mall

There was a degree of frustration on all sides in council chambers Monday night over the long-simmering dispute over the state of the downtown mall after a resident raised the issue during public comments.

Some council members initially joined in the call of Richard Richmond to have the state's comptroller's office audit the city's legal fees associated with the city's dispute and the current lawsuit with the Mall Merchants Association.

Molino noted, however, that the city was audited last year and no irregularities related to legal bills were found.

He also asked what the goal of such an audit would be. The legal fees are public record and have been released before.

Richmond said he would like to see an itemized list of attorney fees for the mall, even suggesting audio go back six years to check for any inadvertent double billing.

The city's financial statements are scrutinized every year by an independent accountant, Molino told the council, and "they report any fraud or inconsistencies."

There have been no such reports.

Last year, resident John Roach issued a public records request and received documents showing the city's legal fees related to mall litigation, but some material was redacted if it could reveal information covered by attorney-client privilege. 

An audit, Molino suggested, would not necessarily uncover the kind of information perhaps some think it might.

"The comptroller is not going to provide you with guidance on what you pay for what services," Molino said. "They're not going to come in and tell you you're paying too much for police services, you're paying too much for fire services or you're paying too much for this."

Council members such as John Deleo expressed concern about how much was being spent on mall litigation and compared the years-long conflict with the mall association to a messy divorce that has gone on too long.

More than just the legal fees, perhaps, Deleo said, "people are concerned about the mall and the 57 buckets and how long does this divorce will go on."

After the meeting, Molino hinted at his own frustration with five or six years of disputes over the mall, but also expressed hope that a once-and-for-all solution can be reached during legal negotiations.

The condition of the mall and the disputes over the mall create a perception problem, Molino said, that could hold back redevelopment and brownfield development.

"It does not help the long-term success of the city nor the long-term success of the businesses and the redevelopment potential downtown, so, yes, it does hurt," Molino said. "It hurts everybody. I think everybody's business involved is going to benefit when it's resolved, and the city as a whole, and the community, will be able to get through this, and I hope it's a milestone that we can get past and say we were able to get past that hurdle."

There is an openness, Molino believes, to finding a solution to the disputes that led to the lawsuit, the involves negotiation and not further litigation.

"I think both parties want to resolve this issue and it's just a matter of coming together to find common ground that is going to meet everybody's needs," Molino said.

City Fire is being dispatched to 1 City Centre, section 8A, to investigate the odor of wires burning.

UPDATE 10:31 a.m.: Engine 12 went back in service a few minutes ago.

The City Centre Mall Association thinks the city is responsible for replacing the mall's roof, repairing skylights and the silo entrances.

And since the city has resisted spending money on the mall, the association is asking the courts to come to its rescue.

In a lawsuit filed last month, the association also asks that the city be required to repair an uneven concourse floor, drop ceilings and HVAC, plus award $95,000 to the merchants and add "as close as 1,1,40 parking spaces as possible" to make up for spaces lost from construction of City Hall, a restaurant and two banks.

WBTA reports:

Dr. Mitchel Chess, president of the Mall Association, said he was hesitant to comment because the associations’ lawyers received the city’s initial response to the suit this morning.

City Manager Jason Molino confirmed the city had been served with the suit. He said the city’s attorney will handle the matter in house. He said the action by the mall association "had been expected."

This is at least the third lawsuit that the mall association has filed against the city since the Genesee Country Mall opened 30 years ago.

I wish I could find David J. Gordon, if he's still alive, and interview him. On video would be especially good. I wonder if he would squirm at all?

Gordon is the City of Batavia's former Director or Urban Renewal.  If there is one single person responsible for tearing down half of downtown Batavia and building that brutal mall, it is Gordon.

We could give Gordon his due and excuse his enthusiasm for destruction and reconstruction to youthful folly and the trends of the time. Or could we see him as a locus for change that not many Batavian's wanted (it's very hard to find any long-time residents who say they support (or should I say, "admit" that they supported) the city's decision at the time).

C.M. Barons, loyal reader and commentor on The Batavian, interviewed Gordon in 1973. He e-mailed me a copy of the article.

Reading the Q&A is nothing less than infuriating.

Gordon started his young adult life pursuing study in social sciences and then flirted with becoming a priest, but wound up in Washington, D.C. where he got involved in urban renewal, a particularly flatulent excess of federal largess aimed at destroying city blocks and replacing them with anything, anything at all.

Urban renewal was all the rage in the 1960s and 1970s.

Wikipedia:

Urban renewal is extremely controversial, and typically involves the destruction of businesses, the relocation of people, and the use of eminent domain as a legal instrument to reclaim private property for city-initiated development projects.

In the second half of the 20th century, renewal often resulted in the creation of urban sprawl and vast areas of cities being demolished ... 

Urban renewal's effect on actual revitalization is a subject of intense debate. It is seen by proponents as an economic engine, and by opponents as a regressive mechanism for enriching the wealthy at the expense of taxpayers and the poor. It carries a high cost to existing communities, and in many cases resulted in the destruction of vibrant—if run-down —neighborhoods.

If you're a fan of The Kinks, you might be familiar with the 1971 album Muswell Hillbillies, which was Ray Davies scathing and often witty polemic against urban renewal. Long before I came to Batavia, it was one of my favorite LPs. Now it often strikes me as especially poignant.

I got a letter this morning with serious news that's gone and ruined my day,
The borough surveyor's used compulsory purchase to acquire my domain,
They're gonna pull up the floors, they're gonna knock down the walls,
They're gonna dig up the drains.

Here come the people in grey they're gonna take me away to lord knows where,
But I'm so unprepared I got no time to pack and I got nothing to wear,
Here come the people in grey,
To take me away.

Gordon was very much one of those people in grey, judging from the picture with Barons' article and his attitude toward the city that was nothing more than another notch on his resume.

At the heart of the article is Gordon's complete lack of respect for the small business owner. Without that respect, it is easy to see why he had no qualms about dislocating businesses that had operated in the same locations for decades.

What I think personally and I was brought up in a small business man's type home -- I'm talking experience not theory, is that unfortunately business has become that which is owned by bigger and bigger conglomerates. The day of the small business, I'm sorry to say, has become more and more a less intricate part of the American scene. It's another one of the changing aspects, one of the reasons, and there are many, that in the old days when a man ran a business he whole family went in there and helped him. His wife went in there and more important -- his kid. But today his kid wants to go to college and rightly so. And he wants the 35 or 40 hour work week with fringe benefits and vacations; he doesn't want to work all hours of the day as he did before. The small business can't compete (for labor) with the fringe benefits offered by the larger companies.

As a Brit like Ray Davies might say, "What rubbish."

I, too, grew up in a "small business man's type home" and my decision not to become a baker had nothing to do with an unwillingness to work hard and put in long hours, or a desire to seek fringe benefits. I simply preferred to pursue a life involving words and thought (I set out to be a writer) rather than dough and icing.  It's impossible to pigeon hole the mass of humanity as nothing but 40-hour-week seekers. Some people have the entrepreneurial drive and some don't, and we need communities that meet the needs of both types of people.  Gordon's statement strikes me as rather myopic.

There are a number of family owned businesses in Genesee County, many of them in their second and third generations of ownership.  The family-owned business never went out of style.  There have always been people more interested in working for a family owned business rather than a conglomerate, fringe benefits or not.  There's more to a good work life than an extra week of vacation. Gordon's assertions were based neither on experience nor theory, but merely wishful thinking.

Prophetically, with a bit of wisdom Gordon may not have realized he possessed, he did note how important a strong downtown is to a vibrant community.

Remember this is a big tax producing basis for the city -- the business district. If the business district goes to hell, the economics of this town go to hell.

I shared Barons' article with Batavia loyalist Bill Kauffman, who's anti-urban renewal writing is known the nation over. Bill's response: "The arrogant bastards who knocked down Old Batavia ought to have been tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail back to whatever unplace they came from."

Fortunately, whatever damage the bastards who tore down Old Batavia did to the business community, it is receding ever more into history as the local business community recovers. It didn't really take another government program, either, to turn things around. It is a combination of community effort and free enterprise, good small-town American values. It is a credit to the local merchants (which includes businesses in the mall) and property owners who have stuck with downtown and formed the Business Improvement District.  The BID has made great strides in revitalizing downtown, and the work continues.  Downtown Batavia's success is important for the entire community (at least Gordon got that much right). It sets the tone and the pace for the rest of the county.  The folly of David J. Gordon aside, there is no reason Downtown can't thrive for decades to come.

It's up! The sign that caused quite a stir over the summer has been installed out front of the Batavia City Centre. Isn't it pretty—and it only cost us... what was it... oh, right around $20,000. (Personally, I say for $20,000, we should have bought a hatchback, mounted a megaphone to the roof, and hired a driver to circle the city continuously intoning: 'Come to the mall. Come to the mall. Please.' But the sign is nice, too.)

That big, blank, white face just begs the question: What should be the first message? This sign is supposed to boost business for the shops inside the mall. So what message would get you inside the mall to spend your hard-earned cash?

While we're on the topic of mall signs... Has anyone caught a glimpse of the old sign lately? That's somewhat of a trick question, because if you're heading east on Main Street, you have to see through—or around—the tree that all but blocks the view of the sign from that direction. No matter. Even if you saw that side of the sign, it wouldn't make much sense. Intended to advertise the movies now showing at the cinema in the mall, it currently reads: 'BET' for the first film and 'ARLE' for the second. Any guesses?

So what is the mall telling people with these two signs? The new one seems to say: 'Hey, come buy our stuff. We're fresh and lively, and we believe in the majesty of British orthography.' But the old one tells us: 'We're rusting. Honest to God: we're rusting.'

I mean, come on: 'BET' and 'ARLE'. Well, at least when spring comes, the leaves will blot out the reference to the Genesee Country Mall.

For more photos from Christmas in the city, look here.

           Hopefully last night settles the issue of me being removed from the MOC. A thinly veiled attempt to remove me was made at last nights Council meeting. Frank Ferrando tried to come up with several different scenarios that could be used to kick someone off a committee. My favorite was being likened to a "community window decorator that hates windows". In the end after all of Frank, Bob and Bill's arguments for removal, intelligent reason prevailed. Thanks to Charlie, Cathy and Marianne it will remain that you can't throw someone off because they don't agree with you. Bob Bialkowski and Bill Cox tried to orchestrate a scheme that would have me removed. Bob asked Frank to implement this sorry attempt to try and hide him as the ring leader. Anyone present at the last Council meeting was a witness to Bob setting this in motion. Through out our campaign against each other a year ago and even until now I've never bad-mouthed Bob. At some point enough is enough. If no one has told you yet, you won Bob! I guess my biggest suprise is Bill. I worked along side Bill a lot last year and even helped him with his campaign. At the time I took him for an intelligent guy. I also thought Frank was above being used in such a way. We do live and learn.

         A couple of weeks ago Joanne Beck ran an article in The Daily News about this whole Mall thing. A week ago I met with Philip and discussed the same issue. We spoke for over an hour and he asked me to go ahead and submit my own article. I figured I'd wait till after last weeks MOC meeting and see how things went last night. I thought I would give you the e-mail I submitted to Joanne and let you all decide your own views. She asked me four questions, these were my answers:

         1.Q; Why did you start recording the meetings? I started recording meetings when I felt the minutes seemed inaccurate. I found things were being glossed over or omitted. When I would bring up these problems during the approval of the minutes it became apparent that these things were omitted for a reason. Dr. Chess would propose to remove the things before and after the missing statements instead of inserting what was really said. All I was asking for was the truth. When a City Council member would say something that isn't allowed due to ongoing negotiations I felt it should be included. Fortunately, they voted to close the meetings. Council members attending meetings should be less frequent now permitting a much less likely chance a verbal mistake can jeopardize Jason's ongoing negotiations.

         2.)Q; Did it involve a disability, and are you willing to elaborate at all?   As far as my disability, that's now a non-issue. They all voted against me recording meetings. Madeline is the only one who is allowed to record now. All I wanted was to have access to the recording. Dr. Chess asked Jason if they kept recordings of Council meetings and he said they did. The board agreed to keep recordings for 60 days and that I could review them at Madeline's office if I needed to. All I wanted was the
ability to check the minutes if I felt something was wrong, and they granted me that. Had they not let me have access to any type of recording, I would have pursued the disability case against them. Since I have access, all is fine. However, if I'm ever denied access or the recording is "lost" then I will have to get my lawyer involved as well as contact the media.

         3.)Q; Why do you think the Board wants you off the MOC?  The reason they want me off the board is unknown to me. My job is to be on the side of the taxpayer. That's a conflict of what they want. I don't know what past city-appointed members did, and I don't really care. I know what my position is:  it's to keep as much of the people of Batavia's money where they want or  don't want it to go. The people have made it clear to me, (very, very clear to me) that they don't want one more dime spent on the Mall. I've told them that's not going to happen. Whether it's an expensive roof, selling it for a dollar, or ten years worth of tax concessions, it's going to cost us something. The board has told me they want all three. I've told everybody that what ever the cost is, I feel the best thing is to make sure we sever all ties between the City and the Mall. Let's make sure this deal is the last deal. Everybody has agreed with me on that point. The public WILL NOT STAND  for the MOC getting all three requests. My job is to give the MOC as little as possible. Again, my job is to give the Mall as little as possible. I'm standing my ground. I guess we know why they want me gone.

         4.)Q; Do you feel you've been "antagonistic" in any way?  Am I being antagonistic? I'm sure they feel that way. I know they didn't like it when I wrote my opinion in the paper several months back. In the next meeting I was told I was now viewed as a "Hostile" and would be treated as such. I'm fine with that. They have their objective and I have mine. After that article in the paper, we as a board all agreed to keep everything at the meetings and not in the paper. I have kept my word on that. I think they feel I'm being antagonistic because I want the truth all the time, not just when it suits some of them. Whenever Dr. Chess has been less than honest, I point it out. When Bill Cox was caught in a contradiction it upset both of them. Bob Bialkowski must still think we're running against each other. To this day, he likes to try and mess with me when he can. I don't dislike anyone on the board. We're all there for a reason, but not for the same outcome. When opposing views are present there is no way it's all going to be lovey-dovey. I understand that, and that's why I sit there as the lone person on the side of the City taxpayers. I'm fine with that. Whether it's a meeting that's 6 against one, or ten against one, it's no problem for me. Apparently they feel the need to have a "yes man" there too. It's too bad for them that I'm not one. I wonder how Dr. Chess would do in my shoes? I think the answer is obvious, he doesn't like being on a team against one opponent. Wow, how would he handle being in my position?
 

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.