AFTER THE FERRY: VISION?
I am sad about the decision to abandon the ferry, because it
represented, to me, a visionary approach to stimulating more tourism in this
area. It is important to be fiscally responsible, and I understand Mayor
Duffy’s reasoning, but sometimes one needs to dare to do something risky in
order to mobilize people around a goal. In this case, we needed to make the
commitment to make the ferry work despite the cost-benefit analysis.
As someone who worked with many businesses as a consultant,
I admit to being skeptical about most cost-benefit analyses, because they start
with an assumption about a specific solution and then figure out the costs. The
more creative way is to start with an acceptable cost and then figure out how
one can solve the problem or realize the vision within that cost. By having
groups of citizens doing problem solving and coming up with creative approaches
to the fast ferry issue, I can’t help but think that we can find a way to
retrieve some of the benefits the ferry could have offered our area. Perhaps
that process can still be used to move forward with the asset redistribution.
I agree that Duffy made a hard decision and may have saved
the city significant money in the short run. But I will be watching to see if a
new visionary approach appears to address the jobs issues and development of
this area’s great potential for tourism.
Sue Rodgers, East Irondequoit
ABOUT TIME!
Congratulations, Mayor Duffy! We finally have someone with
brains and who cares about the people of Rochester.
Dave Kaspersin, Dewey Avenue, Rochester
NEXT: REN SQUARE
Well, it’s happened. Our ferry has foundered. I hope this
experience will make us rethink how we pursue economic development.
I wouldn’t argue that a city or county government has no
business in the development business. But, governments often over-reach when
there’s free money at stake. A good example to my mind is High Falls.
Ideally, Rochester would have simply stabilized the historic
structures along the gorge, provided planning guidance for private
rehabilitation or infill, and offered tax incentives to business pioneers. If
the time wasn’t right for business to take hold there, the city could have
mothballed the district until conditions improved.
Instead, the city developed a package of cultural center,
entertainment, and retail establishments that have under-performed and cost
enormous sums. It was 15 or 20 years ahead of its time.
What drove this? State money. In order to capture a windfall
from Albany, we built something for which there was no real demand, leaving
city taxpayers to absorb the on-going financial burden. This failure has cast a
pall over all future initiatives.
We are about to step off a much higher cliff, for the same
reason. Renaissance Square exists not as the best way to provide for local
needs, but to capture a pile of federal cash. Looks great now, at least to the
construction companies, unions, workers, banks, and property owners. But
where’s the money to help the surrounding area?
Where’s the wealth to endow the arts center? Who’ll pick up
the tab when it starts to hemorrhage debt? What’ll we do when it turns out to
be inadequate or impractical?
What works for redevelopment is what worked when cities were
first built. Government provided infrastructure: streets, water, sewers,
lighting, policing, and planning guidance. Individuals and partnerships did the
rest. Blocks and districts grew organically.
They weren’t always ideal, but they were viable. Small
investment led to large investment, not the other way around. And if one thing
didn’t work out, it didn’t take down the whole city.
Current practice puts multiple barriers in place that
discourage small, market-driven, private development, while lavishing huge
subsidies on unnecessary mega-projects. Ren Square will remove the last
complete historic block of Main Street, buildings designed to house the
small-scale, multiple needs that support genuine sustainable development.
We’re starting to smarten up, with excellent neighborhood
initiatives, and intelligent planning and code revisions. But please, let’s not
burden the city with another poorly thought-out mega-albatross. Like Duffy said
about the ferry, look at what can be done with all that money and effort if
applied to the community’s real needs.
Carl Pultz, Redfern Drive, Rochester
NO MORE BIG DREAMS
Part of me feels sorry for former Mayor Johnson. I too was
drawn to Toronto’s promise and excitement. For those of us who love urban life,
Toronto is seductive in its vitality, diversity, safety, and cosmopolitan
energy.
I was an early and ardent supporter of the ferry, and I
still believe in the concept. But I find it unfathomable that such a costly and
complicated endeavor was operated with such a lack of competence. I fault Mr.
Johnson for his blind belief in this project, as if wishing hard enough would
make it so. I fault his advisors for not having the courage to challenge their
boss. The pervasive secrecy of this project frustrates me.
But I reserve much of the blame for the people who produced
the original market analysis with its wildly optimistic numbers, on which CATS
based their original business plan. I also fault the subsequent
“conservative” market analysis that the city used for the 2005
season. What reality were these market studies based on?
My love affair with Toronto resulted in graduate school, two
years of amazing experiences, a master’s degree, and a not-insignificant amount
of student-loan debt. But I was playing with my own money.
Bill Johnson’s love affair with Toronto has left the
citizens and taxpayers of Rochester with a not-insignificant amount of debt.
More tragically, it has left us with dashed hopes and a likely reluctance to “dream
big” again anytime soon.
Jason Haremza, Rochester
WRITING TO CITY
We welcome and encourage readers’ letters for publication.
Send them to: themail@rochester-citynews.com or The Mail, City Newspaper, 250
North Goodman Street, Rochester 14607.
Our guidelines: We don’t publish anonymous letters — and
we ask that you include your street name and city/town/village. We don’t
publish letters that have been sent to other media — and we don’t publish form letters generated by activist groups. While
we don’t restrict length, letters of under 350 words have a greater chance of
being published. We do edit letters for clarity and brevity. And in general we
don’t publish letters (or longer “op-ed” pieces) from the same writer more
often than about once every two months.
This article appears in Jan 18-24, 2006.
