MsKreed

At any given time I’ve visited a Dandy Mart, they have 4-6 visible employees (2 or 3 cashiering and 2-3 making pizzas and subs. Most are closed overnights and probably have 25-30 total employees covering days/evenings.....If you figure operating 16hrs x 7 days x 5 front end employees: That’s 560 man hours, which is 14 employees at 40hrs, or (more likely 18 employees averaging around 30 hrs each). Plus whatever management and office staff we don’t see. A Truck plaza (like Pilot or Love’s at the Bath Kanona exit) runs around the clock. They aren’t just open overnight, it is often their busiest time of day when OTR truckers are on the move with less passenger car traffic in their way. They also have a lot more services than the Dandy cashiers and line cooks. Besides lounge and shower facilities, full service truck plazas, like Loves, have tractor trailer repair with mechanics on site. Some even dispatch mobile roadside services within a certain area. So I can realistically see a full service Truck Plaza “Travel Center” employing 50 people. But that number wouldn’t have any measurable impact on the local economy or employment situation. Even at its best, 50 jobs is less than one tenth of one percent of the county's 84,000 population (0.0595238095%). But the true number would be even less than that since a large portion of those jobs will simply be shifted from existing business that will lose revenue (and employees) to the new Plaza. Just like we saw reduced business (and jobs) at existing locations like GCP and the Miracle Mile when Consumer Square and Walmart Plaza opened.

In principle, I agree that anyone eligible to hold an office should be allowed to run without government impeding them. However, the people who drafted election laws in NYS (and many other states) have decided otherwise. As long as they have decreed that no one can run without a certain number of signatures and eligible signers are limited to only signing one petition per office.....then I agree with Chris that potential signers have a right (obligation?) to be discriminating in deciding when/if to sign a petition.

The way New York State election law works.....a designated number of registered voters agreeing to sign a petition is a requirement for eligibility. That pretty much means, by definition, it is up to those voters being asked to sign a petition to decide who is eligible to run for office. And I also agree that having a Mayor and City Manager is pointless. But I have not formed any opinion on which position should be eliminated. The Mayor's $11k salary reflects the fact that there are no requisite Business Management or Administrator CV requirements....and, accordingly, they do not have any real administrative or supervisory duties. As it is now, the Mayor isn't much more than a part time glorified council member elected "at large" rather than representing a specific district, and serving as Chair.

I didn’t imply in my response that I think petitioning is some tit for tat based on any “promise” from the candidate. The earlier point was “how does a candidate find out the concerns of the constituency before he gets out and talks to them?” But on any occasion when I have been asked to sign a petition, no candidate has ever implied anything like “I have no interest in hearing what any of your concerns are, but please sign this so I can run for office”.....that approach would be tacky and insulting. They’ve always introduced themselves and expressed (or at least feigned) sincere interest in “me” and asked questions about my concerns as a voter. Mr. Hassell didn’t bother to stop at my house at any time during his legislative campaign, either when gathering signatures for his IND line or all the way up to November. I do hope now that he's an Elmiran again, those voters find he has more engagement (or any at all?? LOL)

I agree that such an early debate has less weight than the one planned for October, but I wouldn’t say that we should expect either candidate to not have a good grasp on the concerns of the constituency by April when they submitted their party petitions. Of course, that Galactic person briefly announced plans to run as a “lark” after only living here a few months and had no idea of the issues the city has faced (she was not qualified and rightly withdrew from the race). But these two....living in the community for decades should presumably have a good idea of the matters and current events that compelled them to run. Perhaps even participation in local organizations, etc where they’ve been involved in projects and/or community issues. Not to mention the ample opportunity they had to discuss concerns while gathering signatures since February.

Bingo! I figured it should be easy to pick out which ones may have some sordid history......considering how so many critics believe the general public is supposed to know when they see one in a music video.😉

It's about one quarter....not "more than a third" living in poverty (US Census data) And incidentally, she did qualify her point with "not all"...... Unfortunately, the City has continuously encountered many (see HERE) who refuse to stay in shelters where activity is monitored and illicit behavior is not acceptable. So, in the sense that many insist on staying in homeless encampments over supervised living arrangements (where they would be encumbered by "house rules" prohibiting drugs, weapons, etc).....they are "choosing" that environment. It can, of course, be debated that circumstances like addiction or mental illness which are factors in homelessness aren't a "choice", but surely no reasonable person would suggest that shelters should allow unacceptable behaviors associated with those circumstances to take place on their premises. The liability could be devastating if (when) someone is harmed.

I think transparency and accountability are very important....and egregiously lacking in local government (and at all levels). I tend to feel that there usually more issues of evasive, vague, incomplete and/or ambiguous communication with informal discussion. It doesn't help that we have fewer and fewer local journalists with the initiative to pursue "on the record" facts, names and dollar figures. I’d like to give Margeson the benefit of the doubt that he did not want to name the various parties in an informal conversation after a meeting in case his memory was unsure and wouldn’t want to mix or conflate names and bid amounts “off the top of his head”. I generally try to follow up extemporaneous chats like this with a more formal communication (email/letter, etc) that directly addresses the details and requesting specific information. If someone followed up by emailing/contacting him directly and he still couldn't provide the names and numbers (after verifying his data), then that’s certainly a problem. And that formal communication would be a documented starting point to build upon when/if questions persist or need to be escalated.

I'm not a Country Music fanatic by any means. None of my radio pre-sets or satellite/TV “favorites” have ever included a Country music station. When I first saw this issue raised, I had to do a search as I wasn’t familiar with either the artist or the song. But I'll stipulate that I have enjoyed a few "cross-over" hits that fall into the Southern Rock genre....and was a real fan of "A Country Boy Can Survive" when it came out in 1982. It seems that critics have had to scramble to “transform” the basis for their outrage since the video’s release. Initially, they seized upon the lyrics (which they alleged promoted violence). That argument was largely abandoned when compared to far more violent lyrics from other music genres....along with the fact that the song had been out for months and the supposedly offensive lyrics weren’t challenged until the video release Then detractors turned their pearl clutching toward what critics called racist imagery. That premise lacks merit, since it is largely actual news footage and the violent acts shown are certainly not limited to any one race of perpetrators. That left one factual element to grasp at: The video features images of the Maury County Court House. Yes. Apparently it does - and it was the site of a heinous lynching in 1927. But seriously.....I do not for a second believe that even those most vehemently condemning that image actually recognized the building from the video (let alone knew its history). It is essentially a nonspecific depiction of any one of hundreds of public buildings across the nation that all share the same “generic” architectural design. In the approximately 3 minute (180 second) video, the building backdrop is shown for a total of less than 15-20 seconds – with only the final clip lasting more than a whole second. I could not even spot a split second glimpse of any writing that could identify the location. No one even knew what that building was until they were told to be outraged about it. Someone had to dig deep to make that connection....and now we have a bunch of keyboard “historians” who are pretending they had full awareness of what occurred there 96 years ago....and it’s something that was a readily noticeable affront.

@Elizabeth Whitehouse: While I wouldn’t necessarily think “this kind of comment” should get you expelled from a site, I do wonder what purpose you intended for it to accomplish. Long before Social Media facilitated “instant reaction” to written material, we all managed to be exposed to ideas that may or maynot fit our own beliefs....through radio, TV, magazines, newspapers and books et al. And, since the invention of Guttenburg’s printing press, there has never been (and still is not) any imperitive to challenge the author(s) directly. We are fortunate in some nations (like the US) to have the choice of what media we want to consume (or choose not to). It seems like a tragic waste of ones time to seek out content we disagree with for the sole purpose of offering an antagonistic response. I’m curious how you felt that your reply was beneficial to anyone. It’s doubtful you will gain any understanding of Linda’s perspective by replying as you did. Nor is it likely that your curt and disparaging remark will sway Linda or any of her readers to your perspective.

I've said for a long time that the IDA/STEG need to devote some resources to derelict and vacant properties that are a blight across Chemung County. Building on undeveloped property should wait until the majority of existing commercial property is rehabilitated.

The $672,000 sale makes it the second-most expensive Pokémon card ever sold and comes after Martinez’s card was estimated to be worth as much as $1.5 million weeks earlier.

Yeah....the verbiage is deceptive. The rate of inflation is down. So....prices are still going up, just not increasing as rapidly as previous months. Analogy.....If I’ve gained 60 lbs in the past year (5lbs/month), and brag on social media that my rate of weight gain “slows” to 3lbs a month --- I’m not losing weight or getting any “healthier”.

This is so sadly true.....and likely would have been approved before public knowledge if we had a couple fewer attentive legislators. If not for two (new) current legislators who spoke up at the committee meeting where this was presented, the public would have been largely unaware of this attempt, and it could/would have passed unnoticed. Morse (1st district) very strongly supports families and rural agricultural communities and Saglibene (2nd district) represents Big Flats. Their predecessors (Pastrick and Manchester) would have most likely kept quiet and went along with whatever the CCIDA proposed. But once these two brought it out in the open, the public comments incentivised other legislators to weigh in (rather than quietly voting 'aye'). This sort of thing helps emphasize how important it is to choose good local representatives.

To me, this guy's whole demeanor is so cringy.

Aside from the two members of the Budget Committee (McCarthy & Morse) who voted against it, Sweet and Smith (not on the Committee) expressed their intent to vote Nay.... It will be interesting to see where the final votes land. I've been trying to wrap my head around how we got to this point. During his campaign for the first term (2018), Moss ran (and won) on the promises of cutting Top salaries (including his own). Restructured salaries of officials net Chemung County $91,100 in savings: Since nothing in his 2018 "save the taxpayers money" campaign ever indicated it was only a temporary gesture.....I was hugely disappointed by 2021 when he gaslighted the public by suddenly whining about "wage compression" and wringing his hands over not having his salary "returned": With that said..... While I agree that Moss expecting (demanding?) to have his salary "realigned" to something closer to what he now thinks it should be (in contradiction to his campaign platform that got him elected)......I find the reasons that Legislator Smith expressed in the Budget Meeting (here) to be wildly arrogant, self-serving and inappropriate I hope the Exec and Deputy wage increases both get voted down because it's fiscally irresponsible when few taxpayers are receiving raises of 4% followed by 7.5% within a few months. Or on principal because it's hypocritical for the Exec to renege on his campaign promise. Or because there "wage compression" argument doesn't apply when other counties have Department heads earning more than administrators who oversee them. However.....the Legislature should not be determining the salary of a co-equal elected branch based on their personal view of the "quality" of that official's work. The Legislature is not elected to conduct evaluations of the Executive's job performance.

No matter the outcome...just keep your foot on the gas going into the general, and keep talking to everyone and encouraging turnout from supporters. It doesn’t look like Baldwin ever has big turnouts for primaries, even in the larger election years. There was lower turnout for last years (legislator) primary:

I'm doubtful that any human is reading 6,000 tweets a day. That's four tweets per minute -- around the clock. I think he may be onto something. From the start, Musk questioned the number of twitter "users" that were bot accounts, because large numbers of AI accounts falsely inflate the "reach" for advertisers (and also create a fake sense that "people" are interacting with other "people").

Very happy about the Student Loan decision. From the time it was proposed everyone knew it's not within POTUS power. I really don't understand why we seldom (never) heard the side against Biden's plan point out that, for anyone willing to work for 10 years in public service (in any capacity, whether related to their college studies or not) can already have their Student Loans forgiven. So Biden's proposal was only going to apply to students who make a choice to work in the private for-profit sector. The Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) was passed in 2007 through the legal process of Congressional legislation. Also......They also handed down a unanimous ruling last month that local governments cannot retain the equity beyond what is owed when property is seized and sold at auction: More HERE

Agreed. Just as I agreed when the wedding cake baker won his case years ago, and frankly didn’t understand why SCOTUS declined to hear the florist case a few years late (that was essentially the same premise). A private individual or business shouldn’t be compelled to support anything they disagree with, and free to their own expression and only offer products/merchandise that align with their beliefs. A Christian owned magazine stand should not be required to sell girly magazines, and I wouldn’t expect a Muslim or Jewish restaurateur to be forced to serve pork. This is very different than a government representative, like the county clerk refusing to issue a marriage license as part of their sworn duties.

I was referring to my understanding of the way the individual statutes read......that BAC is more of a primary factor for DWI than DWAI. Not necessarily the DA and Defense Attorney's deal-making negotiations. So, aside from any plea bargaining and charges being reduced.....it's possible for someone with a 0.04 BAC to be not guilty of DWI, but still guilty of DWAI.

I think both can potentially be true when the distinction between the charge (DWI) and the plea (DWAI) is considered. It seems like DWAI (infraction) has a much lower BAC threshold....so I believe someone lower than the DWI (criminal) standard of 0.08% can be considered "ability impaired" even if they aren't legally "intoxicated. And Court/prosecutor's premise is that when an incident occurs (even with other factors like visibility, weather, etc) a driver with no "impairment" at 0.0% BAC could likely have averted the incident.....but for the presence of 1-2 drinks that may be far under the "intoxicated" limit of 0.08% for DWI.