|
|
Post by Clipper on Mar 13, 2012 13:16:41 GMT -5
uticaod.net/advertising/pba/One needs to hear both sides of the issue. Is the mayor simply stonewalling the union and ignoring any chance to negotiate? Is he simply decreeing that the positions will be eliminated, or is he willing to back up and talk to the PBA about some serious concessions and an ability to maintain positions by conceding other things that will save money? We have read all about the budget and have seen what the Mayor and the Common Council has to say. Now it is informative to have the viewpoint from those effected in order to make a fair judgment. I don't have a "dog in the fight," and I only post this so that you that still live there and pay the taxes there can discuss it while armed with both sides of the story.
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Mar 13, 2012 13:22:40 GMT -5
ahh, the politics of it all. Dontcha love it?
Not for nothing, but where was the PBA on concessions for the last several years knowing full well the downward spiral the city has been in? I say forget all this nonsense and get people in there to make fiscal decisions not based on politics but based on financial sense and responsibility.
On a side note, don't you think the City itself and its tax base would be in better shape had the residency requirements been enforced all these years? Remember the days when the local police and firefighters were living in your neighborhood, and not the next town?
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Mar 13, 2012 14:06:45 GMT -5
I am not a huge proponent of the residency laws. Especially not with the deday of the city. Who the hell WANTS to send their kids to city schools or buy a home and live in a neighborhood that could go down the drain in a matter of only a few short years?
As much as I love that area, if we were ever to come back, I would not own a home in the city of Utica. Not even in North Utica, where we had a beautiful duplex ranch when we left. The local juvenile delinquents were already becoming a source of heartburn for us when we sold the house. I don't remember when I was a kid being allowed to hang out and walk the streets, littering and being a nuisance at 11 or 12 at night.
|
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Mar 13, 2012 14:54:59 GMT -5
How many city employees live out of the city? A couple dozen maybe? (I'm just guessing.) Round up a bit and call it 50. How much would they pay in city taxes if they each owned a modest home; a couple thousand a year, maybe? Multiply it out and the city would be missing out on $100K per year, maybe. Not enough to pay for a deputy chief.
How many people have left the city because of perceived shortcomings in the schools, crime or general quality of life? The Russians who worked for me 1-=12 years ago have mostly left the city or the area. They were members of the 1990's refugees. The biggest complaint I heard from them was the schools.
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Mar 13, 2012 17:43:55 GMT -5
Most of the police force live outside the city.
Perhaps if those working for the city were required to live in the city, they'd have a vested interest not to let it decay like it has.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Mar 13, 2012 18:51:03 GMT -5
Most of the police force live outside the city. Perhaps if those working for the city were required to live in the city, they'd have a vested interest not to let it decay like it has.  FA, not going to argue with you but that statement is not the truth. I also find it very hard to believe a police officer, or fireman would not do the best job they can because they simply live out of the city. They are out there on the streets doing the best job they can with what they have to work with. The proof is in the pudding if you follow the UPD's and the UFD's facebook page. I'm sure it will be a big eye-opener for you or anyone else who have their doubts. I have sit in many caucus as the UPD's union reps have tried to communicate with the Mayor and the common council members and what they are saying is falling on deaf ears. What the Union posted in the OD is 100% correct and I can verify that because I have attending these meetings. Even at the last public common council meeting an attempt by a councilman to stop Russ Brooks for speaking to the public was made but the President of the CC overrode that attempt and allowed Fire Chief Brooks to speak and give his figures to the public. If anyone attended this meeting then you would know the truth was printed in the paper today. The UPD's union is willing to make cuts as they HAVE done in the past but refuse to lay off because both the UPD and the UFD are already understaffed because of injuries, illness, and retirements which makes it not only unsafe for the citizens of Utica but unsafe for each and every police officer and fireman. Plus the FACT that most the administration wants to lay off are being paid for by grants given to the city. Talk about those running this city who have no idea what the hell they're doing. Just wish people would get the facts but I afraid even then when they read them in print they don't want to hear the truth.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Mar 15, 2012 1:55:06 GMT -5
I don’t want to lose any public safety positions, sometimes you have to look elsewhere for the solutions.
But public safety is not without its shortfalls.
Keep in mind BZ that the positions that are paid for by “grants” are permanent positions none the less.
If the grants dry up, and they are always limited by time in ANY of the positions (most have a life of 5 years max)……the employee must be retained and paid appropriately out of their respective departments budgets from that point forward.
And most grants only cover base salary, not insurance or bennies.
|
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Mar 15, 2012 7:59:42 GMT -5
The Village of Vernon granted a bunch of positions years ago against the publics wishes overall. The taxes just kept zooming up, the only outcome was the newer officers had to write more tickets and locals took the brundt of the tax burden and the Tickets. Grants are like Santa Clause and a 12 years old at Christmas, what a shocker when you realize they aren't for real...
|
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Mar 15, 2012 8:42:10 GMT -5
My point is, BZ, when public servants actually live in the communities they serve, they have a 24/7 vested interest in it. It wasn't meant to inflame or take a poke at, simply my observation and opinion. I am not saying police and fire personnnel who don't live in Utica don't put 100% into their jobs when they are at their jobs. I just think they'd be more inclined to be involved in the state of their municipality, City in this case, if they actually live here also, and I don't see that as a bad thing. I think communities were stronger and the City safer when it has such involvement.
Back in the day when I was a candidate for the UFD, they still had a residency requirement and I accepted that fact. Not sure when, but some years back they did away with the requirement for firefighters only. I think this came down from the State that firefighters were exempt.
BTW, BZ, I noticed Kevin Strife's name listed on the PBA statement. He is a good friend of one of my brothers, who is a State CO these days. Good kid Kevin is, haven't seen him is quite awhile.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Mar 15, 2012 16:47:42 GMT -5
FA, not disagreeing with your reasoning. Just want you to know the majority of officers do live in the city. Living in the city also is a benefit when it comes to choosing candidates from the civil service list. Cadets who live in the city are given first priority in obtaining the job. Both my sons benefitted for that reason. 
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Mar 15, 2012 17:05:34 GMT -5
I don’t want to lose any public safety positions, sometimes you have to look elsewhere for the solutions. But public safety is not without its shortfalls. Keep in mind BZ that the positions that are paid for by “grants” are permanent positions none the less. If the grants dry up, and they are always limited by time in ANY of the positions ( most have a life of 5 years max)……the employee must be retained and paid appropriately out of their respective departments budgets from that point forward. And most grants only cover base salary, not insurance or bennies. Ralph, have to disagree with your first statement because both the UPD (short 28 officers) and the UFD (short 10 firemen) are already short officers and firemen due to injuries, illness, and retirements, something the Mayor and common council is ignoring and even made an attempt to stop the Chiefs from bringing that fact out to the public at the last meetings. Also Ralph, keep in mind these grants "accepted" by the city comes with an agreement that the city will have to keep x amount of staffing in both departments or the city will have to pay back those grants. Also keep in mind, if the Mayor and common council does lay those officers and firemen off who do you think will be paying for their unemployment benefits? |
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Mar 15, 2012 18:11:08 GMT -5
and those are exactly the reasons why back when those grants were being considered that some, including me, thought it not a good idea. They'd be locked in, like they are now, to maintain those positions whether they can afford to or not. Because if they don't, they'll either end up paying the grants back if paid up front, or be stuck paying out of pocket if the grant funds come on the back end.
Seeing that you've got two sons on the PD, the city must be in safe hands. No sarcasm, just you have a good moral character about you and hopefully you've instilled the same in them. Being that I was on both the UFD and UPD lists at one time or another, I do know they have preference for candidates currently living in the City at the time they are considering appointments. It was a non-issue for me since I already was, it was just that I was down farther on the list AND back in 1996 when I took my UFD agility test, Ed Hanna was in the process of cutting the FD. We already knew that on that cold March Saturday morning, but that still did not dampen my ambition of doing the best I possibly could for the agility test. Suffice to say, by the time it was done, I had actually broken a finger while completing the final part, the obstacle course.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Mar 15, 2012 18:35:48 GMT -5
and those are exactly the reasons why back when those grants were being considered that some, including me, thought it not a good idea. They'd be locked in, like they are now, to maintain those positions whether they can afford to or not. Because if they don't, they'll either end up paying the grants back if paid up front, or be stuck paying out of pocket if the grant funds come on the back end. Seeing that you've got two sons on the PD, the city must be in safe hands. No sarcasm, just you have a good moral character about you and hopefully you've instilled the same in them. Being that I was on both the UFD and UPD lists at one time or another, I do know they have preference for candidates currently living in the City at the time they are considering appointments. It was a non-issue for me since I already was, it was just that I was down farther on the list AND back in 1996 when I took my UFD agility test, Ed Hanna was in the process of cutting the FD. We already knew that on that cold March Saturday morning, but that still did not dampen my ambition of doing the best I possibly could for the agility test. Suffice to say, by the time it was done, I had actually broken a finger while completing the final part, the obstacle course. That sucked but the same thing happened to my son, Anthony, but before he had to take the agility test. He broke his wrist while playing on his college hockey team. The good thing and I can't remember why, they postpone the test for a while and his wrist healed enough for him to take and pass the test. That was a huge relief to say the least since from the age of five Anthony always wanted to become a police officer and criminal justice was his major in college, which also gave him preference in being appointed. Back when that grant came up Utica was short officers by more so then they are at present so it was a must that the city accept the grant and hire the four officers. If you remember Utica even had to disban the much needed drug task force because of the shortage in officers. With or without the grant the city would have had to put more officers on anyways. |
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Mar 16, 2012 6:02:06 GMT -5
I do hope they come up with a long term plan to strengthen the city, not just keep patching the holes as they pop open. So far, no concerted effort can be found, only stopgaps measures that slow the slide not reverse the trend.
I like the Idea of Utica Public employees living where they serve but thats not always easy to find. I think its important to the survival of Utica to have its newest citizens represented in City hall so that they feel invested not just treated as temporary guests. Empower them, not just keep paying dues to the Great grand Neices and Nephews of Utica Politicians gone by.
|
|
FA, not going to argue with you but that statement is not the truth. I also find it very hard to believe a police officer, or fireman would not do the best job they can because they simply live out of the city. They are out there on the streets doing the best job they can with what they have to work with. The proof is in the pudding if you follow the UPD's and the UFD's facebook page. I'm sure it will be a big eye-opener for you or anyone else who have their doubts. 
