MsKreed

I’m curious, aside from organizing the Fair through the Fair Board, does the Ag Society oversee/manage the Fairgrounds as a property/venue?

I think we really need a year round Community Center that can host Flea Markets and Produce Markets like Lewisburg or the Windmill, as well as entertainment and community events.

And I guess I’d hope to see a County Fairgrounds Board of some sort at the helm. With varied backgrounds and strengths, drawing from whole community beyond single organization (although the Ag Society is certainly an important group to have as part of the whole).

I also think it’s always worth looking at successful models and researching what works and makes them successful.

Maybe someone should do a deep dive into The Windmill.

It’s open one day a week through the season (plus a few secular holidays like Memorial Day, Labor Day and Columbus Day).....and we all know that it draws steady business from several counties each week.

I know that vendors need to join (and ‘own’ a share of) the Yates County Cooperative. But have no idea if that membership is open to those outside the county or what the various fees are for indoor or outdoor vending space, etc.

They also regularly have live local music, as well as some “event” just about every month:

1 hour ago, Chris said:

You need something bigger to draw the people there. Then the smaller vendors can capitalize on their presence. 

That's a very good point.

I like the idea of some sort of tiered structure that draws in an equivalent to the (now defunct) concept of mall "anchor stores". Once upon a time, having those big stores provided traffic for smaller operations to benefit from.

But I do think the fees for vendors need to offer some "break" for the little guys.... one-person DBA’s, family business or hobbyists who reside in the county (our taxpayers who fund and, in principle, "own" the fairgrounds).

If those little guys can't compete because fees are prohibitive, then only the larger enterprises can afford to participate. And it’s not as much of community benefit that helps local (taxpaying) vendors flourish.

Seems weird to congratulate him for getting the signatures, only to throw them out....

(maybe someone can comment and ask about it - LOL)

In his fifth term

1 minute ago, Adam said:

"We discussed the fair last night

If that discussion was the Budget Committee meeting I linked, it was pretty informal. No one from the Fair Committee was there to answer, but they mentioned the earlier request for funds (for the concert) that the Legislature rejected in May. 

Additionally, Legislator Morse noted the Troy Fair (that everyone uses as a contrast) i in PA and not subject to some of NYS's restrictive seasonal employment laws. 

The term “disloyalty” seems like an understatement.

 It seems more like flat out “misconduct” and I wonder if they’re possibly subject to criminal charges for interference with a lawful election process.

The Budget Committee only had a few item on their Agenda (less than 2 minutes worth), and a brief update on the Five Star Building......Mr McCarthy asked about the Fair at about the 3:45 mark......

The Committee members all seem interested in finding some way to improve the County Fair as well as addressing year round under-utilization.....but it wasn't an official Agenda item and seems like it's not been/being brought up to the Full Legislature at this time 😔

August 7, 2023 Budget Meeting 

5 hours ago, KarenK said:

Well, Kathi is posting the same post on her page, his page and his public legislative page so I give it's theirs for the taking.

Seems like the trend lately on the national level also.

When there's a significant event (or death) with celebs and public figures, their official social media page is the primary source.  Then "news" outlets treat it like a press release official statement and usually add background bio info like what the person is known for, past history, notable career highlights, etc..... to make it "their own".  

I do agree that it's lazy of the local "journalists" to not add anything beyond the FB post.  They could pretend they know something else about him -- how long he's been in office, what boards or legislation or community service he's known for. 

Former Republican Chair? Serving in his 4th term? Been giving away Fair and Arena tickets for over a decade?

Nope, : just what his FB profile states: "15th District Chemung County Legislator".

After what seemed like decades of not having them around, we actually took note a few years back that we were suddenly seeing fireflies in noticeable numbers.

There’s a lot of goldenrod in the outlying fields here, so I think they like it.

34 minutes ago, KarenK said:

I don't really agree with that.  I believe everyone deserves the opportunity to petition to serve.  Signing a petition does not imply support.  It implies the encouragement of the candidate to run.  This gives them the opportunity to then do what they need to do to get elected.  

Everyone should have the opportunity if they want it.

You vote in November.  Just because you signed the petition doesn't mean you have to vote for them.

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.  

19 minutes ago, Elizabeth Whitehouse said:

This country is supposed to be a democracy. Ha ha. As such, it is not up to you decide who is eligible to run for office.

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.

14 hours ago, Elizabeth Whitehouse said:

Really? You think that people choose to be homeless?  In a city where more than a third of people live in poverty.

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. 

Quote

The City of Elmira recently cleaned up the homeless encampment under the Clemens Center Bridge, however many people who were living there returned a short time later.

Officials offered help to the people living there but say the overwhelming majority of homeless people refused help. With winter around the corner, the city and its homeless are in a tough spot.

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. 

16 hours ago, Chris said:

I see on Facebook an $11k raise for the county executive made it out of committee with a 3-2 vote. It will go before the entire legislature next week.

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:

Quote

 

Chemung County Executive Christopher Moss has announced salary reductions for some high-level county officials — meaning a savings of $91,100. 

Two officials, Moss and Deputy Executive David Sheen, the former Southern town supervisor, will see their salaries shrink by 15 percent. Five other positions will see 10 percent reductions. One position, director of public information, will see a $16,339 increase in salary. 

The reductions come as no surprise and likely will not be the last cost-cutting measure implemented as the newly seated county executive looks to balance the county's budget. 

"As Chemung County's budget continues to increase incrementally each year, we need to find a way to slow the growth ... without affecting the services we're providing to the taxpayer," Moss told the Star-Gazette last month. "We need to reduce our full-time employee count as well as conduct a thorough review of single rate salaries, as the initial review indicates several should be reduced, as they are out of line with counties that share similar demographics." 

 

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":

Quote

 

The county executive and the Legislature also disagreed on pay rate increases for some county employees — specifically in the executive branch. The Legislature's budget raised the county executive’s salary to $146,985, mirroring a 4% raise for many elected and management employees. County legislators also received a 4% pay bump, their first raise of the current term.

“I personally feel that it is fair to treat the county executive and Legislature the same when handing out raises, and 4% is a very fair raise,” said 14th District Legislator Michael Smith.

Moss said his budget plan sought to remedy issues of “wage compression,” in which there is a decreased difference in pay between county employees and supervisors. Moss made 22 wage adjustments to the salaries of county officials based on wage compression concerns. The increases ranged from 4% to 31.2%, with a 13% increase for the county executive to $159,954.

Moss noted that some elected and appointed officials took a 10% to 15% pay decrease in 2019 that saved the county around $244,000 over the ensuing three years. The Budget Committee approved 19 of the 22 recommendations, but not for the positions of county executive and deputy executive.

“The Legislature, for no articulated or legitimate basis, refusing to return half of the 15% taken from the position of the County Executive and Deputy Executive in 2019, does nothing but create an additional wage compression issue whereupon now three department heads will make more than the Deputy Executive, who is their immediate supervisor,” said Moss.

 

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 

Quote

 

Generally, increases in salary were awarded because of performance. You had to produce. Contribution to the organization's success. And I would like to point out that there are some areas here where the County Executive has been less than cooperative with the legislature. And, in fact, has completely disregarded the wishes of the Legislature.

********

I find it very difficult to justify in my mind why this kind of work should be rewarded. To me increase in wages as a reward for good work. And I have to say that I don't see it.

 

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. 

9 hours ago, Adam said:

due to the margin being so tight, an automatic hand re-count has been triggered for my primary, should have results certified one way or the other by the 12th

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").

I wonder when we will hear whether the "New Team" Margeson mentioned will have any more actual community members than the above listed "Community" Advisory Board named in 2006 (heluva job they did, huh?).

From the the way he spoke of it, I'm sort of expecting the same....but fewer movers and shakers from this area.  Someone with connections to the Bills and Sabers was referenced, as well as an "entertainment" expert (maybe someone located Tadross?? LOL). 

The public has been told that CCIDA is comprised of “smart” and “effective” and “capable” people.  In fact, they have been granted so much influence, that we should assume that the judgement and business acumen of those few individuals is superior to the entire rest of the county.....combined.  

We’ve also been told (by the brain trust mentioned above) that both Nichols/CAN-USA and Tadross-Donner/Mammoth were “smart” and “effective” and “capable” business people before the CCIDA entered into leases with them.

If that were true, then these tenants would have been aware of the condition of the Arena, the costs involved in rehabbing it to run successfully. Any “capable” businessperson understands startup and operating costs and does research to determine that projected revenue will cover those costs.

I’m not sure which business decision would be considered more foolish and incompetent.

A Tenant signing a lease without bothering to find out any details or cost projections on a multimillion dollar endeavor?

Or a Landlord actually believing that anyone could be successful at multimillion dollar endeavor....without bothering to find out any details or cost projections?

4 hours ago, LocalSportsGuy said:

Well I think the best thing the IDA and the county can do is just be honest with the people. Be upfront, be accountable, and just tell us what's going on. The people should know what's going on if their tax dollars are going toward operating the place. 

Unfortunately, it seems that transparency is not something they are offering voluntarily. 

From when the Donner deal was first announced in November 2021, the IDA's clandestine deal with Donner was kept from the public until it was signed. This is in violation of State Law: the final meeting was "accidentally" not recorded, but there was no explanation for why no previous meeting minutes or recordings ever mentioned the deal either. (See pages 2-4 of this topic for links and references to that). 

 At this point, the only way for the people to find out what's happening behind the IDA's doors will be if the media diligently pursues answers, and submits FOIL requests for information that is not willingly being shared.......liek Nick Dubina did when City officials refused to discuss why the Chief was fired. 

And can someone do a welfare check on Mike Tadross?  One of the big selling points of this deal was that he was the" Hollywood producer" who was going to bring entertainment in......but he mysteriously disappeared by the time teh IDA finalized teh lease with Donner. 

5 minutes ago, JustAGuy said:

Are any of these people still on this said board? Does it still exist???

I'm sure it disbanded at some point (probably when the IDA "purchased" the Arena several years later, largely with huge chunks of taxpayer funds).

6 minutes ago, JustAGuy said:

That board is all snakes all the time though. 

And I expect whatever "new" board of experts that Margeson mentioned in the interview will be a similar crowd....adding in a few out of town parasites.

Public Comments can be made at the beginning of tonight's Legislature Meeting:

On 6/10/2023 at 2:27 PM, MsKreed said:

EDIT:  A quick search of past Legislature meetings, Strange and Sonsire both did vote on CCIDA funding.  So, I guess I'm recalling some other organizations that where she recused herself due to perceived conflict of being on a Board.  Maybe Cooperative Extension or something like that 

Which still makes me question whether Legislators should ever be voting on Resolutions that benefit any Board they sit on, or when it becomes a conflict?

I guess I'm not the only person who has pondered this.....

The NYS Senate passed  BILL NUMBER: S1716 (HERE) in May, and it's been sent to the Assembly  (Bill A255 HERE)

Quote

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: Section 1: Repeals the existing subdivision 4 of section 856 of the general municipal law which deals with elected officials serving as members of IDA boards and replaces it with a new subdivision 4 that

prohibits any elected official serving at the county, town, city, or village level from serving as member of the board of any industrial development agency (IDA) located within the county. Any IDA board member who would now be ineligible to serve may serve until the expiration of his or her term as a member of the IDA, at which time new board members must be selected using the existing process established by each IDA. The enabling legislation for certain county and municipal IDAs specifically requires certain elected positions to be represented on the IDA's board. This bill would not apply to any elected officials required by the terms of the enabling legislation for a particular IDA to serve on the board of that IDA. Section 2: Sets Effective Date.   JUSTIFICATION: Each year, local industrial development agencies grant millions of dollars of financial assistance in the form of tax incentives, payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreements, and others, to projects seeking assistance. The members of IDA boards make decisions on which projects will receive assistance and how much assistance to offer. Allowing elected officials to serve as IDA board members opens obvious opportu- nities for corruption and conflicts of interest. For instance, a company (or its officers) seeking financial assistance from a county or munici- pal IDA could contribute to the campaign of an elected official who serves on the IDA board and that elected official could then vote to confer millions of dollars in taxpayer incentives on the company. Despite this clear potential for corruption, elected officials currently serve on IDA boards all around the state, making this bill a vitally needed anti-corruption measure.

8 minutes ago, Chris said:

Ok, so since it’s obvious the county wants to ignore the wishes of the majority of the people and their opinions, it’s a forgone conclusion that they are gonna steamroll ahead and go into the business of running an arena.

So the question is, what can they do in order to perhaps make it a profitable and successful endeavor for a change?

I think there is a certain number of people who don't care at all whether or not it even is a profitable and successful endeavor.  

I don't know who the new "diverse" group of advisors that Margeson mentioned will be. But the idea of a appointing a group of"experts" from varying backgrounds of expertise to  collaborate on Arena plan is not new. We did this the first time the place failed. 

January 3, 2006

Lucky for us that these bastions of the business world were there to right the ship before it became a burden.  The Legislature ought to issue a Proclamation to Honor these guys for rescuing the Arena. Many of them are still "moving and shaking" in Chemung County and some have advanced to higher aspirations, new titles and positions. 

16 hours ago, Chris said:

And to say they’re hopeful the county can get on board, support, or whatever? Shouldn’t be too hard since Margeson chairs both the legislature and the CCIDA 

It seems like back when Sonsire was streaming meetings, she was on the CCIDA board and abstained from certain votes that involved the CCIDA. It never occurred to me.....but now I almost want to research and see how often other Legislators who sit on the CCIDA abstained from voting to throw money at the CCIDA.

EDIT:  A quick search of past Legislature meetings, Strange and Sonsire both did vote on CCIDA funding.  So, I guess I'm recalling some other organizations that where she recused herself due to perceived conflict of being on a Board.  Maybe Cooperative Extension or something like that 

Which still makes me question whether Legislators should ever be voting on Resolutions that benefit any Board they sit on, or when it becomes a conflict?

16 hours ago, Chris said:

Let’s see how many millions of dollars they can waste on it for a couple hundred hockey fans and families before it gets through their heads that this is not a hockey town.

Amen!

Is Youth Hockey a valuable pastime? Yes - absolutely.

But it certainly is not the only sport or recreational activity that Chemung County parents choose to involve their kids in....and not the only sport/activity that has facilities in the county that have struggled. 

We have a skating rink and three bowling alleys that have always been expected to pay taxes and pay for their own maintenance and operating costs. As those expenses and maintenance costs have risen over the years, those facilities suffered in silence without stealing Casella grants or ARP funds.