User login
Recent comments
- John, the difference is that...
by Daniel Jones - I hope this doesn't hurt our...
by Patrick Weissend - To answer the question...
by dave wellenzohn - Thank you, Scott and my...
by Lorie Longhany - If you worry too mcuh about...
by John Roach - I was at the scene of the cat...
by scott kibler - The popular definition of...
by Robert Harding - Honestly, Robert, does the...
by Russ Stresing - The sale does run counter to...
by Daniel Jones - I must disagree with you on...
by Robert Harding
The youth football debate gets strange... and confusing
OK, so this little blurb about Daily News reporter Joanne Beck's article on yesterday's school board meeting was supposed to be just that: a little blurb. But fool that I am, I let myself get pulled into the article, pulled into the futile quest for comprehension. Is it too much to ask that I want to walk away from the occasional news article feeling like I understand a little more about something, instead of becoming more confused and understanding less?
I'm not yet putting the blame on Joanne Beck here. Not this time, anyway. Sometimes the events themselves are baffling and the reporter gets caught up in the senselessness. Of course, this is part of the challenge of being a reporter who must face committees and boards and councils, because bureaucracy really can't help but breed senselesseness. It's your job, reporters, not to pass that confusion on to your readers. Otherwise, what are you there for? To warrant picking up a paycheck, I guess.
So, somehow the city school board's reorganization meeting yesterday turned into a debate on the youth football program — check out our earlier posts for more on the history.
Beck writes:
City school Board President Pat Burk is willing to consider allowing Youth Football to play on a piece of school property. The president had put a request on Tuesday's agenda for the Building and Grounds staff to review North Street extension as a possible site for the football group.
Then everything changes. Dan Jones stands up and berates the school board for not letting the program play at Van Detta Stadium. The way Beck writes it, Burk was flabbergasted — it "came out of the blue" he told her — and had no idea why Jones "brought up the issue."
"It's unreal to me to say there would be more damage done by Youth Football at Van Detta than by the Batavia Blue Devils," Jones said. "I want to express my disappointment with the board."
So... does everyone follow? Dan Jones comes out of nowhere to yell at the school board who sheepishly has no idea what's going on and seems a little offended that their honor would be called into question. Am I reading too much into this? I don't think so.
From there, after making Jones sound a little crazy for "reprimanding" the board, Beck takes up his argument that city taxpayers will pay for youth football twice if the city relocates the program from Dwyer to a city park.
What!? Where does that come from? What does that have to do with the school board? And how would people pay twice for it? Where is the connection?
[Jones] is concerned that city taxpayers will have to pay twice for Youth Football to play. That would happen if City Council approves funding — a move it has been considering — to move the sports group to another city park. City taxpayers already pay school taxes and therefore would be paying again, Jones said.
That's the only answer we get: "That would happen if..." But why does Council's approval of funding mean the taxpayers pay twice? What's the connection with school taxes?
Taxpayers could get some relief if the school district would allow Youth Football to play games at a school-funded field.
I just don't understand this. I don't understand why Beck inserts it in the article. I don't understand why Jones says it — maybe he can explain it a little more clearly and in detail for us on here.
- philip.anselmo
- Login or register to post comments
It would have cost taxpayers less to have both football programs play at Vandetta, now its costing them more to have it played at two different facilities.
Getting rid of paper was for show, I don't believe that the district has tackled any serious issues with teacher to student attention issues, administrative involvement or auditing teaching capabilities. I was on the board for a year, I saw these issues fly right before the board with no avail. They would rather focus on small pilot programs .
Its time for a change. I also don't think that public officials should hide behind vocabulary such as an "official request", the informal request got the answer that was the rational for the youth football program not being able to play at Vandetta, it all was enough for me to say something.
after soccer is played over there...who pays to repair that damage..and to ever said that the school district is managing revenue well then i would think they would be needing less of my tax dollars...school population is declining,and were building on to some of these schools..good management..
Local Headlines
- Davis lends campaign $1 million, airs ads
from Buffalo News - Kryzan’s ad targets Powers and Davis in congressional race
from Buffalo News - Video: Batavia Police Consolidate Services
from RNews - Powers releases War Kids documents
from Buffalo News - Hail puts a dent in N.Y. apple harvest
from Democrat & Chronicle
Regional Headlines
- 52 animals in filthy apartment lead to endangerment and cruelty charges
from Buffalo News - Senecas halt casino construction
from Buffalo News - Rochester area tourism gets a boost from sluggish economy
from Democrat & Chronicle - Rochester fencer Hanna Thompson returns home from Beijing
from Democrat & Chronicle - Hoyt campaign alleges illegality by aide to Golisano’s new group
from Buffalo News
State Headlines
- Wind Energy Bumps Into Power Grid’s Limits
from New York Times - Last figure charged in Spitzer scandal pleads guilty
from New York Newsday - Paterson finds his role reversed in fiscal crisis
from Buffalo News - Albany earns tag of ‘Sin City’
from Buffalo News - New York turning a darker shade of blue
from Schenectady Daily Gazette
National Headlines
- Fourth `Idol' judge a straight-shooting hitmaker
from Associated Press - Communities Become Home Buyers to Fight Decay
from New York Times - War Veterans’ Concussions Are Often Overlooked
from New York Times - IRS loses battle over taxes
from Buffalo News - Gas prices nationally drop 15 cents in 2 weeks
from Associated Press
Political Headlines
- Clinton Delivers Emphatic Plea for Unity
from New York Times - For Obama, a Challenge to Clarify His Message
from New York Times - Kennedy Tugs at Hearts, as Obama’s Wife Praises Values
from New York Times - Biden, with a proclivity to talk, is noted for his consensus-building and style
from Buffalo News - Democrats set stage for historic convention in Denver
from Buffalo News
World Headlines
- Tropical Storm Gustav dumps rain on Haiti
from Reuters - Mugabe 'to form government alone'
from BBC - Hijacked plane passengers released
from The Guardian - Parliament wants Russia to recognize independence of South Ossetia, Abkhazia
from Los Angeles Times - Pakistani stability hope fades with coalition split
from International Herald Tribune


Are the taxpayers already paying for youth football at Dwyer?
I thought the taxpayers paid for baseball at Dwyer, and that by moving football out of Dwyer, it would mean no extra taxpayer money would be required to support youth football at that facility?
Certainly, it's going to cost somebody something to have them play either on school grounds or in a public park, but is it really paying twice if they're not playing at Dwyer?
Or am I misunderstanding something?