Comments by rswanker
Posted on May 18 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Calling BS on that, Kota9. No way I could speed away from the cops after getting pulled over, and then get off by pleading to the original traffic infraction. No way.
Posted on April 27 at 7:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm confused. Demolishing the building would be $500K but rehabbing it would be $650. Sure, the demolition costs less...but then its just an empty lot. What's would be the plan with that, then?
Posted on April 11 at 7:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lange's in Niskayuna is still open, still independent.
Posted on March 15 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Offensive to the developers? Give me a break.
Posted on January 31 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you for the informative side-bar about when ice is safe. Would like to see more content like this.
Posted on January 21 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
--Unfortunately this article ignores the most contentious issue of the evening, the application to open a larger Dunkin' Donuts with a drive-thru in the old Trustco at the corner of Union and Dean–a very busy intersection.
--The developers estimate there will be enough business to double the number of employees. They also estimate that most customers will use the drive-thru (rather than park and/or walk).
--The planning commission approved the State Environmental Quality Review, which means they don’t believe there will be an environmental impact, **even though no traffic study has been done, and the commissioners did not vote to require one last night.**
--The commission was also ready to approve the special use permit—which is essentially for the drive-thru—again without any traffic study. The special use permit says (paraphrasing), that the new use will not be significantly different from the existing use.
--Clearly there’s a difference. The bank was open 5 and a half short days per week and its drive thru would never be considered busy. The Dunkin’ Donut’s fast food location will be open 5 a.m. to 11 p.m, 7-days per week, and will depend on mostly drive-thru vehicular traffic. This is clearly a different use.
**It can’t be considered objective and well-considered to affirm that something will have no impact when that impact hasn’t even been studied. The commission should refuse to approve this project until more work has been done to determine its impact.**
Posted on January 9 at 5:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nobody's going to call it that.
Posted on June 18 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think reflecting our architectural and cultural heritage is a good idea. But I don't think this design does this anymore than the typical, cookie-cutter suburban strip mall. Slapping brick on a facade, and making that facade look like a handful of separate buildings, is often just lipstick on a pig.
Posted on June 4 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow. The new one looks like a humdrum, suburban mall that you can find in Anytown, USA. Just what we always wanted in Schenectady. Uggh.
Posted on May 21 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Are you sure "NYS has laws regarding just what this disrespectful person did"? This has gone to federal court responsible for NYS, and they said just the opposite. Regardless of how undesirable or unproductive this behavior may be, I don't think its in the interest of the government or the people for there to be a law that says "you must be respectful to members of the government."
Maybe in North Korea, I guess. Or Putin's Russia.