beware litter bins with ads

Posted on March 20, 2023 by David Giacalone

. . . . above and below, examples of COA recycling centers presented in COA sales materials . .

For more than a month now, the Schenectady City Council has been under pressure to approve a proposal by Council Member John Polimeni that would allow Mayor Gary McCarthy to negotiate the terms of an agreement with Creative Outdoor Advertising of Tampa, Florida, for large, free litter recepticles bearing ads.

The Gazette has made the situation worse by changing its March 7 original, online headline from, “Schenectady council considers proposal to acquire ad-supported garbage bins”, which is informative and neutral, to the accusatory “Council slow walks plans for garbage bins”, in the March 8 newsprint version. Neither version of the article mentions the size of the proposed bins.

My Letter to the Editor, published in the Gazette, March 24 2023, tries to be more informative:

. . please excuse the broken link to this webpost that appeared in the Gazette. You can cite or share this posting with this URL. https://tinyurl.com/BinBanter .

COA appears to be an advertising firm that creates places for its ads to be shown by offering to give Street Furniture that serves a municipal function (such as large “recycling stations” and Benches) for free to municipalities, with the added offer of a small share to the City of any ad revenues generated. See Council Committees Agenda for Feb. 6, 2023 at pp. 219-243.

. . are these COA scenes analogous to the urban locations in Schenectady that have the most need of Litter Reform?

In return, COA is able to sell what are known as “off-premises” ads to businesses that want to reach customers through signs featuring goods or services not provided at the location of the sign. This is a valuable service for businesses interested in placing off-premises advertising because many municipalities in America have been banning such ads since the 19th Century. The U.S. Supreme Court noted last year in the case of City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising (April 21,2022) that cities may do so to enhance aesthetic value or public safety, and that “tens of thousands of municipalities nation-wide” have adopted on-/off-premises distinctions in their sign codes.

COA gets around such laws by placing all of its products on municipal property after receiving the authorization of the municipality, its partner in the service. That would be its goal entering an agreement with the City of Schenecetady.

The Zoning Code of the City of Schenectady (§264-62) prohibits “Off-premises ads”, in fulfillment of the stated intent of the Code, in §264-59 (B):

Intent. The article is intended to protect property values, create a more attractive economic and business climate, enhance and protect the physical and historic appearance of the community, preserve the scenic and natural beauty, enhance the pedestrian environment, and provide a more enjoyable and pleasing community. The article is further intended hereto to reduce sign or advertising distractions and obstructions that may contribute to traffic accidents, reduce hazards that may be caused by signs overhanging or projecting over public rights-of-way, provide more visual open space and improve the community’s appearance.

Whether a long-time resident, newcomer, or tourist in Schenectady, we enjoy the benefits of the off-premises ban all over our City. We do not have the visual pollution of myriad off-premise signs along our streets and sidewalks, nor added advertising distractions and obstructions reducing traffic safety. To control litter, we have recepticles of modest size and open design, readily recognized for their role, that only minimally, if at all, detract from visual open space.

. . above and below, examples of COA Recycle Center Bins . .

At least in their public documents, the proponents of entering such a pact with COA have not mentioned the existence of our off-premises ad ban, nor even alluded to the benefits we will surely lose by spreading dozens of giant MetroBin recycling Centers along the heaviest traffic routes and public gathering places in our City. When the issue was raised by citizens like myself, we and Council Member John Mootooverin are told the off-premises ban does not apply to activity on public land authorized by the City.

BALANCE. Surely, that is not a sufficient reply. The question is whether entering an agreement with COA will diminish the accumulated aesthetic and safety benefits of the off-premises ad ban, and whether it is a trade-off in the public interest to give up such blessings to gain some unknown amount of reduced litter, receive free trash bins, and garner the paltry revenue likely to come from the ad sales. Doing that calculation, of course, has many problematic factors, not the least of which is that we have not been told how many trash cans would have to be purchased to replace bins in unacceptable shape, nor the added cost of purchasing more receptacles based on prudent assessment of additional litter-fighting needs.

FROM COA’S RECENT FACEBOOK ENTRIES

Looking beyond Creative Outdoor Advertising’s glossy brochure, I browsed COA’s Facebook photo postings, especially hoping to find scenes comparable to our urban structure. Judge for yourself whether COA’s product suits your image of Schenectady or its progress in beautification. One question you might ask yourself is How Many of these Fixtures would be Too Many to see on a regular basis, or when driving up State Street with friends from out of Town. Or, when discussing how beautiful Schenectady is with Ray Gillen.

At the March 20, 2023, Council Committees meeting, one Council member supporting the COA proposal stated we probably could use 20 of the bins just along State Street. Can you picture that?

[click on an image for a larger version]

SCHENECTADY’S LITTER PROBLEMS

What picture do you have in your mind when you are thinking about Schenectady’s Litter Problem? For me, litter nightmares come as trash (including furniture) piled on the top and around a trash can or litter bin, or trash repeatedly tossed by the young or immature during a pot party, or blown across pavement up against a wall.

I am not at all certain that those who irresponsibly litter will act differently when confronted with a massive receptacle that must be within arm’s reach to use so a cover can be opened. Why won’t the tossers just see a MetroBin as a tempting target and throw litter as close as they can, or as a bigger platform for their Litter Architecture?
Mr. Polimeni has not explained why the giant bins will improve the behavior of Litter scofflaws or attract litter more effectively than traditional litter recepticles. His best explanation, as far as I have discovered is this gem:
“Quite frankly, we need garbage cans. We have a litter problem. If we put the cans out, hopefully people start using them.” (Schenectady Gazette, March 7, 2023)
If you are viewing a MetroBin from the road, how will you even know it is there for the deposit of litter. If you do know what it is, will you look for a driveway to get closer to the Recycling Center, or run out from the car, blocking traffic, to please your sweetheart?

If the typical litter problem on your walk home is more annoying than large, why would you need more than the conventional 28-32 gallon container that leaves more of the scene visible? Wouldn’t a big bin somehow make these scenes more industiral, rather than more beautiful? And, shouldn’t the response of a prize-winning Smart City with cameras continuously capturing scenes all over town be to simply send a crew to empty the overflowing bins as frequently as needed?

Current City Litter Receptables: How would a giant MetroBin look instead?

Also, if installed curbside, will the mini-dumpster MetroBin reduce available parking spaces? Make it more difficult to open or close the doors on your vehicle? More difficult to see the street from your restaurant patio or inside table, or vice-versa?

HOW MANY RECYCLING CENTERS?

19 COA bins for Desjardines!

The COA rep told us “at least forty”, but browsing through the Company’s online pages, I found many businesses buying ad space on a dozen or more Bins, urged on by a multitude of pitches urging them to seek more locations. They are reminded: “The extra large-ad feature ensures that yourmessage achieves more than the usual exposure!”

And, does this boast mean that people on the sidewalk side of the road have to view yet another advertisement on the backside of the Bin?

The unit boasts not one, but two extra-large ad spaces that cater to cars passing by! The extra large-ad feature ensures that your message achieves more than the usual exposure!

It sounds like COA makes its line-up of Recycle Centers especially distracting to drivers. That cannot be a good thing. Will the draw be so great that those in City Hall who worship revenue streams urge more and more local businesses to climb aboard a COA bin? And, even ask COA to bring Schenectady into the COA world of advertising benches, marring more and more of the public right of way with insurance, injury law, and pun-ishing proctology ads (see above)?

Sacrificing the aesthetics and safety protections inherent in the off-premise ad ban, seems too big a price to pay and risk to take for the savings and revenue projected by Mr. Polimeni, who is perhaps the worst predictor of expenses and revenue on the Council (e.g., his Sidewalk Assessment Plan).

Why should our City risk aesthetics and safety for an iffy $10,000 to $15,000 a year? Or, wrangle over what can be advertised (pot, gambling, guns?) and which competitors and neighborhoods will be impacted by a City litter bin? Why, indeed?

FOLLOW-UP

(March 26, 2023) Prior Agenda items on the topic of COA litter bins recommended that the Council “Authorize the Mayor to enter contract negotiations with Creative Outdoor.” The proposal was approved at the March 20, 2023 Committees meeting.[discussion starting at 46:20] Also, Corporation Counsel Koldin stated the contract would state the City empoyees will pick up the gargage and litter. In addition, Council President Porterfield stated the council and neighborhoods would have input on the locations. However, the resulting proposed Resolution on the Council Agenda for March 27, 2023 (at 57) is not very specific on these points:

RESOLVED, that the Schenectady City Council authorizes the Mayor or his designee to enter into an agreement with Creative Outdoor Advertising of America, Inc., subject to a provision in the agreement stating that the collection of garbage and recycling from the units will be completed by the designated City staff for such services so long as the City has staff designated for such services, and subject to the Mayor or his designee providing a list of the locations at which the collection units will be placed prior to their placement to the City Clerk.

At no point did I hear any Council member mention issues such as undermining the off-premises advertising ban; aesthetic losses due to visual pollution from many large recycling centers and signs; or safety concerns due to increased driver distraction.

COMMENTS TO CITY COUNCIL for March 27, 2023 COUNCIL MEETING:

(March 27, 2023) This morning, I submitted the following email Comments to the Council concerning the proposal on Council’s March 27, 2023 agenda:

Gateway Plaza gets the wrong sculpture (updated)

Posted on July 30, 2022 by David Giacalone

. . LADY LIBERTY WAS EVICTED-EXILED FOR THIS?!

UPDATE (Aug. 1, 2022): Jim Salengo of DSIC wrote me this morning that: “This is a piece by David Siders (formerly of Experience & Creative Design). He is heading up our landscaping program this summer and has been doing a lot of work in Gateway Plaza. His team recently cleaned up and weeded the bench circle at the northwest corner of the park, so he just placed this piece there temporarily to give a little bit of visual interest. He previously had it in front of our outdoor program shop on Front Street, but it kind of got lost there.”

I’m glad to hear the sculpture is only temporary. [But see follow-up in the next paragraph] I told Jim my relief, and stated the sculpture could not hold a candle [or torch] to the impact and symbolism of Lady Liberty at that location. [See original posting below for explanation.] Maybe the Siders piece can go to the site being planned at the location of the old Nicholaus Building, as part of a revolving series of sculpture, after a refurbished Lady Liberty Replica returns home to Liberty Park at Gateway Plaza.

follow-up (October 4, 2022): It is no surprise, but the sculpture “temporarily” placed on the circular sculpture base that is at the center of the raised, “urban” Circular Plaza is still there, more than two months after I first saw it. The Big Bent Paperclip has offered “a little bit of visual interest” during the prime months to visit a park in the summer, and (along with. many other commuters and visitors) while over 75,000 people came to see the Van Gogh immersion experience just down the block at the Armory Studio. I continue to believe that The Lady would better greet, attract, and inspire visitors and passersby than this Paperclip can.

Update (Dec. 12, 2022): The Big Twisted Paperclip is still on the sculpture base; 100,000 visitors have come down the block to see Van Gogh; and Lady Liberty still gets no respect from City Hall or DSIC.

ORIGINAL POST

Four years after Gateway Plaza (a/k/a Liberty Park) was opened to the public, it finally has a sculpture on its Focal Point Planter in the raised “urban” Circular Plaza that is near the corner of State St. and Washington Ave. (across from SCCC). [see image above, and those below, taken July 30, 2022] The new sculpture, whose creator I ~~do not yet~~ did not originally know (it is David Siders), is almost exactly where Schenectady’s Lady Liberty Statue stood from 1950 to 2017, until her purportedly “temporary” removal for safekeeping while Liberty Park was redesigned as part of a new Gateway Plaza.

Here’s the new sculpture seen from various perspectives. (Click on a tile for a larger version.)

I’ve been wondering over the past few years what happened to the $20,000 allocated for the Planter Sculpture in the Gateway Plaza Plan’s budget. I hope this little item does not represent that $20K.

The sculpture base is the spot where many Schenectadians hoped The Lady would be returned from her exile by Mayor Gary McCarthy and Mary Moore Wallinger. [See our posting “Lady Liberty is Timeless” which brings together many of the issues and events relating to the City’s decision to exile Lady Liberty from Her home at Liberty/Gateway Park, rather than returning the statute to Liberty Park, as stated and depicted in the fully-vetted and approved 2013 Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan.]

The image to the right is a plea we made to McCarthy and Wallinger a few years ago, urging them to Bring Back the Lady and cure the missing spirit of Liberty Park. The central sculpture base was and is the preferred re-location spot, where it is visible to traffic and has ample space and seating for Plaza visitors. Ms. Wallinger had already installed the Rainbow Pride exhibit at the place the Implementation Plan had shown for the return.

I am, of course a bit biased on this topic, but it is clear to me that the choice of this insignificant sculpture further disrespects Lady Liberty, its history, and the wishes of the public, along with basic principles of good government, planning and transparency. Wallinger told us while presenting the Implementation Plan in 2013 that the sculpture chosen for the Plaza would tell a story about Schenectady’s past, present and future. I’m waiting to hear just what “story” or message this new sculpture is meant to convey at the “gateway” to Schenectady. And, just how it will gain the affection and ability to inspire that Lady Liberty already possesses.

From every angle, I believe Lady Liberty makes a more compelling image and symbol of both our past and future, especially with the Rainbow Pride arches, a product of the liberty and Enlightenment values represented by the Statue, just a few yards away.

Here are a few images of Lady Liberty in Her park in September 2016, before park reconstruction caused Her removal. The Replica of Liberty has grace and gravitas the new sculpture (see its logo-signature to the right) is unlikely to ever achieve.

. .

As we’ve argued before, Lady Liberty’s replica best fulfills the stated intention of the Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan to celebrate the past, present and future of Schenectady.

Mayor McCarthy made us wait a couple years, marked first with silence and then silly excuses, before he revealed the current scandalous choice of Erie Blvd. and Union Street for the Exile Location of Lady Liberty, in August 2019. Three years later, the location continues to have no signage denoting the meaning and local history of the Replica, and no plaque telling of its donation by our local Boy Scouts of America and their hopes, as well as no landscaping or floral decorations, as it stands among utility and light poles, without lighting, only a few feet from Smart City surveillance devices.

My guess is that there are few Schenectady residents or visitors who will feel that the long wait for the new sculpture at Gateway Plaza was worth it.

. . share this post with this shorter URL: https://tinyurl.com/wrongsculpture . .

REMINDER: On November 8, 2021, the Schenectady City Council passed a resolution recommending that our Lady Liberty replica be returned to Liberty Park. Rather than taking this graceful way out and returning the statue to Her home, the Mayor has stubbornly stayed silent and overseen installation of the new sculpture.

Look what we found in the Gateway Plaza Plan, Mr. Koldin!

Posted on November 8, 2021 by David Giacalone

At the November 1, 2021 Schenectady City Council Committees Meeting, Council Members were about to vote on a Resolution to return Lady Liberty to Liberty/Gateway Park. The Mayor left the room, but his City Corporation Counsel Andrew Koldin told Council members that he had looked, and did a search within the Comprehensive Plan for Gateway Plaza, and could find no place where there is any mention of the Liberty Statue Replica being returned to Gateway Plaza after construction was completed. He added that he found nothing saying to return or not return, relocate or not relocate the replica.

Well, that must have been a very quick search by Mr. Koldin. We did a closer search several years ago, and have been saying at this website, in Letters to the Editor, and statements at Council meetings, that the Plan approved by the Council and signed by the Mayor in 2013 provided that the Liberty Statue was to be returned to Gateway-Liberty Plaza after construction, and therefore we wanted Her returned “as promised”. Here is the easy-to-find proof.

. . [L] detail from Plan rendering showing Lady Liberty “relocated” within the Plaza along State Street.

MASTER PLAN of the GATEWAY PLAZA PROJECT: Shown on the COVER of the Final Comprehensive Plan for Gateway Plaza, and within the Plan Document: Item #6 in the Legend says “Relocation of Liberty Replica” and shows its designated relocation spot in the Plaza along State Street.

DETAIL FROM MASTER PLAN

. . Above, in a detail of the Master Plan design, I have labelled in blue the spot for the proposed relocation of the Liberty Statue, per #6 in the Master Plan.

Explanation Given to Advisory Committee in “Kick Off” Session says – The Statue of Liberty . . . may be moved, but should be incorporated into the project.”

EXPLANATION GIVEN IN PUBLIC SESSION re LADY LIBERTY being placed near State Street.

REFINED OPTIONS A & B, GIVEN TO STEERING/ADVISORY COMMITTEE, EACH SHOWING “RELOCATED STATUE OF LIBERTY” along State St. on the Master Plan plat.

LINE ITEM IN PLAN BUDGET SHOWING $20,000 to RELOCATE THE STATUE OF LIBERTY in the PLAZA

Why did Andrew Koldin feel he needed to deny there being a directive in the Final Gateway Plaza Plan to return Lady Liberty? My best guess is so he and the Mayor could argue that not returning the Lady to Her Home did not violate the Plan the Council and Mayor had approved in 2013.

Respecting Lady Liberty (with updates)

Posted on October 20, 2021 by David Giacalone

- FOLLOW-UP (August 28, 2022): Three years ago today, Mayor Gary McCarthy announced that Lady Liberty had been relocated to the SE corner of Union St. and Erie Boulevard, where the Statue still stands, with no marker or signage identifying it or its source. And, ten months ago, on November 8, 2021, the Schenectady Council passed a resolution recommending that our Lady Liberty replica be returned to Liberty Park. If you had hoped the Mayor would take advantage of that opportunity to do the right thing, after cleaning and refurbishing the statue, you’ve joined the masses of Schenectady residents frustrated with Gary McCarthy. What next? How would you finish Lady Liberty’s phone call to our Mayor?
- - As the designated maker of legislation and policy in Schenectady, the Council should have explicitly directed the return of Lady Libery to Liberty Plaza, with a deadline.
- Update (November 5, 2021): This is the Best Lady Liberty News In Years [if accepted by the Mayor]. The Resolution mentioned in the next paragraph, recommending that the Mayor return our Lady Liberty Replica to Liberty-Gateway Plaza has been placed on the Agenda of the Nov. 8, 2021 City Council Meeting. update (Nov. 8. 2021) Today’s Gazette article underscores the obvious: This controversy is not over until Mayor McCarthy decides Gateway-Liberty Park is the appropriate place for Lady Liberty. The Council has given him a graceful solution, let’s hope he takes the opportunity.
  - (November 1, 2021): This evening, all five sitting members of the Schenectady City Council stated support for the return of Lady Liberty to Her Home at Liberty/Gateway Plaza. Their vote at a Council Committees Meeting calls for the drafting of a Resolution supporting the return. If drafted, the item should be on the Council Meeting next week, November 8, 2021. Mayor McCarthy left the room before the item was reached on the Agenda. His cooperation would be much appreciated.

. . Help end this disgrace. Demand respect for Lady Liberty

. . BRING LADY LIBERTY HOME FROM EXILE

Update (Oct. 30, 2021): THANK YOU to all who attended the demonstration, and attracted so many horn beeps. [photo by Peter R. Barber, for Daily Gazette, A9, Oct. 29, 2021). Our efforts surely helped to get the Statue of Liberty placed on the City Council Committees Agenda for Monday, Nov, 2, 2021; Item #9. You can observe the meeting, at 5:30 PM, City Hall Room 110. Please contact City Council Members to ask that they act to put Lady Liberty back at Her Home, Liberty Park. Contact you favorite Council members, and/or reach the whole Council by emailing City Clerk Samanta Mykoo, at SMykoo@schenectadyny.gov.
RALLY on October 28, 2021, at 4 PM, at the statue’s Location in Exile (Union St. at Erie Blvd.). The Demonstration starts at 3 PM, and through the rush hour, allies of Liberty will be demonstrating at that corner, with signs and sighs.
Click the thumbnail on the right for the Rally Flyer and please share it.
CONTACT Mayor McCarthy and City Council Members to demand that Lady Liberty, our History, and Honest Government be respected.
- Reach the Council through our City Clerk, at SMykoo@schenectadyny.gov;
- Try to reach the Mayor at MayorsOffice@schenectadyny.gov
Share this posting with this short URL: tinyurl.com/RespectLL

. . Left: scenes of Lady Liberty in Liberty Park (Sept. 2016) .. .

For 67 years, our Schenectady community honored and respected the Lady Liberty replica that graced the Park named for the statue, Liberty Park. In August 2017, the Statue was removed from Liberty Park for its protection while the Park was being expanded into a new Gateway Plaza. We all thought the Lady would be kept safe and returned to Her Home (fully refurbished) when Plaza construction was complete. That is what the public wanted and the Mayor and City Council promised when they approved the Comprehensive Plan for Gateway Plaza in April 2013.

Instead, backroom decisions were made, by Mayor Gary R. McCarthy, with no input from the Council or public, to exile Lady Liberty from Her Park. When the public clamored for the return of Lady Liberty from storage in a City warehouse, City Council did nothing and the Mayor stalled for more than a year, before dumping the Replica unrepaired at a most inappropriate location: The northeast corner of Union Street and Erie Boulevard, amidst eyesores, and with no signage, landscaping, foot-traffic, or lighting.

. . WE MUST FINALLY END THIS SHAMEFUL DISRESPECT FOR LADY LIBERTY, PUBLIC OPINION, and OUR PLANNING PROCESS .

This goal should be easy to accomplish. The best location for Lady Liberty is available right now, almost exactly where She stood for 67 years, at the new and unfilled central sculpture base at Liberty/Gateway Plaza (image to right). It has visibility, seating, space for visitors, lighting, and more. The choice fulfills the promise made by City Council and the Mayor in 2013. And, it overlooks a modern symbol of the civil liberties Lady Liberty has inspired, the Rainbow Pride monumnent. Images below are from January 2021:

. .

This website has a lot of information about this very avoidable controversy (see the Gateway-Liberty Park category), but the important issues can be grasped by checking out the links provided below this paragraph . This photo-editorial was presented to Council and Mayor in March 2018 (click on it for a larger version):

BTW: Mary Wallinger, the chief designer of Gateway Plaza and drafter of the Plan, changed her public position about returning Lady Liberty to Liberty Park, and placed the Rainbow Pride public art project at the location designated in the Plaza Plan for the Liberty replica. Happily, as stated above, there is an even better location still available close to the original installation. It more closely reflects public comment during the Plaza planning process.

HELPFUL LINKS: Here are links to various topics of interest. Each posting contains more links to relevant material.

A full history of this controversy/travesty, with photos, documents, important links: tinyurl.com/TimelessLiberty
the Stepchild treatment of Lady Liberty for two years now at the Location in Exile: tinyurl.com/StepchildLiberty
CIVIC PRIDE should compel City Hall to give Lady Liberty the respect due Her as a symbol of liberty, welcome and opportunity, and an important part of Schenectady’s history. See the posting “Will Civic Pride save Schenectady’s Liberty Replica” for several important points, including how much better the other New York State BSA replicas are being treated — with, for example, Utica and and tiny Leroy totally refurbishing their Replicas the same year Schenectady’s Mayor put ours in storage with no intention to treat Her with respect. [click on image at the right to see the Upstate Sisters of our Lady Liberty.}

See “Letters for the Lady” for a compilation of letters to the editor and editorial pieces about the City’s treatment of Lady Liberty.

Come back for updates related to the Rally and our Lady Liberty Respect campaign.

(October 24, 2021): The Sunday Gazette has an article about our campaign to return Lady Liberty to Her Home. See “Schenectady group wants Lady Liberty off Erie. Blvd., back to former park location” (Brian Lee, A1; photo at right).

(October 25, 2021): Our thanks go to NewsChannel10 reporter Collan Smith (on left) for highlighting our campaign in their Sunday night news program. See “Schenectady group wants lady liberty statue moved ‘out of exile‘ (October 24, 2021).

(October 26, 2021): Today’s Gazette mentions our Bring Her Home campaign at the end of an article that focused on City Council passing the Annual Budget at its meeting last night.

In another matter, a procession of residents asked McCarthy to return a replica of the Statue of Liberty to its former long-time location in Liberty Park, now known as Gateway Plaza.

The statue, which arrived in Schenectady in 1950 by way of a Boy Scouts fundraising effort, was moved to the corner of Erie Boulevard and Union Street in 2019 after a redesign of the park began in 2017.

Chris Morris, director of the advocacy group Schenectady Landlords Influencing Change, likened Lady Liberty to a “special tenant” and McCarthy to “landlord” who had uprooted her to just below train tracks on “one of the busiest and inappropriate street corners” in the city.

.
“What an absolute disservice and disrespect to such a well-loved member of our community seeking peace and tranquility,” Morris said.

Unfortunately, the report ended with this sentence:

McCarthy has said that the statue had been neglected and was often urinated on at its former location.

By repeating the Urination Excuse (twice in three days), the Gazette enables the Mayor’s habit of giving nonsense replies to questions about his actions. One reason Liberty Park was reconstructed was because its overgrowth of vegetation allowed homeless people to spend time there sleeping and drinking and doing drugs. Opening up the Park makes it much harder for such activity to continue. The Mayor did not violate the Comprehensive Plan he signed in 2013 because of prior urination. And, he certainly did not choose the disrespectful Location in Exile because of prior urination.

David Giacalone’s presentation from the floor at the Oct. 25 Council Meeting was titled “Civic Pride and Lady Liberty” (click for the pdf file).

GALLERY for THE LADY: This space will present a growing collection of images of Lady Liberty advocates from our Schenectady Community:

. .

. . above: Vince Riggi [L} and James Wilson [R] . .

. .

. . above: [L] Delanne Stageman; [R] Keith Dayer on left and Susannah Hand

. . also at the Sunday Green Market on Jay Street:

. .

PLEASE, BRING LADY LIBERTY HOME, to wit, HERE:

our stepchild Statue of Liberty

Posted on June 12, 2021 by David Giacalone

Why did Gateway Plaza project administrator, and Planning Commission Chair, Mary Moore Wallinger [image from Gazette at left] decide to treat our Lady Liberty replica like the proverbial redheaded stepchild — disrespected and neglected? And, why did Schenectady Mayor Gary McCarthy decide to be Wallinger’s stubborn enabler, authorizing the continued shabby treatment of the Statue in exile at Erie Blvd. and Union Street? We’ve been asking such questions since March of 2018 (see, e.g., “Bring Lady Liberty Home“), when it became clear that Wallinger and McCarthy did not plan to fulfill the promise made in the approved Final Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan, that Lady Liberty would be returned to her home of 67 years at Liberty-Gateway Park after its construction was completed.

BTW: Ms. Wallinger authored the Implementation Plan and presented it in 2013 in a Resolution unanimously approved by the City Council, noting that the full planning process had included three public sessions. No notice was given to the Council nor the public when the secret decision was made by Wallinger, McCarthy (and, apparently, Metroplex Chair Ray Gillen) to send the Statue elsewhere.

. .Lady Liberty replica still seen in exile (Jan. 19, 2021), alongside a huge, unsightly utility pole, etc., and with scarred and marred retaining wall in the background.

. . despite a far better spot available at the Gateway Plaza central sculpture base . .

Admirably-persistent letter writer Lance R. Jackson, of Glenville, appeared again yesterday in the Gazette in a Letter to the Editor headlined “Restore statue to rightful location in Gateway Park” (June 11, 2021). Octogenarian Jackson wrote:

The mayor and City Council owe us a clear and concise explanation as to why they are not restoring our Lady to Gateway Park or telling us that they are honoring our request and providing a reasonable restoration timeline.

See Letters and editorial content supporting Lady Liberty’s return home at “Letters for the Lady.”

Share this post with this shorter URL: https://tinyurl.com/StepchildLiberty

It seems pretty clear that we are not going to get the requested explanation from Lady Liberty’s City Hall “step-parents”, nor the related question of how much discretion the Mayor or project administrator has to change a fully-planned and approved project when there is no safety or financial emergency that might justify a change in a significant feature of the plan.

A Stepchild Statue? In August 2019, our Liberty replica was deposited in a most unsuitable location, without being cleaned or repaired while held by the City for safekeeping for two years, and was returned without its original plaque or other marker designating its meaning and its donation by local Boy Scouts in 1950. The superior treatment given by over one hundred municipalities to the remaining Boy Scouts of America replicas of Lady Liberty is depicted in my posting “Will civic pride save Schenectady’s Liberty replica?” (Feb. 11, 2020). How bad is this location? Here’s what the Gazette Editorial Board said two days after the installation at Union and Erie (“Lady Liberty’s new home: Try again:“):

Mayor Gary McCarthy — without input from the public or the collective City Council — appears to have unilaterally decided to dump it on one of the city’s most cluttered street corners — uncleaned and unimproved — where it’s difficult to see clearly from either side of the five-lane road, against a thick, ugly metal power pole and utility boxes, and in the shadow of an unsightly train bridge at the end of a parking lot.

Here are three additional indications of the continued shabby, “unwanted-stepchild” treatment of Lady Liberty at Her location in exile [click on a photo for a larger image]:

. .

First, The Tardy Repair. A snowplow damaged the mason block retainer wall at the base of Lady Liberty on December 23 or 24, 2020. (images above) To the left is a December 30 photo of the initial “fix” by City workers: An unsafe and unsightly piling of the loose masonry alongside the sidewalk of what Mayor McCarthy called “an extremely high-visibility intersection”. It then took the City another eighteen weeks to finish what was in reality a very minor masonry project. See images immediately below. (In the meantime, the safety cones were frequently scattered and the author of this posting occasionally brought them back to the spot to give the public at least a little warning of the hazard.)

. .

NOTE: The tardy “quickie” repair apparently only happened when it did because a City crew was just across Union Street, tidying up after a period-style light pole was taken down by a vehicle out of control. Given the speed and recklessness of many drivers at this intersection, the wipe out could have just as easily happened to Lady Liberty, who is situated merely a few yards from the roadway.

Second, the Big Ugly Utility Pole. Lady Liberty does not deserve to stand cheek-to-jowl next to a “thick, ugly metal power pole” (complete with a “smart” surveillance camera) — especially, when the pole makes the statue virtually invisible to vehicles coming weston Union Street. That opinion was strengthened significantly eleven months ago, when I noticed that similar ugly power poles at State St. and Erie, just two blocks away, had been replaced with far more stately black, decorative poles:

Moreover, in case you think State and Erie got special treatment as Downtown’s prime intersection, take a look at what is standing at Liberty Street and Erie Boulevard, one short block from, and within sight of, Lady Liberty:

. . SE corner . .

And, royally adorning Burger King on the NW corner of Liberty and State Streets:

. .

You might have noticed the pretty flowers at the base of the Burger King lamppost. That notion brings me to my third stepchild issue.

Third, Weeds not Flowers. While crossing Erie Boulevard this week, going from Lady Liberty to the SE corner, with a parking lot and Stockade Welcome Column, I brightened up to see a lovely flower bed:

. . even nicer two days later . .

The sight of the lovely flower bed, made me turn around to see if I had missed a similar display at Lady Liberty. From across the street, I could not see any blooms. So, I crossed back to check out the flora around the Statue. This is what I found:

. .

Yep, weeds on the Erie Blvd. side (R) and weeds on the Union Street side of the Lady.

On this lovely June Saturday afternoon, I’m going to close this posting, feeling confident that my “step-child statue” argument will make at least a few people at City Hall embarrassed, maybe even enough to finally do something about the integrity of our planning process, and the importance of public sentiment, in the cause of the enlightened spirit of Lady Liberty. Her Schenectady replica belongs in the corner where it stood for 67 years, where it would now overlook the Pride Memorial, another symbol of equality and welcome for all.

update: The Lady’s daylilies (June 25, 2021). This past week, I saw that Lady Liberty’s perennial visitors (which were actually on the site in greater abundance prior to the arrival of the Statue; e.g., 2017 Google Street View), orange daylilies, have started to brighten Her location in exile, and I twice took photos. Orange daylilies have always been a favorite of mine, but the array at Erie Boulevard and Union Street could not distract me from all the other ugly elements at the site.

. .

Daylilies are, of course, not lilies, and some call them “outhouse lilies” and “roadside lilies.” Given the City’s treatment of our Liberty Replica, it is probably a good thing that a flower that takes minimal (some say virtually no) maintenance or additional expense has established itself on the site. Much of the site is still without a flowerbed like the one across the street. The only excuse that I can think of for this shabby situation is that the Mayor is finally going to send Lady Liberty home [as again advocated by “Mr. Schenectady Vets” Jim Wilson, in a Gazette LTE, 27Jun2021], and so did not want to expend additional funds at the ugly corner. However, I’m not holding my breath.

followup (une 30, 2021): My suspicious mind got me wondering whether the daylilies (along with the hydrangeas along the RR wall) were on the site before Lady Liberty ended up at the corner of Erie Blvd. and Union St. Thanks to the Google Street-view timeline, I was able to answer the question. Yes, there were effusive stands of dayliliies at the site, with hydrangeas, too, before the arrival of Lady Liberty. Some of the Google street views seem to show more daylilies than have survived there. The image at the right is from 2017. (There were also four, not two, healthy evergreen trees between Lady Liberty’s location and the parking lot.) So, we can thank Mother Nature, and not the Mayor or his co-conspirators for the bit of beauty growing naturally near our Lady Liberty replica.

UNLIGHTED LADY

As we pointed out in a posting in March 2020, Lady Liberty in Exile has no lighting of any sort to illuminate Her, while the empty sculpture base at Gateway-Liberty Park is well-lighted from dusk to dawn everyday:

Similarly, Edison and Steinmetz get the treatment of a respected monument, well-lit at its corner of S. Liberty St. and Erie Boulevard, four blocks south of the Lady Liberty in Exile (and, with benches for visitors):

This disparate treatment is ironic, given that the sculptor of the original Statue of Liberty called it “Liberty Enlightens the World.”

update (August 24, 2021): Two years after being dumped at its new location, the Replica of Lady LIberty sits in an overgrowth of weeds that symbolize neglect and disrespect of City Hall and especially Mayor McCarthy.

Will civic pride save schenectady’s Liberty replica?

Posted on February 11, 2021 by David Giacalone

Posted on February 11, 2021

. . Her Sisters are All Treated Better

. . share this post with this short URL: https://tinyurl.com/LibertySisters

The photo at the top of this post was taken on January 19, 2021. The scene remains the same three weeks later, as I prepare this posting. It’s been about a year and a half since Mayor Gary McCarthy, prompted by Planning Commission Chair Mary Moore Wallinger, exiled Schenectady’s BSA Liberty replica from Her home of 67 years to this dismal site, rather than returning The Lady to Gateway-Liberty Plaza, as promised. The site still has no marker nor plaque identifying the statue or its source. I walk or drive by almost daily, and have never seen another human being visiting the Statue, except for a man sleeping on the retainer wall once. It took nagging by me to get the City to do something about the damage done to that wall by a snow plow just before Christmas. As you can see, the “something” was to gather and pile up the blocks that had been knocked onto the sidewalk, and place three safety cones.

Rather than merely assume that no other city or town treats its BSA Statue of Liberty replica so shabbily 70 years after they were erected, I searched online for images of the 100+ extant statues. I discovered two compilations of BSA Liberty Replica images, and found (1) photos of 117 of the replicas at http://passbagger.org/statue-of-liberty.htm [many thanks to all the participants who visited on their motorcycles and gathered the images]; and (2) an archived page of Replica thumbnail shots compiled by BSA Troop 101 of Cheyenne, Wyoming. The original post by Troop 101 linked each thumbnail to a full photo, but only the thumbnails remain in the archive. The top of that webpage can be seen in the image to the right of this paragraph; and immediately below is a screen-shot of the bottom of that page, from web.archive.org.

In my opinion as a citizen and prolific photographer of public places, every single BSA Liberty Replica in the nation stands on a far more appropriate and attractive spot. You can draw your own conclusions by browsing through the PassBagger collection., which offers fuller images of each site. Rather than being accused of cherry-picking the best examples from around the country, I have decided to present here images of every one of the Liberty Replica statues in New York State that were placed as part of the 1950 Boy Scouts of America 40th Anniversary project, “Strengthen the Arm of Liberty”.

BSA Liberty Replicas stand in six Upstate communities. In alphabetical order: LeRoy, Niagara Falls, Olean, Oleonta, Schenectady, and Utica. Schenectady’s Lady Liberty was placed in storage in 2017, to be left for two years without being cleaned or repaired prior to being unceremoniously exiled to its current location. In contrast, at about that time, two of the communities, LeRoy and Utica, raised the funds and donated services to have their Liberty Statues and bases totally refurbished.

Click on a mosaic square below to see a full version of the image; scroll over the image to see its location.

It’s difficult to read what the Village of LeRoy (pop. under 8,000) did to honor and save its replica of Lady Liberty without being embarrassed for Schenectady and its Mayor. Click on the thumbnail at the head of this paragraph, or the following link, to read “Leroy to be Recognized” (LeRoy Pennysaver, October 22, 2017, by Lynne Belluscio, Director of The LeRoy Historical Society.) Led by their Historical Society, the people, companies and organizations of LeRoy contributed over $15,000 and many services to “save” their Lady Liberty. See also, The Batavian (March 7, 2016); and Rochester Democrat & Chronicle (July 2, 2016).

. .

. . above: [R] LeRoy Liberty replica, pre-rehab; [L] refurbished statue in LeRoy House,, awaiting rededication at its creekside home.

Here are other views of Upstate NY BSA Liberty Replicas:

. . in Oneonta:

. . in Olean (in front of new wing of Senior Center)

. . Utica’s Replica being refurbished

Schenectady’s Lady in Exile at Union St. & Erie Boulevard:

. .

Will Civic Pride (or Shame) Help Lady Liberty? Schenectady’s City Council approved the Comprehensive Gateway Plaza Plan in 2013, which included the return of our Liberty Replica to the newly configured Plaza once construction was complete. Mayor McCarthy signed the resolution adopting that Plan. Mary Wallinger was the primary author of The Plan, with its call for the return of Lady Liberty, which was designated an Official Document of the City of Schenectady. Neither McCarthy nor Wallinger ever explained to Council or the public why the Liberty Replica was sent away. To date, despite the popularity of the Liberty Park location, City Council has not had the courage to demand that Mayor McCarthy obey the resolution they passed and the Mayor signed in 2013, and return Lady Liberty to Gateway Plaza, which incorporates the statue’s original home, Liberty Park.

. . still available

Not only did the Comprehensive Plan include a $20,000 line item to pay for the return of Lady Liberty. It also placed a still-empty central sculpture base at virtually the same spot where Lady Liberty stood until August 2017. Last year, Mayor McCarthy did not even respond to two messages from a neighborhood leader offering to move the Replica to this sculpture base at no cost to the City. The photo immediately above and the one below this paragraph depict that ready-for-the-Lady sculpture base, with its seating and space for visitors.

. .

Unlike the Lady’s Location in Exile, the Plaza’s sculpture base is fully lighted at night. Here’s what they looked like just after sunset on March 20, 2020 (Liberty on the left, the Plaza on the right):

Over the past few years, arguments based on honest government and transparency, respect for public opinion, local history, and the values Lady Liberty embodies, and even basic aesthetics in our so-called Renaissance (and Smart) City, have all failed to move Mayor Gary McCarthy to return Schenectady’s Lady Liberty replica to its Home Park. I’m hoping that this presentation comparing the fate of Schenectady’s Lady Liberty with the respect Her Sister receive in other upstate communities, will hit the mark and let Civic Pride inspire a change of heart on the part of Mayor McCarthy, and change of location for Lady Liberty.

Mayor McCarthy also dissed the Boy Scouts

Posted on January 31, 2020 by David Giacalone

Schenectady Mayor Gary McCarthy had our replica statue of Lady Liberty dumped last summer at the corner of Erie Boulevard and Union Street, next to a train trestle and among a forest of poles. At the time, we wrote “McCarthy disses Lady Liberty (and all of us) again” (August 28, 2019), a posting with photos of the dreadful spot and a summary of the sad saga of our Statue.

So stunned was I by the Mayor’s brazen insult to his City and its history, it was only recently that I realized Lady Liberty stood in exile with no plaque commemorating the source and spirit behind the Statue, when it was placed in its real home in 1950 and for the next 67 years. See the collage at the head of the posting, which shows the plaque attached to the original pedestal; the image to the left depicts the current situation; and here is the plaque itself:

Here is our description, from a posting in March 2018, of how Lady Liberty came to Schenectady and her original location:

Lady Liberty, a 100-inch tall replica of the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor, came to Schenectady as part of a 1950 Boy Scouts of America program. Local Boy Scouts across the City and County saved up the $350 to purchase the statue. It stood in Liberty Park, which was later named for the replica of Lady Liberty, until it was put into storage (in August 2017) to protect the statue during the reconfiguration and reconstruction of Liberty Park, as it was expanded into Gateway Plaza.

In a 2012 Schenectady Gazette article, the story of our Lady Liberty is told through the eyes of several local Boy Scouts from the troop that met at St. Anthony’s Church, and worked to save up the $350 to purchase the sculpture in 1950. “Lady Liberty replica has 62-year-old story to tell” (by Bethany Bump, Jan. 15, 2012; emphasis added).

It was an endeavor that dovetailed nicely with the Scouts’ basic mission: prepare youth to be responsible and participating citizens and leaders. And there was no better symbol of leadership and American citizenship than Lady Liberty.

. . . Just like the 305-foot-tall national monument in New York Harbor, Schenectady’s lady offers an inspirational message: “With the faith and courage of their forefathers who made possible the freedom of these United States, the Boy Scouts of America dedicate this copy of the Statue of Liberty as a pledge of everlasting fidelity and loyalty.”

Also, see the commentary at Waymarking.com .

Somehow, our Mayor, who now trumpets all sorts of minor craft projects as symbols of community enthusiasm, did not see fit to honor or commemorate the spirit that brought Lady Liberty to our City, or the decades thereafter of annual rededication ceremonies. An indication of its importance can be seen in our description of the day the statue was dedicated:

Dedication Day. The procrastination of our current Mayor and his carefree attitude toward Lady Liberty, her proponents, and the Planning and legislative process, is in stark contrast to the importance of the Statue to the City at the time of its Dedication. The [News10 Special Report on the plight of the Replica] shows the front page of the Schenectady Gazette on November 9, 1950, and the prominence given the story. The article states that 2500 scouts and scouters marched in a parade to the Park, with a crowd of 3,500 persons overflowing the small park for the dedication ceremony. Then Mayor Owen M. Begley called it a “beautiful, beautiful gift,” commenting that the replica here will be a great emblem in Schenectady of our great heritage of liberty.”

Where is the Boy Scouts of America plaque that once enhanced our Liberty replica? Can it be cleaned and restored and be joined again with the Statue? Or, has it been sold for scrap or secreted away to the den of a City Hall staffer? I hope someone on our City Council will investigate and then fight to bring back the plaque or, if necessary, have a suitable replacement made and installed, either at the (temporary) Trestle site of Schenectady’s Lady Liberty, or at Liberty-Gateway Plaza, where She was always expected and promised to be returned.

An apology to the Scouts who worked to bring the Lady to Schenectady would also be most appropriate.

. . this photo-opEd is still most relevant . .

. . share this posting with this short URL: https://tinyurl.com/McCarthyBSA

. . Lady Liberty seen at her dismal new location during the 2020 Schenectady Soup Stroll

Council, do your Smart City Homework

Posted on October 26, 2019 by David Giacalone

. . . . Yesterday afternoon (Friday, Oct. 25, 2019) , I sent an email Letter with Appendix (see below) to Schenectady City Council President Ed Kosiur, and others. My recommendation was that the Council first do its Smart City Homework before allotting another large budget item for the Mayor to use in his Smart City efforts. Unfortunately, as a Gazette article reports (online, Sat. AM, Oct. 26, 2019), the Mayor’s automatic Majority clique, led by Ed Kosiur and John Polimeni, ignored its responsibilities, and are prepared to force through more Smart City dollars at the Council Meeting on Monday, despite the efforts of Council Members Riggi, Perazzo and Porterfield. update (Oct. 29, 2019): The Mayor got $2 million more to spend on his “Smart City” project, and the people of Schenectady got left in the dark with the bill to pay. See “City Council adopts spending plan” (Gazette, by Pete DeMola).

. . .

. . above: Mayor McCarthy on primary night, with his 4-person Rump Majority standing behind him . .

. . share this post with this shorter URL: https://tinyurl.com/SmartCityHomework

From: David Giacalone

Subject: Please hold up the $2M until you do your Smart City Homework

Date: October 25, 2019 at 1:58:55 PM EDT

To: Ed Kosiur <ekosiur@schenectadyny.gov>, et al

Dear Council Members:

Wise Cities know which experts to consult with first: the residents. (see Appendix Item #1 below)

The Mayor and Council recently announced plans to finally hold publc informational meetings about our Smart City program. Late is surely better than never, unless the cyber-security, data-privacy, and citizen-trust horse has already left the barn.

Sinking more money into Smart Cities before an informed public discussion seems like an act of disrespect to your residents. At the very least, isn’t it poor planning to earmark $2,000,000 Smart City dollars for the Capital Fund before finding out what your residents and electorate want from Smart City technology and what limitations they feel are needed on the use of the data?

That is especially true when Mayor Gary McCarthy has apparently felt no obligation to even keep the Council President, much less the entire Council, in the loop when he is deciding on Smart City purchases and strategies. When venders are called “technology partners” and the notion of making revenue from collected data bandied about freely, doesn’t this Council want to create guidelines, regulations, and protections before allowing even more unsupervised spending on Smarty City initiatives?

Until you each know what information is being collected, and whether it could be used by outsiders to identify individuals, especially if cross-referenced with other data sources, you should not be thinking of writing another big Smart Cities check.
- Do you know, for instance, what sorts of information is being collected by the City’s WiFi stations, and whether that data might be misused? E.g., do our sensors keep a record of which smartphones are passing by?

WHAT HOMEWORK? Council members need to know enough about the facts and issues presented by Smart City technology that you feel prepared to spend significant amounts of money constructing a system that will affect the welfare and finances of your City and its citizens for many decades to come. Are you there yet? Or, is it “merely” another two million dollars?

From the perspective of many experts, you have not done your Smart City Homework if you have not had meaningful discussion with well-informed residents. The failure to have the public conversation about what the public wants and does not want, with open discussion of the privacy and data risks, and installation of real cybersecurity measures, should mean that no additional money, or only small amounts of targeted funds, be authorized at this time.

Please read the summaries of three thoughtful Smart Cities articles that are presented in the Appendix below.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

David Giacalone, Schenectady NY

P.S. In a thought-provoking article that is discussed in the “Appendix” below, I was concerned to see this sentence: “These technologies range from the mundane (speed cameras) to the fantastical (“Streetlight hubs that host WiFi nodes, license plate readers, environmental sensors, and gunshot detectors)”. “The Future of Living: Smart Cities, Uneven Safeguards” (Washington Lawyer, Nov. 2018). Note that Schenectady already has that “fantastical technology”, but with no transparency, public input, or disclosure of how security, privacy, and consent are being handled.

APPENDIX

1] The article “Smart cities: good decision-making vital for turning technology into real solutions (from Urban Hub) offers advice that seems worth taking, using the experience of Boston, Massachusetts:

The technology disrupting urban living today undoubtedly has the potential to improve quality of life, but exactly how that happens still boils down to good decision-making.
Boston’s Smart City Playbook brings up one central question time and again: “What can it do for us?” Whether talking about building a platform, collecting big data, or boosting efficiency, the playbook insists on a strategy built from the bottom up. A similar approach called The Clever City also advocates downsizing before upsizing.

And, especially:

Boston knows which experts to consult with first: the residents.

2] Another resource that I hope you will study before appropriating the $2 million is the article “I’m an Engineer, and I’m Not Buying Into ‘Smart’ Cities: Sensor-equipped garbage cans sound cool, but someone still has to take out the trash.” (New York Times, by Shoshanna Saxe, July 16, 2019) Dr. Saxe is an assistant professor of civil and mineral engineering at the University of Toronto.

Here are a few excerpts from Prof. Saxe’s OpEd piece, which is well worth reading in full:

“There is a more basic concern when it comes to smart cities: They will be exceedingly complex to manage, with all sorts of unpredictable vulnerabilities. There will always be a place for new technology in our urban infrastructure, but we may find that often, “dumb” cities will do better than smart ones.”
“New technology in 2015 will be outdated before 2020. If we widely deploy smart tech in cities, we need to be prepared to replace it every few years, with the associated disruption and cost. But who will assume those costs?”
“[W]who can guarantee that future elected leaders, in an effort to cut costs and appease taxpayers, won’t shortchange spending on replacement technology?”
Managing all the sensors and data will require a brand-new [expensive] municipal bureaucracy staffed by tech, data-science and machine-learning experts. . . . . If the answer is to outsource that staffing to private companies, then cities need to have frank conversations about what that means for democratic governance.

In addition, Dr. Saxe reminds us that:

The most critical question, however, is whether having a smart city will make us meaningfully better at solving urban problems. Data and algorithms alone don’t actually add very much on their own. No matter how much data a city has, addressing urban challenges will still require stable long-term financing, good management and effective personnel. If smart data identifies a road that needs paving, it still needs people to show up with asphalt and a steamroller.

3] The November 2018 edition of Washington Lawyer (the D.C. Bar magazine) also has an article that I recommend to those who want to make smart decisions about Smart Cities. It is titled “The Future of Living: Smart Cities, Uneven Safeguards” (by Sarah Kellogg). The author talked with and quotes technology, legal and privacy experts. The key points:

The need early in the process for a policy and rules for cyber-security and privacy protection
“Transparency” in the collection and sharing of all the data is very important
The temptation to make money on the data raises the risk of abuse.
“It is incumbent upon governments to first engage communities and communicate effectively about these questions” [about privacy and data risks].

An expert of digital forensics and cybersecurity points out in the article that “few are even remotely aware of how intrusive these applications can be in their daily lives. . . Most people below a certain age don’t care about all the sensors in our lives. . . .The folks of a certain age tend to get the privacy dangers.”

“A major issue is Consent. Consent to be monitored may not be a legal requisite, but consent should be obtained from individuals whose data has been collected and massaged to allow the identification of individuals (especially if the buyer of the information can cross-reference it to other data bases), before a municipality shares/sells it to outset entities.”

Followup (October 21, 2021): Two years later, I see no signs of completed Homework assignments. Nor, incomplete ones. There are, of course, more signs that we should be worried and demand protection and transparency. The use of Parking Passport software and 5-G and “free” WiFi expansion greatly widens the scope of Smart City data collection. Meanwhile, Mayor Gary McCarthy has again stated his intent to monetize the stream of data. See City to expand free Wi-Fi: Schenectady network adds more neighborhoods .

I was unsuccessful finding on the City website the permissions required to use the Free WiFi. However, I bet it is similar to what one must give up to use the Parking Passport system:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.passportparking.mobile&hl=en_US

PERMISSIONS

This app has access to:

Storage

- read the contents of your USB storage
- modify or delete the contents of your USB storage

Location

- precise location (GPS and network-based)

Wi-Fi connection information

- view Wi-Fi connections

Photos/Media/Files

- read the contents of your USB storage
- modify or delete the contents of your USB storage

Other

- receive data from Internet
- read Google service configuration
- view network connections
- full network access
- prevent device from sleeping

https://www.passportinc.com/privacy-policy/

I noticed that the Privacy Policy provisions have some qualifiers concerning their not being able to police third-party information users.

break up McCarthy’s Council Clique

Posted on October 24, 2019 by David Giacalone

. . click this link for the discussion below of the Polimeni Sidewalk Plan.

. . subtitle: let’s fire John Polimeni . .

update (Nov. 6, 2019): Last night’s election results [click on image to the left from Times Union] for Schenectady City Council were quite disappointing to those of us who had hoped to achieve a more deliberative and better-informed City Council, to make its dynamics and processes wiser and more small-d democratic. The entire 4-person Democratic Party slate was elected, with a surprising loss by independent Vince Riggi, our “voice of reason (in the wilderness)”. [see Gazette article; TU Election Results] I hope newcomer Carmel Patrick will resist the “mushroom management” style of Mayor Gary McCarthy, and demand to be better informed about facts, goals, alternatives, legal requirements, etc., before voting on matters before the Council.

Congratulations to Leesa Perazzo on her impressive re-election result. Leesa will need to be more vigilant and persevering than ever.

. . Gazette‘s Halloween Trick: At the bottom of this post I respond to the Gazette editorial that endorsed John Polimeni for re-election.

When it became clear in late June that Mayor Gary McCarthy would have no opponent on the November 5 ballot, I wrote to his primary opponent Thearse McCalmon and at my Facebook Page that:

THE BEST THING we can do right now is to continue to work toward this November election, to DENY MAYOR GARY McCARTHY HIS NEARLY CONSTANT FOUR-VOTE MAJORITY of the same four Democratic Council members. If he knows that he could lose any particular resolution he presents, Mayor McCarthy will have to:

Seek Council and Public input early in the legislative process
Provide more information to the Council and public;
listen to the public and respond accordingly;
encourage and expect probing questions from the Council ; and
stop insisting on nearly instant passage of resolutions, without evaluating and explaining options, and without incorporating thoughtful criticism, including comments received at public hearings, and without supplying relevant information, even when requested by Council members.

The next best thing to a new mayor is a mayor who can no longer count on getting all his desires rubber-stamped.

Looking at the people who will be on the November 2019 City Council Ballot, we need to think about and support the people most likely to be independent thinkers, who will insist that the Council is the City’s legislative and policy leader, not the Mayor. And, who see themselves as the partners of Schenectady’s residents and neighborhoods, not partners of the Mayor’s favored developers and commercial interests. [update (Nov. 3, 2019): The Sunday Gazette has an article by Pete DeMola that captures the dynamics of the City Council race, “In race for Schenectady City Council, Democratic unity belies more complicated tensions: Seven candidates campaign for four seats”. It notes, for instance, that if Vince Riggi wins one of the four contested seats the four Democrats on the ballot are competing with each other for the three remaining seats.]

. . the Mayor and his Gang of Four

FIRE POLIMENI. The 4-member Council “Rump” Majority is made up of Council President Ed Kosiur, John Polimeni, John Mootooveren, and Karen Senecal Zalewski-Wildzunas. Only Ed Kosiur and John Polimeni are on the ballot from this Council Clique. Vince Riggi and Leesa Perazzo are also on the ballot, seeking re-election. (See Gazette article)

Because of the many legislative missteps that we have seen initiated and pushed by John Polimeni, in addition to his virtually always acting as either a silent rubber-stamp or cheerleader for Mayor McCarthy, I believe we should work to ensure that Prof. Polimeni does not win re-election to the Schenectady City Council.

Council Members Vince Riggi (Ind.) and Leesa Perazzo (Dem.) are also running this year. Schenectady needs to re-elect Vince Riggi and Vince has earned it, by listening to constituents from all parties, asking tough questions, and by seeking more and better information. Unfortunately, Vince has been frustrated time and again by the rush to voting that the Rump Majority allows the Mayor to pursue.
If Leesa Perazzo is re-elected, I hope she will become an even stronger independent-thinker and actor on the Council.

SILENT WITNESS/Co-Conspirator. John Polimeni has not spoken out to [1] Ask for Privacy Safeguards for the City’s Smart City information gathering, and now says he wants to use the data to generate revenue, which means No Privacy, as the City sells information gathered about its residents and visitors to marketers. (see our post “Council, Do Your Smart City Homework.” [2] Demand that the Mayor return our replica Statue of Liberty to Liberty/Gateway Plaza, as was promised in the Final Plan approved by City Council and the Mayor in 2013. (In fact, he signed an error-filled petition to send Lady Liberty to Steinmetz Park; click here for the full Lady Liberty Story.) Nor, [3] Complain when Rivers Casino acknowledged that its lobbyists were seeking to reduce the 45% gaming tax on slots revenue to below 40%, meaning at least a 12% reduction in slots gaming revenue. Any reduction, of course, would mean less money coming into the City’s coffers.

Our Council members must actively and vigilantly serve the interests of Schenectady’s residents, and speak out when Mayoral proposals, Department action or inaction, or Corporation Counsel opinions, need to be further investigated and explained.

Continue reading →

it is not growing on us

Posted on September 23, 2019 by David Giacalone

No, Mr. Mayor, the spot you chose for our Statue of Liberty Replica is not growing on us. It seems just as outlandish and disrespectful as when you plopped her there at the end of August.

Below is the view of Lady Liberty heading north on Erie Boulevard approaching Union Street.

Meanwhile, a perfectly appropriate and quite popular spot is still available just a few blocks away at Liberty-Gateway Plaza, where in 2013 you, Mary Wallinger, and our City Council promised She would be returned. Once again, we ask you to Put Her Back, as promised, as planned, as preferred by the public.

bad reviews for “Our Lady of the Scary Underpass”

Posted on September 4, 2019 by David Giacalone

It is no surprise to anyone with eyes, good taste, and a working brain. And, it probably isn’t news to Gary McCarthy, who might be relishing the anguish he is causing residents of Schenectady by demonstrating his arrogance and power.

Since Friday, August 28, 2019, the City has been abuzz with negative reactions to the new location given to our Statue of Liberty replica statue by Mayor McCarthy, near the railroad underpass on the southeast corner of Erie Boulevard at Union Street. People have been reaching out with email and phone calls, and crossing the street to voice an opinion:

The New Location is an outlandish choice, an insult to the Lady and to Schenectady. (see our prior posting with more photos and discussion of the Mayor’s Choice, and this link to pdf file of heavily-redacted email, which is the City’s “response” to my FOIL request for documents relating to the choice of location for Lady Liberty ). On the right above is a colorized screenshot of the final results of a Daily Gazette poll placed online from Saturday through Tuesday. Gary McCarthy’s choice could only attract 61 votes, despite all his political suasion, and the favorable poll position and wording. The choice of the Original Location received 130 votes in the poll, 45% of the total.

On August 30th, the Gazette Editorial Board published “Editorial: Lady Liberty’s New Home – try again: Historic statue needs a more appropriate location than busy street corner”. After noting the disappointment of one viewer who gasped, “Oh God, you can hardly see it”, the editorial stated:

Instead, the final placement seems almost like a dismissive afterthought, that in order to shut up the people who were demanding its return, they just stuck it anywhere, hoping that those who cared about its placement would finally drop it and move on.

Well, the only thing that should move on is the statue itself.

Like other observers, the Gazette editors noticed right away the many problems:

. . . Mayor Gary McCarthy — without input from the public or the collective City Council — appears to have unilaterally decided to dump it on one of the city’s most cluttered street corners — uncleaned and unimproved — where it’s difficult to see clearly from either side of the five-lane road, against a thick, ugly metal power pole and utility boxes, and in the shadow of an unsightly train bridge at the end of a parking lot.

In summary, the Gazette opined:

Anything’s got to be better than the manner in which this location was selected and where the statue ended up.

Lady Liberty deserves better.

Of course, here at Snowmen At the Gates, we insist She Deserves the Best: Her Original and Only appropriate Home, Liberty-Gateway Park.

what can you still do? Contact the Mayor and City Council directly:

Mayor Gary McCarthy – gmccarthy@schenectadyny.gov – who has not offered any justification for changing (ignoring) an important element of a very important and approved Plan.
- Photo to the right, L to R: J. Mootooveren, J. Polimeni, K. Zalewski-Wildzunas, G. McCarthy, E. Kosiur
Ed Kosiur – ekosiur@schenectadyny.gov, City Council President, who signed the Goose Hill Petition to move Lady Liberty to Steinmetz Park, despite its gross factual errors, and has declared without explanation that “only the Mayor has the delegation” to make this decision.
John Polimeni – jpolimeni@schenectadyny.gov, who signed the Goose Hill Petition to move Lady Liberty to Steinmetz Park
Leesa Perazzo – lperazzo@schenectadyny.gov, who sponsored the 2013 Resolution adopting the Implementation Plan, but has been most silent on the topic
Karen Zalewski-Wildzunas – kZalewskiWildzunas@schenectadyny.gov, who signed the Goose Hill Petition to move Lady Liberty to Steinmetz Park. (Update [Sept. 3, 2019]: According to the Aug. 28 Gazette, Ms. Z-W “liked the location, citing its proximity to the Schenectady Train Station and the Stockade, and thinks most residents will find it to be an acceptable location.)
John Mootooveren – jmootooveren@schenectadyny.gov, Chair of the Council’s Health and Recreation Committee
Marion Porterfield – mporterfield@schenectadyny.gov, who suggested in March 2018 we might poll the affected neighborhoods, but has been silent since.
Vincent Riggi – v_riggi@verizon.net, the only Council member to consistently demand implementing the Implementation Plan and suitably honoring Lady Liberty and her Schenectady history.

And, Mary Moore Wallinger, mmwallinger@landartstudiony.com, who changed her mind after designing Gateway Plaza and writing the Implementation Plan and now says Lady Liberty “does not fit in” with Wallinger Plaza’s contemporary theme.

McCarthy disses Lady Liberty (and all of us) again

Posted on August 28, 2019 by David Giacalone

. . worse and worse (Feb. 10, 2021): Wall damaged by plow left unattended since Christmas.

. . and see: “Will civic pride save Schenectady’s liberty replica” (Feb. 11, 2021), comparing our Lady in Exile’s location and condition with the respectful situations in all the other BSA replica towns in Upstate New York.

Original Posting.

. .

Our “Smart City” Mayor, Gary R. McCarthy, has made another very unwise decision. Six years after the City Council and Mayor approved the official Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan to return Lady Liberty to Her Original Home; two years after our Lady Liberty replica statue was removed for safe-keeping during the reconstruction of Her Liberty Park; and 17 months after the Mayor was first publicly asked to explain the failure to return the Statue, Mayor McCarthy announced today that the Lady had been placed at her new permanent location: The southeast corner of Erie Boulevard and Union Street, with a railroad overpass and retaining wall, and parking lot as Her backdrop. See Pete DeMola’s Gazette article this afternoon, here [screenshot image]; and a TU article [screenshot image] by Paul Nelson (both online August 28, 2019).

The Mayor’s statement today again gave no reason for not following the approved Implementation Plan for Gateway Plaza, and failed to identify his so-called “design team”, which understandably wants to remain anonymous. As reported in the Times Union:

“Upon completion of the newly redesigned Gateway Plaza and after careful consideration and discussion with our design team, it became clear that we would need to seek a new location for the statue,” Mayor Gary McCarthy said in a statement Wednesday. “This is an extremely high-visibility intersection with approximately 30,000 daily travelers on Erie Boulevard.”

Note: Only one person, Mary Moore Wallinger (image at right), has tried to explain the exile of Lady Liberty from Her Park. See our posting “Wallinger’s Excuses“, which discusses the reasons given by Ms. Wallinger since March 2018 for her conclusion that Lady Liberty “no longer fits” with the Plaza. Mary Wallinger was the original designer of Gateway Plaza, and is also the Chair of the Schenectady Planning Commission. Mayor McCarthy has bent over backwards to make her wish come true of keeping Lady Liberty away from Liberty-Gateway Plaza. Since her role has become public, Ms Wallinger has been quick to point out that it is “the Mayor’s decision”, not hers, whether to return the Statue to its home.

(August 29, 2019) My Freedom of Information Request to the City, dated June 11, 2019, asked for documents relating to the decision to return Lady Liberty or place Her elsewhere. This morning, I finally received a pdf file of heavily-redacted email from Corporation Counsel’s FOIL office, with the explanation that:

Records have been redacted pursuant to FOIL Public Officers Law Article 6 §87(2)(g)(iii) “Agency records”. States, an agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that are inter-agency or intra-agency materials which are not final agency policy or determinations. If you would like to appeal your request, you may do so in writing Mayor Gary McCarthy, City Hall 105 Jay Street, Schenectady, NY 12305. Your written appeal will need to be within 30 days.

.

Of course, nothing requires the redacting of this information. The Mayor has never told us why Lady Liberty needs to be exiled from Liberty Park, and his FOIL office (Corporation Counsel) has decided to hide whatever those reasons and reasoning might be. Somehow, an appeal to the Mayor sounds futile.

.

* At the foot of this posting, I have a few comments and screenshots from the pdf FOIL packet. You will note that none of the “careful consideration and discussion with our design team” mentioned by the Mayor made it into any legible portion of any document (e.g., email, memorandum, phone call memo, etc.).

.

peek-a-boo statue

Indeed, this is such a “high visibility” intersection, that several people have already told me they passed right by without seeing Lady Liberty today. I was one of those who did not notice The Lady, as I drove west on Union late this morning heading to the Stockade. Drivers coming west on Union and going straight or turning right will almost certainly fail to see the Statue without an effort to do so. That fat pole itself blocks the view, but so will vehicles turning left and waiting with you for the light to change.

The idea of the beloved green Statue distracting the already driven-to-distraction motorists and pedestrians at that intersection is downright scary. Whether taking the time to look for Lady Liberty, or being surprised by Her in the middle of a turn, or texting a friend that you just saw the Statue, the City’s creation of such a remarkable distraction is exactly what we do not need at Erie Blvd. and Union Street.

It is most certainly not a pedestrian-friendly intersection, as drivers are immediately allowed to start turning when pedestrians get the Walk signal at that long crosswalk. Ironically, just yesterday (Aug. 27), two left-turning vehicles came speeding in front of me, as I tried to cross with the Walk Signal in that very crosswalk. I jumped back and signaled the third driver, in a large black SUV, to stop. She did, but angrily (and ignorantly), yelled at me: “I have a green light!” I hope Lady Liberty is not too squeamish as she gazes out at the intersection.

. . quite a view for, and of, Lady Liberty . .

. . by the way: the straw is very slippery; better stay off it. .

I’ve been trying to keep this posting relatively light, to stifle my great disappointment over the crassness, arrogance, and pettiness of the process that ignored the approved Plan and the public’s preferences, only to result in this disagreeable location for our Statue of the Lady who brings Enlightenment.

Her Real Home. In case you need a reminder, this is where Lady Liberty reigned and inspired for 67 years, before she was moved “for her protection” during reconstruction of Liberty Park; photos taken September 2016:

Beyond the Mayor, the irresponsible and/or cowardly posture of City Council members other than Vince Riggi on this issue makes very little sense politically, but should be a big concern in a City that is about to “celebrate” four more years of Mayor Gary McCarthy. I hope the electorate will have some serious questions for those seeking reelection this year (Kosiur, Polemeni, Perazzo), about their independence from the Mayor, and their commitment to transparency and integrity.

THE SORRY TALE of the EXILED LADY. If you look down the Right Margin on our Homepage, you will see many postings concerned with Lady Liberty, Liberty Park and Gateway Plaza, that are part of this too-long story. A good place to find important images and documents and coverage of the tale, including links to additional webposts, is the posting “Lady Liberty is Timeless.” To the immediate right is a thumbnail of an Advocacy Poster I presented in March of 2018 that helps explain why we felt betrayed.

In the posting “Letters for the Lady“, we’ve compiled Letters and commentary in the press supporting return of Lady Liberty to Her Liberty Park home since March 2018. A new section has been added at the foot of that posting that will present similar pieces since the revelation of the New Location.

. . Above and Below: a very wide intersection for a small statue and Big Symbol . .

BTW: Below is my view of Lady Liberty from the front of the line, waiting in my car for the light to change, heading west on Union Street; I had to roll up a foot or two to see Her at all (taken Saturday, Aug. 31, 2019):

. . Share this post with this short URL: https://tinyurl.com/DissedLady

follow-up (April 1, 2020): Seven months after Lady Liberty was planted at Her location-in-exile, it seems there have been no attempts to spruce up her seedy surroundings. On the 1st of April, 2020, I stopped by on my daily walk, and saw the following unmitigated, still-rusting eyesore, about 10 yards behind the Statue:

And see The Lady in the Dark, Not in Her Park.

(April 15, 2020): See two more signs of disrespect, mirroring our Mayor’s treatment of the Lady Liberty replica:

follow-up (Sept. 10, 2019): Meanwhile, City Council President Ed Kosiur told me after the Council meeting on September 9, 2019, that he only learned about the new location when I posted about it at my website. Kosiur also said, as an excuse for not demanding the Mayor return Lady Liberty to Liberty Park, that its return was never actually mentioned in the Plan, but was shown only in images. I assured Ed he was wrong, and wondered who gave him that misinformation (got no answer). He asked that I show him treatment of Lady Liberty in the Gateway Plaza Plan. Back at home that evening, in response to Ed’s request, I looked through the Implementation Plan to find proof that the return of Lady Liberty was indeed included explicitly in the Plan (and not merely shown in a rendition or on the cover). Click on the thumbnail of a portion of p. 37 to the right above. I also and sent Ed several other screen shots from the Plan.

In the email to Ed Kosiur, I also noted that “relocating” the replica statue within the completed Plaza had a $20,000 line item in the expense table that was presented in the Implementation Plan. Click on thumbnail to the left, item marked with a red asterisk. The related Plan item can be seen in the following Master Design sketch from the Final Gateway Plaza Plan: “Relocated Statue of Liberty Replica” is shown near State Street and the BusPlus structure as item #6 of the Legend.

Mr. Kosiur never responded to nor even acknowledged the September 9th email, nor a reminder email that included the same information, sent September 22, 2019.

*Click here for the FOIL packet re the Location of Lady Liberty. Here’s what I learned from the FOIL Packet:

Continue reading →

a bargeful of yellow bollards on the Mohawk

Posted on May 13, 2019 by David Giacalone

. . but, first, a Mother’s Day Bouquet for Mama G. :

2 of 180

A Conversation We Might Have Over-Heard at Mohawk Harbor on Mother’s Day:

Q: “What are all those big yellow things called, Son?” A: “Bollards, Mom.”

Q: “Why are there so many and why are they so tall?” A: “Only God, Ray Gillen, and maybe Mayor McCarthy, know”.

Q: “Weren’t they supposed to make Mohawk Harbor and the Casino a classy, attractive destination?” A: “That’s what they promised.”

Q: “Then, how the heck did all those yellow bollards get here?”

“They” — the Developer Galesi Group, Casino Owner Rush Street Gaming, the Planning Commission, Mayor Gary McCarthy and City Hall in general, Ray Gillen and Metroplex, and County government — could have and should have made this crucial project more attractive, to help bring in tourists and repeat business, and for the sake of residents who deserve a beautiful harbor district. Instead, there are, by my recent count, at least 180 bright yellow bollards (that is,15 dozen) surrounding Rivers Casino and detracting from its attractiveness.

The bollards are, in addition, taller than the average bollard (which is 3.5 ft., and not 4′, 5′ and 6′, as at Mohawk Harbor), increasing their visual impact.[see photo above] In the opinion of many folks in Schenectady, parking areas and pedestrian walkways should not be this pedestrian.

The Sentries assigned to protect Schenectady from harmful outsiders on the day of the 1690 Schenectady Massacre instead went off to a Mill Lane pub for some brew, leaving behind snowmen and open stockade gates to greet French and Indian marauders from Canada. Sadly, it seems, weaponless and voiceless Snowmen have been appointed or hired to oversee design and implementation of Schenectady’s most important development of this Century. They’ve permitted a bumper crop of bright yellow bollards to sprout along Mohawk Harbor. For my taste, if they had spawned at least a few snowman-shaped bollards, we would have been better off.

You can see the results of the City’s planning and oversight omissions for yourself with a quick look at the next two collages; one shows bollards at Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor on the west side of the facility [L], and the other shows bollards along the east end and rear of the Casino complex [R].

. . click on either collage, or any image in this posting, for a larger version .

share this posting with this short URL: https://tinyurl.com/YellowBollards

What Is a Bollard and What Do They DO?

A bollard is a sturdy, short, vertical post. The term originally referred to a post on a ship, wharf or dock used principally for mooring boats, but is now also used to refer to posts installed to control road traffic and posts designed to provide security and prevent ramming attacks, as well as provide a theme or sense of place. [see Wikipedia; Reliance Foundry; TrafficGuard.]

Bollards are available in many different sizes and styles, including removable or fixed versions, designed to evoke virtually any era or taste. The type chosen depends on the purpose of the bollard, and the location. For example, Reliance Foundry displays illustrations, specs, and prices for 143 bollard models at its website, including bollard covers in many styles and choice of materials. And, see: its Pinterest Creative Bollards display. Bollards can be serious or stately, artsy or whimsical. The style or mood can even be mixed on the same site or project.

- - For example, Jan Mitchell’s Waterfront Bollards, at Geelong (Australia). More Geelong images here.

Bollards are not, therefore, merely practical, and definitely do not have to detract from a landscape or streetscape. Reliance Foundry notes that “Bollards enhance the visual quality of buildings and landscapes while providing visual and physical barriers for safer, more controlled environments.” And, relevant to our discussion of Mohawk Harbor and Rivers Casino:

When used to complement new or existing architecture, bollards can create or reinforce thematic visual cues and enhance a sense of place within a neighborhood or community—and for approaching visitors. [click the collage at the head of this blurb to see samples of Reliance Foundry bollards]

Despite the hundreds of bollard styles to choose from, and their coincidental nautical history, tall bollards with bright yellow covers are so ubiquitous on the lawns, parking areas, and walkways of Schenectady’s Rivers Casino, that they are the most prominent architectural feature defining the otherwise uninspiring, and unnamable external design of the Casino complex.

Thus, whether you are . . .

. . entering the Rivers Casino parking lot from the west on Front Street:

. . coming from the east on Harbor Way:

. . . visiting next-door at STS Steel:

. . driving over the Mohawk from Glenville on Freeman’s Bridge:

. . .

. . aboard your yacht on the Mohawk River:

. . .

. . entering the ALCO Trail on foot from the west:

. . or, even checking out the ALCO Trail signage from your bike:

your first and subsequent views of the site at Rivers Casino are highly likely to be populated by an inert army of tall, bright yellow bollards.

WE DESERVE(D) BETTER

In the posting “Why does Rush Street give Schenectady its scraps” (June 19, 2015), we pointed to the image created by the Applicants before the Location Board, when they sought a gaming license from New York State, and noted our disappointment in the eventual design of Rivers Casino:

A flashy digital brochure submitted to the New York State Gaming Commission, “The Companies of Neil Bluhm,” touts his having “developed and acquired over $50 billion in world class destinations,” his “Establishing international beacons to successfully attract the tourism market,” and “placing an emphasis on superior design” for his casinos. Unfortunately, instead of an “international beacon” like Fallsview Casino in Ontario, Canada, we get a design that reminds us Neil Bluhm “pioneered . . . the creation of urban shopping centers.”

Why did we get such a disappointing, second-rate design? I got no reply when I emailed the Schenectady Planning Office and City Engineer, on April 15, 2019 and asked, regarding the yellow bollards:

Did the Applicant designate the color, style and size for its bollards for its Site Plan review?
Did the Commission either approve or direct such bright yellow bollards?
Did Staff review this choice and okay it?

That leaves me to speculate on my own. In our June 15, 2017 “scraps” posting, we stated:

Our first guess as to why Rush Street does not try very hard for Schenectady is that it has had our “leaders” fawning over it ever since the first rumor of a casino was in the air early last year. This morning’s Schenectady Gazette suggests another reason: As with the earlier zoning amendments, the normal Planning Commission process has been aborted (hijacked?), with the skids greased by the Mayor to make sure Galesi and Rush Street never have to wait very long to get their wish list fulfilled, and with public input stifled whenever possible.

In their Casino License Application, Rush Street Gaming and the Galesi Group were required to submit detailed renderings and sketches of the proposed Casino project. For example, the July 2014 Application included an overview sketch with the detail at the right of their west parking lot, the largest ground-level parking area. [full sketch] There are well over 100 trees in the west parking lot in the submitted sketch. That presentation shows that the Applicants/Developer/Owners knew what a parking lot meant to attract and keep tourists and other customers should look like. If nothing else, the image should also have reminded the Planning Commission and planning staff what their goal should be regarding the landscaping and appearance of this prime location. Unfortunately, the public and perhaps also the Planning Commission never again saw such detailed proposals for the casino compound.

from 2nd Casino Design

The limited 2nd design images submitted for public review of the Casino compound did not include the full parking lot, but still seemed to have quite a few trees. [See the image to the left.] The third design submitted to the public only revealed a tiny part of the front and back of the Casino, giving no parking lot views. Of course, nothing prevented, and their duty demanded, that the Planning Commission require more detail and allow more public comment; more important, their duty demanded the construction of far more attractive parking lots, especially given how much of the total footprint of the Casino Compound and Mohawk Harbor they would consume.

The the next four images below show the actual west parking lot, with its mere handful of trees along the rows. Click on a photo for a larger version.

. .

. . photos taken, Nov. 4, 2018 [above] and May 4, 2019 [below] . .

. .

You have to wonder: “What happened to all those trees?” Indeed, the Minutes of the July 22, 2015 Commission Meeting, which included the Casino Site Plan Review, have Commission Member (now Chair) Mary Moore Wallinger noting (at 5):

[T]hat she very much appreciates the detailed planting plan and that she feels that the applicants listened to the feedback from the Commission regarding the landscaping and pedestrian walkways and took it into account when revising the design.

What could Ms. Wallinger, a leading Schenectady landscape architect and designer of major municipal projects in the City and County, have meant, if the result is a swarm of yellow bollards that would seem to be the antithesis of good landscaping and site planning at an “international tourist destination” and unique, new, upscale neighborhood? The beauty and shade added by robust and numerous trees in a parking lot are, of course, much appreciated by urban designers, and by passersby, drivers, and passengers coming from near and far.

BTW: I recall being in the Commission hearing room when, at one point in the process, Ms. Wallinger spent a lot of time worrying with the applicant over the size of the parking lot tree beds. Did she have any follow-up with the Planning Office staff on this issue?

Throughout the Casino design and site plan approval process, this website and local media complained that the public and the Planning Commission were receiving far fewer and far less specific details about how the casino site would look as proposed by the developers than we would expect in even the most insignificant project. We were shown only incomplete “peeks” at segments of the proposed plans, often with sketches and not complete renderings, and the Commission never demanded more, despite the importance of this project and its clear authority to require more. Instead, phony deadline pressure arguments from the Applicants were accepted without complaint, and last-minute incomplete submissions were accepted. For example, see the limited-view renderings submitted for the rear (river-side) of the Casino and its Hotel on the Right for the 2nd Rivers Casino Design, and immediately below for the 3rd design.

. . .

By the way, despite their prominence on the actual constructed site, there are no yellow bollards in sight in either version of the rear of the Casino complex.

How could this happen at a project hailed so often as Schenectady’s premiere new, upscale location, and hope for its future? The City’s Planning Commission purportedly gave the Casino and Mohawk Harbor a full Site Plan Review (see our disappointed coverage). Site Plan review is not merely meant to make sure that all zoning laws have been followed. As we explained during the Site Plan process for the Casino complex in July 2015:

“[T]he commission has the ability to evaluate the aesthetic visual impact of the project even if the plans satisfy zoning requirements.” [Gazette article citing Corporation Council Carl Falotico, Feb. 3, 2015.]

Also, see the section “What a site plan accomplishes” in the “BEGINNER’S GUIDE TO LAND USE LAW”, by the Land Use Law Center of Pace University School of Law, at 19.

- By the way, at the end of the July 22, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting, chair Sharron Coppola announced it would be her last meeting as chair, and that she would be resigning her position as Planning Commissioner. I certainly wish Ms. Coppola had written a Memoir of her time at the Commission, including the entire Harbor District zoning and Casino site planning experience.

POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS?

at OrthoNY Liberty Street

Some of the most imaginative people I know have not been able to figure out or conjure up a justification for the excessive and near-exclusive use of bright yellow bollards at Rivers Casino Schenectady. In addition, in none of my readings have I found any indication that bollards need to be bright yellow in order to effectively serve their functions. My inquiry to City Engineer Chris Wallin about requirements that bollards be yellow in certain situations never got a reply. (Of course, in a location where one might not expect to find the protected item, a bright color to signal its existence does make sense, but that issue does not seem to warrant the ubiquitous choice of bright yellow at Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor.)

A Schenectady Tradition? No, it isn’t, despite their use to protect utility cabinets at recent projects downtown. City Hall, County, civic and business leaders are surely aware that there are other kinds of affordable and more attractive bollards, or similar security measures or screens available. A short outing around Downtown Schenectady should suffice to prove that proposition; here’s the result of my recent bollard tour:

at S. Church & State St. . .

Also, the first tenant at Mohawk Harbor, Courtyard by Marriott Hotel, did a nice job looking like a tasteful place to stay, without using even one yellow bollard to protect the building and utility units. Here are a couple of sample views of the Hotel; for more, click on the Collage Thumbnail to the head of this paragraph.

. .

Unfortunately, Marriott’s example did not rub off across its driveway at Galesi’s Harborway Drive office-retail buildings.

A Rush Street Gaming Branding Tool or Trademark? And, No, bright yellow bollards are not a design theme uniting all Rush Street Gaming properties. The collage below (on L) has images compiled from an extensive on-line Google Street Map tour of the exterior of Rivers Casino at DesPlaines, Illinois, which has a design similar in many ways to Schenectady’s Rivers Casino, but without yellow bollards. Similarly, the collage on the Right shows exterior scenes from Rush Street’s Sugar House Casino in Philadelphia, where yellow bollards are also absent and do not appear to be a design element for exterior spaces. Similarly, Google Images we located of Rivers Casino Pittsburgh contain no yellow bollards.

Furthermore, Rush Street Gaming and their development partner Galesi Group used not-yellow bollards and non-bollard alternative devices in strategic spots at and near Rivers Casino. Click on this Collage:

. .

A few years ago, we documented at this website how much better Rush Street Gaming has treated the cities that host its other casinos or potential sites than how it treats Schenectady [see, e.g., Rush Street Giveaways, and Money on the Table]. So, it is not surprising that we have not been able to find similar aggregations of bright yellow (or even similarly unsubtle or unsightly) bollards at other Rush Street casinos.

at Waterfront Condominiums, Mohawk Harbor

Finally, Is Bright Yellow a Galesi Group Trademark or Branding Tool? Despite a minor outbreak of similar bollards at the Galesi-built and owned Price Chopper/Golub headquarters (example), there does not seem to be any internal imperative for yellow bollards within the Galesi Group. Indeed, we see a far more tasteful/tolerable (and less conspicuous) set of bollards at the eastern end of Mohawk Harbor, performing protection service for utility cabinets and similar objects at Galesi’s high-end Waterfront Condominiums [asking price, $500,000 to $700,000]. There’s not a yellow bollard in sight on site.

Like the westside of Mohawk Harbor, the eastside (between Harborside Drive and Erie Boulevard), sits on the banks of the Mohawk River, has a bike-pedestrian path running through it, and features ALCO Heritage signage sponsored by Schenectady County. Both ends of Mohawk Harbor sit within the City of Schenectady, with site plans reviewed by its Planning Commission. And, both ends were proudly godfathered/mid-wived by Ray Gillen of Metroplex. Why such a visually-different result?

. . Mohawk Harbor riverbank bollards protecting utility boxes: [above] at Rivers Casino; [below] at Waterfront Condominiums . .

Discount Bollards? Did a literal bargeful of yellow bollards or bollard covers show up at Mohawk Harbor or another Schenectady County location with great price breaks for buying them in bulk? What amount of savings could compensate for their lack of aesthetic virtue?
Peoples’ Choice? I know that taste can be very subjective, and that some “leaders” want to force constituents out of their confined preferences, but I believe that the great majority of Schenectady area residents, if asked the question directly with photos, would strongly prefer non-yellow bollards.

As with the failure of our Mayor to demand financial, employment, purchasing benefits, etc., in a host community agreement, it appears that our City Hall and its appointed Civil Snowmen neither demanded attractive landscaping and protective installations around the Casino, nor required that the developers fulfill any specific promise they may have made in the site plan process.

The collage to the Right gives a stark example of Galesi Group promises in a site plan meeting that were apparently later ignored by the developer and by any enforcement officials reviewing the execution of a Mohawk Harbor project. According to June 17, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, during review of the Site Plan for what would become the 220 Harborside Drive office and retail building, project engineer Dan Hershberg:

.

[E]xplained that because there is underground parking beneath the parking lot, landscaping option are more limited in this space.He stated that large planters are proposed for the islands in the parking lot, and that they will be cast in concrete on site and will be quite substantial in size. He added that they are proposing to add trees to the site wherever possible, but there are some spots where easements are located which will be planted with more seasonal, less permanent options. [emphasis added]

.

There are, as you can see in the collage above, no islands, no planters, and no trees. Who in our City government is responsible to follow-up on such matters?

Why is this Bargeful of Bollards Story Important? It is a prime, very visible example of The Snowman Effect: The inadequate protection of the public interest in Schenectady, due to the appointment and retention at City Hall by Mayor Gary McCarthy of subservient, ineffectual or disinterested public servants (with dismissal of those who do not cooperate), resulting in both rushed, superficial review of submissions from favored applicants, and lax follow-up and enforcement of City Code provisions and applicant promises. [as symbolically depicted here] It has meant, in the Casino Design and Yellow Bollards context, suffering a less attractive and less successful Rivers Casino in Schenectady, and in other contexts, such as the ALCO Bike-Pedestrian pathway, a less safe Mohawk Harbor for those who visit and use the facilities (see this and that).

For more on the Snowman Effect, see “McCarthy only wants snowmen on the Planning Commission“. For an explanation of the Snowmen Metaphor, see our posting “have we learned the lessons of the 1690 Schenectady Massacre?”; for examples, some of which are more subtle than others, check our postings in the Snowmen Effect Category.

The unspoken attitude of our Mayor and the Metroplex Chair seems to be that Schenectady is the old Mohawk term for “Second-Rate-City“. Consequently, they have failed to demand, or at the least strenuously bargain for, the best for our City from Rush Street Gaming and the Galesi Group. The result is a tremendous lost opportunity for Schenectady to truly shine and succeed at our only remaining riverbank land suitable for commercial development and public recreation. The bollard crop along the Mohawk also suggests that Schenectady’s Snowmen/women are not merely on the Boards that review projects, but also in the offices that are supposed to see that reviewed plans are implemented as approved or as promised by an applicant. The situation with readily visible aspects of Mohawk Harbor also makes us wonder what is going on with items that are not readily seen by the public (such as the “shoddy work” recently alleged at a Harborside Drive building).

Having beget a “bummer” crop of bright, yellow, too-tall* bollards, the same municipal officials now stand as mute as snowmen when Rivers Casino complains that it is losing business because of an unfair tax structure compared to its competitors, and seeks tax breaks that would cost the City hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in lost revenue. See “Rush Street must think we are all pretty stupid.”] Leaders and residents should instead point out that one very big reason Rivers Casino finds it hard to compete is that they have built a homely, mediocre, regional gambling facility, with the acquiescence and cooperation of City Hall and Metroplex, despite the promise to create an international tourist attraction for Schenectady.

Financial Realities. Rush Street does not have to meet its bloated projections for Rivers Casino in Schenectady to prosper on the Mohawk. Failing to attract visitors beyond a small geographic radius, Rivers Casino seems content to focus on: Seeking tax breaks; Slots (the most addictive form of casino gambling) as the focus of its gaming growth; Sports gambling (which might siphon off gambling dollars that are taxed at a much higher rate); and attracting Non-gambling spending at the Casino, which helps the bottomline of Rush Street and its associated enterprises, but reduces gaming tax revenue to the State, County and City, and hurts other local businesses. And, City Hall and The County Building seem content with this situation, continuing to call the Casino their Partner.
New Attitude Needed. Schenectady’s government leaders disarmed themselves when dealing with the Casino applicants, giving away leverage that could have assured many additional benefits for the City and County and its residents, like The Giveaways Rush Street has made or promised other prospective casino towns. They will have few if any comparable opportunities, now that the project design and the zoning changes demanded by the Applicants have been approved. Nevertheless, a new attitude that, at the very least, asserts the position of Senior Partner for local government can hopefully salvage a few benefits, avoid some disadvantages, and help restore some civic pride.

Continue reading →

Rush Street must think we are all pretty stupid

Posted on March 29, 2019 by David Giacalone

. . . or, don’t care about the facts or taxpayers

. . followup (January 27, 2021): The issue of reducing the gaming tax rate Rivers Casino must pay on slots revenue is back in the news and threatening Schenectady’s finances. See “Rivers Casino in Schenectady could benefit significantly from Cuomo proposals” Daily Gazette, John Cropley, Jan. 23, 2021). And see our posting, “why not give Rivers Casino a tax break?” (Jan. 27, 2021), along with a Jan. 30, 2021 Gazette Letter to the Editor by our proprietor.

The points made below are still very relevant.

. . prior update (June 19, 2019): They’re at it again; see “Not again, Mr. Steck!“

Rush Street Gaming’s billionaire CEO/Owner Neil Bluhm is back walking the halls of the New York State Legislature trying to get a tax break for their Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor. [See “Schenectady casino seeks lower tax rates: Tax credit floated as relief” (Albany Times Union, by David Lombardo, March 29, 2019); “Rivers Casino takes another crack at a tax cut: Schenectady facility says highest tax rate among New York casinos puts it at a disadvantage” (Schenectady Gazette, March 28, 2019)].

openpalmg They are again whining about the unfairness of the gaming tax structure, and have bolstered their specious arguments with a flood of misleading statements about their new competitor, MGM Springfield. They are also acting as if an Advertising Allowance tax credit is not a tax break. [follow-up (April 14, 2019): According to the Sunday Gazette, Rivers Casino just had its best month ever, but continues its whining and seeking tax breaks.]

Below is the slightly edited text of an email that I sent to members of the media this afternoon (Friday, March 29), in the hope that the press will dilute Mr. Bluhm’s Casino Chicanery with facts, and that our Legislators will care about the facts. It has been supplemented with arguments against the Marketing Allowance.

. . Left: MGM Springfield Tax Revenue Report . .

Email Message

Rush Street Gaming is again seeking tax cuts from Albany for its Schenectady Rivers Casino, using misleading information and half-truths, plus a boatful of whining.

Here are the facts:

When it applied for a casino license in July 2014, Rush Street Gaming knew:

The gaming revenue tax on a Capital Region casino, as stated in the 2013 enabling legislation, would be 45% on Slots and 10% on all other gaming revenue, with lower rates on slots in other Regions (that had less population density, fewer economic resources, and more competitors, i.e., racinos, Indian and Canadian casinos).

MGM Springfield had received its license in June 2013 and was planning to build a spectacular casino resort on a bend of the Connecticut River, in the historic and cultural center of Springfield.

The gaming tax in Massachusetts would be 25% on all casino gaming revenue proceeds (slots and table games).

There might be a second full casino in western Massachusetts (but that has not happened).

Rivers says that this unfair rate differential has lowered its Slots income, however:

In the six full months since MGM Springfield has been in operation (Sept. 2018 through February 2019), Slot GGR at Rivers Casino has increased 10.4% over the same months the prior year, from $46,090,049 to $50,902,095. Update: In both 2018 and 2019, the total increase at Rivers Casino in gaming revenue (slots/ETG, table games, and poker) over the prior year was in fact from Slots/ETG play. See Monthly Reports

Rivers says its unfair tax burden makes it impossible to fairly compete with MGM Springfield, and they need a slots tax rate below 40%, but:

From Sep 2018 through Feb. 2019, Rivers paid approx. $24 million in Gaming Tax, that equals a blended 34% gaming tax on its Total GGR. See Rivers Casino Monthly Financial Reports. While, from Sept. 2018 through Feb. 2019, MGM Springfield paid approximately $33 million in Gaming Tax, 25% of Total GGR. See MassGaming Revenue Report on MGM Springfield. HOWEVER,

Rush Street is not mentioning that, under its Host Community Agreement with Springfield:

MGM Resorts paid upfront and advance payments, totaling $15 million to the City of Springfield during the construction phase including pre-payment of taxes for general city purposes as well as:

$2.5 million to purchase equipment and to provide training for police, firefighters and emergency medical services personnel.

$1 million to redevelop Riverfront Park.

Once opening for business, MGM Springfield must make more than $25 million in annual payments to the City. This includes $17.6 million in lieu of tax payments as well as, among other things:

$2.5 million to fund operating and other costs for police, firefighters, emergency medical services and education.

$2.5 million for a Community Development Fund to be administered by the city to support early childhood education, higher education, libraries, health initiatives, and the betterment of the city and its residents.

And, another $50 million coming up: Just last week, MGM Springfield reported to the Mass. Gaming Commission that it intends to invest in the proposed $55 million redevelopment of the long-vacant Court Square hotel building in downtown Springfield as part of an obligation to build housing within one-half mile of its resort casino. See WAMC Report.

See the MassGaming 4-page Summary of Springfield HCA, for the amazing array of extra obligations MGM Springfield has undertaken while Rush Street just pays what it has to pay under the 2013 Legislation, refusing to enter a Host Community Agreement.

It should be clear that the Massachusetts gaming tax structure intentionally took into account the obligation of any casino applicant to negotiate an HCA or Mitigation Agreement with the host municipality, with its consequent large financial obligations over and above the State gaming revenue tax.

.

RIVERS CASINO never entered into an HCA with the City of Schenectady, as Mayor Gary McCarthy refused to negotiate for one, as did Metroplex Chair Ray Gillen. It paid no upfront money during construction, and no economic development funds for the community. (see our posting “answering Mayor McCarthy on HCAs“, June 28, 2015)

NYS Assemblyman J. Gary Pretlow (Dem., Mt Vernon), the Chair of the Assembly Standing Committee on Racing and Wagering, has been insisting that Rivers Casino offered to pay an “exorbitant” amount over the mandated gambling revenue tax, and should now be given a break. However, Rivers pays exactly the amount called for in the 2013 Legislation, under which it would have to pay more if it had offered to do so as part of its Application. Instead, The Report and Findings of the New York Gaming Facility Location Board (Feb. 27, 2015, at 261) specifically states in the section captioned “Maximizing revenues received by the state and localities. (§ 1320(1)(b))”, that: “Rivers does not propose a supplemental tax payment or increased license fee.“

Mr. Pretlow may be confusing Rush Street’s generous offering in its failed application for a gaming license at Beacon NY, with its parsimonious approach to Schenectady.

. . .

above: the $960 million MGM Springfield Casino Resort; below: the $340 million Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor (front entrance on R, rear and hotel on L)

. .

WHY DO PEOPLE TAKE BUSES TO MGM Springfield?

MRM Resorts spent $960 million to build a spectacular, true destination casino, in a bustling, interesting neighborhood

Rush Street, after bragging that it builds spectacular international destinations in its Applications, spent merely $320 million at Mohawk Harbor, and has produced, at best, a homely, mediocre regional casino, which targets and predominantly attracts local residents and perhaps those living within a 60-mile radius

By failing to insist on a true destination casino, Schenectady’s Mayor, City Council majority and Planning Commission, and the County’s Metroplex and Legislature, condemned our City to a mediocre Casino that will be constantly failing to meet its bloated projections and wanting tax breaks. See, e.g., our posting “casino choices in Upstate New York: who will choose Schenectady?” (January 19, 2017)

Exactly a year ago, we were in the same situation, waiting to see if the rush to the Legislative Budget Deadline (April 1), would bring with it a budget that included casino tax breaks. See “bum’s rush needed” (March 28, 2018). We were pleased at the time that Gov. Andrew Cuomo did not favor casino tax breaks. Also, the Gazette Editorial Board wrote a piece entitled “Editorial: No state financial deals for casinos” In addition, on Sunday March 30, 2018, the Times Union editorial board weighed in with “Editorial: Say no to casino subsidies“, which included the nifty illustration by Jeff Boyer that is at the head of this paragraph.

Follow-up (January 17, 2020): The results at Rivers Casino for calendar year 2019 help demonstrate why the Capital Region casino has a higher Slots gaming tax rate (45%) than the commercial casinos in other regions (38%). See the Albany Times Union article “Rivers best-performing of NY’s original Vegas-style casinos: Schenectady venue up 11 percent compared with 2018″ (by Lauren Stanforth, Dec. 25, 2019), which reports that: “Rivers Casino and Resort continues to outperform among the state’s three original commercial gaming facilities — growing the most in percentage of overall revenue compared with last year.” And,

Tioga Downs owner Jeff Gural said he always assumed Rivers would be the most successful of the four facilities because it is the only one located near an urban center.

“You just have to look at the population and the type of people,” said Gural, a New York real estate magnate who also owns the Meadowlands Racetrack in New Jersey. “With sports betting trends, they’re probably getting a lot of college kids. … Del Lago is in the middle of nowhere; Monticello (Resorts World) is in the middle of nowhere. Without a question the best location in New York is Rivers.”

The article notes that, of course: “Despite the favorable revenue uptick, Rivers had lobbyists at the Capitol earlier this year trying to sway state legislators to provide tax or other relief in the face of what it describes as competition coming from MGM Springfield two hours to the east.” We have consistently pointed out that the higher rate was used in the Capital Region because of its higher population density and greater wealth. Casinos get most of their business from within a 30 to 40-mile radius. It is pretty clear that Rivers Casino does not “out-perform” the other commercial NYS casinos on the metric of “revenue per capita” within their respective core focus areas; it gets more gaming dollars because so many more people live in the Capital Region.

Phil Steck at Rivers Casino

Marketing Allowance? For some reason, we are supposed to believe that a Marketing Allowance is not a tax break, although it would reduce River Casino’s gaming tax burden by 10% of the Casino’s marketing expenses. Last year, we noted on this topic that: “In the TU article “Casino seeks state help in marketing” (Sept. 29, 2018), Assemblyman Phil Steck is far from elegant defending Rivers Casino request for a 10% marketing allowance reduction in its gaming tax obligations to the State”:

“It’s not saying, ‘State, come in and give us money’; it’s saying, ‘We believe we need to expand the market for our product, we need an allowance for marketing,’ and I think that’s a reasonable position for a business to take,” said Steck, a Democratic lawmaker from Colonie, of the request by the Schenectady casino, which is located on the former Alco site on Erie Boulevard.

“What they’re saying is, ‘If we spend 10 cents on marketing instead of giving you 100 cents on that dollar, we’re going to give you 90 cents,’ and that makes a lot of sense because if the total amount of revenue expands as a result of their marketing effort, the state’s going to make more money anyway and so will the city,” Steck said.

Assemblyman Steck apparently still supports such a Marketing Allowance, if it brings in more revenue, but does not demonstrate how that would happen. As I noted last year in correspondence with Mr. Steck, Rivers Casino already does a lot of advertising and marketing (a rather basic expense for doing business in a capitalist market), and if doing more would increase its revenue in any way, it would be doing just that. Moreover:

Much of Rivers’ marketing appears to be aimed at bringing in non-gambling customers to the Casino complex and Mohawk Harbor. That business (drinking, dining, conventions, fight shows, concerts) does not add to Rivers’ gaming tax obligations (45% on slots, 10% on table games and poker). Instead, it merely increases profits for the Casino and its business associates, and generates the much lower taxes based on food and similar sales taxes (often “cannibalizing” the business of other local businesses).
Rivers Casino is already a major beneficiary of the County’s Tourism Bureau and Discovery Schenectady programs for gaming and convention programs.
Mohawk Harbor was allowed to put a giant shopping-mall style 30′ high by 18′ wide pylon sign, that looms over Erie Blvd. at a location that normally would permit only a 7′ high sign under our Zoning Code. The Harbor said it needed a sign with lots of space for its commercial tenants to advertise (and the sign has always had far more planks spaces that advertising tenants)l In permitting the sign, after literal begging for the favor by Metroplex Chair Ray Gillen, the Board of Zoning Appeals reversed a decision it had made just weeks before. The pylon sign contains a large LCD screen that changes message every 8 seconds; safety-conscious cities and planners discourage such distractions so close to a busy intersection. Isn’t this quite enough favoritism at the expense of the public interest for Mohawk Harbor and its Casino tenant?
1. All the pressure on the Planning and Zoning Appeals board for a sign with space for many tenants, ironically compromised those Boards for no good reason. Long after the sign was erected, Mohawk Harbor has virtually no retail and the sign is predominately made up of blank spaces.

Phil Steck balked when I called him “the Assemblyman from Mohawk Harbor” last year. But, I cannot imagine the normally-thoughtful Mr. Steck offering even his current conditional support for the Marketing Allowance, were Mohawk Harbor not in his Assembly District.

. . share this post with this URL: http://tinyurl.com/WhiningRivers

. . many locals believe this northeast Harbor Way entrance to Rivers Casino, with its utility bollards, parking garage, and Hotel, is the more attractive (and far less tacky) view of the Casino . .

Ignored – the rules, the plans, the public, and safety

Posted on November 13, 2018 by David Giacalone

At tonight’s Schenectady City Council meeting, Nov. 13, I hope (despite the unrealistic 3-minute rule) to present and explain the issues depicted in collages posted below. The first topic is related to the Agenda Item regarding approval of a Schenectady PRIDE art installation at Gateway/Liberty Park. Schenectady needs an established procedure to ensure adequate public input and post-approval monitoring of plans for proposals regarding important public spaces and art. The second will be a Privilege of the Floor statement regarding important safety issues created along the Mohawk Harbor’s shared use path by the failure to follow rules, plans, and best practices when installing a guardrail on the riverside and a set of interpretive signs on the Casino side.

. . share this post with this short URL: https://tinyurl.com/IgnoredPlans

Click on an image for a larger version.

FIRST: “PLANS CHANGE”. For fuller discussion of the question of how [or how not] to include the public in the selection of public art and in the design and implementation of plans for important projects and locations, see:

“pillar-ied at the Plaza” (October 31, 2018)
“Lady Liberty is Timeless” (March 26, 2018); and “Wallinger’s excuses for exiling Lady Liberty” (May 20, 2019)

. .

follow-up (November 24, 2018): The Daily Gazette reports “Stockade Association board asks for more public input on projects: The board detailed this in a letter given to the mayor and city council members” (by Andrew Beam, Nov. 23, 2018). Commentary can be found at the end of this posting.

SECOND: The bike-pedestrian Trail at Mohawk Harbor is far less safe than it readily could have been because of a failure to follow rules, plans, and best practices when installing a guardrail on the riverside and a set of interpretive signs on the Casino side. For comprehensive discussion of ALCO Heritage or Mohawk Harbor Trail safety issues, with excerpts from and links to relevant rules and studies, and with many more photos, etc., see:

“Who botched placement of the ALCO Trail Signs” (Nov. 8, 2018)
“Poorly planned safety railing erected along Mohawk Harbor trail” (Oct. 15, 2018)

update (Nov. 24, 2018): As stated above, the Gazette published an article today by Andrew Beam headlined “Stockade Association board asks for more public input on projects” (Nov. 23, 2018). In a lengthy comment left at the article’s online webpage, I made several points, including:

Continue reading →

still waiting for Lady Liberty

Posted on July 7, 2018 by David Giacalone

. .

update (July 9): Still no Lady . .

Lady Liberty is indeed timeless. But, Schenectady should not have to wait even one more week for Mayor Gary McCarthy to relent on the strange and belated notion of installing our replica Liberty statue somewhere other than her home in Liberty Park, once construction and expansion of the Park into “Gateway Plaza” was completed. That return was the only alternative for Lady Liberty in the Final Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan, which was created in 2012 and approved in August 2013 (Resolution No. 2013-206). Nevertheless, years later and behind the scene, Gateway Plaza designer Mary Wallinger somehow got the Mayor and Metroplex Chair Ray Gillen to agree to ignore the official Plan and instead to exile Lady Liberty.

Why? Because Ms. Wallinger (who is also Chair of the City Planning Commission) now insists Lady Liberty is not “modern” enough for her current vision of the Plaza as a symbol of Schenectady. She and the Mayor also lured the good folks of Goose Hill into asking to place Lady Liberty in a Veterans’ Memorial in Steinmetz Park, creating totally unnecessary civic turmoil. [for a fuller explanation of the Decision Disruption Process, see this post.]

OUR POSITION: Lady Liberty should be immediately returned from its storage-during-construction to Her original home, Liberty Park (a/k/a Gateway Plaza), and McCarthy and Wallinger should apologize to the people of Goose Hill for offering them a treasure that was not available for relocation.

The Mayor says he has not made his decision yet about where the Statue will be installed. But, there should be no new decision to make. The Decision was made in 2013, in the publicly supported and officially approved Final Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan. All the Mayor need do now is say that, after full consideration, he fully endorses the Original Decision for returning Lady Liberty after the new Plaza is completed, as there is no safety or fiscal reason, and no other justification, to change a Final Plan.

. .

Above is a detail [L] from an Implementation Plan rendering [R], which shows the designated spot for the replica’s return, along State Street, next to the CDTA bus shelter, only yards away from, and more visible than, the Lady’s original location.

Nonetheless, neither a batch of Letters to the Editor since mid-March nor a Gazette Editorial in April supporting the return of the Lady to Liberty Park, has produced Her popular, commonsense, and Plan-promised return. Nor has the coming of Spring and now even Summer, which should make frozen ground excuses a moot issue. Not even a plea in the Gazette last week from Schenectady County’s “Mr. Veteran”, James A. Wilson, did the trick. (“Return Lady Liberty on July 4th” June 27, 2018):

There will not be a better time than to have the famous “Lady Liberty,” or the Statue of Liberty replica, put back in her rightful home in Liberty (Gateway) Park in Schenectady. It’s still the center part of the city for beauty and visibility to all residents and the statue was there for over 50 years.

Put the statue back on the 4th of July.

As of today, July 7, 2018, almost a full year after the Liberty Replica was removed to protect her from construction, Lady Liberty is apparently still in a municipal storage facility. So, what will it take for the Mayor to step up and Do the Right Thing (or, passively, Not Do the Wrong Thing)? Yes, he has been busy making our City smart, but this is not a complicated decision. It is late, but not too, late for Gary McCarthy to be the Lady’s Champion.

. . . LadyLibertySpot25Jun1

Above: At the end of June, for the first time, the designated spot for the return of Lady Liberty had substantial plantings (several small trees; photo on Right). When asked about the new trees, Mayor McCarthy told Gazette reporter Andrew Beam that he had not known of the planting. Those trees can and should be replanted, to honor the planning process, the City’s promises, and Lady Liberty’s importance in the past, present and future of Schenectady.

the Lady and the Mayor and the Council

Posted on March 14, 2018 by David Giacalone

follow-up (March 26, 2018): see “Lady Liberty is Timeless“, where you can find a summary of the facts and issues, with important links and images, in the controversy over the failure to return Lady Liberty to Liberty Park.

At Monday’s Schenectady City Council meeting (March 12, 2018), the issue of Bringing Lady Liberty Home was the subject of my “privilege of the floor” comments to the Council and Mayor. The collage at the right of this paragraph is the handout that I gave to our elected representatives, to remind them that the Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan they approved in 2013 (Resolution No. 2013-206) clearly included the return of the Statue of Liberty replica to her home at Gateway Plaza. There are no safety or financial reasons to alter that Plan. I basically told the Council: This is easy for you: Ask the Mayor to implement the Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan as written — that is, with Lady Liberty brought back home. [For a full discussion of the issues, process, etc., see our prior post, “Bring Lady Liberty Home“, which has links to relevant documents and lots of photos; and see the actual Implementation Plan, the Final Report of the City of Schenectady Gateway Plaza.]

In the past, Schenectady Mayors have used experts — consultant engineers or Corporation Counsel (their in-house mouthpiece) — to justify going back on pledges to preserve parts of Schenectady’s history. Monday evening, Gary McCarthy repeated his refrain that “no final decision has been made yet”, but then added that the Gateway Plaza “design team” recommended not returning the Liberty Statue replica to Liberty/Gateway Plaza. Later that night, I wrote to the members of the Counsel to remind them:

“The ironic thing about the Design Team excuse is that Mary Moore Wallinger, with her LAndArt Studio, has been the primary designer throughout this entire process; was author of the Implementation Plan; and is responsible for construction documents and construction administration. In 2012-2013, Mary never wavered, but showed Lady Liberty back at Gateway Plaza after construction, in every alternative presented to the Steering Committee, Public Design Workshops, and City Council.” [and, in both a photo and the design sketch on the cover of the Plan; see detail to the left, with a blue asterisk placed above Liberty’s planned relocation.]

. .

. . click on thumbnails above for collages of [L] Lady Liberty in 2016; [R] Gateway Plaza, March 2018 . .

The Lady Fits. When did the “design team” change its/her mind and start saying that Lady Liberty is too small to fit in, and is not contemporary enough to fit in, at Gateway Plaza? The following rendering of the proposed (and later adopted) view of the Plaza as seen from Washington Avenue and State Street shows, in my opinion, that Lady Liberty fits in well, giving us continuity with our history and a continuing message of welcome that is most relevant to our present and future. (click on the image for a larger version)

birdseye view (marked with blue asterisk) . .

. . Not Too Small . .

The 100-inch-tall replica of the Statue of Liberty, sitting atop its base, is neither inadequate as a statue or sculpture, nor obtrusive in style, so as to somehow mar or overcome the “contemporary” feel now being stressed by Ms. Wallinger. The Implementation Plan she authored in 2012 and promoted to City Council in 2013, declared that Gateway Plaza is meant to “celebrate the City’s past, present and future.” Our Statue of Liberty does that in a timeless style and dauntless spirit — a spirit of welcome and inclusion that more than ever needs to be highlighted, and a spirit of freedom that is always fresh and yet always needs to be renewed.

A few salient points:

Riggi. At the March 13 City Council meeting, Councilman Vince Riggi (Ind.) pointed out the appropriateness of having Lady Liberty in a Gateway welcoming people to Schenectady, just as the original Statue of Liberty has welcomed tens of millions from its perch in New York Harbor. The National Parks webpage on the Statue of Liberty states: “The symbol of American freedom and opportunity, Lady Liberty has long been a beacon to those seeking refuge on our shores.” Riggi also reminded the Council that he was assured that the Statue would be returned to her original home after construction just seven months ago, by the City’s Commissioner of Operations.

History. Lady Liberty would be the only vertical (above-ground) element in the Plaza Plan that refers to Schenectady’s history. The two historic markers [out of seven] that have been salvaged and returned to the Park are recessed in the sidewalk, hard to find and difficult to read. (see the greenish marker in the photo to the left) And, the “Historic Railroad Pedestrian Way” included along the east side of the Plaza refers to an “underground railway” of short duration that may be little-known because of its historical insignificance, and is to most residents a minor curiosity.
Porterfield: At the Council Meeting on March 12, Council member Marion Porterfield stated the City should listen to those who live near the Park/Plaza, and noted that she has seen nothing indicating that the Mayor had changed the Plan regarding Lady Liberty; she also pointed out that this is not a matter of favoring one neighborhood over another. [Ed. note: Last year, when City Council voted to alienate a piece of Riverside Park for use as a pumping station, it “substituted” land at Gateway Plaza, tying the Stockade even closer to that new Park.]
Gillen: Has the Mayor made a final decision? On February 26, 2018, Ray Gillen, Chair Metroplex, wrote in response to an email asking about the markers and monuments that had been in Liberty Park that, “The Statue of Liberty is being relocated by the City and will likely be located in a another City park in the spring.” The finality of that statement should be a reminder that those opposed to the exile of Lady Liberty must speak out now and loudly.

My message to the Council on Monday is not a new one: Your Resolutions need to be implemented and the Council needs to fulfill its oversight role to see that the Executive Branch of City government follows the policies made by the Council.

Sunshine Week. As the Gazette‘s opinion page editor, Mark Mahoney, has been reminding us, we are currently celebrating Sunshine Week. We need open government and the people need to know that they have access to information that will shed light on the workings of their government and leaders. When thinking about the importance of following through on the treatment of Lady Liberty in the Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan, I hope our Council members and our Mayor, along with the Plaza design team, will ask themselves “What good are sunshine laws and policy if an open design process, with community input and support, and approval by City Council, can be undone secretly a few years later by the Mayor, just before an Implementation Plan is completed?”

Raise Your Voice. So, please, if you agree that Lady Liberty belongs back home at Gateway/Liberty Plaza, let Mayor McCarthy and the entire City Council know you have neither seen nor heard anything that justifies not following through on the original, adopted Implementation Plan, which made so much sense and was fully supported at the Public Workshops. The Mayor and Designer Mary Wallinger have misled the good folks who support a Veterans’ Memorial at Steinmetz Park, by acting as if Lady Liberty’s future in Schenectady had not yet been decided; they need to come up with a suitable alternative at Steinmetz Park for the values and history represented by Lady Liberty.

Mayor Gary McCarthy – gmccarthy@schenectadyny.gov
Ed Kosiur – ekosiur@schenectadyny.gov, City Council President
John Polimeni – jpolimeni@schenectadyny.gov,
Leesa Perazzo – lperazzo@schenectadyny.gov, who sponsored the 2013 Resolution adopting the Implementation Plan
Karen Zalewski-Wildzunas – kZalewskiWildzunas@schenectadyny.gov, chair of the Council Planning and Development Committee
John Mootooveren – jmootooveren@schenectadyny.gov, Chair of the Council’s Health and Recreation Committee
Marion Porterfield – mporterfield@schenectadyny.gov,
Vincent Riggi – vriggi@schenectadyny.gov

. . share this post with the short URL: https://tinyurl.com/LadyMayorCouncil . .

follow-up (March 21, 2018): Yesterday afternoon, at the Library of the Schenectady County Historical Society, I found a few items in the Schenectady Gazette I want to share:

In his Tales of Old Dorp column (April 22, 1986), historian Gary Hart wrote: Larry Hart wrote in his Gazette column in 1986: “By the way, the green triangle was named Liberty Park after the monument.” (emphasis added) This really is Her Park.
At the time the final Plan was being put together an article headlined “Schenectady’s Liberty Park seen as gateway, college area,” (Bethany Bump, June 13, 2012, B3) reported:

“Residents, on the other hand, expressed a strong desire to keep the park’s identity in line with its name: Liberty.

“The Lady Liberty replica that has sat on its pedestal in the park for 62 years would still remain. But it would likely move closer to the State Street border.”
And, in an article titled “Passing the Torch” (by Jeff Wilkin, Oct. 27, 2002), I learned that Schenectady Boy Scouts and area Veterans’ groups held annual rededication ceremonies at Lady Liberty in October for decades. A National Boy Scout of American leader is quoted saying that very few cities hold rededication ceremonies and he was very pleased with Schenectady’s efforts. A primary organizer of the events noted that they were held to help commemorate Schenectady’s immigrants, whose first sight of America so often was of the original Lady Liberty in New York Harbor.

	Respecting Lady Libe… on Letters for the Lady (with…
	Gerald F. Plante on Schenectady DRI should fine-tu…
	David Giacalone on Schenectady DRI should fine-tu…
	Gerald Plante on Schenectady DRI should fine-tu…

snowmen at the gates

. . . . . . . . . watching Schenectady's sleepy watchdogs

Tag Archives: Mayor Gary McCarthy

beware litter bins with ads

Gateway Plaza gets the wrong sculpture (updated)

Look what we found in the Gateway Plaza Plan, Mr. Koldin!

Respecting Lady Liberty (with updates)

our stepchild Statue of Liberty

Will civic pride save schenectady’s Liberty replica?

Mayor McCarthy also dissed the Boy Scouts

Council, do your Smart City Homework

break up McCarthy’s Council Clique

it is not growing on us

bad reviews for “Our Lady of the Scary Underpass”

McCarthy disses Lady Liberty (and all of us) again

a bargeful of yellow bollards on the Mohawk

Rush Street must think we are all pretty stupid

Ignored – the rules, the plans, the public, and safety

still waiting for Lady Liberty

the Lady and the Mayor and the Council