Comments on: If We Want Professionals, Why Won’t We Pay Professionally? http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/ Blog and discussion forum for residents of Trumansburg and Ulysses, New York Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:54:04 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Bill Chaisson http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/comment-page-1/#comment-10422 Bill Chaisson Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:29:54 +0000 http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/#comment-10422 This discussion of the Main Street Project seems to conflate the planning stage of it with the construction phase of it. Two different animals. It is my understanding that the merchants were upset with the construction phase. I don't think anyone will deny that, in spite of the best efforts of Andres Perez-Charneco, there was a failure to communicate. Most of the blame must go to NYSEG, the DOT and Mother Nature. The original plan was to do the sidewalks on the northside and then the sidewalks on the south side, so that the road would essentially be shifted one lane over (using the parking spots as a lane). This would have been less confusing and less intimidating to people trying to use the businesses. Best intentions fell apart when NYSEG delayed the start of their work and then decided to do more than they had originally announced. The DOT dilly-dallied a while before letting Economy trench Main at Washington instead of drilling under it. They also reversed themselves on the sanctity of the guardrail near the redbud tree. The weather was the final monkey wrench in the works. Communications among the Economy Paving supervisor, his subcontractors, the Main Street Project advisory committee members, the liaison to the village and the community liaison were not good. It was therefore difficult for the merchants to get good information. Frankly, I didn't have a lot of sympathy for the complaining consumers. There hasn't been a major construction project on Main Street since 1962 when they moved Rt. 96 from "Old Main Street" to have it go around the hill on the new "Main Street" (formerly Hector Street). This lack of experience with construction showed in the generally freaked response. This discussion of the Main Street Project seems to conflate the planning stage of it with the construction phase of it. Two different animals.

It is my understanding that the merchants were upset with the construction phase. I don’t think anyone will deny that, in spite of the best efforts of Andres Perez-Charneco, there was a failure to communicate.

Most of the blame must go to NYSEG, the DOT and Mother Nature. The original plan was to do the sidewalks on the northside and then the sidewalks on the south side, so that the road would essentially be shifted one lane over (using the parking spots as a lane).

This would have been less confusing and less intimidating to people trying to use the businesses. Best intentions fell apart when NYSEG delayed the start of their work and then decided to do more than they had originally announced. The DOT dilly-dallied a while before letting Economy trench Main at Washington instead of drilling under it. They also reversed themselves on the sanctity of the guardrail near the redbud tree. The weather was the final monkey wrench in the works.

Communications among the Economy Paving supervisor, his subcontractors, the Main Street Project advisory committee members, the liaison to the village and the community liaison were not good. It was therefore difficult for the merchants to get good information.

Frankly, I didn’t have a lot of sympathy for the complaining consumers. There hasn’t been a major construction project on Main Street since 1962 when they moved Rt. 96 from “Old Main Street” to have it go around the hill on the new “Main Street” (formerly Hector Street). This lack of experience with construction showed in the generally freaked response.

]]> By: x http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/comment-page-1/#comment-10349 x Fri, 06 Apr 2007 13:20:11 +0000 http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/#comment-10349 Jonathan, I will let you have the last word but that doesn't mean that you're right. It just means that you have more time to type stuff into this thing. Jonathan, I will let you have the last word but that doesn’t mean that you’re right. It just means that you have more time to type stuff into this thing.

]]> By: Mary Bouchard http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/comment-page-1/#comment-9968 Mary Bouchard Wed, 04 Apr 2007 01:06:30 +0000 http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/#comment-9968 Richard, like you, I think the Village bent over backwards with the Main St. Project to get the input of the residents. It's interesting to hear how some business owners felt they were not listened to, or communicated with. Let me put out two little anecdotes that may help shed some light on this topic. Originally, the Main St. Project (MSP) design eliminated the island in front of Ron Don's. Business owners said, "But people use it all the time to turn around!" Skip Davis, the owner of the laundromat, then set up a camera which recorded, over a series of days, how many times cars heading west used that island to turn around and head in the other direction. I don't remember the number, but it was indeed a lot. So the island was put back in the design. The Village Board, and the MSP Advisory Committee most definitely did listen. (Skip was very also a smart guy to document his objection. That really does help the decision-makers in their decisions.) Now, once construction started, the MSP had these weekly early morning Q&A sessions to which the public was invited, including business owners. Here's a quote from Andres' MSP Blog, on the village web site, explaining what these sessions were: "The MSP is happy to announce our first "Morning on Main Street" meeting scheduled for Tuesday August 8th at 8am on the Village Office porch. These meetings will continue throughout the month of August, every Tuesday at the same time and place. If there is public interest then the MSP will continue these meetings for the duration of the project, but in the meantime make sure to mark your calendar for August 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th. "These short (30 minutes to an hour) meetings will let members of the Trumansburg community and commuters along 96 North the chance to stop by and chat with members of the MSP, Village, and Economy Paving. There will, hopefully, be complimentary coffee and doughnuts at the meeting to energize folks! Hope to see you there!" Hardly anybody came. I think over the course of the summer, maybe 5 or 6 people total. No business owners, although I believe that the liquor store owner's mom was there once. So without factual knowledge of any events to the contrary, it's kind of hard to believe that "they didn't listen to us!" If people are not doing things right, it is far MORE helpful to specifically point to how things went wrong instead of just repeating the mantra "they don't listen to us!" That just doesn't advance things, and in fact, contributes to a more polarized environment. And I think we can agree that at this point we really don't need that. Richard, like you, I think the Village bent over backwards with the Main St. Project to get the input of the residents. It’s interesting to hear how some business owners felt they were not listened to, or communicated with. Let me put out two little anecdotes that may help shed some light on this topic.
Originally, the Main St. Project (MSP) design eliminated the island in front of Ron Don’s. Business owners said, “But people use it all the time to turn around!” Skip Davis, the owner of the laundromat, then set up a camera which recorded, over a series of days, how many times cars heading west used that island to turn around and head in the other direction. I don’t remember the number, but it was indeed a lot. So the island was put back in the design. The Village Board, and the MSP Advisory Committee most definitely did listen. (Skip was very also a smart guy to document his objection. That really does help the decision-makers in their decisions.)
Now, once construction started, the MSP had these weekly early morning Q&A sessions to which the public was invited, including business owners. Here’s a quote from Andres’ MSP Blog, on the village web site, explaining what these sessions were:
“The MSP is happy to announce our first “Morning on Main Street” meeting scheduled for Tuesday August 8th at 8am on the Village Office porch. These meetings will continue throughout the month of August, every Tuesday at the same time and place. If there is public interest then the MSP will continue these meetings for the duration of the project, but in the meantime make sure to mark your calendar for August 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th.
“These short (30 minutes to an hour) meetings will let members of the Trumansburg community and commuters along 96 North the chance to stop by and chat with members of the MSP, Village, and Economy Paving. There will, hopefully, be complimentary coffee and doughnuts at the meeting to energize folks! Hope to see you there!”
Hardly anybody came. I think over the course of the summer, maybe 5 or 6 people total. No business owners, although I believe that the liquor store owner’s mom was there once.
So without factual knowledge of any events to the contrary, it’s kind of hard to believe that “they didn’t listen to us!” If people are not doing things right, it is far MORE helpful to specifically point to how things went wrong instead of just repeating the mantra “they don’t listen to us!” That just doesn’t advance things, and in fact, contributes to a more polarized environment. And I think we can agree that at this point we really don’t need that.

]]> By: richard http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/comment-page-1/#comment-9946 richard Tue, 03 Apr 2007 20:32:22 +0000 http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/#comment-9946 Here's what you said: "During the Main Street project, many of them felt their concerns weren’t being addressed. Many had a major loss of business. They were seeking someone who would communicate. It will be a sad day in this town when a businessman or woman cannot stand up in a board meeting and say something fearing they would lose business. If anything our business’s need to be valued here. We should care if they have concerns." Who are the "they" you are referring to, and how is it that they could have missed the incredible number of ways that were available to them to communicate about and give feedback on the project? You say you didn't say anything against it. So, are you/were you for it? What's your position? Mine is that it was/is a strong show of support by the community for our local businesses, whose advise and input was sought at every juncture. Here’s what you said: “During the Main Street project, many of them felt their concerns weren’t being addressed. Many had a major loss of business. They were seeking someone who would communicate. It will be a sad day in this town when a businessman or woman cannot stand up in a board meeting and say something fearing they would lose business. If anything our business’s need to be valued here. We should care if they have concerns.”

Who are the “they” you are referring to, and how is it that they could have missed the incredible number of ways that were available to them to communicate about and give feedback on the project?

You say you didn’t say anything against it. So, are you/were you for it? What’s your position? Mine is that it was/is a strong show of support by the community for our local businesses, whose advise and input was sought at every juncture.

]]> By: Marcia Horn http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/comment-page-1/#comment-9936 Marcia Horn Tue, 03 Apr 2007 18:30:24 +0000 http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/#comment-9936 Dear Richard, You don't have to defend the main street project to me. Im scrolling up and no where did I say anything against it. I said there were some issues during the course of the project. " A communication issue that could only have exsited in the minds of people who weren't willing to listen anyway." Quite a judgement. I'm sorry, I hadn't realized you had talked with them. Dear Richard,
You don’t have to defend the main street project to me. Im scrolling up and no where did I say anything against it. I said there were some issues during the course of the project. ” A communication issue that could only have exsited in the minds of people who weren’t willing to listen anyway.”
Quite a judgement.
I’m sorry, I hadn’t realized you had talked with them.

]]> By: richard http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/comment-page-1/#comment-9918 richard Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:59:59 +0000 http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/#comment-9918 When the community decides to invest in necessary infrastructure improvements, those improvements by definition have short term impacts on everyone. Did the heavy construction phase of the Main Street project affect the community? Absolutely. Were there inconveniences? Definitely. Were the businesses along Rt. 96 adversely affected? Some say yes, and I have no reason to doubt them. But, these impacts should not have come as a surprise to anyone. I've never seen as much communication with the community as there was in connection with the Main Street project (and for the record, I had no involvement in it). If someone wasn't heard, or didn't know what was going to happen, then they had to have been completely unconscious. There were multiple community information sessions, a weekly column in the paper, weekly walk-abouts, displays of the various design drawings, meetings with the contractor -- an extraordinary degree of communication and opportunities for feedback (compare this, for example, with the amount of communication and input sought by Town Supervisor Austic in connection with his covert and unilateral WD5). My sense was that while some of the business owners who were directly affected were not happy about the short-term effects of the Main Street project, many were savvy enough to realize that the community's large investment in infrastructure would allow them to reap significant long-term benefits for their businesses. Attractive store-fronts, walkable sidewalks, some actual landscaping, places to sit and talk, and a central intersection where yahoos can no longer make unsafe and illegal u-turns in the middle of a state highway, are unquestionably going to help existing businesses and will be more likely to attract the kinds of new businesses people seem to want in the Village. I think our newly-appointed Trustee should give a lot of credit to the community for making such an important long-term investment in our Village businesses, rather than issuing a back-handed slap about a communication issue that could only have existed in the minds of people who weren't willing to listen anyway. When the community decides to invest in necessary infrastructure improvements, those improvements by definition have short term impacts on everyone. Did the heavy construction phase of the Main Street project affect the community? Absolutely. Were there inconveniences? Definitely. Were the businesses along Rt. 96 adversely affected? Some say yes, and I have no reason to doubt them. But, these impacts should not have come as a surprise to anyone. I’ve never seen as much communication with the community as there was in connection with the Main Street project (and for the record, I had no involvement in it). If someone wasn’t heard, or didn’t know what was going to happen, then they had to have been completely unconscious. There were multiple community information sessions, a weekly column in the paper, weekly walk-abouts, displays of the various design drawings, meetings with the contractor — an extraordinary degree of communication and opportunities for feedback (compare this, for example, with the amount of communication and input sought by Town Supervisor Austic in connection with his covert and unilateral WD5). My sense was that while some of the business owners who were directly affected were not happy about the short-term effects of the Main Street project, many were savvy enough to realize that the community’s large investment in infrastructure would allow them to reap significant long-term benefits for their businesses. Attractive store-fronts, walkable sidewalks, some actual landscaping, places to sit and talk, and a central intersection where yahoos can no longer make unsafe and illegal u-turns in the middle of a state highway, are unquestionably going to help existing businesses and will be more likely to attract the kinds of new businesses people seem to want in the Village. I think our newly-appointed Trustee should give a lot of credit to the community for making such an important long-term investment in our Village businesses, rather than issuing a back-handed slap about a communication issue that could only have existed in the minds of people who weren’t willing to listen anyway.

]]> By: Marcia Horn http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/comment-page-1/#comment-9855 Marcia Horn Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:55:34 +0000 http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/#comment-9855 Dear Matthew, I am the appointed trustee you speak of. I did support Rordan Hart in the election because I thought he was a good candidate. As others supported the other candidates that they also thought were qualified. That is the process. One has to run or be endorsed by one party or the other. I certainly don't seem to hear critisim from those who endorsed David or Chris. Many years ago, the village had two parties, The Citizens and The Pioneers. Though there was still small town politics to some degree the system seemed to work because it alleviated the concept of "sides". One seemed to be able to run under this system without preconceived judgements. One fact you may not know about the lawsuit is that David Filiberto WAS NOT named as a petitioner in that suit. He was the only trustee running for re-election. In fact if anything there was a great chance that the suit could have worked against Rordans candidacy for the board. I dont understand your comment on business's in town taking political sides. They weren't. They were looking for someone who they felt could communicate their needs to the board. These are people who have invested in our children, our community, volunteered their services, donated time and money into our local economy. They didnt do that because they cared what party we belonged to. They weren't selective on who they chose to support or donate time and money to. They did it for the community. Not once have I gone into a local business asking for a donation and had anyone of those businessmen ask me what party I belonged to. During the Main Street project, many of them felt their concerns weren't being addressed. Many had a major loss of business. They were seeking someone who would communicate. It will be a sad day in this town when a businessman or woman cannot stand up in a board meeting and say something fearing they would lose business. If anything our business's need to be valued here. We should care if they have concerns. Just as board members should care about the concerns of their citizens regardless of party. I am hopeful we are headed for a turnaround here. Yes, I supported Rordan but I also think Chris Thomas is an amazing asset and he is someone I look very forward to working with. He went out of his way to meet me and talk with me and we are in agreement when we say, we are here to serve the people of this community, ALL of them. Dear Matthew,
I am the appointed trustee you speak of. I did support Rordan Hart in the election because I thought he was a good candidate. As others supported the other candidates that they also thought were qualified.
That is the process. One has to run or be endorsed by one party or the other. I certainly don’t seem to hear critisim from those who endorsed David or Chris.
Many years ago, the village had two parties, The Citizens and The Pioneers. Though there was still small town politics to some degree the system seemed to work because it alleviated the concept of “sides”.
One seemed to be able to run under this system without preconceived judgements.
One fact you may not know about the lawsuit is that David Filiberto WAS NOT named as a petitioner in that suit. He was the only trustee running for re-election.
In fact if anything there was a great chance that the suit could have worked against Rordans candidacy for the board.
I dont understand your comment on business’s in town taking political sides. They weren’t. They were looking for someone who they felt could communicate their needs to the board. These are people who have invested in our children, our community, volunteered their services, donated time and money into our local economy. They didnt do that because they cared what party we belonged to. They weren’t selective on who they chose to support or donate time and money to. They did it for the community. Not once have I gone into a local business asking for a donation and had anyone of those businessmen ask me what party I belonged to.
During the Main Street project, many of them felt their concerns weren’t being addressed. Many had a major loss of business. They were seeking someone who would communicate. It will be a sad day in this town when a businessman or woman cannot stand up in a board meeting and say something fearing they would lose business. If anything our business’s need to be valued here. We should care if they have concerns.
Just as board members should care about the concerns of their citizens regardless of party.
I am hopeful we are headed for a turnaround here.
Yes, I supported Rordan but I also think Chris Thomas is an amazing asset and he is someone I look very forward to working with. He went out of his way to meet me and talk with me and we are in agreement when we say, we are here to serve the people of this community, ALL of them.

]]> By: Jonathan Cook http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/comment-page-1/#comment-9757 Jonathan Cook Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:36:39 +0000 http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/#comment-9757 X, I'm not judging you personally. I'm judging the idea of anti-nativism (prejudice against natives). Whether you asked me what I think of it or not, I think I've got the right to say what I think about it without you getting upset. I also didn't tell you what to say or what questions to ask. I just gave an opinion about an idea that I think is inappropriate in our community. If you want to talk about it, fine, but part of talking about these things is that others have the right to disagree with you. X, I’m not judging you personally. I’m judging the idea of anti-nativism (prejudice against natives). Whether you asked me what I think of it or not, I think I’ve got the right to say what I think about it without you getting upset.

I also didn’t tell you what to say or what questions to ask. I just gave an opinion about an idea that I think is inappropriate in our community. If you want to talk about it, fine, but part of talking about these things is that others have the right to disagree with you.

]]> By: x http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/comment-page-1/#comment-9677 x Sun, 01 Apr 2007 22:04:34 +0000 http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/#comment-9677 Jewel - how so? Jewel – how so?

]]> By: Jewel http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/comment-page-1/#comment-9644 Jewel Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:55:05 +0000 http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/#comment-9644 Uh, X, Jonathan didn't say what you say he said. Uh, X, Jonathan didn’t say what you say he said.

]]> By: x http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/comment-page-1/#comment-9638 x Sun, 01 Apr 2007 11:55:40 +0000 http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/#comment-9638 Jonathan - from # 3 above you said "everything's up for discussion". Great! So don't imply that certain ideas or questions are inappropriate. That's not going to advance the discussion. I think the nativism argument is crap too. I just thought it interesting that the Hart family, who'se son ran on a platform of being from the area and attending to the "local" needs, isn't really local after all. The way they talk, you'd have thought their ancestors carved main street and built the Camp house with their bare hands :-) Jonathan – from # 3 above you said “everything’s up for discussion”.

Great!

So don’t imply that certain ideas or questions are inappropriate. That’s not going to advance the discussion.

I think the nativism argument is crap too. I just thought it interesting that the Hart family, who’se son ran on a platform of being from the area and attending to the “local” needs, isn’t really local after all. The way they talk, you’d have thought their ancestors carved main street and built the Camp house with their bare hands :-)

]]> By: x http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/comment-page-1/#comment-9637 x Sun, 01 Apr 2007 11:47:26 +0000 http://findingulysses.com/2007/03/30/pro-pay-for-trustees/#comment-9637 I didn't ask if it mattered to you Jonathan, I didn't ask to be once again judged by you. I asked a simple question. Thank you Mary for your thoughtful response. I didn’t ask if it mattered to you Jonathan, I didn’t ask to be once again judged by you. I asked a simple question. Thank you Mary for your thoughtful response.

]]>