their left or right and point fingers. It’s a vertical system.

As a matter of keeping checks and balances on government power, I support divided decision making. However we have a county government in this case. Most of its architecture and purpose is governed by state policies. We have a sheriff, a district attorney, a treasurer, and clerk who are each selected by the voters and manage their own sectors of the county government. Therefore the powers and authority of the legislators are diluted to the point where I feel comfortable not have an executive to veto them.

Consider now the individual who would serve as our county’s chief executive. (Currently we have Jim Wallace who I think is doing a good job. My opponent also said at one meeting that Wallace does a good job, so I assume this issue is not about Wallace.) Under the current model the administrator is a professional, a civil servant, and works for the legislature. Under the elected executive model, the administrator would be, well, a politician.
And finally we have 17 legislators who each represent roughly 3700 people. A 1 to 3700 ratio is pretty good especially when you compare that to the state senate (1 to 314,000) or the House of Representative (1 to 706,000). We have therefore a legislature that is far more representative than other legislatures.

So I support keeping our county’s government as close to the people as possible and leaving the county administrator position as it is.

5. If elected, what do you hope to accomplish most as a County Legislator?

Keblish: I want to unleash our county. Like a rough diamond, we have the potential to be a great county. We have historical and natural treasures that need protection and promotion. We can turn our economy around by keeping our priorities straight. And finally I’d like to harness technology to put people and their government back in touch. We should no longer rely on just newspapers to get the information out. New tools will allow greater communication and understanding between the people and their government. That will go along way toward renewing their faith in the process and let them know how they can make a difference.

I think this is a district in which the challenger has a good chance to overtake the incumbent. Keblish seems very well versed, and seems like he has a drive to serve. I wouldn't rule out Chilelli come election day however, as I'm sure his Anti-Jail rhetoric has won over a large amount of voters in Herkimer. This should be an interesting race, and very close one at that.

Why Do Our Local Elected Officials Sit on Grant Money?

A story that may seem similar to one that has played out in our region is now taking place in New Hartford as the Town is scrambling to spend $841,600 in grant money that it received in 2006 to extend the Rayhill multi-use trail. The money was awarded in 2006 as part of a Federal Transportation Enhancement Program and town leaders have just began to work on using this funding for its initial purpose due to the fact that it must be spent within five years of being allotted, in this case 2011.

Here in the Valley we have yet to finish portions of the Canal Trail. So far the only sections to be completed are between Mohawk and the Fort Herkimer Church and heading East out of Little Falls, neither section of which is fully paved. The money for the Canal Trail was doled out by the State back in the early 2000's for local governments to spend on creating the trail, for as politicians around here love to say, locals know their own affairs best. Since then that money seems to have disappeared as the trail has yet to be completed, and over time the original grant money is no longer enough to cover the project due to rising material costs and inflation.

So now New Hartford is scrambling to complete a project of which a federal grant was to compose 80% of the funding with the Town paying 20%. Because of an increase in the cost of materials, as well as inflation eating into the value of this money, the Town will have to make up the difference in cost from the original estimate. This means that the people of New Hartford are getting stuck with a bill for a project that is going to cost more than they initially had funds for due to the fact that their local officials literally just sat on the grant money for three years.

Here is my question: Why do local officials sit on grant money when they are awarded it for a project such as this? I understand why the federal and state governments would think of it as being wise to put decisions on small projects such as this in the hands of local officials who know the needs of their constituents best, but repeatedly we see this money being squandered by officials that apply for this money, have a plan in place to use it if they receive it, but then turn around and sit on the money until the last minute to utilize it. This not only makes no sense to me, but it also costs local tax payers money.

Now I don't know the exact estimates as to how much extra the Town of New Hartford is going to have to pay to have the project completed now as opposed to back in 2006, but this should be a non-issue. When grant money is given it is done so in a manner that has each entity involved paying a certain percentage and when local officials sit on the money they end up spending more local tax payer money as the costs of the project rise since they must make up the difference.

Our local officials need to utilize the money that they are given when they receive it. To me this seems like a logical conclusion to draw, I mean if you applied for grant money then you have a project in mind and are wanting to have it completed; so do it! Don't screw over the local tax payers by sitting on this money for no good reason, or in the instance of the Canal Trail not having the project happen at all.

I am all for local governance on certain issues, but at times it seems ridiculous to have so many hands in the pot. If the entity that spent the money is to complete the project on their own then this would have been accomplished because of the fact that they had complete control over the money that they are spending. As it is now the Federal DOT gives the money to the State DOT to hold onto for a local political body with the ability to sit and wait for five years to complete the project.

So this raises the question: is the solution to funding problems like this to have less hands in the pot and have the entity that decides to spend the money have complete control over said projects, or should we continue to allow local governments to make decisions about local projects but with tighter restrictions put on them in order to be able to receive grant money (such as having to begin construction on the project within one year)?

High speed rail in Upstate New York?

High speed rail projects seem to be getting a lot of attention lately with the next round of stimulus spending, and for once, Upstate is not left out of the mix in a high tech discussion. Ideas have been tossed around Washington and Albany for the past few months about a possible high speed rail upgrade to existing rail facilities and attention has intensified this week with the meeting between Congressman Arcuri and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (there's a name you don't hear that often) today at 10 at Union Station in Utica. The two are set to discuss investment in high-speed rail development, along with the $4.5 million that has already been secured for rail improvements between Albany and Buffalo. Oneida County is expected to see $1 million of that, which will go towards cleanup and maintenance of the existing Amtrak line as well as improvements to station facilities.

This comes as welcome news to Upstate, as high speed trains are all the rage currently in Washington as they represent a modern, cutting edge, and desperately needed upgrade to existing infrastructure that has been getting a boost lately from V.P. Biden, not to mention increased Amtrak profits following the rise in gas prices in the last few years. The current plan, taken from Rep. Louise Slaughter's website, calls for the construction of a third track along the Albany-Buffalo corridor. This plan fits into current stimulus spending for high speed rail, with President Obama painting a vivid picture of 150 mph trains wisking people to their destination, with travelers “walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination.”

High speed rail is a tricky issue, especially with prohibitively high costs and few readily tangible benefits, especially in an area like Upstate New York that has few public transportation links that could readily integrate with a new high speed rail line. Building a line from NYC to Albany to Buffalo sounds great, but there are definite disadvantages in this scenario. Here are a few:

• Lack of pre-existing public transport facilities to integrate into the high speed rail network, especially north of the city. The Albany station, for example, is at least a five minute cab ride from the capitol building, depending on traffic, which kind of defeats the purpose. Plus, the station is in Rensselaer, which is not the most pedestrian-friendly neighborhood, not to mention the mess of interstates and local highway ramps between Albany and the river.
• Traffic congestion around upstate train stations. Again, not an issue in the city, but Union Station and Rensselaer Station are both relatively small and not conducive to high traffic flow.
• Costs. Clearly, a train line would not be cheap. A proposed corridor between Dallas and Houston is estimated to cost around $12 billion, but could go as high as twice that. The US Government Accountability Office estimates the cost per mile of high speed rail at at least $37 million per mile, based on comparative European track systems. A US estimate of the California to Vegas line places the cost at $22 million per mile (w/o Chinese labor) over some very heavy terrain. The benefits of the new high speed route would have to be tremendous to validate the high cost of building. I could not find any estimates on high speed upgrades from traditional rail systems, but one can assume that savings may be minimal, especially considering the antiquated track system in Upstate.
• Stations. Currently, between Albany and Buffalo, there are seven train stations. In order for surrounding areas to feel the effects of the high speed line, more stations should be developed. For example, there is a large gap between Syracuse and Rochester, Amsterdam and Utica, and so on. Integrating local communities into the rail line is an essential element to the corridor construction.
  

There are some obvious benefits to the spending, of course. As I see it:

• Economic stimulation. This comes with an asterisk however, that asterisk being construction costs need to be kept locally, ideally in Upstate, and definitely not an out of state firm. High speed rail construction is an expensive proposition, whose dollars should be kept in the region.
  
• Decrease in emissions, both in the train route and in lieu of other emissions. Per person, emissions are much lower for the trip from Buffalo to Albany than by car on the Thruway.
• Time. Clearly, the biggest benefit is saving the four plus hour trip from Buffalo, the state's second biggest city, to Albany, and the two plus hour drive from Albany to New York. New York is a fairly large state, so keeping close connections between the largest cities makes perfect sense. It would also open up Albany to train traffic from the Boston-NYC-DC corridor to the south.

Well, its up to the legislators to decide on the fate of this idea, but in my opinion, its a good one that deserves more public attention. Upstate New York, as you well know, is very geographically disparate from downstate and the rail link would serve as an efficient connection between the two regions and better integrate the capitol with New York and Buffalo. Once we get an effective public transportation link up and running in upstate, more localized networks have the incentive to follow, making it easier to get to and from train stations and increasing the incentive to take the train, to avoid being stuck at the station and having to take cabs everywhere. Utica would be a prime example of upgrading the bus system, or even trams up and down Genessee St. Albany could do the same to connect the train station to the capitol plaza and the Corning Tower area as well as links to schools in the area to aid in student flow, being that Albany is a major college city (at least 15 schools +).