The people he is referring to are Ed Boyle and Ed Sweeney.  These two are dedicated public servants who, together with Superintendent Mike Schupp, have exhibited extraordinary leadership and skill in guiding a department that is recovering from scandal and big budget cuts.

Some – not all – just some activists from within the local Civil Service Employees Association – agitate on almost a daily basis about everything imaginable.  Among their favorite targets are Sweeney and Boyle.  Cahill, who is seeking the CSEA’s endorsement in his campaign for mayor, knows this.

I don’t begrudge Cahill for the methods he uses to secure this union’s endorsement. He has to do what he has to do.  But this is a bad idea, plain and simple.   Without Sweeney and Boyle, that department would be in deep trouble.

Advocates propose to use a swathe of city land between the Kingston Point ballfield and a wooded area near the waterfront. See the picture below – the lower right hand corner of the photo is where the park would go.

Advocates are raising the money themselves to establish the park.

http://www.kingstonlandtrust.org/category/kingston-rail-trail-connections/

I had the opportunity to speak with Gregg Swanzey who’s spearheading the effort to clean up the tracks and  make the old railroad right of way a bicycle and pedestrian trail.  Here’s a fascinating fact: the trail from the water to the top of the hill does not exceed a three percent grade.  This makes the trail usable for those requiring a wheelchair to get about.

The Kingston Land Trust is seeking to collaborate with the Kingston Trolley Museum which, in its own right, has done invaluable work making the waterfront more accessible to visitors and residents alike, while showcasing Kingston’s rich history in rail transportation.

That’s why Alderman Hayes Clement (D-Ward 9) offered a resolution for the Common Council to consider that calls on the county to keep Golden Hill as a publicly owned facility. The resolution was simple enough: it stated that the Council supported keeping the place open and in public hands.

Signs supporting Golden Hill are sprouting up on thousands of front lawns across the county. Hardly a family in Kingston or the county who needed affordable health care for a gravely ill or dying loved one has been untouched by Golden Hill. The care people receive there is unparalleled. The staff always go the extra mile.

But if you thought the Council was going to vote yes on the question – which to me was a no-brainer – you would have been wrong. Two aldermen – the Council’s only Republicans – voted no, protesting that they didn’t like the procedure the Council followed to put the resolution to the floor for a vote, and needed more time to think about it! The result? The resolution was defeated.

One of those aldermen, Andi Turco-Levin (R-Ward 1) was particularly harsh in her criticism of Clement for daring to bring to the resolution to the Council in the first place. She is quoted in the Kingston Times as labeling his resolution as a “pure political stunt.”

Is it too much to ask an alderman to provide just a little bit of leadership when times are tough, especially if you’re running for mayor? I won’t blame what they did on Republican vs. Democrat politics, because one Republican candidate for mayor, Jean Jacobs, announced her support for Golden Hill – and Clement’s resolution.

It’s a very simple question. Do you support Golden Hill’s mission to provide affordable long term care or not? It’s a question that some politicians apparently aren’t prepared to answer.

While I regret everything that has taken place regarding this very unfortunate and clearly avoidable matter, I think it’s safe to say that this kind of thing will not occur again.  There are new safeguards in place that clearly state an administrator’s and employee’s responsibility in the work place.  New rules have been made very clear to everyone in city employment, and a new mechanism is in place to guard against future incidents.

That being said, I don’t think we get anywhere by pointing fingers and blaming this sad chapter on some kind of “good old boys club,” as one alderman did in public statements.  Such commentary does nothing to heal wounds.

Justice has been served.  Let’s learn from this very difficult lesson and be the best we can be.  The taxpayers deserve no less.

We apply for, and receive, this funding every year under the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Among the highlights for this year’s application: $65,000 for a soundstage in Gallo Park, $15,000 toward lighthouse refurbishment, $10,000 for the Kingston Land Trust, and $50,000 for the Carnegie Library. Funding of course will also support UPAC, the Everett Hodge Center, Family of Woodstock, and as always, sidewalk and sewer repair.

Call 845.334.3924 if you have any questions or concerns. The Council is expected to approve the application at our May meeting.

Now, while I have mixed feelings about term limits in general, I am not opposed to the idea of the people deciding on whether there should be term limits in a public referendum.  The question I have is why is Turco-Levin pushing four-year terms for aldermen? Doesn’t this remove an important component of public accountability? If an alderman isn’t doing his or her job in a two-year period, she or he can be turned out of office by the voter. About term limits in general, doesn’t the very concept serve as a sort of babysitter for voters? Why should there be a law that will take away a choice? If voters are happy with their alderman, why should there be a law that says, “Oh, you can’t vote for him/her anymore…because the law says so.”

Moreover, if you look at the general make-up of the Council today, you will see that the vast majority of those who serve have been in office for no more than four years.  This is because their predecessors either retired of their own volition or were voted out of office in the last election.  So, really, why the hue and cry for term limits?  Seems to me, if there’s a problem you fix it.  Where is the problem here?  Finally, Alderman Turco-Levin seems concerned that by not having term limits, public participation is somehow diminished.  Could not that same argument be used if there were term limits?  It could discourage people from going to the polls if a term-limited official is not on the ballot.

There are very real problems confronting us today:  continued high unemployment, unacceptable tax rates, crumbling infrastructure, a moribund business climate, crime and quality of life issues.  The list goes on.  Shouldn’t we be focusing our energies as public officials on those problems, rather than wasting our time and energy on other “problems” that really don’t exist?