I’m not following why we need to change our downtown traffic patterns (here). I think it’s an untapped gold mine.

Clearly millions of people enjoyed the video game Frogger in its heyday where players needed to get their frog across a busy highway without getting splattered. And clearly reality TV maintains its high popularity and viewership. So let’s combine the hair raising challenge of Frogger with the immediacy of reality TV for a new HBO series,  ’Frogger 12010′.  In Frogger 12010, we could watch the ensuing hilarity and horror as locals and visitors on foot and in car try to navigate the downtown arterial with their sanity and body intact.

I think HBO makes sense given the ensuing profanity as each contestant skips across the myriad of lanes and turns.

I think the only sticking point in my pitch is why would the frog want to get to the other side. In the original Frogger, you get points; in Frogger 12010, you get to re-experience loss of a vibrant downtown and city. Not sure that sells to the TV audience.

Looks like my pitch needs some work.

I’m not sure what is going on as I’ve been out-of-town for a few days but things seem profoundly different upon my return.

First, a lengthy, nicely done piece in the Recorder on the GASD’s magnet school program and magnet school academic performance that points to the failure of the program to deliver the expected academic outcomes. My, oh, my. Who-da-thunk that!

Second, the Recorder editors weigh in with a strong critique of the reactions to the WPHO and point to the disconnect between our slogan and reality. Am I really sharing the same side of an issue with the Recorder editors? Weird…

Third, Charlie Kraebel weighs in with a blistering piece on the WPHO as well and dares to shed some sunlight on local radio’s role in the ‘debate’. I may have differences with Charlie, but here, I agree with him as well. What is going on?

That said, I’m not sure the transformation is quite complete as remnants of non-Bizarro Amsterdam still remain: one of the arguments against selling to the WPHO is now that these properties should have been demolished with no chance for someone to consider restoring the properties. If you have any questions on the folly and fallacy of the demolition strategy, look no further than that as your proof. They would rather spend money on demolition, forgo the proceeds of the sale as negligible as they are, spend money to landfill it and also forgo the potential property tax of a restored property than maybe see something brought back. But then, we would not be demolishing and landfilling buildings and hence sharing services and that would be quite sad, perhaps even sacrilegious.

Speaking of negligible, I see the $2500 in expense for the rose garden to be a great source of concern while forgoing the possibility of many multiples of that from the WPHO to be perfectly fine.  Weird.

Maybe I’ve got it wrong: maybe it’s been Bizarro World here for many decades and glimmers of a regular and lucid world broke through in the past few days.

It’s all so bizarre.

“People are scared,” she said. “It’s like they’re coming in and taking over.”

“Why are these people moving here?” asked Hatzenbuhler. “It’s just more than people can handle.”

I find this utterly contemptible and disturbing demagoguery.  Appalling.

I should not be surprised the least at this, but you always think maybe folks will turn around or embrace some change here. Clearly not.

I never liked “Small City, Big Heart” — I think I see why.”Small City, Black Heart”?

Let’s see if any of our esteemed community leaders will denounce this rhetoric.  I suspect not.

PS I thought the proper phase was “those people” not “these people”. I am sooo confused!

Marketing

Apparently economic theory and policy as practiced and embraced elsewhere differs from local practice so let me try to articulate how to practice our own unique brand of microeconomics. For our purposes, ‘micro’ refers to the city of Amsterdam in  zip code 12010. Fair warning: this should only be practiced in 12010:

– Demand sucks: If demand for a product creates a rise in price, demand should be suppressed or buyers driving demand should be discouraged. For example, if a property auction yields multiple buyers for the same property creating higher prices, the low-bidders have a sound argument to decry the need to pay more for their desired good. Therefore, we should encourage lower prices by removing buyers willing to pay more from the auction.

–Demand sucks more: If demand for as-to-date rundown and derelict properties increases with a resulting loss of stock for demolition and landfill, economic policy dictates that this demand must too be diminished. Demand should never deter supply when it comes to demolition and landfill.

–Demand sucks totally: If demand for housing in 12010 increases, that means prices would rise. Then how can people afford to buy a home if prices rise? Therefore, demand must be discouraged so prices remain low or decrease so people can  afford houses.

–Codes enforcement drives demand: You would think market forces of supply and demand would drive investment in local real estate. However, economics 12010 states that strengthened codes enforcement mandating higher fees and burdens on homeowners and investors will drive prices up especially when overall quality of life and services are diminished at the same time. You see, we have derelict properties not because of economic forces but strictly due to lack of codes enforcement. So how do you counter disincentives to invest and buy local property: you add additional costs to heighten disincentives. Counter-intuitive but brilliant policy and analysis nonetheless.

–Dollar Inequality: A dollar spent by a 12010 resident is inherently worth more than a dollar spent by a non-12010 resident. Or its corollary: an English-speaking dollar worth way more than English-as-a-second-language dollar.

–Magical Dollars: The dollars to pay for infrastructure and other priority programs which originate in a magical forest somewhere in 12010. While not clear on what they are, here is what they are not– local tax dollars. As such, they must not originate in 12010 while to its believers, they must also not originate from non-12010 sources as that suggests an embrace of socialism or worse. Hence, they must magically appear from a source unknown.

–Super Magical Dollars : A dollar spent on something falling under a claim of ‘shared services’ is not a dollar spent at all. You may not see the dollar in your wallet, but is actually still there; you just can’t see it. In some cases, Super Magical Dollars make future dollars in your wallet disappear but no worries: they’re still there, you just can’t see them.

–Tonko Dollars: An evil, pernicious dollar to be avoided at all cost.However, local alchemists believe Tonko Dollars may be transformed into Magical Dollars.

The cognitive dissonance grows louder by the day.

You see, we scratch our heads as to why people will not move here and why people move away in droves. Oh dear, what can we do to keep people here? What will we do to stop the decline? This place is such a dump.

Then, when people do move here or think about moving here, we scratch our heads as to why do they wan to move here. Oh dear, what can they possibly have in mind? What is wrong with them that they want to live in such a dump? Who are those people? What will we do to stop growth?

Utterly, totally , unbelievably exasperating.

I think the piece on the proposed cuts at the county should make us city folk pause a bit. Here’s the level of cuts in services and capacity on the table(here):

DiMezza’s plan also included taking advantage of early retirement incentives being offered by the state to county employees, freezing capital spending for two years and controlling general spending, and reducing money allocated to municipalities and outside agencies.

Greco’s proposal sets a sliding scale for both layoffs and spending cuts based on the size of individual departments. For departments with five or fewer employees, he calls for no staff cuts but a 40 percent cut in spending. Departments with six to 10 workers would be forced to cut one employee and trim spending by 30 percent, while those with 11 to 20 people on staff would have to cut two jobs and 20 percent of expenses and departments with 21 or more employees would have to cut staff by 15 percent and expenses by 10 percent.

A few thoughts as I read this:

1) The expectation of shifting costs from the city to the county under the rubric of shared services looks suspect at best. Given the magnitude of cuts, why would the county assume additional costs just to offset costs from the city? I’ve long questioned this belief but in light of the specific numbers and cuts in the proposal, I find the numbers bolster my argument even more. Bottom line: how can  the county support more services assumed from other entities while simultaneously cutting its overall budget to hit a target tax rate? I do not see how.

2) AIDA just contracted with the county for economic development. If the cuts apply to all departments, with no exceptions, I see a reduction of 40% in operating expenses for economic development. So the city just paid an entity that is under a self-imposed need to reduce costs. I’m curious how to market with a slashed budget. Again, I’m not following here.

3) Donde esta’ demolition? While related to point #1, I see no mention of demolition and its funding so we can appease the advocates of broad scale demolition of the city. Hopefully this will inspire different thinking on redeveloping and preserving versus demolishing and landfilling. And yes, I know that we need some level of demolition for properties way beyond hope. I get that. When will other people get that demolition is not a free ride.

4) At the level of cuts proposed, there just has to be a sizable impact on services offered to the population. Given our high unemployment, low incomes and high elderly population, the impacts on a very vulnerable part of the population remain real. Of course, heightening the tax burden imposes its impacts too. No easy answers from me  here.

I read your letter to the council on the state of our city and your comments on the Venner Vox. I have to say it is an outrage.

It is an outrage that you would directly challenge the council on their accountability and responsibility to the community. An affront!

It is an outrage that you would question the council on any issue given your inability to recite the charter line-by-line. Disgraceful!

It is an outrage that you would demand some policy response from the council on matters such as livability and quality of life within the city. Sure, the council can enact legislation and shapes budgets and spending but that does not mean they can direct policy. You may logically conclude that to be so but it only further demonstrates why you just don’t get it.

It is an outrage that you and your sister, at your time and expense, rid the city of trash without holding or seeking elected office. While you may perceive some cognitive dissonance or a logically flawed argument in the councilman’s advice to seek elected office to address your issues while admitting the futility of the council to enact policy, it is only further proof of you inability to grasp the wisdom of this counsel. In short, you don’t get it.

And finally, I think it is beyond outrageous and an affront to civil discourse to debate this topic in the digital arena via email and blogs. Our political class has made clear that reasoned, civil and virtuous discourse occurs strictly in the forum of their choosing, namely local radio. They have rightly condemned the digital arena as fraught with vile words and viler villains while embracing the higher ground of discourse that occurs on our public airwaves. But given your responses, you likely perceive what you hear as demagoguery and political in-fighting, proving, once again, why you simply don’t get it.

I hope this letter helps you ‘get it’.

Sincerely,

Flippin

In a story that will undoubtedly cause a great spinning of heads and incoherent babble (here):

The Daily Star of Oneonta reported last week that the state office’s review found that MOSA has failed in its efforts to save money for its member counties on solid waste disposal. In fact, the review said, according to the Daily Star, “the authority’s existence significantly increases the cost of waste management services in the counties.”

[snip]

Both Heaton and Thayer have said, and reiterated Sunday, that they agree MOSA as it was in the past was inefficient and ineffective in serving the three counties since its formation in 1989. They also again said, however, that MOSA is in the process of turning itself around after the change in leadership – including addressing many of the issues cited in the review – and they continue to believe that with better management, the authority can serve its initial objective and be a positive example of shared services.

Flippin here: See kids, no need to worry– ignore the financials because the ideology of ‘shared services as a tax savings and as economically viable in each and every scenario’ must be true. Just say it three times and click your heels together. In fact, we need to pursue even more shared services.

Crazy train indeed.

Let’s see how much negativity , bad-mouthing, bashing enthusiasm this effort breeds (here):

Amsterdam is first city that will be featured on WMHT-TV’s “Our Town” series. The series uses community participation to document the characteristics citizens believe make their city “special.”