Page Forty-Six  

20 DECEMBER 2005

Blustering and hissy fits.

Mayor-elect Duffy asks for ferry vote delay   12/19/2005 6:00 PM (Rachel Barnhart, WROC-TV) One day before a crucial vote on the future of the fast ferry, Mayor-elect Bob Duffy is asking City Council to postpone its decision. "Do I just stand by, and not say a word, and then be obligated after January 1st, or make sure we're all part of that decision?" said Duffy. He added he is a supporter of the ferry project, but he is not sure if he supports the method chosen by the city to keep the project afloat next year. "I have lots of questions." Duffy has made a written request to City Council President Lois Giess to postpone the vote authorizing $11.5 million dollars in borrowing. Last week, the council's finance committee recommended the measure for a full council vote. In order to delay the vote, a council member would have to make a motion to table the legislation, and a majority of council members would have to agree. So far, Councilmen Bill Pritchard and Adam McFadden tell News 8 they would not vote to table the legislation, though neither is sure yet how they'll vote on the legislation itself. "Until December 31st we have an elected body that is expected to do its job, regardless of what's coming or who's coming," said McFadden. "It would put the whole project in jeopardy," said Councilman Ben Douglas, who is also president of the ferry board. "We have contracts waiting to be signed. We can't expect those we're attempting to go into business with to wait for us, because we have some nebulous delay hanging over our heads." Duffy would like the new City Council to hold a special meeting on this issue in the first week of January. By then, there will be three new city council members, and four new ferry board members. Duffy says City Hall finance staffers have told him a slight delay would not impede the project. The city's next payment on the ferry is in February. The city planned on using a portion of the $11.5 million to make the payment. "My obligation is to taxpayers that whatever we go forward with is in the best interests of everyone," Duffy said. Four council members have said they will support the ferry bonding legislation. Five votes are needed. Douglas and the mayor have said they already have the votes needed to pass the measure. News 8 contacted the three incoming members of city council, to ask how they would vote on the legislation. None returned our calls. Tuesday night's council meeting starts at 8 p.m.

This is getting ridiculous and the transparency of the current City Council is so obvious it's a public insult.

Waiting two weeks to vote on ferry funding isn't going to guarantee the end of the ferry as we know it.  The pending contracts waiting to be signed aren't going to be ripped up, never to return.  The project isn't going to face impending doom if City Council votes on January 14 instead of December 20.

However, the ferry funding MIGHT stand a better chance of being voted down on January 14 rather than December 20 and THAT might be the reason for the urgency on the part of the present Council.  But to expect the public to buy into the "the ferry world will end unless we vote on Tuesday" routine is ridiculous and dishonest.  It won't.

My prediction?  City Council will vote on and approve the request for the $11.5 million funding tonight.  Naysayers will be ticked off and the editorials will lambast the move with most locals assuming there's nothing which can be done to prevent the ferry from starting up for a 2006 season.  They would be wrong.

There are so many solid reasons why the business can be ended that pulling the plug is justified at any time... especially prior to restarting in the spring.  The simple fact the sooner the ferry service is ended, the less taxpayer money is lost is reason enough to call it quits even though issuing bonds may be needed to make the February payment and subsequent payments until the ship is sold. 

That doesn't mean the service HAS to restart.

22º | Hi 27º / Lo 17º |

Yes indeedy.  It's becoming the Talk of the Town now; I suppose to Torontonians it's a case of much ado about diddly, but you have to remember all things are relative.

The remodel of Pearson into a 21st-Century airport created quite a buzz -- rightfully so -- and while the ferry project pales by comparison, the public cash involved is comparatively significant as well (C$3.2 billion for Phase I; tearing down Terminal 1 and rebuilding a new terminal.  Total amount to replace old Terminals 1 and 2 - C$4.4 billion - link).  The difference is the finished product in Mississauga is astonishing and unarguably impressive while the Rochester product is not.  Anyone who remembers the old circular Terminal 1 will smile while strolling through the new terminal.

The ferry in Rochester is either intensely watched or cavalierly forgotten, except when the smell of scandal is in the air.  Tonight's smack down is more a test of wills than a real threat to the ferry... it's political and PR posturing.  The City Council only needs one more Yea to approve borrowing money (ie. issue bonds) to provide the cash needed to pay the bills for the 2006 season, which includes the February installment payment and $2 million to pay back that which Bay Ferries coughed up to close out the 2005 season.

Out of the three 'undecided' councilors, it's not going to be difficult to come up with that one Yea, especially since Councilor Adam McFadden is chomping at the bit for the opportunity to cast a vote tonight instead of waiting two weeks.

Protests and arguments against borrowing more money to keep the barge moving will be ignored by the City Council as protecting their own interests is more important than protecting those of the public.  They were the ones who approved buying the failed business; expecting them to do a 180 and be the ones to kill the project is unrealistic.  Not only would it be an admission of failure, it would be damaging to credibility and virtually guarantee the public would bear the burden of the ENTIRE amount -- $40 million -- the city foolishly borrowed, even though their boss, Bill Johnson, repeatedly said it "won't cost the taxpayers a dime".

The current City Council isn't about to unnecessarily shoot themselves in their own feet.  I suspect they know in their heart of hearts the ferry is heading for insolvency anyway, so why encourage the blame by voting against tonight's line item?  The public already knows they're going to foot the bill for this debacle so why not pass the buck and let the Duffy team take the heat?  "We tried our best to save the project" sounds a lot better than "We killed the project".

The ferry closure is all but a done deal.  From this point until the ship is sold, there's going to be accusations hurled, blame assigned and a while lotta You-should/shouldn't-have's goin' on.  Will anyone ask  W H Y  Canadians largely ignored the service?

Probably not.  Self-serving 'answers' which have saturated local media have been accepted as conventional fact by Rochester area residents while the REAL reason -- Canadians aren't all that interested in the Rochester area -- is too painful to accept.  'Late start up', 'bad marketing', 'sporadic scheduling' or whatever much more palatable excuse will be the Official Reasons why the ferry tanked... but Fer Gawd Sakes DON'T admit it was the thumbs down of CANADIANS which sent the ferry to its inevitable demise.

Rebuffed by the customers who ignored the Really Neat Thing we came up with.  How ignominious.  How humiliating.  'Cool Toronto' says Rochester ISN'T.

Tonight's vote will be no surprise.

"Ferry board president Ben Douglas says contracts to operate the service must be signed by New Year's Eve."

The B.S. meter just spiked.  The only reason 'ol Ben says the contracts have to be signed by New Year's Eve is that at 12:00 am on January 1, 2006, the current City Council loses its legal authority to sign contracts.  THAT'S the urgency... not that the contracts to supply Pepsi and pretzels will be lost forever.  He's an idiot for using juvenile tall tales to sway public opinion.

"So will (Councilor Tim Mains) support the bond legislation? Only, he says if it comes with accountability measures. “I'm looking for some answers on the visibility of the decision making on the part of the board,” Mains said."

"I'll vote Yes but only if we'll get monthly PowerPoint presentations, instead of quarterly, showing the dismal passenger numbers and even bleaker revenue numbers."  Proof positive that you really DO have to draw someone a picture in order for them to understand the obvious.   Is it worth $11.5 million to do that?

I DON'T think so, and neither do the thousands of other area residents who've seen the writing on the wall since before the first CATS launch of the ferry.  You don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind's blowing and you don't need a monthly reminder telling you the ferry isn't going to make it.

Such drama is pointless.  At issue is whether to throw good money after bad in a project which has never shown the first sign of being capable of supporting itself... as the history of the ferry has clearly demonstrated it to be a money-losing proposition both privately and publicly.  That cannot be denied.

The only basis for continuing this fiasco rests entirely on speculation, innuendo and the opinion of 0.3% of the surveyed passengers who said they liked the ride.  That's not enough to justify borrowing another $11.5 million. 

Neither is "Give it more time".  If the breakeven numbers were vaguely closer to what was needed to sustain the operation, then a case might be made for another season... but they're not.  They aren't even making an optimistic showing.  That alone should be screaming "Not enough public demand" if people were willing to accept it... but they're not.

Just what's so horrendous about admitting Torontonians aren't interested in Rochester?  Why hasn't that point been considered publicly?  New York City has never been all that enamored with Rochester; neither has Boston or any other number of larger metropolitan areas within a day's drive.  So what?  It's not like that's a huge dirty secret... regardless of HOW significant the Rochester area thinks of itself.  That's not a put-down, it's just a reality.

The ferry has never been rooted in much reality and now the reality is -- finally -- hitting home.

Last -- but certainly not least -- let's remember that every single one of the City Council members, INCLUDING Mayor Bill Johnson, were voted in by the voters of the city of Rochester. 

That sort of begs the phrase, "Be careful of what you ask for; you just might get it".  YOU city voters voted these clowns in and now you're whining about their policies?  Incredible.

For the Toronto readers, I'll post a link to the inevitable videos of the protests outside and inside of City Hall which will undoubtedly be making the news.  Please bear in mind the scale of the local economy compared to Toronto makes this event as newsworthy as burying the Gardiner.  This ain't Metro NYC we're talking about. 

But then, you knew that all along.  The numbers are hard to ignore.

A comment from a reader of a local über-right wing website:

"vowallah"?  I believe the expression is 'voila' but even though Rochesterians live less than 8-hour drive from the second largest French-speaking city in the world, don't expect English-impaired locals to know a scintilla of French.  They have a hard enough time with their primary language as it is.

'Ol George needs to switch to a brand which isn't the equivalent of rot-gut as his brain is really taking a beating from the cheap stuff.  If 'we don't need (Toronto)', then why did you guys approach Torontonians in the first place?  It was YOU Rochesterians who proposed the damn thing...NOT Canadians.  We didn't show the slightest interest in the hackneyed plan from the beginning; why do you think it took so long to slap up a Toronto terminal?  That didn't show a groundswell of enthusiastic public support, now did it?

Take the boat to Oswego?  To Cleveland?  For what?  Are there mobs of Rochesterians beating a path to those cities now?  It's a REAL stretch of the imagination to see a high-speed ferry whipping along at 50-mph through the Welland Canal... or did Georgie imagine the ship could simply speed bump up the Falls at Niagara?  Using a highly-specialized, high-speed ferry as a typical cruise liner is ludicrous, but for someone who must think Lakes Erie and Ontario are at the same elevation, it's par for the course.

Like a scorned schoolgirl exacting revenge for the snub, some Rochester area residents are lashing out at Torontonians and Canadians for not paying enough attention to them.... and the response from the north is "What?  You guys are still here?" 

It's been said before:  "Pull the plug on the ferry and see if we care".  Sail the ship to Sodus.  "We don't care".  Drop Toronto and pick up Alexandria Bay.  "We don't care".  Schedule cruises to Miami.  "We don't care".  Run a casino with Les Folies Bergeres.  "We don't care".  Boycott Toronto.  "We don't care".

Torontonians and Canadians really DON'T care WHAT you do with the ship.  We're indifferent... really... we are.  We just don't care one way or the other.  How many renditions of this ferry business do you have to go through before you guys understand that?  WE.  DON'T.  CARE.  Call it whatever you want... 'bad luck', 'bad laws' or 'bad timing'.  It makes no difference to us at all.  And if that pisses you off...

WE.  DON'T.  CARE.   Now go bother someone else and leave us alone.

GEEZ.  Look who's back:

As a Mohawk, I disagree with this hometown racist.  I happen to think RED is very good.   But since he's the one worrying about colour and not me, it makes no difference.

 OH, C'MON TORONTO!!!  DON'T YOU GUYS WANT A TASTE OF GOOD 'OL AMERICAN BIGOTRY??!!

No?   OK.

Tuesday   December 20, 2005

Council To Vote On Ferry Compromise Funding plan would be finalized Jan. 6th   by R News staff Published Dec 20, 2005     Rochester mayor-elect Bob Duffy spoke and city council listened when it came to approving funding for the city's fast ferry service. With city council scheduled to vote on ferry funding for 2006 Tuesday night, Duffy on Monday called on council to delay the vote until January, when his administration and a new city council begins serving. In an 11th hour compromise, city council president Lois Giess and ferry board president Ben Douglas reached an agreement on an amendment to a proposed $11.5 million bonding play for 2006 fast ferry funding. The amended proposal provides the ferry corporation the authority to pursue the sale of bonds for the ferry funding. It also delays the final approval of those bonds until January 6th. Douglas, who opposed the Duffy's proposed delay of the vote, said the compromised was reached to foster a positive relationship with the incoming administration. City council will be presented with the amendment tonight. R News will have the results of the vote.

Happy, happy, joy, joy.  I guess.  Seems like alot of bureaucratic nonsense to me, but delaying the final approval of the bonds until January 6 gives the Duffy Administration a chance to say... "No".

My, my.  What a kick in the head THAT would be, wouldn't it??  Ben Douglas and Co. get their hopes up, only to be told "Sorry guys; we had a change of heart and the Ferry's going to have a 'For Sale' sign on it tomorrow".  Poor Lois would have to double up on the BP meds if she heard THAT one.

So the stay of execution has been, well.. certainly not granted, but definitely postponed.  Ben, somewhat angst-ridden, is still whining about some damn contract for the napkins or whatever not being signed by December 31.  Tough.  The ferry funding was never guaranteed in the first place... that's called a 'contingency'... meaning the contract signing depends on the funding being made available.  If Ben promised that funding would be available by December 31, that's HIS problem... not the problem of the residents of Rochester.

26º | Hi 26º / Lo 17º |

KARIN VON VOIGTLANDER staff photographer Darrell Brundage, right, and Kevin Hermey, background left, protest the ferry vote with a handful of other protestors outside City Hall in Rochester Tuesday. KARIN VON VOIGTLANDER staff photographer Mark Herrick voices his opinion was that the ferry vote should be delayed, during a public forum tonight at City Hall. Protesters voice opposition to ferry Alan Morrell Staff writer (December 20, 2005) — Before City Council's meeting tonight, five protesters assembled in front of City Hall to show their opposition to the ferry. Council members were expected to vote tonight to decide whether the ferry board should sell $11.5 million in bonds to pay off debt incurred by the struggling city-owned ferry. The group of protesters, which called itself RochesterWatch.com, carried signs with messages such as "11.5 million More? Sounds Like a Ferry Bad Idea," and "Vote No! to More Ferry Debt." "Let's not saddle our children and grandchildren with additional debt," said Darrell Brundage, 34, of Webster. "We have too many needs that need to be addressed rather than spending money on an $11.5 million bond. ... We seem to have an idea that money grows on trees." Said Bill Williams, 58, of Greece, "The mayor (William A. Johnson Jr.) was too gung-ho on the ferry. It's too big for the city. It definitely wasn't a good idea." Mark Herrick, 30, of Greece, said council members should hold off on the vote. "Public officials have to be accountable to the public," he said. "That has to be part of the decision, when there's no public support for the ferry." Mayor-elect Robert Duffy, who takes office Jan. 1, said he and future members of City Council should be involved in the financial decisions created by the ferry that will affect the city during his first term. AMORRELL@DemocratandChronicle.com

Kudos.  Even though the admittedly conservative RochesterWatch.com and the admittedly liberal NativeCanadian.ca are at opposite ends of the spectrum, I believe in giving credit where credit's due and these folks deserve a 'Well Done'.

26º | Hi 26º / Lo 17º

Mark Hare speaks.  Not too coherently, but it's a job.

26º | Hi 26º / Lo 17º |

Mark Hare has been a local columnist for the Democrat and Chronicle since 1997. Before that, he was editorial page editor for the afternoon Times-Union, and before that deputy editorial page editor for the Democrat and Chronicle. He began his career there as a reporter in 1984. He is a native of Owego, Tioga County. He is a graduate of St. John Fisher College and the State University at Brockport. He was a high school teacher for six years before switching to journalism.

For the ferry, last chance to succeed, spare taxpayers (December 20, 2005) — I have been a supporter of the fast ferry since it was a mere glint in the eyes of Dominick DeLucia and Brian Prince, the entrepreneurs who brought the big boat here last year. But the needle on my optimism tank is inching close to E. The Rochester City Council will vote (either tonight or, as Mayor-elect Robert Duffy has asked, in a few weeks) on Mayor Bill Johnson's request to sell $11.5 million in bonds to replenish the city-owned ferry's reserve fund. But if the decision is to borrow the money, our elected officials and the Rochester Ferry Co. must achieve a major turnaround in the 2006 season, starting with off-season marketing to likely travelers. The ferry's original private operators shut down the boat after 90 days. The city bought it for $32 million, borrowed $8 million more as a reserve and hired Bay Ferries, an experienced Canadian ferry company, to run the service. After four months, the ferry company was out of money — thanks, in part, to bad luck and expenses that will not recur, such as a major engine overhaul not covered by warranty. I still believe a fast ferry between Rochester and Toronto can be successful, if Bay Ferries and the city take the steps now proposed — launching an aggressive, targeted marketing campaign, while eliminating the $1,100-per-crossing cost of U.S. pilots who are supposed to guide the ship into port. The ferry will be able to fly under the U.S. flag without pilots as soon as it has trained American captains to run the boat. That has to be taken care of this winter. The key failure has been marketing. (You're a hometown journalist, Mark.  What the hell do you know about the Canadian public?) Since Prince and DeLucia first started promoting the ferry, it's been clear that its owners would have to market the service, not rely on Rochesterians taking day trips. Arnold Rothschild, president of Normal Communications, has been brought onboard to market the ferry. "It's about identifying the segments who will use this and communicating with them," he says. The ferry has to be sold as a "cruise ship that takes cars" — not as time-saving transportation, but as a pleasure trip that also gets you across Lake Ontario. To simplify, the challenge is to find audiences who want to come to Rochester for the Lilac Festival, the jazz festival, the LPGA — and offer them deals they can't refuse. Or to sell it to travelers from Ontario and northeast who might enjoy the ferry more than a drive. It means finding Canadians who'd like to visit the wine country, or the Waterloo outlet mall, or finding Americans who'd like to catch a show or a ballgame in Toronto — then making it easy.  (Dream on.  You planning on cruising Square One or Yorkdale to 'find' Canadians 'who might enjoy the ferry more than a drive'?  Just how DOES one go about 'finding' Canadians who want to visit an outlet centre which offers nothing more than what can already be found in the GTA?) Furthermore, City Council and city taxpayers deserve more than cursory quarterly reports. The ferry company should be updating the public on advance sales, on the group sales packages being offered. We need updates, at least monthly, on the ferry company's efforts and success in generating new revenues — by all accounts, the key to future success. Can the ferry operation be turned around with another year? I don't know. I do know, however, that shutting it down right now isn't much of an option. The creditors would call in the loans. The city would hold a distress sale and take what it could get (maybe no more than $20 million), and the boat would sit here all winter, incurring maintenance expenses, until the St. Lawrence Seaway opens in the spring. City taxpayers would pay somewhere around $2 million a year to retire the debt over 14 years. So yes, it's worth another try, to save the ferry, and to spare the taxpayers. (It's not and it's too late.)

The Marketing Mania strikes again.  Just another brick in the wall.

Mark?  Get out of town.  You desperately need to gain an outside perspective instead of hanging around the safe and familiar.  If you bothered to DRIVE to Toronto and actually explore more than just Yonge Street and the Zoo with the kiddies, you'd know the local Rochester area shopping offers nothing different to the Toronto area resident.  Bass Pro Shops?  Burlington Coat Factory? Benetton Outlet?  Linen 'N Things?  They're all at Vaughan Mills (link) at the 400 and Rutherford Road.  No duty, no import limit, no Customs declaration, no pricy ferry ticket and far less time and hassle.

For those 'fearless' Toronto residents who are 'brave' enough to risk the dreaded QEW, there's the Canada One Outlets (link) on Lundy's Lane in Niagara Falls Ontario. 

Mark, if you'd do some research-- both online and in person like any decent journalist -- you'd find out for yourself why Toronto area residents fail to see any advantages of taking a ferry to Rochester.  Then you wouldn't wind up looking like some smalltown columnist completely oblivious to the world beyond the Monroe County line.

At least The Globe and Mail's Jan Wong ventured out to discover the facts for herself so she was somewhat qualified to write about what she saw.  Mark Hare can't break his daily routine long enough to even know what HE'S writing about.  Pathetic.

TOTALLY ignoring the Canadian Factor with respect to the ferry project, Hare makes grand leaps of faith and ASSUMES Canadians are braindead dullards who fall for the first slick 'marketing campaign' that extols the virtues of a joy ride across the lake.  That's just a given to him.

The idea that Torontonians and Canadians WON'T take a bite of the 'marketing' never crosses his mind.  He's not alone in that belief... anyone who places a priority on 'marketing' as the Great Panacea is equally as clueless.

Mark, what if few people buy into the 'marketing' scheme and still see no reason to visit Rochester?  You think the Waterloo Outlets are any big deal to Canadians?  It's not.. trust me.  How many Canadians were at the LPGA this past year?  How many drove?  Are you ASSUMING things again?

"...offer them deals they can't refuse.."

Yeah, RIGHT.  There isn't any 'deal offered' which can't be refused, hotshot.  You seem to forget you're not 'dealing' with your own kind... a very germane fact you should have learned by now.

"So yes, it's worth another try, to save the ferry, and to spare the taxpayers."

"ANOTHER try"?  You're playing fast and loose with taxpayer money... just how many times does this barge get?  "Spare the taxpayers"?  It's a little late for that, Mark.  The time to 'spare the taxpayers' was just before the city of Rochester put the bid in at the ferry auction.  It's too late now, so don't pretend as if the taxpayer has been 'spared' anything so far.  That's nothing but blind naiveté.

Mark Hare has no credibility when Canadians are involved.  How could he?  He hasn't shown any example of such.

The rabble-rousers of the local media chime in:

Council backs ferry loan, but leaves door open for Duffy to back out   12/21/2005 12:00 AM (Rachel Barnhart, WROC-TV) Late Tuesday night, Rochester's City Council approved a plan to bail out the fast ferry, but left the door open for Mayor-Elect Bob Duffy to bail out of the project. Duffy had requested council delay the vote until he's in office. By a vote of 7 to 2, council approved borrowing $11.5 million to shore up the ferry. But the legislation doesn't take effect until January 5th, meaning, the Rochester Ferry Company board can't vote on the bonds, or issue the bonds until then. By that date, Duffy will be in office, and will have appointed new members to the board. "I'm being respectful this would be going forward on his watch. It's a major project," said Council President Lois Giess. Ferry board president and City Councilman Ben Douglas was not happy about the compromise. He worries a delay will jeopardize the ferry's 2006 season. Ultimately, he says the new make-up of the ferry board won't matter if Duffy is not on board the project. "As mayor, if he does not support the project, I think it's going to be the board's view and the council's view, then that's the end of the project."  (Like a ray of sunshine.) Duffy would not say Tuesday how he'll handle the ferry when he's in office. He says he's a supporter of the project, but, "I have a lot of questions."         Outgoing Councilman Wade Norwood, a member of the ferry board, voted against the measure. He says the council should have respected Duffy's wish to delay the vote. Outgoing Councilman Brian Curran, who says the ferry is a drain on city finances, was the other "no" vote.      If the ferry board issues the bonds, the ferry project will be $51.5 million in debt.

Nice way of putting it.  Tell it like it is... not what it 'should' be.

More breathless excitement:

Council Approves Ferry Loan...With Conditions   Video (Rochester, NY) 12/21/05 -- After a long night of debate, Rochester City Council members have approved an $11.5 million loan to keep the fast ferry afloat. But the vote also came with a compromise. Mayor-elect Bob Duffy wanted the vote delayed so he and the new City Council and Ferry Board members could be in on the discussions. Therefore, in the compromise, the Rochester Ferry Board will not be able to pursue the loan until January 6. The tentative approval also came with the stipulation that a special Council meeting would be held the first week of January to vote on Duffy's new appointees to the ferry board. Part of the money will go toward paying past bills.  (Say it; $2 million will go to paying past bills.) Rochester ferry board president and City Council Member Ben Douglas voted "Yes" for the bond, but said he fears any delay in getting that money puts the ferry service in jeopardy. He thinks that Duffy should've been concerned sooner rather than later. "We sat down twice… If he had more questions he should've come to us--we came to [him]...I can tell you the board is upset, Bay Ferries is upset," he said. Douglas says that, at least the compromise puts a final deadline on the project. Wade Norwood, a member of both the City Council and the Ferry Board, voted "No" claiming Duffy and his incoming administration do not support the ferry.  (They don't?  Well, you can imagine MY surprise.)

"I can tell you the board is upset, Bay Ferries is upset," (Wade Norwood) said."

Gee Wade, that's too bad.  Ever think the residents of this area have been upset over this thing for over four years?  What goes around, comes around.

On to Toronto via Six Nations on Wednesday.  This non-Native world gets too bizarre at times.

Onen gi:wahi.  No:ia.