Alien Zombies from Hell

I’m going to join Charlie Kraebel (here)  and sacrifice blog hits by not commenting on Chalmers and on the new whipping post driven meme: “Teenagers could have designed the city Web  site: better and free!”. So no Chalmers and for me, no Web site: it’s just  the same playbook for a different game.

So unless armies of zombies– and they must be from space and they must be hellish– descend upon Chalmers or infiltrate Web space, I’m not going there. I feel better already.

 

Sunday Drive

I’m not all that inspired today so I’m going to highlight some other posts and blogs that I find relevant. Here they are and why:

- Talk verus walk (here) : PK Dick lays out the complexity of the issues/obstacles/problems facing the district and then asks : Now lets hear some simple solutions! My snarky response would be: just vote no on the budget and the problems will fix themselves. But the challenge asks a tough question; I’m not sure I know a simple fix. I’m stumped but I’ll try to loop back.

-More for less (here): MJD articulates a great post on a myriad of issues

-Attack of the Krab(here) : Charlie Kraebel takes down yet another talking point on the Chalmers debate. And I’m the one supposedly blindingly pushing talking points?

- Great job, Bob (here): Even after previous posters pointed out the error in calculating the assessed value of Chalmers using just a city tax rate, local radio host Mike Mancini weighs in with: “Great job Bob !!!! Keep up the good work.” That comment says more than I could ever say.

 

Shreds

Madmirth reminded me so here goes:

 

By the Way

Buried in the story on the GASD’s high dropout rate (Recorder story here), the first press mention of what I’d mentioned recently:

But even before The Business Review pointed out GASD’s deficiencies, ranking it 80 out of 85 Capital District schools based on its graduation rate and assessment scores, the district had begun to take aim at the high dropout rate of the 2007-08 school year.

I hear the collective yawn now…

 

Chalmers

The resolution to kill Chalmers gets tabled (Recorder here).

Charlie Kraebel alludes to a personal tirade based upon his observation of the meeting but reconsiders and heads in a new direction (here).

Meanwhile (Business Review here):

The long-delayed second phase of the Harmony Mills apartment renovation in Cohoes, N.Y., is moving forward.

The developer, Uri Kaufman, said the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has approved mortgage insurance on a construction loan worth up to $20.3 million.

Kaufman said getting the commitment from HUD means he will be able to find a private lender to finance renovations to the big, old cotton mill on the banks of the Mohawk River.

The northern end of the building will be converted into 135 luxury apartments, a swimming pool and a garage in the basement.

 

It’s Official: Unofficially

Apparently I’m somewhat of a spokesman for Mayor Thane according to the Judge Report (here):

According to flippin amsterdam, unofficial spokesman for the Thane regime,…

Man, that is a lot of responsibility to speak for an entire regime. I promise to do my best in my new role. Of course, you must now ignore the content and substance of what I write as I’m merely a spokesman; no original thinking here–just towing the party regime line. I don’t even write my own posts based upon my own views and analysis but what the regime instructs me to write.

Let the framing begin.

 

The Financial Case Against Chalmers

I wanted to avoid posting further as the posts on Chalmers are making me quite prickly today. But I cannot let financial analysis go unchecked so I have to comment on a few posts from the Judge Report (here and here).

First, the controversy around the $890K figure. The $890K represents a combined rate of taxes of school, city and county. It is not just the city tax rate as the calculation relies upon $57/thousand which suggests a fully assessed value of $15.6 million or approximately $200K per unit assuming 80 units. So to claim the $890K is strictly the tax burden from the city and thereby generate ludicrous assessed values misstates the analysis completely.

Now, I admit that we are looking at projections so we need to discount and future earnings are not today’s earnings; I’ll admit that upfront. Still, the analysis presented above does not address these issues which are more relevant but instead builds upon a faulty set of assumptions that no one is claiming.

Second, the return for Kaufman is ultimately in the sale of the units not in the income stream from the rentals. To view the returns on this project strictly based upon income streams during the time which the property will not be fully assessed and not taxed again misstates the numbers and the true revenue stream. The true return on this project is 5 to 10 years in the future when the properties convert to condos for resale.

If you’re going to pick apart Kaufman’s financial case or the mayor’s, you need sound financial analysis with clear statements of your assumptions and process. I see neither.

 

Consider This

Here is a post ostensibly on the school budget vote but at its core, a perfect distillation of the mindset miring this city from any meaningful change and progress. And yes, this will lead us to the Chalmers debate.  Because is not life  a perfect circle that forever brings us to Chalmers… Anyway, here’s the post in question:

Has anyone taken into consideration that a lot of our residents (voters) are seniors that live on fixed incomes? These people cannot afford any more tax increases. Without radio stations like WCSS their issues fall on deaf ears. It is so funny that you are so concerned about what is said on talk radio. What’s wrong folks, does the truth hurt? Next the mayor and her lackey will find that she has the power to close radio stations that allow people share have their point of view? It saddens me to say, but if this ridiculous scenario was at all possible, OUR mayor would do it.

Let me deconstruct this post so we can look at the elements of how debates get framed and articulated:

First, we get the righteous indignation about seniors on fixed incomes: how dare we not consider the seniors and even consider anything that raises taxes for a program or initiative. HOW DARE WE?!

Let me dare. In fact, our community actually has more members and interests than those of seniors. Heresy I know to actually state facts but facts are stubborn things. Anyway for those who always proclaim the interests of seniors especially those most economically vulnerable , ask yourself some tough questions:

• If we’ve always been looking out for seniors and their tax rates, why do we leave them today with one of the areas’ and even nationally highest tax rates? Why has your rhetoric fallen so far short of its stated goal?
• If we’ve always been looking out for seniors, why have we left them with the least amount of home equity than most other local communities? Why have we left them with a crushing tax rate and dismal home equity values?
• How do you take a morally defensible position as a politician or voter  if you support a tax raise such as the recent school budget knowing that your vote will subject seniors to economic collapse?
• How do you reconcile your respect and concern for the most vulnerable when you daily rail on local radio and to your friends and neighbors against welfare and other programs whose very existence contributes to caring for the most vulnerable of seniors?

But what strikes me as most offensive in the debate is how the politics of seniors is used as a cynical albeit effective way to frame the debate on a host of issues such that if you hold a counterview, you are immediately on the defensive: how dare you not consider seniors!

I think it’s no longer time to play defense; it’s time for offense.

Simply put: why should I not have a vote or say in what matters to my interests, my family’s interests or broader community interests? What gives you the right to subjugate my interests to those of another group by default? Do I even count in this community if I am not a senior?

Consider how arrogant and self-serving the statement sounds to a parent with children with a home and with the demands of a career, family, yadda yadda: your kids academic programs don’t matter; your kids sports don’t matter; your property values don’t matter;  your interests don’t matter; you don’t matter. They matter.

Instead, it’s seniors who exclusively matter by the poster above and their ilk. The very ones who support policies that do the very opposite of what they intend. And the rest of us should merely go along as we are not them.

I think not.

But of course they and only they speak ‘the truth’. And where do we get the truth: on WCSS and local radio. The assertion is so utterly laughable if not for the impact on the local debate and local elections. Let me choose a simple example that illustrates how the hosts treat truth with our favorite topic, Chalmers. For months, the meme on the radio was that “no one on the south side wants the Chalmers project” or the variant “everyone on the south side wants Chalmers to come down”. Yet when the Chalmers meeting was held lo-and-behold a fair number of south siders were in favor of Chalmers.

But the drumbeat for killing Chalmers continued and I daresay with renewed intensity. And the drumbeat against the school budget. And the drumbeat against the second school budget. And on…

And what drives that drumbeat but the desire to defeat and destroy: Knock Chalmers down! Vote no to the budget! Vote no on taxes! No more welfare!No socialism! No dictatorships!

They are against things real and imagined but what exactly are they for. I have not a clue.

So for those of us who look at Chalmers as much needed residential development and as a financial signal to other investors that Amsterdam is on the upswing;  for those of us who actually believe that a high performing school district matters to our children’s future and our community;s future; for those of us who care for thoughtful debate and analysis; for those of us who recognize that we did not get to today just by fate but through the collective decisions of past leaders and their policies; and for those of us who try as we might see no way this city will ever get better if we hold onto the dominant mindset of the past years and decades, I see no way that I can continue to live here..

Consider that.

 

Happy 4th

Check here for local fireworks schedule and local happenings.

I will return to the blog Tuesday as a self-imposed break from blogging.

 

What Say I

For those wondering where I stand on the issued legal opinion of the resolution to terminate the Chalmers contract, here it is.

First, the legal opinion: the opinion clearly articulates the rationale for rendering the proposed resolution ineffective given the language or lack of language in the charter. In short, why should the mayor cede administrative authority to the council vis-a-vis separation of roles and powers. Effectively counsel considers the approval as a bright line that once the approval of the contract crosses, the power rests in the executive branch and as there is no explicit statement otherwise limiting the administrative powers of the mayor, the opinion assigns the right to terminate or not terminate a contract to the executive within the granted administrative powers.

On the other hand, the lack of clear language in the charter subjects the opinion to scrutiny on its assertion that a bright line exists based upon historic precedent of city and ironically on the very lack of clear language stating otherwise. So the legislative argument counters that the lack of clarity does not cede authority to the executive but preserves that authority in the legislative branch.

I spent a fair amount of time trying to find similar cases and even looked at NYS General Municipal Law along with the City Charter to no avail. While I did find cases of Mayors terminating contracts –which suggests they can choose not to terminate– I also found cases of legislative termination of contracts.

My bottom line: I see the corporation counsel’s opinion as wholly rational, articulate and reasoned. That said, the council could challenge and likely will challenge the opinion as stated above. I’m not sure what happens in such a showdown between executive and legislative but I expect we will find out. And I think we should find out as regardless of what side you’re on, we need the process to work within the framework of sound governance. In this case, I’m willing to let the legal process unfold as it requires objectivity,  legal expertise and knowledge of municipal law– none of which I can claim on this issue.

Now we all know that this is about more than a legal opinion; there’s the  politics. And on the political equation, I will be less kind and tempered in my remarks. But for that you’ll have to wait as I’m out of time for now.