Page Fifty 

02 JANUARY 2006

A different take on a common problem. 

You guys want an example of a radical paradigm shift?  OK.

New housing development on the West Mountain area of Greater Hamilton, Ontario:

The Sova 2465 Sq. Ft. From CDN$ 278,900   Up to 140 feet deep lots

http://www.starwardhomes.com/spaces/elevations/default.asp

Yeah, so what?  As well you might ask....

See the "32' Series"?  That's a NEW 2,465 square foot house on a 32 FOOT WIDE lot in a suburban development in a nice area.  With "UP TO" a 140 foot deep lot and models "starting" at CDN$ 278,900 (US$ 249,000) -- (and rest assured The Sova is NOT one of the basic models) -- how eagerly would the Rochester market flock to such a development in suburban Monroe County?

Yet these housing developments are selling like hotcakes all across Southern Ontario.  St.Catharines, Niagara Falls, Thorold, London... new house buyers are grabbing these almost as fast as they're built and there are HUNDREDS of such housing developments in the works right now with new ones springing up each month.  Parenthetically, it's a good indicator of a healthy economy as SOMEBODY must be earning a decent buck to be able to buy all these houses.  By comparison,  Monroe County is stagnant and residents might ask, "Why would anyone buy such a large house on such a tiny lot?"  Answer:  The good of the many comes before the good of the few.  (Oh, there's that dreaded Canadian 'socialism' again.)

Town and city planners across Southern Ontario recognize the cancerous effect of sprawl on the economies and quality of life and lay down the law on vast lawns which cater more to vanity and greed than they do the collective good of a community.  Thus, in the above example, a 40-foot lot is considered to be an 'extra-wide' lot; contrast that to the typical suburban new house lot in Monroe County where a quarter-million dollar, 2,400+ square foot house on a 32-foot wide lot would languish.  I'll bet THAT builder wouldn't make that same 'mistake' twice.

Say an Ontario builder buys 20 acres of land and crams 3,000 square foot houses on a quarter acre lot each.   They can build 80 houses in the same area that a Monroe County builder can build 20 houses of one acre each.  At 4 people per house, the Ontario development houses 320 people while the Monroe County development houses just 80 people or 75% fewer.  Repeat the process a few dozen times and the difference is both dramatic and expensive.

All things being equal, that means school busses are able to operate at a much more efficient per capita basis in the Canadian development than in the Monroe.  Ditto for sewer, water, roads, sidewalks, snowploughing... any taxpayer funded improvements and services are far more efficiently spent when higher density housing is built.  Town and village taxes are being spent more wisely which tends to keep taxes more in line.  That means more money for parks and recreational amenities which benefit all.  People drive shorter distances to shopping as distances are less overall... and pollution and driver aggravation is less as well. 

Some towns in Monroe County actually mandate that new house construction is to be built on NO LESS than two acres.  Lower density housing... higher cost to support the more spread out development.   Snow ploughs have to travel further to service the same number of residents with higher operating and maintenance costs (add up the additional miles per season) and taxes rising commensurately as traffic gets heavier and commuting times get longer.  More cost to the Monroe County resident.

Sprawl has been proven time and time again to have a crippling effect on a community, yet Monroe County residents have come to demand the Big Lawn With My Name On It even though all the signs of such self-centeredness comes at a very steep price to the individual and the community at large.

THAT'S what I mean by a radical shift in priorities.  Unless Monroe County residents demand it, it's highly unlikely their town and village governments will suddenly reverse planning initiatives and start mandating smaller lot sizes to put the brakes on sprawl.  Because of a fifty year habit of suburban lots being comparatively mini-estates, the local market simply won't tolerate 3,000 square foot houses on a 32- or 40-foot wide lot.  That flies in the face of conventional wisdom and it sure as hell isn't going to fly very far in this area without a major change in attitude and priorities.

Then there's the apparent local hatred of driving any further than is absolutely necessary; the extra 15 minutes it would take to drive to the Penfield Target means Webster residents 'need' to have a Target of their very own... resulting in the mass paving of greenspace along with another congested traffic area in Monroe County.  We're talking 15 MINUTES, not hours.  The process repeats itself over and over until the traffic congestion and delay of the city has effectively moved out to the suburbs where the big box retailers provide a steady flow of tax dollars to town coffers... supporting lower density housing development.  It's a vicious cycle with residents mightily moaning their taxes are too high.

All this pontificating comes as a result of getting out of the area and exploring other communities... something I've been advocating to Rochester area residents all along.  Instead of a weekend exploring areas further than 100 miles away, locals opt to buy the status-satisfying plasma TV and stay at home.  Instead of jumping in the car and actually using it for what it was built for, locals opt to keep the mileage down as some sort of bragging right... preferring a weekend of staying close to the familiar and comforting.  Instead of looking up and out, locals look inward and rarely stray off the well-worn path.

"All who wander are not necessarily lost".  That's a credo which has opened many eyes and minds and has served me well for many years.  Locals ought to give it a shot sometime... but I'm not holding my breath on that one either.

Don't worry, it's just money.

35º | Hi 41º / Lo 31º |

Huh?  Did this guy really write this?   If it's not a city-owned and -operated entity -- as in the residents and taxpayers of the city -- just who does he think is behind "the ferry company"?  Where does "the ferry company" get its money to operate the ferry?  Does he think "the ferry company" can simply default on bonds and loan agreements and no financial ramifications will come back and bite the city of Rochester... the 'owner' and 'operator' of "the ferry company"?

When "the ferry company" credit is pledged, it's ultimately the city of Rochester's "full faith and credit" which is being pledged and a civil lawsuit filed by the lenders and bond holders would make the connection in short order.  It's doubtful the distinction made by some suburbanite would hold up in any court.

A few snips from today's D&C's Letters to the Editor:

The migration of the Feckless YouShouldn'tHave's is shown up on cue.  Rather than bothering to pause for ten minutes and consider the inanity of the ferry proposal back in 2001, now locals are watching their cash flow out the Genesee River in a one-way tide to nowhere and saying "See?  It was a dumb idea".  It's no more idiotic today than it was in 2001... it just took blowing tens of millions of dollars before the Rochester area was forced to pause and see the futility of the project. 

Some people actually need to be burned to find out fire is hot.  More importantly though, is the de facto attitude which is clearly showing the ferry's days are growing shorter.  I'd say a 2006 season looks more doubtful with each passing day and Mayor Bob is collecting justification for pulling the plug from published local sentiment.  It doesn't take much to justify a position; remember, ferry supporters were using the feedback from 0.3% of ferry ridership as a basis for continuing the service.

We'll find out the ferry's fate this Thursday night.

Monday   January 02, 2006

Duffy taps business leaders on ferry Ferry's Future Still in Limbo   by Leah George Published Jan 01, 2006 Hours after he was sworn in, Rochester Mayor Bob Duffy was already hard at work, meeting with people he hopes will help him make the right decision about the future of fast ferry. Duffy and the new city council are working under a tight deadline. The council will vote on Thursday night on whether or not to recommend the city sell bonds to raise $11.5-million dollars to keep the ferry operating. Duffy says he has been meeting with the city's top business leaders for the past few weeks. He wants to learn as much as possible about the ferry's financial side so he can make a sound business decision. “What I did not want to do is have this decision rushed through without a very careful analysis. I would like to see the ferry survive and be a big part of our community but we have to say at what expense," Duffy said. Balancing expenses is going to be a big part of the new mayor's job. Duffy steps into office facing a $26-million dollar budget gap.

Indeed.  When critical city services are facing the spectre of not enough money, it's kind of hard to justify keeping a perfectly optional and horrendously money-losing project in operation. 

Face the facts, Rochester.  It makes no sense whatsoever to save the ferry; your worst fears have been realized.  You're going to lose a bundle on this ferry business and there's no amount of marketing that's going to change that.  Pull the plug now and lose a king's ransom; pull the plug later and lose a Royal family's ransom.

It's your choice.

03 JANUARY 2006

Racing toward the finish. 

36º | Hi 39º / Lo 29º |

WILL YURMAN staff photographer Mayor Robert Duffy, reflected in a frame holding his uniform when he was police chief, puts awards on display in his office on Monday. Deputy Mayor Patricia Malgieri said Duffy’s team will put in “pretty aggressive” work hours. Duffy unpacks while ferry awaits decision Brian Sharp Staff writer (January 3, 2006) — While Mayor Robert Duffy spent Monday settling in at City Hall, the focus of his first week in office was several miles north, docked in the Port of Rochester and continuing to accumulate unpaid bills. Duffy has promised a decision on the high-speed ferry this week but said Monday he had yet to reach any conclusion. The question is whether the city-appointed Rochester Ferry Co. should borrow another $11.5 million to keep the ship afloat. "I certainly have formed certain opinions," Duffy said. "I don't want to give the impression that I am undecided." The city backed a $40 million loan, created Rochester Ferry Co., and bought the ship last February. Rochester Ferry then hired Bay Ferries to manage the ship. Ridership and revenue suffered with a delayed, midseason start. Last month, then-Mayor William A. Johnson Jr. announced the ferry had exhausted its reserves and Rochester Ferry Co. was broke. Even while docked, the ferry continues to tally expenses — budgeted at $430,000 for January, including Bay Ferries' management fee, maintenance and wages for captains and nonseasonal crew. That bill will add to the $2 million already owed Bay Ferries. (1.) As I've said repeatedly, the meter's spinning whether the thing is moving or not.  2.)  Captains are getting paid for sitting around drinking coffee and reading what Paris Hilton's up to in People magazine?  I picked the wrong profession.) Duffy's high-stakes first week in office officially begins today, as many city staffers return from their New Year's vacations to greet new bosses. Rounding out Duffy's administrative appointments, Paul Morrell, senior economic development specialist with the city, will step in as interim commissioner of economic development. On Monday, Duffy and his administrative team were busy getting identification badges, keys, parking passes and sorting through other logistics. "I've got the (cell) phone, the pager and all that good stuff," said Paul Holahan, newly appointed commissioner of environmental services. "It's a terrific challenge, but it's a terrific opportunity. I'm ready to go." Staff at the front security desk kept track of the new administrators with a newspaper clipping that showed the photographs and titles of the new administrators. Duffy summoned some of his senior staff to City Hall hours after his inauguration Sunday. The meeting was solely to discuss the ferry, but the after-hours weekend session is unlikely to be the last. "We intend in this administration to have work hours that are pretty aggressive," said Deputy Mayor Patricia Malgieri. Duffy and his team find themselves on the ferry hot seat by Duffy's own doing. Johnson asked City Council to authorize borrowing another $11.5 million, but Duffy asked for a delay. Council compromised, giving the go-ahead Dec. 20 with the caveat that nothing be done until Thursday or later. What's next Mayor Robert Duffy will address the Rochester Rotary Club today during the group's weekly luncheon forum. He is scheduled to speak shortly before 1 p.m. and discuss his vision for the city. "It's impossible to state now that this project could ever make a profit ... I just don't see that as possible with the current state of affairs with the ferry," Duffy said, adding the question comes down to how much of a subsidy is required, and for how long. (The Mayor takes of the kid gloves and gets down to business.  Spirit of Ontario?  Time to say "Adieu".) He said the operation needs a strong business plan and marketing analysis. "How comfortable would anybody feel going forward with a project of this magnitude without a business plan or marketing analysis?" Duffy asked. "I have not seen one. One may exist somewhere ... I hope to determine that this week." Duffy said he expects to meet with City Council and ferry board members on Thursday. City Councilman and ferry board President Benjamin Douglas said no such meeting with ferry officials has been requested, however. "He hasn't spoken to the ferry board about it," Douglas said. "I don't think that's the way to do business."  (First thought which came to mind?  Duffy's mind is already made up.) As for the business and marketing plans, Douglas said both exist and are evolving, each being the subject of separate news conferences last month.   (Old news, Ben.  Nobody's heard any update on the elusive 'business and marketing plans'.  What are they?  It doesn't take several teams of 'experts' working 40-hours a week for a few weeks to come up with a presentable plan.  Time's up.  Show the plans or lose the ferry.  You have until this Thursday to have the final report ready.  Now move.) "All the information we have was available to him. (What you 'have' is obviously insufficient. Sluggish, half-prepared and secretive is no way to run a publicly-owned corporation.) ... He may not have had time to absorb and understand all of that, but clearly all of this has been assembled and put in place," Douglas said. "That's why it's important to sit down and discuss these things." BDSHARP@DemocratandChronicle.com

Rochester Ferry Board?  If you can't get the job done, there are certainly a variety of alternatives which can.  Number One, of course, is to pay the immediate bills then shut the service down.  That way Ben, you can get back to the business of addressing the real problems facing the city instead of just perpetuating the old ones.  News flash for ya, Ben:  The ferry is a problem the Rochester area can easily do without.  No one NEEDS a ferry.

Somehow I smell another compromise in the works for this Thursday's vote.  Something like raising enough cash to pay the immediate bills and provide the funding needed to close down the service.  Sort of a 'Yes' to the bond proposal but a 'No' to the future of the ferry. 

The Ferry corporation HAS to get at least some money from somewhere or the loan is going to go into default and Bay Ferries might be sending a condolence card along with a law suit to City Hall.  They may have the paperwork already filled out to serve to the city on Friday morning, depending on Thursday night's vote.  Creditors know when a company is headed for insolvency, First-Come-First-Served is the best strategy to recover their losses.

If the request for bonds is turned down, Bay Ferries might not have any other legal recourse BUT to file a law suit.  It's costing them money everyday they have to sit on the $2 million and with January's bill of $430,000 coming due in less than a month, they're losing a fortune by not being able to invest $2.43 million.  That was a critical error on their part; being 'nice' has little advantage when millions of dollars are at stake.

Mayor Bob and City Council?  Kill the ferry now.  The sooner, the better.

36º | Hi 39º / Lo 29º |

Sure thing, Barb.  We'll gladly lose $1 million a month just to reserve a ferry for you on your annual joy ride to Toronto.  Would you like us to bill you directly for this convenience or will you be settling up on your once-a-year cruise?

By the way, my dear;  Just why in hell would you care?  Not only did you ditch the Rochester area, you skipped the state... and by my reckoning, that puts you in the category of some Has-Been whose simpering whining is not only annoying, but fully irrelevant.  Thanks for your feedback; your plaintive angst has been duly noted and ignored accordingly.  Next time, try reading the facts before playing the drama queen, you twit.

Don't worry about Toronto and Canadians; we've got an election coming up on January 23 and have completely forgotten the ferry even exists.  Do what you want.  We've got more important things going on.

Oh.  The following is an unpaid political announcement:

Sometimes I have to do things just to piss off George Bush.  Returning the favour, so to speak.  I'd vote Liberal anyway, but a Liberal win in Canada would REALLY scorch his shorts and that's merely an added bonus.

Je suis un autochtone canadien et je vote avec fierté.