Republican platform

[gorja]

Will the Republican party endorsed supervisor and councilman candidates be promoting Republican chairman Sojka's idea
to pump millions into a Community center rather than use the monies for more updating and replacement of aging infrastructure?

[mark blazejewski]

Thank you for starting a thread for the Republican Party's 2019 Platform.

When appropriate, I am sure it will be posted and substantive.

I do hope that after sixteen years of rather a "bi-polar" legislative record, that Supervisor Self-Elect Ruffino has finally realized that Lancaster has an infrastructure problem.

Perhaps Ruffino can announce his infrastructure ideas in what I believe could be another of his famous PHONY dramatic moments inspired by Shakespear's Hamlet:

"Infrastructure Improvement, to be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis smarter for me to just lie to assuage the public mind, or to actually deliver on improvement, and suffer the slings and arrows of pissing off the political bosses, and spend money that will cut into their outrageous fortune..." or some crap like that.

But, to your question, I must ask will the Democrat party endorsed candidates support the continued withholding of over $2,000,000 in what might be termed "hidden money" that is specifically intended for sports and recreational use?


Hmmm. $2,000,000. Is't that the amount that town taxpayers appear to have lost in the Colecraft disaster?

[mark blazejewski]

I know that in the past, we both agreed that our eyes failing, so in the event that you missed the thread that I started on Bruce Stutz, therein he proposed his "Nine Initiatives For Lancaster."

I do not presume that Mr. Stutz's vision is representative of the entire, to-be-announced Republican Party Platform, but here are his ideas for Lancaster starting in 2020 :

(1) Improved fields and facilities for all youth and adult sports and recreation programs in the Town of Lancaster'

(2)Yearly Signature Project (Community Center, Miracle Field Signature Field and Multi-Purpose Practice Field).

(3) Improved fluidity, sharing resources, and monthly communication between the Town of Lancaster and the Lancaster School District.

(4) Investment in Lancaster infrastructure, specifically roads, bridges, railroad quiet zones, and water and sewer lines.

(5) Rapid Response Communication Approach (Town App) and creative ideas (Quality of Life Line).

(6) Department accountability and increased pride in work and results.

(7) Partnering with local non-profit organizations to combat social issues (drug, violence, bullying, etc.).

(8) Improved emergency response plans and increased security presence at schools, indoor and outdoor facilities, and large events.

(9) The need for strong team leaders to help lead the community.

[shortstuff]

Will the Republican party endorsed supervisor and councilman candidates be promoting Republican chairman Sojka's idea
to pump millions into a Community center rather than use the monies for more updating and replacement of aging infrastructure?

Who is Bruce Stutz? Is he part of the Community Center? Why the sudden interest in enhancing the Community Center? I am just asking questions to get a better understanding of who this person is and why the sudden shift to the Community Center as it is my understanding, in light of the recent house that was a blaze which was unable to be extinguished due to low water pressure, it was my understanding that monies were geared towards fixing the infrastructure and perhaps add another pumping station to help in areas that are struggling with water pressure issues as well as the water line replacements where we keep getting water main breaks....

I just read the other thread, I should have read that first. It outlines Strutz leadership roles. I think I have met this person, he may have been at the town hall on numerous occasions giving speeches etc. If that is the person I am thinking of, I found him to be a reasonable and well spoken person. So I withdraw my question regarding who he is now that I have some idea. My question is revised to, is he running with the hopes to establish a state of the arts community center? IMHO, we have the best in the area already. I would suggest his focus as with the other candidates to concentrate on the top issues which is infrastructure, not the nice to haves right now...just my suggestion(s).

[mark blazejewski]

My question is revised to, is he running with the hopes to establish a state of the arts community center? IMHO, we have the best in the area already. I would suggest his focus as with the other candidates to concentrate on the top issues which is infrastructure, not the nice to haves right now...just my suggestion(s).

I do not presume to speak for Mr. Stutz, but I think that what you term a "state of the arts community center" is a component to his goal of a suggested "Yearly Signature Project."

That "Year Signature Project" suggestion list is one element to his "Nine Initiatives For Lancaster."


This is the definition of "Initiative:"

in·i·ti·a·tiveDictionary result for initiative
/iˈniSH(ē)ədiv/Submit
noun
1.
the ability to assess and initiate things independently.
"use your initiative, imagination, and common sense"

Ergo, I understand it to be an "initiative," or a "proposal," for full and thoughtful debate and consideration, and not a rigid plank in his platform.

In the world of transparency and the broad public interest, talking, thinking, assessment and debate are good things Shortstuff.

How do you feel about this "Initiative:"

"(4) Investment in Lancaster infrastructure, specifically roads, bridges, railroad quiet zones, and water and sewer lines."

I hope there will be an open and free debate on this one as well, and forward movement will be prioritized accordingly.

I do not believe withholding monies for designated projects in perpetual procrastination is a good thing either. After all, many people paid a great deal of money in fees, I understand, for a specific service, performance of which is lacking.

Just sayin'.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Semantics, Mark; no different than the Democratic Party and mainstream media now calling Cortez’s New Green Deal an economic reform program.

Until he Republican Party officially comes out with a platform statement that establishes goals and policies, all else is pie-in-the-ski postulating to gain voter approval - without consideration of cost and public approval.

Concerning the Community Center interest and cost to the public - outrageous. A cost estimate between $6 - $7 million. Before any serious consideration is given to such project, the public should be informed on potential grant monies, final cost to the taxpayers and approval by permissive referendum.

Before any such thought should be given serious consideration the need for playing fields (a quasi-town park in the south end of Lancaster), improvements made to current town facilities, and the enhancements of current town recreation programs should have top spending priority – IMHO. Westwood Park and the other parks have seen facility and field improvements.

The $2 million you refer to I believe is what is in the Recreation Filing Fee fund. I don’t believe it is that much and money has recently been targeted for more park improvements – Keysa Park, for one.

Infrastructure

"(4) Investment in Lancaster infrastructure, specifically roads, bridges, railroad quiet zones, and water and sewer lines."

This ‘initiative’ really intrigues me. For many years I, as a few others, were at town board meetings beating the drum for infrastructure investments that were needed to accommodate for then / future town growth.

In 2005, the town bonded over $800,000 to replace the Penora Pumping Station to correct low water pressure issues. It bonded $7 million in 2006 for a town-wide waterline project; twice more since for $5 million and $4 million - Total, $16 million.

Since then it bonded near $10 million for Capital Improvement projects, instated a GIS system which allows the town to monitor environmental needs – flooding and drainage issues in particular. Bridges, culverts, etc. are being monitored and scheduled for replacement/repair as needed.

There is always need for infrastructure improvement. However, I need more than a soundbite on where the shortcomings are. Unfortunately, too many town people still can’t differentiate a town road from a county road and assign county infrastructure needs to the town. And unfortunately as well, the town is paying for the sins of its fathers. Too much money is now being spent to correct road, flooding and drainage issues caused be developers that were give carte blanche to build without consideration to environmental needs. When the town stops growing, development money dries up, what then. The future direction of the town should be of utmost concern in this election. Why should I care when I won't be around then; when I have no family living in Lancaster? Unfortunately, that is the attitude taken by too many of our politicos in office.

I will wait until all parties issue an official platform statement and solution proposals for perceived issues.

One thing appears certain, the town will never see land purchased for another park and or additional playing fields built as long as Coleman is Supervisor. Her belief is that Lancaster has enough parks and that we have one already in the south end of town. Its called Erie County Park.

[mark blazejewski]

Semantics, Mark; no different than the Democratic Party and mainstream media now calling Cortez’s New Green Deal an economic reform program.

Until he Republican Party officially comes out with a platform statement that establishes goals and policies...

Thank you Lee, that has been the point that I was trying to convey to Shortstuff, and I agree, that at this point in time, "Initiative" (2) lacks the authoritative imprimatur of the Republican Party.

It is, IMHO, one of many subjects, which is worthy of public debate and scrutiny, especially visa v your highlighted comments "... potential grant monies, final cost to the taxpayers and approval by permissive referendum." As always, a well thought-out consideration on your part.

Before any such thought should be given serious consideration the need for playing fields (a quasi-town park in the south end of Lancaster), improvements made to current town facilities, and the enhancements of current town recreation programs should have top spending priority – IMHO. Westwood Park and the other parks have seen facility and field improvements.

Just an observation:

Although you are much more learned than I, I do understand that Lancaster to date, has failed to fulfill it Master Plan by 150 acres in the area of park land and green space.

Just my humble two cents.

Infrastructure

"(4) Investment in Lancaster infrastructure, specifically roads, bridges, railroad quiet zones, and water and sewer lines."

This ‘initiative’ really intrigues me. For many years I, as a few others, were at town board meetings beating the drum for infrastructure investments that were needed to accommodate for then / future town growth.

In my world Lee, this "Initiative" must necessarily receive top priority.

Nothing more exemplifies the urgency of the entire infrastructure issue, than "Fire Bell-In-The-Night" warning rendered last summer, in connection with the water pressure problems attendant to the Pleasantview Dr. fire.

[gorja]

Originally posted by mark blazejewski:
Nothing more exemplifies the urgency of the entire infrastructure issue, than "Fire Bell-In-The-Night" warning rendered last summer, in connection with the water pressure problems attendant to the Pleasantview Dr. fire.

The town has been bonding for infrastructure issues. It seems there are people in this town that believe ALL waterline issues can be resolved in a short time. There is only so much money which makes it impossible to do all at once. There are going to be some areas of the town with those issues that won't be in the works for 2019 but there are people that expect it.

[mark blazejewski]

The town has been bonding for infrastructure issues. It seems there are people in this town that believe ALL waterline issues can be resolved in a short time. There is only so much money which makes it impossible to do all at once. There are going to be some areas of the town with those issues that won't be in the works for 2019 but there are people that expect it.

That is why this issue is deserving of urgent debate Gorja.

[Lee Chowaniec]

That is why this issue is deserving of urgent debate Gorja.

I anxiously await that ‘urgent debate’ on infrastructure. Wasn’t there a statement made by a fire chief that the dwelling on Pleasant View Drive was so engulfed in flames that it would not have been possible to save it even with adequate water pressure? Wasn’t a waterline project immediately placed on the replacement to do list?

Prior to the installation of the Penora Pumping station in 2005 and the initial 2006 bonding for $7 million to replace and/or repair waterlines there were low water pressure issues throughout town and insufficient water pressure to put out fires in certain districts (low water pressure at the High School which endangered firefighting – 3 or 4” line).

The Pleasant Drive fire was tragic but paled in comparison in the early 2000’s when water trucks were brought in to fight fires where there was insignificant waterline pressure. I hear there are still areas in town where home booster pumps are used to increase water pressure. That should be brought to light.

A new sewer line was constructed by the county to handle sewer issues in the south end of town, which allows for more development and helps mitigate some of the sewer capacity issues in the south end of the Village.

Yes, Mark, I will be awaiting this debate; a debate that should focus on current infrastructure needs and plans to accommodate for future development - and where the money should come from. Our debt load has increased significantly over the last several years because of infrastructure and environmental needs. Spending in the 2019 budget increased by 4.74%. The tax rate was kept down because of town growth. What happens in the future when the there is no room for development? And we are discussing building a community center? Why not throw in an ice rink into the discussion as well?

I will be waiting to hear a debate on environmental issues where the town lost valuable and functional wetlands that were destroyed and/or filled in for developer profit – causing much of today’s flooding and drainage issues. Bogus wetland delineations by developers and segmentation practices where the town looked the other way

I will be waiting to hear voices on the final Master Plan; especially on zoning code modifications.

I will be waiting to hear from candidates, not some flowery party platform writ that promises everything and provides no solutions. Candidates that too often show faces at election time, but not at town board meetings to offer input.

Until then, this ‘blank’ has no dog in the race; bound to follow no party ideology, just researching to determine who is the candidate best qualified to serve the best interests of the community – not they’re or the party’s best interests.

[mark blazejewski]

Lee, perhaps this campaign will actually be one that will appeal to our recall of the old days: Issue-based, albeit prejudicial, arguments which are grounded in facts, with the personal attack BS held to a minimum.

Let's hope Mr. C.

[gorja]

At a recent Planning board meeting, a developer's project was for constructing two 4-unit and one 5-unit townhouse development.
This would be located on Transit Rd just north of Como Park Blvd.
During the SEQRA process the town engineer stated that there would be an impact on the Privater/public water supply and the board conditioned the approval with
the developer being made responsible to replace the waterline on Transit Rd in front of his property from Monroe St to Jefferson Ave


They're making the developer be accountable

[shortstuff]

At a recent Planning board meeting, a developer's project was for constructing two 4-unit and one 5-unit townhouse development.
This would be located on Transit Rd just north of Como Park Blvd.
During the SEQRA process the town engineer stated that there would be an impact on the Privater/public water supply and the board conditioned the approval with
the developer being made responsible to replace the waterline on Transit Rd in front of his property from Monroe St to Jefferson Ave


They're making the developer be accountable

That is great news, finally. I have stated in the past how Clarence has made the developers responsible for the infrastructure not the taxpayers.

I believe it is prudent for the candidates to focus and prioritize projects that are needed. I understand it's sexy to keep improving/adding to our parks and community activities but is should not come at the cost of more urgent projects. Our infrastructure and development should reflect the "smart growth" strategies. This is IMO top priority.