Signatures 257 total
Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 › »
-
151
Name: Anonymous on Feb 8, 2013Comments: Is this something that the County is railroading through the legislature, which is so common in our area and which inevitably becomes a burden for us taxpayers??Flag
-
152
Name: Tessa Harvey on Feb 8, 2013Comments:Flag
-
153
Name: Anonymous on Feb 8, 2013Comments:Flag
-
154
Name: Moira Lemperle on Feb 9, 2013Comments:Flag
-
155
Name: Donald W. Suchma on Feb 9, 2013Comments:Flag
-
156
Name: Brian Krall on Feb 9, 2013Comments:Flag
-
157
Name: Chris Stevens on Feb 9, 2013Comments:Flag
-
158
Name: Rachel DiGiorgio on Feb 9, 2013Comments:Flag
-
159
Name: Greg Thomas on Feb 9, 2013Comments:Flag
-
160
Name: Nichelle Brown on Feb 9, 2013Comments: Team Winn!Flag
-
161
Name: Peter Papps on Feb 9, 2013Comments: It seems wiser to wait and see if the current building can be improved.Flag
-
162
Name: Shirley Gilliam on Feb 9, 2013Comments:Flag
-
163
Name: Lucille Reynolds on Feb 9, 2013Comments:Flag
-
164
Name: Tom Kroon on Feb 10, 2013Comments:Flag
-
165
Name: Marianne Kroon on Feb 10, 2013Comments:Flag
-
166
Name: Mariah DiMarco on Feb 10, 2013Comments:Flag
-
167
Name: Anthony DiMarco on Feb 10, 2013Comments:Flag
-
168
Name: Tom Donnelly on Feb 10, 2013Comments:Flag
-
169
Name: Anonymous on Feb 10, 2013Comments:Flag
-
170
Name: Ron Pietrzak on Feb 10, 2013Comments:Flag
-
171
Name: James Lepore on Feb 10, 2013Comments: No need to spend any more money.tuition is high enough.Flag
-
172
Name: Sue Lepore on Feb 10, 2013Comments: Lets use the buildings downtown and try to bring and keep more people there.Flag
-
173
Name: Patti Luconte on Feb 10, 2013Comments: We need to keep working on downtown Rochester.Flag
-
174
Name: Anonymous on Feb 10, 2013Comments:Flag
-
175
Name: Anonymous on Feb 10, 2013Comments:Flag
-
176
Name: Michael Quinn on Feb 10, 2013Comments: As a commercial real estate agent, I am not aware of anyone looking to acquire this Kodak building in which MCC has such a strong interest in occupying. Clearly, there is no need to make any rash decision until the “public taxpayers” have a chance to weigh in on the issue in more public discussions and forums. There are many positive signs of gentrification downtown that have positively changed the downtown landscape of Rochester. Relocating the bus station is a significant step in eliminating much of the loitering on Main Street. This will attract businesses significantly by providing the opportunity for much needed retail services to better support the daytime employment population. This will also attract people living downtown, which is what will restore the city to what it was years ago. Locating a police sub-station will create a more secure environment for everyone to feel comfortable day and night, and reduce blight and vacancies. Increased security cameras and police presence will pave the way for consumer confidence. Reducing the crime rate and the loitering will empower retail businesses to stay open past five o’clock. Attracting people who want to live, work and stay downtown, creates the critical mass that is required for businesses to thrive. Transforming the downtown into a new experience needs to include anchoring a respected community college. Countless other cities have done just this, and the results speak for themselves. Conversely, taking the MCC campus out of an iconic Rochester building, which will be delivered as a turn key project to their specs, by a successful developer both on time, and on budget, is the antithesis of good judgment. Why take regressive approach when you can look at similar metropolitan cities that have benefited economically by placing students and universities into the heart of the fabric of their cityscape? The Sibley Building is the clear choice for many reasons, not the least of which is that it will save taxpayers a significant amount of debt, which we cannot afford. Our downtown needs to be the hub and heartbeat of Rochester. That is why cities have a downtown worth visiting. The way to build on the success of the midtown transformation is to realize that the Sibley Building is the natural choice for MCC. Once all the facts are reviewed and disclosed in full detail, with the transparency of full media coverage, I believe that taxpayers will come to their own conclusion. This is how to make an informed and intelligent decision about which location is best!Flag
-
177
Name: Francisco Pinilla on Feb 10, 2013Comments: I am a Monroe taxpayer and a resident of Pittsford grateful for the many contributions made by Monroe Community College to our region. I believe that the future of our community will continue to be shaped by education and that MCC will continue to be a cornerstone of our investment on education opportunities for all. We cannot afford to rush the decision on the campus site. If the Kodak site is the best choice let it happen after allowing a thorough review of the Sibley site option, and fully addressing the valid questions being asked; among them are unapproved state funding ($24 million) that could become another burden to the county taxpayers, and the 300,000 square feet of empty space at the Kodak site that will need to be heated and maintained at a cost of $1 to $1.5 million per year and will be paid out of MCC's budget. These funds should be invested in education. We must make the best decision for MCC and for all the residents of Monroe County. I believe additional time (30 to 60 days) is needed to compare the two proposals and air the many valid questions being asked before making a final decision. This is too important for all of us taxpayers of Monroe County.Flag
-
178
Name: Anonymous on Feb 10, 2013Comments:Flag
-
179
Name: Anonymous on Feb 10, 2013Comments: Winn Development, a Boston based investment Firm is only interested in marketing the Sibley Building it recently purchased, where as Ann Kress President of MCC is an educator, understands the needs of MCC better. It is been too long for this project to be debated. I suggest Legislature do not delay vote on this. Additionally, Winn has not addressed the annual operating costs of Sibley versus Kodak propertyFlag
-
180
Name: Jake Voycheck on Feb 10, 2013Comments: You should be given time to present your alternative proposal.Flag
-
181
Name:
Sean Pearson on Feb 10, 2013
Comments:Flag -
182
Name: Curley Gavin on Feb 10, 2013Comments: Regarding MCC Move to Kodak Building: Here's another "Fast Ferry" fanacy aimed at sacking the City Taxpayers, and I'm a 70 year old retired Senior Citizen, unemployed living on fixed income. We the City Tax Payers are still paying for the Fast Ferry that I've never had an opportunity to ride. The MCC Campus originates from the suburbs, and if County Executive Maggie Brooks and folks in the suburbs want to venture into moving MCC to Kodak - let them come out of their pockets since they have jobs and "I" a city tax payer don't have a job and can't get one. I thank you in advance for letting me express my frustration and disgust regarding this matter.Flag
-
183
Name: Anonymous on Feb 10, 2013Comments: I believe that all viable options should be reviewed. I am not suggesting that Sibley's should definitly be designated the MCC future sight. I am recommending a thorough investigation into the Sibley site to determine if the savings, renovations and location make more sense than the Kodak site.Flag
-
184
Name: Mrs. Judy A Baker on Feb 10, 2013Comments: The Sibley building proposal does deserve a fair hearing. Taxpayers CANNOT afford to Lose $18 million dollars. It is time the taxpayers started to pay attention to what we are really paying for.Flag
-
185
Name: Anonymous on Feb 10, 2013Comments: Please delay the vote so we can make a wise decision. The Sibley Building has long been the heart of downtown Rochester. Let's make it the MeCCa for community education.Flag
-
186
Name: Patricia Gavin on Feb 10, 2013Comments: Sunday, 2/10/13 I read with disgust the article written by Gilbert Winn, Essayist , regarding the possible MCC move to the Kodak building. Once again, we the City Taxpayers have NO VOICE in regards to Ventures that will be billed at our EXPENSE. I support Mayor Richards who has stated he's against moving to the Kodak building at a greater expense to taxpayers. Education is important, but it should not be put on the backs of the poor, retired and unemployed people. I am fed up with all the big ideas for the City, but where is the money and support coming from? There seems to be plenty of money for the Suburbs, but when it comes to the city, the poor city taxpayers always gets stuck holding the bag. The FAST FERRY comes in mind as another venture gone wrong, and we the taxpayers were stuck paying the tab. If the Legislature isn't going to come up with support to move the MCC to Kodak, let MCC stay at the Sibley Building downtown. I'm FED-UP with all the BIG IDEAS on the BACKS OF UNEMPLOYED people. Let Maggie Brooks and the Suburbanites come up with the Money to pay for MCC move to Kodak, after all they're the ones who's have all the jobs. Get some JOBS back for CITY PEOPLE then maybe we can help pay for something. Also, I agree with Louise Slaughter that if they started hiring those of us Senior Citizens who still want to continue to work, maybe we could all help out when these ventures come up. But Right now-- who's working? I'm not and can't find a job, so why should people like me be stuck paying for the MCC move to Kodak? I'm disgusted and Fed-up with all. Thanks for accepting my signature for Against the MCC Move to Kodak.Flag
-
187
Name: Danny Cashman on Feb 10, 2013Comments: don't move mcc!Flag
-
188
Name: Rachel D. Bennett on Feb 10, 2013Comments: Delay the vote for more input re Sibley proposals.Flag
-
189
Name: Amy Peritsky on Feb 10, 2013Comments: Please look at the total cost. Even if Albany allocates more money for the Kodak site it comes out of the taxpayers pockets.Flag
-
190
Name: Robert Peritsky on Feb 10, 2013Comments:Flag
-
191
Name: Ethel Renna on Feb 10, 2013Comments:Flag
-
192
Name: Richard Brody on Feb 10, 2013Comments:Flag
-
193
Name:
Jeff Baglin on Feb 10, 2013
Comments: In this age of budgetary deficits and less than stellar tax revenue generation on the state level in New York and Monroe County ,respectively;I think the proposal to slow down the county's proposal to take legislative action in February to make this purchase of the old corp. hdqrs. on State St.We the tax payers of Monroe and county and New York state need to see a little bit more of the financial costs associated with this proposed purchase and where the funding is coming from.The memories of Renaissance square and the "Ferry" fiasco are really too vivid in my memory.Flag -
194
Name: Maria Almanzar on Feb 11, 2013Comments:Flag
-
195
Name: Jeffrey Marcil on Feb 11, 2013Comments:Flag
-
196
Name: William Moorman on Feb 11, 2013Comments:Flag
-
197
Name: Blake L. Cole on Feb 11, 2013Comments:Flag
-
198
Name: Robyn Umfress on Feb 11, 2013Comments:Flag
-
199
Name: Lynn Sexton on Feb 11, 2013Comments:Flag
-
200
Name: Jessica Silva on Feb 11, 2013Comments:Flag