Third Ward Numbers

Sigh, the Recorder gets the numbers backwards for primary results(here):
Recorder says:

DeRossi won the Republican primary over Robert Going, collecting 80 votes to Going’s 66. Meanwhile, Martin gathered 109 votes to defeat Ron Wierzbicki and his 72 votes in the Democratic race.
[snip]
Pollwatchers said the turnout was about normal for a primary election, with 146 of 853 registered Democrats and 181 of 539 registered Republicans casting ballots.

It should be 146 of 539 (27.1%) Republican and 181 of 853(21.2%) Democrats.

You may also like...

14 Responses

  1. Karin says:

    Yeah! For Bob Martin!
    Maybe now (if elected in November, some of these beautiful old houses in the city can be saved and sold, instead of being torn down!
    Yeah! For Jeff Stark!
    I think he will do a great job (if elected in November) helping to clean up the Union Street and surrounding area!

    • Straighshooter says:

      There is nothing beautiful about most of these old homes slated for demolition. I would love to hear Bob Martin’s plan for actually saving them. Saying you want to save them is nice but I would like to know how.

      • flippinamsterdam says:

        I think the house on the corner of Clinton and Northampton serves as a counterpoint to ‘nothing beautiful’ and ‘must be demolished’. Let me counter with a question of my own. I would like to know how you envision the city paying for all the demolition necessary with no initiative to rehab them? The fact that the houses, although rundown, would be deemed ‘nothing beautiful’ troubles me but is the predominant mindset apparently on old housing stock in the city.
        Also, your prior post that was queued puts you on the warning list, first and final warning.

      • Straighshooter says:

        I will answer your question of how I envision the city paying for the demolition cost. It’s very simple. They won’t be.

  2. Karin says:

    I think there are so many unique and wonderful old homes in this city. They just need to be fixed up. Take the junky old aluminum siding off and discover all the fancy goodies hiding beneath. Many of these homes just need the right people to restore them. I would much prefer to see these houses restored, than to see an empty lot of grass. Besides, grass won’t pay the taxes. These homes could be fixed up and sold, and put back on the tax roll.

  3. w murphy says:

    Karin:
    While I share your view that historic housing is actually one of the unique draws of our city, and that preserving authentic architecture is the right and noble thing to do, I think we need to look at the condition of our city in a much more holistic, strategic, and realistic sense.
    We have hundreds of homes in blighted areas of our cities that are way beyond salvation. Expansive plots of grass or gardens may be preferable in these areas in order to actually turn the areas around and give some relief to the responsible homeowners that remain there.
    Now in the areas that are not blighted and overrun by dilapidated 6-family junkpiles, I agree wholeheartedly that preservation is the answer. Old architecture is one of our great strengths, but at the same time it is one of our weaknesses. We need to recognize how to strategically approach this or we will be throwing good money after bad, only to watch the blight continue to spread.

  4. Karin says:

    I do agree with you on some of the houses in the ‘not so good’ areas. They should be torn down. And it is obvious that more than a few others in town should go as well, like the really bad ones, beyond repair. But, honestly, there are so many beautiful old homes here in the city, I happen to own one. It is a drafty old house, always needing some kind of repair (which we keep up on constantly). But I just happen to like the old architecture. I think the older homes have so much more character, and are just simply affordable to purchase. When I drive around the city and see people letting some of these beautiful homes fall into ruin, it upsets me. Or when I watch St. Mary’s Hospital tear down gorgeous homes to build a bigger parking lot, well, need I say more? I also think that there should be a law (?), that when a home is purchased from a foreclosure, the buyer should have to bring it up to code and reside in it for a certain period of time. Not to buy a home, do nothing to it, rent it out and let it fall apart. Maybe then some of these old buildings wouldn’t become what they have over the years. This just brings in bad renters over & over again. If the house is a dump, you only get that kind of person willing to live in it. If the houses were properly maintained, you would have a better choice of renters and home buyers. Just my opinion.

  5. emma says:

    I’m slowly coming out of my mourning period, so I will say Congratulations to Mr.Martin, who certainly will be our alderman for the next few years. I want our ward and this city to improve as much as the next person,even if I feel they are several different ways of going about it.
    Let’s talk about that house on Guy Park/Clinton. I was just talking to my little one about it the other day, as he observed the work being done and that he was glad ‘they were taking care of it and it will be nice like it used to right Mom?’
    Yes,it will. My question about it is,if AHA owns it, it becomes low income rental apartments correct? As in taxpayer funded rents? How does this help our city? I’m not arguing it would be better suited knocked down/vacant lot – I am asking in this particular case, aside from it looking better, how does this help us? If you glance across the street, you have a house that had a new porch built on, that is now being painted a few different colors that do not match the house, which is only 3/4 painted nice, and the rest has been left unpainted for years. Let’s move up to Guy Park/Tryon corner…well over a year that house has been unfinished. It’s entirely understandable to realize work on a house takes time and in some cases is never ending, but where’s the standard being applied to homeowners who half ass take on home improvement projects,to never finish them.
    And finally, to the beautiful old homes(of which one of them I own) that could be saved, I am not understanding who you think would be responsible for paying to fix them. The city? Where would the money for that come from?

    • flippinamsterdam says:

      A question first: you mention ‘taxpayer funded rents’; what is source of the funding-local,state,…?

      • emma says:

        I don’t think it matters which, and I am not sure where the AHA gets funding from, but I would assume it’s through state grants(payed for by our state taxes).
        So the AHA owns the building and it is going to be reassessed when it’s completed I would assume. That will be anywhere from $2 – 4k going to the city that wasn’t before, a point I understand. But is this paid out of AHA’s own personal profits? Or through continuing ‘grants’? Or through the low income tenants rents that are again subsidised through either our county/state(either = our tax dollars again.)
        While the people who eventually reside there very well may keep the property looking pristine, there is a good chance if they are getting assistance for rent, they are receiving other assistance as well, which doesn’t add to our tax base at all and actually perpetuates the high taxes we pay.
        What did we really gain here?
        Keep in mind my post about Key Bank,I am not totally against tax dollars being used to develop/assist revitalization.

        • flippinamsterdam says:

          In dealing with local policy, I view things through a local lens as far as its economics. In my view, a revenue stream to the locality is a revenue stream regardless of source as on a local level, our policy makers can only optimize our local revenue stream not external revenue streams. My view is rather pragmatic– only try to manage things you can actually manage. Of course we should be advocating and lobbying outside the locality to promote and protect our self-interest along with acquiring more sources and more dollars. But in the end we own our own local revenue stream. Our tax framework relies upon a myriad of tax streams and tax incentives outside our local bounds so while you may dislike and disapprove of tax streams for low income housing, that tax stream as ‘our taxpayer’ dollars is no different than the tax stream from Social Security, tax breaks via Enhanced Star , et al. By your standard, I should also reject taxpayer funded streams to seniors, tax payer funded streams to business such as BeechNut, etc. I think that is the slippery slope with your argument.
          To the specific property owned by AHA, I view anything within reason as better than an empty lot or a boarded building. Even low income tenants need services and goods from the local community so there is an economic contribution outside of rent plus property tax. More importantly, we do not introduce a domino effect of an empty lot next to a home which only serves to negatively impact its neighbors and neighborhoods. The use of the property as low income housing stems simply from the fact that we do not have enough demand for our housing stock for a number of reasons but bottom line is that lack of demand, keeps prices lower than what they should and could be. Let me respectfully submit that, as I often say, we have a demand side problem more so than a supply side problem. So you could demolish all the deteriorated homes in the city and still not have enough demand to change the basic price dynamic. In fact, this was the flaw with urban renewal which did anything but. And this is the flaw with our current policies and strategies that fail to address any demand side growth. Our problem is not high taxes; high taxes are a symptom of no growth. Growth, or lack thereof, is the problem.
          As far as the other homes, I believe they are privately owned and barring zoning or coding violations, I am not sure what can be done. I’m an advocate for historic preservation and maintaining the character of old homes. I think it’s an abomination to see siding on once proud Victorians but I also understand the economic reality that the cost to restore and preserve exceeds the cost/benefit for the homeowner. I dislike it but it is hard to argue with the economics given the current economics here. Until that cost/benefit changes, you will not see any aesthetic improvements. Take the defeated anti-graffiti proposal– graffiti by any measure is worse than a poorly chosen color palette or unfinished work — and our community actually railed against the fact that homeowners should be responsible for cleaning it up. How can you possibly progress to resolving your valid points if we cannot even hold homeowners and businesses responsible for ridding their structures of graffiti. You cannot.
          Our housing situation requires a market-based solution through some demand side policies to get people to move here. We are deluding ourselves that we can simply fix our housing problem through demolition or through programs such as AHA; these programs form an important but not essential part to the solution. And city and county government alone cannot fix our housing problem. It needs a private sector component as well. To me demolition and the house on the corner address part of the problem not the full problem. So some things can be done through public moneys however most will need to come from private money that believes enough to invest in this community. Let me respectfully submit again that this community cannot even convince itself yet much less others. Let me leave it at that.

  6. Karin says:

    Hopefully they will be sold to people who would be willing to fix them, move in and live in them. There must still be some people around who are interested in purchasing a home, instead of renting. We have owned two homes, we looked for fixer-uppers both times. Bought our first in Niskayuna, rather inexpensively, worked on it 24/7 for 5 years. Did all the work ourselves (no contractors), and sold it once fixed up beautifully (furnished, I might add). Then bought our second home here in Amsterdam (where I grew up). We are continusly working on our home now. You can buy a beautiful home here in the city inexpensively. The way I see it is, why hand your hard earned money over to someone else every month to pay their mortgage? When you can own your own home and it belongs to you, privacy and all.

  7. Karin says:

    PS: The house they are fixing up on Clinton & Guy Park – who ever owns it, won’t they have to pay taxes even if it a rental property?

Leave a Reply