Quoted from TakingItBack

Your missing my point.  Many landlords used the rental income from the students to improve these home.  What will they do when this developemrnt happens?

Not missing your point.

I think it is better to have the students in on campus housing.  That will eliminate the complaints that many Schenectady residents have had.  Personally, I believe college students should live on campus.  Many local colleges (Siena, St. Rose and, even, SUNY Albany) have added additional on-campus housing to reduce the number of students living off-campus.   In the case of Siena, I know that the off-campus housing complex where many upper class persons once lived invested in sprucing up the apartments and has successfully marketed the units once occupied by students.  

Obviously, the landlords will have to find a new market for their housing units.  They should also reconfigure those properties that were originally built as 2 family and single family homes  back to their original configuration --- instead of leaving them carved up into 3, 4 or more unit buildings.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Sounds like a good idea.  

But what about them not paying taxes?   They have money for dorms but no money to pay taxes to the city?   I know, they are exempt from taxes because they are a school.

This is not a little Catholic school struggling to exist.

The money they take in why should the taxpayers pay higher taxes because they don't pay taxes?  



oh that's write, since you have are not and  never have been a property taxpayer you cannot address the details of how homeowners pay higher taxes and how they suffer with lower property vlaues

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Schenectady does have a glut of housing.  Don't forget that much of the housing was built at a time (70 to 100 years ago) when the city was expected to reach a population of 100,000.  It never achieved that level - and then came the move to the suburban towns which didn't help matters.  Further acerbating the problem, is that a number of homes built as single family homes were divided into apartments and many homes built as 2 families homes were divided into 4 or more units.  Net result - the city has too many housing units and, quite honestly, a lot of aging/obsolete housing units.  Whether or not, Union college builds this proposed dorm, the city will still have the same problem.  
Ultimately, Schenectady needs an infusion of private redevelopment dollars to get rid of aging/obsolete housing units, reduce the total # of actual housing units in the city and replace it with new, more marketable housing units.  
To those who attack Union College, it is Schenectady's oldest continuously operating "industry."  Schenectady was a college town long several decades before the locomotives opened and a a whole century before Edison Electric (now GE) located here.  It is a major employer and its presence certainly is an economic benefit to the community.  
It would be fool-hearty to suggest that we take away its non-profit status and make it pay property taxes.   Then you would be left with a few hundred acres of abandoned property when the college moves to another community.  

But the older houses are built far more better than new houses.  

Her you go saying the city has a glut of housing but you shake those two pom poms on your chest for your city dem buddies and plex to build UNEEDED rental units AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE on property that will be 100% TAX EXEMPT.    So DV how about you comment on the city and plex using taxpayer money to build more apartments in the city when you state the city has a glut of hosing.

The city does not really have a glut of housing, sure SOME (but VERY FEW) two family houses were chopped up into four family houses (you would not even begin to know where to look to cite the figures anyway, so don't bother making a statement about something you have no knowledge nor know how to look it up).

DV, learn the FACTS. the TRUTH.  What makes it SEEM like the city has a glut of housing is the FACT NO ONE wants to buy a house in the city!!!!!!   You REFUSE to buy a house IN the city.  You REFUSE to even rent IN the city.  Hell, you REFUSE to even put your pinky toe within a mile of the city!

The city, county, and plex dems that you cheer for, DV, and their stealing money from the homeowners in the city to force the homeowners to pay their own taxes PLUS the taxes of the dems' political cronies, is the reason why existing homeowners are fleeing the city in droves AND NO ONE wants to buy IN the city.   So that makes it APPEAR that there is a glut of houses in the city.

So get your FACTS correct DV!!!!!!!!!!


You claim the city needs an infusion of private development.   DV, YOU!!!!    YOU have been the biggest (in more ways than one) cheerleader for the city, county, plex dems spending the TAXPAYERS money on all these projects and those of us who are intelligent people and are taxpayers and understand taxes and property values, are the ones who know that the city has been wildly and uncontrollably spending the taxpayers money, exempt their millionaire political cronies from pay taxes and spednging the taxpayers money to built new buildings for the rich.   Are you finally admitting that me and Mrs are correct and you are wrong?  

By the way, DV, are you willing to speak on the tax delinquent Marcella that you praise so much?   He is a deadbeat and the homeowners' taxes are increased to pay for his taxes and DV, you have the nerve to claim there's a glut of housing because 2 family houses were made into 4 family?   How about there is a glut because TAX DEADBEATS like Marcella are forcing homeowners to leave the city because they cannot afford to pay the taxes.


Of course, DV will NOT address the FACTS.   He just tells fairy tales about why there is an alleged glut of houses.   Schenectady is a very nice city, but NO ONE is going to buy homes when they pay upwards of $7,000 in taxes when they can go to Albany, Troy, Cohoes, Saratoga, Nisky, Colonie, Clifton park, Glenville, etc and pay less taxes for the SAME style of house, same square feet, land, etc.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Obviously, the landlords will have to find a new market for their housing units.  .

And are you a member of the "new market" for the landlords??????    WHY do you REFUSE to live IN the city????????

Schenectady would be worse off without Union and even SCCC in it. Schools don't pay taxes, and neither do churches. ... Frankly, some of these mega churches SHOULD pay taxes, their pastors riding around in a Range Rover.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Not missing your point.

I think it is better to have the students in on campus housing.  That will eliminate the complaints that many Schenectady residents have had.  Personally, I believe college students should live on campus.  Many local colleges (Siena, St. Rose and, even, SUNY Albany) have added additional on-campus housing to reduce the number of students living off-campus.   In the case of Siena, I know that the off-campus housing complex where many upper class persons once lived invested in sprucing up the apartments and has successfully marketed the units once occupied by students.  

Obviously, the landlords will have to find a new market for their housing units.  They should also reconfigure those properties that were originally built as 2 family and single family homes  back to their original configuration --- instead of leaving them carved up into 3, 4 or more unit buildings.

They are reducing the off campus housing because they are blood sucking non profit institutions.  

In 2010 the total endowment of colleges in the US was $355,000,000,000.  In 2011 it was $415,000,000,000 up 17%.  Union College has a $322,000,000 endowment.  $322 million.  Yet they need more money.  

"Obviously, the landlords will have to find a new market for their housing units.  They should also reconfigure those properties that were originally built as 2 family and single family homes  back to their original configuration --- instead of leaving them carved up into 3, 4 or more unit buildings. "

Yes because reconfiguring is easy to do when you have no money and high taxes.....  

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=73

Quoted from TakingItBack

They are reducing the off campus housing because they are blood sucking non profit institutions.  

In 2010 the total endowment of colleges in the US was $355,000,000,000.  In 2011 it was $415,000,000,000 up 17%.  Union College has a $322,000,000 endowment.  $322 million.  Yet they need more money.  

"Obviously, the landlords will have to find a new market for their housing units.  They should also reconfigure those properties that were originally built as 2 family and single family homes  back to their original configuration --- instead of leaving them carved up into 3, 4 or more unit buildings. "

Yes because reconfiguring is easy to do when you have no money and high taxes.....  

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=73

Any one with a shred a common sense or common intelligence would know that a college doesn't make more money by building on-campus housing.  The benefit to the college is in a better learning environment and better campus life -- quite frankly living off-campus really separates those students from campus life.

Union nor any other non-profit is "blood sucking" -- again -- if one doesn't have an argument, he/she has to resort to outrageous, uniformed attacks.

Finally -- whether Union builds this new dorm or not -- It is a fact that Schenectady has a glut of aging/obsolete housing.  If property owners and landlords don't realize that, than I suggest they wake up and see the reality around them.  

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Finally -- whether Union builds this new dorm or not -- It is a fact that Schenectady has a glut of aging/obsolete housing.  If property owners and landlords don't realize that, than I suggest they wake up and see the reality around them.  

Ah, so DV,  you believe that houses should be torn down after they reach a certain age I guess.  

Obviously ALL of the Stockade should be demolished because it's all old and obsolete.   Houses in the Stockade would not be open concept, they probably have all small closets, no "master suite," etc.  So it's obsolete, tear it all down.


Can you PLEASE how you claim their is a glut of residential units but you cheer and praise the spending of taxpayer money to build more apartments and then exempt the wealthy owners from paying taxes?    If there is a glut of residential units, why build more?

Why do you RERFUSE to speak about that?    Can you EVER carry on a discussion based on FACTS?

The FACTS are that there is a glut of housing in Schenectady because the city/county/plex dems have jacked up the taxes so high that homeowners cannot afford the taxes and they are losing them to the city foreclosing.  And other people who cannot afford the taxes are taking the loss and fleeing from the city.

Come on don't be such a big CHICKEN.   The aging housing in the city is far better quality than ANYTHING built today.  Since you do not own a house and you have never owned a house, you don't have the remotest clue.  Most houses today are built with asphalt roofs and those roofs must be replaced about every 25 years.   Those old houses in Schenectady with their slate roofs those roofs are far better quality and last so very much longer.   Houses in Schenectady have slate roofs that are 150 years old or more and the roofs are still in excellent condition, no leaks, and they don't suffer anywhere near the damage that the roofs of more recently built homes.   We have friends who own a house built in the city in the 1950's, there was the original asphalt roof, and two years ago they made the second replacement of the roof.

There is so much more we could list that proves you are wrong about housing, but then again, you have never owned a house, never had to pay for a new roof, etc so you have no clue what you are talking about.


Again the INDISPUTABLE FACTS are that your buddy dems are the ones causing the glut of housing in the city.  In the past 10 years, people have fled the city in probably the highest record numbers of all time.   Absolutely beautiful, old houses, superbly maintained in nice neighborhoods are not selling because NO ONE WANTS TO BUY A HOUSE IN THE CTIY because of the high taxes impose by your dem buddies.


People are avoiding buying or renting in the city for the SAME reason YOU, DV, are refusing to buy or rent in the city - taxes and rents too high, city is eliminating necessary services, crime, drive-by shootings, children can't play outside, drug dealing, dangerous dogs that the city allows to roam free despite multiple attacks, and the blight spreading like wildfire--which the city dems ignore and they just pander to their millionaires downtown in return for their kickbacks.   That is why YOU REFUSE to LIVE IN the city, and you won't even put your pinky toe within a mile of the city

The city needs to STOP spending the taxpayers money to give to rich developers to build apartments when there are so many magnificent empty houses.   Stop stealing from the taxpayers, lower the taxes, let downtown stand on it's own to feet and the city needs to spend money in the neighborhoods, then home values will double and triple in value and people will flock to the city that homeowners will be getting 20 offers if they have their house up for sale.

I think he blocked you MC1, he probably can't even see your posts. Saying that it isn't even worth asking him questions or to get angry over him, all of us here understand the problems this city faces. We all appreciate your knowledge on the cities issues and would rather you keep us informed then see you wasting your time trying to get him to discuss anything.

Quoted from Henry

I think he blocked you MC1, he probably can't even see your posts. Saying that it isn't even worth asking him questions or to get angry over him, all of us here understand the problems this city faces. We all appreciate your knowledge on the cities issues and would rather you keep us informed then see you wasting your time trying to get him to discuss anything.

I will discuss issues with people that I respect.  I don't respect someone (actually -- supposedly a husband & wife duo) who chose to drag members of my family into discussions of issue, creating usernames pretending to be members of my family, attacking my parish and other scuzz ball ignorant things like that.

Besides that, he/she is a one note whiner and complainer -- and quite frankly, I am bored with people like that.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

I will discuss issues with people that I respect.  I don't respect someone (actually -- supposedly a husband & wife duo) who chose to drag members of my family into discussions of issue, creating usernames pretending to be members of my family, attacking my parish and other scuzz ball ignorant things like that.

Besides that, he/she is a one note whiner and complainer -- and quite frankly, I am bored with people like that.

No, he does NOT have us blocked.   He just REFUSES to carry on discussion because we prove him wrong ALL THE TIME.  

He constantly praises the wild, uncontrolled spending on downtown via the dems STEALING from financially struggling homeonwers, i.e., to force the poor homewners to pay the taxes of the downtown millionaires and DV refuses to state why he supports that

He praises Marcella who moved a few feet, got a brand spanking new building built at taxpayers expense (while taxpayers can't afford to make necessary repairs), financially struggling homeowners have their money stolen to pay the taxes of Marcella.  DV praises Marcella and when we prove that Marcella is a TAX DELINQUENT DEADBEAT, DV just say "we complain."   Obviously DV thinks it's wrong to complain about financially struggling homeowners having to cover the taxes of a rich tax deadbeat.

We state a FACT --- that the past 10 years of dem rule in in the city and wild spending on downtown has caused a MASSIVE REDUCTION in the city's tax base - DV REFUSES to discuss that, instead, he says we are "complaining."   Obviously DV thinks it's wrong to complain about a falling tax base which causes people to lose money, and taxes to go higher.   Obviously since DV is not and never has been a property taxpayer he has not the remotest clue.

Since he is not a normal adult man, since he is not self sufficient, since he is not independent, we all know he is jealous of those who are normal, self sufficient, independent, adults with the love of spouses and children, working, raising families, owning homes, and because he is so jealous he wants his dems to tax people so high that everyone loses what they have.

In DV's mind it's wrong to complain about home values falling

In DV's mind it's wrong to complain about neighborhoods being ignored

In DV's mind it's wrong to complain about elimination of essential services

In DV's mind it's wrong to complain about taxes increasing

In DV's mind it's wrong to complain the tax base falling

In DV's mind it's wrong to complain about blight spreading like wildfire in the city

In DV's mind it's wrong to complain about the city/county/plex leadership getting kickbacks from the downtown millionaires whose taxes are paid by the financially struggling homeowners.

In DV's mind it's wrong to complain about properties being over-assessed

In DV's mind it's wrong to complain about the city refusing to do a citywide reassessment.


And for all the praise he lavishes on the dem leaders and proclaiming that that city is in this grand renaissance and claiming the city is doing oh so wonderful, DV REFUSES to state why he absolutely will NOT LIVE IN the city, won't even put his pinky toe within a mile of the city

I can't believe that folks are actually bashing a UNION COLLEGE EXPANSION!!!! WOW!!!

Look, I think most are in agreement how the taxpayers are getting screwed by the 'downtown tax exempt businesses', by the pension padding police dept, fire dept, school system and all of the 'created' patronage tax paid jobs.........BUT....BUT.....UNION COLLEGE????

Get a grip here folks!!!!

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

I will discuss issues with people that I respect.  I don't respect someone (actually -- supposedly a husband & wife duo) who chose to drag members of my family into discussions of issue, creating usernames pretending to be members of my family, attacking my parish and other scuzz ball ignorant things like that.

Besides that, he/she is a one note whiner and complainer -- and quite frankly, I am bored with people like that.

I have yet to see nothing to disprove his statements though, I'm willing to bet MC1 will have a polite discussion on the issues with you and I would love to see it. Both of you put the name calling aside and politely have a little debate.

Quoted from Henry

I have yet to see nothing to disprove his statements though, I'm willing to bet MC1 will have a polite discussion on the issues with you and I would love to see it. Both of you put the name calling aside and politely have a little debate.

That certainly will NEVER happen.  I don't have to call him names.  He swears at most people on these boards because they don't praise the city/county/plex dems.

But more so, remember how he said everyone only complains on these boards, does not discuss.   I invited the discussion, such as discussing downtown and how it is causing a massive reduction in the tax base and DV refuses to engage in discussion.  I asked for discussion on the impacts of financially struggling homeowners with incomes of less than $40,000 having to pay the taxes of millionaires downtown, and DV refuses to discuss that.   Invited a discussion on the city's refusal to do a citywide reassessment when houses are assessed way above what the market value is, and DV refuses to engage in discussion.   DV claimed taxes under the dems today are lower than in 1970's, I ask him to explain that, she REFUSES.   The city takes money from the homeowners to built Marcella a brand new building (while taxpayers have no money to make repairs to their own homes), and the city makes homeowners pay for Marcella's new building, DV praises Marcella as some wonderful community man doing so much good for the city, but we have provided the EVIDENCE that Marcella has taxable property that he is not paying taxes on, we have proven to DV that Marcella is a tax DEADBEAT, and since that moment, DV has not uttered one word about Marcellas -- DV is too embarrassed to admit we are right.

DV isn't capable of having a discussion, he knows only how to spew babble claiming the city is doing so well, but he cannot provide one teeny weeny shred of evidence to prove it.   We show him the blight that has risen and spread throughout all neighborhoods as a result of the city dems stealing from the homeowners to give to the downtown millionaires, and then he avoids any further comment, until some other downtown project is started where the city leaders are going to steal from the taxpayers and DV praises and cheers for the project, i.e., he never utters one word about the homeowners that will lose their homes through tax foreclosure because they cannot pay the taxes of rich downtown developers on top of their own taxes, so he does not engage in discussion, he only makes statements but he NEVER has a shred of evidence to prove that all these projects are beneficial to the homeowners in the neighborhoods

Quoted from Henry

I have yet to see nothing to disprove his statements though, I'm willing to bet MC1 will have a polite discussion on the issues with you and I would love to see it. Both of you put the name calling aside and politely have a little debate.

And another thing regarding DV TOTALLY UNABLE to have a discussion.

There was a post about what seemed to be lack of agenda for a special meeting in the town.  Based on lack of proper format for an agenda, I too questioned the lack of an agenda.  DV told us all there was an agenda posted.  As I looked more, and also looked at the formats for other agendas, I see they all followed that same format.   And so, I admitted I was wrong and apologized.

A few months ago, DV criticized tax deadbeats and stated that others have to cover the cost of the deadbeats.  So then DV praises Marcella as such a wonderful guy.   I provide evidence proving that Marcella is a tax deadbeat, delinquent in paying taxes thus the homeowners have to cover the cost, and now DV REFUSES  to comment at all -- DV has perfected a disappearing act on the threads dealing with Marcella.   DV just could not apologize to me and admit that HE was wrong when I provided evidence.