If elected mayor of the City of Rochester, Rachel Barnhart says that she will cut property taxes by 50 percent, provide childcare funding for an additional 1,000 families, and make fiber Internet free for every home.
Barnhart, a former reporter and anchor for WROC-TV8, announced her candidacy on Monday. She’ll square off in a Democratic primary against James Sheppard, Rochester’s former police chief, and presumably, current mayor Lovely Warren.
Warren hasn’t officially entered the race yet, but her camp sent over the following statement after Barnhart’s announcement:
“Last year, Miss Barnhart ran for the State Assembly. This year she has announced her candidacy for mayor. We are curious to learn what office she will run for next year,” said Gary Rogers, spokesperson for the Friends of Lovely Warren Committee.
Barnhart said she’d pay for her plans through careful long-term planning. She mentioned the possibility of consolidating the city and county’s water systems as a way to gain revenue. She’d also lobby hard for more state aid and look for budget efficiencies, she said.
Also, the promised tax cut would lure people and business to the city, and their investment would help offset the revenue loss, she said.
But almost every politician mentions “budget efficiencies”; it’s vague and more of a hope than a plan. And many local lawmakers have tried to get more money from the state — but state officials haven’t been moved by their pleas. It’s hard to see why it would be different for Barnhart.
Barnhart’s candidacy is sure to be a mystery to some people. She has no political experience save an unsuccessful run for State Assembly against Democratic incumbent Harry Bronson last fall.
(In fairness, though, Sheppard has been in the County Legislature for only a little over a year. He does have administrative experience, though.)
Joe Rittler, a spokesperson for Barnhart’s campaign, said in a statement that Barnhart can win, despite the “politically motivated naysayers.”
“There are many undecided voters who are not happy with the status quo, and we have a campaign plan that will carry us to victory,” Rittler said.
People are sure to ask, too, why Barnhart didn’t get her feet wet first by running for one of the five at-large seats up for election on City Council this year. Barnhart’s high profile would have been a significant advantage.
But Rittler said that Barnhart has studied city government extensively and that has given her the knowledge, skills, leadership ability, vision, and experience to be mayor.
“For the past 18 years, she’s read every city and school budget, every piece of Council legislation, every major contract bid, and every environmental impact statement on big projects,” he said. “She’s delved into the finances of the fast ferry, Renaissance Square, Midtown Plaza, and the Inner Loop.”
Barnhart may see an opening, too, given the obvious acrimony between Sheppard and Warren. Sheppard retired as police chief shortly after Warren took office in 2013, amid buzz that she was going to replace him. The two have clashed politically since.
Barnhart may see a path to the mayor’s office by putting herself above the fray: presenting herself as the candidate who is truly focused on the issues.
Related Stories
This article appears in The Smallest Minority.
So arguably Rochester’s most incompetent mayor ever responds her challenger’s policy-focused campaign announcement with a dismissive insult? That says a lot about the current state of Rochester politics: dysfunction, factionalization, and pettiness.
I’m glad there is a candidate who is trying to rise above that and find ways to move the city forward.
I’m glad there is a good candidate, too: Jim Sheppard. He actually has a great deal of administrative experience, and wherever he has worked he has gained friends. Certainly not Rachel Barnhart and her vanity candidacy, with her rainbows and unicorns. Her proposals are bereft of reality. What has she ever run?
Ahh, the Troll Whisperer has returned. I would call you out by name but the comment wouldn’t get posted. Lets just say Turn Out For Tom is back.
Looking to get your old job back?
Kind of a snarky statement from the Mayor’s office. Who wrote it? Uncle Reggie?
Except the Rochester Water Works turns money back over to the city government every single year providing not only a world class product but a boost to the budget. Quite short-sighted to suggest selling it to the county for a one time boost that would be spent probably immediately on a Ferry. Sorry Mayor Johnson, not trying to take shots.
The water system hasn’t provided a significant financial boost in years. It’s a century old system, in need of massive unaffordable repairs. Multiple layers of redundant government are killing prosperity, which is why Cuomo has been calling for consolidation for years. The lakes have already been sold. Sell the rest before it drowns the city in red ink. Let’s have smart government, instead of brain dead parochialism.
The water system produces only $5 million a year. Yes, it’s something, but we need to think big and make drastic changes if we want this city to get back on its feet in our lifetime. Why not ask how much consolidating the city water system would bring in before dismissing it?
The permitting process in the city is ridiculous. Business owners have to fight for little changes, then the city complains if they draw too much business! You cannot tell me that efficiencies cannot be made.
It is insane to reject someone who is persuasive, smart, and driven to solve the city’s problems just because she didn’t serve time on city council. What experience is so necessary that city council is a prerequisite for mayor? The real issue is that certain parties benefit from the current setup; Rachel wants to help *everyone!*
I’m willing to give her a fair shot at my vote, but I want to see the detailed analysis of how a 50% across-the-board property tax cut, combined with major public works initiatives (fiber) and increasing aid to low income families , could possibly lead to a balanced budget. First person to say “trickle down” gets slapped with a wet salmon.
If the plan depends on the state legislature agreeing to give Rochester hundreds of millions of dollars every year for perpetuity, then it isn’t a plan, it is a fantasy. If the plan depends on the County legislature and surrounding small towns agreeing on consolidation of services, it is a fantasy.
While Rachel is obviously smart and energetic, and I respect her career as a journalist, I’m left with a sense of ‘Where’s the beef?’ I found it very strange that there were no voters or supporters at her news conference, as opposed to the hundreds of cheering people at Jim Sheppard’s announcement or the crowds that Lovely Warren has been known to bring in. Does she not have any volunteers or supporters willing to come to her kickoff news conference, or does she seriously believe that she can win an election simply by talking to the media and tweeting a lot? A 50% property tax cut that you’ll flesh out the details of after you’re elected (hoping the county AND Albany will just up and co-operate), PLEASE, it’s a financial fast ferry waiting to happen, and I need to see an actual plan before I trust you with Rochester’s finances. Rochester needs SERIOUS, QUALIFIED, INCLUSIVE leadership to tackle the problems Rachel mentioned at her news conference. I simply don’t see a lifelong media personality, using media-centric star power and tactics to run her race, with a recent history of running a personalized, negative campaign against a fellow Democrat, as being what Rochester needs right now. I see someone who got a rush from challenging Harry Bronson, all flash and no substance, with no real support in the neighborhoods themselves (although I’m down to be proven wrong). Good journalism does not equal good leadership, and Rochester deserves better. While I consider her a far better choice than the current administration (the Mayor’s response summed up the level of intellect and quality she and her cronies bring to the table), I need to see more details about such significant proposals and a genuine outreach by her to all our neighborhoods before I consider her qualified for the job. Either way, I think we should all brace for a very nasty race judging by the rise in out-gassing from the Snark Factory (also known as City Hall), because they obviously have given up on running the City and are now just flinging mud.
Patrick:
The Barnhart event was a press conference where she discussed a platform. There were some invited supporters, but it was not meant as a two-hour festival celebrating someone who didn’t present any actual plan for Rochester.
If you’re so concerned about a candidate running a negative campaign against an opponent – though I should say that the assembly campaign was on her opponent’s record, certainly a fair target – you should be very concerned about who supports Sheppard. They’re the same groups that ran smear campaigns against Barnhart last year.
Patrick,
Rachel’s plan contains plenty of substance. That you fail to see it, says more about you, than her.
She’s running against a failing Mayor, and a failed Police Chief. I don’t think either one of them wants to run on their records or so-called “experience”. It’s time for a change.
I don’t think a demonstration of grassroots support is a bad thing for a candidate, I have zero problem with there being positive energy among the electorate. I also have seen far too many candidates roll out extensive platforms that sound good but have no basis in reality and then sell themselves as the only vehicle to implement them. I prefer a candidate who will stay open to new input, build a framework and a culture of inclusiveness and transparency, and actually grind out the hard work of meeting with voters and actually listening to them, rather than try and wow me through flashy proposals and media sizzle. Her primary challenge to Harry Bronson (upstate’s only openly gay Assemblyman, which as a gay man, I noticed) was her choice, she moved into the district to challenge him, rather than a sitting Republican. Her advisers are from the same ilk that advise Mayor Warren, so if you think Rachel is the candidate to heal the factional divisions in the Democratic Party here, I respectfully disagree.
Patrick,
We live in a Democracy. People have a right to vote, and run for office, but not remain in office forever. I’m sorry that you’re upset that Harry Bronson had to work for reelection, but that’s how the system works. Choice is the centerpiece of our system of government. Without it, we’re little better than North Korea, Iran, Russia, et. al.
As far as James Sheppard, you’re impressed with his announcement, but ignore his lack of any meaningful plan for the direction of Rochester. You seem to be saying that political rallies are substantive, but detailed plans are not. That’s silly.
Rachel Barnhart is the only candidate in the race with a vision for Rochester. Where’s James Sheppard plan?
Rachel Barnhart chose to set a different tone from Chief Sheppard in her campaign announcement, using a format that allowed people live access to a detailed presentation. Perhaps she isn’t “all flash and no substance” after all? I suppose if you preferred the event Sheppard held, AND if the format of a candidate’s announcement is that big a factor in your vote for mayor, you have everything you need to make up your mind already.
One thing you really can’t say, if you’re actually interested substance, is that there are “no details” available on her plan. The “TV personality with no ideas” mantra may have served her opponent’s supporters well in the State Assembly race, but it isn’t any more true now than it was then, and if Rachel Barnhart can get over losing to Harry Bronson, it might be time to get over her running against him and actually look at what she’s proposing. If you go to her website you can review her detailed policy platform, which reflects her extensive institutional knowledge of Rochester city government and finances. She developed that knowledge over the course of two decades as local TV broadcast media’s first public interest reporter (doing reporting that she pushed reluctant station managers, who were more interested in puff pieces and ratings, to air). She’s also been on various local radio shows for the last 24 hours, explaining how those proposals will work. If her last campaign is any indication, she’ll be knocking on a lot of doors and talking to voters about her plans as the race progresses, so I’m sure that if you still have any questions after reading her platform, she’d be happy to discuss them with you. If you don’t care to do any of that, that’s up to you, but it will be because you aren’t interested–not because she hasn’t come up with a substantive, comprehensive plan for debate.
Hilary and Rocket,
My basic issue with her challenging Harry is this: I’d would’ve rather seen Rachel working with Harry in the Assembly after defeating a Republican, or sitting in Rich Funke’s Senate seat, than get the zero-sum intraparty warfare we got. Yet what’s past is past, and she obviously grew from the experience, as any good candidate would.
You also mistake my contrast between the two launch events. I simply thought that the demonstration of grassroots interest at Shepard’s launch was a positive, but had no considered the less physical but perhaps more widespread reach of Rachel’s announcement. She obviously has a knack for adeptly using technology, and I remain open to the idea that you don’t need passionate events, physically powerful gatherings of people that connect and motivate them in a way you can’t get over a modem, to succeed in politics in 2017.
In terms of substance, I admit I have been pleasantly surprised by the level of depth to her proposals, her platform is well developed and sounds great. Growing up here has taught me to be skeptical when something sounds too good to be true, and I worry that her whole platform is one big IF. IF she gets the property tax cut to work (I’m not saying it wouldn’t be fantastic), then everything else is affordable. Everything in her platform is fantastic policy, I love it, but it costs $$, and I worry she’s staking too much on her ability to slay some of the dragons haunting Rochester these last few decades. There’s a lot of uncertainty in whether she can pull that all off, and I feel I need to see more in terms of leadership before signing on to a leap of faith like that. However, I have an open mind, and I expect it to be an interesting 7 months lol.
Rocket Racoon – There’s a vast difference between having a vision and just seeing things. When a rank amateur with no experience with imposing taxes or putting together a municipal budget tells you she can cut property taxes by 50%, she’s seeing things.
Jim,
You seemed to be obsessed with insulting Rachel Barnhart rather than responding rationally. Here’s a suggestion, read her plan, and then come back with constructive criticism. You claim it can’t get done. Ok, tell us why?
That rank amateur, as you put it, seems to have put together quite an effective plan to help Rochester. That’s more than the so-called “experts”, or her opponents seem to be capable of.
Rocket,
You stated that Rachel’s plan has plenty of Substance. If that is true then you should be able to answer the following questions.
What is the dollar amount reduction in Revenue that will be created by a 50% cut in property taxes?
What areas of the City Budget will be reduced to equal the loss in tax revenue? Is she planning to lay off Police Officers? Cut costs with the Fire Department ? Environmental Services?
Has she received assurances from the State or the County that they plan to increase aid to the City?
Are there any specifics here?
FGF,
Every question you just laid out is answered in detail at Rachel’s website. But obviously you don’t care, or you would have read it by now. Try reading the plan before criticizing it.
Are you referring to this as my answer?
http://rachelformayor.com/issues/property-…
Is there something else that I missed?
Otherwise it is just empty promises
FGF,
It’s not my job to answer your questions. Either read the document, or don’t, that’s up to you. But when you make false claims about Rachel’s plan, without looking at it, you’re doing the community a disservice. In fact, you’re really just wasting everyone’s time.
I read it and there are no specifics.
Please refrain from making personal attacks, otherwise your comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.
I am delighted that Rachel is running for mayor. She is one of the smartest people I have ever met. Her talents as a broadcast journalist could have taken her to New York or Los Angeles for a network position. However, her Rochester roots are important to her and her desire to serve as Rochester’s mayor is a logical follow-up to a highly successful career that put her in touch with city operations at every level. I was impressed with the well-thought-out platform she put together in advance of yesterday’s press conference at which she announced her candidacy. The specifics some are looking for will come as the campaign moves along. She will be terrific in City Hall if elected.
Christine Carrie Fien , might you tell this also to Kenny C, since he offered nothing of substance but rather an ad hominem attack on me? Can we be consistent here?
This city is minority minded. It has increasingly challenged the white voter, ultimately who don’t care, who gets nothing out of this city except high taxes, a school system that rots, councilpeople who’ve been there too long and as far as the minorities who want government handouts, do nothing to train their own and sit idly by watching the city lose their working tax base leave.
I applaud Rachel for sticking around here, period! Rachel, let them have it, move on to greener, more civilized pastures. Go somewhere where YOU WILL make a difference. Good Luck
Pulled from recent City story update —
http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/rochester/this-week-in-the-mayors-race-friday-february-17/Content?oid=2974638
A story last week on the possibility of combining the city and county water systems drew a lot of attention and some scorn, particularly concerning how much the city’s water system earns and what it’s worth. Edward Doherty, retired vice president of the Rochester Area Community Foundation and former commissioner of the city’s Department of Environmental Services, reached out with the following information:
“There are two numbers in the 2016-17 budget (p.7-60) that lay out the transfers from the water fund to the general fund (the water fund is the only city fund that generates sufficient income to cover all its capital and operating expenses, and transfer money to the general fund).”
“The first number is the “Contribution to the General Fund,” which amounts of $5,373,600. This contribution is authorized in the city charter. Some call it a “profit,” but the real idea is that it compensates the general fund as a payment in lieu of property taxes (a private utility would pay taxes). The second transfer is $2,452, 800 and is an administrative chargeback. This directly reimburses the general fund for central service expenses, such as legal, accounting, purchasing, communication, human services, etc. While the city could certainly reduce some of these costs if it no longer had the water system, that reduction would actually be quite minor (parts of lawyers, accounts, budget analysts, etc.”
“So, the bottom line is that the city general fund would lose nearly $7.8 million in annual income if it sold the water system. If you take a 20-year perspective, the break-even sales price would need to be $156 million.”
Not quite parochial or brain-dead…