Talk
with Republican candidate John Parrinello about his campaign for Rochester mayor, and
you quickly realize that one issue dominates his focus: public safety.
Like
the erratic orbit of a comet around the sun, Parrinello’s mind seems tethered
to the problem of crime, no matter what he’s talking about. Discussions of
schools, administrative appointments, or his own unique personality inevitably
gravitate back to the city’s rate of violent crime.
A
criminal-defense attorney for nearly four decades, Parrinello has ample
experience with the subject and plenty of ideas about what causes crime (“I
think our number one problem is really in the poverty areas”) and what will
stop it.
High
on his list of strategies is retaining Interim Police Chief Cedric Alexander
and upping the number of police on the streets. There’s also his proposal to
shine spotlights on drug houses, but he has other, smaller ideas, too, like
working on beautification projects at the neighborhood level “to try to change
the perception of the city.”
He’s
not a single-issue candidate. He has concerns about the schools and ideas for
fixing them, although some — like school uniforms and dress codes — haven’t
gotten much traction in the broader dialogue of the campaign.
He’s
also concerned — like the other candidates and in line with opinion polls —
about economic development. He favors some tax breaks to lure business (“It grieves
me to do it,” he says, “but you have to give to get”), and he calls the job of
economic-development commissioner “one of the key positions in the city.”
But
even a discussion of economic development comes back to crime: “Economic
development in the city has to overcome the perception of it being unsafe north
of Main Street,” he says.
“It’s the perception that people have of the city that it’s a dangerous place
to go, unless you stay in the East End.”
Parrinello’s
personal story is that of a confident, strong-willed person, a Rochester native who
rose from humble beginnings — his father working three jobs — to a career
as a prominent defense attorney, an influential Republican, and head of the MonroeCommunity
College board of trustees. Parrinello attended
parochial schools and the University of Rochester, earned his
law degree from SyracuseUniversity, and served
on City Council from 1970 to 1974. He was vice mayor for the last two of those
years. An aggressive, well-known lawyer, he has represented the defendants in
some of Rochester’s most
high-profile criminal cases.
He
says he could work well with Democrats — including the influential leader of Rochester’s Albany delegation,
David Gantt. On the other hand, Parrinello notes, Gantt may have little
affection for Democratic mayoral candidate Bob Duffy. Gantt protégé Wade
Norwood lost the Democratic primary to Duffy in September. (And Parrinello
himself has little love for Duffy, Rochester’s former
police chief.)
Often
fiery in the courtroom — and in campaign debates — he is more moderate in
extended conversations. He does not, he insists, “foresee going through and
emptying City Hall” if he is elected. “There are good hardworking people”
there, he says, and he would probably keep some current administrators.
Parrinello
obviously enjoys the limelight: his courtroom behavior sometimes gets headlines
(once landing him in jail for contempt of court), and he was apparently a hit
when he appeared last year on Court TV.
If
he were elected mayor, he wouldn’t have to give up the limelight; in fact, he
sees his role as occupying the bully pulpit, rather than being City Hall’s
chief administrator. He would, however, have to give up what one assumes is a
lucrative law practice (Sunday’s Democrat
and Chronicle put his 2003 earnings at $1 million) for a government job
paying just over $100,000.
“I
want a change of careers,” he told City.
Following
are edited excerpts of a conversation with Parrinello on what he would do as
mayor.
On the city
budget
I
would be very sensitive to budget issues, because we’re within $13 million of
our taxing limitation. So how do we get revenue? We need revenue desperately,
and I anticipate that between the fast ferry and this new proposal that the
mayor’s talking about in terms of violence, we’re going to have even a bigger
budget gap next year than was anticipated. We have been filling budget gaps
through some minor cuts but mainly through spin-ups, through borrowing money
from Albany.
I
don’t mind going down [to Albany] and begging
for more money, but I would be going down with solid ideas.
On
the NET organization, we’re spending $6 million. I think NET should be
eliminated. The fast ferry — because we can’t get any information, I’m afraid
that we’re going to find out that the $40 million we borrowed, I just suspect
that it’s been used faster than we anticipated, which means then we would have
to subsidize it out of our tax base.
We
have buildings that owe us large amounts of money — Sibley’s, Midtown. We
have not-for-profit organizations that are sitting in buildings that are not
paying us any money. I’d do a survey of not-for-profits to make sure they are
truly not-for-profit, totally. If they’re using part of their building for
other than their stated reasons, then they should be paying taxes or some sort
of in-lieu-of-tax payment.
The
best example is Excellus. They have four or five executives making $1 million
each; they’re raising our rates at about 15 to 17 percent, and they’re paying
no taxes. I think there’s an obligation morally to give back. Either they can
pay something in lieu of taxes or they could help subsidize the rehabilitation
of the 80,000 houses that we have lead paint in. Something. That makes sense,
because down the line they won’t have to treat the thousand children a year
that are being affected.
On the Rochester school district
I
am very disturbed by the schools. I don’t think we’re getting the product we
should get for the investment we’re making. And the school district, they know
how to tweak you, because they’re going to eliminate sports, and they’re going
to eliminate teachers’ aides, and they’re going to eliminate nurses — so they
hit all the hot spots, trying to force us to increase the budget. Well frankly,
we have 33,000 students; it’s costing us about $17,000 a student, which is far
more than we spend at MCC to educate a person.
I
don’t know how much of the budget is taken up by administration. The other
thing is, I think we ought to immediately look at what activities are being
performed in the administrative building that we’re performing in the city, so
that we can join the two. I don’t know any reason why we couldn’t take over
their budgeting. And I’m sure there are other areas.
On City Hall’s
role with the school district
We
should go over there and talk to them: Why they aren’t getting more bang for
their buck? Why do they spend $600 million a year and have such a truancy
problem? Why do they have such a dropout problem? Why do they need police in
the schools? Why aren’t students dressed appropriately? Why can kids swear at
teachers in classrooms?
You
can talk about it, and then ultimately — as unpopular as it is — you can
withhold money. I’m not saying I would. But I’m saying that the ultimate
leverage is the $119 million the city gives the schools. Dave Gantt was
probably right; he said, I’m not going to give you the $7 million [state funds
that the district wanted] unless you can convince me that you’re doing the
right thing.
On possible
consolidations with the county
One
idea is our water system. It’s my understanding that at one point the county’s
water authority had offered anywhere from $95 million to $125 million [to buy
the city’s system]. Now the city does get revenue out of it, so we would have
to structure an agreement where we would get enough money to replace that. Or
we’d have to strike a deal to make sure that the city would get no less, and
add a cost-of-living feature. If something happens to our water system —
because those tributaries are old — then the county would take over full
responsibility.
We
could consolidate civil service. There would be more possibilities, I think, of
consolidating services between the county and the city. I don’t see any
necessity to have overlapping services.
On economic
development
I
am not in favor of [consolidating with] GRE, the Rochester Business Alliance,
or the county, because I think our economic development department should focus
on bringing businesses to the city. It doesn’t do us any good to bring in a
high-tech company and put it in Henrietta.
I’m
very parochial. I’m a city proponent. I am not interested in — I shouldn’t
say I’m not interested; I am interested in the region — but I would be
charged with the responsibility of making the city economically sound.
My
casino idea is — I just think the name of the game today is gambling. I think
gambling has to go in the fast ferry, and I think we have to bring a casino to Rochester. And when we
bring a casino to Rochester, I think we
need to strategically locate it.
Midtown
is an obvious venue. Whether it goes there or not, I don’t know. People have
mentioned the Beebee Station; I think it’s too remote, but it’s not impossible.
But
casino revenue is significant. In addition to casino revenue, you’re talking
about potentially 3,000 jobs — permanent jobs. You would negotiate with the
operator; you would attempt to negotiate a casino that would not offer so many
amenities that it would discourage [other] storefront retail or food venues.
Five
hundred thousand people in Toronto hold Niagara casino cards,
and their easiest trip is across the lake. If you realize that going to Toronto, the ferry is
filled because of a Yankees game — we would have a Yankees game every night
to attract them.
On crime and
the city’s youth
I
want us to be tough on crime, and when I say “tough on crime,” I’m talking
about violence and drugs. With this recent series of violence, I stopped to
think about it: the easiest way would be to impose a curfew. But I don’t see it
that way; I see it taking steps. The first step is to go out and talk to the
kids themselves.
Yesterday
I was at MarshallHigh School, and I had a
group of mainly black students, and I was asking them about guns and the
necessity of having guns. I think that you can learn a lot by talking to young
people. They generally agreed that giving up guns was a good idea, but they
told me that a lot of people were reluctant to give up guns because they didn’t
think everybody would give up guns, and if you’re unarmed in the city, you’re
at a disadvantage today.
The
second step is to reach the parents, to get the parents involved in searching
their rooms. Parents need to take responsibility for two things. One is to find
out whether their children are carrying weapons, and the second is to know
where their children are at some designated hour. There isn’t enough
responsibility taken on by parents.
On reducing
crime
My
opponent [Bob Duffy] keeps talking about a crime commission with a coordinator,
and that disturbs me. I don’t know exactly what he means by that. We tried
changing the structure in the ’70s when we had a public-safety commissioner,
and it didn’t work. There was too much animosity between the police chief, the
fire chief, and the public-safety commissioner, and it delayed reaction to problems.
Operation
Impact — incorporating state police, MonroeCounty sheriffs, and
any other police agency — I don’t believe we need that. I think what that
program indicated is we need more police presence in the neighborhoods. And
statistically, that was borne out, because in 2003 we had 57 murders. In 2004,
after Operation Impact was used for a while, there were 29 murders. What
Operation Impact proved was that you need more people concentrated in the areas
in which you have trouble.
On the
controversial police reorganization
I’m
very upset about the precinct reorganization. I have a different concept about
precincts. I don’t think we need quadrants; I think what we need is
concentration. If you took a map of the city and you identified the areas where
the most crime is — maybe you need two precincts in some areas, because then
you would have a police presence. I think police following crime and injecting
themselves into the neighborhoods is the answer. When Giuliani [former New York
City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani] was at RIT, somebody raised the question: “You
decreased crime 65 percent; murders dropped from 2,000 to 600. How did you do
it?” His answer was very simple: You do it bit by bit. You do it house by
house, street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood until you’ve eradicated
crime.
On the size of
the police force
What
the authorized strength should be depends upon crime, and you’ve got to tread
lightly, because what you don’t want to do is raise the authorized strength and
get people into jobs that you can’t get them out of. That is a very tricky
thing.
I’m
not a law-and-order candidate to the extent where you say, “We need 900 cops.”
Well, we don’t need 900 cops. We need cops that are out there doing their job.
On fighting
drugs
You
need interdiction teams. You put police in disguised vehicles. I use the
example of RG&E trucks; I don’t mean RG&E trucks, I mean things that
look like RG&E trucks. It really has two psychological things. Number one,
they [criminals] don’t know you’re coming. And number two, every time they see
an RG&E truck it’s going to dissuade them, because they think that
somebody’s going to jump out and arrest them.
Those
drug houses in which we’ve developed probable cause, we can bust. But with
those that we haven’t developed probable cause, we need to go in and put some
pressure on them. And the pressure is money. There is a large source of drugs
coming up here from New York City, and they’re
not going to come here if the money doesn’t go back.
On being a
defense lawyer squares with his ambition to be mayor
The
fact of the matter is, I’ve had all this legal experience and training, so I
think we’re going to be further ahead. And somebody says, How can you change hats?
Well, I’m not changing hats. I took an oath to do what I’m doing, and in
January I take a different oath. I’ve adhered to the oath that I’ve taken to
the point of being put in jail, and as mayor I would take an oath, and my oath
would be to serve the city. I would serve the city with the same passion and
the same preparation.
Electing
a mayor
Four
candidates are running for Rochester mayor in the November 8 election: Democrat
and former Police Chief Bob Duffy, who is also running on the Independence
line; attorney John Parrinello, a Republican; City Councilmember Tim Mains, and
newcomer Chris Maj. Mains and Maj lost to Duffy in the Democratic primary in
September; Mains is running on the Working Families Party line, and Maj is
running on the Red, White, and Blue line, representing the party he recently
formed.
Polls
will be open from 6 a.m. to 9
p.m. Information about polling places and other voter
information is available from the Board of Elections, 428-4550 (TDD: 428-2390).
City’s interviews
with Duffy, Mains, and Maj were conducted prior to the Democratic primary and
are available on our website, www.rochester-citynews.com.
This article appears in Oct 26 – Nov 1, 2005.
