Paetec Encourages Long Commutes
Fast-growing local telecom firm PAETEC Communications announced this week that they are joining the City of Rochester's Employer-Assisted Housing Initiative. Through this program, PAETEC will offer its employees up to $3,000 to purchase a home in the City's southwest quadrant, popularly (though somewhat inaccurately) referred to as the 19th Ward. The City of Rochester will match PAETEC's assistance dollar for dollar. Other employers already involved in this program are Kodak, Xerox, Unity Health, Visiting Nurse Service, and the City itself.
This is a great program and if more local employers join in, neighborhood revitalization in this city is inevitable. What makes PAETEC's involvement in the program interesting to me is that, unlike all of the other companies involved, PAETEC has no presence in the City of Rochester (other than having their name on PAETEC Park). Unlike their arch-rivals One Communications (formerly Choice One) or Frontier, PAETEC chose to locate their headquarters at a non-descript office building in Willowbrook Office Park on the Perinton/Victor border. The former Choice One on the other hand maintains their HQ at the HSBC Building in downtown Rochester while Frontier has their own building on South Clinton. Logically, it should be One Communications or Frontier making this commitment, not PAETEC. But PAETEC CEO Arunas Chesonis is a young, attractive, and well-educated individual who recognizes that a large percentage of his workforce are young city residents who may want to make a long-term commitment to city living. Unlike many other corporate executives in our area, he understands that a healthy city is necessary for this region to prosper.
I hope other telecom firms in this communications mecca that we call home follow PAETEC's lead and offer the same opportunity for their employees. One Communications and Frontier both have large presences downtown and would be well-served to help their employees purchase homes in the city thereby potentially shortening their commutes and enriching their lives. But could PAETEC also learn something from their rivals? Could PAETEC follow their lead and establish office space of some sort in the city proper? Think about it -- the commute from Genesee Park Boulevard to Willowbrook is a lengthy, gas-guzzling, air-polluting 14-mile jaunt by car, whereas the commute to the Cascade District is a healthy, leisurely two-mile bike ride away. I won't hold my breath, but this is definitely another good sign for the city's future.
Fairport Baptists Worship Almighty Dollar
I grew up in the Town of Perinton not far from the Village of Fairport and consider the village to be somewhat of a model for any small town in Upstate NY. Strong neighborhoods, well-kept parks, shopping and dining options, historic features, et cetera. Sure it has its problems, such as the lack of a pharmacy or market, but all in all, Fairport is a great place to live. That's why it is beyond shocking that a developer would have the audacity to propose
knocking down a historic house of worship in the heart of this historic village to make way for an anti-historic Walgreens or something similar. What's worse is that those in charge of the church are actually considering it.
David Taber is a trustee of the church. According to the D&C, "he is going to vote to pursue the church's options, including sale. He said he does not want financial help from the government to save the building, even one he loves. "And we don't have a grocery store," said Taber, 71, a lifelong member of the church. "I have friends and neighbors who depend on being able to walk uptown to do their shopping. Some are frustrated by this whole thing."" So let me get this straight, he won't accept government help to save the church that he loves, but he'll accept a developer's blood money to knock it down?
To put it plainly, that don't make a lick of sense. Just because the building needs work is not a good excuse to sell out your faith for two million greenbacks. Furthermore, why should a drugstore at this location fare any better than the previous attempts to run such a store at Village Landing just up the street? In all likelihood, Fairport would end up with two empty boxes instead of one and they will have lost one of their most iconic structures in the process. Hopefully they will take heed to the lesson from the Town of Greece's Barnard neighborhood of which I have written before. Tearing down your history and replacing it with throwaway box-itecture is flat-out dumb.
Thankfully, I have faith that the residents of the Village will not allow this travesty to transpire. Numerous residents in the article pointed out the sheer ludicrosity of this proposal. Their outrage will inspire the Village Board to tell Ron Rothfuss, real estate site selector for the anonymous retail chain, to go to Hell. Ironically, because of this proposal (if the Baptists have any clout with the woman upstairs), he is already well on his way. Let's hope the parishioners of the church aren't going to accompany him.
Charlotte Residents Prefer Declining Tax Base to Port Redevelopment
Sasaki Associates unveiled their "final" plans for redevelopment of the Port of Rochester last night. From the looks of the rendering below, they accommodated a number of resident concerns such as removing mid-rise condo buildings that blocked views of the lake and lowering the overall density of the development. Personally, I likes what I sees. This new plan allows for potential continuation of ferry service, creates hundreds of new housing units, a number of new retail spaces, a significant public marina, and a large public square. What's not to like? Well, sure enough, you can never please all the people all of the time.
News10 NBC interviewed one of many irate Charlotte residents. “We won't have a beautiful view from Lake Avenue anymore,” John Foy said. “All we'll see is brick buildings.” Well first of all John, it's "all we'll see are brick buildings", get it right. Second, and more importantly, what beautiful view from Lake Avenue are you referring to? I've heard this sentiment before from Charlotte residents opposed to redevelopment at the Port of Rochester. Every time I've been up there though, I haven't found any "beautiful view" from Lake Avenue that would be disrupted by this development. Last I checked, when you look up "beautiful view" in the dictionary or even the thesaurus, you do not see a picture of the parking lots that are currently found at the Port. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself. Google "beautiful view" at your leisure and look at the image results. Sure enough, not a single result shows the Port parking lots, let alone parking lots anywhere else. The resulting images are of mountains, parks, historic sites, and city views. That's right, urbanity is considered by many to be "beautiful". Therefore, all of those ugly "brick buildings" will likely improve the views from Lake Avenue and make Charlotte a destination with a real identity. Who knows, it may even show up on a future Google search.Even if I have convinced Mr. Foy that he is wrong on the "beautiful view" argument, he is ready with another complaint. “The property should belong to the people and should be used to the advantage of most of the people,” Foy said. “Now when you get down to this it's going to be to the advantage of a very few people.” As a proud member of this group of "people" Mr. Foy refers to, I have to completely disagree. You see, people like me prefer to be able to get the highest and best use out of waterfront land. A sprawling parking lot only benefits those who choose to park there. A new urban village complete with multiple housing styles, varied retail and dining options, cultural activities, office space, parks, tree-lined streets, and a marina -- well, that really does benefit "most of the people". Considering the fact that this is City-owned land and is currently producing zero tax benefit, I can't see how anyone could possibly be opposed. We could continute to use the land for parking and generate zero tax benefit from it or we could turn it over to the private sector and create significant new taxable development to help stablize our city. I suppose it comes down to a philosophical question. Should we sit idly by while our city hollows out and the suburbs sprawl further into the countryside? Or should we do whatever we can to maximize the positive assets of our hometown? Residents of Charlotte are rightfully protective of their beautiful waterside community, however, they must realize that this redevelopment will allow hundreds of others to enjoy that same lifestyle in ways that are currently unavailable to them. The development will also help soften the blow of future budget crunches by increasing the tax base. Change is inevitable, I hope the residents of Charlotte choose to embrace it before the opportunity passes them by.
Police Help Teens Love Guns
Maybe I'm overreacting, but the following picture disgusts me. Taken from today's Democrat & Chronicle as part of a story on Webster and Irondequoit teens taking part in Summer Police Academies, it shows a 13-year-old girl learning how to fire a handgun. Isn't this exactly what we don't want for our children? Haven't we glorified guns enough in this country?
The story leads off with an equally disgusting introduction:
"Ian Urriola dreams of becoming a forensic scientist, but should consider sharpshooter as another career option. In his first try with a real gun, the 14-year-old Webster Schroeder High School freshman fired a bull's-eye with a .40-caliber semi-automatic handgun from about 25 yards at the Webster Police Department firing range during the agency's Student Police Academy Camp. "It felt good," said Urriola, one of 22 youths in eighth through 12th grade enrolled in the weeklong program."
Should we be happy about 14-year-old boys just entering adolescence who, thanks to this ridiculous program, feel good about firing a semi-automatic handgun? Now that he's had a taste of the false sense of power that a gun provides, what's to stop him from raiding his father's gunsafe and bringing one to school? I imagine people would be more offended by this if it were inner-city kids learning how to fire guns from RPD officers, but because they're sweet little white suburban kids, we don't bat an eyelash at the obvious short-sightedness of this potentially dangerous program. Residents of Irondequoit and Webster should not only be ashamed that their towns are exposing such young minds to this type of activity, they should be outraged that at least some part of their tax dollars are being spent on contributing to our nation's pathetic obsession with guns.
"We want them to at least understand what police work is all about, and it's not just what you see on TV," said (Irondequoit Police Sgt. Larry) Donk. "It's also an opportunity to enforce some rights and wrongs." In an ideal world, sure, but this world is far from ideal. The police of all people should know that. Do they have this program in Littleton, Colorado (home to Columbine) too?
Hip-Hop + Rochester = Violence (?)
Once again, a hip-hop concert in Rochester has led to bloodshed. It doesn't seem to matter at what venue the show is held; Water Street, Milestones, Marquee, and now Montage have all dealt with violence when holding a hip-hop or dancehall reggae show. Sadly, it seems to me that this city simply cannot hold these types of shows without something awful happening. The big question, and it's one that I don't think anybody in town wants to have to answer, is what to do with these events? Clearly we can't just ban them from Rochester. Too many people in and around this region are hip-hop fans and the vast majority of them are decent, law-abiding citizens who just want to have a good time.To put it in economic terms, this is a serious issue for the attraction and retention of young, educated, and highly mobile urban folks. Too often, young people that have the means to get out of town are doing so because they just don't feel safe in this city. For those that are hip-hop fans, much of that bad experience may be related to these shows. Scores of young, educated black men and women from Rochester's inner city ship out for NYC, Atlanta, Charlotte, and elsewhere and this situation certainly isn't helping reverse that trend. This may be my first rant for which I cannot come up with a proper solution. I don't think that we can legislate our way out of this problem. It's sad that rap/hip-hop has gone from being a creative outlet for urban angst, much like punk and grunge was for depressed white kids, to being all about, as Nas said, "clothes, bankrolls, and hoes." Of course, this violence is not necessarily hip-hop's fault. The violence at hip-hop shows is symptomatic of what is wrong with our city. There are too many guns on the streets and not enough job opportunities. There are too many drugs on the streets and not enough hope. We need to be tougher on violent offenders and we need to be more congratulatory of those who choose the right path. We need to break up the concentration of poverty that ravages the so-called "Crescent" and in its place, construct more attractive mixed-income housing so that the poor not only have decent living conditions but also so that their children can see that hard work does pay off even if it's not as instant as drug dealing and gang banging.This is all empty rhetoric because there is no funding out there for accomplishing these things. There are few resources out there that we can use to better our community. Case in point, at the same time that Bush and his cronies are adding billions to the war budget, they're cutting Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds that are meant to improve our cities. Instead of a comprehensive agenda for urban America, the federal government is content to let our cities rot. It's obvious that if we are going to save our city, we're going to have to do it ourselves. But the question remains, how?
La Marqueta or El Strip Mall?
Forgive me for saying so, but I was as skeptical as anyone when the La Marqueta project was first announced. It seemed a bit far-fetched that a new glass-enclosed Latin-themed marketplace could be successful at the heart of La Avenida (Avenida Clinton Norte for those not hip to the lingo). Given the struggles of the neighborhood with drugs and violence, I doubted that any developer would be willing to give it a try. But Larry Glazer and his Buckingham Properties responded to the City's Request for Proposals and was selected as the designated developer for the project.It seemed like a decent fit. Buckingham has had decent success with urban retail, first along University Avenue and then along Lyell Avenue, and has done well with downtown loft development recently. This project would add a distinctive flavor to their growing portfolio of inner city properties. Thus, despite my prior apprehensiveness, I acquiesced into supporting the project. It was a cool concept and, if done right, could lead to some real economic growth on La Avenida. I guess I was right to be skeptical.Last week's City Newspaper ran a cover story on La Marqueta. They talked to local businesses along the multi-ethnic strip who are anxiously awaiting development of the project that has been talked about for years. They described a kin project in Hartford that has been a thorough success there. City Councillor Gladys Santiago (Rochester's only Hispanic Councilperson because, as David Gantt says, we only need one Latino on the Council) is interviewed as well. The troubling part of the article is what Buckingham is likely to turn La Marqueta into.Rather than it being a year-round hub of neighborhood activity, it sounds like it will be nothing more than a strip mall with a Spanish accent. Something along the lines of a Taco Bell and tile-roofed Dollar General comes to my less-than-optimistic mind. Worse yet, Glazer is demanding parking in front of the new structure. As Sujata Gupta writes, "A controversial part of (the) Glazer plan is a parking lot in front of the site, which eliminates the outdoor plaza. "It has been proven over and over and over again that when you have retail, you must have parking in the front, because you can't have two entrances in the store," says Glazer. "They can't guard two storefronts. This is the reality of what the market will accept."" Call me crazy, but I have yet to see proof of this anywhere in the City of Rochester.Glazer's opinion assumes that the majority of patrons will not walk to La Marqueta from their homes (roughly half of the households in the neighborhood do not own a car), nor will they park somewhere else along La Avenida to shop at other stores while walking to La Marqueta (the original intent of this development was to create wealth in the neighborhood not cannibalize it by discouraging walkability), and it certainly assumes that patrons are unwilling to park behind a building and walk around it.From the sounds of it, he doesn't just want a few parking spaces, he wants a really big suburban-style parking lot. The sprawling vacant lot targeted for La Marqueta is just not enough for him. Glazer wants to tear down neighboring homes and businesses so that his development can take up the entire block. He will not begin construction until he has what he wants. Well I for one encourage the city to tell him "thanks, but no thanks". This is not what WE want for our community. The development he wants to build in no way resembles what was intended. To Buckingham, this is about maximizing their profit in a very risky venture. That is understandable, but it is not acceptable. Buckingham has done some great things in this City, so it is quite disappointing to hear about these plans. The goal was/is not to build a strip mall; it was to build a community gathering place that recognizes the uniqueness of La Avenida. Rather than settling, let's do a nation-wide search for developers (not-for-profits, Latino-owned, etc.) that are willing to do what WE want them to. This is OUR city after all.
