Inner City? Really?

Dear Barb Lombardo,

Saratoga Springs DOES NOT have an "inner city." Really, who do you think you're kidding? Any outside person would assume Price Chopper has made some noble commitment to battle urban decline and minority disenfranchisement by your ridiculous banter. The new Price Chopper is for the Liz Bishops of the world and everybody knows it...except you.

Shame!

Do you remember how patriotic Saratoga Springs was when they announced they were commissioning a 9/11 memorial? And do you remember how proud Saratoga Springs was when they announced the memorial would be placed in front of the brand new convention center on Broadway? And do you remember how awfully repulsed everyone was when it turned out the memorial wasn't  pretty? And do you recall no one hesitated to steer the DNA-laden steel through the repulsive Design Review process?

No? Doesn't ring a bell? Too busy planning kayak trails and bike lanes?

Well, perhaps now you can hang your head in appropriate shame as the memories of the fallen of 9/11 are relegated to "the gut" down the hill behind the massive parking lot where all the shit used to collect before modern sewage treatment became all the rage.

3,497 murdered souls summarily demoted to the step-child status of a Victorian McDonalds so as not to injure the delicate sensibilities of the drunk tourists on Broadway.

Only in Saratoga.

Feel Good inc.

Looking for information on Saratoga's Complete Streets legislation? Good luck. Whether its Sustainable Saratoga or the Saratoga Healthy Transportation Network, each sponsor directs users to either the national site (providing nothing more than generic information) or the City's website. And, the City's website directs users here:

Duplicate headers received from server

The response from the server contained duplicate headers. This problem is generally the result of a misconfigured website or proxy. Only the website or proxy administrator can fix this issue.

Error 349 (net::ERR_RESPONSE_HEADERS_MULTIPLE_CONTENT_DISPOSITION): Multiple Content-Disposition headers received. This is disallowed to protect against HTTP response splitting attacks.

Fortunately, a deeper drill-down into the agenda of the last City Council meeting will provide the draft policy.  What we know is that Saratoga Springs wants to essentially mirror the State's legislation that was passed in February requiring that all planned construction on state or federal roads consider access for all modes of transportation. We can only assume at this point the the general intent of the local legislation is to include non state and federal roads. Right? I only ask because there is apparently a good deal of controversy surrounding other similar legislation and I just thought (given Saratoga's propensity for careful calculation in planning) that people might be interesting in digging into the details of what is claimed to be a fairly innocent piece of legislation. Yes, there apparently ARE some downsides to Complete Streets. Would have been nice if the sponsors published that fact and provided reasonable counter points. But, alas, we're left to believe that Complete Streets is a break-even panacea for all that ills our outdated transportation system.

Personally, I think Complete Streets is a wonderful concept in the abstract. Its especially wonderful when its implemented on large government projects and the added costs of compliance are borne by the state or federal government. Am I exited that local projects will be more expensive as a result? Not so much. But I've never really been a hard-up bean counter so the impending rising costs of municipal infrastructure projects inst something I'm really passionate about. There are, however, other potential issues with the proposed policy that should be clarified prior to passage.

For instance, the City's Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Plan are quite specific about retaining the character (i.e., inherent dangerous qualities) of its so-called "scenic rural roads." Examples include Denton Road and Gilbert Road. I don't think that anyone could deny that these roads are dangerous but the City has always been intent on retaining those features that make them so. Clearly, both these roads could benefit from bicycle lanes (not to mention shoulders) but its likely residents on those roads would object due to the fact that modernization will undoubtedly ruin their bucolic nature. According to the proposed policy, exceptions will be granted if sufficient fiscal hardship can be shown but what about complaints based on things other than money? And how does the proposed Shared Access Advisory Board get to the point of granting exceptions when its opinion is simply advisory in nature? Are they granting an exception to their advisory opinion? And if so, of what value is an excepted opinion?

At first look it would appear that this policy is nothing more than progressive, feel-good fluff: Go through all the trouble of appointing a new board to grant opinions on road construction that, for the most part, are already being considered by the City's existing land use boards. A more detailed analysis of the lack of publicity surrounding the policy unfortunately shows that this may be the case. For instance, why would the Downtown Special Assessment District support a policy that was soundly defeated by its members when it was proposed for Broadway? Perhaps because they're already in the clear? A classic example of "Do as I say, not as I do"?

No effective policy produces meaningful change without a degree individual hardship or opposition. If the City and associated transit groups want to institute a progressive policy, then fine. But its a bit disingenuous to herald a new day of shared access for all when the policy has no teeth and will be shouted down on a piece-meal basis by the influential special interest du jour.

Until a policy is passed that mandates compliance (and disregards all the little voices that pop up when the regulations come home to roost), the whole experiment is nothing more than feel-good propaganda.

Unless. Unless some activist board member uses an advisory opinion from the Advisory Board to delay or submarine an otherwise worthy project. Now that would something. Something people might want to consider.

A Little Heads-Up for the TU

When you run a story about a waste to energy plant being proposed next to the Port of Albany you might want to get a comment from Mayor Jerry Jennings. Why? Because Mayor Jerry, in the vaguest of terms, has claimed that just such a plant will remedy the $10,000,000+ budget shortfall the City of Albany will experience once the Rapp Rd. Landfill closes. Now, call me crazy, but it seems highly unlikely that the area will accommodate not one, but two such plants in the very near future.

We Wear Short Shorts

At last nights City Council meeting dozens of supporters of the Complete Streets initiative showed up to voice their support for legislation that would accommodate all modes of transportation in future road construction plans. In practical terms, designs would incorporate bike lanes, mass transit lanes and pedestrian access in addition to existing car lanes. In a moment of selective amnesia (or gross ignorance), a supporter with the obligatory hyphenated name claimed "passing this policy is really the easy part...finding ways of making change happen is the hard part." Really? Isn't it so cute when new folks come into the City with the misconception that they've settled into some liberal utopia. They see the cute downtown and the over-priced liberal arts college and assume wow, what a great, progressive little town. I cant wait to tell all my friends back home how I live in Saratoga Springs now and I bike downtown and protest in front of the post office and clear nature trails and do hot yoga and drink chia shakes. And now we're lobbying to implement a complete streets program! Hurray!

Well, sorry to burst your bubble but passing the policy might be a bit tougher than you think. You see, back in 2007 a like minded group attempted to implement the same strategy for Broadway. And, unfortunately for that group, the plan wasn't some abstract pipe dream...it was a real, tangible plan with pictures and fancy computer overlays and the such. In fact, it contained so much specific detail that it garnered fierce opposition from over a thousand petitioners.

Now, I don't mean to assume the worst about people, but by passing this initiative off as something harmless is simply dishonest. Especially without countering the valid criticisms that sank the 2007 Broadway initiative. That opposition was based almost purely on eliminating two lanes of a four lane commercial thoroughfare. If this plan were implemented on any residential two lane street the opposition would be based on eliminating portions of front yards. Now, I'm not saying that's not a sensible trade-off, but lets not pretend its an "easy" one. And make no mistake about it, "passing this policy" (i.e., codifying it in the zoning) has very real consequences that will actually "make change" quite easy....even for those that don't want it. Point being, the debate needs to happen now...not down the road after the policy has been passed.

On a related note, is it really necessary to show up to the Council chambers in full racing gear? Did you really need to be THAT aerodynamic to get to the meeting? Somehow, I think not. In truth, tight cycling wear (absent a sanctioned bicycle race) is really the mark of a lazy cycler...doing everything he can to cut down on wind resistance and do as little work as possible. You want to see a real cycler? Check out the guy in jeans and a windbreaker pedaling six garbage bags full of bottle returns to the local Price Chopper. Now THATS hard-core. THATS "really doing it." And THAT dude has no use for tight shorts. And since were on the topic of tight shorts, I personally think that an ancillary purpose of this group is to establish that walking around in tight shorts is now somehow socially acceptable. Well, I'm here to tell you that its not*. Not anymore than me walking down the street in my underwear. You know why? Cause next thing you know the Polish Cycling Team is in line at Ben & Jerry's next to you and your toddler. And how does daddy explain that one away?

*unless you're a really hot chick, that is.

Dark Side Of The Moon

Much has been written about the current struggles of the Saratoga Springs Housing Authority. No one can deny that Executive Director Ed "Spike" Spychalski is receiving gluttonous compensation for his duties. Recently, The Saratoga Affordable Housing Group, a so-called affiliate of the SSHA, has been caught up in the downhill avalanche of negativity surrounding the Housing Authority. The leading antagonist in this drama is city resident John Kaufman. From an outside perspective, most would view Kaufman as some altruistic soul hell-bent on exposing corruption for the betterment of humanity. But alas, as is often the case, reality is a far cry from what is exposed in the press. Kaufman has a score to settle...and, ultimately, the poor of Saratoga Springs will bear the brunt of his animus.

Back in the day, Kaufman and his "partner" Jane Weihe were very active in City Democratic circles. She, losing multiple elections for City Council seats and he, working behind the scenes to ensure development in the city was appropriately demonized to ensure future homogeneity. His appeal was centered around the idea that "certain kinds" of multi-family developments didn't pay for themselves. Pretty sure he wasn't talking about luxury condos on Railroad Place. This may seem a peculiar stance for a progressive liberal but its pretty much status quo in Saratoga Springs for these types.

Kaufman's beef with the SSHA is nothing more than a tangent of his larger squabble with former SSHA Board Director Dennis Brunelle. Back in the early 2000's, Brunelle, along with a large group of concerned citizens, formulated a group dedicated to providing housing for the County's working-class poor. The purpose of the group was to, in the face of virulent anti-development opposition from people like Kaufman, advocate for development projects that included affordable housing. This was a no-no. Kaufman lambasted Brunelle for having the tenacity to support development in the city and claimed he ought to be ashamed (for, presumably, getting in bed with evil developers). Of course, Brunelle's efforts were largely unsuccessful until the completion of new, affordable units on Allen Drive. The same units Kaufman is now identifying as having undergone some sort of illegal asbestos removal.

Now, say what you will about Brunelle's defense of the SSHA fiasco, the fact remains that Brunelle didn't profit from his position on the board (aside from travel expenses associated with purportedly acceptable trips for the SSHA) and he has been a life-long advocate for the poor and disenfranchised in Saratoga County. Was he guilty of sticking by his man? Yes. And the appropriate punishment has been leveled. As many of you know, I would be loathe to praise anyone that had ANY kind of personal/professional association with Val Keehn, but Dennis Brunelle is a good man who simply got in over his head. The same cannot be said for John Kaufman. The only time Kaufman gets involved with an issue is:

1. When his roommate is running for office.
2. When developers attempt to change the demographics of the City. And,
3. When he's got a personal score to settle.

The latter is whats playing out right now. Kaufman will ride the Allen Drive pony till its slumped in a heap on the side of the road. Sure, there are problems with Allen Drive. But those problems are a direct result of the combative atmosphere created by virulent NIMBY's like Kaufman and his ilk. No doubt those same forces were instrumental in ensuring that any lottery for the new units were restricted to current city residents. No doubt short-cuts may have been taken to stretch scarce development dollars. No doubt Kaufman will piggy back these issues to drive the Saratoga Affordable Housing Group into the ground and halt any further affordable housing development in the City.

Score Settled.

Headline Of The Day

I only hope there comes a day when school administrators and news outlets that publish their rubbish are repeatedly flogged by long lengths of processed meats. Much like the enormous hot dogs that are currently (and very appropriately, I might add) stuffing the crusts of Pizza in Europe. Here's the headline, verbatim from The Saratogian:

"Saratoga Springs City School District, under superindendent destignate's direction, looks to restructure upper-level administrative posts"

It would appear that, indeed, the evil Sith Lord Superindendent Destignate is restructuring the administration at the SSCSD. And, his evil apparently knows no bounds:

Destignate's plan "abolishes four cabinet positions - assistant superintendent for secondary education, assistant superintendent of elementary education, director of information technology and director of assessment and staff development...Those positions will then be replaced with assistant superintendent of 21st Century Teaching and Learning, assistant superintendent of information technology and operational innovation, K-12 Director of Literacy and K-12 Director of Mathematics, Science and Technology Integration."

Oh, the horror! Such wanton name-changing is unprecedented in the history of the Republic. One can only hope the crack squad at the Saratogian stays on top of this troubling development.

As an aside, I think its quite clear to all of us why the Saratogian is literally buried in accolades from the prestigious Local Media Association.

May the force be with us.