ROFL -- don't forget Norm MacDonald as Bob Dole ...

I understand the same-- bond funding not subject to tax cap. Naturally this allows bonds then to fund things that should not be bonded such as demolition. What intrigues me is why we bond for demolition yet bond no projects with any construction or growth. What is the last initiative funded by the council that involves any type of growth scenario? I can't think of one. Meanwhile Schenectady is funding a major renovation to their library while here, at the first mention of the budget figures, our local library funding immediately finds itself on the chopping block. Shouldn't we bonding with some strategy to drive growth versus using it as a way to offset expenses resulting from non-growth and intentional anti-growth policies?

I'll look forward to that

I see what you mean-- how do you now tell "those people" from "those people"? It's all so confusing

I have to quibble a bit with this "responsibility falls to the citizens, both to come up with solutions and then elect new officials who will put them into place." -- and I have to walk a fine line as I agree with part of the sentiment but not all of it. We elect leaders and in turn support public entities with the expectation that they will perform their responsibilities successfully. I don't think it's fair to say that the responsibility to develop a solution falls on its citizens as that suggests that the leaders and entities do not own the problem. Maybe I'm reading more into the statement than you suggest but wanted to clarify my point. If so, how could we ever function as a democracy on a local, state, federal and international level?

I do have some concrete steps but, at the risk of becoming my own self-parody by saying so, I'll need to loop back with you ;) Give me a week or so and I'm sure you'll call me on it if I don't do so.

I'm not sure; I seem to recall several studies that disputed such claims and to your point on the unions, I think such performance-based policies meet resistance from the unions. While I believe the issue includes teachers, locally we have utter apathy by the board and community-at-large when it comes to academics. The decline is not new news and I'd argue driven by policy decisions by the board and administration to a large degree over the past decades coupled with an electorate who demands no accountability other than a delusion that the board focus exclusively on cutting taxes through micromanaging expenses.

It's simple really: the NYSED results are now out and the Business Review rankings have been out a few weeks. What have been the reactions from the GASD board on the performance? Where are the reactions from community leaders? What does the administration say in light of these results? What are the PTAs and parents saying? Who owns fixing the problem?

Apparently nothing and nobody. And there you have your answer.

The bond for infrastructure versus dump is a 5 to 10 multiple in the size of the bond-- I think that is the key difference between the issues along with who does the bonding.

I try to let it go but you cannot simply ignore the elephant in the room sometimes. Admittedly the anonymity issue strikes a nerve with me.

Tim,

I'm not suggesting that questions can't be raised or challenges made or eyebrows raised. The difference between your posts and those of which I'm critical centers on the basis for the criticism. I'm criticizing those who criticize only based upon them being 'them' with no other reasoned basis. I do not believe you fall anywhere near that category and again I was not suggesting that all criticism suggests it is driven by 'us versus them' mindset. I think this is similar to my point on the bridge and Chalmers -- where we have opposing views-- that reasoned, thoughtful arguments can be made but a faction of the opposition does not hold reasoned, thoughtful arguments. Instead they advocate anything but reason and thought. I do not think the latter applies to you.

On polarization, we exchanged posts a while back on this issue; I'm not sure what else to add at this point.

I should have acknowledged that it was not my find; it was sent to me so the kudos belong to someone else.

Tim,

Let me try to clarify my position and views on the bridge: the main focus of my criticism is directed at those advocating redirecting funds for the pedestrian bridge to infrastructure. I recognize, and in fact, share a number of concerns raised on this project from its conception to its execution; I think you raise some in your posts (ownership, legislative control, costs, marketability). Those are valid and legitimate points for discussion; the infrastructure versus bridge strawman is quite the opposite as I've written. So I'm tackling a specific argument against the bridge not attacking the broad array of arguments against it. Or said differently, I'm challenging the advocates of that specific argument versus advocates of other arguments.

As far as mental disorders, I'm not suggesting that at all. By self-loathing, I'm again challenging the advocates fighting any promotion and marketing of the community because this place is not good enough and never will be good enough until every problem from crime to infrastructure to downtown to whatever (aka my "tipping point argument") So for this argument, I was actually moving beyond the bridge to a larger point which was mentioned in the editorial and upon which I harp ad nauseum. While it's not true that all critics are against change, a faction of the critics indeed fight all change. I'm making the latter argument.

On Pythonesque, I'm simply stating what I find to often be absurd on what takes place here and that drives my point of view and commentary. Is it constructive? Do I fuel divisiveness rather than unity? Am I just as guilty of the self-loathing of which I accuse others? I don't know for sure and either way, I'm not an unbiased observer. I write to express a point of view and to hopefully make some positive impact.