CuseOnly
All American
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2012
- Messages
- 6,320
- Like
- 6,393
Losing money implies that we had the money or could reasonably expect to get the money.
Joy being an obstructionist and a grandstander is far from attributable to Miner. That she's happy to offer up the same steaming pile of nothing for the next two years that she's given for her entire tenure on the Council has more to do with her ambition than it does with the stadium deal, which is just the latest convenient excuse (see the crap she's pulled in recent years, before the stadium thing came to her attention).
The $16 million, again, just a request that may or may not have been granted. Though if you want to say that her pension op-ed was the reason we didn't get the money, I won't argue with you. (I think her statements on public safety and how that money would be spent are in direct contradiction with one another; I think her public safety record is mediocre at best; I also think her pension op-ed was spot on and would hope that she'd do the same thing if given the opportunity.)
As for the stadium, let's just say that there's a bit of a disconnect between public perception and the probability that that project would have broken ground. Far from a sure thing. I know that's vague, but trust me - she didn't just turn down $500 million.
Correct, losing money is when you could reasonably expect to get the money. In a governmental funding sense, she killed all of these possibilities. The IT thing was pretty much green lighted until she killed the stadium. The stadium had private backers as well as the governor, Onondaga County and county executive on board with funding, how much opposition was there besides Minor? If she had agreed it would have moved forward.
You can look at it any way you want, there was opportunity to bring in roughly $521 million dollars into the region. She was involved directly or indirectly in stopping that money from ever getting here, real or imagined.
When the state or anyone else for that matter says to me..."Hey, I have around $500 mil that I am thinking of spending...would you like the opportunity to build something in your city?" The first thing I don't do is reply "Wait just a minute buster...this is news to me, why wasn't I consulted, we haven't had a project anywhere near this scope here in a while and I need to talk to some people involved, get some questions answered, tick off some other big money folks including the Governor and I will get back to you when I have those responses".
I would politely answer, "I am interested in how this development will impact my city and surrounding region, but how do we move the ball forward? What are the next steps and what questions do you need answered from myself and my staff?...I am sure there are some details that will need to be worked out as I realize these are preliminary discussions for funding purposes...and BTW can we build some $$ in to improve infrastructure in the neighboring area, of course to benefit the proposed stadium and it's surroundings".
She could have answered this way but didn't, I blame the whole thing on her and that is where most people will squarely place the blame.
The second response is by far the more political answer and the correct way to approach the project, not the first which is confrontational, condescending and exactly how she approached it. She is just a terrible speaker, leader and Mayor.
Last edited: