Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Mayor Duffy Wants YOU! to Pay for Suburban Beaches

Although fully surrounded by the Town of Irondequoit, Durand-Eastman Park is technically part of the City of Rochester. It was bequeathed to the city by George Eastman way back when. Back when the City could afford it I suppose. For years, Monroe County has taken care of maintenance at the lush 965-acre park. However, the public has not been allowed (legally) to swim at its 5,000 feet of lakefront. Mayor Duffy is currently seeking to change all that.

The City has taken control of the waterfront, with County Executive Brooks more than happy to part with the land. Duffy wants to reinstate swimming at Durand, with lifeguards, changing facilities, and all that must be included in a legal public swimming area. All this of course, costs money. Lots of money. Money that Monroe County couldn't find in its budget for many years. Money that previous City administrations could not free up in their budgets either. Now all of a sudden, Duffy has found a way to pay for it: raise City property taxes by 2.57%!

I, for one, ain't having it. And there is a very simple reason why other city taxpayers should oppose it as well. It isn't truly part of the City! It's in the suburbs for God's sake. The vast majority of beachgoers will be from Irondequoit, Webster, and Greece - not from the City. While I agree that Durand is a popular swimming spot and that we as a community should try to find a way to pay for improvements there, it should not be placed on the backs of overburdened city taxpayers. I know Duffy won the mayor's race because of support from wealthy suburbanites, but that is no reason to pay for improvements in their community.

Alas, as usual, I have a solution: user fees. If you've ever been to Kershaw Park in the City of Canandaigua, you know what I'm talking about. At Kershaw, all Canandaigua City residents swim for free, all non-City residents must pay an entry fee. It's quite simple really. If Rochester City residents are forced to pay for improvements to Durand, then non-City residents should be forced to pay to use the facility. Who knows, the City may even make a profit over time.

In fact, to ensure that we DO make a profit, I propose that we close bacteria-plagued Ontario Beach to swimming permanently. We can move all of the lifeguards and related equipment that had been there over to Durand. We can build a boardwalk at the shoreline to reinforce that swimming is not allowed. Over time, we could add a large swimming pool at Ontario Beach so that a form of swimming could return. Once again though, I'd suggest charging user fees to non-City residents for that as well. It's absolutely ludicrous that in a fiscal crisis time we're considering paying for beaches in the suburbs - if they won't pay for it, why should we?

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Yield to Pedestrians in the Crosswalk -- IT'S THE LAW!!!

First off, I want to apologize for my sporadic postings. I have quite a few things going on in my life that are distracting me from providing loyal readers with my often insensitive yet thoroughly accurate rants on everything Rochester. But enough of that, on to the good stuff.

As a downtown resident and worker, I see lots of things on my walks to and from work and home. Some good things, some bad things. One thing I not only see but also encounter on a regular basis is conflict between cars and pedestrians. There are far too many idiot drivers that just don't understand how to drive in an environment that is designed for pedestrians. Today at lunch time, for instance, I watched as a car turned right onto Main from Fitzhugh while a throng of pedestrians in the crosswalk (who had the right-of-way) had to step back to avoid being hit. Thank goodness these folks were paying attention; most don't (and shouldn't have to) because if you're a pedestrian in the crosswalk with the right-of-way, you shouldn't have anything to fear.

Right turns into the path of oncoming pedestrians is the most common problem I encounter as a pedestrian commuter. Probably the worst location for this in all of downtown is the corner of State and Andrews, with the corner of East and Main a close second. I know that it is difficult, as a driver, to respect pedestrians. They look so wimpy without all that glass and steel surrounding them. They think they're so great using their feet instead of gasoline to get from point A to point B. Just thinking about it makes me want to hit one right now.

To play devil's advocate, pedestrians too are guilty of committing some very stupid violations downtown as well. The mid-block dash is a common occurrence that I too am guilty of regularly, often because I want to avoid crossing at intersections because of the aforementioned problem. A more serious problem that blows my mind is the pedestrian crossing against oncoming traffic. Whether they're too cool to wait on the sidewalk or are actually in a hurry to get someplace, too many people walk right into the path of oncoming vehicles. Maybe they don't realize that they don't have the right-of-way just because they're in a crosswalk or maybe they don't realize how badly they'd be hurt if they were hit by an El Dorado at 45 mph. Stupid behavior like this puts all pedestrians, and drivers, at risk. Maybe pedestrian education courses are needed.

Speaking of education, back to the idiot drivers, the real enemy of the downtown pedestrian. A few lessons for them to learn: red lights function as 'Stop' signs, so please apply your brakes fully. Furthermore, 'Stop' signs aren't there for decoration, so please respect them. When you see 'No Turn on Red', it doesn't mean stop, look around, and haul ass around the corner. Similarly, 'No Left Turn' signs apply to everyone but buses and emergency vehicles; if you're not driving one of those, please obey the law. I'll close with two words: "one way".

If downtown Rochester is going to continue to blossom as a residential neighborhood, the pedestrian must be protected. That means that the RPD officer sitting at the corner of Main & State should actually bust drivers for running red lights, turning on red, making illegal left turns, and turning into the path of pedestrians. Increased enforcement could do a lot to improve the civility of walking downtown and in so doing, contribute to the success of our center city.

Friday, May 12, 2006

RCSD: For Black Kids Only?

I'm just thinking aloud here but could someone please give me a good reason why we should convert the educational curriculum of the Rochester City School District to an afrocentric one? Today's D&C reported that "nationally known" educator and author Jawanza Kunjufu (never heard of him) came to town yesterday to encourage our fair city to adopt afrocentric policies that would seemingly alienate all other races of children represented in the district.

Kunjufu suggests that if we modified the district's educational focus to be more "African American-centered", students would be less likely to drop out. That seems like a bit of a stretch to me. While I assume he's only concerned with black students, I still don't see how spending more time learning about Marcus Garvey would convince young black men and women to stay in school. If we switched to a more "Asian American-centered" curriculum, would less Asians drop out? Hmmm...I guess I see his point. As a white guy, I was really motivated to stay in school because we learned more about European history than that of other ethnicities. Had we spent more time on the Chinese dynasties, I probably would've failed miserably while my Chinese counterparts would have excelled. That's a bad analogy, the Chinese know more about honkey history than us honkeys.

Other ideas Kunjufu put forth include establishing single-gender schools. I support that one because girls have cooties. Another idea is for the district to create African-centered charter schools. Is it just me or does this sound like segregation? Why don't we just force all black kids to go to one district and they can learn about their history and all the Latinos can go to their district and learn about their history? The same goes for the Asians, whites, Arabs, Native Americans, and every other ethnicity out there.

I would agree with him that, if indeed too many black children are being wrongly classified as "special education students," that needs to change. I would also agree that black children often face challenges that are unique from others. But Kunjufu seems to go way overboard. His policies would cause more harm than good. IMO, kids in public schools in America should learn the same thing no matter where their school is located. It's called equality, whether it truly exists or not.

So who brought Mr. Kunjufu to town? Why none other than City School Board member and noted racist Cynthia Elliott, who summed up her reasoning for sponsoring his visit with this non-sensical statement: "I thought it was apropos for us to bring someone here, and to see what kind of policies that we need to be considering for Rochester." Need I say more?

Friday, May 05, 2006

Not Too Soon to Bash Wegmans

In the typical classy manner in which I conduct myself and this blog, I have waited a couple of weeks to post an anti-Wegmans rant. It seemed a bit wrong to post such a topic during the public mourning of Bob Wegman, patriarch of America's favorite grocery store. I believe an adequate amount of time has passed however, and I am once again free to unleash my fury upon them. I promise, this will be a blog you can truly feel good about. Or it will really piss you off. Either way, you read it didn't you?

First, I'll acknowledge the positive contributions that Wegmans has made to this community. They employ many thousands of people locally, many in well-paying positions at the corporate or managerial level. They award generous scholarships to their brightest young workers annually, helping many young minds achieve educational brilliance. Their philanthropy throughout the region is well-known such as at the Wegmans Rochester LPGA, the Wegmans School of Pharmacy at St. John Fisher College, and numerous bequests to Aquinas Institute. Their expansions into other regions have brought added wealth and recognition to our community.

That being said, I hate Wegmans. I hate them with a passion that is only surpassed by my hatred of Wal-Mart, BJ's, or Applebee's. How can someone who so loves this city and region hate a home-grown company with such fervent animosity? It's nothing personal, their track record speaks for itself. Just look at what they've done in the City of Rochester. Over time, they've whittled down their store count to just two within the City limits. It is likely that this store count will drop to one within the near future as the Dewey/Driving Park store surely does not fit their long-term ambitions. The most recent inner city store closing was their beloved Mount Hope Avenue store, the anchor in the UR/Mount Hope retail district.

It wasn't long before they announced the closing that they had the neighborhood convinced they would get a brand new, larger Wegmans on the same site. When they decided they'd rather abandon another City neighborhood rather than attempt to fit in, they tried to justify it by saying they were losing money there. I'm pretty sure anyone that ever frequented that location knows that was a blatant lie. That store was constantly busy serving the needs of the thousands of UR students, faculty, and other employees, not to mention the thousands of residents of the surrounding neighborhoods. It probably did enough sales in beer alone to justify its existence.

They didn't just close the store though. They made sure that they killed the retail district as well. Wegmans instituted a restrictive covenant on the property to be sure that whoever bought the land did not build a competing market, whether it be a grocery (e.g., Tops), a convenience store (e.g., Wilson Farms), or a drugstore (e.g., Eckerd). Sure it may make good business sense, but where is their corporate citizenship in their hometown? If they couldn't make a go of it at that location, surely they could have allowed another chain to try. Since then, the store has been bulldozed and turned into a big parking lot for the Medical Center. Across the street, the venerable Record Archive recently shut down; its weathered building now sits awaiting its inevitable demise at the teeth of a bulldozer.

To add insult to injury, Wegmans continues to play with redevelopment plans for their hugely successful East Avenue store. That store too must be expanded in order for Wegmans to keep it viable (or so they say). Their solution? Buy up the block of historic buildings that once made up the main commercial strip of downtown Brighton way back when and knock them all down. In their place, put up a big suburban-style store with a sprawling parking lot. To appease we obstinate city folks, they propose windows along East Ave. Maybe even a streetfront entrance or two. Maybe a clock tower. Sure, the historical integrity of the neighborhood will be gone, and its pedestrian friendliness wiped away with it, but shoppers will have wider aisles, more checkout lanes, and a larger selection of tampons.

Now you can begin to see why I hate Wegmans. As a City resident, I cannot in good conscience throw my hard-earned money at a corporation that does not respect my ideals or my community. Even if that corporation is home-grown. In the time that Wegmans has closed inner city stores, Tops has opened a number of city locations. Their more flexible business model allows them to open smaller stores that more appropriately fit urban environments. It is possible that the death of Bob Wegman will allow Danny the opportunity to adjust the business model to create smaller, urban-oriented stores. But given the money they're making in places like Fairfax, VA or Cherry Hill, NJ, it seems highly unlikely. Wegmans has purposely banished itself to the same suburban sprawl as every other big box retailer. There they can cater to the needs of the wealthy and the wannabes, and leave the rest of us with no choice but to drive out to meet them. I'll stick to my local independent grocers and corner stores, the Rochester Public Market, and Tops. Will you join me?

Monday, May 01, 2006

Post Removed; Man About Town Issues Apology

I deleted a post from this blog today. This is the first, and hopefully last, time I will need to do this. The post was not in the spirit of this blog, and had apparently caused more harm than good. To those whom that particular post hurt, offended, or otherwise upset, I apologize. To those who agreed with the post, I suggest that we all should look in the mirror. Regardless of the circumstances behind what happened, the fact remains that a promising young life was taken and the relative innocence of a safe, close-knit neighborhood was shaken. There are more appropriate things for me to pontificate on and I will attempt to focus on those rather than stick my nose where it should not be stuck.