Page
Thirty-Eight
Page
Thirty-Eight
26 NOVEMBER 2005
More of the same. Note the depressing similarity between the ferry and the latest undomed sports mecca.
29º | Hi 35º /
Lo 29º |
|
|
Rhinos' stadium stuck at phase 2
$15 million in aid is needed for
amenities, but it'll open on time
(November 26, 2005) —
The FieldTurf is done, the seats are in, the lights are installed. Now the
Rochester Rhinos will play the waiting game. The amenities aren't just bells and whistles. Right now, the stadium doesn't have luxury boxes, a press box, permanent locker rooms or a video scoreboard. Regardless, the new PAETEC Park will open in time for the team's first home game June 3, said majority owner Frank DuRoss. It's just a question of whether any of those additions — labeled by the team as phase two — will be there. Until the team knows, construction is
expected to grind to a halt over the next few weeks. The team requested the additional public assistance in March when it became clear that cost overruns would make it impossible for the Rhinos to foot the bill for phase two. The plea comes after the Rhinos were given $15 million in state aid in 2000, when the team pledged to build a $50 million stadium — most of which the team planned to fund. But after a decadelong effort to build a soccer-specific stadium in the city, the Rhinos scrapped the larger stadium when they couldn't get the needed financing. So the smaller, $25 million stadium has essentially become a public project: the $15 million grant, $7 million from the Rhinos and $3 million from the city for work around the site, which is about a half-mile from Frontier Field, the team's current home. It's unclear whether the Rhinos, who own the stadium, will get some or all of the money they request. The team, which plays in the United Soccer League's First Division, is eyeing a $350 million pot designated for projects upstate as part of a deal with the state Legislature last year to expand the Javits Convention Center in Manhattan. The money has yet to be divvied up by lawmakers. While the Rochester-area delegation's two leaders, Assemblyman David Gantt, D-Rochester, and Sen. Michael Nozzolio, R-Fayette, Seneca County, support the request, other delegation members have been leery. Sen. Joseph Robach, R-Greece, said the
soccer stadium is one of many local projects in need of state aid. Even without phase two of the stadium,
soccer fans and the Rhinos are excited about the new facility. Tom Hess is a season ticket holder who is looking forward to opening night. He has toured the facility several times and pays close attention to its progress. "Extremely excited does not even begin to describe how I feel," said Hess, of Irondequoit. "My seats are directly in the center and I'm looking forward to that few minutes before the first game when the place is rockin' and the players are warming up." The stadium will open with 12,500 seats. If money for phase two comes, a second set of bleachers will be added, upping the capacity to 17,000. Ultimately, the team hopes that the stadium will help it move into Major League Soccer, the sport's top league in the United States. Hess is hopeful that the state money will
come so the stadium plan can be completed. |
"So the smaller, $25 million stadium has essentially become a public project: the $15 million grant, $7 million from the Rhinos and $3 million from the city for work around the site, which is about a half-mile from Frontier Field, the team's current home.
It's unclear whether the Rhinos, who own the stadium, will get some or all of the money they request."
Déjà vu all over again, huh? A local private company receives tens of millions of dollars of public money so that they can pursue their own financial gain. Nevermind that half a mile away is where the soccer team has been playing all along in another undomed baseball stadium which collects snow and litter for six months of the year. Forget the fact that only a tiny percentage of the general taxpaying population has the slightest interest in watching a soccer game. Ignore the redundant nature of building another sports field just down the road.
When the local Good 'Ol Boys want something, they get it.... courtesy of the taxpayer who never had a say in the matter in the first place. Just like the ferry project.
And just like the ferry project and Frontier Field, PaeTec Park will never turn a profit and will be a financial burden on the public coffers. Don't believe me? Just keep watching. If a decades-old baseball club can't turn a profit at THEIR venue (and baseball has a bigger draw than soccer), how is a soccer team supposed to do any better? With a facility at the same price as the ballfield?
See a trend here? One would think -- or at least hope -- the locals would have caught on by now and put the brakes on private initiatives funded primarily with public money. "Public benefit"? Yeah... RIGHT. As if Mom and Dad from the suburbs are going to swarm the area after the game buying pricy drinks and meals. Suburbanites get in and out of the city as fast as possible and if the attraction - circus, Home/Boat/Car/RV show or sports game - was held in a 'nicer' neighbourhood, they might be inclined to stick around.
No, the so-called 'public benefit' which is to be gained by supplying public dollars exists only in the minds of those who stand to gain the most from the funding; the private owners. Ballfield, soccer field, ferry... doesn't matter. As long as the proposed project appeals to the RIGHT people, it doesn't matter if it doesn't appeal to MOST people. If that's not criminal, it should be.
If these raiders of the public coffers want to build their Dream Projects, let 'em come up with the money themselves. I guarantee if these hot shots had to use their personal assets as collateral for bank loans, they'd be DAMN sure the project would work. More than likely, they wouldn't even break ground. 'Public benefit'?
A helluva lot of saved tax dollars which are flushed down the drain with little to no consequences.
30 NOVEMBER 2005
This is sickening.
City Council
members briefed on ferry options
11/29/2005 11:00 PM |
Closed meetings. No comments from public officials. Behind the scene plots to borrow millions of dollars to prop up a public service which has no public input. City officials recognizing the millions of dollars in debt already incurred.
Lying, deceiving, misleading and incompetence at local government levels. We're getting very close to having a good case for a State investigation into misuse of public funds along with some serious questions of criminal charges. Shutting the public out of meetings and demanding confidentiality from meeting attendees smacks of fascism and a totalitarian government. Maybe a call to NYS Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's office would be merited before the December 20 City Council meeting.
Hmm. Now THERE'S a thought.
Any surprises here? No?
The vast majority of passengers are heading to Toronto and away from Rochester. The passengers took the ferry for the 'experience' and had fairly generous disposable incomes. Passengers liked the ferry ride and wanted to take it again (but will they?) Few people under the age of 35 take the ferry making it basically a local AAA attraction for retirees instead of the bus trip.
Yeah? So? We pretty much knew all this. It doesn't take a weatherman to tell which way the wind is blowing and clearly the ferry has delivered scant little of what was promised. That, to me anyway, says "Time to pull the plug" not "Time to borrow more money".
37º | Hi 42º /
Lo 30º | |
|
|
Ferry's prospects murky
But officials are trying to get ahead of
2006 season
(November 30, 2005) — When the city approached Ronald Schmidt about studying how the high-speed ferry benefits Rochester's economy, he walked away thinking City Hall only wanted to justify spending more money on the fledgling project. City officials deny that allegation. But one thing is clear: Poised to release its budget and business plan for 2006, the city still is without an economic impact study to guide its investment. The setback is one more example of behind-the-scenes struggles and missteps that have beset ferry officials during this first, partial season. E-mails the Democrat and Chronicle obtained through a Freedom of Information Law request show ferry officials nearly missed being listed in the phone book, booked passengers for nonexistent trips in the initial days and frustrated Rochester's only downtown travel agent. (Oooohh Nooooo!!)
Ferry officials are now working on details for next year, briefing City Council members and refining a spending and operating plan — expected to include the 2006 schedule — next week. The city got to this point when it decided to back a $40 million loan, create the Rochester Ferry Co. and then buy the ship at federal auction in February. Rochester Ferry, in turn, hired Bay Ferries Great Lakes to manage the ship and launched service four months later. Starting up mid-season with little marketing hampered ridership, contributing to revenue shortfalls. The ship posted a $4.2 million loss through August, a loss blamed on ridership and revenue. Estimates now place an initial $8 million reserve at less than $1.5 million. Questions about money "They were looking for someone to create a document that said it's a good idea to give this project public subsidy," Schmidt said, adding it was implied, but not stated. "I clearly was not that individual." While not commenting on such options for the ferry as borrowing, lending or seeking an extension on a line of credit, City Councilman and Rochester Ferry Co. President Benjamin Douglas said Tuesday that there is no plan for the city to spend its own money to bail out ferry operations. "It (direct subsidy) is not included in the budget." (Oh. So you plan to borrow other people's money then, eh Ben?) "We sought an economic study to help put things in perspective for us ... (it) will be something that is a guideline," said Douglas, who did not attend the meeting with Schmidt but had thought he still was on board. "I think if that (Schmidt's perception) was our intent, we would have said so. However he got that inference, I don't think it's a credible report to give." Another option for making an economic impact study is the Center for Governmental Research Inc. The Rochester group has not been approached but is eager to do the work, said Kent Gardner, the center's director of economic analysis. "As soon as we start talking about a subsidy, then we have got to ask why is this of value to the community, not just the riders," Gardner said of the need for such a study, estimating impact now and in the future. "If there aren't any community benefits, and the people taking the boat aren't paying the full cost of it, then you shut it down." The city went to Schmidt at the urging of ferry consultant Arnold Rothschild, who, in an Oct. 22 e-mail to ferry officials, spoke of Schmidt's academic credentials. Schmidt later met with Ed Doherty, the city's commissioner for environmental services, and Bill Sullivan, the City Council chief of staff. Schmidt said the problem with economic impact studies is the results often are one-sided, forgetting the costs. Instead of actual benefit, he said, it might be that people cut spending in one area to spend the same amount on something new. While neither Doherty nor Sullivan said they wanted to justify a subsidy, Schmidt said they were not interested in the trade-off or his opinions about what he characterized as "questionable management" and the need for greater attention to aspects such as pricing and promotion. Doherty had a different take on what he said was a 20-minute meeting. He said the thought was that the Simon School might undertake the study as a project, minimizing the expense. The intent was to understand what the city could get for its dollar. As for Schmidt's perception, Doherty said the meeting "was not intended to document any specific course of action." Other players' views Mayor William A. Johnson Jr. declined comment on ferry finances, saying only that the deadline is next week for him to submit any legislation for the final City Council meeting of his term. Mayor-elect Robert Duffy said he received a 90-minute briefing on the ferry Tuesday from Johnson and city financial staff. Afterward, Duffy reserved comment, saying he needed to further examine the topic. "Mayor Johnson is going to be going
forward with some steps that he will be taking," Duffy said, but declined
to elaborate. E-mails obtained by the Democrat and Chronicle show city officials were uncertain as to how to respond to citizen calls in the early going. In at least one instance, two or three riders were allowed to buy tickets for a canceled sailing. Responding to one angry passenger fell to Rick Hannon, then-assistant to the mayor who now serves as deputy mayor. In e-mails, he abbreviates Bay Ferries as "BF." "We might want to think of some joint training for BF and selected city staff to bridge us over these early stages," Hannon wrote in a July 7 e-mail to Doherty. "Yesterday was frustrating for a variety of reasons, not the least of them being that I had no idea about who to call or what to do. Like it or not, 'we' and 'they' (BF) are all 'us' for the time being." Later in July, the publisher of Frontier's White and Yellow pages e-mailed Douglas directly with the deadlines for getting listed two or three weeks away. "We have tried numerous agencies: Bay Ferries, Bay Ferries marketing team and the mayor's office to reach someone to handle this, with no success," wrote Brian Sturm, operations sales manager with The Berry Co. A later e-mail shows the Yellow Pages listing would cost $62 per month. Patricia Cronin owns Cronin Cruises and Travel, 56 N. Fitzhugh St. She was left with unpaid commissions after the ship's previous operator abruptly shut down in September 2004. But Cronin was back this summer, pushing for ferry officials to get the travel agent end of bookings in place (money-grubbing at its most distasteful zenith), only to be undercut by a deal offering discount tickets at Wegmans. "I just got a little disturbed about the lackadaisical attitude," she said, of city officials not being more proactive with travel agents. "I had to come to them, when it should have been the other way around." (I can't believe the size of the cojones of this b*tch.) Moving forward The Simon School's Schmidt, who describes himself more as a skeptic than a critic, said it appears the ferry is headed in the right direction. The city's decision to bring in Rothschild's Normal Communications firm to work on pricing and promotion, and thus cash flow, was a step forward, he said. "There is some credibility to the argument that says we were unlucky," Schmidt said. "I would also argue that, to some extent, they created their own misfortune." |
It's getting snarky here.
First of all, we're getting closer to a showdown as the reserve fund of $8 million is reported to be less than $1.4 million. Reported to be less than $1.4 million. At this point, can anybody say with certainty there's ANY cash left? For all we know, the checking account is dry as we speak.
Next, here we have the 'Center for Governmental Research Inc.' again. Remember them? They're the ones who did the Seneca Niagara Casino economic study in Niagara Falls NY as documented here a few pages ago.
"Another option for making an economic impact study is the Center for Governmental Research Inc. The Rochester group has not been approached but is eager to do the work, said Kent Gardner, the center's director of economic analysis."
Oh yeah. I'll BET they're 'eager to do the work'. Can you guess why? Wouldn't have anything to do with a high-profile opportunity to state the obvious, now would it? A non-profit organization relies on publicizing its work and saying, "The ferry service isn't/can't work" is a real affirmation of credibility.
Sort of like doing a study and concluding the sun will rise two weeks from tomorrow morning. When it does, the dimwitted are staggered by the sheer astuteness of the study organizers. "Gee, they were right on that one... they must be right on other studies."
Note the juicy levels of member support for the Center for Governmental Research Inc. from their website:
| Your contribution
enables CGR to continue to serve the public interest. Thank you for
joining us in this important work. Support CGR at any of the following levels:
|
Think John and Jane Citizen are swamping the Pledge Lines to donate? No?
Think FatBoy Development Corporation can scrape together enough to 'donate' and get the 'Eastman Circle' membership card? Think that may be how CGR folks are able to pay for the Lexus?
Think the Rochester nomenclature for its 'memberships' is a coincidence? Ranks right up there on the Hokiness Scale and one can only wonder if Buffalo also has some self-aggrandizing research firm with 'Rick James Society' and 'Wolf Blitzer Circle' memberships.
This thing smells like last year's rotten Brie.
Next, let's get catty, OK?
"Patricia Cronin owns Cronin Cruises and Travel, 56 N. Fitzhugh St. She was left with unpaid commissions after the ship's previous operator abruptly shut down in September 2004. But Cronin was back this summer, pushing for ferry officials to get the travel agent end of bookings in place, only to be undercut by a deal offering discount tickets at Wegmans.
Oh my, Patricia. Facing the nasty bitch slap of Expedia and Travelocity, are we? Desperate to buck the trend of 'travel agents' rapidly becoming anachronisms of a pre-internet era?
Just for the younger set: Downtown Rochester used to be SWAMPED with travel agencies back in the 1970's. They were as ubiquitous as banks and department stores in Downtown. And just as ATM's shoved out the need for banks, online travel booking sites are shoving out the need for travel agents. Except for the truly lazy, ignorant or status-seekers looking to be able to grab the phone and order a lackey to "Get me two tickets to Mexico".
"Downtown Rochester's ONLY travel agent"? Sheesh. That alone says "desperate times" for any travel agent milking the corporate teat for all it's worth.
"I just got a little disturbed about the lackadaisical attitude," she said, of city officials not being more proactive with travel agents. "I had to come to them, when it should have been the other way around."
DO tell, Patty. Since when does anybody OWE you even the time of day, you pompous arrogant twit? Just because the writing's on the wall for your little office adorned with palm tree posters and cruise brochures, don't be thinking it's incumbent upon others to be beating a path to YOUR door. Poor planning on YOUR part does not constitute an emergency (or even an issue) on OUR part.
Patty's credentials include a Bachelors Degree in Business from Eckerd College in 1990. With 1,684 total undergraduates (link), Eckerd College boasts:
"Against a backdrop of palm trees and blue water, in an atmosphere of intellectual richness and openness, through remarkable relationships and experiences of many kinds, Eckerd College changes lives. Located on the waterfront of St. Petersburg, Florida, Eckerd College is a private, coeducational college of liberal arts and sciences. Founded in 1958..." (link)
S'matter, Patty? Didn't like the nasty winter climates of Dartmouth or Wharton? Were Tufts, Columbia, Brandeis or MIT filled up the year you applied?
|
She is:
Patty developed her desire for travel after planning
her own three-week itinerary for a trip to Australia, New Zealand and
Fiji in 1985. Making her clients' vacation a "dream come true"
motivates her every day.
|
One would think that any pre-university student able to afford a three-week excursion to Australia, New Zealand and Fiji wouldn't have much trouble paying the tuition of a REAL university. Unless, of course, getting the perfect tan while slaving away studying is the REAL motivation.
With a total student body of 1,684, Eckerd College doesn't present much of a threat to Northwestern or Purdue. By comparison, my alma mater of SUNY College at Potsdam - the smallest four-year college in the SUNY system - has an undegrad enrollment of 3,539 (link). "Dinky" doesn't begin to describe Eckerd. "Four years of the beach kind" might, but "prestigious", "well-known" or even "difficult to get into" probably aren't the first descriptions which come to mind.
But hey; a sheepskin's a sheepskin, right?
"Making her clients' vacation a "dream come true" motivates her every day."
That... and the easy commission for doing what anybody with an internet connection can do anyway. By the way, somebody who's as careless as to let spelling errors to appear on their company's website shows questionable professionalism. Especially a graduate of the esteemed Eckerd College; guess those Southern Ivy League schools don't quibble about the finer points of the English language such as spelling.
"Certified Sandals/Beaches Resort Specialist"
Wait. Let me guess. Travel agents slap down a discounted rate for an 'intensive' 7-day/7-hour 'training seminar' at a Sandals/Beaches resort and fly home with not only a tan and a hangover, but a really SWELL looking 'Certified Sandals/Beaches Resort Specialist' Certificate suitable for framing. The sheer magnitude of the academic challenges presented at the 'training seminar' must make reading the How To Send the Suckers To Us manual a particularly onerous task.
Here Patty; I'll save you some work: http://www.sandals.com/ . Except for lobotomized Thorazine patients, the public is fully capable of reading and clicking on Online Reservations . No need to thank me, Patty; just doing my part... and I don't even get a commission. And once more people stop being such lazy braindead dullards, neither will Patty. Now quit whining and start looking for something else to get 'disturbed' about.
"There is some credibility to the argument that says we were unlucky," Schmidt said."
Oh please. Luck - or the lack thereof - had nothing to do with it. As if some voodoo high priestess was at work here. Maybe the local coven mixed up a batch of Bad Luck potion or somebody opened an umbrella indoors or something.
"I would also argue that, to some extent, they created their own misfortune."
Gee, Ron. You think so? The professional expertise just keeps bowling us ignorant peasants over with the razor-sharp analysis.
A final thought: Why is it necessary to use the Freedom of Information Act to get basic data on a publicly-owned ferry service? It's not like a burger war where the confidential information of McDonalds is going to give the competitor Burger King a leg up. The only plausible reason is the need for a cover-up.
And why would THAT be needed? Hmm?
01 DECEMBER 2005
"Not going to cost the taxpayer a cent".
B.S.
|
|||
Ferry Corp May Extend Credit Line
by Anthony Pascale Published Dec 01, 2005
As Rochester's fast ferry prepares to shut down service for the winter, R News has learned the ferry operation is dangerously low on cash and ready to ask for help. Back when it bought The Cat, Rochester's Ferry Corporation set aside $10-million in reserve for emergencies. That money is about to run out. Rochester's mayor told R News if the ferry is going to operate next year it will need an influx of cash. Members of city council were presented with several potential ferry funding streams in a closed door meeting Tuesday Night. Sources say the ferry corporation will ask city council to approve borrowing another $10-million from the Austrialian lending company EFIC. Johnson would not comment on the specific proposal but said: “I would prefer to wait until we have finalized that deal before we release details publicly.” The loan would actually be an extension of the ferry corporation's credit line with EFIC, so it would not come from city coffers. But if the ferry fails, the city would be responsible for paying that money back. (Yeah, that's pretty much how borrowing money works. "The City" = "The Taxpayer".) City Councilman Adam McFadden said he doesn’t expect the city to have to help subsidize the vessel. “I don't think we'll be going back to the public to do that, at least, I wouldn't do that. I'm asking the public to be patient. Remember we're trying to promote something that can help this region,” he said. Johnson said the only two options off the table at this time are a taxpayer subsidy and to shut down the ferry. The cash infusion would help keep the ferry going next year and help fund a new marketing campaign. Sources also say ticket discounts will be offered to get more people to ride the boat. The ferry corporation hopes to introduce a full proposal to city council in the next week. |
"City Councilman Adam McFadden said he doesn’t expect the city to have to help subsidize the vessel. “I don't think we'll be going back to the public to do that , at least, I wouldn't do that."
"Johnson said the only two options off the table at this time are a taxpayer subsidy and to shut down the ferry."
Does it get any clearer than this? Does anyone NOW believe the ferry won't cost the taxpayers a dime?
If they do, they're severely learning-challenged and really need to seek professional help.
First of all, any money for a publicly owned and operated business will, by definition, be costing the public money.... especially if the business fails. That's not a difficult concept to grasp.
If a homeowner has overextended themselves on a mortgage they really couldn't afford in the first place, then defaults on the loan... that DOESN'T mean the bank simply says, "Oh well. You don't have to repay us if you don't want to." THAT'S what the Rochester City Council is asking "The Public" = "The Taxpayer" to believe. When the ferry takes it's final cruise and sails off towards the St.Lambert and Côte Ste.Catherine Locks at Montréal, that means ALL the money loaned to the "City of Rochester" = "The Taxpayer" for the ship and the operating costs will still need to be repaid.
Only then, there won't be any ship to generate any more cash. Just a huge debt which needs to be repaid by "The Public" = "The Taxpayer".
Cars are quite possibly the worst 'investment' anyone could ever make. Simply drive off the dealer's lot with a new set of wheels and you've already lost thousands of dollars as it's then a 'used car'. Consumers would be incensed at the thought of putting $25,000 in a bank account, then after they've walked out the door of the bank, learn their new account has just lost several thousand dollars. But that's what happens with cars, trucks and SUV's.
The same holds true for ferries. If the Ferry Corporation thinks all it takes is selling the ferry to recoup the amount of the loan, they're bigger idiots than I give them credit for. The ferry is now very well-used merchandise as any maritime vessel left out in the elements of this region would be even if it never made so much as one lake crossing. The shiny, white new-car look has long since worn off after the ship was pounded by Lake Ontario weather. Paint jobs on ships in the Great lakes last a few weeks before they start looking like rust buckets. Have a look:
This, after a much publicized repaint job at Port Weller in St.Catharines earlier this year. Take a look at the lake freighters plying the waters of the Great Lakes; think there may be a reason why these ships are painted darker colours? Minus ANOTHER paint job, how well does this ferry look to any prospective buyer? Think it's going to fetch a great price.... enough to cover the cost of the loan?
Of course not. Using rounded numbers, let's say the ferry loan was for $40 million and the city of Rochester is able to sell it to a lucky buyer for $30 million. The City of Rochester then gives the $30 million to the ferry lenders and still owes them another $10 million. Question: Where does this $10 million come from? Answer: The Taxpayer. Ergo, there's no way on God's Green Earth the taxpayer won't end up shelling out cash for the ferry. They've already paid $16 million for ferry terminal which can't be crated up and sold along with the ferry, so they've already paid for ferry-related costs.
Now the Ferry Council wants the city to back another $10 million in loans from the ferry lenders (EFIC) to piss away in propping up the doomed service. That's another $10 million the taxpayers will owe to the lenders when the service goes kaput. And the ferry is depreciating in resale value with every passing week and unless somebody's got a REALLY big boathouse to store the thing in over the next few months, this tub's going to look like some 40-year old ore carrier by spring. White hulls really show the rust faster than the lake freighters do.
Will the city council agree to let the Ferry Corporation bump up the line of credit from EFIC (assuming, of course, that EFIC thinks this is a safe credit risk... which still remains to be seen)?
Don't be silly; of course they will. The city council has shown absolutely no regard for logic and reason regarding the flawed ferry concept since it was first introduced by CATS. Why would they suddenly have a change of heart at this point? Especially when to NOT agree to the credit increase would mean only one thing: the ferry is out of business and there'd be a HUGE loss of money.
But not nearly as much as there's going to be when it eventually tanks. At that time, there'll be more money borrowed and a ship which is only that much older and worth less on the market. The sooner the ferry is canned, the less money will be lost.
Screw 'em, that's what I say. When this entire debacle finally meets its unavoidable conclusion, it will rank as one of the most - if not THE most costly and foolish financial blunders in the history of Rochester and Monroe County. This bomb will have unprecedented magnitude and be a stunning indictment of the crippling myopia of the Rochester area residents. I'll also predict there's going to be a storm surge of howling criticism by the residents once the gangway's been withdrawn for the final time with new-found critics screaming "YOU shouldn't have ..." when all along, they should have been saying "WE shouldn't...".
Slack-jawed yokels. Not exactly a highly-regarded segment in Toronto.
03 DECEMBER 2005
Think about this:
|
|||
Ferry Cancels Saturday Sailings
by R News Staff Published Dec 03, 2005 Passengers planning to board the fast ferry instead boarded a bus Saturday morning. That's because Bay Ferries cancelled both runs to and from Toronto. Ferry operators blame Saturday's high winds. This is the third time ferry service has been halted due to weather-related problems. The ferry is expected to resume service Sunday. |
Let's think back a year or two. Originally, the plan was to offer year-round service back and forth across the lake... the winter months included. When that brilliant scheme was unveiled, I commented on several occasions that plying the waters of Lake Ontario during the winter months was an exercise in foolishness as the safety of both the passengers and the boat would be in jeopardy.
Here it is December 3... there isn't even ice formed on the lake yet... and the ferry operators are getting weak-kneed about the weather. "High winds"? Duh. You ferry operators think the next three months are going to get any better? Try mini icebergs and toss in icing of anything left open to the environment. There's a very good reason airports in this region have de-icing machines and the super structure of a ship the size of the ferry has enough surface area to gather literally tonnes of additional weight due to ice.
Restating the obvious? Maybe. But the point is: Why would any rational business organization even THINK about offering year-round service across the lake? That shows incredibly poor judgement... not to mention opening up the possibility of any number of cancellations due to the weather which can trash the best laid plans. Am I suggesting the operator should throw caution to the wind and forge ahead anyway? No, of course not... that would be tempting fate.
What I AM saying is: If the original plan had such a flawed major issue as the weather in the winter... something even a school child of this area is fully aware of... it stands to reason there are several other serious flaws.
|
|||
New Ferry Marketing Plan Unveiled
by Anthony Pascale/Linda Loy Published Dec 03, 2005 Bay Ferries will implement a new marketing strategy next year aimed at increasing ridership. Ferry consultant Arnie Rothschild came up with the plan. Rothschild has been working for free to honor his longtime friend, the late deputy mayor Jeff Carlson. "I developed this because it's an important project for the community. Jeff Carlson was my friend and very honestly, emotionally, our community cannot deal with this failing," Rothschild said. Rothschild won't criticize past efforts to market the ferry, but says changes needed to be made. Come next year, he says to expect several changes, including a change in the pricing structure. Ticket prices would change based on demand. Less popular sailings booked in advance would allow people to ride for less. "This is a good, logical, sophisticated plan that's working in the airline industry, the hotel industry," said Rothschild. "I mean, it's not something we made up. This is rooted in a good solid business practice." Rothschild's plan also calls to change the ferry Web site, to make it more user friendly when buying tickets. Finding the Web site will be easier, too. The city now has access to the Internet domain names 'rochesterfastferry.com' and 'Torontofastferry.com.' There are also plans to change advertising strategies, both in Rochester and Toronto, since research has shown people from both sides ride the ferry for different reasons. Rothschild believes the ferry will succeed. He says it needs more of a chance. "In our town, people take visitors to go see the Pittsford Wegmans. This ought to be the other source of pride in the community. I'm really confident we can do that." All of this will cost money. Rothschild says the ferry corporation has included his plans in its marketing budget for the next year. We should soon learn more about the details of the ferry's 2006 operating plan when the ferry corporation makes a proposal to City Council. |
"... very honestly, emotionally, our community cannot deal with (the ferry) failing," Rothschild said."
Sez you, Arnie. Seems to me a very significant portion of this community already HAS.
What's going to happen if the community can't 'deal' with it emotionally? Is there going to be a groundswell of patients seeking professional help for depression? Will the local watering holes fill up with a bunch of suits tearfully hunched over swilling vast amounts of Glenfiddich? Will counselors have to be called in to cope with mass cases of devastated school children?
No Arnie, emotionally the community will have to dig up another source of pride other than a trip to the local supermarket chain as a tourist showplace. That may be a crushing blow to many residents, but for the rest of us, we can only smile at the absurdity of the suggestion. Emotionally, we've managed to resign ourselves to the fact that poor ideas always have poor results.
"This is a good, logical, sophisticated plan that's working in the airline industry, the hotel industry," said Rothschild. "I mean, it's not something we made up. This is rooted in a good solid business practice."
Spoken as a true Rochesterian. "It worked there, so it'll work here." Remember what I've written on a number of occasions? The local 'leaders' take a look at some other model and immediately jump to the conclusion the same holds true here... and sometimes it does.
But in the case of the ferry, clearly nothing about the service is the same as any other route. Once again, copying another idea instead of coming up with an original concept tailor-made for the local area has gotten the local corporate set in hot water. Frontier Field. High Falls entertainment district. It worked 'there', so it'll work 'here'.
Let's talk a bit about the survey findings which ferry supporters are furiously waving about and babbling "the vast majority of passengers said they'd take the ferry again". That's completely wrong, of course as the only thing determined is "the vast majority of passengers SURVEYED said they'd take the ferry again". Supporters are trying to say 95% of 100,000 passengers (95,000 people) would take the ferry again when the figure is 95% of 300 (285 people) said they'd make the trip again. That's a huge difference. It also says 15 people out of 300 WOULDN'T take the ferry again... and why not? Instead of focusing on why people WOULDN'T make a repeat trip, supporters are only looking at the happy campers while ignoring the malcontents.
That, too, is a Rochester area trait. "Tell us what we want to hear and you're a prince. Tell us what we DON'T want to hear and you're an idiot."
That sole 'reason' is what's being used to compel organizers to rush blindly forward with plans for new restructuring. And it's based solely on the opinion of around 300 passenger still psyched after just haven taken a novel travel experience. Page up and see what I wrote on 30 November:
| The ferry carried close to 100,000 passengers this year. The survey polled more than 300 travelers. The numbers show people are hooked when they get in the ferry doors. (Asking one passenger out of 333 doesn't exactly constitute an exhaustive polling sample. Certainly not enough to set either a public or a business policy.) |
Ferry supporters are basing their entire defense on the opinions of just 0.3% of the passenger ridership. That's supposed to justify spending tens upon tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money.
Arnie wears his Good 'Ol Boy colours well. Who else would point to dragging out-of-towners to a supermarket as a Must See tourist destination? Hey Arnie? Next time you're in the GTA, why not ask a Torontonian to take you to the local Dominion supermarket? They're FASCINATING. Bring your camera.
Loaded with Kodak film, of course.
City needs
$10 million to keep ferry afloat 12/3/2005 4:00 PM (WROC-TV) The city needs $10 million to keep the ferry afloat in 2006. The city's $8 million reserve fund has little or no money left. City council members were briefed on several options to obtain the cash. Sources tell News 8 one option is to go to the Australian government and ask for an extension of the city's $40 million line of credit. Another option is to borrow $50 million from another lender, pay off the Australians, and move forward with a restructured debt. In either scenario, taxpayers would be placed at greater risk, because the city will have to guarantee the loans. The city will unveil its 2006 ferry plan next week. It is expected to include a demand-based pricing system. It may also call for sending the ferry to warmer climates during the winter months. Meanwhile, the ferry did not run Saturday. Officials blame rough weather. |
Robbing Peter to pay Paul? Sound fiscal planning there. Here's a question for the City Councillors:
How do we know when it's time to pull the plug? Or isn't that an option? Do the taxpayers simply keep pumping money into the project ad infinitum?
"In either scenario, taxpayers would be placed at greater risk, because the city will have to guarantee the loans."
When the ferry goes belly up for the final time, you Rochester area residents DO know you're going to be stuck with repaying the loan, don't you? Who cares whether it's to an Australian lender... or an American lender? It's still going to have to repaid by the taxpayer because the sale of the ship isn't going to cover the note by a long shot.
"One option is to go to the Australian government and ask for an extension of the city's $40 million line of credit."
Denied. The Australian lenders are providing financing for the ship, not the project's operating expenses.
"Another option is to borrow $50 million from another lender..."
Denied. Too much risk.
Gee. What would happen then? The City of Rochester would have two choices: default on the loan and end up in court being sued - or - raid the city's general fund and ravage city services and programs. In a small city like Rochester, $50 million is a huge sum of money to be axed.
Put in perspective, with an estimated 2004 population of 212,481 (link) repaying a $50 million loan would cost every man, woman and child living in the city $235.32 . Family of four? $ 941.26 . And what would they have to show for it? One extremely expensive and extremely vacant ex-ferry terminal.
"Yeah, but they'd sell the ferry and put that toward the loan." Yup, they would. Wouldn't be nearly enough to pay off the loan, though and then there's the matter of the $16 million terminal which offsets the proceeds of the sale of the ship.
No matter how much spin is tossed around, it's utterly impossible to NOT lose money on the ferry project. How much is lost will be determined by how long it's allowed to operate; pull the plug now and there's going to be a large amount of money lost. Pull the plug later and there's going to be a massive amount of money lost.
Toronto and Canadians have almost become an afterthought at this point. Some rather vague concept of 'passengers' has overtaken the mentality of ferry supporters where all that needs to be done is make the price of a ticket more attractive and naturally the Great Unwashed will be swarming the reservation lines. The ferry folks just don't get it. To Canadians, it's not so much the price of the ticket which is unappealing... it's the destination.
"... very honestly, emotionally, our community cannot deal with (the ferry) failing," Rothschild said."
Coming to the realization that Rochester is generally ignored by Toronto and Canadians will be a depressing dose of reality to many. Being rejected by the rich cool kids on the block is a humiliating experience to be sure.
|
|
This really begs the question: Why was the ferry originally planned for year-round service? The winter weather on the lake hasn't gotten any worse... it's always been horrendous for ships regardless of their size. So why the promises of wintertime travel?
The reason for the year-round travel promise is simple... the ferry project has been rooted in unrealistic expectations since its inception. With assumptions galore, the ferry supporters erroneously believed the Rochester area held enough attraction to Torontonians and Canadians as to justify spending tens of millions of dollars for a dedicated ferry service. They were wrong and have had just about as many indicators of this thrown in their faces as to make pulling the plug a necessity.
But even with all the signs of a failing business, the city of Rochester is still forging ahead and spending/borrowing more money in a bid to grasp straws. It's over, folks. Let it die and move on. There are far too any other more important issues facing the Rochester area to waste time, money and energy on beating an already dead horse.
It will be interesting to see if EFIC bumps up the credit limit by another $10 million as proposed by the city's Ferry Corporation. I have no doubt there are some Australian interests keeping tabs on the ferry fiasco -- it's their $40 million which is at stake after all -- and from a business perspective, it certainly doesn't appear this service has much of a chance at longevity. Stepping back from all the local hoopla surrounding the ferry, the casual observer can't help but have serious misgivings about its future. Not enough demand is probably the most glaring of signs, but local incompetence is another.
The Canadian side of the lake sees this and rather than dump more money into a doomed project, they've opted to hold onto their tax dollars by not falling for the plea for additional funding. Why should they? The ferry doesn't have any significant impact on THEIR return on investment... Toronto tourism will roar along nicely either with or without the presence of a ferry to some burg across the lake. So where's the incentive to prop up the service?
If EFIC decides the city of Rochester has got all the Australian dollars it's going to get from them and refuses the request to up the credit limit, the sentiment at Rochester City Hall appears to be "We'll just get $50 million from someplace else". The local area should be nicknamed the Assumption Capital of Upstate New York; assuming it can get anything it wants at anytime, the local area arrogantly acts like spoiled children who feel they're 'entitled' to get whatever they ask for. That entitlement mentality might have worked in the past, but those days are long gone.
The flip side of granting more credit or another loan is that it's not hard to squeeze money from the taxpaying public. Just look at Frontier Field or PaeTec Park. Regardless of whether the public voted to go ahead with these tax-sucking projects or not, they're going to pay for them... like it or not. From that perspective, EFIC or any another lender might simply smile and say, "Sure!" fully knowing they'll get paid one way or another. Public cash accounts don't run dry as they're being replenished all the time; privately-held accounts can -- and often do -- run dry with no such promise of being replenished.
The REALLY embarrassing scenario would be a "No" from EFIC and any other lender. THEN what, kids? That would be a civic humiliation of legendary proportions and force a desperation sale of the ship for whatever the city could get. How ignominious.
Whatever
the outcome, it's going to happen soon as there can't possibly be enough cash
left in the reserve fund to cover the next few weeks of operation.
Expecting the Rochester City Council to vote against approving the Ferry
Corporation's request for a credit limit increase is a bit far-fetched even
though that's precisely what their constituents might want. Denying that
request is tantamount to killing the ferry service... and who wants to accept
blame for doing that? City Councilman Brian Curran -- always somewhat
leery about the project anyway -- MIGHT vote against it but he's so much in the
minority it wouldn't make any difference.
This
would make a great test to determine the responsiveness of local
government. If each city
councilperson were to receive 200 calls from their respective constituents
demanding they vote AGAINST the Ferry Corporation's request, they might have a
tough time going against the will of the people who elected them. Not that
local voters are all that involved in their government; self-absorbed lives
rarely think in collective terms.
(Gee, there's that
Canadian 'socialism' creeping in again.)
Time will tell.
![[News]](titler_News.gif){kind=small}
![[Ferry Corp May Extend Credit Line]](FerryReturnsNew6_5_52.jpg)
![[Ferry Cancels Saturday Sailings]](Satferrycancelled.jpg)
![[New Ferry Marketing Plan Unveiled]](Rothschild1105.jpg)
