The Coalition of Enough Already

15 Dec

Because we can never have enough activist groups.

36 Responses to “The Coalition of Enough Already”

  1. Stephen Nazwisko December 15, 2007 at 11:42 pm #

    Mr. Hipster-ovich?
    “We must only have progress that I deem acceptable!” Damn right!

  2. Buffalo Girl December 16, 2007 at 6:25 am #

    I think what you’ve done is regress into high school stupidity. That’s just dumb.

  3. Mr. Chocolate December 16, 2007 at 11:02 am #

    very sad, pathetic sarcasm gentlemen

  4. still laughing December 16, 2007 at 2:27 pm #

    oh lighten up…

  5. FancyWow December 17, 2007 at 11:23 am #

    I know once the feeling of “enough already” is engulfed with holiday cheer, you’ll be advancing another round of nuanced arguements and perspectives to move greater buffalo forward.

    Here’s some inspiration:
    http://blog.al.com/bn/2007/12/birmingham_at_a_crossroads_can.html
    http://courierpostonline.com/camden2015/index2015.html

  6. Mark December 17, 2007 at 4:50 pm #

    beautiful.

  7. Paul Francis December 18, 2007 at 4:38 pm #

    Wow, I’m speechless.

    This forum is Buffalo’s official sounding board for mere commentators whose self-annointed pursuit is bashing the folks who do actually work hard advocating for the city. These commentators – oh wait, pundits – then sheepishly shrug their shoulders when those advocates savor a victory. Hopefully this knock on the Waterfront Coalition is one of those instances.

    Hell, some bloggers are actually out fighting for this town. None here!

  8. Buffalopundit December 18, 2007 at 5:16 pm #

    Bzzzt. Evidently, you’re not speechless.

  9. Harvey Garrett December 19, 2007 at 11:12 am #

    So this is your well thought out argument as to why expressways on the waterfront are acceptable? A parody attacking the Waterfront Coalition?

    What happened to you two(and WNYMedia)?

    Harvey

  10. Buffalopundit December 19, 2007 at 11:41 am #

    No, Harvey. It’s not a well-thought out argument as to why “expressways” on the waterfront are acceptable. It’s a satiric video poking fun t the Waterfront Coalition and other “we know better than you” groups in town. I gave all the “well-thought out arguments” I can stomach here and on BRO. Now, I’m just poking fun, and you’re offended.

    Seems to me you’re taking yourself, and the Waterfront Coalition, a bit too seriously. A silly video never hurt anybody. Lighten up.

  11. Mike Miller December 19, 2007 at 11:53 am #

    Harvey, I’ll stand up for my own little slice of WNY Media and state that this type of satirical post doesn’t necessarily represent the viewpoints and methods of all of us bloggers at WNY Media. I read your comments on the original post and your offers to discuss your viewpoints further. As a person who is relatively unfamiliar with the history and issues surrounding the Waterfront Coalition, I was hoping that the original post would continue the dialogue, so that I could learn more on both sides of this issue, but that didn’t happen.

  12. Harvey Garrett December 19, 2007 at 12:20 pm #

    I was hoping the same Mike. Buffalo deserves more dialogue on complex topics and less character assassination of those who hold opinions that differ. I was hoping to learn more as well.

    I’m not offended by the parody – I’m just disappointed with it. I want to see WNYMedia and other blog sites as a way of escalating the role of media in educating and informing opinions. Maybe I’m over estimating the role WNYMedia wants to play in helping to educate Buffalo on important topics. I certainly overestimated it in this case.

    Harvey

  13. steve December 19, 2007 at 4:27 pm #

    The best part was watching Pundit do his best Tim Conway impression — trying not to laugh while staying in character.

    Some funny stuff but, please, don’t give up the day job.

  14. Pauldub December 19, 2007 at 6:23 pm #

    Harvey – I believe there was an attempt at contact made by WNY Media ( at least that is what I gathered from the previous post). There has also been demeaning comments made by both parties. Such is life. There will always be opposing views, and I would much prefer that these would manifest themselves in parody from time to time, so we don’t take ourselves too seriously.
    I also found your somewhat condescending comment a bit disappointing.

  15. Paul Francis December 19, 2007 at 11:20 pm #

    Yes, Pundit, the Waterfront Coalition does know better than you.

  16. Pauldub December 19, 2007 at 11:58 pm #

    Better is subjective. Opinion. And just like mine, utterly worthless. Now say the Coalition does know MORE than Pundit. Objective statement that can be argued. But facts are optional, right? All we are dealing with here are opinions.

  17. Buffalopundit December 20, 2007 at 6:48 am #

    Hey, Paul Francis – who are you? Are you a member of the Waterfront Coalition? What’s your stake in this? Why do you pop up during waterfront discussions only?

    As for the coalition “knowing better”, Paul’s right – it is subjective.

  18. Mike Miller December 20, 2007 at 9:15 am #

    Regarding the “other “we know better than you” groups in town”,we all kind of fall into that category. Even the Central Terminal Restoration Corporation. By the very fact that there have been many manhours devoted to the cause, inherently means that we will know better some things than anyone. And those things may not be spelled out in a press release, a web site or anywhere else. I think that’s what Harvey was trying to get across on the original post.

  19. Mike Miller December 20, 2007 at 9:33 am #

    Sorry, that should have read “know some things better”. I tried to reword it and mispasted.

  20. Buffalopundit December 20, 2007 at 9:47 am #

    I think a lot of people are unable to take a joke at their expense.

  21. Pauldub December 20, 2007 at 9:57 am #

    Mike, your experience means you know more things. This may be a case of splitting hairs, but that’s the way I see things. Your experience may give you a better perspective? Maybe, but at the same time, I have seen many problems solved by a fresh pair of eyes that are not blinded by familiarity (talking in generalities, not about the terminal in specific).
    Perhaps when the holiday stress is gone, people will see this post as it was meant – humor. Usually a good manner in which to diffuse tension.

  22. Mike Miller December 20, 2007 at 10:04 am #

    Alan, I think that’s probably true. I couldn’t play the video, so I can’t comment about it, but let me give you an example:

    Let’s say that the CTRC turns down a redevelopment deal because certain requirements that are important to us are not met. Some of the details about the deal were made public and some were not. Let’s say that you and others think that we just blew the last chance we had for redevelopment and you satirize us, without knowing all of the reasons why the decision was made. I’d be disappointed, but not upset, that you didn’t check with me first. It’s not a matter of taking a joke. It’s a matter of respect and it’s a matter of responsible use of your power to sway the public’s perception of an issue.

    PS – the above scenario is in no way true.

  23. Christopher Smith December 20, 2007 at 10:05 am #

    I think someone feels he has cornered the market on altruism.

  24. Mike Miller December 20, 2007 at 10:14 am #

    No, Chris, I don’t think I have cornered the market on altruism. Humor is one thing, so is taking a joke at one’s own expense. What I am talking about is giving someone the benefit of the doubt beforehand.

  25. Buffalopundit December 20, 2007 at 10:44 am #

    Chris wasn’t talking about you, Mike. The scenario you’re talking about is different. I wouldn’t care if the CTRC made a deal with Trump to turn the Central Terminal into a glitzy casino, so long as its history was maintained. The point here is that ad-hoc groups sometimes come together to tell everybody what’s best. Here we have a waterfront you can’t access, and haven’t been able to for 50 years. There’s been a decade-long process to change that, and all of that is now complete. At the 11th hour, this ad-hoc group is using hyperbole and falsehoods to attack the deal as not good enough, and they are expected to file a lawsuit to block it. Litigation will only delay the entire process another half-decade, or worse. So, we’ll still be left with a skyway and an elevated route 5 and an incomprehensible Fuhrmann Boulevard 5 years from now. And that’s considered progress.

    As with most things I do here on this blog, I seldom “check with people first”. I’m not a reporter. I comment. I comment mostly on things I find on the internet. It just so happens that all of what I read about the waterfront coalition is on Buffalo Rising, and Newell is de facto doing their PR for them.

    For instance, Newell traipsed up to Toronto with a bunch of local pols and they all discussed the relevatory demantling of the Gardiner East, and what a wonderful thing that was and how similar it is to the whole Route 5 issue.

    Except it isn’t. Not even by a longshot, and a simple Google search and a bit of light surfing will explain why a 1.3 km unfinished elevated road to nowhere is not the same as the Skyway & Route 5.

    And sometimes we take this shit way to seriously, so the purpose was to make a joke about it. Obviously, once you have to explain it, it’s no longer funny.

    If you think we’ve “lowered the discourse” on this, I’ll say that:

    1. The discourse was never that high to begin with, so its lowering was light duty; and

    2. We’re talking about roads. Not poverty or blight or the 2nd highest tax burden in the nation or unfunded state mandates of $90 million or anything else one might deem “really, really important”.

  26. Mike Miller December 20, 2007 at 11:11 am #

    Sometimes, I feel as if there is a underlying mission to down anything connected with BRO. Yes, sometimes it’s warranted. But, as I’ve said many times before, BRO is what it is, and there is plenty of room and work for all of us. If BRO sets out on a mission you disagree with, I have no problem with a healthy debate about the subject. And you do that so well. Honestly, I was hoping that the original thread would continue, Harvey could explain further, and I’d learn more from the exchange. I’m very interested to hear both sides, because each has some merit from what I’ve read.

    All I have to go by is the original thread, which I believe when the parody was posted, ended with Harvey’s offer to explain his point of view further. Perhaps I am wrong about that and you and he did talk further. If that’s so, I apologize for saying anything. As I’ve said, I cannot play the video and have not seen it.

  27. Harvey Garrett December 20, 2007 at 11:15 am #

    Alan,

    “Hyperbole and falsehoods”. I’d appreciate if you were more specific. Since I’ve been doing most of the talking for the Waterfront Coalition on your blog you can start with my commentary. And, obviously, it’s not fair to attribute comments that weren’t made by the Waterfront Coalition to the Waterfront Coalition.

    One of your concerns appears to be the Skyway. The Waterfront Coalition isn’t tying this project to the Skyway except in the sense that a boulevard does start to remove the infrastructure now. It’s rare when one of the coalition members even mentions the skyway. If you don’t like what the commenters are saying then correct them – but this isn’t coming from the coalition.

    The WC has been arguing that the Tift Arterial should be one of the first projects and that, with the current plan, once it’s complete a great deal of the $55 million would have been wasted on infrastructure that will then be obsolete. In fact you may not be able to just remove the bermed route 5 after the skyway comes down because even with the Tift arterial there still may be too much traffic for the planned parkway – which is why starting with the boulevard plan means you’re not wasting money on expressway and parkway infrastructure that needs to then be removed and something else built again.

    To the WC the current plan is like a $55 million temporary solution. But without the post-arterial numbers to work from it’s a valid question as to whether 4 or 6 lanes are necessary – one that’s worth discussing. So is whether we should be building a temporary (10 years or more) embanked expressway on our waterfront only to have to later find more funding to remove it.

    I do have trouble believing that the $55 million bermed expressway option is only going to sit there for 10 years – and as long as it does it creates a barrier to accessing the waterfront from the East Side of it, or from accessing any development East of it from the waterfront.

    As far as specific misrepresentations on your part: you’ve claimed that the Waterfront Coalition is arguing that the current alternative will prevent the skyway from coming down, that the DOT rejected the Boulevard alternative when in fact they approved it as viable (suggesting it was rejected by the DOT misrepresents it as not being viable), and that Brian Higgins helped to kill the bass pro plan – he didn’t – he supported it until he no longer could.

    The biggest misrepresentation is that in almost all of you post-skyway depictions you suggest that there will be a 4 lane parkway remaining (rather than a 6 lane boulevard) and you don’t mention the expressway that will also be left behind. You’re entire video was loaded with Hyperbole and falsehoods – as was obviously the intention since it’s a parody.

    I didn’t mean to be insulting – the parody just didn’t match my impression of WNYMedia (which is where it was coming from as soon as it was you and Chris and other resources at WNYMedia putting a film together). And I don’t think that making fun of Illuzzi or the Buffalo News is the same as mocking a bunch of concerned citizens. We need more active concerned citizens – not less.

    “A 6 lane boulevard is better than a 4 lane boulevard” does not represent what the waterfront coalition is trying to say (this is another misrepresentation / misunderstanding) – A 6 lane boulevard is better than a 4 lane boulevard and an expressway is what we are trying to say. Maybe we are wrong. Maybe you are.

    As far as not getting much in the way of dialogue from other Waterfront Coalition members – I told them that I respected you guys and respected your opinions. You were the only voice I’d heard so for that appeared to be educated in the issues and engaging in real dialogue. I told them that I’d speak on behalf of the coalition members. I don’t think the Waterfront Coalition members read your blog – I didn’t know about your posts until someone else pointed them out to me.

    I respect your concerns over the Waterfront Coalition slowing down the process – I don’t respect your recent tactics of mocking and dismissing the Waterfront Coalition as a responsible reaction. I take that back. If it was just you on your blog it would have been less concerning to me. It’s when it comes across as WNYMedia mocking concerned citizens that I’m a little disturbed.

    We both agree that we need to proceed with improving access to the outer harbor as quickly as possible – we just differ in our opinions of what is best. I was hoping for a dialogue that could educate and encourage productive discussion. I was a little shocked at what I got back from WNYMedia. Both our opinions are valid. I treated your opinion with the respect it deserves – you treated the Waterfront Coalition’s opinion like it was worthless. On top of that you mocked a collaboration of decent people who took the time to understand the issue and to get involved in doing what they thought was best. I’m not trying to insult you Alan – but I am being brutally honest – this just wasn’t what I expected.

    As respectfully as I can muster,

    Harvey

  28. Buffalopundit December 20, 2007 at 1:15 pm #

    Hyperbole and falsehoods”. I’d appreciate if you were more specific.

    “Mr. Spitzer, tear down this wall”. It’s on the billboard that the Waterfront Coalition paid for. Practically the entire podcast with Mickey Kearns from about a month ago is packed with hyperbole and falsehoods. Saying that the “elevated” route 5 = Gardiner East is hyperbole and falsehood.

    One of your concerns appears to be the Skyway. The Waterfront Coalition isn’t tying this project to the Skyway except in the sense that a boulevard does start to remove the infrastructure now. It’s rare when one of the coalition members even mentions the skyway. If you don’t like what the commenters are saying then correct them – but this isn’t coming from the coalition.

    How is it my job to correct the commenters who are speaking on behalf of your position?

    The WC has been arguing that the Tift Arterial should be one of the first projects and that, with the current plan, once it’s complete a great deal of the $55 million would have been wasted on infrastructure that will then be obsolete. In fact you may not be able to just remove the bermed route 5 after the skyway comes down because even with the Tift arterial there still may be too much traffic for the planned parkway – which is why starting with the boulevard plan means you’re not wasting money on expressway and parkway infrastructure that needs to then be removed and something else built again.

    Roads can be changed. If Fuhrmann needs another 2 lanes, it could be widened in the future. As long as the Skyway is still present, Route 5 in its current iteration is not obsolete. Bermed 5 becomes obsolete when the skyway comes down. Incidentally, you’re one of the few WC people who bothers to call it what it is – bermed. Most everyone else has been calling it an elevated expressway, which it isn’t. There is a part of it that elevates on approach to the Skyway. Not the whole thing. Plus, it’s bermed because of snowdrifts.

    To the WC the current plan is like a $55 million temporary solution. But without the post-arterial numbers to work from it’s a valid question as to whether 4 or 6 lanes are necessary – one that’s worth discussing. So is whether we should be building a temporary (10 years or more) embanked expressway on our waterfront only to have to later find more funding to remove it.

    Yes, everything that happens on that outer harbor is temporary, as it stands now, because no one knows what’s going to happen with the Skyway and other roadways in, say, 10 years. So, lets get access out to Furhmann sooner rather than later so people can actually start talking about possibly developing it sooner rather than later.

    I do have trouble believing that the $55 million bermed expressway option is only going to sit there for 10 years – and as long as it does it creates a barrier to accessing the waterfront from the East Side of it, or from accessing any development East of it from the waterfront.

    No. As I mentioned to you in an email, there is evidence in Toronto of development between the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore West. The problem with development (if any) on the Outer Harbor has to do with access, not aesthetics.

    As far as specific misrepresentations on your part: you’ve claimed that the Waterfront Coalition is arguing that the current alternative will prevent the skyway from coming down, that the DOT rejected the Boulevard alternative when in fact they approved it as viable (suggesting it was rejected by the DOT misrepresents it as not being viable), and that Brian Higgins helped to kill the bass pro plan – he didn’t – he supported it until he no longer could.

    That’s not a misrepresentation. First of all, it’s a fact that the DOT rejected the Blvd alternative by virtue of its approval of another alternative. Second of all, I’ve never said the Boulevard wasn’t viable. I said it was rejected as part of a very long and open process.

    The biggest misrepresentation is that in almost all of you post-skyway depictions you suggest that there will be a 4 lane parkway remaining (rather than a 6 lane boulevard) and you don’t mention the expressway that will also be left behind. You’re entire video was loaded with Hyperbole and falsehoods – as was obviously the intention since it’s a parody.

    Ugh, Harvey. Why are you making me repeat the same thing over and over again?

    1. Build the current plan. Improve access to the waterfront now. It’s ready to go and it’s funded.
    2. Build the Tifft St Arterial, which is the sine qua non of the Skyway coming down.
    3. Petition and cajole the DOT to start work on an EIS as to the Skyway’s removal. Higgins has already called for that.
    4. When the DOT gets around to that, separate project, Route 5 becomes obsolete on the outer harbor, and truck/commuter/thru traffic can use Tifft to the 190.
    5. You’re left with a 4-lane roadway on much of the outer harbor.

    That’s the plan.

    I didn’t mean to be insulting – the parody just didn’t match my impression of WNYMedia (which is where it was coming from as soon as it was you and Chris and other resources at WNYMedia putting a film together). And I don’t think that making fun of Illuzzi or the Buffalo News is the same as mocking a bunch of concerned citizens. We need more active concerned citizens – not less.

    How are the Buffalo News or even Illuzzi not concerned citizens? This is just ridiculous. I have had the living shit mocked out of me on this site, and although I might fight back, I have never, ever suggested that it’s wrong. Oh, and incidentally, Chris, Marc, and I are no more or less concerned than you or anybody on the Waterfront Coalition as to the future of this city. You suggest differently.

    “A 6 lane boulevard is better than a 4 lane boulevard” does not represent what the waterfront coalition is trying to say (this is another misrepresentation / misunderstanding) – A 6 lane boulevard is better than a 4 lane boulevard and an expressway is what we are trying to say. Maybe we are wrong. Maybe you are.

    Maybe you’re not seeing the bigger picture.

    As far as not getting much in the way of dialogue from other Waterfront Coalition members – I told them that I respected you guys and respected your opinions. You were the only voice I’d heard so for that appeared to be educated in the issues and engaging in real dialogue. I told them that I’d speak on behalf of the coalition members. I don’t think the Waterfront Coalition members read your blog – I didn’t know about your posts until someone else pointed them out to me.

    Chris is more educated on it than I am, frankly.

    I respect your concerns over the Waterfront Coalition slowing down the process – I don’t respect your recent tactics of mocking and dismissing the Waterfront Coalition as a responsible reaction. I take that back. If it was just you on your blog it would have been less concerning to me. It’s when it comes across as WNYMedia mocking concerned citizens that I’m a little disturbed.

    We mock stuff left and right, day in and day out. It’s not the mocking, but the subject matter you’re complaining about.

    We both agree that we need to proceed with improving access to the outer harbor as quickly as possible – we just differ in our opinions of what is best. I was hoping for a dialogue that could educate and encourage productive discussion. I was a little shocked at what I got back from WNYMedia. Both our opinions are valid. I treated your opinion with the respect it deserves – you treated the Waterfront Coalition’s opinion like it was worthless. On top of that you mocked a collaboration of decent people who took the time to understand the issue and to get involved in doing what they thought was best. I’m not trying to insult you Alan – but I am being brutally honest – this just wasn’t what I expected.

    Harvey, I don’t think it’s worthless. I think it’s too much bluster brought much too late. I emailed to you the links to about 4 threads that I started here regarding that project, all of which were thought-out and respectful and whatever the hell else you want to call it. Finally, after the press conference by the non-bermed part of Route 5, and the erection of an ironic billboard that I personally found somewhat offensive (others disagree, and that’s fine), we thought the thing had reached comical proportions.

    And, Mike Miller – this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Buffalo Rising, and I’m frankly getting a little sick and tired of that insinuation, as well. It just so happens that BRO has become the unofficial organ of the Waterfront Coalition, and Newell posts one or two items per week on it. Am I not supposed to comment about it? Should I just shut up and post about goddamn cars and tolls and Spitzer all day?

    I think you guys – not I – have fundamentally forgotten what it is that I do here, and what I’ve been doing here for 4 years.

  29. Pauldub December 20, 2007 at 1:50 pm #

    Not to go off topic, but I had to take the day off for the Verizon guy, and he hasn’t shown up yet. If any of you out there see him, tell him to move his ass and get over here. I have to pick my wife up at 5.
    I now return you to normal programming.

  30. Mike Miller December 20, 2007 at 2:22 pm #

    “And, Mike Miller – this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Buffalo Rising, and I’m frankly getting a little sick and tired of that insinuation, as well. It just so happens that BRO has become the unofficial organ of the Waterfront Coalition, and Newell posts one or two items per week on it. Am I not supposed to comment about it? Should I just shut up and post about goddamn cars and tolls and Spitzer all day?”

    Alan, I was just telling you how it appeared to me (maybe others as well), that’s all. You say it doesn’t, I believe you and I offer my apologies for the misunderstanding. As I said before, I have no problem with debating issues with BRO. I also haven’t fundamentally forgotten what you do. That’s why I read your blog frequently every day. I respect your viewpoints and learn a lot from them. I also enjoy the mocking that you do. It’s another reason why your site is so popular.

    As I said earlier, I was just trying to tell you my impressions. The WC post directly before the parody was posted seemed to end with Harvey’s offer to explain his position further. Then came the parody (which again, I have not seen). Because you are so conscientious with points and counterpoints, my expectation was that the conversation with Harvey would continue on that post. It didn’t. Maybe it has started again here, and for that, I’m glad. I haven’t reached the point where I’m at “enough already”.

  31. Harvey Garrett December 20, 2007 at 3:07 pm #

    Alan – “Mr. Spitzer, tear down this wall”. It’s on the billboard that the Waterfront Coalition paid for. Practically the entire podcast with Mickey Kearns from about a month ago is packed with hyperbole and falsehoods. Saying that the “elevated” route 5 = Gardiner East is hyperbole and falsehood.

    Harvey – As I’ve stated before – I don’t disagree with the use of the term wall being hyperbole. At the same time that is the effect it has and there is only so much you can put on a billboard. But point taken. Kerns is not a member of the Waterfront Coalition. Although he appears to be a pretty good supporter.

    Alan – How is it my job to correct the commenters who are speaking on behalf of your position?

    Harvey – You’ve been attributing comments that aren’t from the WC to the WC – I’m just suggesting that might be a problem.

    Alan – Roads can be changed. If Fuhrmann needs another 2 lanes, it could be widened in the future. As long as the Skyway is still present, Route 5 in its current iteration is not obsolete. Bermed 5 becomes obsolete when the skyway comes down. Incidentally, you’re the only one of the WC people who bothers to call it what it is – bermed. Most everyone else has been calling it an elevated expressway, which it isn’t. There is a part of it that elevates on approach to the Skyway. Not the whole thing. Plus, it’s bermed because of snowdrifts.

    Harvey – So why build in obsolescence? Isn’t this a waste of $55 million? Rebuilding highways on the waterfront is like going back in time 50 years. This isn’t progress.

    Alan – Yes, everything that happens on that outer harbor is temporary, as it stands now, because no one knows what’s going to happen with the Skyway and other roadways in, say, 10 years. So, lets get access out to Furhmann sooner rather than later so people can actually start talking about possibly developing it sooner rather than later.

    Harvey – I agree – so why not put build the most flexible solution possible. Limited access expressways are not flexible.

    Alan – No. As I mentioned to you in an email, there is evidence in Toronto of development between the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore West. The problem with development (if any) on the Outer Harbor has to do with access, not aesthetics.

    Harvey – I agree again (although we probably shouldn’t underestimate aesthetics). The Waterfront Coalition believes that a boulevard options provides better access.

    Alan – That’s not a misrepresentation. First of all, it’s a fact that the DOT rejected the Blvd alternative by virtue of its approval of another alternative. Second of all, I’ve never said the Boulevard wasn’t viable. I said it was rejected as part of a very long and open process.

    Harvey – Then let’s just agree that the boulevard plan has been vetted by the DOT as viable – but another option was chosen (most likely because of an Opus / Uniland project that is no longer happening).

    Alan – Ugh, Harvey. Why are you making me repeat the same thing over and over again?

    1. Build the current plan. Improve access to the waterfront now. It’s ready to go and it’s funded.
    2. Build the Tifft St Arterial, which is the sine qua non of the Skyway coming down.
    3. Petition and cajole the DOT to start work on an EIS as to the Skyway’s removal. Higgins has already called for that.
    4. When the DOT gets around to that, separate project, Route 5 becomes obsolete on the outer harbor, and truck/commuter/thru traffic can use Tifft to the 190.
    5. You’re left with a 4-lane roadway on much of the outer harbor.

    That’s the plan.

    Harvey – Because in this plan we are rebuilding expressways on our waterfront, we have no way of knowing how long they may be there, and we are spending $55 million in taxpayer dollars to do it, and then spending $10s of millions more to remove them again. I agree with almost everything else.

    Alan – How are the Buffalo News or even Illuzzi not concerned citizens? This is just ridiculous. I have had the living shit mocked out of me on this site, and although I might fight back, I have never, ever suggested that it’s wrong. Oh, and incidentally, Chris, Marc, and I are no more or less concerned than you or anybody on the Waterfront Coalition as to the future of this city. You suggest differently.

    Harvey – think there is a big difference between media outlets mocking each other and media outlets mocking concerned citizen groups – but then maybe that’s just me.

    Alan – Maybe you’re not seeing the bigger picture.

    Harvey – Maybe. Maybe we just aren’t seeing the same bigger picture.

    Alan – We mock stuff left and right, day in and day out. It’s not the mocking, but the subject matter you’re complaining about.

    Harvey – No. It’s the mocking.

    Alan – And, Mike Miller – this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Buffalo Rising, and I’m frankly getting a little sick and tired of that insinuation, as well. It just so happens that BRO has become the unofficial organ of the Waterfront Coalition, and Newell posts one or two items per week on it. Am I not supposed to comment about it? Should I just shut up and post about goddamn cars and tolls and Spitzer all day?

    Harvey – I also, right or wrong, jumped to the same conclusion that this was more of a fight with BRO than with the Watefront Coalition. Otherwise it’s an awful lot of effort on something you both claim to be ambivalent about. But perhaps I’m just reading that in.

    Alan – I think you guys – not I – have fundamentally forgotten what it is that I do here, and what I’ve been doing here for 4 years.

    Harvey – Again, my concern over the video was more shock over such a message coming from WNYMedia, and the non-productive direction it took, than you personally. I’m still a little shocked. But I absolutely respect what you do.

    Harvey

  32. Pauldub December 20, 2007 at 3:43 pm #

    And there you have it ladies and gentlemen, the reader’s digest version of this post.
    Thanks Harvey. Hopefully this one can be put to bed.
    But I’m still waiting for the Verizon guy.

  33. sayvanderlay December 21, 2007 at 9:50 pm #

    This video is the best post ever.
    Period.

  34. Haterade December 22, 2007 at 2:51 am #

    Great stuff Alan.

  35. Rus Thompson December 24, 2007 at 2:20 pm #

    LOL!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Ford » The Coalition of Enough Already - December 15, 2007

    […] Here’s another interesting post I read today by BuffaloPundit […]

Contribute To The Conversation

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: