Comments by dagiacalone
Posted on July 14 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is this newspaper now the Grinchette? The author of this editorial seems to have forgotten that those of us who have internet access -- anywhere in the world -- can use the extensive online resources of our County Library 24/7/365, from a broad array of research tools, to catalog searches, to downloading thousands of books, etc. E.g., see
Unless providing overnight WiFi creates an excessive expense that is not offset by benefits directly related to the Mission (see below) of the Library, I think fair-minded observers would wonder "what the fuss is" that requires depriving City residents seeking after-hours WiFi that service. I hope the Friends of the Library, the WiFi-crazy folks at Metroplex and City Hall, and maybe the the management of the soon to be Always Open Casino, weigh in for keeping after-hours WiFi.
Also, having a police officer stationed outside the Library at night could also be a boon to community relations, allowing conversation not otherwise likely to happen.
NOTE: "The MISSION of the Schenectady County Public Library is to satisfy our community's educational, informational, cultural and recreational needs by providing free and open access to a comprehensive range of materials, services and programs."
Posted on July 13 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's see: No incidents of trouble; right next to the Police Headquarters; located in a downtown that brags about more foot-traffic and crowds lasting into the night, and the availability of wi-fi hotspots; plus, a City Hall that preaches and promises universal access to wi-fi; with no claim of money being saved. What possible demographic explanation could there be for wanting to prevent the use of Central Library wi-fi services to the population likely to need and want it most?
And, why didn't the Gazette news editor insist on knowing whether there are any dollar savings for the taxpayer, so we might better weigh pros and cons?
Posted on July 12 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is the Council considering taking action on a fireworks topic that it actually can affect? How about setting strict curfews for using any form of fireworks? How about budgeting special overtime for extra officers to enforce the fireworks laws and curfew on specific days? I bet if Mr. Galesi (or his mouthpiece Dave Buiko) asked for fireworks limitations near any of his developments, he'd get them right away, no questions asked.
Posted on July 10 at 1:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted on July 7 at 12:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Columbo always came back with one more question (he always intended to ask).
Buicko always comes back with one more request (he always intended to ask for).
Does Mr. Galesi ever do business without a government subsidy?
This giant dock seems like one more item most casino owners and developers would pay for on their own, and probably would promise to do so in an agreement with the hosting city, if its mayor asks for one.
Um, one more question: Has anybody in Planning or the Corporation Counsel's Office mentioned that Riverside Park does not fit into any category under which bicyclists over 10 years old are allowed to ride in a City Park?
Posted on July 4 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gazette readers count on your balanced journalism, Sara, so I want to make sure your account does not perpetuate the notion that a bunch of boorish, selfish, or elitist people in the Stockade spoiled a great plan to have the Onrust locate its home at Riverside Park in Schenectady. Over the past year, two members of the Schenectady Planning Commission suggested at public meetings that the people of the Stockade had no right to call for public access to the riverbank at Mohawk Harbor, because we did not want outsiders using a dock to come to Riverside Park. How silly.
It is more accurate to conclude that Stockadians did their homework and stopped the Dock Steamroller, by demonstrating that it would be bad for the Park, the neighborhood, and the City, because it would ruin a quiet gem of a park merely because the State offered $225,000 to put a dock somewhere. As explained in my Gazette Op/Ed column in April 2010 [ http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2010/ap... ], the people of the Stockade were not and are not anti-progress nor opposed to people from outside the neighborhood coming to the Park, and dock proponents had not demonstrated there would be economic benefits from a dock.
Please recall that the Onrust would only have taken up 60 feet of a 300-foot dock, that was going to have no supervision, and be located merely yards from a children's playlot and homes, at a "passive park" with no amenities such a restrooms or even water fountains, and blocks away from the kinds of services the projected wealthy boaters would be seeking if they stopped at the proposed dock. More important, perhaps, the Park is reached on land by one-lane, dead-end streets, with inadequate parking.
The Mayor and City Council ignored the Schenectady County Waterfront Revitalization Plan, which was finalized the same month that the Council announced it would vote on the dock. The proposal to place a dock at Riverside Park was clearly inconsistent with the Waterfront Plan, which states (at p. 61) that "further development is constrained by the narrow streets that lead to [Riverside Park and Little Front Street Park] and the character of the residential community that surrounds them." Therefore, the Plan concludes (at p. 71) that Riverside Park's "limited access and parking . . . inhibits any significant expansion of use other than to improve it as a scenic overlook and to improve pedestrian and bicyclist access and connection to adjoining areas."
For full information and links to relevant documents, see
Posted on June 23 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here's a Big Surprise: Everything I wrote about ten months ago is apparently still relevant concerning the proposed distillery. Has anyone in Planning looked into the lawfulness of a distillery in the C-4 Downtown Zone? Is Ms. Viccaro being allowed to use her award-winning investigative skills, or is this another public relations assignment to please Metroplex and our Mayor?
Here's my comment from August 2015:
Why is everything presented to us by Metroplex as a Done Deal? There is nothing in the Schenectady Zoning Code that suggests a distillery is permitted in the C-4 Downtown Mixed Use District. A well-thought-out amendment to the zoning code, after full consideration of the impact of such a (light?) manufacturing enterprise and significant public input, is needed or, in the alternative, there must be a fully-documented request for a zoning variance, including making the highly unlikely showing that no allowable use could bring a reasonable return.
I wish the Gazette would start including the question of proper zoning in its coverage of proposed development in our City. This was originally billed as a Wine Bar. The agenda for the Feb. 18, 2015, Planning Commission meeting said
. . . MICHAEL ROMAN requests site plan approval pursuant to Section 264-
90M of a proposal to renovate the building at 10 and 12 Yates Street into a
Wine Bar and retail space, tax parcel #’s 39.64-3-19 and 20 located in a “C-
4” Downtown Commercial District..
This deception is worse than the usual forms of arrogance we see from Metroplex and dereliction of duty we see at the Planning Commission. Bait-and-Swich is becoming Business As Usual at City Hall, with the Metroplex puppeteer pulling the strings.
Posted on June 10 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To Marion Foster: There is a very big difference between "minding your own business" when you see suspicious activity and jumping into your vehicle to pursue a car down City streets, high-beams flashing, and attempting to block the other vehicle from moving. Calling 9-1-1 is the appropriate response, not indifference and not hot, vigilante pursuit. That is especially true when the supposedly suspicious activity is not posing a physical threat; and even more so when you are the Mayor and your call to 9-1-1 or a special police phone line will surely be given a quick response.
We do not need more indifference. Nor do we need more apologists for irresponsible actions by the Mayor and inexplicable lack of curiosity by the Police Department.
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.