One
line in county executive hopeful Maggie Brooks’ platform will probably not be
quoted much. It’s too abstract and unforthcoming at first blush. But it does
get the mind moving.
           “Do we really want to turn our
community into a laboratory, a place to experiment and tinker with our
future?” asks Brooks.
Well, do we? It largely
depends on who “we” are.
           If things are great for
“us,” nobody reaches for the test tube and Bunsen burner. But the
other part of us that sees nothing but trouble ahead — more unemployment,
more unfair taxation, more cuts in vital services like schools, a declining quality
of life — might don the lab coat rather than die with the status quo.
           Clearly, apart from town business
like recreation or sometimes the preservation of open space, most Monroe County
suburbs are not inclined to experiment. The tendency is obvious from the list
of candidates. Here are some lowlights:
           In the town of Greece, there’s a
county legislature seat up for grabs. But only one set of hands is grabbing: a
Republican-Independence-Conservative nominee running unopposed.
           Same goes for the “race”
for Chili town justice.
           In the town of Clarkson, Republicans
are running unopposed for supervisor, town clerk, town justice, and town
council.
           Republican-Conservatives similarly
are shoo-ins for Gates town justice and town council. And the incumbent Gates
supervisor (R-I-C) faces a challenger with only the Working Families line.
           You get the picture.
           But one more sour note: A special
single-party-state citation goes to Rush, where Republicans not encumbered with
cross-endorsements are running unopposed for supervisor, town clerk, town
justice, town council, and highway superintendent.
So is
everybody happy in these towns?
           On one level, a majority must be.
But that feeling of satisfaction might rest on a failure to know what’s
happening next door — how certain towns are suffering while others prosper.
           It’s not talked about much, least of
all during elections. But wealth is not very fairly distributed among the
suburbs. Take an example from the county’s southern tier: The town of
Wheatland, quite despite a population (2000 census) of 5,149, had a total
full-value assessment of around $195 million. Just across the Genesee River,
the town of Rush’s total full-value assessment was around $217 million, though
Rush has just 3,603 residents.
           Maybe this has something to do with
the fact that Wheatland includes the village of Scottsville, which has
low-income housing as well as stately historic homes. Or with the fact that
Scottsville’s main drag lacks the kind of economic activity villagers would
like, whereas Rush has more spillover from teeming Henrietta immediately to the
north.
           In any case, the difference in
valuation gives one town the upper hand. But is this an election issue? Maybe
in the finest of fine print. Wheatland, where only R-I-Cs are on the ballot,
shows no more sign of political ferment than does Total Republican Rush.
           There are ways of dealing with
tax-base inequalities: for example, revenue sharing, with or without
consolidations. And this is done to some extent in Monroe County through the
Morin-Ryan sales tax sharing formula. Let’s face it, though: The real way is to
tax income and wealth instead of property, but localities can’t take this route
alone.
           Thus the inequalities, by their
existence, argue for some kind of experimentation and innovation.
You could view one-party,
one-ideology rule as a radical experiment in backwardness.
           The towns and villages have sought
refuge in themselves, and their citizens pay the price, through economic
stratification and mounting expenses. Irondequoit, for example, has nearly
twice as many residents as Pittsford and has a large commercial base. But
Irondequoit’s full-value assessment is less than Pittsford’s. The numbers spell the difference between a “built
out,” inner-ring, middle- and working-class community and an expanding,
upscale one.
           “People want to choose where
they live, where their children go to school, and the kind of government
structure that serves them,” says the Brooks platform.
           You have to concede the “want
to” part. That’s observable human nature.
           But real people’s lives play out
within a narrow range of options. Choices are dictated by geography, wealth and
income, employment, accessibility, and other factors minimally under the
control of individuals.
           And in the “one-party state,”
individuals lack even a meaningful choice in the voting booth. Maybe they’re
wise to stay home on Election Day.
This article appears in Oct 1-7, 2003.
