mall

Well folks, we have another Mall fiasco (they just don't stop), the Mall Maiteniance Association (MMA) is creating massive shenangins over next to nothing again.  This time though, the basis of their decision is laughable.  They want to remove the City's representative, Mr. Tim Paine from the committee for being "disruptive" and "questioning the integrity of the minutes".  Excuse me while I nearly fall of my chair laughing, is this serious? 

This all must be a major joke that the MMA is playing on us via the media, I mean honestly, normally you have to have an actually legitamte reason to remove someone from a committee, such as assault or not showing up to meetings.  Truly they have creativity than this.

This action is both funny and an incredibly frightening misuse of power on behalf of Dr. Mitchell Chess, who has shown his intentions by attemtping to circumvent Jason Molino, the City Manager, in the past.   He now wants to have Tim Paine removed from the committee because he doesn't agree with them and wants accurate minutes, how on earth is this so terrible?  If the MMA had nothing to hide, then they would have no objection to the tape recordings of their meetings and if they really cared about City input, they wouldn't object to the representative from the commmittee, well, giving input. 

Mr. Paine is not the representative on behalf of those in power at the MMA, he is the City's representative, he exists in that capacity to give the input of the people, not the powerful.  He is also there to make sure that the MMA is telling the truth when it comes to its matters that involve the city.  Perhaps the MMA isn't being totally forthcoming?

The real question, to me at least, is this, what is the MMA hiding?  I have much respect for Dr. Chess, its chairman, because of his education and his running a great service for the community, but doesn't this make you wonder what exactly is really going on?  Could this be why he tried to enlist the city council to help him bypass negiotiating with Jason Molino?

Perhaps the MMA could attempt to remove him for a more credible reason, such as the color of his shirt or the brand of sneakers he wears.  I realize that no one is perfect and I don't want to sound like I'm questioning anyone's character....but I have to wonder if this group is living in the same world that the rest of us are.

Batavia's Mall Merchants Association has requested the city to remove its appointed liaison to the group, according to the Daily News. A letter sent to City Council President Charlie Mallow asking for the dismissal of liaison Tim Paine cites Paine's "veiled use of a tape recorder during meetings, questioning the integrity of meeting minutes and being disruptive" among its list of reasons why Paine should go.

Mallow told reporter Joanne Beck that members of public committees "have the right to rexpress themselves and argue their points." Mallow added that Paine has done nothing to warrant his removal from the Mall Operating Committee and Association.

Association President Mitchell Chess said of Paine:

"He's not serving the role as intermediary (between the city and merchants). The relationship has become unworkable. He doesn't trust what we're saying and we don't trust him. It's not a good mix. We want someone to explain their point of view and not be antagonistic."

Tim Paine is a frequent contributor to The Batavian, and we've heard him express himself on many different city issues—never in any way that's been outright "antagonistic"—and it's pretty obvious that he takes an interest in the goings-on at the level of city government. If anything, we would have to say that he is an active citizen and be thankful for that in the face of so much general apathy on the part of the greater public.

Whether Paine is being "disruptive" and frustrating meetings of the mall association because of trust issues, we can't say. Chess went as far as to say that Paine is "looking for ways to undermine" the mall merchants. That sounds like a pretty heavy charge. But why would Paine even be in a situation to undermine the merchants? Who is he undermining the merchants to? Has the relationship between the city and the mall reached a point where it is perhaps too involved? Let's phrase this in another way: How does an association between the mall merchants and the city—to the point that paid staff spend time at such meetings—benefit the residents, a.k.a. taxpayers, of the city of Batavia?

The purpose of the Neighborhood Improvement Committee is pretty obvious. The Board of Assessment Review serves a pretty clear function.

One thing is clear: the city and the mall merchants just don't get along. Headlines pitting one against the other were splashed across the front page of the Daily several times this summer. Whatever the purpose may have been for a Mall Operating Committee and Association, it's obvious that it has been frustrated.

The Web site for the city of Batavia says this of the association: "The Mall Operating Committee is made up of mall owners and City staff and is responsible for overseeing the operation and maintenance of the mall."

That sounds simple enough. So why so much drama?

In other news, nothing significant happened at the town of Batavia budget hearing and the Genese County elections crew had no need of the emergency paper ballots, as all the machines remained in good working order throughout the day Tuesday.

And.... that's about it.

We encourage you to pick up a copy of the Daily News at your local newsstand. Or, better yet, subscribe at BataviaNews.com.

WBTA's Dan Fischer picked up some great audio of last night's concluding debate about the mall sign—which was approved for purchase by a vote of 6-2. He has posted the views of two City Council members who held opposing views on the mall: Rosemary Christian and Charlie Mallow.

In other news, the former highway superintendent of the Erie County town of Marilla, David Pierce, told a judge yesterday that "alcoholism and greed" made him break the law. Pierce was sentenced to seven months in jail for using town employees to work on his property, doing such things as building a fishing and swimming pond.

After weeks of asserting that he would not recuse himself from a City Council vote to purchase a sign for the mall, Councilman Bob Bialkowski abstained when it came his turn tonight, doing what everyone had been saying was the right thing to do and nullifying any purpose to convene the city's ethics board. So ends that debate.

That vote, by the way, won with a clear majority, and the city will purchase a new sign advertising the mall, not to exceed $20,000. Council members Charlie Mallow and Marianne Clattenburg voted against the purchase.

"I'm really frustrated with this whole situation," said Clattenburg. "I'm ambivalent on the sign. I was for it when we voted for the budget, but I don't know now that this has become so hostile."

After the vote, Bialkowski said that in the end he abstained so as not to hold up procedure.

"Everything else aside," said Councilman Frank Ferrando, "We took the sign down. We should put it back up."

If I may be allowed a moment to digress... Sometimes, folks, things just work out. Even in such municipal farces as these, what we all know ought to happen happens despite the rancor, despite the bitter clash of personalities and despite the obstinacy of otherwise good people who inexplicably act contrary to common sense. God bless America.

Council was also supposed to appoint a five member board of ethcis, but that was postponed owing to the efforts of Rosemary Christian who said she "didn't even know" the city was "looking for an ethics committee."

"My concern," said Councilman Tim Buckley, "is that nobody here can explain to me what exactly the ethcis board does. It might be spelled out, but there has been no action. I'd like to spend some more time on this and make sure it's done right. I'd like to define their job a little more, instead of just saying that these are members of a board that do nothing."

Council members Mallow and Clattenburg sounded the sole votes against postponing the appointments. Clattenburg said that such a move "means we're rejecting these members."

City Manager Jason Molino had a few words for the mall merchants in an article by Joanne Beck that appeared on the cover of the Daily News Saturday. Beck starts the article with a lengthy quote from Mitchell Chess, president of the Mall Merchants Association.

What Chess has to say can be boiled down to a single sentiment: "The situation needs to be resolved. Since we can't have those type of negotiations to resolve this amicably, we have to take the city to court." Chess has said this before: in news articles, in a letter to the editor, and here on The Batavian. In other words, this isn't really news.

What it is, instead, is a springboard, fashioned by Beck to allow Jason Molino a high dive into the foray—and that he does, with no lack of bravado.

But first a little background supplied by Beck: Following a somewhat productive meeting of the city and mall merchants in April, the relationship between the two sides quickly soured, and Molino blames it on the merchants, who in turn, blame the city.

Molino says the city was supposed to have six months to "gather information" related—I presume, as this "information" is never qualified outright—to a request by the merchants for repairs to the mall and replacement of the sign.

Not only has the merchants group not allowed the time necessary to do that, but it has fueled the matter by making negotiations public, he said.

...

It all became a "soap opera" that has done nothing to rectify the situation, he said. He stressed the importance for merchants to perhaps not to be so vocal.

"If you [the mall merchants?] continue with the unprofessionalism and badgering ... it's not going to move forward," [said Molino]. "We had identified the issues to be discussed, and we had a timeframe. This is very simple. If we want to resolve this issue, we can. If not, that's up to you. I will not engage in this public hysteria."

Fine bit of euphemism there: "the importance for merchants to perhaps not be so vocal." I like that. That's nice. A lot better than the more direct route: "Keep yer mouths shut!"

The saga continues tonight at 7:00pm at City Hall, when the Council will vote on whether to replace the mall sign, among other matters. I'll be there. Will you?

During Summer in the City, I had a chance to chat with Assemblyman Steve Hawley.  Of course the subject of the mall came up, and a friend/supporter/consitutent (I'm not sure which best applies) standing nearby chimed in and said he thought the mall should be turned into a college campus.

That idea, though I gather it's not a new one, has some merit.

The influx of students would be a boon for downtown restaurants and bars, and the foot traffic of people to those businesses would help other retail establishments. 

However, such a solution would do nothing to deal with the "eyesore of a mall" issue, and by not tearing down the building and creating new Main Street-facing structures, you're making it harder to profitably relocate current mall occupants who might wish to stay downtown.

Still, a two- or four-year campus (could the New York university system be enticed into an extension campus?) would generate a lot more people traffic in the city's core.

Setting aside for a minute the logistics and difficulties of making it happen, what do you think -- is a college campus a viable alternative to the current sputtering, life-sapping, soul-sucking mall?

The Saturday/Sunday edition of the Daily News contains a rather odd, post-apocalyptic, sci-fi fantasy narrative by Scott DeSmit in which he puts himself in a benighted Batavia. How far hence, we are not told.

A man is peering out from behind his door. I see the glistening barrel of his gun and I keep walking, keeping tight to what is left of the sidewalk.

A newspaper. Almost intact.

I reach down and scoop it up. A rat skitters away.

"Last of City Council Disbands" the headline reads.

Ahhh. I remember that. Three of them, as I recall. Mallow, Bialkowski and Cox.

Ahhh. So lurking within the vitriol and sniping that is what passes for dialogue between these three men is a Batavia of buckled sidewalks, parks gone to seed, creek water that will melt skin and a Sheriff who has barricaded the city's borders.

A little over the top, don't you think, Scott?

While the animosity and bitter words over what amount to rather trivial issues (when compared to the big question of the final resolution of the mall) might impede progress. It's takes a pretty active imagination -- which Scott clearly has -- to expect their bickering to lead to walled off Batavia.

That said, point taken, Scott -- and one we don't disagree with: These men need to stop arguing and get down to business. The mall has got to go, and they should busy themselves generating a plan and public support to make it happen.

In big, bold, stop-the-press-size font the headline at the top of today's front page of the Daily News reads: Mall merchants vote to sue city. Sure, that may be accurate, but that "vote" came about two months ago. Hardly worth the quart of ink used to splash it across today's paper as if it were commandment number eleven... just announced. That being said, reporter Joanne Beck does a fine job in the article of clearing up a few ambiguities about the raging debate over the mall, its sign, its merchants and the city's fed-uppness with all of the above—all the while raising a few more questions in the process.

Beck spoke with Mitchell Chess, Charlie Mallow and Jason Molino in the article. Chess and Mallow have made frequent contributions to The Batavian on the topic this week, and most of what they say to Beck was already reported first-hand by them here. As for the city manager, Beck must have the sweet touch, because I can't get him to return any of my messages—I've left several with him and his office this week.

Here are a few highlights from her conversations:

"The merchants have sued twice before and they won," (said Chess). "We're going to win. We decided to sue after the last meeting. We're trying to take the high ground here. Every time we try to do that, (City Council President Charlie Mallow) comes in with ... broad, general statements without any basis. We've told our attorey it has to be filed before the next council meeting."

Mallow is then quoted later in the article as saying that "he felt the group was going to sue all along," and he no longer plans to shop at the mall. "Anyone who sues the city is suing me personally, and suing my neighbor and my kids," he tells Beck.

As for the controversy over the mall sign, Chess tells Beck that, in fact, the mall did own the original sign, and the city had promised—though never in writing—to replace it. Further, he says, the city already set aside $20,000 in the budget to do just that.

Given that fact, Chess wants to know why the purchase has now become an issue for council's vote.

City Manager Jason Molino said the matter would not have had to go to vote. But a request made by Councilman Bob Bialkowski for a mall update during last month's meeting seemed to resurrect the sign as a question instead of a done deal.

Those who have kept with our coverage of this issue know that we're pretty clear in thinking that Bialkowski should recuse himself from the upcoming vote on that sign, and yesterday's editorial in the Daily News said the same. Nevertheless, I can't understand the logic here. Why does Bialkowski's request for a "mall update" equate to a resurrection of "the sign as a question instead of a done deal"? Maybe the problem is simply in the wording, I don't know.

Beck then tackles the claim made in one of Mallow's letters to the editor that said the mall merchants "want the taxpayers to put hundreds of thousands of dollars into the mall and then for the city to sell it to them for $1." Chess counters that, claiming that the idea didn't originated with the mall merchants, rather it was raised by the city in negotiations.

Molino couldn't confirm or deny that, he said, since the conversation was likely a few years ago.

Who can confirm or deny it? We're trying to find out.

Today's Opinion page in the Daily News has what you might call a running theme going. Everyone's favorite subject these days: the mall. Count them: two letters to the editor on the topic, plus the unequivocally titled editorial: End the mall brawl: Council should focus on solution, not insults.

Says the Daily News (quite accurately):

Mr. (Bob) Bialkowski should not vote on mall issues. The City Charter says Council members should not vote on issues where they might benefit "directly or indirectly." If nothing else, there is an appearance of conflict of interest.

Does that take Council off the hook for city obligations to the mall? No way. Every member of Council ought to be trying his or her utmost to resolve this issue without going to court. Neglecting a mall that is connected to the City Centre is foolish. Visitors see the City Centre/mall as one entity .... neglect in one area reflects on the entirety. The concourse ought to look as good as City Hall. All Council members should agree on that, instead of trading insults.

Well said. And all of those imperative ought to's ought not to be overlooked.

As for the two letters...

Much of what is included in the letter by Mitchell Chess can be found in his post to The Batavian yesterday. Not included in that post are Mitchell's comments about City Manager Jason Molino. He writes:

We have ... been continuously misled by the city. We have meetings and nothing ever happens. As a result of our frustrations with Mr. Molino, we requested the city to appoint an independent negotiator.

I would only ask that Mitchell provide us with some specific instances of how the mall was misled by the city, and what is the subject of negotiations.

In the other letter, Daniel Jones has at Bob Bialkowski, something we've heard quite a bit of already, and whether or not more of it is needed, just or desired, we will leave up to you. A suggestion for Daniel: try to steer clear of the discordancy. Calling Bialkowski out for his hyperbole, Daniel throws around more than his fair share, describing Bialkowski in such terms as: "completely ignoring any sense of ethics," "completely tarnished the image of the Genesee County Airport," "dangerous to city residents," "putting the city in serious financial and legal jeopardy," "his tirades," "complete disregard for ethics" (again), "truly embarassing for the city of Batavia."

Much has been made of Batavia's mall in recent weeks. So we here at The Batavian thought to turn to a citizen who has never been afraid of expressing his opinion on the subject, Bill Kauffman, author of Dispatches from the Muckdog Gazette. Kauffman has often used this mall in his writings for a national audience as an example of big government gone bad. In particular, we asked Bill Kauffman what he thought of City Council President Charlie Mallow's recent comment that the city should consider demolishing part of the mall.

Here's what he had to say:

The mall ought to have been dispatched long ago to that circle of hell reserved for brutalist architecture. For 30-plus years it has been a monument to misplaced faith in big government and capital-p Progress. Urban renewal was a catastrophe for many American cities, Batavia not least among them. The demolition of old Batavia was a crime against our ancestors, ourselves, and our posterity. Any discussion of human-scale, pedestrian-friendly, small business-centered alternatives to what remains of the mall is welcome. More than that, it's a sign of civic health. Batavia still matters. (And while we're at it, perhaps that imbecilic and pretentious spelling of "Batavia City Centre" can be corrected to "Center." Batavia is neither Canadian nor a suburban strip mall straining for "class.")

What do you think?

I don't want to get into the whole "mall" thing with public comments, but I need to say that the Batavia Mall was never a big seller here. Most were angry about the demolition of terrific historical buildings. (I remember them).  Yet the "Urban Renewal" thing took over, they took down Batavia's history, and built the most ugly structure this city has ever seen!  I used to fly kites in the parking lot in the early 1980s because it was EMPTY. 

The deal between the people in the mall and the city has never been good, just check the old archives of news. I'm only going on what I remember, my folks discussing it, and my ability to have an open space downtown (parking lot) to fly a kite, where there used to be buildings, cars and people! The so-called Mall has been a failure since day one. God Bless the folks who try (& have tried in the past) to keep it alive. It's a dead horse and has been since they built it. 

Now we're concerned about bird droppings and new signs to bring more people to visit a dead horse? It's like inviting people to a cemetary. There are many great places on Main St. & Ellicott St. for rent that would help to bring the people back, and the rent is less (Remember help from B.I.D, grants, low interst loans, etc).The few survivors of the "Genesee Country Mall" would still see their patrons if they moved to a cheaper, better place.

Maybe raze part of it, and let the kids fly kites, or better yet, let them play football.

We need government that works TOGETHER! 

In a letter to the editor in today's Daily News, City Councilman Bob Bialkowski urges Council President Charlie Mallow to resign. He writes:

Mr. Mallow has been demonstrating some unusual behavior lately. At our last meeting he would not allow any new business to be brought to the floor. He blocked several of us by asking for a motion to adjourn, moving to adjourn and then adjourning the meeting. He executed the entire sequence by himself, which violates all rules of conducting a meeting. Mr. Mallow should resign as council president because he has failed miserably as a leader. A good leader does not use the press to criticize and ridicule memers of his assembly.

The Batavian has requested a response from Mallow. We've included it in full below.

The skirmish between Mallow and Bialkowski has been going on for weeks now, reaching a fevered pitch at the last meeting of the City Council when Mallow asked for Bialkowski to recuse him from voting on the purchase of a sign by the city for the mall. Within days of the meeting, the city attorney, George Van Nest, drafted a letter requesting the city's Board of Ethics to convene and consider whether a "councilman" exhibited a conflict of interest in voting on the purchase of a mall sign as his "wife" is manager of the mall. Van Nest never returned calls made by The Batavian.

Mallow, in his turn, authored a pair of letters to the editor that appeared in the August 2 and August 5 issues of the Daily News. In the first, Mallow writes:

Mr. Bialkowski and Bill Cox are new on Council, very new. They believe they can coerce the rest of the Council into bending to the wishes of the (Mall Merchants Association). They have also shown me deep seated hatred for our city manager and city attorney. I'm not prepared to allow him to take political retribution out on our city staff. Enough is Enough!

Obviously, both Mallow and Bialkowski—despite the latter's own claims that he "detests conducting the business of the citizens by writing letters to the editor"—are fond of hyperbole. While the mall merchants have threatened the city with litigation, there is no "pending case" with the group, as Mallow asserts in his first letter. Van Nest said so at the last meeting of the council. And while Bialkowski may not be in a direct conflict of interest regarding the vote for the city to purchase the sign for the mall, his wife is the manager of the mall, and he would exhibit a sense of good behavior, if nothing else, if he just gave in and recused himself.

instead, both Mallow and Bialkowski—both grandstanding, both citing his moral superiority—turn city business into vehement personal attacks. I have to feel bad for Bill Cox who got dragged into the mess just because he wanted the city to look at a potential health hazard. While I can understand the exasperation of both Mallow and Bialkowski, I just can't understand why they opt to play out this farce in these terms: this one accusing that one of despotism, that one accusing this one of hatred. Hatred!? What is this? And I don't even want to hear any of these "Well, he started it" arguments, which amount to nothing more than further propagating the feud by couching it in terms of cause and effect, action and reaction, and villifying one term to the favor of the other.

Here's Bialkowski:

Lately some of us councilmen have received e-mails from Mr. Mallow in which he is very sarcastic, calls us names and as of late has used foul and abusive language.

Here's Mallow:

As of late Mr. Cox. has ... developed a strong interest in bird droppings on the roof of the mall. So much so, that he wrote a long rambling letter to the paper about this issue and how he believes he is being treated unfairly.

Why should Cox's letter be demeaned this way? Isn't that, in fact, treating him unfairly? Why can't he voice his opinion—no matter how much others feel it may not be relevant—without being cut down by his peers?

The following is Mallow's response, in full, to Bialkowski's letter:

I don’t  give much weight to the things Bob Biakowski says. He wants to run roughshod over our city manger and attorney and expects me to stand aside while he intimidates them. Bob has an agenda that doesn’t include working for the taxpayers of this city. I am deeply embarrassed that Bob Biakowski was the first sitting city council person to have an ethics body called to discuss his actions. Bob is going about his short term on council in an unhealthily way that limits his effectiveness.  His actions have turned most of council against him and he is acting out in an unprofessional way. I have 1 ½ years left on council and I’m going to spend that time watching Bob and his friends very closely. Bob and Bill Cox are both trying to bring a little taste of Albany politics to Batavia. We are a small city and have a non partisan government lead by a city manager. I’m sorry that things are not going Bob’s way and he feels he needs to have a temper tantrum to bring light to his problems.

For more background on these issues, check out some of our earlier posts:

• Who's who on the Ethics Board...
• Mallow vs. Cox and Bialkowski...
• In other City Council news...

City Council will vote Monday to allow Batavia's Youth Football program to remain one more season at Dwyer Stadium before relocating somewhere else in the city — that "somewhere else" will remain to be determined.

You can read our earlier posts to learn more about this issue that has ignited a bit of a controversy among council members and city residents. Many say that it would not cost the city much money at all if the program stayed at Dwyer one more year. Others say exactly the opposite, that, in fact, it would cost the city no less than $10,000 to let youth football play another season.

Public comments will be welcome at the meeting prior to the vote.

Also on the agenda for council's business meeting Monday:

• Recognition of a $6,000 grant for portable radios for the police department.
• Contract agreements to hire firms for tree trimming and removal and for grant writing.
• An agreement with the town of Batavia to pursue consolidation studies.

Click here to download the complete business meeting Agenda.

During council's conference meeting Monday, council members will continue the discussion of tree trimming and removal policies throughout the city, sparked in part by the concerns of Councilwoman Marianne Clattenburg that inconsistencies left some neighborhoods looking barren while others were flush with greenery.

Also on that agenda is a discussion on a new sign proposed for the Batavia City Centre mall drawn up (quite literally) by City Manager Jason Molino and presented to the Mall Merchants Association. (You can see the sketch for it to the left here.) This sign would be placed at bothe entrances to the mall and cost approximately $17,000.

Unfortunately, Molino says in a memo to Council, the mall merchants "did not like the design because they stated they could not advertise for events, and that they have lost revenue due to the lack of the sign."

Molino goes on: "When I inquired as to the benefits of even advertising and how much income they received due to the prior sign, there was no response."

The merchants instead requested a free-standing sign that was drawn up by Assistant City Managaer Sally Kuzon (see below). Molino commented in the memo:

"I stated that sign will be placed in-between City Hall and Hawley Insyrance and that a free standing sign downtown would not look very good aesthetically and that it would interrupt the continuity of the pedestrian sidewalks."

No matter. The merchants liked the design of the free-standing sign, which would cost between $15,000 and $20,000.

Any questions?

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm a little doubtful that the first sign would cost $17,000 — it doesn't seem like much more than plastic letters mounted on the entrance.