A couple of days ago, a reader on Dave Markham’s website posted a comment that sums up the dissolution proposal in a few words. The comment says all that needs to be said about the slumlord’s attempt to dissolve the Village of Brockport. Here’s the comment.
“The village has held many votes since the last dissolution vote. It’s called village elections. Mort Wexler, a proponent of dissolution, appointed Mary Jo Nayman. When she, also a proponent of dissolution, ran for election she lost. Connie Castaneda, a proponent of dissolution, appointed two people during her 4 year term; Chris Martin and Dan Kuhn, both proponents of dissolution. When they ran for re-election they both also lost. See a pattern yet? All past and present board members that have won elections are pro-village and anti dissolution. Now do you see a pattern? So the question remains, why would board members who don’t want to dissolve the village, and have been elected by the majority of the voters of the village of Brockport, study dissolving the very entity they serve? If you want a board to study dissolution run dissolutionists for the board, hope they win, and study it all you want.”
The comment was posted Wednesday on David Markham’s article Mayor Blackman questions benefit of CGR study. Mayor Margay Blackman was responding to a statement made by Rhett King, the slumlord’s spokesman, that the Village should spend $5,000 to fund a study on the effects of dissolution.
In that article, David Markham pointed out that Brockport Mayor Margay Blackman had told the Suburban News, that a study by the Center For Governmental Research (CGR) on cost savings for the people of the Village of Brockport and the Town of Sweden would not be comprehensive enough to provide good information about the impacts of dissolving the Village of Brockport on the community.
Brockport Mayor Margay Blackman said that there is not enough time to do a meaningful study between now and the date the vote would have to take place. Mayor Margay Blackman said that the Center for Governmental Research in Rochester (CGR), which completes “dissolution studies” as part of their business, has already contacted the village, and told village leaders that a study could be completed before the vote. But they cannot say how accurate or comprehensive such a study would be because of the short time frame.
Margay Blackman put it this way, “This issue came up after the last vote and our grant writers responded at the time, Why would Brockport want to dissolve? Brockport is not the kind of village that dissolves. We don’t need a boilerplate study that will be hastily done and at this stage could not possibly include all the dissolution costs and the outcome of dissolution because that outcome rests in the hands of the town.”
If the Village of Brockport is dissolved, everybody loses except the slumlords because property values will fall dramatically. Everyone who owns a single family home in Brockport will lose, and so will everyone who owns a single family homes in the Town of Sweden
Brockport residents owe kudos to the person who posted the comment on Dave Markham’s website. Thanks to that person’s comment, we can all see what the slumlords are trying to do.