REVIVING
DOWNTOWN

Year after
year, we keep recycling the same idea: we need to attract people downtown by demolishing
X and constructing Y that people from the suburbs and beyond will flock to. It
never seems to occur to anyone that the goal should be to attract permanent settlers rather than transient visitors.

            To this end, we need to create new habitat
within our downtown area that will attract young couples, retirees, and
business people. People who want to walk to work and play. Get enough people
living downtown, and the shops and small businesses will invariably follow.

            Put a casino on the fast ferry, and
have downtown Rochester build middle-class and upscale housing — lots of it.
The problem is that we have a chicken-and-egg situation. You need people living
in an area to attract shops and services but without them, people won’t move
in.

            Building attractive housing, being
willing to give up prime real estate to create small parks, creating new
transport to link these developments — all this takes vision and courage. It
is risky. It is (I’ll whisper) long term
investment.

            I recall the predictions of doom
when, in the 1970s, work began on the Washington DC metro. “A
two-billion-dollar boondoggle,” it was called when lines were extended
into areas of low density. What happened, of course, was that new development
followed the tracks and not the other way around. There are lessons to be
learned from history.

            The naysayers always throw stones at
the visionaries. Despite this, there are some good signs in Rochester. New
housing is going up in the East Avenue area. There are well-established pockets
of revival in Corn Hill, on Gibbs Street, in the Cascade District, and
elsewhere. People are living in these
places; not visiting these places.
Somehow, we need to find a way to convince developers that their investment
will be worthwhile. How about selling stock in a new neighborhood development
project?

            David
Perlman, Stoneham Drive, Rochester

CREATE
JOBS, NOT CASINO

I support
your views against a casino for downtown Rochester. What this city needs is
long-term, sustainable jobs for poorer inner-city residents, who might be the
most likely users of the casino — out of necessity.

            I am a new resident to Rochester,
and I am shocked by the extent of urban blight solely in one neighborhood —
that north of Main Street, known as 14621.

            In addition, I have noticed that
young black men, primarily, frequent the city’s garbage dumpsters and recycling
blue boxes in search of cans and bottles, for the deposit money. Teams of these
men efficiently collect huge bags of these every week, using market baskets, bikes,
and garbage bags. What is being done for these men, who are truly “nickel
and diming” it (as Barbara Ehrenreich put it in her recent book)?

            Although Habitat for Humanity has
begun a nine-house building project for the 14621 neighborhood, this is not
enough. Why don’t we see the kind of housing developments and urban economic
assistance through jobs that we see in suburban areas? In those areas,
investors have put money into beautiful housing developments by the dozens.

            Investment in this kind of housing
can be put into the inner city, and men like the dumpster men could be given
jobs in an expanded city recycling program. Rochester’s recycling program is
nothing compared to the one in the county I moved from, Wayne County, which has
recycled all grades of plastic, plus paper, junk mail, and at one point, even
Styrofoam (which, by the way, should be banned because it is both
non-biodegradable and toxic).

            Also, I have noticed city residents
throw away just about anything — from perfectly good used furniture to
computer parts. Such items could be donated to charity — the Vietnam Veterans
Thrift Store or Salvation Army, for example. Computer parts can be recycled
(check the Frontier Yellow Pages) to reduce waste and landfills.

            Finally, if the city budget cannot
provide these jobs and housing, local businesses and persons of wealth could
provide the impetus through charitable donations or foundations. What about
Wegmans, which already does some recycling? That way, not only better housing,
but also decently paid jobs in an expanded city recycling program —for which
these men have already ably shown their job qualifications — could be
created.

            Isn’t this the idea of “trickle
down economics” or “faith-based social services”?

            Elizabeth
Katz, East Avenue, Rochester

BUSH? LIE?

All these
folks are absolutely right to defend Bush as a non-liar and Clinton as an out
and out dirty, deliberate liar (The Mail, August 4, August 18). The Bush
administration is far to savvy to allow their chief mascot to straight up lie
when there are so many easy ways to not lie.

            Unlike Clinton, if Bush cheated on
his wife he’d be smart enough to stop at the grocery store on the way home and
buy himself an apple. That way, when he got home and Laura asked him where he’d
been, he could say, “At the store, buying this apple.” Then, like a good wife
(or mainstream media outlet), she wouldn’t ask him any more questions and
they’d go upstairs to snuggle.

            Did George W. lie? Certainly not.
But did he mislead his loyal wife? Sure. Manipulate? Absolutely. Deceive? Yup.
Did he, in fact, avoid telling her
the truth? Of course, he did. But none of this makes him an actual Clintonesque
L-I-A-R. Nope.

            All the good folks defending the
“honesty” of George W. Bush should be able to sleep soundly knowing that their
fearless leader and his entourage always do their best to not lie.

            Tim Beideck, Seneca Road, Irondequoit

Maybe the
Bush administration sincerely believed — even before September 11 — that
Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US. We may never know.

            I believe that it can be proven,
however, that the neo-cons planned the Iraq war prior to the election of Bush,
based on the following references:

            • The Project for the New American
Century is a neo-conservative think tank with strong ties to the American
Enterprise Institute. PNAC’s web site — www.newamericancentury.org — says
it was established in 1997 as “a non-profit, educational organization
whose goal is to promote American global leadership.” Its policy document,
“Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” openly advocates for total global
military domination.

            Many members hold highest-level
positions in the GW Bush administration. The PNAC’s Statement of Principles,
written in 1997, was signed by Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul
Wolfowitz.

            • Another quote, from the chair of
the New American Century, William Kristol, in 1999: “Republicans in the
coming election will likely propose a very different kind of internationalism.
In the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, they will argue that the
United States can and should lead the world to a better future, one built
around American principles of freedom and justice — but only if it has the
power and the will to use that power.”

            Look where the use of that power got
us in Iraq. We need a larger force, but Bush does not dare to call for the
draft because he would lose the election. We do not hold a better position in
the world as result of the declaration by President Bush on the “axis of
evil” and pre-emptive war. Those in the above list planned the use of this
policy in the late 90’s or earlier, and are now his advisors.

            • The following words were published
10 months before George W. Bush was elected, and a year and a half before the
September 11 attack. In a January-February 2000 essay published in Foreign Affairs (the journal of the
globalist Council on Foreign Relations, to which she belongs), Condoleezza Rice
insisted that a war to remove Saddam Hussein would be a top priority of a
prospective Bush administration:

            “Nothing will change until
Saddam is gone, so the United States must mobilize whatever resources it can to
remove him.”

            I hope that these references will
help to clarify that the policies of neo-cons are now Republican policy, and
they will, if continued, get us into more trouble in the world.

            Don
Miller, 545 Marquart Drive, Webster

TIME FOR BUSH TO GO

The
negative ads launched by the Republican Party and its allies against Democratic
presidential candidate John Kerry certainly won’t change the hearts and minds
of independent voters, because the masses of the American people are for a
better and stronger country for all.

            Senator Kerry would be a dynamic and
sagacious leader if he were elected the next president. He also has begun to
demonstrate that he has a positive vision for the country. For a stunning
victory for Senator Kerry over President Bush, the voting masses are advised to
come out and vote for a change for the better for America.

            You shouldn’t be misled or
intimidated by fallacies and destructive campaign ads aimed at tarnishing the
good reputation of Senator Kerry. Tell the oligarchic government under Bush
that it has failed to serve the interests of the American people. Therefore, it
has to go.

            Most American working families are
saying that the Bush tax-cut policy does not contribute to the country’s
economic growth, because citizens didn’t benefit from it. Is Bush not a
president of the wealthy class? Does he deserve a second term in office?

            To preserve the genuine political
culture in America, let Bush’s minority government go.

            Prince
D. George, Lake Avenue, Rochester

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, Rochester 14607.

            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.
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 Sep 1-7, 2004.