Speak Up Albany - Discussion board topics on Facebook at SpeakUpAlbany

Welcome to Speak Up Albany! Transparency, Accessibility and Accountability start here. We are here to listen and resolve issues; Responsibility Gets the Job Done! We look forward to many meaningful discussions. Check out our Discussions board also on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/speakupalbany. Thank You.

________________________________

________________________________

• Spring Clean Up Schedule: posted on 4/3/2011
  
  Residents living in residential dwellings with four or less units may participate in this program. Trash should be placed curbside the evening prior to your scheduled spring cleanup day.
  If your normal collection day is Monday and you live in Sheridan Hollow, Arbor Hill or North Albany, your spring cleanup is on Monday, May 2, 2011.
  
  If your normal collection day is Monday and you live in the South End, South of Morton Avenue or East of Delaware Avenue, your spring cleanup is on Monday, May 9, 2011.
  
  If your normal collection day is Tuesday your Spring Cleanup day is on Tuesday, April 19, 2011.
  
  If your normal collection day is Wednesday and you live between the boundaries of Washington Avenue to Clinton Avenue and Manning Blvd. to Henry Johnson Blvd., your spring cleanup is on Wednesday, May 18, 2011.
  
  If your normal collection day is Wednesday and you live between the boundaries of Madison Avenue to New Scotland Avenue and Delaware Avenue to Manning Blvd., your spring cleanup is on
  Wednesday, May 25, 2011.
  
  If your normal collection day is Wednesday and you live between the boundaries of Washington Avenue to Madison Avenue from Manning Blvd to Lake Avenue, your spring cleanup is on Wednesday, June 1, 2011.
  
  If your normal collection day is Thursday your spring cleanup day is on Thursday, April 28, 2011.
  
  If your normal collection day is Friday and you live on the south side of Central Avenue (from Partridge St. to Yarbrough Ave.), North of Western Avenue, your spring cleanup is on
  Friday, May 13, 2011.
  
  If your normal collection day is Friday and you live between Henry Johnson Blvd. and Grant Ave on the north side of Clinton Ave. including Shaker Road and St. Agnes Drive or you live on the South side of Clinton Avenue from Henry Johnson Blvd. to North Pearl Street, your spring cleanup is on
  Friday, May 20, 2011.
  
  
  Trash should be placed curbside, after 7p.m., the evening prior to your scheduled spring cleanup day. Hazardous Waste is never accepted curbside even on spring cleanup days. Please call the Department of General Services at 434-CITY with any questions regarding the Household Spring Cleanup.

• 
  

  ALSO: Household Hazardous Waste & Electronics Drop-off Days must pre-register first
  to participate. To pre-register call the Department of General Services at 434-CITY (2489) or go to the city's website to register online.
  
  The following dates have been scheduled with more to be announced:
  
  Thursday, April 7, 2011
  Thursday, April 21, 2011
  Thursday, May 5, 2011
  Thursday, June 2, 2011
  
  The hazardous waste & electronic recycling drop-off days will run from 4pm to 7pm and will take place at the City of Albany Rapp Road Landfill. At no time should hazardous waste be placed curbside.
  
  Any questions regarding the Household Hazardous Waste & Electronic program please call the Department of General Services at 434-2489.

______________________________

Please Read and Comment; your comments will be forward to a council member, thank you posted on 4/3/2011

• 
  

  Important notice regarding proposals for restructuring (decreasing the size of) the Albany Common Council. Public input is vital on this issue. please read and comment on the proposals. Thank you.
  
  Notice of Public Hearing
  Committee on Council Operations and Ethics
  Richard Conti, Chair
  
  Wednesday, April 6 at 7 PM
  Pine Hills Branch Public Library,
  517 Western Avenue
  
  Wednesday, April 13 at 7 PM
  Albany Housing Authority
  200 South Pearl Street
  
  Wednesday, April 27 at 7 PM
  Albany Community Development Agency
  200 Henry Johnson Blvd. (2nd floor)
  
  Topic: Proposals to Restructure the Albany Common Council
  
  
  Two proposals are currently pending to restructure the Albany Common Council (including reducing the size). Any restructuring of the Council would be through an amendment to the Albany City Charter subject to voter approval through a public referendum. As the City of Albany prepares to reapportion Common Council wards to reflect 2010 U. S. Census population figures it is important to consider these proposals in a manner which maximizes public input. The purpose of these public hearings is to receive public testimony with regard to pending proposals (as summarized below) or other recommendations with regard to restructuring of the Common Council.
  
  Summary of Pending Proposals:
  
  Local Law E of 2010 would reduce the size of the Common Council from not more than 15 members to not more than 9 members. In addition, Local Law E would eliminate the position of Common Council President as a separately elected city-wide office and instead provide that the Council President be elected by majority vote of the members of the Common Council. Local Law E would allocate savings from a smaller Common Council (primarily expenditure reductions for salaries and benefits) as follows:
  
  Fifty-Two percent returned to the general fund;
  Thirty percent to support enhanced staffing for the Common Council;
  Eighteen percent as a salary enhancement to the remaining 9 members of the Common Council to reflect representation of larger districts.
  It is anticipated that Local Law E would result in a potential net expenditure reduction of approximately $640,000 over a four year period.
  
  Local Law F of 2010 is similar to Local Law E except that it would reduce the size of the Common Council to not more than 7 members and provide that all savings from a smaller Common Council be returned to the general fund. Local Law F contains the same provision regarding President of the Common Council as Local law E. It is anticipated that Local Law F would result in a potential net expenditure reduction of approximately $1.25 million over a four year period.
  
  Discussion
  
  Albany’s Common Council is currently comprised of 15 members and a separately elected Council President. The size of Albany’s Common Council is larger than that of neighboring municipalities and cities of comparable or larger size. It has been argued that a smaller body would be more cohesive and serve as a stronger check and balance to the executive branch of government.
  
  The Common Council also needs adequate resources to support its role as the policy making body of government; Local Law E would reinvest a portion of the savings from reducing the size of the Council into the new smaller body.
  
  As a separately elected official, the Council President presides at Council meetings and votes only in the event of a tie. The Council President is also a member of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment and the Board of the Albany Community Development Agency. The Council President succeeds to the office of Mayor in the event of a vacancy. As a separately elected official the Council President is not accountable to the Common Council as a whole or representative of the Council. It has been argued that the duties and responsibilities of a separately elected President of the Common Council are better exercised by a member of the Common Council elected by Council Members. This would strengthen the position of President of the Common Council as an office which is representative of the Council.
  
  It has also been argued that at a time when Albany is facing significant financial challenges, the Common Council should be streamlined to provide budgetary savings.
  
  Some argue that the current size of Albany’s Common Council is appropriate and that it provides better representation by having elected officials that are closer to the residents they represent. Council Members are expected to do constituent work, attend neighborhood meetings, assure that neighborhood issues are adequately addressed by City agencies, and engage in policy initiatives that affect the city as a whole. A smaller Council may stretch Council Members too far and impede the ability to adequately represent constituents.
  
  It has also been argued that reducing the size of Albany’s Common Council would reduce the number of people of color elected to the Council. This reduction in number would not be alleviated by increasing the percentage of Council members of color.
  
  It also has been argued that a separately elected Council President elected by the voter’s city-wide preserves the independence of that office and should the Council President need to succeed to the office of Mayor in the event of a vacancy, it is better that it be a person elected by the voters rather than the Council.
  
  While many have pointed to larger cities in New York State that have smaller city council’s than Albany, those city’s often provide their council members greater staff resources and compensation than Albany does. If Albany reduces the size of its Council, should additional resources be invested to enhance staffing?
  
  In addition to local legislative bodies that are elected from individual districts, some cities have a mix of members elected by neighborhood-based district and city-wide. Should some of the voting members of Albany’s Common Council be elected by district and the others city-wide? In theory, Council Members elected city-wide would bring a broader perspective to Council deliberations vs. a perspective that might be limited to a particular district.
  
  Public Testimony:
  
  Residents of the City of Albany are invited to speak at the public hearings to express their thoughts with regard to the future structure of Albany’s Common Council. There is no need to register in advance. Public comment should be limited to five minutes, written comments are also accepted. If you have any questions, require further information, a copy of the proposed local laws or wish to submit written comments, please contact Cashawna Parker as indicated below.
  Cashawna Parker
  Senior Legislative Aide
  Albany Common Council – Room 206
  City Hall
  Albany, NY 12207
  Tel: 434-5087
  Fax: 434-5081
  e-mail: parkerc@ci.albany.ny.us

There is no consistency in city hall when it comes to Abandoned Building calls posted on 2/10/2011

• 
  

  An abandoned building that has been complained about to the city is finally boarded up by the city and securely closed up with wood panels. Months later the same building is spotted as having squatters from time to time. You call city hall and tell them that an abandoned building the city months before closed up has got squatters again, and the girl that answers the phone at the city says Oh we don't handle that, that is something that you need to talk to the police about (please keep in mind that this is the same number that was called to get the building boarded up to begin with), she proceeds to give you the number to the correct police station, asks for the address of the problem building and your name and tells you that she will connect you to the police directly. You hold for a moment and the police station answers, you tell them that city hall referred you over to them, and explain the problem. The officer asks for the address and your name and number and says that they will try check it out and keep an eye on it. The resident once again is doing their part for notifying both parties of a problem situation. Meanwhile the building still sits there open and vulnerable causing a safety issue for the neighbor. I understand that the city wants to make sure that the building is unoccupied and empty when they come to reboard it up for personal safety reasons for the city workers, but this is also a personal safety issue for the neighbor also; when a complaint comes in and you take the address of the problem building and name of caller, and the city department that handles this was out front of this very house when the call was made couldn't they radio out to the workers to ask them to see if the building was reopened up again, and go from there to schedule coming out to fix the problem. Why does the neighbor of this building have to wait for almost two weeks and still nothing is done about it by the city. I understand the police have more important issues to address, but if we can have a liaison officer sitting up at a school waiting for a problem, than why can't we also have an officer that is available for these neighborhood issues also especially when drugs have been associated with this abandoned building. Why can't we have consistency in city hall for the same problem each and every time? I will keep you posted on this issue because another call will be made.

Public Bath #2 and my proposals to the city of albany e-mail letter posted on 12/09/2010

e-mail sent on 12/9/2010 to:

Hon. Carolyn McLaughlin             
Hon. Richard Conti
Hon. Daniel Herring
Hon. Dominick Calsolaro
Hon. Lester Freeman
Hon. Ronald E. Bailey
Hon. Barbara Smith
Hon. Jacqueline M. Jenkins-Cox
Hon. Catherine M. Fahey
Hon. John Rosenzweig
Hon. James P. Sano
Hon. Leah Golby
Hon. Anton A. Konev
Hon. Michael O’Brien
Hon. Joseph Igoe
Hon. Frank Commisso, Jr.
Mayor Gerald D. Jennings


Re:  Public Bath #2

This correspondence is to let you know that I am completely opposed to the permanent closure of Public Bath #2.  This bath house can be an anchor building which represents a “form of stabilization” to the South End's much anticipated reinvigoration.  This historic neighborhood and 105 year old structure “serve as reminders of a prosperous era, that represent an intrinsic, latent value that is difficult if not impossible to re-create from scratch and should be preserved to the maximum extent  feasible“. (language taken from proposed city plans as a reminder of what the city said).  The residents nor any visitors will benefit from their hard work when you take away a recreational facility. The building is not in total disrepair according to city data “renovations were done to the building 2007-2009“ it just needs to be maintained, monitored and preserved.

You cannot energize an area, nor state that you want to make the South End a "Community of Choice" when their very choices are being stripped from them and stripped out of the budget without a public hearing. Many residents doubt your level of commitment to meaningful citizen participation when they are being excluded from the process.  The city's proposed closing of the bath house will be detrimental to the future of our community!

The National Historic Preservation Act mandates the active use of historic buildings for public benefit and to preserve our heritage.  Preserving Albany’s historic buildings is essential and it is environmentally responsible by using existing buildings.  I believe that local government officials also need to help change the perceived perceptions of the South End. The South End residents can work all they want to with their local leaders, but if these “leaders” are already of the mind that they are against an idea to benefit Mayor Jennings, than it is not going to benefit the people one bit.  The people need to be heard, because the business of the people is suppose to be of the utmost importance to you as mayor and council members.  You need to do what you were elected by the people to do, and forget any political obligations you have to the mayor.  The Common Council needs to ensure equal treatment, so the criteria is not “bent” for any building.  I respectfully request that you hold public hearings on the bath house issue.  By the mayor and council members not requesting to have a public hearing, it  places a severe burden on the public’s and the voters ability to actively participate in it’s local government.  How can the South End ever be considered a “Community of Choice” when they are being excluded from their rightful role as resident and voter. You constituents have rights also, rights that should not be ignored, to appease an absentee landlord mayor.  All of your decisions effect all residents everyday, whether in your ward or not. Your decision on this and every issue needs to be made without the mayor’s influence, and I ask all council members who voted “No” to reevaluate their choice and replace the funding for public bath #2 and keep it open. The honest people of Albany are insisting that their rights be heard and be protected by you and protected from the mayor’s inadequacies.  We are relying on you to restore to a sound state the bath house after the mayor caused its dilapidating conditions through neglect.  I along with other residents of the South End and the city of Albany, are fighting for this building, for it represents a piece of that area’s history and culture.  I recommend that the common council educate and/or continue to educate themselves in regards to historic buildings and preservation of them, so preservation efforts will be sustained in Albany.  I also recommend that ward leaders working on commissions regarding historic buildings should not be on those commissions unless they have preservation as their first priority.  I also propose that an ordinance be done to provide for the preservation and protection of historic places, buildings, sites, districts, etc. in that the city of Albany start their own local landmark commission to ensure preservation is sustained, and to safeguard the architectural, historical and cultural heritage of Albany. A preservation ordinance stabilizes declining neighborhoods and protects and enhances property values; so historic preservation is a valid public purpose.

The Common Council  has the authority to make sure rules/laws are complied with, and when it comes to Public Bath #2 the mayor did not comply with his own city’s laws/procedures, and possibly the Historic Resource Commission’s, and therefore as council members you should not follow the mayor’s recommendations to close public bath #2.  The city’s codes are nothing more than wasted paper unless the city complies with same also.  The city needs to repair their faults in order for it to truly be a great city.  I propose if one does not already exist a documentation plan for Preservation should be developed using preservation as a treatment developing your own city plan for such, for this building immediately and for all historic buildings in the City of Albany.  This bath house is “recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use“.  Protection includes the maintenance of historic materials through treatments such as rust removal, caulking,  and re-application of protective coatings.  The City needs to stabilize.  The pool is in need of repair to “stabilize it“ that does not constitute closing of the building.

I propose that the pool and all historic buildings be checked annually for needed repairs.  The cracks in the pool are a normal repair most pools require due to movement and lack of reinforcement. Also, in lieu of an exhaust fan connected directly to the wet area to run right out the roof of the building to remove humidity, I propose installing ceiling fans to create steady airflow. The more air movement, the quicker the surfaces will dry.  The “ventilation system” the mayor claims it needs, will not give you the air movement that you will get from ceiling fans that can be used in the locker room areas and elsewhere, which are cheaper in cost and more effective in drying surfaces, and will aid in keeping steam from rusting the buildings metal beams.  (These metal beams can also have simple steel rods put in behind the beams for support) a simple not expensive way to fix the problem which many historic buildings that used metal beams do. To dry, you need good heat also.  Keeping the areas dry also prevent fungal conditions like athlete’s foot. Regular walk-throughs by maintenance staff with hourly removal of any standing water on floors and surface areas also helps.  The more time maintenance staff is there to spot problems they can take steps to resolve them.  Other immediate remedies I propose to reducing and preventing wet conditions or rusting, is to purchase several Barco Turbo Downdraft dryers that suck in and release air in four directions; or similar unit, it can dry an entire room in 15 minutes, or another cheaper alternative is a Barco blaster with 2 different operating angles to direct air as needed, typically used to dry floors and carpets. Also, if not present you can also add a regular table or two for towels to be set on in the pool area to dry off before entering the locker room, another level of reducing water and wetness.  So you see, with much less cost than the mayor claims, the bath house can remain open and these proposed suggestions can be put in place to resolve effectively and immediately routine needs of maintenance and preservation.  Using my suggestions is not only cost effective, but it also will keep intact the historic roof, by not installing a ventilation system.  The city needs to show it’s commitment to the historic buildings of Albany.  This site can and needs to survive under the direction of responsible preservation practices with preservation minded people to enforce those practices.  The simple fact that it is listed on the National registry warrants its preservation, it is a building of significance in a historic district. I also propose that a no demolition rule be put into effect, and that Jennings puts it in writing what he proposes to do with the bath house and files same with the clerk’s office for public record.  The bath house is earning a “reasonable return” without the work being done to it, and if the building was not safe as the Mayor claims, people would not be in it today per code enforcement laws.  The Historic Resources Commission should have laws set in place, so that the city was to ensure its preservation and maintenance thereof, and to propose not just elective work that needs to be done, but also serious deterioration issues that needs to be addressed which did not happen overnight.  The city’s neglect of the building not only endangers the building but the historic district it sits in also.  The mayor is a neglectful absentee landlord for he only sees a particular community as a place to maximize income without much cost on his part, and has continually shown his total disregard towards historic sites.  The Mayor did not satisfy his obligation to this building.  A code enforcement officer should have done something about this matter before now. If the building was truly a problem, the necessary tests would have been deemed necessary to determine the safety of the building then in ‘07-’09, which did not happen; and since the mayor admitted he was aware of these problems, then he is negligent for failing to do a written notice of the defective, unsafe and dangerous conditions he complains of, and his willful neglect is what “allegedly” puts public safety at risk, since he had a reasonable amount of time to repair and remove these defects and dangers of public safety and did not.  Did the Commissioner of Public Works receive a plan from the mayor since its last repairs to make the remaining repairs?  When a permit was necessary for example for the rusting inner beams/supports why didn’t the mayor obtain a permit to make said repairs?  Why isn’t the city being penalized for not making said repairs?

The Historic Resources Commission needs to be the powerful force they can be by enforcing their own rules.  It is not the mayor’s decision to make and the city should not be exempt from the same laws that a private owner would need to abide by.  The city attorney /code enforcement would bring a case against a private violator for the same issues the city ignored.  A correct review needs to be done so the mayor cannot continue to subvert the same processes of others.  Do not allow the mayor to subvert processes for his own personal or political gain.  The mayor is not going to simply move on from this issue, this is not a dead issue and the Historic Resources Commission needs to require the mayor to repair damages, and if he thinks he is going to demolish this structure, he does not meet the criteria to do so.  The Common Council needs to make sure that the city is doing what it is suppose to be doing and that means looking into the process to make sure that the city is compliant. The mayor needs to stop trying to get special approvals on things outside intended law; and be reminded that you all have legal responsibilities that need to be adhered to or risk loosing state and federal funding because of it.  It does not have to return the most profitable return contrary to Jennings.

The building code inspector should have been inspecting it regularly.  Nothing prevented the city from ordinary maintenance and repair.  Typical Commission laws have it that no person (including city) owning property within a historic district shall permit the property to fall into serious state of disrepair so as to result in its deterioration effecting the life of the property itself which includes deterioration of vertical supports, roofs or other horizontal members, ineffective waterproofing of roof, or foundation of pool.  If Albany does not, I propose similar language to be added regarding enforcement.

  I propose that parts of the city’s zoning ordinance be strengthened to encourage the preservation of historic resources.  Since the Historic Resource Commission only covers mainly the exterior of the building, in the preservation ordinance there needs to be a provision for the interiors so that no one can allow a historic building to be neglected.  A building inspector could have determined if the bath house required immediate repairs or stabilization to protect the building, its contents and the public.  Ordinary things could have been done before now and still can be done. If established, the preservation commission should work with the planning board and an experienced preservation lawyer to assure the city and private owners do not fail in meeting its preservation goals. The city should include that approval for demolition should be contingent on the owner submitting an accompanying plan for reuse of the property that complies with the terms of the zoning ordinance.

With the growing rate of childhood obesity, I and others believe that it is absurd to close this facility.  I propose better advertising and publicity to attract residents and visitors (previously not done) so this facility could again be a jewel to Albany, by providing healthier children and adults and a lasting legacy in Albany for the next 105 years.  In regards to lack of attendance the city’s progress report of ‘07-‘09 states: “Hidden Secrets - …one being Public Bath #2.“  That being said more could have been done to make it more visible by promoting it and educating all residents new and old and visitors about its historical existence by making it a destination to come to.  It was and still can be today what it was then, a social center and community meeting place.  I propose that the walking tour brochures for the South End and all areas be placed on the city’s website for people to download to promote the South End and increase public awareness.

Therefore, we are all responsible in the protection, preservation, repairs and improvements of our historic resources and to make them accessible for use by all. I respectfully request that you vote Yes to keep the public bath #2 open and take my recommendations into consideration.  I thank you for your time and consideration to this matter.  If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at benziejohnson@yahoo.com.

________________________________

Save Public Bath #2 posted 12/06/2010 on fb

EVERYONE needs to contact the Mayor today by phone or email. Tell the Mayor - Do not veto the funding for the Public Bath #2. We need you to give it another year to allow time for grants that have been found to fund the bath and it's also time for the programs the city said they were going to do in the plans for the South End to begin and it starts with the Bath. Call Mayor Jennings first thing @ 434-5100 or email: mayor@ci.albany.ny.us * * * * Please forward to everyone you know to save this historic building**** I also ask that you come and attend the common council meeting tonight 12/6/2010 at 7:00pm Thank you.

________________________________
Posted 11/30/2010 on fb

Public Bath #2 has temporarily been saved. The Common Council voted last night (11/29/010) 9-5 in favor of keeping it in the budget. Mayor Jennings says he will veto the budget if the Bath House is in it. Thank you to all of those who showed their support of it. This is not over yet. Will keep you updated on it.

Comment:  An FYI so you know how your ward leader voted on the Historic Public Bath #2. Those who voted in favor are: Ward leaders Sano, Golby, Smith, Calsolaro, Conti, Fahey, Konev, O’Brien and Rosenzweig.

Those who voted against are: Ward leaders Igoe, Herring, Commisso, Bailey and Jenkins-Cox.

Comment:   Update: Public Bath to close on December 31, 2010. Again so you know how your ward leader voted on the Historic Public Bath #2. Those who voted in favor are: Ward leaders Golby, Smith, Calsolaro, Conti, Fahey, Konev (in Russia and not allowed to vote via Skype), O’Brien and Rosenzweig.
Those who voted against are: Ward leaders Igoe, Herring, Sano, Commisso, Bailey, Jenkins-Cox and Freeman. This fight is not over.

_____________________________

• Court of Appeals 1988 Decision regarding permit parking in Albany posted on 11/06/2010 on fb 

  Let's start where it all began. A little background information on this issue, this City of Albany decision of 1988 regarding permit parking. Note that the annual permit fee in 1988 was $17.50, it will be interesting to see what they raise it to in 2010. Albany is currently in the planning phase of a permit parking plan, with public hearings to be held before the end of the year. Understand the basis for this decision, because permit parking may be coming to your neighborhood too. Notice that the following statement is taken directly out of the below decision [...the legislative history reveals that the purpose of the statute was simply to allow Albany to phase out parking meters in favor of a permit plan because meters are costly, interfere with refuse and snow removal and are often vandalized].
  
  I stated that I would get rid of parking meters because people are tired of being nickel and dimed to death, and jennings stated he would not get rid of them.
  _________________
  72 N.Y.2d 96 (1988)
  New York State Public Employees Federation, AFL-CIO, by its President Rand Condell, et al., Respondents,
  v.
  City of Albany et al., Appellants. (And Another Action.)
  
  Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
  Argued May 31, 1988.
  Decided June 30, 1988
  .
  Vincent J. McArdle, Jr., Corporation Counsel (Madeleine D. Maney of counsel), for appellants.
  Rebecca L. Caudle and Richard E. Casagrande for New York State Public Employees Federation, AFL-CIO, and others, respondents.
  Jeffrey Armstrong and Marjorie E. Karowe for C. Allen Mead and another, respondents.
  Louis N. Kash, Corporation Counsel (Jeffrey Eichner of counsel), for City of Rochester, amicus curiae.
  Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur.
  99*99SIMONS, J.
  Plaintiffs challenge the validity of Albany City Ordinance No. 5.11.86 which creates a program allowing residents of certain areas of the City of Albany who purchase permits to park in their neighborhoods for periods of unlimited duration but restricts nonresident parking in such areas during weekday business hours to 90 minutes. The ordinance patently discriminates against nonresidents and violates statutory and 100*100 common-law rules which, we conclude, the City could not modify under existing authority. The ordinance is therefore ultra vires and void.
  I Albany residents have for some time complained about parking problems created by the influx of nonresident State employees who work in the downtown area. The situation has been particularly troublesome during business hours when employees sought free parking in residential districts to avoid parking lot charges and by doing so prevented residents from parking near their homes. Residents were also concerned about safety, noting that the shortage of parking space had become so exacerbated that there was a competitive scramble between drivers for spaces in their neighborhoods. Responding to these complaints, the City enacted Ordinance No. 5.11.86 (Albany City Code, ch XXV, div 9, §§ 25-114 — 25-118) vesting discretion in the Albany Chief of Police to designate areas as "prepaid parking permit areas". It is clearly based upon the Arlington County, Virginia, statute which withstood constitutional challenge in Arlington County Bd. v Richards(434 US 5, reh denied 434 US 976). The ordinance provides that residents of parking permit areas may purchase two permits per household for an annual fee of $17.50 each entitling them to unlimited parking in their neighborhoods. They may also obtain permits for their guests, free of charge if they purchased a permit for themselves, or for $2.50 if they did not. Nonresidents, on the other hand, may park in designated areas only for 90 minutes Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. (excluding holidays) and are subject to a $15 fine for overtime parking. After the ordinance was passed, plaintiffs, two public employee unions, and several of their individual members, commenced this action to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance and to have it declared void. Supreme Court upheld the ordinance but the Appellate Division reversed, concluding that because it discriminated against nonresidents, the statute was invalid. We granted leave to appeal and now affirm.
  
  II The general delegation of power to localities allowing them to regulate the highways within their boundaries is contained 101*101 in article IX, § 2 (c) (6) of the New York Constitution, Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 and Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1604. The Legislature retains ultimate control over the highways, however, and these provisions are expressly made subject to its power to restrict localities and ensure uniform highway regulation throughout the State. Pertinent here are sections 1600 and 1604 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which prohibit localities from excluding persons from free use of the highways except to the extent such limitations are expressly authorized by statute. Case law makes clear the types of exclusions foreclosed by these statutes and reveals that in the absence of specific authorization from the Legislature, restrictions on highway use based upon residency — such as that found in the contested ordinance — are prohibited.
  Historically, English highways were said to be the King's and impeding their use was proscribed for his right was one of passage for himself and for his subjects (see, Town of Galen v Clyde & Rose Plank Rd. Co., 27 Barb 543, 551; see also, Cohen v Mayor of City of N. Y., 113 N.Y. 532, 536). Tailoring the English rule to democratic concepts, the common law in New York has restricted local regulation by impressing a public trust upon the streets. The right to use of the highways is said to rest with the whole people of the State, not with the adjacent proprietors or the inhabitants of the surrounding municipality (People v Kerr, 27 N.Y. 188, 199;accord, City of New York v Rice, 198 N.Y. 124, 128). This public right is "`absolute and paramount'" (Cities Serv. Oil Co. v City of New York, 5 N.Y.2d 110, 115, rearg denied 5 N.Y.2d 1041, cert denied 360 US 934; Deshong v City of New York, 176 N.Y. 475, 484). Thus, inPeople v Grant (306 N.Y. 258, 262), we struck down an ordinance which prohibited transient or through traffic in the Village of New Hyde Park, reasoning that from the common-law proscription it "follows that residents of a particular area in a town or village do not possess and cannot be granted proprietary rights to the use of the highways therein in priority to or exclusive of use by the general public" (see also, People v Randazzo, 60 N.Y.2d 952; Wiggins v Town of Somers, 4 N.Y.2d 215, 218, remittitur amended 4 N.Y.2d 1045, rearg denied 4 N.Y.2d 1046;Atlantic Beach Prop. Owners' Assn. v Town of Hempstead, 3 N.Y.2d 434, 440, rearg denied 3 N.Y.2d 942).
  Noting that our decisions have generally involved traffic restrictions, the City maintains that the common-law rule should only be construed as prohibiting distinctions between 102*102 residents and nonresidents for matters involving travel; that distinctions may be drawn for parking matters. Neither the case law nor the Vehicle and Traffic Law is so limited, however; both proscribe restrictions on highway "use", which includes use for parking as well as travel purposes. The general rule is clear: residents of a community have no greater right to use the highways abutting their land — whether it be for travel or parking — than other members of the public and Albany City Ordinance No. 5.11.86, which confers special parking advantages to residents of certain neighborhoods, violates this proscription. The Legislature is free to create exceptions to the general rule or delegate the power to do so to the localities (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1604; see also, Mobil Oil Corp. v Incorporated Vil. of Roslyn Harbor, 69 Misc 2d 79, 84 [Meyer, J.]) but we conclude that it did neither here.
  
  III The City contends that any of three provisions of the Vehicle and Traffic Law supersede the general rule and authorized its enactment of this ordinance. It relies on subdivision (a) (6), (15) and (16) of section 1640.[*] None of them authorize Ordinance No. 5.11.86.
  Paragraph (6) generally authorizes local parking restrictions such as the 90-minute time limit found in the contested ordinance. It does not, however, permit discrimination between residents and nonresidents, a distinction forbidden at common law (see also, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1200 [indicating parking restrictions should be applied to "persons" generally, and containing no authorization to treat residents and 103*103 nonresidents differently]). Nor should the power to do so be implied for it is apparent that when the Legislature has intended to authorize exceptions to the general rule, it has done so expressly (see, e.g., § 1640 [a] [17] [sanctioning special parking privileges for handicapped persons]).
  Nor does paragraph (15) serve as a basis for the ordinance. It empowers the City of Albany to enact a prepaid parking permit program, but not one which confers preferred status to those in the community. The language of the statute makes no mention of a distinction between residents and nonresidents and the legislative history reveals that the purpose of the statute was simply to allow Albany to phase out parking meters in favor of a permit plan because meters are costly, interfere with refuse and snow removal and are often vandalized (see, e.g., Mem in support of legislation, Bill Jacket, L 1979, ch 435).
  The City's reliance upon the catchall or omnibus provision contained in paragraph (16) is similarly misplaced. Paragraph (16) authorizes enactment of "reasonable" local highway regulations but local restrictions generally are deemed reasonable only if they pertain to matters of public safety (7 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 24.610 [3d rev ed]). More importantly, the authority conferred under paragraph (16) is expressly made "subject to the limitations contained in the various laws of this state" and our decisions have narrowed its scope even further.
  In People v Grant (306 N.Y. 258, supra) we considered a similar omnibus clause in section 90 (4) of the predecessor statute. The prior statute, like the modern version, prohibited exclusions limiting the People's right to use the streets unless the exclusion was specifically authorized. We expressed concern in Grant that if all "reasonable" regulations were authorized by the catchall, the proscription against excluding persons from using the highways could be swallowed by the omnibus clause. In that case the challenged ordinance precluded nonresidents from traveling through the Village of New Hyde Park. In a broad sense the ordinance fostered the reasonable purpose of ensuring tranquility within the village, but this "reasonable" restriction was the very type at which the proscription against exclusionary rules was directed. To prevent the omnibus clause from overriding the paramount purpose of the statute, we indicated the "reasonableness" of local enactments would be judged "by comparing them with 104*104 the particular powers that were delegated expressly [to the localities] by the other subdivisions" of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (id., at 263). Doing so, we held that excluding nonresidents from traveling through New Hyde Park was not "reasonable" within the meaning of the omnibus provision because it was a "more drastic" restriction than those specifically permitted (People v Grant, supra). From the Grant analysis both the majority and dissenting members of this court concluded in People v Randazzo (60 N.Y.2d 952, 953, supra) that the omnibus provision only authorizes rules which are "reasonable and nondiscriminatory"([emphasis added] citing 7 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, op. cit., § 24.618).
  These judicial limitations of the omnibus paragraph defeat the City's reliance upon it here. Paragraph (16) does not authorize regulations at odds with the laws of the State and our common law forbids according local residents priority in the use of the public streets. Moreover, no provision in section 1640 differentiates between residents and nonresidents, and such a "drastic" distinction should not be upheld based upon the omnibus provision. Finally, because the ordinance patently excludes nonresidents it violates the prohibition against discriminatory restrictions.
  
  IV Two of the City's remaining contentions require comment.
  First, the City stresses the similarities between its plan and that upheld against constitutional challenge by the Supreme Court in Arlington County Bd. v Richards (434 US 5, supra). However, whether the contested plan could be enacted consistent with the Federal Constitution is not at issue here. The question is one of power. While the Legislature could delegate to the localities power to enact such a plan, it has not done so and the ordinance is ultra vires.
  The City also relies upon People ex rel. Village of Larchmont v Gilbert (137 NYS2d 389) and White Plains Automotive Supply Co. v City of Peekskill (115 AD2d 728, affd 68 N.Y.2d 933,appeal dismissed 481 US 1026). Gilbert involved the designation of off-street parking for residents, and thus, unlike this case did not entail use of the public streets. White Plains Automotive upheld a traffic ordinance restricting access to residential streets to vehicles under 27 feet in length because the ordinance was reasonable under the facts of that case and, more importantly, because Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1640 (a) (5) 105*105 specifically authorizes excluding trucks from local highways. Such specific authorization is lacking here.
  Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
  Order affirmed, with costs.
  [*] Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1640 (a) (6), (15) and (16) provide:
  "(a) The legislative body of any city or village, with respect to highways * * * in such city or village * * * may by local law, ordinance, order, rule or regulation:
  "6. Prohibit, restrict or limit the stopping, standing or parking of vehicles * * *
  "15. Provide for the establishment, operation, policing and supervision of a prepaid parking permit system, establishing parking time limits for such permits and fix and require the payment of fees applicable to parking where such a prepaid permit parking system is in operation * * * The provisions of this paragraph shall only be applicable for the city of Albany.
  "16. Adopt such additional reasonable local laws, ordinances, orders, rules and regulations with respect to traffic as local conditions may require subject to the limitations contained in the various laws of the state.

  _____________________________

  Sustainability II - Posted 10/21/2010 on fb

  Please answer the following question: Where you currently reside, (does not matter if you own or rent) has there been an investment in energy efficiency? (not lightbulbs, but newer windows, or if a newer building how it was designed, or water reducing shower head and toilets, solar, etc.) Answer Yes or No. Thank you.

  _____________________________

  
  

  Sustainability I - Posted 10/21/2010 on fb

  Please answer the following question?
  1. How many of you come into the city or get around in the city by means of:
  a. Car
  b. Walk around the city
  c. Ride a bike
  d. take a bus
  e. take a taxi
  Please choose all that apply a, b, etc. post your answers below, thank you.

  _____________________________

   Top 5 Issues Need - posted on 10/20/2010 on fb

  We are currently conducting an assessment of what neighborhoods need the most. List your Top 5 Issues. We ask for your input to make an impact in solving our city's, schools, and residents problems. This assessment is to help inform others of a growing concern and to resolve it. Our purpose is to try to correct problems that no one is addressing, or if they are, still needs more done to resolve it. This involves all Albany residents, including our youth. We have been successful in our endeavors in improving or resolving issues previously and we plan on continuing our endeavors. All information will be used to identify and locate problems and will contact the necessary people about them. We consider all people's perceptions of what needs to be done and can be resolved quickly or in a timely fashion, not 20 years from now. We don't like the current trend the city is on and its up to us to create a new one. We need to change the perceptions and attitudes for change to happen, that is why I pose this question.

  Over the years I have talked with many residents and their concerns and issues, not just one block, or selected groups of people. We have a more accurate reflection on the issues by including all ages, all education levels, all income levels and occupations. Here we have 24/7 access to give your input at a time convenient for you to make an impact now. Here you can also just gripe about problems to help improve your well being also. We are here to listen and help. We are giving people a true voice with Speak Up Albany, so all people can answer individually and independently. If you do not want your answers publicly viewed, then send me the answers through the ""send message" to me direct. I will report back to you findings and will directly say it as to not identify the sender of the issues. If you want to be identified answer directly under this post. We will also update the group on the progress we made towards that goal. We need all suggestions and solutions to problems too, collectively we can work together to resolve the issues. Small steps can lead to big improvements when it comes to quality of life. We we also do follow-ups. This is not new to us so List Your Top 5 Issues and let's begin.

  _____________________________

  The Dignity for All Students Act - posted on 10/16/2010 on fb

  Although many of us already know that this is now a law, it has come to my attention that many do not actually know what the law entails. Speak Up Albany is here to do just that, and this post may serve as a quick reference guide for you.
  
  Summary: This law was signed into law by the Governor on September 8, 2010. It will address bullying motivated by weight, gender, sexual identity and expression, race, religion, national origin, and disability. It requires bullying to be reported to the New York State Department of Education, and will force policies to be developed to prevent and handle biased violence/hate. It requires training for school staff, including administrators and classroom curricula material. This law does not address cyberbullying, and it only covers public school students.
  
  The law states it will afford public school students an environment free of discrimination and harassment (including bullying, taunting or intimidation). Their definition of Harassment means the creation of a hostile environment by conduct or verbal threats, intimidation or abuse that has or would have the effect of unreasonably and substantially interfering with a student's educational performance, opportunities or benefits, mental or emotional or physical well-being, conduct, verbal threats, intimidation or abuse that reasonably causes or would be expected to cause a student to fear for his or her physical safety. That no student shall be subjected to harassment by employees or students, nor discriminated against; and that any such policies created include instructional and counseling methods and requiring at least one staff member at each school to be thoroughly trained to handle human relations in the areas of race, color, weight, national origin, ethnic group, religion and its practices, disability, sexual orientation, gender or sex. The Commissioner's responsibilities may include development of model policies and to the extent possible, direct services, to school districts related to preventing discrimination and harassment and to fostering an environment in each school where all children can learn free of manifestations of bias. An age-appropriate version of the policy shall be included in the code of conduct. That any incidents of harassment or discrimination be reported to the NYS Department of Education at least on an annual basis. This law also provides for the protection of people who report discrimination or harassment to school officials, the commissioner, or to law enforcement authorities, or initiates, testifies, participates or assists in any formal or informal proceedings shall have immunity from any civil liability that may arise from the making of such report and no school district or employee shall take, request or cause a retaliatory action against such person. That Section 801-a of the education law, was amended to read as follows: S 801-a. Instruction in civility, citizenship and character education. The regents shall ensure that the course of instruction in grades kindergarten through twelve includes a component on civility, citizenship and character education. Such component shall instruct students on the principles of honesty, tolerance, personal responsibility, respect for others, observance of laws and rules, courtesy, dignity and other traits which will enhance the quality of their experiences in, and contributions to, the community. Tolerance, respect for others, and dignity, shall include awareness and sensitivity to discrimination or harassment and civility in the relations of people of different races, weights, national origins, ethnic groups, religions and religious practices, mental or physical abilities, sexual orientations, genders and sexes. A minimum suspension period, for students who repeatedly are substantially disruptive of the educational process or substantially interfere with the teacher's authority over the classroom, provided that the suspending authority may reduce such period on a case by case basis to be consistent with any other state and federal law. The definition for "repeatedly are substantially disruptive" shall be determined in accordance with the regulations of the commissioner; a minimum suspension period for acts that would qualify the pupil to be defined as a violent pupil pursuant to paragraph a of subdivision two-a of section thirty-two hundred fourteen of this chapter, provided that the suspending authority may reduce such period on a case by case basis to be consistent with any other state and federal law. This act shall take effect July 1, 2012.

  _____________________________

  
  

  
  

  Bullying - October is Bullying Awareness Month posted on 10/11/2010 on fb

  Each school year we need to inform ourselves and our children how to handle the potential problems of bullying.

  
  I send out a special note to all students who had to deal with bullying during their school year or years, it is your strength that will bring you through the coming years. You don't need to change for them. Never give up on yourself. You are a very important person, no matter what your obstacles may be, don't forget that. Accomplish your goals and dreams despite their actions." I say this because my son was being subjected to bullying at school and on the school bus last year, and my daughter is this year. I will do what I can to help them and other families deal with an unnecessary problem many schools overlook/downplay the seriousness of the issue of bullying.
  
  What you can Do:
  In order to reduce bullying, it is important to change the social climate of the school and the social norms with regards to bullying as Stop Bullying Now has stated. I say you do not have to handle bullying in silence. Speak out about it and Speak Up about it here. Talk about bullying at your PTA meeting and with the principal. Don't stop there, tell teachers, other administrators, counselors, protect yourself and your child by your notifying the school nurses, bus drivers, custodians, cafeteria workers, and other parents. Do not rely on the principal to do this for you, it has unfortunately been our experience that they wanted to keep it hushed up. Notify the school bus company and driver, and have a meeting with them about the situation. If the problem is on the bus, call the school and bus company to have the bus tapes pulled so that the school can view the bullying and take action on it. Keep on top of the school, and do not accept their answer of they didn't view the tape, they had problems viewing it, or they didn't receive it. As a former bus driver trainer and school bus driver, I know that you only have a limited amount of hours (each district may be different) to view the tapes. The school gave us those answers only to run down our time to prove there is a problem, and then when the time expires, there is no video to support your claim, hence they do not have to do anything about it. Don't back down. Unfortunately you have to do their job for them in certain situations to protect your child. Call the bus company yourself and speak to the Operations Manager to get the tapes pulled, especially if you get no where with the Safety Manager, remember time is ticking away. If a punishment is to occur when a bullying incident is found on the tapes, follow up on it; and never accept the answer from any school personnel or administrator, "that boys will be boys or girls will be girls", or "it's a phase they go through" or "I think he or she likes your child and that's why they are doing this", this will tell you loud and clear that it is now your mission to rectify the problem, for if they said that to you, they are allowing it to happen and it will only continue to happen, then you need to take other action. Also do not accept the answer "we didn't have these problems last year, so therefore we do not have any assemblies on it". Bullying is an ongoing problem, and as Stop Bullying Now states, "there should be no 'end date' for bullying prevention activities. Bullying prevention should be continued over time and woven into the fabric of the school environment. Anti-bullying messages also can be incorporated throughout the school curriculum.
  
  Fight for your childs' rights. As hard as it may be for you to believe, don't always trust and believe what the school is telling you, they have a special knack for using very descriptive language for an incident that was not even close to what they told you, because they have to protect themselves at all costs. Listen to your child and truly listen to what is and is not said to you by the school. Your child has a better insight than those trying not to get sued and they will always try to blame the parent to take the light off of them and what they did not do to prevent it.
  
  As a parent, I wanted the bullying to end, but I also wanted the bully to learn about themselves and why they are bullying in order for them to evolve as a person, punishment by the school alone is only half of it as far as I'm concerned. My wife recommended that peer mediation be done with a twist, that the principal or administrator who handles these issues, be present to facilitate the mediation, to help and assist with the verbal back and forth, showing both are human beings with feelings and they are equal because of it. Recommend peer mediation with adult intervention at school, also recommend bullying prevention assemblies at school like we did. Be proactive. Don't let the school tell you they can't do that, or they don't see this as a big scale problem, they can do it if they truly wanted to prevent bullying and they should be doing more in preventing it. Parents always look at the schools as being a "Safe Haven" and indeed it should be, safe from abuses from the school staff and fellow students. Zero children should be bullied and my children have enough self-esteem and it still happened.
  
  I believe that school rules should be enforced to protect the victim not the bully. We also suggested more adult supervision on the playground and actually have them watching, watching the hallways and stairwells, and the lines to the bathrooms and lunch. Children should feel safe in school not fear going to it, and parents should never have to feel that fear either. All school staff should learn effective strategies to intervene on-the-spot to stop bullying. Staff members also should be designated to hold sensitive follow-up meetings with students who are bullied and (meet separately) with students who bully. Staff members should involve parents immediately. Parents should not have to try to get the school more involved it's their duty to ensure safety of all students, it's on their watch. Schools need to devote some class time to bullying prevention. Students can benefit if teachers set aside a regular period of time (e.g., 20-30 minutes each week or every other week whichever is applicable) to discuss bullying and improving peer relations. These meetings can help teachers to keep their fingers on the pulse of students' concerns, allow time for discussions about bullying and the harms that it can cause, and provide tools for students to address bullying problems. I feel that students who are bullied should be able to transfer to another school or school district no questions asked. I would also want the law to require school districts to address the problem in their discipline plan using pinpoint specific language that prohibits bullying in their code of conduct policy such as: What is the school and school district going to do to prevent it from happening. Specific language also needs to be put in the code of conduct for when individual responsibilities not performed by any and all school personnel, administrators and teachers is considered unacceptable and/or their behavior is considered unacceptable and specific language set in place for appropriate disciplinary actions to happen against them. Teachers should be taught the correct way to file a bullying incident report. New teachers and veteran teachers need to be taught the correct methods of filing a bullying incident report. We need to put a stop to school districts, school principals and teachers, who do not do their jobs correctly. Even when a teacher admitted to witnessing a physical bullying incident against our son in school (who by the way has special needs), and that she reported it to the principal and that we also reported it to the principal and the point person in the school building who handled such matters reported it to the principal, the principal lied to protect themselves and stated they knew nothing about the matter, that the teacher nor the point person told them anything to cover their behind, and the district took that as an answer and accepted it; and the teacher was never taught how to fill out in writing a written report for bullying and you wonder why we have the educational problems we have today in our school system. It is the principal's duty to handle such matters correctly and timely and even though we told of the problems, we got the run around. Lesson to be learned here is that if you can't trust your principal to do their job correctly, put it in writing and send it to every level, not just school level. We need to restore trust in our school system and the people they hire from the top down. Our plan of action is that we would like the District’s code to be revised so that maybe concern with the welfare of the individual and the school community as a whole was truly recognized; and to make a reality promoting a close working relationship between parents, the school and the school district staff; for the school to be able to truly distinguish between minor and serious offenses as well as between first time and repeat offenders of students; to provide timely action on an issue and timely disciplinary responses for staff, administrators, teachers and students, that are fair and appropriate to all of their misbehaviors; to truly have consistency and fairness to both student and parents by school personnel; and to truly have the schools comply with the provisions of Federal, State and Local law; and to implement new provisions for the Safe Schools Against Violence Act, not just incident reporting. For those states still without a bullying law, lets rectify that problem and get on board with protecting our future leaders. New York State passed a bullying law, but now is the time to start educating all people about it.
  
  Stop School Bullying Once and For All - Everyone who is or has dealt with a bullying issue, we'd like to hear from you, post your comments, or answer our Question: Do you think sanctions, a firing or other appropriate actions should be taken against school administrators and staff who do not protect your children when the issue has been presented to them and they do not act in a timely manner?

  _____________________________

  
  

  _____________________________