SAFETY? OR A POLICE STATE?
Regarding John Klofas’s recommendation to diminish violence
in Rochester by following New
York City’s policy of making it likely that people
will encounter police (“What Options for a City ‘Made for Murder’?” April 19):
“All that low-level enforcement stuff meant that anybody
could be stopped anytime,” Klofas said. That anybody could be stopped at any
time is not “low level,” “enforcement,” or “stuff.” It is the very
definition of a police state.
David E. Pell, Glen Cove Rise, Rochester
NO BETTER OPTIONS?
I found myself incredibly disappointed with the article
“What Options for a City ‘Made for Murder’?” (April 19). RIT Professor John
Klofas was the sole interviewee, and his only answer to our city’s murder problem
was essentially “more judicial activity.”
I understand that Mr. Klofas is a criminal-justice professor
and therefore is inclined to respond in this manner, but you could have at
least interviewed other specialists with other ideas. Where are those who
believe that our best solution is putting more money into education and/or
public programs that encourage trade or higher education, positive after-school
activities, etc?
Where are those who believe that if we improve our
unemployment rates (via trade programs, job-corps type programs, etc), the
crime rate will decrease?
The first article in this same series determined that the
main reason for exceedingly high crime rates in Rochester
is a history of low income and low educational levels in our minority youth, so
why not address these problems instead of just perpetuating the problem?
A plethora of scientific studies prove that stiffer
penalties, higher incarceration rates, etc. do not deter crime in the long run,
nor do they rehabilitate those who have committed crimes in the past (who are
the most likely to commit crime again). Why are we not addressing and curing
the issue at its root, but are simply putting ineffective Band-Aids on the
result? That’s about as effective as putting a Band-Aid on an ulcer in hopes
that it will heal. It might, but it’s more likely to develop gangrene.
Unique Lee, Rochester
SLAVERY’S IMPACT
I generally enjoy reading interviews with RIT criminologist
John Klofas (“Made for Murder,” April 12 and 19). I was dismayed however, that
his interview on the causes of the high murder rate in Rochester
did not mention the influence of slavery on differences in the homicide rates
of African-Americans and Hispanics.
The institution of slavery criminalized literacy. It also
seems to me that plantation owners, through their sexual activity and slave
transactions, contributed significantly to the current prevalence of
matriarchal families among African-Americans.
Linda Phillips, Greenaway Road, Brighton
TAXING EQUITY
Now that tax time has passed, I wonder how many New Yorkers
realize how distorted the state income-tax rates are.
People with very low income levels pay at a rate of 4
percent. The rate progresses to a maximum of 7.7 percent at incomes of over
$500,000. Individuals have no personal exemption for themselves. Therefore, the 4 percent rate is taxed on
the very first dollar after either the standard or itemized deduction.
While there are personal deductions for dependents, they are
at the 1970’s level of only $1000 each, compared to the 2005 federal exemption
of $3200. Unfortunately, New York
does not seem to index for inflation, creating a more onerous burden each year
for those at the bottom of the income scale.
There is a household credit which can reduce taxes for the
very lowest payers. But since lower-income individuals and families also pay a
disproportionate amount of their income in sales tax, they face a much higher
tax burden proportionally than those who are well off. It is no surprise that
people are leaving New York!
It would seem much fairer if people were able to keep some
income as a result of a reasonable personal exemption, and if rates at the low
end were immediately adjusted downward and then indexed to reflect inflation.
Otherwise, New York will look
like the America
of the motion picture, “Soylent Green,” where there are a few super rich and
everyone else lives in poverty.
Jeff Baker, Perinton
LOST OPPORTUNITY
“Rail to Trail“ (March 15) left readers with the impression that the urban trail project would
be a real win for the area. However, that story missed the bigger picture and
the true opportunity cost of this surprisingly low-impact, limited-appeal
project.
As well-intentioned as Tom Frey and his colleagues appear to
be in bringing green space to disadvantaged areas of the city, the glaring
reality is that these areas are in far greater need of economic development.
Unfortunately, a recreational trail will have negligible impact in terms of
economic uplift for the areas touched by the corridor. Coincidentally, we must
hope that an improved trail won’t simply provide a nicer locale for the crimes
and mischief that have already occurred on this currently unmaintained
property.
Am I biased in my opinion? Absolutely. I worked for several
years to convert the former freight rail corridor into a low-speed passenger
rail corridor that would transport people between downtown Rochester
and Charlotte, with stops along the way at places like SenecaPark and other points of interest.
As a public-private partnership, Rochester Trolley & Rail has worked to
create connections between otherwise disconnected destinations in our community,
using historic, rail-based trolleys. Economic impacts would include job
creation, local investment in infrastructure, and a renewed sense of pride in
the areas traveled by the trolley.
Admittedly, the prime motivator behind this phase of our
project was to connect the Fast Ferry terminal with downtown for passengers who
came without cars, a likelihood for people who would have come over from Toronto.
Obviously the hope and opportunity around the ferry has faded into oblivion,
though the value in connecting Rochester’s
neighborhoods and activity centers has not, and increased mobility for
residents and visitors alike cannot be undervalued.
Our community’s need to create robust connections between
downtown Rochester, Irondequoit,
and Charlotte is as strong as ever.
With an urban-suburban dichotomy that continues to permeate so much of Greater
Rochester, we desperately need to create lasting connections — and faster
than can ever be accomplished solely by foot or bicycle.
Unfortunately, our efforts to integrate with the proposed
trail effort were largely ignored or dismissed, as were the very real synergies
that a joint approach made possible. Although recreational trails don’t create
jobs and trail users don’t spend money supporting neighborhood businesses as
part of their trail usage, apparently an urban trail was all that mattered as
the discussions unfolded.
Regrettably, the trail effort was conducted without broad
public awareness, notice, or comment. As members of the broader community, we
are right to ask: “Where were the opportunities for true public input? Where
were the stakeholder meetings?” Sadly, because the “big-picture” perspective
was omitted, these opportunities for broader input and synergies were too.
At this point, only one description befits the decision to
use this precious corridor for a trail (and only a trail): economic waste. What
is promoted as “good” for a few neighborhoods (and a very small sub-segment of Rochester’s
population) is frankly an insult to the rest of the community.
Christopher Burns, Irondequoit (Burns is president and CEO of
Rochester Trolley & Rail Corporation.
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, Rochester14607.
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 May 3-9, 2006.
