The Grass Is Always Greener
The city-owned lot at 260 Chandler Street in Black Rock, across the street from the First Amendment Club.
Speaking of the First Amendment Club, they received a notice of violation from the Department of Permit and Inspection Services dated October 2, informing them they are “in violation of Section 264-4a of the City of Buffalo Charter and Ordinances for failure to register the aforementioned property or properties as required by the Rental Registration legislation.” Failure to comply within five days would “result in an inspection and/or court action and a possible order to vacate all dwelling units involved.”
The First Amendment Club holds its meetings at a former bar on Bridgeman Street that sits right across the street from 260 Chandler, the former site of Buffalo Belting and Weaving, Inc., which was destroyed by arson in 2003. According to a press release at the time, Buffalo Belting and Weaving “manufactured on behalf of and sold products to the United States Department of Defense.” Notably, they manufactured the strong bands that are used on aircraft carriers to stop landing planes using a tail hook.
That vacant property is owned by the City of Buffalo, and the fields that stand in the footprint of the former factory have grown to a height of six feet. The field is a textbook example of the kind of thing South District Councilmember Mickey Kearns was referring to at yesterday’s meeting of the Common Council’s Legislation Committee—that lots of city-owned properties are untended even as more and more residents are being issued “quality of life” tickets for having tall grass.
Of course, the Environmental Protection Agency spent over $2.6 million cleaning up the site after the fire, due to “various chemicals and other substances that were in the building” when it burned. So, it should be safe to run a lawn mower over. Right?
Last week I called Sam Fanara, director of the Rental Registry, to see if he could tell me why the First Amendment Club was being targeted. The mailbox was full, so I couldn’t leave a message.
A spokesperson for the First Amendment Club tells me that there are no rental properties on the site.
This afternoon, I called again and spoke with Fanara. He told me he couldn’t speak to the press and referred me to Brian Reilly, commissioner of Inspections, Permits and Economic Development. The person who answered the phone put me through to the answering machine of his secretary, Bernadette Taylor. I didn’t feel like leaving a message, so I called back and was put through to Melanie Gregg, marketing manager under Reilly, who answers inquiries from the press.
Gregg told me that the First Amendment Club would first have to pay a series of fines for the past few years before they could apply to have the address re-zoned to indicate that it is not being used as a rental property but as a club. That procedure would also require a fee.
Since these quality of life tickets are a hot topic these days, I asked her what the difference was between a residence with 10-inch-high grass and the huge lot at 260 Chandler which is owned by the city and clearly hasn’t been maintained in years. Trees have sprouted there. Would the city have to pay a fine to the Department of Permit and Inspection Services for contributing to neighborhood blight?
Gregg told me she would contact the Mayor’s Impact Team and have someone look into it by the end of the week. “If we don’t know about it,” she began, “if nobody’s telling us the grass is getting long—”
I interjected, asking if it was the city’s responsibility to know which properties it owns, or if they just waited for people to call and complain. “I don’t wait for people to call me and tell me,” she concluded.
But since her office was trying to get money out of homeowners for the very violations the city itself is guilty of, I asked her if this was a double standard. “I really don’t have an answer for that,” Gregg said. “At the end of the day, I don’t have the authority to answer that question.”
To which I offered that, at the end of the day, there’s no good answer to that question. She agreed.
September 26, 2008
Verbatim: Mickey Kearns
South District Councilmember Mickey Kearns, at Tuesday’s meeting of the Common Council’s legislative committee, while discussing citizen complaints about the increase and alleged arbitrariness in quality-of-life tickets being issued throughout the city for unkempt yards:
“It’s that old thing: If a tree falls in the forest, did it really fall? Is the grass really high?”
September 25, 2008
The Hatch Hitch
As anyone who’d bother to read this post knows, South District Councilmember Mickey Kearns and Delaware District Councilmember Mike LoCurto submitted a resolution asking the city’s law department to draft a statute banning some city employees from engaging in politicking. The resolution, they say, is a response to complaints that workers in City Hall are made to carry petitions, donate to campaigns, and canvass for candidates whom the mayor instructs them to support. (I’m having trouble downloading the text, so no link, sorry.) This mini Hatch Act—so called because it is a local version of the federal law—is intended, say Kearns and LoCurto, to protect city employees from being pressured by their superiors to do political work.
Niagara District Councilmember David Rivera and Council President Dave Franczyk signed onto the resolution, and the fifth man in the majority coalition, Lovejoy’s Rich Fontana, voted yea to send the resolution to the legislative committee.
That’s where it ran into attorney Peter Reese, who excoriated the measure for 10 or 15 excruciatingly funny minutes. (I don’t watch City Hall TV myself, or whatever it’s called, because I don’t have cable; if you do, and if such things interest you, try to catch Reese’s performance.)
Reese said the proposed legislation did not represent reform at all, that in fact it was “politics as usual.” He called the proposed legislation anti-union, because as written it could make union activity grounds for dismissal.
Edit: Mike LoCurto tells me I have misunderstood the section of the proposed legislation that led me to write what is now in brackets and italics below: “The exemption would only be for employees who are currently committeemembers,” LoCurto write. “They could remain committeemenmbers for their current two-year term. They would not be permitted to donate to campaigns during that time.”
[He said it was racist, for several reasons, not least of which is this: Current employees would be grandfathered, so they could still politick. Only new employees would be excluded from political activity. If you sort city employees by councilmanic district and race, you'll find a preponderance of white South Buffalonians. New Latino hires from the Lower West Side? You can't campaign for a candidate from your community. New African-American hires from Cold Springs? You don't get to pass petitions for you next door neighbor whose running for Common Council.
White guy from South Buffalo who has had a job since the Griffin administration and never fails to drop $50 into the hat at a Goin' South beer bash? Keep writing those checks.]
(Later in the hearing, North District Councilmember Joe Golombek pointed out that a ban on City Hall employees politicking would deprive the mayor of some of his ground troops in his re-election bid next year; meantime, county and local state employees, who tend to align with the county chairman, would remain free to campaign for the mayor’s opponent.)
Reese said the legislation had been misnamed: Instead of the “City of Buffalo Employee Protection Act,” it ought to be called the “Minority Exclusion Act of 2008.”
Worst of all, he said, it created a “political superclass.” Only folks like plow drivers, clerks, cashiers, sanitation workers, etc. would be prohibited from politicking. Appointees who serve at the pleasure of the mayor, the comptroller, or the council—immediate staff of the three branches of city government, in other words, the people who are closest to politicians and most overtly political to begin with—would not be covered by this mini Hatch Act.
It compromises First Amendment rights, Reese said. And state courts have already ruled that passing designating petitions for a political candidate is an absolute right of every citizen.
“And these are the things I like about this bill,” Reese said.
July 31, 2008
Hoyt on the Brown Administration
In this week’s AV, I wrote an account of Tuesday night’s public hearing in the Common Council on the City of Buffalo’s 2008 Restore New York grant application. During the proceedings, Assemblyman Sam Hoyt—who wrote the legislation that led to the $300 million Restore New York program—laid some pretty heavy treads on the Brown administration.
Here are Hoyt’s remarks:
I am here to tonight to talk about the original intent of the RestoreNY program, which developed out of legislation I drafted called Repair New York, and to talk specifically about how the City of Buffalo has fallen short for the last two years in producing a thorough, thoughtful application that would maximize the potential of this funding to revitalize our City. This year’s application represents the third and final round of available RestoreNY funding, worth a statewide total of 150 million dollars, and as such there is no more room for error. New York State’s fiscal condition may not permit another round of funding. If the City of Buffalo does not produce a more inclusive and creative application this year, then three years of opportunity to transform the landscape of our neighborhoods and three years of state-funded support will have been squandered.
RestoreNY funding is intended to attract individuals, families, industry, and commercial enterprises to the city. The funding is flexible enough to allow for creativity in putting together a plan that mixes rehabilitation, restoration, deconstruction, and demolition to strategically strengthen neighborhoods. To date, the City of Buffalo has used RestoreNY funding primarily for demolition of properties, and even that has not been done in a particularly strategic way.
Statewide, the first round of RestoreNY disbursed 50 million dollars in funding for various programs. The City of Buffalo received 3 million dollars from that application, used entirely for demolition projects. Round One allocated a total of 11.8 million dollars for demolition, and 29.2 million for rehabilitation. The second round of funding provided 100 million dollars in state funding for this program. The City of Buffalo received 5.7 million dollars for demolition and 4.5 million dollars for renovation of the Trico Building. While renovating one major industrial building shows a slight shift toward rehabilitation, the fact remains that The City of Buffalo’s application requested 30 million dollars in funding and received just over 10 million. To those who say demolition is a crucial component of eliminating blight and making our neighborhoods safer, I agree completely. Demolition HAS to be part of the solution. This is so important I need to repeat it. Demolition HAS to be part of the solution. However, it does not alter the fact that the RestoreNY program was never intended to be used overwhelmingly for demolition and one commercial rehabilitation. There are other funds available for demolition. I secured 5 million dollars for thousands of demolitions that were done in 2007 above and beyond the 3 million dollars awarded through RestoreNY.
It seems to me that the City of Buffalo’s lack of creativity and vision in putting together a RestoreNY application that could be a starting point in neighborhood revitalization is part of a bigger failure of leadership on housing issues. Much of the focus has been on big picture economic development, including a large effort to draw big business to Buffalo. What is the point of bringing big business to our City if we do not have affordable, thriving neighborhoods where people would choose to relocate to work and raise a family? That is the only way to create the holistic economic development that will truly restore Buffalo to what is should be.
As a state legislator, I have always tried to be inclusive in developing legislation that would address the full scope of our housing crisis, turning to the community members and organizations who best understand the breadth and depth of the crisis and who can provide information on their own unique solutions or direct me toward best practices from similar communities. This grassroots-focused development strategy led to the Affordable Housing Corporation’s Block-by-Block program, which is going to bring a few million dollars to Buffalo to do what the City of Buffalo has not yet allowed RestoreNY to do—to acquire and rehabilitate dilapidated but salvageable properties that can anchor neighborhood reinvestment.
This grassroots-focused development strategy led me to draft legislation that would enable creation of a “land bank” to promote the acquisition, rehabilitation, management, and strategic reuse of vacant properties countywide. The City of Buffalo, which owns over 8,000 properties in Buffalo and has proved to be a very poor landlord indeed, has refused to support this legislation in the interest of gaining more control over properties they cannot currently maintain or market. Even when presented with a significant resource like RestoreNY that would enable a more comprehensive strategy for addressing these serious concerns, the City of Buffalo chooses the path of least resistance.
The City of Buffalo seeks no community input, nor does it seek to craft an inclusive strategy that would: promote strategic demolition where necessary; provide resources for rehabilitation to strengthen neighborhoods and encourage additional investment; or develop a greenspace management program to turn the vacant lots created through so many thousands of demolitions into bountiful additions to the fabric of the City.
Demolition is not the only solution to urban blight, despite the City of Buffalo’s efforts to make us believe that that is so. Demolition is an important component for a number of reasons, but we must do so much more. RestoreNY will give us the resources to allow us to do so much more. Combined with powerful community-changing initiatives like my land bank legislation and the Block-by-Block program, we can stop destroying our neighborhoods house by house, stop creating vacant lots that end up as trash-strewn fields that contribute to neighborhood blight, and stop waving goodbye to our neighbors as they move away from home. Demolition is a small part of an immense crisis, and it is time to do more. We cannot wait any longer.
I understand that the Common Council must vote to approve or reject the final RestoreNY application presented by the City’s administration, and that no Council input into the application process save that one vote has been requested nor welcomed to date. I think it is commendable that you have come together now to demand that the community be given a greater say, and I thank you for allowing me to speak to you tonight. Let me just say in closing that I believe the RestoreNY program’s squandered opportunities did not come about because one person thought too small. I suggest that the bigger issue is a broader administrative failure to plan ahead, build partnerships, and foster a sense of direction and leadership in the community. Without these things, we could claim we have attracted billions of dollars in investments and still have nothing to show for it because the fabric of our neighborhoods has been so degraded. In your role as Councilmembers, I ask that you do all that you can to ensure that this year’s application focuses more on raising Buffalo up, instead of razing it to the ground.
I urge the City of Buffalo to make this year’s RestoreNY application a more inclusive process to create a more inclusive application. Thank you for your time.
June 19, 2008
Brian Davis Calls In: When Do I Get to Speak?
Ellicott District Councilmember Brian Davis wasn’t too pleased with this post, about Stillwater’s efforts to get a permit for a giant new patio behind the restaurant. Many neighbors are opposed, because the patio will face residential property and Stillwater’s primary business is its bar. Neighbors expect the proposed 4,000-square-foot patio to be loud. The Preservation Board, the Planning Board, and the Allentown Association all have recommended against granting a permit. Over Allentown weekend, Stillwater employees passed out what looked like a Stillwater business card with Davis’s name and contact information to passersby, asking for their support and suggesting Davis was on their side.
Neighbors seem to believe Davis is taking the part of the restaurant too, but Davis disputes that. He called AV just an hour or so after I’d posted a scan of that faux business card on Monday. He said he’s merely trying to build consensus between the neighbors and Stillwater’s management.
“I’m only encouraging [the neighbors] to come back with something smaller, come back with something prettier, so I can condition the hell out of them and you can get what you want, by minimizing the noise, and everything else,” Davis said. “This isn’t Brian Davis trying to push a patio or anything else. I’m trying to build a consensus as I’ve always done.”
Currently the site of the proposed patio is a parking lot, and Stillwater allows its patrons to step outside into the lot to smoke. In fact, Stillwater sometimes has chairs and tables out there, and even has booked entertainment in the parking lot. In other words, the restaurant uses it like a patio now, though they have no permit. Still, Davis seems to think the neighborhood is missing an opportunity to put restrictions on Stillwater’s use of its proposed patio—even though the restaurant is currently ignoring the laws that prevent its current uses.
Davis says he’s not pushing a patio, but he’s suggesting that neighbors—who oppose a patio and have won the support of a community organization and two city boards—come to the table with a plan for a patio. One that’s smaller, greener, and more quiet, but a patio nonetheless.
He says he building consensus, but at Tuesday’s committee hearing on the issue of Stillwater’s patio, he said he didn’t want to meet with the neighbors or with Stillwater’s management. He told them to meet with one another if they wanted and to submit information to him; he said he wanted as much information on the subject as he could get, but he didn’t want to meet with either party.
In his phone call to AV on Monday, Davis characterized the opposition to the patio as “a personality conflict,” and an “underground campaign” orchestrated by a few because “…well, I don’t like this guy because I represent his former employer or all this other nonsense…”
He didn’t elaborate on that. He did, however, take me to task for not calling him and asking him about that faux business card before posting it. He started the phone call by asking, “Is there anything you wanted to ask me?” and ended it by saying, “This is the third article that’s kind of kicked my ass about something without me even getting a chance to talk about it.”
Well now, that’s a separate issue, and here’s my response: Elected officials like Brian Davis have microphones in front of them all the time. They serve our interests (or are supposed to), but they occupy positions of privilege and power. They never lack for a platform if they want to speak. They submit letters into the public record. They speak to the media. They speak to CitiStat’s cameras. Some of them even meet with community groups and concerned citizens and talk to them. Elected officials get to speak all the time.
I’ve been going to Common Council hearings every other week since I moved back to town in 2006, whenever I can. I miss some, but I’m pretty regular. Many people I know, especially those who work in city government, wonder why I bother. That stuff is all scripted, they tell me. And so mindnumbingly dull. That’s true. Still, I figure it’s government’s chance to talk to the public. I read the documents submitted to the Council, and report on what they say. I report what councilmembers say during their meetings. When they’re done speaking, I look around for someone else who hasn’t had a say yet.
So I base my understanding of Brian Davis’s positions—and the positions of all elected officials—on public statements and on public records. Davis doesn’t need the luxury of 15 more minutes of private discussion with me on the phone, when so many others don’t have the platforms he’s afforded to make their opinions heard.
June 10, 2008
Letters from Demone, Part 1: On Cariol Horne
Masten District Councilmember Demone Smith has filed two interesting letters with the Common Council this week. The first relates to Cariol Horne, the Buffalo police officer who recently was dismissed (and as a result lost her pension) after a lengthy and much-publicized discipline case. Smith thinks justice may have been a little too blind in Horne’s case, and he has a few questions for Police Commissioner McCarthy Gipson:
First, why was Officer Horne required to retain legal counsel to represent her during departmental proceedings? Second, why was Officer Horne relieved from her duties during the hearing process? Third, if Officer Horne was eligible for retirement from the Buffalo Police Department why was she not allowed to do so thereby providing her access to pension benefits that she earned? Fourth, why were witnesses who observed the confrontation between the two officers not allowed to testify regarding the events in question? Finally, what are the options available to Ms. Horne now that a decision has been made to terminate her employment with the City
May 21, 2008
Mayor’s Impact Team—Preliminary Audit Report
Here’s the text of preliminary audit report of the Mayor’s Impact Team, filed this afternoon by the City Comptroller with the Common Council:
In response to the Council’s request for an immediate audit of the Mayor’s Impact Team, following an incident on April 25, 2008, resulting in the suspension of three city workers, I am filing this preliminary report pending completion of the full audit.
Let me begin by commending the mayor for his swift disciplinary action in the matter in which workers were found to be performing landscaping work during regular working hours at the private property of one of the individuals involved. Such actions are an abuse of the public trust and cannot be tolerated. The mayor’s response is appropriate and sends the right message to the work force and the public. But in this matter, there is more to be done.
What we have found in our preliminary review of the Mayor’s Impact Team is a lack of controls across the board that in effect condones an environment where incidents like the one that allegedly occurred on April 25 can take place. Let me cite a few examples.
A spot check on May 13 at the Impact Team’s headquarters in Shoshone Park found time sheets that had been signed twice for the day, even though the workday was not yet complete. Also at Shoshone Park we discovered poor inventory controls with a lack of proper marking and reliance mostly on the memory of one employee.
We also found areas of concern regarding fuel, a costly item in the current economic environment. Four employees have access to the Fuelmaster system but gas cans can be filled for mowers and gas-powered equipment with no odometer readings, using instead the reading from the truck carrying the equipment. If a gas container can be filled, so can an unregistered vehicle, or at least topped off. Tighter controls are obviously needed.
As to the day in question, April 25, according to MIT officials, members of the Impact Team were absent without leave that afternoon when the work on the private residence took place. The sign-out sheets for that day indicate that two employees including the crew chief, who approved the time sheet, signed out at noon. Another worked signed in and out and later crossed his name out altogether.
After the fact, a slip requesting a day off for that employee appeared in Public Works offices, signed by the crew chief. There are no records to account for the use of city vehicles or equipment.
According to payroll records, an employee was paid for eight hours even though the time sheets reviewed by my auditors indicated less than a full day’s work was done. One employee was credited with a personal day off, but was suspended in relation to the incident. The crew chief was correctly paid for five hours. An adjustment of salaries to reflect the correct number of hours worked is warranted. There is no proof that time sheets were altered or changed, but the fact remains the opportunity was clearly present. Clearly, what is recorded on the time sheets for April 25 does not match what was reported to the timekeeper. Since there seems to have been a practice of pre-signing time sheets, it is uncertain whether an employee worker the time stated on any given day.
We will provide the Council with the complete audit shortly. The need for stronger controls and oversight is evident and should be implemented immediately. I should note the vitally important work performed by the Mayor’s Impact Team and the need to have them continue to provide their services to the community. I’m confident that with the proper controls in place, the Impact Team will become even more valuable as a city resource. We will have more recommendations in the full audit report.
May 20, 2008
High School Principals to Williams: Get Out of Town
A friend called in to tell us that a friend called him just now with this news, which he heard third-hand: (Does that insulate our sources sufficiently from the fury of the Buffalo Public Schools administration?) Last night Buffalo’s association of public high school principals registered a unanimous vote of no confidence in Superintendent James A. Williams. The vote of no confidence follows closely on the heels of Williams’ announcement that he is staying in Buffalo; his contract (renewed last fall by an administration-friendly, outgoing board of education) runs through 2011. Williams had been a finalist for the superintendent’s job in Memphis, Tennessee. Word is, Williams is furious about this and has been burning up the phone lines, chewing out those principals he deems responsible for the measure. To which one might reply: Dr. Williams, the vote was, according to our sources, unanimous. UPDATE: The secondary school principals apparently asked the entire principals’ union to join them in taking a vote of no confidence in Williams. Buffalo Teachers Federation President Phil Rumore told Channel 4 News at Wednesday’s school board meeting that his executive committee might ask union members for a no confidence vote as well. If both those things happened, the only folks left in the district supporting Williams would be his cabinet and a handful of board members.
May 15, 2008
Common Council Action Plan
As promised here, we’re posting the Common Council of Buffalo’s 2008-2009 Action Plan. (God knows why.) Seriously though, it’s worth a quick scan. My favorite part is at the beginning, in which we learn what the Romans had in common with Buffalonians.
Have you guessed it yet?
Both sacked their own cities:
…The assumption may reasonably be made that the fall of Rome, with the corresponding loss of its great buildings, was caused by invading barbarian armies bent on loot and destruction. From the time of the “Sack of Rome” by the Vandal Alaric in 410, to invading German mercenaries in the 16th century, it is presumed that the awe-inspiring structures of antiquity were pulled down, burned, ravaged and pulverized by conquering outsiders. The startling reality is that the destruction of Rome was not mainly carried out by rampaging armies during time of war, but most of the monuments and structures were destroyed by the Romans themselves! Over centuries the Roman people pulled down the marble statues, temples, basilica and baths. They tore these great buildings down and fed the marble into furnaces to produce lime. Other buildings were knocked down piecemeal by wealthy aristocrats to adorn their Renaissance palaces, to be seen only by a few. Save for the ancient Roman fascisti symbol of the bound ax and sticks adorning Buffalo’s ornate Council Chambers, what parallel does the destruction of Rome in centuries past have to do with the Queen City of the Lakes in the 21st century?
The answer is, just like the Romans, Buffalonians at times have been responsible for demolishing, tearing down or destroying the City’s architectural heritage. And this destruction still continues, although with greater difficulty due to the resistance of preservationists who grasp the importance of the City’s rich built environment to future generations.
This must be the writing of Council President Dave Franczyk.
May 13, 2008
The Raucous Caucus: Politics Vs. Substance
Two weeks ago, during the April 29 Common Council meeting, Masten District Councilmember Demone Smith threw a bit of a fit. The previous Friday, the Common Council had released its annual action plan, and Smith complained he’d been given inadequate time to review that plan and had not received a personal invitation to take part in its public release.
Don’t worry about what this “action plan” is. It’s pretty close to meaningless. What’s important is that Smith, who is one of four councilmembers who comprise a minority bloc, felt slighted by the five-member majority bloc. He accused them of freezing out him and his three fellow bloc members, though none of the other three joined him in his complaint.
Council President Dave Franczyk and Lovejoy District Councilmember Rich Fontana tried to head off Smith’s indignation, arguing that every member of council had received drafts of the plan and invitations to the unveiling by email, to which Smith replied, “Everybody knows my email doesn’t work.” (”Get it fixed,” Franczyk said.) Franczyk said they’d discussed the plan in legislative caucus—the closed [note: I stand corrected, the caucus is open] meeting of councilmembers in which all the voting in the public session is predetermined—but Smith had not attended. (”All I ask is that councilmembers take some responsibility,” Franczyk said.)
But Smith was tapping into his own deep vein of resentment: Ever since last November’s Common Council elections, he’s been in the minority, whereas when he took over the empty Masten seat from the departing Antoine Thompson, he was part of a solid majority aligned with Mayor Byron Brown. It’s no fun to go from starter to second string.
By the end of the exchange, Franczyk and Smith were talking over each other heatedly, and Smith said that if the new majority was going to trample over the other councilmembers, then maybe the minority bloc would have to create it’s own legislative caucus.
What that would accomplish is not clear, apart from creating another set of meetings closed to public scrutiny for councilmembers to miss. But last Thursday Smith filed this letter with the City Clerk offering a rough outline of a proposal for a new legislative caucus, which he calls the “Progressive Caucus of the Common Council of Buffalo,” which “will make the Common Council of the City of Buffalo more democratic by creating an additional center of legislative power that promotes cooperation.”
Older Posts »
