Transportation Collaboration in New Hartford

The New Hartford School District has come up with an idea that merits a close look: a shared transportation facility. Per the O-D,

The school district, town, village and local BOCES unit may collaborate to build a shared transportation facility.

The effort reflects an opportunity to consolidate services and facilities, Superintendent of Schools Daniel Gilligan said Monday.

“Rather than everyone building their own, we should share one,” Gilligan said as the Board of Education passed a resolution that could help further the project.

Other potential partners: Oneida-Herkimer-Madison BOCES and the town and village of New Hartford.

But this idea really needs to be taken further because there is a customer already looking for a transportation facility: CENTRO.

CENTRO wants to consolidate its bus maintenance facility for both its Utica and Rome-based fleets. The City of Utica has voiced some reluctance to having it in downtown Utica — not thinking that it would fit with the City’s plans for downtown. The Mayor proposed that it be located between Utica and Rome. That seems to make sense. . . and that seems to make New Hartford’s proposal for a facility on Middle Settlement Road a perfect fit for CENTRO as well.

Location aside, there are other obvious benefits:

(1) CENTRO’S expertise. The local bus system seems to have gotten a boost by the boys (and girls) from Syracuse. Something sorely lacking in almost all school districts, no matter how handsomely compensated the superintendent, is a business sense for running operations. Although CENTRO is subsidized, it competes for passengers against taxis and private automobiles. It has to make those fares it collects go as far as possible to survive. Integrating school transportation with a professionally run public transit system would seem to lead to both cost savings and increased customer satisfaction.

(2) Educational Opportunity. A facility co-located with BOCES would seem to tailor-make an opportunity for training mechanics much like MVCC’s aircraft maintenance training facility already does at Griffiss. Students would not only learn about nuts and bolts, but they would have a chance to learn about the transportation business as well.

Location, Expertise, and Education . . . Adding CENTRO to the mix would seem a natural fit.

Salivation in Whitestown . . .

Whitestown officials are virtually salivating at the prospect of “growth” a’ la New Hartford now that Rt 840 has opened. Per the O-D,

Such development will bolster the assessment roll and provide more opportunities for residents, Whitestown Town Supervisor Matthew Shannon says.

What opportunities? Another quick stop? More office space that will simply mean moving work from other parts of the region to Whitestown? We are an area of DECLINING POPULATION, remember? This is not growth — repeat, NOT GROWTH. It’s moving the deck chairs on a sinking ship. But Mr. Shannon wants Whitestown to be like New Hartford.

“That atmosphere is going to soon migrate over to the town of Whitestown,” Shannon said. “We’re prepared, and we’re shovel-ready for the growth.”

So we get another quick stop. But what do we lose? Perhaps an organic garlic farm? The region has plenty of quick stops, but not many garlic farms. In fact, anyone who can remember back 40 years when we had 85,000 more people in this County we also had a lot more active farm land.

What will happen when a plague or some other calamity hits the California vegetable bowl? Or the cost of transportation simply becomes too high? We will want farmland nearby– but by then it will be paved over. But that’s thinking long term — something that we’ve learned not to expect from our local officials.

How about short term?

Per the O-D the Roberts’ garlic farm is already threatened by runoff from the site of the proposed quick stop, caused by the apparently unregulated dumping of fill on the property. Echos of New Hartford! And, like in New Hartford, the negative impact falls hardest on particular individuals. These are the kinds of problems the residents of Towns expect their government to prevent from developing. . . not pay to fix damage caused by developers later. Town government should not worry about serving the interests of some entrepreneur in Arizona.

“Providing opportunities for residents” is a crock. Bolstering the assessment roll is the real deal here . . . providing opportunities for government officials. That’s been the story in New Hartford, and Whitestown wants to emulate it.

Enough already!

Sprawling in New Hartford

Urbanization marches on in New Hartford — even though the region’s population has suffered a drop of “Biblical” proportions — all with Oneida County’s cheer leading, if not complicity. According to the WKTV website (quoting Mr. Picente), the new development will include:

• Approximately 120 acres that can accommodate up to 1,000,000 square feet of development.
• Access from Route 5, Woods Highway and a new intersection with the new Judd Road Extension (Rt. 840).
• A brand new three level 130,000 square feet building for The Hartford on approximately 14 acres. Approximately 600-800 jobs will stay in New Hartford at this office – occupancy is slated for November 2008.
• Further development including a 15,000 square foot medical office complex. Negotiations are under way for a hotel (national flag) of approximately 100 rooms – both expected to break ground in Spring 200

Question: Where is all the sewage from this development going to go? If it’s going to go to the Sauquoit Creek Pump Station, isn’t the Town required to remove 5 gallons of storm water for every gallon of sewage that will be produced? Where/how has the Town done this? or will the 100 room hotel use “subsurface waste disposal” a/k/a cesspools?

A new intersection on 55MPH Rt. 840? Just what we need: another light. When did the state DOT decide to permit this abomination? and how did it decide this?

Some people in New Hartford won’t be happy until every large parcel of vacant land is developed and paved over.

They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique
And a swinging hot spot
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got
Till its gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

. . . . . . . . . Joni Mitchell

Another take on this story is on New Hartford Online Blog.

Proof of Ownership . . .

I see that MV EDGE is getting itself into the water dispute, with Mr. DiMeo protecting his baby, the Mohawk Valley Water Authority.

This is one person who is sick and tired of hearing EDGE, MVWA, Becher, etc. say things like “Solid research already shows we have an abundant water supply,” because the issue is not the abundance water, but who has the rights to it.

” Water authority officials contend they are entitled to draw up to 48.5 million gallons of water a day”

They need to prove that. Make them produce the deeds.

They can’t.

They will produce a document from the state that reserves that amount of water from the State’s taking for the canal — but a reservation is not a grant. MVWA has to prove that it purchased its own rights to the water from ALL the private landowners along West Canada Creek below its point of diversion. From at least two of the instruments recorded at the County Clerk’s office, it is clear that MVWA has no right to withdraw water when water in the creek is low without replenishment from its own reservoir.

In an nutshell, MVWA’s permit to operate a water supply depends upon a 1917 agreement with the State being in full force and effect. The permit says so. The agreement requires replenishment when flow is low. Without that agreement, MVWA’s rights can be no greater than those previously purchased from the private landowners — some of which also require replenishment. The state agreement is similar to some of the earlier private agreements. The state agreement requires MVWA to maintain its own reservoir at Gray, and to expand it to almost 1/4 the volume of Hinckley in order to take the full 48.5 MGD MVWA now claims. If this is not done, the agreement states there is NO right to take ANY water.

Mr. Becher does not tell you these things.

The County’s comprehensive water supply study from 1968 acknowledges that the Utica area’s right to water depends on the state agreement, and recommends expansion of Gray Reservoir to the full 6 billion gallons to ensure enough water JUST FOR EASTERN ONEIDA COUNTY (and parts of Herkimer).

Mr. Picente does not tell you this.

Looking at all this information, it is clear that the movers and shakers getting all the press are leaving important things out . . . and

Mr. DiMeo does not know what he is talking about.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

It seems that some people in New Hartford are never satisfied. An expanded court facility was rejected by the voters, so now there is movement afoot to demolish an historical structure to create more parking for the current court facility. Is this to “get even?”

Town Fathers constantly want Bigger and Better . . . more, More, MORE . . . . BUT THE POPULATION IS STAGNANT, so why does Town Government need MORE? Town Officialdom has an Edifice Complex… whether for its own buildings or those of developers that will justify growing more government. Personal ambitions drive the Town . . . and the Town — to which most people moved to get away from the city — has become like a city with all the problems of a city. The needs of the RESIDENTS have been lost in all the maneuvering. So the people will be forced to pay more in Taxes and lost Quality of Life so a certain few can play their game.

Let’s think about Court Facilities . . .

Town Court operates at night . . . meanwhile

City Court operates during the day . . .

One is 6 miles from the other . . . and the Utica City Court now has a new parking lot with plenty of spaces. One would think that with one court at night and the other during the day it would make sense for the two to share the same facilities . . .

But there is that pesky municipal Boundary separating New Hartford from Utica. So I guess that is what we are really paying for . . . . the line on a map — and the egos hiding behind it.

Merging City and Town . . .

Finally, someone is getting the message! From Capital 9 News, an Amsterdam alderman — and mayoral candidate — is proposing a merger of the City of Amsterdam with the Town of Amsterdam.

Amsterdam Alderman (R) Anthony “Babe” Pallotta said, “We work together, we play together, we shop together and we should be all one entity.”

Are the city and towns of Amsterdam really ready to become one?

Pallotta says yes and now’s the time for the two to merge.

“The town is expanding and growing and the city is withering on the vine. I say by combining both entities together we can grow together,” he said.

“We work together, we play together, we shop together . . . ” One can say the same thing about Utica and New Hartford/Whitestown/etc. In both places, neither city nor suburbs can make significant decisions without affecting each other. In both places boundaries and attitudes divide and disconnect a population of shared interests from effectively controlling its destiny. The result in both places has been urban sprawl — no real growth — with regional populations dropping.

It will be interesting to see if in Amsterdam the concept moves beyond mere election season talk. The town supervisor seems reticent, perhaps feeling threatened. But Mr. DiMezza might make a good mayor some day!

The City and Town of Amsterdam have a lot going for them in this regard compared with Utica and environs. There are fewer jurisdictions to deal with. Water and sewer are still part of city government rather than separate agencies. City and Town share the same name. They share the Greater Amsterdam School District. Merger of the City and Town seems like a “natural.”

Merger can reconnect a people with the interests they share in common. Instead of city and suburb wasting energy competing with each other, the energy can be used to propel both forward.

= = = =
Update 10/16:
Amsterdam water and sewer figure prominently in relationships between city and suburb, and are now playing into the “merger” talk: See “Amsterdam’s water issues back on tap.”

Water for the Future . . .

Hinckley 9/29/07
By now people are starting to realize that even with abundant water resources around us, we will come up short if they are improperly managed. While plenty of blame for our current crisis may be heaped on the Canal Corporation, we must remember that the Mohawk Valley Water Authority is ultimately responsible for ensuring abundant water supplies to Greater Utica.

MVWA has abdicated its responsibility.

MVWA abdicated its responsibility when it destroyed Gray Dam in 2002 without having a back up plan. When water flows in the West Canada Creek are low — such as now — the MVWA is obliged, by several agreements with the state and private landowners, to replace, gallon for gallon, all the water it removes from Hinckley with water from its own reserve reservoir further upstream on the Black Creek at Gray. If the MVWA had properly maintained and operated its Gray Reservoir, there would be no water crisis, because Greater Utica’s needs would have been met by releases from its own reservoir at Gray.

MVWA abdicated its responsibility when it agreed to supply water to Western Oneida County — to areas that have easier access to supplies from Rome and from the Onondaga County Water Authority. While not part of our immediate crisis, think of how many MORE people would be on restrictions, and think of how much worse it would be if MVWA goes through with its plans. When Greater Utica’s population was increasing 40 years ago, a water shortage was forecast without any water redistribution to the western part of the county. If Greater Utica ever resumes population growth (for example, from an additional 9,000 dwelling units forecast for New Hartford at ‘build out’ in its Comprehensive Plan Update) there will not be enough water.

We need long term planning from our water supplier, not short-term scrambling to solve a financial crunch — or to meet the desires of some developer.

MVWA has shown itself not up to the task it has been given.

Rome Helping Utica . . .

The story about Rome police helping Utica police is a welcome bit of news, especially for the besieged people of Cornhill.

What isn’t quite understood is why no help from New Hartford, Whitestown, or the various Villages nearby. Those areas will have a lot to lose if Utica goes under.

Perhaps it takes a City to understand the problems of another City, and know what to do.

Reconnect . . .

In response to my “Disconnect” post, “Anonymous” had some interesting things to say:

“These last two paragraphs suggest that you have bought into the “consolidation is panacea” mentality coming out of some segments of Albany. This supposition that the many layers of government in NY are in themselves the problem. The idea that if only we could do away with towns and villages, we could save all sorts of tax dollars, eliminate parochialism, and make NY government work smoothly. The assumption that there is some “one size fits all” solution that can fix it all. The suggestion that because something (like our system of government) is old, it must be outdated. . . “

“How could diluting my representation by increasing the number of other people whose concerns are the concern of my closet representative, ever enhance my access to services? . . . “

“I think it’s great that I have a level of government close enough to me that I can speak and be heard. I appreciate that those government services that most directly impact me are the responsibility of people who live in the same neighborhood I do. I know their quality of life is on the line, too. . . “

“I agree, though, that if all governments have narrow focus, people who should be working together end up working against each other. But consolidation is the wrong “c” word to be using. If the consolidation-sayers would put the energy they’re putting into forcing us to give up our local voice into building cooperation, collaboration, and coordination instead of wrestling for control, we could work together to preserve local identity while improving regional function.”

Wow! “Anonymous” sure got me thinking!

Smaller jurisdictions may make it easier for people to be heard, and to be watchdogs, over how their tax dollars are spent. Smaller government can be more responsive because it’s easier to deal with one person wearing 3 hats than 3 department heads. And if the people providing my services live in my neighborhood, they will see the results that I do.

But what constitutes a “neighborhood” is a matter of perspective. There is also such a thing as being too small. Smaller jurisdictions do not have the capability to provide services such as water, sewer, places to lock up criminals, and social work. And too many problems spill beyond jurisdictional boundaries. Here’s my take on our area.

New York Mills, Yorkville, West Utica, and the areas of NH and Whitestown lying in between cover 5 municipal jurisdictions, but are they different? Bicycle through them and they look very similar. They share the same water and sewer systems, and share the same local economy. “Downtown” and the cultural center (Stanley, MWP, the Aud, Zoo etc.) for all of them is Utica. People from them shop in the same places – now predominantly in New Hartford. They are ethnically similar and may even worship in the same churches. As I’ve noted in several posts over the last couple years, it is virtually impossible for one of these jurisdictions to do anything significant without affecting the others. The people’s “interests” are virtually identical. Why shouldn’t they share the same local government?

Contrast this with Rome. While Rome may look similar to NY Mills/Yorkville etc and aspects of the local economy may be shared, shopping is more Rome than NH, water and sewer systems are distinct, “Downtown” and the cultural center (Capitol Theater, The Fort, Fort Rickey Game Farm, Erie Canal Village) for them is perceived to be Rome (if not Syracuse). Rome can change its zoning and create concentrations of development and not create a ripple of impact to Greater Utica. At this point in time the interests of Romans are distinct. Romans do not need to share the same local government with people of the Mills or other parts of Greater Utica because their interests are divergent.

“Cooperation, collaboration, and coordination” sound good in theory, but are virtually impossible to put in practice. Consider the “financial officer” that New Hartford proposed to share with Whitestown. How would this person divide his or her time — proportioned according to population (about 50-50) ? or according to assessed valuation (more for NH)? or taxes taken in (more for NH)? or number of problems? How would pay be apportioned? Who would set work priorities? Mixed allegiances and responsibilities create problems. A servant can only have one master. This is the problem with the ’shared services’ idea. “Everyone” and “no one” would be in charge. Attempts at “cooperation, collaboration, and coordination” will degenerate into “competition.” It cannot work. So how have we dealt with regional issues?

There is the “regionalization” approach with 2 flavors currently available in our area: “sewer” and “water.”

Sewers were kicked up to the next level of government, the County, with creation of the “Part County Sewer District.” Policy is set by the Board of Legislators. Roughly half the County’s population is served by the District — and half is not. Since sewer users rather than county taxpayers pay all the expenses, half of the Board of Legislators setting District Policy have no stake in the outcome of what they do. This represents a true “disconnect” and loss of control by the people needing the service.

Water was split off and became a subject of its own government: an Authority. Need I say more about loss of control? But this was also a disconnect in another sense: Decisions over water became made by people with no responsibility for other aspects of our governance. There would have to be “cooperation, collaboration, and coordination” between the water authority and other units of local government to fix this, but then we will run into “competition,” which will not work.

We are in a “Goldilocks” situation: our local governments are too small to deal effectively with many of our problems, and the county level is too large . . . and creating separate governments or another layer for special issues results in a lack of coordination and competition.
Utica and its suburbs seem to share so much in common that our being separate is working against us. Having lived in both the city and the suburbs, I honestly can not say that people are less “heard” in the city, even when it had 100,000 people.

Before doing anything we need to talk, pro and con, and weigh out our options.

But please consider MERGER as a way to reconnect people to their government, and regain control. Take Utica, its suburbs, water, sewer, and anything else that has been split away: wipe away what exists and replace them with something new: one Municipality of Greater Utica.

It won’t be easy; it won’t solve all our problems; it may create new ones . . . But think about it.

Disconnect …

Disconnect: "to sever the connection of or between" (verb)
        "a lack of or a break in connection, consistency, or agreement" (noun)

This word came to mind while reading the Sentinal story about the Town of Verona’s disagreement with New York State over street lights. The State plans to install 22 lights to improve the intersection of Rts 365 and 31 — but expects Verona to pay to light them.

Several people commented that the intersection already was well lit.

“What if we don’t sign it?” asked Highway Superintendent James Weisbrod.

Waller responded that it is his sense that the state is going to insist on the proposed arrangement no matter what.

So we have a disconnect between people making a decision (State), and the ones expected to pay for it (Verona). The result: Unhappy People because they are made to pay for something they don’t believe they need.

How about more “disconnects?” …

• NY setting Medicaid benefits, but the Counties paying for them.
• Local school districts going on building binges (e.g., Utica for $300 million, Syracuse maybe a billion), but NY State paying 90+% of the cost.
• NYRI powerline sending ‘cheap’ power to Downstate but negatively impacting Upstate.
• “Growth” policies in one municipality imposing costs (direct, environmental, social, or economic) on people in neighboring municipalities.
• Legislators who rubber stamp what their party bosses tell them, rather than determining what is best for their constituents.

In the horse-and-buggy days, municipal boundaries represented the limit of people with common interests. But when you can now travel by car through 5 jurisdictions in 5 minutes, that is no longer true. Some of the assumptions when our government was organized are no longer true.

Maybe it’s time to look at the assumptions, and change things to reflect reality. Maybe it’s time to “reconnect” — to reorganize and realign how we govern ourselves — so that the people who make our decisions are representative of all stakeholders — and exclude the disinterested.