Comments by dagiacalone
Posted on May 29 at 1:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you for a thorough, level-headed explanation of the need for an independent investigation of our vigilante Mayor. Now, I'd love to hear your take on what we should expect from our elected (so-called) leaders when their Capo is misbehaving. Worrying that the Mayor was putting himself in harm's way or pointing to the futility of City Council action seem insufficient.
Posted on May 19 at 12:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you, Sara, for addressing this important topic, and covering many significant issues, in a well-balanced way. It is very good to hear that the Mayor realizes the value of our large street trees; they are an irreplaceable asset and investment that pay us back in so many ways.
The Mayor and City Council should insist that the City Engineer's Office begin to establish tree preservation requirements that supersede the criteria they applied in 2008 on N. Ferry St., which took down every large street tree when replacing the sidewalks, and were proposed for Washington Avenue in 2010, which also called for the removal of every large street tree, even if healthy. There are too many other available, proven, efficient options when a tree is not dead, dying or dangerous. SOS Trees would like to help the City develop such a policy.
Tree Preservation Information, with photos, discussion of alternatives and policies in other Cities, and more, can be found at http://tinyurl.com/SOStrees
Arthur's Market (35 N.Ferry Street, at Lawrence Circle) will hold a brunch at noon for discussion of Street Tree Preservation, on the first Saturday of every month, beginning June 4th.
Posted on April 24 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here's a direct link to Save Our Schenectady Trees [S.O.S.Trees]
Thank you, Gazette, for publishing this Guest Column.
Posted on March 29 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It must be nice for Mr. Kosiur and Mr. Polimeni to be able to give half-baked justifications for following orders from the Casino without fear of being asked follow-up questions. Rush Street has still not given or promised the City a dollar more than State law mandates, because our Mayor and City Council have not demanded more, as every other casino city does. If Rush Street could have paid the State $46.6 million for their gaming license, instead of $50 million, and kept the $3.4 million the City will get from the State out of the license fee, you can bet they would have.
If Mr. Polimeni really believes that asking for an appropriate street name is intolerable government interference, that will somehow hurt investors, he apparently would strike our entire City Code at the request of any developer interested in a project in Schenectady. Let's hope this ventriloquist dummy act is limited to casino matters.
Once again, Ms. Vicarro or her editors have decided not to mention the substantive reasons so many Schenectady residents oppose the name Rush Street. If interested in a fuller discussion, see http://tinyurl.com/NotRushStreet .
Posted on March 25 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's nice to hear Mayor McCarthy sounding like a Democrat, for a change. Of course, this pleases two of his Big Bosses: Gov. Cuomo, who wants to put more money in New Yorkers' pockets for life's necessities; and Rush Street Gaming, which hopes to take more money from the pockets of Schenectady residents, whether or not they can afford it.
Posted on March 24 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you for an excellent editorial that touches on many of the most important points relevant to the Pylon. When Rush Street comes back with a new version of a giant, free-standing sign or LCD screen, it needs -- as you have said -- to submit an independent visual impact assessment for the proposed size, location and orientation of the structure. Only then can we begin to estimate its effects on residents and traffic nearby and on the overall skyline of our City.
I hope City Hall (from the Mayor and Corporation Counsel, to City Council and the Planning Commission) has learned a very big lesson. They Rushed to change the zoning signage restrictions from allowing one 7' freestanding sign with 75 sq. ft. of signage, to 80' tall and virtually no limit; and from a pylon with an 8' wide sign and 5' wide base to no limit on the width (resulting in a proposed pylon 38' wide); and, they did it in a Rush, solely on the very specious claims of needing the monster pylon for the casino to be seen and for Erie Blvd. traffic to know where to turn soon enough to safely enter the traffic rotary.
One example: In justifying the City's request to amend the zoning law and allow a 20,000 sq. ft. limit on signage for the casino, Corporation Counsel told me the Casino started negotiating by asking for 100,000 sq. ft. He seemed to have forgotten that the Casino told Metroplex and the Racing Commission it would need at most 15,000 sq. ft. And, now it has submitted a plan for about 8,000 sq. ft.
City Hall and the public need to keep the Casino's gross exaggerations of its needs in mind whenever they come asking for special treatment. They need to be watchdogs protecting the public, not cheerleaders repeating the casino's claims, or weaponless Snowmen guarding the gates of our City like on the night of the 1690 Massacre. Our leaders must take their time, use common sense, ask probing questions, and require full submissions about the factual basis of an Applicants' claims and deadline assertions, especially on projects as big and important as Mohawk Harbor and its Casino.
Posted on March 23 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The pylon sign plan has not been "killed", it has been postponed, and your headline does the public a disservice. Rush Street has certainly not promised there will be no huge pylon or giant LCD screen. It is more likely that the Planning office or commissioners are not satisfied with the latest version of the pylon and Rush Street is not willing to postpone approval of the rest of its signage.
There is no way Rush Street will have a casino that does not have a giant "branding sign" saying Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor, and they are well under the generous signage allowance granted by City Hall. On the bright side, this delay will remove any excuse Rush Street and the Planning Commission might try to use for failing to do a thorough Visual Impact Assessment of the pylon sign, with line-of-sight and computer analysis of its impact on nearby residents (such as Fusco's Erie Blvd. apartments, East Front Street, Goose Hill, the Stockade and College Park), and on traffic safety. The Dept. of Environmental Conservation's policy statement on Visual Impact Assessment, for example, says that a formal visual impact assessment is needed, with at least a line-of-site survey, whenever any component of a project can be seen from an historic district, such as the Stockade, with mitigation measures taken to prevent any significant visual impact from the District. [see http://tinyurl.com/VisImpactDEC ]
Posted on March 23 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good luck to Automated Dynamics. Mr. Langone makes a good point when he says tearing down the building “will open the casino to Erie Boulevard. That will make the casino more visible from the road." It is more proof the casino spokesmen, who have always planned for the building to come down, were intentionally misleading the Planning Commission and citizens when it said it needs an 80' monster pylon sign because the casino can't be seen from Erie Boulevard. Of course, we all knew it was a phony excuse and the Commission simply ignored the facts to give the casino what it wanted, despite the effects on neighborhoods, traffic safety, and our skyline.
Posted on March 17 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When the possibility of there being a Casino here was first in the news, the Malozzis were very quick to say how great the Casino would be for Schenectady and that it would not hurt Downtown businesses. We'll have to wait to see just how business owners fare who are not in the Galesi-Metroplex-Casino Inner Circle.
Mr. Buicko seems to forget that there is supposed to be plenty of green space at Mohawk Harbor, with limitations on the footprint total of the structures. Let's hope the Planning Commission, or better yet the Planning Staff upfront, remind him. I'm fairly sure the new PC Chair, Mary Wallinger, with her landscape architecture background, is a lot more likely to insist on green space than Mr. Lewis, who never seems to take off his Metroplex hat, would be. Since Mohawk Harbor has rejected full public access to the riverbank, and is limiting it to "hiking and biking" on the Trail, it cannot claim footprint bonuses due to extra public access.
Posted on March 15 at 1:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
p.s. I sent the points in the prior Comment to City Council and to Reporter Vicarro around 2 PM Monday afternoon.