- FILE PHOTO
- Louise Slaughter.
Representative Louise Slaughter endorsed Rochester Mayor Tom Richards for re-election at a press announcement earlier today. Richards is in a primary battle with Lovely Warren, who is president of City Council. (Warren’s response to Slaughter’s endorsement is at the bottom of this blog.)
Slaughter said that Rochester has seen unprecedented investment, more than $1.7 billion, under Richards’ leadership.
“This city is on the march,” Slaughter said. “I need to keep my partner.”
Richards said Rochester went through a period of disinvestment at the business, government, and community levels. But that period is over, he said. Responding to critics who have suggested that he has been mostly concerned with downtown development, Richards said that more than two-thirds of the investment is in projects outside of downtown.
Redevelopment is not about buildings, he said. Improvements to downtown are for the benefit of the people who work and live in them, he said.
And Slaughter said that Richards has made great strides putting women and minorities to work.
Today’s press conference was held at the 1872 Café on West Main Street, not far from the Susan B. Anthony House at 17 Madison Street. Anthony was arrested in 1872 after attempting to vote in the presidential election.
Both Slaughter and Richards said that the café and improvements in the Susan B. Anthony neighborhood are representative of Richards’ commitment to improving city neighborhoods.
City Council members Elaine Spaull, Carla Palumbo, and former Council member John Lightfoot were among the city and neighborhood leaders who attended the event.
WARREN’S RESPONSE (via e-mail):
“Our campaign is about the people of the City of Rochester not the big named politicians, special interest groups or high roller donors. This is about everyday citizens, middle class families, children who are being lost to an educational system that continues to fail them, and families who have and continue to lose loved ones in the streets of our city. My campaign is for everyday Rochesterians, not a who’s who of Greater Rochester area. I respect everyone and their right to support whichever candidate they choose. However, at the end of the day, I knock on the doors to my neighbors and the people who actually live in the City of Rochester and ask them for their vote because it is voices that matters, and their votes that count — and that why 6,246 voters signed my petition; more than double the number collected on behalf of Mayor Richards. This race is about them, for them, and I will continue to work hard on their behalf.”
This article appears in Jul 10-16, 2013.
I’m reading Warren’s response, for the second time, trying to determine if it’s verbatim. It’s labeled “via e-mail,” so I’m assuming it must be. Meaning that, presumably, the campaign put this statement together, looked it over, vetted it, edited it, and released it. And not on short notice — the Richards campaign has been sending out teasers about this endorsement since last week.
Which makes Warren’s response striking. In tone, it implies that the campaign neither cares about, nor is paying much attention to, endorsements. As if behind the scenes, the campaign and its supporters aren’t competing vigorously for them, and applying every bit of pressure that can bring to bear. To anyone following the campaign more than casually, it comes off as disingenuous.
And in form, every sentence except the last contains at least one gramatical error. It’s Campaigns 101 that you don’t put out statements with spelling and gramatical errors — especially when not under time pressure — for exactly the same reason that job applicants don’t submit resumes and cover letters with such errors. A primary candidate is applying to the voters for a job, and like other job applicants, they should be aware of the scrutiny they are under. Spelling and gramatical errors more often than not result in applicants not getting a second look.
This would all go without saying for any candidate who has actually had to go through the job search process to get a job, like the vast majority of voters in the city. If her campaign can’t put out a solid, well-vetted statement on a campaign development, even with several days of advance notice, it also makes one wonder what quality of staff would surround Warren, should she be elected mayor.
Does grammar matter? I don’t know. I certainly make many typographical errors, but I am not running for mayor. Grammar aside, Warren’s statement is somewhat appealing, except that we all know that she is not likely to look beyond David Gantt’s opinions or disagree with anything he says. He’s a who, to whom Warren not only listens, but whose endorsement she will hoot. In this regard, her comments are thoroughly not credible.
And even though it may not matter so much the language she uses when talking to us, it really does matter that she can not communicate clearly if she is appealing to businesses to locate here, or to the state or federal government for assistance. We would look foolish if this is how she represents us.
Mostly, I think this hasty, unprofessional response reflects Warren’s inability to think through a situation, beyond what she thinks is the proper knee-jerk response. So I guess grammar counts, maybe not so much in my house or your house, but certainly in houses of government where we expect better and need better.
Worst of all, it makes you look less smart than you are, Lovely.
Okay, so, now that we have proof read the grammar, lets talk about the issues. Tom Richards and Louise Slaughter (partners) killed Ren. Sq. The jobs it would have created and the economic impact on downtown would have been an amazing win for our city!
Before anyone says that Bob Duffy killed it with Louise, let me point out that Richards was the point man on the project, not Duffy.
If the voters of the city are okay with Chairman Morelle and Mayor Richards and their way of controlling the party, so be it. But, if as Democrats, we believe in the process of representative government…this ain’t it! And, Louise is part of the problem.
Clint: Truth be told, it was City Council, which I believe included Warren, whose vote ultimately killed Ren Square. Isn’t she a part of your grand, strange conspiracy also, or was Warren under a hypnotic trance cast by Morelle and Duffy and therefore not responsible for her actions?
Larry,
With all due apologies, you have the story wrong. Duffy and Richards tried to postpone the decision on Ren. Sq. until the money went away. They were at odds with Brooks about the theater piece of the project. Duffy also had a problem with Mark Aesch, but, Richards was driving the project.
As for the role of Council, while they did have hearings (which by the way got to be contentious between Carolee Conklin and Mark Aesch) I do not recall any vote that ended the project…the money went away.
But, now that you mention it, there are other examples. Richards opposed the MCC move to Kodak for some reason. Richards sold the corner of Main and Plymouth for 1 dollar, then took the condos off the tax rolls. Does Council vote with the Mayor continually? Yes! Welcome to one party rule.
Clint: In July, 2009 City Council approved then Mayor Duffy’s scaled down version of the Ren Square project effectively killing the measure. It was a unanimous vote. This closed the book.
“And Slaughter said that Richards has made great strides putting women and minorities to work.”
I certainly hope that this paper does some investigative reporting on these rosy claims. So far, the Rochester media has left Richards–and now Slaughter– off the hook for their vague claims that more women and minorities have gotten jobs under Richards. Time to verify City–voters need the truth. From my perspective AS A WOMAN, this is just campaign bluster from the old guard. Look at Richards’ own cabinet for god’s sake–pretty white and male, no? Of course, the grammar police commenting here would like us to ignore any substantive discussion about jobs. Perhaps next, they will lead readers in a critique of Warren’s fashion and hair?
Warren, White, Jacques and even City News itself yesterday (below) have raised serious concerns about corporate welfare. $1.7 billion–that’s with a ‘B’–is great for the developers, but how many jobs were created for Roc residents where unemployment is the highest in the state? Surely the grammar police think that tax payers have a right to know what their grants, tax abatements and financing got them? Oh right: those mythical jobs. Any unicorns?
http://m.rochestercitynewspaper.com/roches…
Clearly Warren has hit some nerves. I agree, City needs to do more reporting on this. I’d add the the challenge: cross referencing the PILOT deals with the campaign donors. I’d be surprised if they weren’t the same list.
As a life-long Dem in a line of Dems, I think Warren’s leading the most substantive campaign Rochester has seen in years, maybe ever. And she’s holding our party to our core values: prosperity for all, not just the elites. She’s clearly making Richards and the party establishment squirm… That’s what change agents do.
The exchange here – like the campaigning – ignores the dominate issue which is cultural and not amenable to external policy rectification.
Warren wrote,
children who are being lost to an educational system that continues to fail them, and families who have and continue to lose loved ones in the streets of our city.
The overwhelming failure present amongst RCSD students is a parental/home-driven disregard for education. I see this in person as a volunteer tutor and the larger evidence – note the 4 year RCSD gap in achievement between African American males and their white counterparts (the girl gap has to be similar) – is very self-evident. Short of an internal revolution – a quiet one – amongst a majority of the African American and secondarily the Hispanic community to get on board with learning, and their(/Rochester’s) economic future will be very(/quite) limited. And this situation is certainly not unique to Rochester.
This education point simply resonates with the “loved ones” lost in the streets point.
With Richards I see a pragmatic mayor, PC-light if you will. With Warren I see PC-heavy. Lightly and hugely pretending around the underlying issue, respectively.
Warren Supporters:
Please describe in fifty words or less, Lovely Warren’s deep administrative skills that makes her qualified to manage our city’s budget and lead our city’s workforce. That should be quite easy because she has almost none.
And while we are at it, let’s quantify the number of jobs that Warren has created in her role as President of City Council. You won’t need to take your socks off for that one.
And further, please describe the exact responsibilities that the Mayor has for running the city schools. Trick question! Surprise! The Mayor does not run the schools! Again, you shouldn’t need a diploma to pass this test. (Why doesn’t Warren run for School Board where this passion can be truly put to some use?)
While Warren talks a good game, but can’t write a coherent sentence, the facts are she simply is not qualified.
And finally, why has she not effectively used her Presidency to work toward these changes she now sees as urgent?
@ Ted Christopher
How is Richards pragmatic? What pragmatic solutions has he proposed? What solution has proposed of any kind? You might not agree with her, but Warren has presented the public with an incredibly concrete platform–pragmatic AND visionary. You should really do your homework http://www.lovelyformayor.com.
On education: seems to me Richards has settled in to the role of the RCSD’s chief validator and thinks leadership means speaking through snarky prepared statements and discouraging any kind of thoughtful debate of the issues. Politically pragmatic maybe, but that’s the extent of his pragmatism.
We don’t need an armchair mayor who thinks he knows what the people need without ever bothering to ask them. And to your point about leadership from within the African American community…. might not Ms. Warren, an African American mother, a credible, authentic leader who has made education her top priority, be precisely what Rochester’s family’s need to increase educational attainment?
Larry,
Here’s a little something to pick you up: The old Monopoly Man ad from the Special Election against Johnson… and a little reminder that Richards CUT jobs in the private sector. It’s a classic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeiQuX-D9tQ
Reminder, folks, for those who need it: no insults, no personal attacks in the playground. Your comments will be edited, deleted, and you may be banned.
I am not going to address this to one of the posters, to avoid being accused of my comments being personal. That said, I am troubled by the “veiled” message of his posts.
Lovely Warren is the second highest ranking official in city government! Mayor Richards, though the first, was elected in a special election after an attempt by the party Chair to deny voters a primary election to decide who we Democrats would have selected. Then, this year, he declared that Richards was the party choice, despite denying 3 committees the ability to select their candidate for Mayor. Finally, in the convention, the math actually was much closer.
When someone is dismissive of a women candidate, especially one of color, one has to wonder what the real reason for the behavior is? Warren is the President of City Council, yet, some posts here make it sound like she is without accomplishment. Why?
Richards became Mayor after being corporation counsel…appointed by Duffy. Lovely Warren, elected! Richards was a lawyer in the private sector (as pointed out in the commercial spoken of earlier, he cut jobs). How can anyone make a claim that she is not qualified?
But, here is my problem with all of this…why are so many males dismissive of a women candidate for Mayor? Duffy, Morelle, some posters, question her resume, age, experience, etc….Really? Tell me what higher elected position she could attain (and succeed at, which she has) as President of Council? Mayor?…oh yeah, that is what she is running for!
I wish we had a strong qualified African-American female candidate running for Mayor. I think that would be amazing. I am disappointed that we do not have such a candidate in Lovely Warren.
I have worked hard for many female candidates, and supported Bill Johnson many times, including in his campaign against Tom Richards.
Isn’t a little bit hypocritical for Warren supporters to dismiss our region’s most successful politician, Louise Slaughter for her endorsement of Tom Richards, and then chastise others for honestly asking that look closely at Warren’s meek resume of successful initiatives. Being a poor City Council President is not an adequate qualification for being Mayor, no matter what way you slice it.
Don’t get me wrong. I like much of her message. I like that she is staking a populist tone. But that alone will not create jobs. That alone will not save neighborhoods and that alone will not keep our city solvent.
And let us all not pretend that Warren will “save” the schools, that her proposals are the magic ticket, that she can transform our troubled educational resources. When will she have time to do that and “save” the city finances, and “save” our jobs, and “save” our neighborhoods and save your son and your daughter and the stray cat next door.
And let’s look at this clearly: Warren’s campaign is based on racial divisiveness and that is not acceptable for our small city of neighbors. Warren’s rhetoric is nothing new. It has been said over and over again. And yet there are more poor families than ever. It is time for the African-American community to find a new way to politically position itself. Stop being so exclusive!
I want to stay the course. That is why I am joining the men and women of all races who support Richards. That unity is good thing. It is an asset we can work with.
What Larry said. I also supported Bill Johnson in the special 2 years ago.
Stay the course ? Really ?
@Clint: I’d advise being careful about assigning too much importance to the position of Council president — in and of itself — as a qualification to be mayor. Not so many years ago, Gladys Santiago was chosen by her Council colleagues to be president, mainly because, having recently lost her nonprofit-sector job, she was the only councilmember at the time without a full-time job. So she became president, a full-time job. While Gladys was a terrific people person, no one would have honestly given her a particularly high rating on either public policy or executive capability.
So I wouldn’t say that being, or having been, Council president — in and of itself — particularly qualifies anyone to be mayor. In fact, in the example I cited, it could actually have been considered a contra-indicator.
Stay the course? Status quo ? Really ? Lets examine what the Richards camp wants to preserve. 9% graduation rate for black males, 11% graduation rate for Latino males. 5% career or college readiness rate for all graduates. And what solution does Richards propose to solve this travesty ? Stay the course! The city has invested some $1.7 billion
during Richards’ term in office and he is very proud of that. Yet the unemployment rate in Rochester is the highest in New York State and in many black neighborhoods the unemployment rate is as high as 60%. Stay the course ? You say that there are more poor families that ever. And who was the mayor ? Tom Richards. And what does he want to do? Stay the course ! You are correct when you state that it is time for the African-American community to politically position itself. That day will come first in September and then again in November. I will put my money on Lovely.