Solid old buildings in good shape are carbon sinks as long as they stand and are useful. Aesthetics aside, knocking down a brick building with a slate roof, a building meant to last hundreds of years, in order to replace it with inexpensive housing designed for maybe a 30-50 year useful lifespan is short sighted at best.
I had wondered if Elise Stefanik was still associated with NED since she no longer has respect for the results of elections. They’re more forgiving than I am if they allow her to stay.
It’d be interesting to see if she can bounce back and forth between moderate and extremist. I’m happy Donold didn’t choose her for his running mate anyway. She would’ve been a much better choice and might’ve actually brought some value. It’s delicious that she got passed over for a lesser qualified white man who turns out to be a total boob.
The difference in appearance between the brick house and the tin-box apartment building is striking. One built to last, with a flair for the aesthetics of architecture, adding a bit of beauty to the street. The other built for expediency, with an eye towards profit, adding plainness and mediocrity to the street.
Similarly, the difference between pro-democracy values and populist authoritarianism is equally striking. One built to ensure the peaceful and lawful transfer of power from one administration to the next, adding stability and continuity to our governance. The other built to exacerbate the divisions in our society, using illegal means and even threats of force to achieve a transfer of power.
"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." (Maya Angelou)
I want to start with giving Will credit for taking the non extremist route. He is very correct and eloquent in the way he presents his observations. Certainly I tried last year to get the readers here to be more open to what was really happening in real time with the political environment. Both sides want to be more extreme, which leads to further disfunction. In over twenty years of local politics I have experienced some interesting observations myself. Very good local representatives can go to the State or Federal talking points and completely lose sight of being a true representative of the very people who elected you. Certain people have more egos than ability. Elise has all the characteristics to be the leader we need. If she was not thick skinned and opportunistic, our locality wouldn't have near the opportunities we may have. Senator Schumer is just from a different generation, but he is very articulate and opportunistic. We have the best of both worlds right now, but want to play the extreme game instead of doing what is best for the electorate. Law and order is the only way to exist. Bail reform has gone to far and opiates are wreaking havoc on society. We are headed the wrong way in NY, but I guess having a super majority it just takes time to self implode. Closing Great Meadow will change our region economically that we cannot fathom at this point. Every closure has been in and around the Adirondack Park has taken its toll on the communities there. Then NY State lets those facilities just rot into the earth. There is no foresight in that type of government. The electorate votes for great orators and not the policy and principles that would make great outcomes. I assume that is human nature and we all have those tendencies. Self responsibility has to lead our future. Government is being asked to do what it should not be doing and can never be good at. Government cannot replace family and raising kids. The family structure is really what made America what it became, lack of family is now taking it the other way. That is on each and everyone of us. Government needs the family structure, and Government is only as good as the people involved. Moderation would be great for everyone, but personal and party agendas are currently working against us. Thank you Will for what I find to be one of the only positive messages I've read in awhile.
I’m not sure what you mean about government needing family structure but I am concerned that government at the local level is only as good as the people involved.
The core principle of American democracy is that government is formed by the People deriving just powers by consent of the governed.
My concern is that our local governments lack the diversity of thought necessary for effective planning and governance. In an open-minded council diversity of thought leads to moderation of outcome, but in my experience simply using the word diversity often gets the hackles up of those in elected positions and among those who feel that they are the moderate center.
You posit “bail reform has gone too far” as if it is a fundamental law of science, but I wonder if there would have been bail reform at all had there not been people with alternative points of view who I suspect you would consider extremists. And you pair the problem of opioids in the sentence with bail reform which makes me think that you see the 2 ideas (one an attempted solution, and one a problem) as being somehow linked.
There is no doubt that prison closures are and have been a serious challenge to the region but there also needs to be a recognition that the seed of closure was planted in the establishment of prisons in sparsely populated regions and that local governments did not adequately use the decades long but short term economic boost to diversify local economies in preparation for the potential of closures.
We shouldn’t forget that a few decades ago prisons were seen as profit centers for local governments and as jobs to replace local rust belt jobs lost to modernization. There were people warning that mass incarceration should not have been a plan for economic stability but at the time those voices were dismissed as extremists. The idea of overbuilding prisons and jails in rural communities was considered moderate - heck, Mario Cuomo was a proponent.
Brian, what is extreme about accepting the results of elections, expanding voting access to all Americans, and honoring our relationships withe long time allies? I could go on, but many of the positions like these that Democrats take used to be thought of as simply American. The Republican party has changed and become something unrecognizable. Trump and Stefanik operate on a national level and one could say local governments have little to no sway on many of the bigger issues. But if local representatives look the other way or, worse, actively support national politicians who have abandoned democratic principles, they will be tarred with the same brush. As a Democrat I can assure you that Stefanik is as extreme as they come when it comes to how she treats her constituents who may not have voted for her.
All the issues you mentioned, bail reform, opiates, prison closures, they have the fingerprints of many decades of politicians, Republican and Democratic, national and local, all working in concert to lack imagination and vision, to blame each other, and to prefer a quick sound bite over real problem solving. In that respect, you are correct in your both sides-ism.
I would say to you if family is so important, (and I agree that stable families are indispensable if society is to have a stable foundation) then why do so many Republicans on all levels fight tooth and nail against things like Head Start, a living wage, health insurance for all, gun safety laws? These are all things that would actually help families and in turn help society. I don’t see these as government replacing family or raising kids. I see them as giving people the tools and the support they need to do it. I’m not sure where you stand on these issues. Perhaps you support them all. But your party doesn’t.
You have great points. I’ll try to respond straight to the point. Healthcare has tripled in 15 years and the insurance company decides your treatment. Cops are our frontline in law and order and yet we hear calls to defund the police. Mental health is an issue but we legalize all sorts of drugs, and others are just accepted, and we have now added to a child’s mind to question their own gender. These are all government initiatives if not mandates. So I believe the family is the only chance we have to turn this around. I’m not trying to send anyone to any party. I do hope to make you think about what you ask of your government. Government can spend your dollars, NY has a spending problem not a revenue problem. People really need that JFK logic. Ask not what your Country can do for you? But what can you do for your country?
That was yesterday’s Democrat, very moderate. Today’s Republican is not that conservative. So explain to me if people want to roll up their sleeves and actually work, or just complain as it totally implodes. I believe the implosion is already in motion. I want the electorate to ask for what is actually needed not just for their Party to be in power. Will Doolittle had the first
acknowledgement of that opportunity: terrific start as long as enough people see it that way, or the implosion picks up momentum.
Brian, you should change your party affiliation, you sound almost like a Democrat sometimes!! And I mean it as a compliment.
The healthcare system in America is indeed ridiculous in almost every aspect: affordability, access, the cost of medicines, the fact that doctors get paid for treating sick people but not for keeping them healthy. The thing to do is not throw in the towel and complain about the cost but to see what works in other countries and come up with a better way for the US. I think removing the profit motive in healthcare would be a great start.
“Defund the police” was one of the stupidest slogans I ever heard. I can’t imagine any reasonable person thinking we do not need some kind of law enforcement. “Reform the police” would have been much more accurate. The defunding theme came about because of the fact that when you give a police department loads of money and have them spend it on military style hardware instead of, say, mental health training and community outreach, the tendency for them is to throw all that weight around. That some police departments are too antagonistic towards the people they serve is beyond dispute.
Legalizing a drug that loads of people already use without problems and that has definite medicinal value such as marijuana is not that much of an issue, and it does not cause mental illness and in fact may help certain conditions such as anxiety and PTSD. No major political party or candidate that I know of has advocated to legalize drugs such as opioids or meth that cause obvious harm, so I don’t know where you got this fear from, but it is certainly not a government initiative or mandate. Nor is it anyone’s, and I mean ANYONE’S, initiative or mandate to MAKE a child question their gender. If a child is questioning their gender it is because it is coming from within them, the feeling that they have been born in the wrong body. I am fine with a government initiative and mandate that allows a person to to simply be who they are without fear of being ostracized, and I have to wonder why you seem to feel allowing a person to be comfortable in their own skin is bad.
What do I ask of my government? I ask of it to live up to the ideals laid out in the Declaration of Independence, and to abide at every level with the Constitution and the laws of the land, responsive to the will of the people from whom it derives its powers, but resisting the call of mob rule, and to strive to create the conditions for every American, regardless of who they are, to achieve to the best of their ability.
Will: Your article on Stefanik is replete with thoughtfulness, generosity, optimism, kindness, hope and wisdom. If any or all of these finest of human characteristics are dormant in the Representative, yes, may they [at long last] awaken in her- and awaken her... / -intelligence is not a virtue, it is a gift: all too often abused.
Please don't ask me to ever embrace Stefanik, her "opportunistic" streak causes so much damage to actual people--this is not an academic exercise, she is not in a bubble (she visited Israel and spoke to the Knesset) and yet she uses social media and media in general to stoke hurtful GOP talking points. Stefanik has plenty of access to educated money-makers and conservative thinkers, and uses her rhetoric to divide. Remember when she went ballistic about being called "childless?" Huh. Now her endorsed ticket is using that very word and she is silent while women are degraded by the GOP. She deserves NOTHING from me. Nothing. Never going back, Will.
I would sure love to see our City "Planners" wake up and stop selling our city's heritage to the highest bidder with no thought given to the long term impacts of poor planning and horrendous design.
391 Glen Street may be my favorite Glens Falls building! I am appalled to hear it is slated for demolition and replacement by that dreadful structure. Just as Glens Falls is turning ever more attractive, we can’t allow money to sabotage our Renaissance.
As I have stated before, Sedition Stefanik is only interested in one thing and that is herself. She will do and say anything that she believes will allow her to achieve her goal. Her diabolical actions have nothing to do with what she believes.
How does one connect with Deb Peck? My grandson’s are arriving and I would appreciate a Peck experience with them! If she is related to the farmer Pecks, it will be an extraordinary time. Thanks
My daughters too were enthralled with Debbie Peck and the time spend outdoors with her. Isn't it amazing how simple things bring great joy to children? Schools- are you listening? Zee
So Elise is just a craven opportunist? I’m shocked.
Praying mantis?
Katydid
We found a similar bug in Fort Edward. Our research said Katydid, also.
Solid old buildings in good shape are carbon sinks as long as they stand and are useful. Aesthetics aside, knocking down a brick building with a slate roof, a building meant to last hundreds of years, in order to replace it with inexpensive housing designed for maybe a 30-50 year useful lifespan is short sighted at best.
That’s a beautiful brick building at 391 Glen. What a waste.
I had wondered if Elise Stefanik was still associated with NED since she no longer has respect for the results of elections. They’re more forgiving than I am if they allow her to stay.
It’d be interesting to see if she can bounce back and forth between moderate and extremist. I’m happy Donold didn’t choose her for his running mate anyway. She would’ve been a much better choice and might’ve actually brought some value. It’s delicious that she got passed over for a lesser qualified white man who turns out to be a total boob.
That’s what she’s signed up for. 👏
The difference in appearance between the brick house and the tin-box apartment building is striking. One built to last, with a flair for the aesthetics of architecture, adding a bit of beauty to the street. The other built for expediency, with an eye towards profit, adding plainness and mediocrity to the street.
Similarly, the difference between pro-democracy values and populist authoritarianism is equally striking. One built to ensure the peaceful and lawful transfer of power from one administration to the next, adding stability and continuity to our governance. The other built to exacerbate the divisions in our society, using illegal means and even threats of force to achieve a transfer of power.
"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." (Maya Angelou)
I want to start with giving Will credit for taking the non extremist route. He is very correct and eloquent in the way he presents his observations. Certainly I tried last year to get the readers here to be more open to what was really happening in real time with the political environment. Both sides want to be more extreme, which leads to further disfunction. In over twenty years of local politics I have experienced some interesting observations myself. Very good local representatives can go to the State or Federal talking points and completely lose sight of being a true representative of the very people who elected you. Certain people have more egos than ability. Elise has all the characteristics to be the leader we need. If she was not thick skinned and opportunistic, our locality wouldn't have near the opportunities we may have. Senator Schumer is just from a different generation, but he is very articulate and opportunistic. We have the best of both worlds right now, but want to play the extreme game instead of doing what is best for the electorate. Law and order is the only way to exist. Bail reform has gone to far and opiates are wreaking havoc on society. We are headed the wrong way in NY, but I guess having a super majority it just takes time to self implode. Closing Great Meadow will change our region economically that we cannot fathom at this point. Every closure has been in and around the Adirondack Park has taken its toll on the communities there. Then NY State lets those facilities just rot into the earth. There is no foresight in that type of government. The electorate votes for great orators and not the policy and principles that would make great outcomes. I assume that is human nature and we all have those tendencies. Self responsibility has to lead our future. Government is being asked to do what it should not be doing and can never be good at. Government cannot replace family and raising kids. The family structure is really what made America what it became, lack of family is now taking it the other way. That is on each and everyone of us. Government needs the family structure, and Government is only as good as the people involved. Moderation would be great for everyone, but personal and party agendas are currently working against us. Thank you Will for what I find to be one of the only positive messages I've read in awhile.
Maybe you believe that Ms. Stefanik has leadership qualities....but this voter doesn't.
She's a disgusting display of *rot* .
I would never vote for her. Her allegiance to a felon does not speak qualified leadership to me.
I’m not sure what you mean about government needing family structure but I am concerned that government at the local level is only as good as the people involved.
The core principle of American democracy is that government is formed by the People deriving just powers by consent of the governed.
My concern is that our local governments lack the diversity of thought necessary for effective planning and governance. In an open-minded council diversity of thought leads to moderation of outcome, but in my experience simply using the word diversity often gets the hackles up of those in elected positions and among those who feel that they are the moderate center.
You posit “bail reform has gone too far” as if it is a fundamental law of science, but I wonder if there would have been bail reform at all had there not been people with alternative points of view who I suspect you would consider extremists. And you pair the problem of opioids in the sentence with bail reform which makes me think that you see the 2 ideas (one an attempted solution, and one a problem) as being somehow linked.
There is no doubt that prison closures are and have been a serious challenge to the region but there also needs to be a recognition that the seed of closure was planted in the establishment of prisons in sparsely populated regions and that local governments did not adequately use the decades long but short term economic boost to diversify local economies in preparation for the potential of closures.
We shouldn’t forget that a few decades ago prisons were seen as profit centers for local governments and as jobs to replace local rust belt jobs lost to modernization. There were people warning that mass incarceration should not have been a plan for economic stability but at the time those voices were dismissed as extremists. The idea of overbuilding prisons and jails in rural communities was considered moderate - heck, Mario Cuomo was a proponent.
...government, "at the local level"- and at all levels, is always: "only as good as the people" who comprise it...
Brian, what is extreme about accepting the results of elections, expanding voting access to all Americans, and honoring our relationships withe long time allies? I could go on, but many of the positions like these that Democrats take used to be thought of as simply American. The Republican party has changed and become something unrecognizable. Trump and Stefanik operate on a national level and one could say local governments have little to no sway on many of the bigger issues. But if local representatives look the other way or, worse, actively support national politicians who have abandoned democratic principles, they will be tarred with the same brush. As a Democrat I can assure you that Stefanik is as extreme as they come when it comes to how she treats her constituents who may not have voted for her.
All the issues you mentioned, bail reform, opiates, prison closures, they have the fingerprints of many decades of politicians, Republican and Democratic, national and local, all working in concert to lack imagination and vision, to blame each other, and to prefer a quick sound bite over real problem solving. In that respect, you are correct in your both sides-ism.
I would say to you if family is so important, (and I agree that stable families are indispensable if society is to have a stable foundation) then why do so many Republicans on all levels fight tooth and nail against things like Head Start, a living wage, health insurance for all, gun safety laws? These are all things that would actually help families and in turn help society. I don’t see these as government replacing family or raising kids. I see them as giving people the tools and the support they need to do it. I’m not sure where you stand on these issues. Perhaps you support them all. But your party doesn’t.
Good questions. Well said.
You have great points. I’ll try to respond straight to the point. Healthcare has tripled in 15 years and the insurance company decides your treatment. Cops are our frontline in law and order and yet we hear calls to defund the police. Mental health is an issue but we legalize all sorts of drugs, and others are just accepted, and we have now added to a child’s mind to question their own gender. These are all government initiatives if not mandates. So I believe the family is the only chance we have to turn this around. I’m not trying to send anyone to any party. I do hope to make you think about what you ask of your government. Government can spend your dollars, NY has a spending problem not a revenue problem. People really need that JFK logic. Ask not what your Country can do for you? But what can you do for your country?
That was yesterday’s Democrat, very moderate. Today’s Republican is not that conservative. So explain to me if people want to roll up their sleeves and actually work, or just complain as it totally implodes. I believe the implosion is already in motion. I want the electorate to ask for what is actually needed not just for their Party to be in power. Will Doolittle had the first
acknowledgement of that opportunity: terrific start as long as enough people see it that way, or the implosion picks up momentum.
Brian, you should change your party affiliation, you sound almost like a Democrat sometimes!! And I mean it as a compliment.
The healthcare system in America is indeed ridiculous in almost every aspect: affordability, access, the cost of medicines, the fact that doctors get paid for treating sick people but not for keeping them healthy. The thing to do is not throw in the towel and complain about the cost but to see what works in other countries and come up with a better way for the US. I think removing the profit motive in healthcare would be a great start.
“Defund the police” was one of the stupidest slogans I ever heard. I can’t imagine any reasonable person thinking we do not need some kind of law enforcement. “Reform the police” would have been much more accurate. The defunding theme came about because of the fact that when you give a police department loads of money and have them spend it on military style hardware instead of, say, mental health training and community outreach, the tendency for them is to throw all that weight around. That some police departments are too antagonistic towards the people they serve is beyond dispute.
Legalizing a drug that loads of people already use without problems and that has definite medicinal value such as marijuana is not that much of an issue, and it does not cause mental illness and in fact may help certain conditions such as anxiety and PTSD. No major political party or candidate that I know of has advocated to legalize drugs such as opioids or meth that cause obvious harm, so I don’t know where you got this fear from, but it is certainly not a government initiative or mandate. Nor is it anyone’s, and I mean ANYONE’S, initiative or mandate to MAKE a child question their gender. If a child is questioning their gender it is because it is coming from within them, the feeling that they have been born in the wrong body. I am fine with a government initiative and mandate that allows a person to to simply be who they are without fear of being ostracized, and I have to wonder why you seem to feel allowing a person to be comfortable in their own skin is bad.
What do I ask of my government? I ask of it to live up to the ideals laid out in the Declaration of Independence, and to abide at every level with the Constitution and the laws of the land, responsive to the will of the people from whom it derives its powers, but resisting the call of mob rule, and to strive to create the conditions for every American, regardless of who they are, to achieve to the best of their ability.
Will: Your article on Stefanik is replete with thoughtfulness, generosity, optimism, kindness, hope and wisdom. If any or all of these finest of human characteristics are dormant in the Representative, yes, may they [at long last] awaken in her- and awaken her... / -intelligence is not a virtue, it is a gift: all too often abused.
Please don't ask me to ever embrace Stefanik, her "opportunistic" streak causes so much damage to actual people--this is not an academic exercise, she is not in a bubble (she visited Israel and spoke to the Knesset) and yet she uses social media and media in general to stoke hurtful GOP talking points. Stefanik has plenty of access to educated money-makers and conservative thinkers, and uses her rhetoric to divide. Remember when she went ballistic about being called "childless?" Huh. Now her endorsed ticket is using that very word and she is silent while women are degraded by the GOP. She deserves NOTHING from me. Nothing. Never going back, Will.
Very well stated! An opportunist, no matter how many degrees they have paid for, can never be trusted.
I would sure love to see our City "Planners" wake up and stop selling our city's heritage to the highest bidder with no thought given to the long term impacts of poor planning and horrendous design.
391 Glen Street may be my favorite Glens Falls building! I am appalled to hear it is slated for demolition and replacement by that dreadful structure. Just as Glens Falls is turning ever more attractive, we can’t allow money to sabotage our Renaissance.
As I have stated before, Sedition Stefanik is only interested in one thing and that is herself. She will do and say anything that she believes will allow her to achieve her goal. Her diabolical actions have nothing to do with what she believes.
...her "diabolical actions" have everything to do with what she believes...
How does one connect with Deb Peck? My grandson’s are arriving and I would appreciate a Peck experience with them! If she is related to the farmer Pecks, it will be an extraordinary time. Thanks
Hi Will? I respectfully disagree with you.
Stefanik is totally indoctrinated now and there is no hope for her. She just needs to go.
My daughters too were enthralled with Debbie Peck and the time spend outdoors with her. Isn't it amazing how simple things bring great joy to children? Schools- are you listening? Zee
Glens Falls Planning must have their eyes closed!! Please save the beauty of our little town!!! Zee