Officially, the campaign for Rochester mayor has narrowed to two candidates: City Council President Lovely Warren, who won the September Democratic primary, and Green Party candidate Alex White.
Before the primary, we endorsed incumbent Tom Richards, but Warren won, handily, and she now has the backing of her party for the November 5 general election.
Richards is still on the ballot on the Working Families and Independence Party lines, because the deadline has passed for removing his name. A week after his primary loss, however, he announced formally that he was ending his campaign, and he has not been seeking votes as a third-party candidate.
We are still convinced that Richards is the far better candidate. He has kept the city financially stable through an exceptionally difficult economic period. He has encouraged new business and residential development. He has worked with employee groups to keep labor costs down and worked with unions and contractors to insure jobs for city residents on public projects. He is experienced, progressive, and pragmatic, and he is uniquely qualified to lead Rochester in this challenging time.
For the general election, then, we’ve been faced with a difficult decision: do we endorse Richards, even though he is not campaigning for re-election; endorse someone we feel is not qualified for the job; or simply not endorse?
The members of our editorial staff who determine our endorsements have been divided on that question. Some argued for no endorsement at all rather than endorse a candidate who isn’t running. But Richards is on the ballot, and that does give voters a choice. Since we believe strongly that Richards should serve another four years, we are endorsing him.
On Alex White: Running for mayor for the second time, White is an energetic, interesting, often entertaining candidate. But he lacks the experience and knowledge that is essential for the mayor of a city Rochester’s size. And while some of his ideas sound appealing, they’re often naïve and based on the thinnest of research.
A prime example: He would give the Rochester school district all the money it says it needs, and he says the city could finance the increase by not giving tax incentives to developers. As much as this newspaper objects to tax incentives, the City of Rochester is in intense competition with its suburbs and with other regions for development.
He says that redevelopment at the Midtown Plaza site would have happened without incentives. Where was White during those years when Midtown was emptying out and multiple attempts to lure development led nowhere? Tax incentives don’t last forever, and new development provides new taxes. And it frequently spurs other new development.
White says that our inner-city deterioration and street-corner drug sales are the result of giving incentives to developers rather than investing in education and jobs. No, they’re not. They’re the result of sprawl and concentrated poverty, and without new development in the city, those problems will get worse.
On Lovely Warren: As we said in our endorsement of Richards in August, Warren certainly has strengths. She has been a strong advocate for Rochester’s poorest, most vulnerable residents, pushing for better housing, better schools, better neighborhoods, and more jobs. She has pushed for more minority hiring by the police and fire departments, and she personally helped recruit candidates.
She has become an eloquent, charismatic public servant, and her primary win was impressive. It does not erase our concerns about her, however. Some of her initiatives will be expensive, and we think she’s naïve about how they can be paid for, given the city’s financial challenges.
She wants city government actively involved in education, and her plans to help charter schools will undoubtedly undercut the efforts of the Rochester school district.
As we said in our pre-primary article, Warren is eloquent when she talks about Rochester’s problems. She is less strong when it comes to having realistic ways to attack them. And most important, she does not have Richards’ deep management experience and his broader view of what Rochester needs.
As Warren has noted repeatedly, Rochester is very much two communities: one is “growing, prosperous, and has a bright future.” The other, “often invisible Rochester,” she says, “is characterized by high rates of unemployment, crime, poverty, and despair.”
The residents of both of those communities – but particularly those of the poorest and most vulnerable – need and deserve the best mayor possible. We remain convinced that Tom Richards is that person.
This article appears in Oct 23-29, 2013.
What is the point? What is the point of endorsing a candidate who is no longer running? Your endorsement (or is it an anti-endorsement?) shows a sad lack of courage to make a decision based on reality. While you are clear to point out candidates you believe are unworthy of the position of Mayor and, therefore, the votes to get there, you totally missed your own point by telling people to vote for a candidate who does not want the job. Your endorsement of Tom Richards belongs in the realm of pure fantasy.
Endorsing Richards may also be extremely disrespectful of the reason he stopped campaigning. He left to focus on family issues. Your endorsement might seem like an intrusion into his family time.
Most important, your endorsement of Tom Richards does nothing to help the people of Rochester decide between the two candidates who are still running and who truly want to be mayor.
Maybe voters can boil it down to one simple personality trait: courage. Alex White wants to debate the issues with Lovely Warren, but Lovely is afraid to debate. Lovely will not honor the voters of Rochester with a much-needed discussion of the issues. She is afraid she cannot shine compared to White and she is also afraid to validate White as a candidate. The next Mayor of Rochester has to have courage. Alex White has courage…Lovely Warren does not.
I have read and appreciated the work of City Newspaper for over three decades. And while I have not always agreed with the opinions I have always found them to be fair and well considered. I find your decision to endorse a person that is not running an utter and complete shock that contradicts everything I have respected about City News in the past. Are we to believe that this city has only one person capable of serving as mayor? I will find it extremely difficult to pick up or go to your website from this point on.
Long time reader
Thank you, City News, for very clearly defining the issues as they are. What matters here, what has always mattered, is who can best lead the city? Politics aside, that answer is painfully clear.
He dropped out of the race. And that is true whatever ones political position. This is bizarre and in my opinion counterproductive. I think that this suspension of belief and acceptance about the results of a fair election has the potential to be very divisive – setting the entire community back. It is as if you are saying some citizens, the ones that bothered to vote, don’t matter.
The “Weekly Alternative” years ago became part of the loathsome Rochester Establishment. This comes as no surprise and demonstrates once again that City Newspaper no longer represents those principles it espoused when it came into existence.
How come no one here is stating the obvious? Tom Richards has proven himself to be our area’s finest political leader since Tom Ryan (who was under-appreciated then, we might recall). He has also been, by far, the most unifying leader we have seen in a long, long time (another under-appreciated quality Mayor Richards has). He was been so low key about this that it escapes immediate observation.
Lovely Warren will be our next mayor. I pray she governs with maturity and grace, and consults with Mr. Richards. I doubt if he’ll ever steer her wrong.
There are many worthy points on the comments here, but upon re-reading, Ms. Towler makes an awful lot of essential points. And at the very least Mayor Richards’ deserves the tribute she has paid him.
What the heck….I will step out on a limb with an early endorsement for President I. 2016….FDR!
I am disappointed in this article. Endorsing somebody who has dropped out of the race is counterproductive. Warren is the only candidate with definitive policies available to the public. (lovelyformayor.com/issues has links to PDFs I believe.) And this article references her countering RCSD’s efforts. Clearly this newspaper failed to review the stats on our beloved district. Lol
What part of this statement did City Newspaper not understand…?
“I am announcing today that I am ending my campaign for reelection. This is exclusively a personal decision driven by personal circumstances. My family has been dealing for some time with a difficult health challenge for one of our members that has recently evolved to the point where continuing my campaign is no longer appropriate.
. I am not sure that I have always made the correct decision, but I believe that I am doing so this time.
“I believe that my announcement today will, and should mean that Lovely Warren will be elected our next Mayor. I intend to work to make that occur successfully and I urge everyone to do so as well. After the election, my administration will work to assist in the transition. I believe that this is in the best interest of our city.”
– Mayor Thomas Richards, Sept. 18, 2013
Sorry, City, but this endorsement is a smack in the face to all the voters who chose Lovely Warren. Liberals (and I am one) are often considered intellectual elitists–this is elitism at its finest. Who are you to decide that their votes don’t count?
When a non partisan newspaper endorses a political canidate it should be viewed as journalistic suicide.
Kathryn Quinn Thomas – That the voters selected Warren over Richards in last month’s Democratic primary in no way, shape, or form precluded City from again endorsing Richards IF he had chosen to continue his campaign as a third party candidate as he had every right to do.
But the point that City, Richards’ cronies and hangers-ons, and now, possibly even Richards himself, are ignoring is that Richards WITHDREW from the campaign and threw his support to Warren
“I am announcing today that I am ending my campaign for reelection. …”I believe that my announcement today will, and should mean that Lovely Warren will be elected our next Mayor. I intend to work to make that occur successfully and I urge everyone to do so as well.”
There are no second thoughts or do-overs after this kind of announcement..
An honorable man would keep his word and stay out of the race. An honorable newspaper would demand that he do so and would castigate and not endorse any back sliding.
We’ll have to wait and see where honor lies in Rochester politics.
This is what you wrote:
As Warren has noted repeatedly, Rochester is very much two communities: one is “growing, prosperous, and has a bright future.” The other, “often invisible Rochester,” she says, “is characterized by high rates of unemployment, crime, poverty, and despair.”
The residents of both of those communities – but particularly those of the poorest and most vulnerable – need and deserve the best mayor possible. We remain convinced that Tom Richards is that person
Pardon me!!! Did I hear you right? Last time I checked, Mr. Richards has been our mayor for over 4 yours now. If he is the best mayor possible as you tend to believe, why, then, ‘’Rochester is, still, very much two communities’’.
Mayor Richards may be a good manager but not good enough to solve this city problems. Definitely, he is lacking of vision needed to solve the difficult situation of our city. Therefore, the citizens of Rochester need to move on, and elect the best candidate between the two competitors who are actively campaigning. I know Lovely Warren is the better fit for this job. I don’t need to list her qualifications because you already did.
Thus, I am calling the citizens of Rochester to confirm the choice that democrats made last September and elect Lovely Warren as our next mayor. DON’T ALLOW YOURSELF TO MISS THE BOAT THAT WILL MAKE HISTORY. ELLECT OUR FIRST FEMALE MAYOR.
I think you glossed over Tom Richards’ supposed achievements by generalizing them, while giving specifics to the other candidates. It would have been nice for you to cite specific deeds Richards has done because I don’t see that he’s really any better than the other two. What is Richards’ plan with Rochester? How does he intend to achieve these goals?
I think the current Mayor has put us on a solid path. Lovely has already said she wants to take a closer look at some of the projects in the pipeline. That statement alone could disrupt the progress being made. If she wants to change anything, she should just say it up front before the election. Being on city council she already knows how she feels and should make a public statement.
you’re the BEST man for the job… i hope you run and get in again…you’ve done so much good for our city.. and you treated everyone FAIRLY> i don’t think warren would do that !!i know where my vote will be on the 5 th…