Maybe it’s too early to start celebrating, but City Council’s
endorsement of the mayor’s ferry plan was mighty good news.
I’m
grateful for the scrutiny and skepticism of Councilmember Brian Curran, who
cast the sole vote against the rescue plan. Curran’s worried about the risk to
city taxpayers, and there is indeed a risk. But I’m willing to take it. This
community seldom thinks big. With the ferry, we’re thinking big.
I’m tired
of this region whining and talking about what it can’t do. I’m tired of us
shrugging off downsizing after downsizing and pretending that things are just
peachy. I’m tired of us pointing to Buffalo
and bragging that we’re in better shape.
A ferry
restart isn’t a sure thing. We still have to bid for the boat in an auction.
And even if we get the ferry, there’s that little matter of operating it
without a loss.
But at
least there’s a chance that we’ll keep the boat.
And so I
thank the mayor, and City Council, for taking that big, bold step, doing what
others in the community should have done and would not.
Now it’s
time for those “others” to step up.
And there’s
a long, impressive list of “others.” I didn’t expect business people, on their
own, to buy the ferry. Time was too short, and there were too many unknowns.
But I doexpect them to get involved now, with
the city. And on the op-ed page of the Democrat
and Chronicle last week was a hint that that might happen. Two leaders of
the business group called the Rump Group urged that we keep the ferry in Rochester
— even if it has to operate “at a modest loss.”
The op-ed
piece, by Jasco Tools CEO Dutch Summers and former RG&E chief Tom Richards,
was a strong, focused, and presumably carefully worded statement.
Significantly, Summers and Richards characterized Mayor Bill Johnson’s
public-ownership proposal as an interim step, “a bridge to a longer-term,
realistic private ownership plan or a public-private partnership.”
Mayor
Johnson has predicted that with the city operating it, the ferry won’t need
public subsidy. Summers and Richards seem less optimistic. “We believe that the
project may need a supplemental source of revenue,” they wrote. And again they
hint at some form of private involvement, once there’s “time to put together”
that solution.
Summers and
Richards praise the economic benefits the ferry can bring. They praise its role
“as a community selling point,” as a way to make Rochester
“an international gateway.”
And then,
their most important point: “We hope any continuing public involvement can come
on a regional basis, since the ferry would benefit our entire region.”
Yes indeed.
Regional, meaning: MonroeCounty. OntarioCounty. OntarioProvince.
This is
what this region needs. True regionalism in economic development. And that
beautiful little ship at the Port of Rochester
can be the focus.
<p.You go,
girl.
What’s the problem?
Among the little controversies that popped up in December
was a move to keep street vendors from selling food between midnight and 5 a.m.
Proposals
to ban street vendors seem to pop up every decade or so. One year the push came
from restaurant owners, who thought the vendors were taking business away from
them. This year the complaints came from residents, people who live near the
downtown nightspots, where vendors have begun congregating late at night.
As is often
the case with this kind of complaint, though, the vendors aren’t really what
people are objecting to. It’s the noise from the vendors’ patrons.
But noisy
patrons would be hanging out outside the bars if City Hall removed every single
vendor. And after hearing from the vendors, their critics, and their
supporters, members of City Council voted last week not to impose a ban.
They’ll continue to study the problem and try to find another way to deal with
it.
That’s fine
— if they address the real issue. The late-night noise masks a far more
serious problem: young adults who are having way, way too much to drink. So
much too much that they sing and whoop and shout loud enough to wake the dead.
They do
this at 3 a.m.
And then
some of them get in cars and drive home.
That’s what City Hall ought to be
concerned about. Not street vendors.
I can
assure you that residents who live near the bars are concerned about it.
I can also
tell you that these particular young adults don’t need bars to get so drunk
that they raise holy heck at 3 a.m. I
tell you this from painful, personal experience. Winter, summer, spring, and
fall, some front porches in my neighborhood are lit up and alive with people
swearing, cheering, screaming, and whooping it up at 3 a.m. Weekends, weeknights, doesn’t matter.
Sometime
between 3 a.m. and when the rest of us have to get up and go to work, some of
the celebrants toddle inside and go to bed. The rest of them stagger to their
cars, tossing beer bottles and cups on our lawns as they go, and…. drive home.
Drunk.
I am
concerned, and my neighbors are concerned.
Then
there’s the issue of attracting families and older adults to the city. I like
my multi-generation neighborhood. That’s true of many of us who have chosen to
live in the city.
And most of
the young adults in my neighborhood behave themselves. But many do not. I don’t
think that city living should require turning a deaf ear to 3 a.m. partying.
And nobody ought to ignore the risk of a drunk-driving death that the partying
carries with it.
Noise in
the middle of the night may not be a high priority for an over-taxed police
force. But drunk driving must be.
This article appears in Dec 29, 2004 – Jan 4, 2005.
