Had the former mayor’s former front man won the ’09 race , taxes would be raised, expenditures would be raised – just as they were every year he worked in the previous administration – and so would the flag that Matt Ryan raised the other day.

Had I won,  taxes and expenditures would go down significantly, because the people paying the freight can pay more, and no flag other than the American flag and the New York State flag would fly at City Hall, because those are the only two entities to which I would have sworn an oath. I also had my own ideas for City Hall signs regarding  the cost of war and government.

Unfortunately, that was not to be. Hopefully the people’s time to bust out of  just switching back and forth between the two parties will come someday, sooner rather than later.

In the meantime, all hail term limits, not only for setting an end to the current administration, and making the next election incumbent free, but for ending the previous administration as well. May they and their political progeny never return to power.

Even if it is true I got Matt Ryan elected mayor of Binghamton, which it is not, the term limits case I won in 1994, insures he cannot be elected in 2013.

So,  although you may subscribe to the notion I made Matt Ryan mayor,  you must recognize I also unmade him.

That makes me relevant, and makes those desperate to be relevant very resentful, because I am,  and they are not.

Most importantly, it’s a good reason to stop talking in stupid cliche’s about who was a “spoiler”, or who “split” “the vote”, because  term limits cancels it all out. Buck up. We’re even.

Higher and higher taxes were the rule under the previous Republican administration .  Taxes increased in nine of its twelve budgets from 1995 – 2006. Taxes rose  every year from 2001-2006, and did so at an average of 7.24%.  The average yearly tax hike from 2007 to the present under the Democrats is 7.85%.  0.61% isn’t much difference.

So those very unhappy people should dry their tears, and stop pretending  meaningful change would have come under a return to the previous administration. The political class would have come first, not the people paying the freight. Too bad that’s not going to change any time soon around here, but it was worth trying to do.

DWD

Take a look at your tax bill. Take a look at Binghamton’s Census data. What has your party’s “unity” done for you,  your family, or your neighborhood? Are you really ready for four more years of Matt Ryan, for the sake of “party unity”? How much more “party unity” can the city take?

Whether it’s Democrat party unity or Republican party unity, it really isn’t unifying. It pits neighbor against neighbor, in some cases family member against family member. The real beneficiaries are party leaders, their families, friends and allies. If you aren’t one of them, you lose.

If 500-600 of you changed your votes last time around, I would be running for re-election right now. You have the chance to put this chapter in the city’s political history behind you. Don’t let vague notions that benefit party insiders only stand in the way.

Those of you that grew up admiring common sense Democrats like Harry S. Truman, Estes Kefauver, or Henry “Scoop” Jackson, those of you who worked, saved, and dreamed, and put all of those things into a home, only to see your hard earned investment go up in smoke; don’t be sucked into believing you have nowhere to go but back into the fold for four more years of west coast crystal worshiping kumbayaism.

There is somewhere for you to go. There is a candidate willing to put our hometown’s interest before any political party’s interest.

Understand, the interests of those calling for “party unity” are far different than people like you that pay the freight. They have taken you for granted, and will contiinue to do so. I will never do that. I will make sure the people paying the freight come first, every time. I owe nothing to any party organization, and never will.

Leave the “party unity” political players and their back room deals behind. They’ve done nothing for you but damage. Come with me, and we’ll forge a new political alignment with independent minded members of all parties that will protect people’s interests, not party patronage machines.

Breaking free of the habit of voting party line, and succumbing to appeals for “party unity” is not easy, but it must be done to save this city, and time is not unlimited. Do it now, by electing independent leadership.

Of course people should vote for the person not the party. But if the person has spent nearly his entire adult working life as a political appointee, and party insider, is that the person for whom people should vote? If the person is pretending to champion causes that only a short time ago he and his political sponsors were mocking as the product of mental illness, is that the person for whom people should vote? If the person is pretending to be someone he is not, is that the person for whom the people should vote?

Four years ago, Binghamton’s rank and file Republicans were had by city GOP leaders. They cynically chose to allow their rank and file to go to the polls thinking a vote for the GOP candidate was a vote to stop Matt Ryan, when it was actually a vote to elect Matt Ryan. Did the former GOP mayor and his former front man stand up and try to alert unsuspecting rank and file GOP voters?  They did not. Why?

They knew their candidate couldn’t win, but it didn’t matter to them. It didn’t really matter regular people, including many Republicans would suffer, because they knew Matt Ryan wouldn’t really change things, aside from the beneficiaries of the patronage swag. They knew if I won, it was all over. They knew that I meant the things I said, that I could not be bought, because I was not for sale, and that they could never own me. So they decided it would be better to have Matt, and just wait it out, until their turn came again to control things in the manner to which they had become accustomed. What they considered the party’s interest came first; politics before policy.

This year they know their candidate is all about politics before policy, just their kind of guy. They know when he came to Binghamton ten years ago, he was no champion of “back to basics” government. They know he joined in with the clique heaping mockery upon people like me advocating a back to basics approach, he joined in with those calling us mentally defective alarmists, and “negative”. They know he is posing as a “back to basics” advocate, because they saw how the message resonated in ’05, and now would like to palm it off as their own to regain power.  They know he is no “businessman”, and have concocted, contrived, and slickly packaged him as such in an effort to deceive unknowing members of the electorate.

The real question is, how many city Republicans will stand up, and say no to this latest shameless fraud being perpetrated upon them? Will they be had again? Or will they free themselves from the stranglehold of such cynical, thoroughly dishonest and corrupt leadership?

I urge all rank and file city Republicans to see the truth. The former mayor and his former front man care nothing about you or your interests. The only beneficiaries from their return to power would be a small circle of relatives, friends and allies, just like when they last held power.

The truth is as it was in 2005. There are only two people that can win this race, Matt Ryan, or me. They know it, and are willing to sacrifice your votes, and your best interests, to suit their political interests, and what they see as their party’s interests. They are ready to wait another four years, just so the spoils system that sustains their brand of politics survives. Is that what you really want?

If you believe things are alright as they are, choices are there for you. But if you recognize things need to change, and that your party leaders like the former mayor and his former front man will never change them, there is only one choice. Stand up and make it happen.

Here is the pledge I make to Binghamton’s beleaguered taxpayers:

If  at the end of my first term, your city taxes are not lower than they are now, I will not seek a second term.

Here is the plan:

First, the plan is a long term vision, not my version of a “you make the budget” video game,  preceded by eye glazing disclaimers, and accompanied by a straw man challenge or wager.  Since I would not have to submit a budget – the 2011 budget – until August 2010, there will be no line by line presentation.

Likewise, the plan does not pretend the city’s fiscal woes all commenced the moment the current administration took office, and that up until then, there had been no such problems. That is exactly the sort of cliche’ driven, cookie cutter political partisanship that has hurt the city, and from which we need to get away as quickly as possible.

I recognize what Binghamton now faces is the result of a long period of short term thinking, extending over multiple administrations, and gripping both political parties. Accordingly, my plan is heavily weighted toward long term solutions,  is based in no way upon near term political considerations, and will above all else, put necessity before luxury.

Reducing Costs/Increasing Productivity

Every city department and every city facility will be examined for ways to save taxpayer dollars. I will begin in my own office, where there will no longer be a receptionist, or typist. In fact, City Hall has entirely too many receptionists, typists, phone lines and fax machines, all of which could be reduced by relatively simple measures, or replaced by existing technology.

Instead of paying for a receptionist in every office, there will be a general reception area outside the elevators on each floor. So one person will be doing the work that 4 or 5 are doing now. The flow of people throughout the building would be better controlled, making a safer work environment, with less distractions, which would mean higher productivity.

Instead of paying for someone typing or doing data entry in every office, there will be a central data processing room. Anything to be transcribed will be received there electronically from all City Hall offices, where voice recognition software will be installed. So, if  a letter is to go out, it will dictated directly into a computer, emailed  to central data processing in draft, who will then prepare it for final approval, email it back to the drafter, and if approved, then emailed it back to CDP to be printed out and mailed. Central data processing could be staffed by three or four people, doing the work more than a dozen are currently doing, and actually doing it better.

Right now City Hall has over 30 different phone numbers. I propose to end that unnecessarily costly and inefficient practice. There should be one general city phone number, along with  rollover lines, that will ring into a central switchboard. In every instance, callers would initially speak to a human being, then have their call routed to the appropriate person.

There is a system called e-fax that renders fax machines unnecessary. Not having to purchase, power and maintain them will yield savings to taxpayers, as will the reductions in personnel outlined above. So will increased productivity yielded by going to central data processing and a central switchboard.

Restructuring must extend into all public services, where the guiding principle will be less management, more manpower. I believe the Police and Fire Departments, for example, are top heavy, and  further believe that situation can be addressed, while actually boosting police presence on the street, and maintaining our ability to provide professional, high quality fire protection.

Some may suggest positions cannot be cut, because those losing them will become a societal burden.  My answer is that at this point, keeping those jobs filled is actually a heavier societal burden long term, and that those leaving them will have experience employers want, and every incentive to find new employment.  City government’s purpose is not to provide jobs for certain people, it is to provide services to the broader mass of people, at a price that can be afforded. City government’s current operation cannot be afforded, and its services can be better delivered more affordably, by doing what I outlined above, as well as by doing what I have set forth below.

Making the Pie BIGGER

Long term solutions cannot only include cutting expenditures.  Revenue must be considered, and I have a number of proposals.

A disturbing trend linking the current administration and its predecessor, is the proliferation of so-called “not for profits”, taking up increasing amounts of property in the city, and taking it off the tax rolls. The result has been nearly half the city’s property paying little to nothing in property taxes. Put another way, about half the property in the city is shouldering the entire property tax burden. That is unfair, unsustainable, and unacceptable.

To address that situation, I propose several things.

Within thirty days of taking office, the owners of such properties will be notified, that as of March 1, 2010, they will be responsible for transporting their own trash to the county landfill.

The immediate benefit of such a move, which can be accomplished by executive decision, and  in no way infringes upon any rights, will be less wear and tear on city equipment, less fuel consumption, lower fuel costs, and less man hours required for trash collection. Those savings can be passed back to taxpayers, directed into other endeavors like snow removal, or a combination of such things.

Furthermore, my administration, unlike the current one and its predecessor, will actively discourage the continued expansion of property ownership in the city by  “non-profits”. In order to ease the burden on those paying in, we must increase the number of properties paying in, not decrease them. As part of that effort,  I will ask City Council to enact a local law, pursuant to New York State Real Property Tax Law 420-b, which allows local taxation of certain “non-profits”.

Additionally, unlike the current administration, and its predecessor, which made a half-hearted effort in 2004 known as the “Fair Share Program”, my administration will aggressively pursue voluntary payments from “non-profit” property owners. Metro-Interfaith, which operates elderly housing  Binghamton makes such a payment every year, and would be a good model to follow.

Finally, I will hold weekly press conferences, where I will discuss, among other things, those  “non-profits” that have been helpful, and those that have not, which will introduce a long missing factor into the equation; shame. I believe it will be effective, where the current administration’s predecessor was woefully ineffective, because they just didn’t have the guts to do it, or they considered other things more important. I consider very few things as important as the crushing tax burden being heaped on city property owners, and will act accordingly. The result will be an easing of that burden.

Another way to get more property paying in,  is for the city to divest itself of demonstrably losing propositions like the Ely Park Golf Course, and city facilities whose operating costs can no longer be justified.

First, it is inexplicable and inexcusable, that in times when massive cuts in public safety are being proposed, the current administration believes the city ought to remain in the golf course business. Its predecessor took the same approach. Between 2002 and 2007, a time period that bridges the current administration and its predecessor, the golf course lost an average of $165,000.00 yearly. Both had the chance to end that problem, but refused. I will end it.

My preferred method of doing so will be to sell the golf course. People to whom I have spoken that are knowledgeable about the game and golf courses, advise me the sale could fetch $2.5 to $3 million. That would translate into a substantial one time property tax cut. Not only would selling the course have that benefit. There would be an immediate and long term savings of wear and tear on city equipment, fuel savings,  and significant man hour savings, all of which could be re-allocated into other services, or passed back to the taxpayer too. Most importantly, instead of increasing the burden on taxpayers as it has, the course would begin paying in, and easing that burden. It would pay property taxes, school taxes and generate sales tax revenue. It would also pay for its water, thereby reducing the burden on ratepayers, instead of increasing it, as it does now.

Unfortunately, this common sense proposal has generated controversy. The current mayor claims a sale would be “illegal”, as if I have suggested  merely planting a “for sale by owner” sign in front of the course is all that would be needed.

I understand it would not be quite so easy, but it is not impossible as has been suggested. There would be a process involving the state Legislature, and tracking down S. Mills Ely’s heirs to get them to part with the interest they retain in the land on which the course sits. That process could have begun years ago, by the current administration, or its predecessor, but once again, they either thought little of such an idea, or didn’t think of it at all. Had they done so, the course would already be generating benefits for all taxpayers, instead of increasing the burden upon them.

As mayor, I would commence that process immediately upon taking office,. If it was not complete by the time for submission of my first budget, course operations would be suspended, a less preferred method of addressing the problem, but one which would insure an end to the massive financial losses currently being passed on to taxpayers, as well as create the savings on wear and tear to city equipment, man hours,  fuel, and water.

As previously stated, in these times necessity before luxury must guide city government, not the other way around. There must be a corresponding effort to focus on services that benefit the broadest possible cross section of  residents.  Compelling every property owning taxpayer to subsidize a couple hundred golfers is totally inconsistent with that idea. It seems the First Ward pool, which has been allowed to fall into disrepair, is a facility with far broader recreational use than the golf course, along with greater historical significance, and aesthetic appeal.

Regarding the West Street Fire Station,  it can be closed, sold to private interests, and put back on the tax rolls, without compromising safety.

According to MapQuest, the  180 Main Street fire station is only one half mile from West Street. It calculates the drive time at one minute, and that’s in a non-emergency vehicle, without ability to control traffic lights, traveling within the speed limit. 180 Main Street is a better equipped station, and according to MapQuest, is actually closer than West Street to the furthest point in the First Ward (1 Ely Park Blvd).

Nonetheless, highly emotional pleas about the impact on the First Ward’s elderly have been made, as well as histrionic threats about lives being endangered, or even lost by the station closing. But with the station open, lives were recently lost to fire less than a mile away from it.

So unfortunately, having it open is no guarantee of lives being saved. What is guaranteed by maintaining and staffing a 24/7/365 facility a mere 60 seconds away from a better equipped facility, is a significant cost to city taxpayers, and First Ward elderly homeowners arguably face greater risk of losing their homes to unaffordably high taxes than to fire.

If Binghamton’s taxpayers are going to get the break they desperately need, they need political leadership that will tell them what they need to know, and not just what they want to hear on such issues. Neither the current administration, or its predecessor provided that kind of leadership. I will, and the elderly, who are being taxed right out of town, will directly benefit. So will everyone else, because the more the tax base can be broadened, the lighter the load will be on those already paying in. For the city to get headed in the right direction, that has to happen soon.

Making New Opportunities

The recent revelations concerning the Marcellus Shale natural gas formation, and their implications for the city’s future, have largely gone undiscussed by the current administration, and its predecessor’s handpicked candidate. Apparently, they either think nothing of it, or think other matters are more important. I have thought of such things, and believe they are extremely important.

The Marcellus Shale is the largest gas shale formation in the United States, with an estimated 516 trillion cubic feet of gas. It represents one of the largest sources of domestically produced clean energy, and a tremendous source for economic opportunities of which our cash strapped city should at least attempt to take advantage.

It takes a million gallons of water to service a gas drilling site. Binghamton is in the best position of any city in the region to supply those quantities of water to drilling companies, and be compensated by them for it, providing the city with a source of revenue to offset the outrageous increases in city water rates recently, and for upgrading the water works.

An idea I am developing is one that will allow city property owners to benefit from the gas beneath their property, just as rural residents do, but without having the surface of their property or their neighborhoods disturbed.

In rural areas, gas companies are paying thousands of dollars an acre to owners for leasing rights. There are 8,043 acres within the City of Binghamton. Imagine the wealth that could be distributed to city property owners, if the  acreage beneath the city could be pooled on the owners’ behalf by the city , and then leased. Each parcel owner would get a pro rata share of lease proceeds based on their acreage. Since the city owns property, it would also get a share, and I would propose such funds go exclusively into a property tax reduction trust. Drilling could occur only on city owned property away from residential areas, and the royalties from any gas discovered beneath the city would be paid out in the same manner as lease proceeds.

Of course the county, state, and federal governments also own land within the city, and naturally, there would be a process that would have to be worked out with them before any such arrangements could begin. But since it appears there will be little movement forward regarding Marcellus Shale development in New York until at least 2011, there is time to consider, and further develop these ideas and proposals.

Since my administration will not be bogged down in party politics, there will be more time for exploring such potentially lucrative endeavors. Policy will come before politics, not the other way around, and the principal beneficiary will be the taxpayer.

Raising Morale/Encouraging Innovation

What I believe has been wholly overlooked, is the role low morale has played in decreasing city workforce productivity, and in turn, increasing costs to taxpayers. Based on my interactions with various members of the city workforce over recent years, it seems the current administration, and its predecessor, share a common management style. They speak to “their people”, but generally not to the people doing the bulk of the city’s work.

I am committed to changing that by visiting each major city facility monthly, and holding a general meeting with facility staff. I will be able to hear directly from those actually doing the day to day work at these facilities about what they think can be done to improve the city’s delivery of services, what I can do to improve the quality of their work environment, and I can tell them what I expect from them to improve what the taxpayers are getting from city government.

I have been impressed by some of the ideas I have heard, and dismayed that these ideas disappeared somewhere on the way to the top of the city’s food chain. When I am mayor, such ideas will not disappear on the way to the top. They will go straight to the top, and everything that can be done to implement them, will be done.

For instance, while I was touring the sewage treatment plant, I notice the huge quantities of water flowing there. I asked whether anything was being done to harness the enormous potential in that flow through use of turbines. I was advised there were indeed ideas, but no actions had been taken by the political leadership. I further asked how much we pay NYSEG to power that plant. The answer was $1.1 million. Then I asked, if the turbines were in the water, solar panels were on the roof, and the methane generated from the waste currently dissipating into the atmosphere was recaptured, to what extent could the plant become energy independent? The answer was 85%. That would represent a yearly savings of $935,000. What would the cost be to install that energy saving technology? I was told $5 million. So, at nearly a million dollars savings a year, the improvements would be payed for relatively quickly, and of course after that, the savings could go right into the pockets of ratepayers, used to improve the plant, or both; obviously attractive propositions.

When ideas that would make such propositions possible are ignored or quashed, worker incentive to come up with more of them is chilled. That makes for lower productivity, and conveys a sense to city workers that what they are doing doesn’t matter that much. I strongly believe if you are not conveying a sense to the people working for you that you believe what they are doing is important, they will not believe it is important, and worst of all, they will act like it is not important. Binghamton taxpayers need the exact opposite of that in city government, and I assure you, in my administration, that is the way it will be.

Establishing a Good Reputation

Just as in lives of individuals, municipalities need a good reputation to succeed. If an individual has a good reputation, good things are more likely to happen for them.  If they have a bad reputation, they need to rely mostly on luck. Binghamton can no longer rely on luck. The 2010 Census will show Binghamton lost upper and middle income population. It will be the fourth such Census in a row. If the 2020 Census is to show an end to that trend, the city must establish the kind of reputation that inspires confidence in upper and middle income people; a reputation based on safety and cleanliness.

Accordingly, my goal is to establish the city’s reputation as the safest and cleanest city in upstate New York, because I believe from such a reputation, all the good things people want to see, like new families, new businesses and new investment, will flow. That will be accomplished by getting the city’s priorities straight, putting necessity before luxury as set forth above, and doing the not so glamorous, but important things city government ought to be doing exceedingly well over a sustained period. Only someone with a proven long term commitment to the city, and political independence is suited to lead that effort. I am the only candidate that is such a person.

Conquering Fear

None of what is proposed here can become reality, if voters are too afraid to break out of merely switching back and forth between the major parties, who have thoroughly demonstrated no ability to bring Binghamton to where it ought to be. No doubt both will be stoking that fear.

Party interests are very different from those of the people paying the freight, the people must recognize that, and reject the party interest driven politics that have damaged the city, before the damage becomes irreparable. The way to do that is by electing independent political leadership now.

In spite of all the problems besetting it, Binghamton still has a lot to offer, but only by playing to its strengths will it compete and win. The local political class dominated by the major parties has repeatedly proven it cannot and will not do that. I can, and I will do it.

My policy decisions will be guided by my constituents’ desires, and the dictates of my conscience, not party politics. I will work with anyone that has good ideas, and against anyone with bad ideas. For many years I have offered ideas about improving the city, not just when it came time to run for office, because I actually care about it. People know the difference between those with Binghamton in their heart, and politics in their heart. That is the difference between me, and the other candidates, and what will set my administration apart from the current one and its predecessor.

Among the local political class, and beyond, there is fear that you are on the verge of breaking free of the stranglehold they have so long had upon you. In a desperate attempt to prevent that, they will say or do anything in the coming days to infuse you with that fear, including going back one more time to the tiresome line about “throwing your vote away”. I urge you not to give in to that fear.

Stand strong, and you will get the change you want , and that the city has so long needed. Give in, and you will get the same old end to the same old political story, which spells death for our hometown. To those who want to listen, who want to see, and understand what is killing Binghamton I say, if you want to live, come with me.

Let’s consign the discredited party machine politics of the past to the ash heap of local history where they belong. Let’s forge a new political alignment in Binghamton among independent minded members of all parties, and have not just a change of faces in City Hall, but a change in philosophy that puts the people paying the freight first.  Let’s  make Binghamton’s new beginning…

Right now the former mayor’s former front man is peddling the notion that he will run city government “like a business”. He has no business making such a claim.

First, we’re talking about someone who announced he was going into business - a bar business – on July 24, 2008. On February 4, 2009, he announced he was running for mayor of Binghamton, and would run city government “like a business”. At this point, he has been a mayoral candidate longer (225 days) than he had been a businessman when he announced his candidacy (195 days).

Let’s say on July 24, 2008 I had commenced karate instruction with Master Hidy Ochiai,  that on February 4, 2009 I announced my run for mayor, and that I would run city government the same way I would run my dojo, no one would take me seriously, given my 195 days’ martial arts experience.

Yet, the former mayor’s front man, and the former mayor who is controlling his campaign, think you will take their demonstrable misrepresentation seriously, and are too stupid to figure out just how outrageous it really is. It is just another illustration of the contempt in which they hold you, and the condescension with which they approach anyone outside their political insiders’ clique. That’s the way they ran City Hall, and it is the way they would run it again. Is that what you really want?

Furthermore, since the former mayor’s former front man would surely acknowledge his belief that his former boss’s administration was run very much like a business, let’s look briefly at the record.

Here are the homestead tax increases in the last 5 budget years of that administration, which coincides with the former front man’s tenure:

2001 – 4.6% increase

2002 – 2.8% increase

2003 – 8.9% increase

2004 – 6.7% increase

2005 – 7.0% increase

2006 – 6.2% increase

So, despite having  the same people now trying to convince you they will run the city “like a business”, city taxpayers took it on the chin every year, just as they are under the current administration, and the increases for non-homestead, or “business” property taxes during that period, were even higher than the homestead.

How about property values in the city under those now claiming they will run the city “like a business”? Actually from 1992,  just prior to the commencement of the former mayor’s 12 year tenure, until 2005, the city lost over one billion – yes, that’s billion with a b – one billion dollars in total assessed value. That is significant because state law ties the city’s ability to tax and bond to total assessed value; less value, less ability to tax, less ability to bond, more difficulty to provide services, more difficulty to fund capital projects benefiting taxpayers.

What about investment in the city?  Naturally, these “business” savvy leaders were bringing it in hand over fist, right? Actually, there was not a single privately funded construction project from foundation to completion in downtown Binghamton during the entire 12 year tenure of the former mayor, just as there has been none under the current mayor.

Since when does no new construction over that long a period signal a successful downtown business district? The same people who amassed that record, would have you believe that it was a success, and think you ought to bring them back for another four year stint.  Can you afford the price of such “business” again?

Aside from the statistics, is there anything in the evidence presented by everyday experience, showing any record of success upon which these purported “business” leaders can lay claim to having the answers to the city’s problems? Anyone who is half  honest, and has any independent recollection of the period from 1993 until 2005, would have to concede the answer is a flat no. The filth, trash, and overall run down appearance of large areas of the city we see now, is much as it was then.

Based on its proven record of failure, bringing back the previous administration’s approach is not the answer, establishing the city’s reputation as the safest and cleanest city in upstate New York is.

The current administration, and its predecessor had every chance to articulate such a goal for Binghamton’s future, but didn’t, because they either never thought of it, or didn’t think such a thing worth the effort.

I think it is.  If the city is to enjoy a good second decade of the 21st century, it is critical the effort begin soon, and that people see, just switching back and forth between Republican and Democrat administrations in Binghamton, has not and cannot bring the changes needed. Independent political leadership will.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, government is not a business. Government is a public trust.

Either those claiming it is a business don’t care that it is not, think you’ll never figure it out, and will be taken in by their nice sounding, but entirely false claim (just a little more of their contempt and condescension for you), or they are completely clueless about the nature and purpose of local government.

Either way, it’s bad, and you lose.

Reject the loosely constructed false fantasy world of these fakes, phonies and their front man, by electing independent political leadership that recognizes local government is a public trust, not a private club, that understands the predicament  people paying the freight face, that respects their intelligence; and you win.

#2 – “A vote for DWD will ‘split’ the Republican vote, and re-elect Matt Ryan”.

This is entirely revisionist history and a scurrilously false narrative being trafficked by elements of the local GOP leadership, and their shills. My message to rank and file Republicans being targeted by such trash is:

I did not get 33 ½ % of the vote in 2005 by “splitting” the GOP vote. I got lots of Democrat, Independent, and other support.

Secondly, your party’s leadership knew their candidate was finished weeks before the election. They knew only Matt or I could win.

Do you really believe that if their candidate was in the lead or close to it, then Gov. Pataki would not have shown up for a personal endorsement in such an important regional race? The reason he didn’t come here, is because the leadership knew their candidate had no chance, and did not want to embarrass the Governor at a time he was considering a presidential run.

They had a choice; get the information they had to their rank and file, so  Matt could be stopped, or allow their rank and file to go to the polls without it.

They saw Matt as less of a threat to their way of doing things than me,  and opted to withhold from you what they knew.

They let you and other GOP rank and file go to the polls thinking a vote for their candidate was a vote to stop Matt, when it was actually a vote to elect him.

I didn’t get Matt Ryan elected, no one tried harder to stop him getting elected.  It was voters that didn’t have what they needed to make an informed choice, and more importantly, it was those that cynically withheld the necessary information from them, the current GOP candidate included.

Many rank and file Republicans now know what happened, and will not be sucked into the same trap being set by the same people that trapped them last time. Be smart, and join them…

Consider what has greeted visitors to Binghamton coming out of downtown hotels over the last decade and a half when they take a walk after breakfast on weekend mornings.  Has it been a city that appeared actively committed to safety and cleanliness, or has it been one filled with trash,  cigarette butts, broken glass, and vomit?

I know from personal experience, having lived downtown from the early 1990’s until 2002, and from working there since the early 1990’s until now,  the latter has been the case, not the former.

Wouldn’t it be better if those people could tell their friends, neighbors and relatives at home that they visited a safe and clean city, instead of one filled with trash, cigarette butts, broken glass and vomit?

The two mayors’ administrations that have controlled city government in the last 16 years have had every opportunity to meaningfully address the matter, but have not.

Comparatively speaking, downtown Binghamton is a postage stamp.  All it would take would be the appropriate schedule adjustments at the Department of Public Works, and crews would be out shortly after the bars close  getting downtown looking good before the sun comes up.

Given the simplicty of the solution,  I can only conclude  laziness, lack of imagination, or thorough preoccupation with other matters prevented it from already being implemented. Either those things, or somehow, both the current administration and its predecessor thought nothing of downtown being a complete mess Saturday and Sunday mornings, or even thought it was actually appealing.

It is not, and it must change, if Binghamton is to establish the kind of reputation that will inspire confidence in the new families, businesses and investors we need.

Additionally, an adjustment of police schedules would prevent the vandalism on Court Street that has become all too frequent. Broken plate glass windows don’t send the kind of message we want being sent to our guests in town, or to city residents, and those of the surrounding area.

Stepped up enforcement of the city’s already tough littering ordinance would also boost efforts to keep the city looking good over the long term, and get the word out about what conduct will no longer be accepted.

For instance, there is no reason downtown sidewalks should be covered in black splotches from chewing gum being spat upon, and then mashed into them. There is a machine that uses a combination of steam and pressure to melt the gum and clean it away.   Once that job is done, and the sidewalks shine,  people will be less likely to spit gum on them,  and those that are caught doing so will pay a high enough price under the ordinance, that their behavior will change.

Those type of efforts will get people thinking better of downtown Binghamton, but other measures are needed.

For example, when the malls and shopping plazas offer acres of free parking, does it make sense for Binghamton to have downtown streets lined with 30 minute parking meters? I wrote the current mayor’s predecessor over 15 years ago about that issue, telling him the city is stepping over dollars to pick up quarters out of parking meters. I got no response to my correspondence, and from the looks of downtown, the continued parking meter policy of both mayors in that 15 + years has failed.

Why not give people two hours free, in the ramps and on the street? Have parking enforcement mark tires with chalk so the privilege is not abused, and maybe more people will feel good about coming downtown to eat or to shop, instead of worrying about getting everything they want to do done in 30 minutes, or revolving their schedule around getting another quarter in the meter before their 30 minutes is up.

What prevented something like that from being done already? Two mayors have had the chance, both must have thought it insufficiently important, or not thought of it at all. If you believe the current mayor, or his predecessor’s former front man will change that, or much else, you should ask yourself what evidence there is that will happen, because there is none.

If you want downtown’s fortunes to change, and consequently Binghamton’s fortunes to change, there must be real change in political leadership.  Everything I have outlined above could have already been done. It is obvious neither the current administration or its predecessor’s handpicked choice intend to meaningfully change anything.

You can change it for them, and more importantly,  for yourselves, by electing independent political leadership this November 3.