Recently, Mary Anna Towler wrote about the “risks” in the Rochester mayoral race (Urban Journal). The truth is we face only one major risk in this race: electing a candidate who will maintain the status quo.
We cannot afford another 25 years of trying to manage the city’s decline. Making incremental investments through a myriad of programs hasn’t been an effective strategy. We need to think much bigger. We need to think long term.
My team is offering a real plan to grow the economy and reduce poverty. It will help struggling families by providing increased childcare subsidies, a critically important program that has been proven to lift people out of poverty. For less than 2 percent of the city’s budget, we can help an additional 1,000 kids. Another part of our plan will reduce property taxes by 50 percent.
Take a drive through the city, and you’ll see the need for a massive investment in our housing stock. Half of our homeowners earn less than $51,000 a year. They’re begging for help with upside-down mortgages and repairs. Renters are also struggling; nearly two-thirds of them pay 30 percent or more of their income for housing. They’re disproportionately impacted by the city’s high non-homestead tax rate.
We have empty storefronts and office space. The city’s commercial tax rate is about 50 percent more than Henrietta’s. No wonder jobs have left the city and we hand out tax breaks like candy. When only wealthy developers get tax breaks, everyone else is left holding the bag. You should not have to pay a greater share of taxes so a developer can build $300,000 condominiums.
We must be effective and efficient in attracting companies to the city and locating jobs near people. We have an unemployment rate of 14 percent. In some neighborhoods, unemployment tops 30 percent. In addition to the property tax cut, we’re calling for a Jobs Office at City Hall and a citywide fiber network to level the playing field for our students.
Many people have asked, how can we cut property taxes by 50 percent?
We will need a three-year head start and a dedicated fund to cover short-term revenue losses. One potential source of funds is consolidation of the city and county water systems. The city previously valued its system at more than $200 million in today’s dollars. But a consolidation would happen only after thorough, independent study and rigorous negotiations. Through those negotiations, we would make sure city taxpayers are protected and ensure the city is well represented on the water board.
There are additional ways to get revenue for the dedicated fund. We will ask the state for Rochester’s fair share, as we get $204 less per person in state aid than Buffalo. This directly impacts how much we pay in property taxes. State funding largely comes from income tax revenue, a significantly more progressive source than property tax.
Finally, new revenue from increased investment in the city will go into the dedicated fund. With a three-year head start, we can invest in housing and jobs without cuts to services.
Towler also alluded to the risk of a mayoral primary further fracturing the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, the reality is our party could not be more fractured. The only real risk we face this year is choosing candidates who are part of the Morelle or Gantt factions. Decades of infighting have left the party broken and unsustainable. If we want to fix our party and our city, we need to look in a new direction.
We have a choice between tired ideas of the past or a bold vision for the future. Rochester is not working for everyone. The only way we can reach our full potential is by rethinking what is possible. It’s your city. It should be working for you.
Barnhart is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for mayor.
This article appears in Mar 1-7, 2017.
A progressive, smart and innovative candidate who is not a party to either camp of the local, dysfunctional Democratic Party. She is exactly what this city needs and she should be endorsed by City Newspaper because she is the only one who can unite the Party and bring real change to Rochester
City, I have a question: why have Sheppard’s op-ed front and center for weeks, only to bury Barnhart’s?
You’ve shown you’re biased in favor of Sheppard. Again. Why?
Peter, you just caught us early. The art department puts the content online and, when news gets in, we put the stories in the order we want them.
So you’ll put it on the main page for two weeks like Sheppard, I assume?
I appreciate City posting this piece. There are some important ideas here that merit serious consideration, but also some hard truths about Rochester politics.
My first exposure to Rochester politics was a quarter-century ago, when I worked for the president of the Monroe County legislature before the Democrats lost the majority. Unfortunately, I had a front-row seat to the decline and fall of the Democratic Party in Monroe County, and it remains a shadow of the party operation it once was. That decline coincided with the economic decline of Rochester and Monroe County. As Rachel says, some political leaders have done little more than manage decline. Others, sadly, fight like animals over the scraps of what’s left. I’ve seen them with my own eyes, baring their teeth and snarling at each other. It’s truly disgusting.
Rochester urgently needs a new generation of leadership with high competence, a vision for the community’s future, a plan to get there, and a willingness to take smart risks along the way. Call it a “third way,” if you will. What’s especially appealing about Rachel Barnhart’s piece here is that she’s not only clearly putting herself on that path, but also inviting others to join her in walking it.
In order to what she plans, Barnhart will need the support of City Council. Racing in, waving a single saber, is not the way to do that. I think she might have germs of ideas, but she needs more experience before she can pull off what she wants.
What would you do for our city if you were too win all the.good votes from all the good people of Rochester!
Michaels comment pretty much says it all about why our city is in the state it’s in. We have too many people who are expecting ever more handouts from someone else. I’ve always thought that it’s the people who make a city great…. Or not.
What kind of city is Rochester?
Glad to see City Newspaper extending recognition to all candidates in the Rochester Mayoral Race. Hopefully, they’ll continue.
The big question that has yet to be asked or answered regarding Barnhart’s candidacy is this: what does lobbyist Scott Gaddy get out of all of this? Gaddy has literally spent thousands of dollars “investing” in Barnhart’s two political campaigns. It is even doubtful that she would be running without his financial resources. What does he expect in return?
We know from a recent D&C report that Gaddy has levels of debt that boggle the mind, owing tax authorities alone over $600k. We also know that he and Bill Nojay had designs on the school modernization project and its billion dollar plus budget. Does Gaddy get to pick Barnhart’s cabinet? Does Gaddy get first dibs on city contracts for projects paid for by city tax dollars? Does Gaddy view her candidacy as a potential lottery ticket to pay off his significant financial debts? These are legitimate questions that need to be asked, and answered.
Regarding Gaddy:
-He’s not on Barnhart’s campaign.
-He did create a PAC to help Lovely Warren win. He got no benefit for his donations.
-He donated the maximum legal amount towards Barnhart’s campaign. He did *not* do what he did with Lovely Warren’s campaign, which was create a PAC and then send out tens of thousands of dollars worth of mailers.
-Gaddy’s contribution was a small fraction of what Barnhart raised.
-Barnhart made a statement saying that he’s not on the campaign. As such, he has nothing to benefit.
-Are you certain Sheppard and Warren aren’t getting special interest money?
-Financial disclosures aren’t available until July; how do you know Gaddy donated this time around? You should provide City with your source.
Also, Barnhart said she wants to eliminate campaign contributions from contractors. If the other candidates are so separated from special interests, they should have no problem making the same promise.
Oh, and in case the horse isn’t dead yet–Gaddy’s not on Barnhart’s campaign.
Animule,
You’re obviously part of the fake news crowd. How do you know about any donations? Filings won’t be available until July. I don’t know where you’re headed with the rest of your so called “claims”, but Gaddy isn’t on the ballot this fall. Try focusing on the real issues.
Gaddy donations to Rachel Barnhart for round number two – October 4, 2016 – $2,400; “Optimum Field Productions” company that shares same address as Gaddy, $2,000 on December 6, 2016. Link for latter below. http://www.elections.ny.gov:8080/reports/r…
Animule,
Those links show no donations for the Mayoral race. So obviously, you’re just spreading rumors. Do you have any sources for the rest of your fake news, or do you just have an irrational fear of Gaddy?
Animule,
Your links are to last year’s Assembly race. You claimed that Gaddy wrote checks for this year’s mayor’s race. Where’s your proof? Are the rest of your claims this faulty? I choose to take candidate Barnhart at her word. You’re just pushing innuendo, with no evidence.
I think that Rachel will be asked during the campaign if she has received financial support from Mr Gaddy in the Mayoral race. There are also the financial disclosure forms that will be released showing who contributed to the campaign.
I will take her word on this with the knowledge that the election laws require disclosure.
Mr. Racoon, please stop it with the “fake news” garbage. making an imprecise statement or an error is not “fake news”. Not a helpful term at this point