Comments by Niskyboy
Posted on July 12 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To my mind the only valid reason to have water restrictions in place is to conserve water when there's a threat of depleting it. Having a set of standing water restrictions in a town like Niskayuna makes no sense to me, because there's no water shortage. The town lies along the shores of a big river, after all. If sediment in the pipes is being disturbed then the town should budget for changing filters more often (or whatever may be needed) to maintain water quality in times of heavy flow. And before town officials complain about the cost needed to do that, let me remind them of the plowing/salt savings they enjoyed as a result of last winter's light snowfall. People live in suburbs like Niskayuna, in part, to enjoy greenery.
Posted on July 2 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hurting an economic engine in the name of . . .economic development. Yeah, that makes sense.
Posted on June 29 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is an apt metaphor for what's going on in our country, don't you think?
Posted on June 29 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why does a kindergarten teacher make $80,364? That's simply absurd.
Posted on March 30 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The ability to sit on the lawn and listen to popular music is one of SPACs's best attributes. Please don't restrict lawn seating in an attempt to make us sit inside the amphitheater and pay more, as you did last year.
Posted on March 28 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's as if the Town Board members and Supervisor are unaware that times are tough. Prudence in these uncertain times is what we need, folks, not more spending. Let's see, I just paid the new $30 yard waste tax, er, fee; I just took a walk down at the bike path near the train station where there are no trash cans and so there is unsightly litter (Colonie puts us to shame) and here I'm reading about bonding for a new rec facility which isn't needed by the community at large. Let the private groups who've said they will be willing to try to fund it, do so. Let the town's contribution be limited to allowing it to be built at Blatnick Park. That's a pretty good thing right there.
Posted on March 22 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
36 teachers and 35 teaching assistants but only two administrators will be let go, eh? And those two are not actual layoffs but simply the result of a decision not to fill vacancies? Give me a break, the district is top-heavy.
Teachers teach while administrators mostly push paper around. The private sector has no problem getting along with fewer non-productive staff members and I don't see why schools would be any different. Let's cut some administrators before we get into the inevitable discussions (i.e. scare tactics) about cutting sports and music.
Posted on March 14 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good column, Carl. I work for myself. Business is picking up this year but has been mostly down since 2008. I don't have a pension beyond what I can shove into a Roth or a SIMPLE IRA myeslf. Haven't been able to put in anything for a few years. No help with health costs. No employer match, either -- all that would mean is I'd have to put in twice as much myself. I'm in my fifties so there's no way I'm going to be able to retire at 65. Just finished doing my taxes. Bothers me that I'm likely facing a crummy financial future while the taxes from my thin pockets are, in part, going to subsidize the lifestyles of people with extraordinarily genrous pension packages. We shouldn't tolerate this. For the most part the services these folks provided aren't so valuable, nor are they so specialized, that supporting them in comfort for the rest of their lives once they retire is justifiable.
Posted on February 28 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A housing director in a little city like Saratoga doesn't need to have an employment contract at all. In fact, I really don't see why many public-sector positions require employment contracts in the first place. By comparison, I have special skills that are valued in today's corporate world, but if my employer wants to transfer me across the country, that's what's going to happen whether I like it or not. And guess what? I'm not going to quit if they do transfer me, and even if I did, they’d quickly find someone to take my spot. My skills may be special but they're hardly unique, just as is the case for many people in the public sector.
I also think your point about needing to offer a contract to potential school superintendents in order to entice them to uproot is a bit of a stretch. Sure, some will hesitate for personal reasons -- the spouse has a nice job, for example -- but it’s not as though people with the skills and experience to run a school district are impossible to find. Take a look at some of the salaries and benefits offered to school superintendents around here and tell me they wouldn’t appeal to qualified people even without a contract. Maybe you need to make exceptions for positions and situations that are very politicized to avoid having a lot of turnover in the job, but I think those are the exceptions and not the rule.
Posted on November 16 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We reap what we sow, and you've sowed some good things, Ms. McGiver. Things will work out OK one way or the other.