Betsy Ross 13-Star Flag at South Buffalo residence confirms Colin Kaepernick’s concerns

Posted by Arthur J. Giacalone on July 10, 2019
Posted in: South Buffalo. Leave a comment

First things first: The flag-related image that I find most offensive is that of Donald Trump hugging, kissing, and fondling the red-white-and-blue symbol of the USA.

Trump hugging flag detail

That being said, the recent controversy surrounding Nike’s decision to pull a special edition shoe with a 13-star flag on its heel, in response to concerns expressed by activist and former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick that the image is offensive and tied to slavery, is both poignant and complex.

Nike's Betsy Ross flag shoe Nike’s Air Max 1 Quick Strike Fourth of July shoe

There’s a part of me that would like to push back against the usurpation of historic symbols – by hate groups and bigoted individuals – by obscuring whatever meaning they have imbued in the object by using/wearing/waving it myself. But I realize that such action by one 69-year-old Italian American male in Buffalo, New York would have miniscule impact, and might cause further offense, discomfort, and consternation.

So I won’t be lobbying for Nike to liberate the controversial shoe. But I will address hateful symbolism in my South Buffalo neighborhood.

While there may be doubts about whether Betsy Ross – an 18th-century Philadelphia seamstress – actually designed the 13-star flag, there is no uncertainty regarding Colin Kaepernick’s conclusion that the so-called “Betsy Ross flag” is being waved and worn by a segment of our society as a symbol of white supremacy. I’m confident that I have seen evidence supporting that conclusion a mere three blocks from my humble home.

IMG_1952 40 Indian Church Rd. (taken by AJG 07-08-2019)

For the past four years, I have observed an ever-changing front porch display at 40 Indian Church Road. The house is situated a short walk from Seneca Street and Cazenovia Park at the northwest corner of Parkview Avenue and Indian Church. While the dark brown, well-kept century-old residence may initially appear welcoming, the occupants’ choice of symbols and words reflect – in my opinion – the sentiments of bigots and white supremacists.

A day or so after the initial national coverage of Nike’s decision to pull its “Air Max 1 Quick Strike Fourth of July” shoe, the facade at 40 Indian Church suddenly displayed two large flags: the “Stars and Bars”, which sports three broad stripes and is the first national flag of the Confederate States of America, and the 13-star, 13-stripe “Betsy Ross” flag.

If I had not frquently walked by the corner of Indian Church and Parkview, I might have thought that the flag-hanger was trying to highlight the dissimilar aspects of the two flags, and the fact that they couldn’t be easily mistaken for one another. But I’m well aware of the series of flags and signs at 40 Indian Church Road that have defiled the neighborhood for years. And, I could also see the carefully arranged objects resting between the pair of 3’ by 5’ flags. With that information in hand, I do not hesitate to interpret the “Stars and Bars” and “Betsy Ross flag” display at 40 Indian Church as a glorification of an America where slavery was legal and the federal government’s power was insubstantial.

Nestled amongst the flowers and front-yard knick-knacks on July 8th was/is a cluster of three hand-held flags: the well-known Confederate battle flag (with the red field and diagonal dark blue cross and white stars), the German national flag, and the “Gadsden Flag” – a historical American Revolution flag with a yellow field depicting a coiled rattlesnake and the words “DON’T TREAD ON ME.” [The Gadsden flag is often described as an example of a historic symbol co-opted by groups such as the Tea Party and the white supremacists movement.] There also was/is a choo-choo train weather vane sporting a small Confederate battle flag.

Betsy Ross at 40 Indian Church detail

Kalendas 07-08-19 detail (taken by AJG 07-08-2019)

[Note: I first started noticing the DON’T TREAD ON ME proclamations a number of years ago planted in rural front yards in Wyoming County alongside anti-Obama, “Repeal the Safe Act” and anti-Cuomo signs.]

As I wrote here about two years ago [see https://withallduerespectblog.com/2017/08/21/buffalo-must-address-homegrown-bigotry/], 40 Indian Church Road and its pro-Confederacy displays are situated diagonally across the street from BEREA Church of God in Christ (C.O.G.I.C.) and its predominantly non-white attendees.  Although it is no longer in sight, there was a period of time when a sign with an image of cross-hairs unambiguously proclaimed, “WARNING – IF YOU CAN READ THIS, YOU ARE IN RANGE,” reinforcing the aggressive message of the multiple Confederate and “DON’T TREAD ON ME” flags.

DSCN8742 (taken by AJG Aug. 2017)

As recently as May 2019, 40 Indian Church Road simultaneously flaunted three large Confederate flags: the Confederate battle flag, the “Blood Stained Banner” (the third national flag of the Confederacy), and the “Stars and Bars.”

IMG_1241 (taken by AJG 05-02-2019)

A month-and-a-half earlier, a Confederate battle flag and flag of Germany were joined by a banner that frequently is on display at 40 Indian Church Road, a Texas “COME AND TAKE IT” flag with a white field, a black star, and the silhouette of an M4 AR15 machine gun. This defiant proclamation is an updated version of a flag used in 1831, at the first battle of the Texas Revolution against Mexico, which contained the phrase “Come And Take It” and depicted a black star and a small cannon.

IMG_0940 (taken by AJG 03-20-2019)

When not displaying Confederate flags, or co-opting provocative symbols from the past, the residents of 40 Indian Church Road have expressed their support for an individual viewed by many as a racist and white supremacist, Donald J. Trump:

Trump flag at 40 Indian Church (taken by AJG 10-24-2016)

I have chosen not to interact with the residents at 40 Indian Church Road when I walk or bicycle by.  I’m not particularly proud of that fact, but I don’t see myself as the appropriate person to initiate a meaningful discussion. But it would be fascinating to hear a conversation between Colin Kaepernick and the folk who live at 40 Indian Church Road on the issues raised by “the Nike controversy.”  Or, on a more practical level, it might be a useful step forward if a community leader were to reach out and facilitate a discussion between the person or persons who “speak” through the flags displayed at 40 Indian Church Road and the leaders and churchgoers at BEREA C.O.G.I.C.

With All Due Respect,

Art Giacalone

P.S. I wonder if this is a topic that could be raised with the organizers of the 100th Year Centennial celebration promoted in the banner currently above the church’s front door:

IMG_2025

Summery Photos of the Outer Harbor’s Southern Half, Really

Posted by Arthur J. Giacalone on July 1, 2019
Posted in: Christopher Scanlon, City of Buffalo, Gerald A. Buchheit Jr., Green Code, South Buffalo, Waterfront, WNY Photos. Leave a comment

I’ve been trying to write a post about Buffalo’s Common Council for days now.  But focusing on the ways such an uninspiring legislative body functions is, well, depressing.  To boot, summer weather has finally arrived in Western New York.

So, I’m going to embrace the suggestion from a trusted friend and sometime “guardian angel.”  Rather than pen another gloomy post involving Council President Darius Pridgen, South District Council Member Chris Scanlon, or Delaware District’s Joel Feroleto, etc., I will  share some photographs that I took on the sunny and breezy final day of June, 2019 along Buffalo’s shoreline.

But, first, I must split a hair.

My environmental allies, the fishing public, the media, State officials, the Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation (ECHDC), and virtually every knowledgeable and sensible WNY’er that I’ve encountered, would agree that the pictures that follow were snapped on my trek around the southern portion of Buffalo’s Outer Harbor.

However, the City of Buffalo’s Common Council, at the recommendation of Mayor Byron Brown’s Office of Strategic Planning, excluded from the definition of the “Outer Harbor” contained in the “Green Code” [officially, Uniform Development Ordinance] everything south of the former Ford complex (Terminal A and Terminal B).  In doing so, our esteemed legislators have excluded, from the protections of criteria intended to protect the Outer Harbor from inappropriate future development, the following:  the former Freezer-Queen parcel (where Gerry Buchheit may or may not still wish to construct a 23-story glass-and-steel tower), the Small Boat Harbor,  Buffalo Harbor State Park, Gallagher Beach, the Tifft Street Pier, etc.  [Note:  Here’s how the city in its proposed LWRP, the ECHDC, and State DEC, interpreted the boundaries of the Outer Harbor prior to Mr. Buchheit’s proposed Queen City Landing tower at the former Freezer-Queen site:  Outer Harbor defined by LWRP-ECHDC-DEC.]

In other words, the enlightened world will think of the following photos as images of Our Outer Harbor.  I hope you’ll enjoy them:

IMG_1811

IMG_1817

IMG_1818

IMG_1822

IMG_1832

IMG_1834

IMG_1835

IMG_1838

IMG_1839

IMG_1840

And, here are my favorite images for what you will not see – the proposed 23-story tower!

IMG_1844

IMG_1845

With All Due Respect,

Art Giacalone 

P.S.  Please contact Buffalo’s Common Council Members (especially South District Councilman Christopher Scanlon), as well as the Mayor’s office, and insist that the Green Code be amended immediately to include ALL of the Outer Harbor in the “Outer Harbor boundaries” as defined at Section 5.3.3C(1)(a) of the Uniform Development Ordinance.  Thank you.

Half-and-Half’s façade falls on Elmwood Avenue’s Shaken Block

Posted by Arthur J. Giacalone on June 25, 2019
Posted in: Chason Affinity, Elmwood Village. 1 Comment

[Full disclosure: For nearly a decade, I represented and assisted in various ways residents and property owners on Granger Place and Forest Avenue fighting to preserve the character of their historic Elmwood Village neighborhood, and prevent the demolition of the buildings at the corner of Elmwood and Forest avenues.]

It has been a rough year-and-a-half on the block of Elmwood Avenue between Forest and Bird that developers and the media have often referred to as “The Gateway” to the Elmwood Village.

First, near the end of December 2017, eleven century-old structures at the southeast corner of Elmwood and Forest were demolished to make way for Chason Affinity’s “1111 Elmwood Avenue” mixed-use project.  This destructive dismantling of a highly intact historic neighborhood occurred despite the stern warnings expressed in a December 2016 letter from New York State’s Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).  Notably, the state’s premier preservation agency advised the City of Buffalo that Chason Affinity’s demolition plans would “adversely impact” the Elmwood (East) and (West) Historic Districts, and that the “monumental scale” of the new complex would dwarf the surrounding area, eliminate the rhythm of the existing streetscape, and impose visual impacts that would clearly and demonstrably alter the setting and environment of the Elmwood Village.

Neither Chason Affinity, nor Delaware District Council Member Joel Feroleto, were moved.

DSCN8981

DSCN8990

DSCN8935

Then, a horrific early-morning fire at 1074 Elmwood Avenue on May 7, 2019 not only destroyed a residential building, but tragically took the life of a 55-year-old tenant, Curtis Brown.

The latest misfortune – while insignificant when compared to the May 7th blaze – occurred around 1:00 PM today, June 25, 2019.  A major portion of the façade at 1086-1088 Elmwood Avenue – home of the Half & Half boutique and Parkway Hair salon – collapsed and tumbled to the sidewalk on a beautiful and sunny summer afternoon.  Fortunately, as reported in the media, no passers-by or individuals inside the commercial and residential structure were injured when the façade suddenly failed.

IMG_1701

IMG_1708

I happened to be walking down Elmwood in the direction of Forest Avenue not long after the debris landed on the sidewalk, so I was able to take the photographs inserted above.  Ironically, the purpose of my stroll was to check out the current status of the Chason Affinity project.  I certainly didn’t expect to see another unfortunate event on this gateway block.

As of the 6 PM newscast on WIVB-TV, the cause of the façade collapse was still being investigated.  A woman identified as the owner of the building – Kilby Bronstein – told the reporter that the building’s roof was new, and that she was relieved that no one was hurt.  An April 2017 story on-line refers to Jennifer and Kilby Bronstein as the new owners of Half & Half boutique.

Debra Sidel, the prior owner of Half & Half and the 1086-1088 Elmwood building, was a staunch supporter of Chason Affinity’s demolition plans and massive Elmwood Avenue complex.  She voluntarily provided a sworn affidavit to the developer in support of a lawsuit that extinguished deed restrictions (dating from 1892) which had prohibited construction of any commercial structure at the southeast corner of Elmwood and Forest.  [According to City of Buffalo property information, Ms. Sidel sold 1086-1088 Elmwood Avenue on January 19, 2016 for $575,000.00 to Brockport Land Associates, LLC.]

By the way, Chason Affinity’s project is being constructed diagonally across the street from 1086-1088 Elmwood Avenue and its broken façade.  [Note:  1086-1088 Elmwood was built in 1915.]  I’m certainly not a structural engineer, and it may just be a coincidence, but I can’t help but wonder:  Did any of the substantial demolition, excavation, or construction activities in furtherance of the “1111 Elmwood Avenue” development shake the ground or otherwise adversely impact the structural integrity of the home of Half & Half boutique?  Just asking.

IMG_1706

IMG_1715

With All Due Respect,

Art Giacalone

Maritime Charter appears to have abandoned plans for a Buffum Street high school

Posted by Arthur J. Giacalone on May 24, 2019
Posted in: Christopher Scanlon, City of Buffalo, Native American, South Buffalo. 2 Comments

It has been a year-long battle.  [See, for example, Giacalone v. WNYMCS – Verified Petition ]   But it looks as if a quiet South Buffalo neighborhood – and ancient indigenous burial grounds – will not be encroached upon by a three-story high school building and 24,000-square-foot athletic facility.

I was told today that Western New York Maritime Charter School has signed a contract to purchase the former Buffalo Public School No. 29 facility at 2219 South Park Avenue from South Buffalo Charter School.  The parties have yet to determine a closing date.

IMG_1441 2219 South Park Ave.

It is not clear whether Maritime plans to use the South Park Avenue building solely as its high school (which is currently located on Genesee Street near downtown Buffalo), or as both its high school and middle school.  The 2219 South Park facility, at 63,795 square feet, has approximately the same gross floor area as the three-story high school building Maritime proposed to construct adjacent to the existing Buffum Street middle school.

For the past two years, Maritime’s middle school has been operating at 102 Buffum Street in South Buffalo, a few blocks from Seneca Street.  The Buffum Street community has not opposed Maritime’s middle school, which comfortably fits the scale and intensity of the building’s historic use as Buffalo Public School No. 70.

  DSCN9653 102 Buffum Street

In contrast, Maritime’s expansion plans for a high school and athletic building have met substantial resistance – by residents at the Common Council’s June 2018 public hearing, in two legal proceedings brought in State Supreme Court, and by various indigenous activists.  The location chosen by Maritime for its expansion plans created two major concerns.

The existing Buffum Street school is surrounded on the south, east and west by one-story and two-story residences (on Buffum and Silverdale Place), and on the north by an undeveloped field which borders the rear yards of single-family homes on Zittel Avenue.  The narrow, quiet residential streets surrounding former School No. 70 were not meant to accommodate the traffic and activities associated with a high school.  Maritime’s planned expansion threatened the character of the existing neighborhood, and the ability of nearby residents to peacefully enjoy their homes.

DSCN9642 Buffum St. homes

Of equal (if not greater) importance, the 102 Buffum Street parcel is located within an area designated “archeologically sensitive” by the State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO].  It played an important role historically as the site of the Buffalo Creek Reservation’s Mission House (school), and is situated within a couple hundred feet of the Seneca Indian Park.  Additionally, the 102 Buffum Street parcel and surrounding area is considered sacred by Seneca and other indigenous peoples as the site of ancient burial grounds.

DSCN9588 Seneca Indian Park

Initially, Maritime and city officials, including, significantly, Councilmember Christopher Scanlon, chose to disregard the potential harm the expansion plans posed to archeological and historic resources.  However, this past September, Maritime hired an archeological firm, Panamerican Consultants, Inc., to conduct what is known as a “Phase 1A” archeological investigation of the project site.

I’m not a mind reader, but it appears that the results of the archeological study may have convinced Maritime to abandon its plans to construct its high school and athletic facility at 102 Buffum Street, and to search for other options.  If my assumption is correct, and Maritime has decided, at a minimum, to move its high school to the South Park Avenue address, I feel it will be a WIN-WIN situation for all involved:

First, human remains will not be desecrated, or archeological resources adversely impacted, by development at the Buffum Street site.

Second, while the 102 Buffum Street site is on a narrow residential street, surrounded by homes, and three blocks from Seneca Street’s commercial strip, 2219 South Park Avenue is located on a major street and bus route with adjoining commercial activities:

IMG_1449

IMG_1437

 

IMG_1447

Third, in contrast to 102 Buffum Street (where the undeveloped area is sloped, has substantial drainage problems, and could not be readily used for recreational activities), 2219 South Park is adjacent to a city park with ballfields, basketball courts, and playground facilities:

IMG_1426 Okell Park

IMG_1429 View of rear of school

 

IMG_1431 View from rear of school

I look forward to the official announcement of Maritime charter school’s purchase of the 2219 South Park Avenue facility, and its plans for Buffum Street.  And, I wish them well!

With all due respect,

Art Giacalone

Lilac Festival 2019

Posted by Arthur J. Giacalone on May 19, 2019
Posted in: Olmsted Parks, WNY Photos. Leave a comment

I wasn’t planning on going to this year’s lilac festival at Rochester’s Highland Park.  But I woke up Sunday morning thinking of Pat Martin – who died way too early on May 12th – and his peerless spouse, Mary Kennedy Martin.

While the gentle hills and walkways of Rochester’s Olmsted park may be a bit too tame and close to home for this adventurous couple, I thought that the beauty of the blossoms and the variety of colors and textures would capture Pat’s spirit, and, hopefully, bring a measure of comfort to Mary, their daughters Caitlin, Heidi and Greer, and the entire family.

So, in memory of Patrick E. Martin (March 23, 1949 – May 12, 2019), and in celebration of a life well-lived, here’s a bouquet of images from the 2019 lilac festival:

DSCN0166

DSCN0157

DSCN0153

DSCN0111

DSCN0107

DSCN0151

DSCN0147

DSCN0103

DSCN0098

DSCN0145

DSCN0140

DSCN0143

DSCN0097

DSCN0090

DSCN0134

DSCN0130

DSCN0128

DSCN0083

DSCN0122

DSCN0121

DSCN0084

DSCN0079

DSCN0118

DSCN0116

DSCN0077

DSCN0073

DSCN0075

DSCN0114

DSCN0066

DSCN0062

DSCN0059

DSCN0045

DSCN0042

DSCN0040

DSCN0047

DSCN0039

DSCN0036

DSCN0069

DSCN0037

 

DSCN0033

DSCN0032DSCN0168

With All Due Respect and Admiration,

Art Giacalone

FOR SALE: GATES CIRCLE Fountains-and-all (favorable terms available)

Posted by Arthur J. Giacalone on April 18, 2019
Posted in: City of Buffalo, Corporate Welfare, Development. Leave a comment

As you stroll down Chapin Parkway with your Akita Inu or Norfolk Terrier, or while enjoying a  cocktail in the Canterbury Woods penthouse lounge, have you ever fantasized about owning Gates Circle?  Have the historic fountains, stairways and greenery captured your imagination?  If so, you no longer have to be content with viewing this E.B. Green-designed masterpiece from a nearby triangular island or a stylish lofty perch.  Thanks to the ingenuity of Mayor Byron Brown’s staff and City Hall sycophants, YOUR DREAM CAN NOW COME TRUE!

IMG_1016

On April 16, 2019, Buffalo’s Common Council voted unanimously to create the “Linwood Lafayette Urban Development Action Area”  [UDAA]   So it would look as if they were complying with a state-mandated requirement that at least 60% of the real property within the UDAA be city-owned, the clever bureaucrats on City Hall’s ninth floor drew the UDAA’s boundary lines to include the public right-of-way on Delaware, Linwood, and Lafayette avenues, and, most importantly, all of Gates Circle!

Linwood Lafayette UDAA map

By including Gates Circle as part of the newly formed Linwood Lafayette Urban Development Action Area, the Common Council has designated this historic public space and all the other land in the UDAA “as appropriate for urban development.”

TM Montante Development may have been shameless enough to request creation of the UDAA.  But, the state law authorizing the City of Buffalo to form the UDAA does not limit who can propose a project for all or a portion of the designated area, and empowers the city to sell or lease the land “to any person, firm or corporation.”  So your dream can come true!

IMG_1143 Christian Campos, TM Montante Development President, awaits 04/16/2019 Common Council vote on UDAA.

Here’s the best part: Not only might you be chosen to own (or, if you prefer, lease for up to 99 years) Gates Circle, by creating the UDAA, the Common Council now has the power to give you incentives to encourage your participation in this program (as if you need an incentive!), including generous 20-year tax exemptions and remarkably favorable loans.

FULL DISCLOSURE:  Some cranky old Buffalonians (who believe that our government officials should strive to follow the letter and spirit of the law) have insisted that the Common Council misused the state law that allows a city to designate a UDAA – General Municipal Law, Article 16.  They claim that Article 16 and the creation of a UDAA was never intended as a mechanism for bailing out an under-financed developer whose plans for an ambitious private project have encountered unanticipated complications.  From their perspective, Article 16’s generous incentives were designed to encourage hesitant private enterprises to partner with a municipality to correct blight and substandard conditions at city-owned properties that had been acquired through urban renewal or condemnation powers.  So, if the designation of the Linwood Lafayette Urban Development Action Area is challenged in court, you may have to give Gates Circle back to the residents of the City of Buffalo.  [Check out this for background information.]

COMMISSIONS:  Buffalo officials aren’t likely to ask for a commission for arranging the sale of Gates Circle to you.  [However, if past history is a guide, it probably wouldn’t hurt to donate generously to the campaign chests of the mayor and the various councilmembers.]

IMG_1148 Darius Pridgen, Council President/ Ellicott District Member/Bishop/Pastor/Entrepreneur/Self-proclaimed Article 16 expert. 

With All Due Respect,

Art Giacalone

Open Letter to Buffalo’s Common Council on UDAA

Posted by Arthur J. Giacalone on April 15, 2019
Posted in: City of Buffalo, Corporate Welfare, Development. Leave a comment

PREFACE:   I really would like to engage the City of Buffalo’s Common Council in an honest, objective conversation regarding a proposal to create the “Linwood Lafayette Urban Development Assistance Area” at the site of the former Millard Fillmore Gates Circle Hospital.  So far I’ve had no takers.  An April 2, 2019 post here expressed my primary concerns, and was sent to the nine members of the Common Council within a day or so of its posting.  None of our city legislators replied (although Councilmember David Franczyk, while serving as chair of the legislative committee’s April 9th meeting, showed awareness of the issues I had posed, and kindly allowed me an opportunity to provide a “reader’s digest” version of my comments during the public meeting).  I followed up with an April 11th email message to each of the Common Councilmembers – which is set forth in full below – inviting the elected officials to contact me with any questions raised by the email or the issues I had presented orally on April 9.  Perhaps my letter-to-the-editor, printed in the April 15, 2019 Buffalo News – under the headline, “Pridgen wants to offer gift that may not be deserved,”  will be more effective in generating a response.  I’ll update this post if and when I hear from a Councilmember.

Meanwhile, here’s what I emailed to Buffalo’s governing body on April 11, 2019:

Common Council needs objective legal advice on BURA/TM Montante’s  proposed UDAA, not a “fig leaf”

Dear Council President and Councilmembers,

I am writing to you as a City of Buffalo resident who strongly believes that government officials and agencies must consistently strive to make decisions that are consistent with the letter and spirit of the law.  A lesser approach to governing weakens the public’s confidence in the fairness and integrity of both the decision-makers and the decision-making process.

As a lawyer who has spent more than four decades interpreting and studying state and local laws, I am convinced that the request by BURA and TM Montante Development to designate the Linwood Lafayette Urban Development Assistance Area (UDAA) contradicts the purpose of Article 16 of New York’s General Municipal Law (GML).  [Please note, I am not opposed to TM Montante Development’s redevelopment plans at the site, only to the designation of the proposed UDAA as a mechanism for restarting the stalled project.]

In my professional opinion, an objective reading of GML Section 691 (Article 16’s “policy and purposes” provision) establishes that the creation of a UDAA was never intended as a mechanism for bailing out an under-financed developer whose plans for an ambitious private project have encountered unanticipated complications.  To the contrary, Article 16’s generous incentives were designed to encourage hesitant private enterprises to partner with a municipality to correct blight and substandard conditions at city-owned properties that had been acquired through urban renewal or condemnation powers.

The authority to designate UDAA districts was intended to apply to narrow and specific circumstances which are not present at the Delaware-Linwood-Lafayette site.  The limited applicability of Article 16 almost certainly explains why this body has not seen a similar request for many years.

As Buffalo’s governing body, you are collectively faced with a significant issue of legislative intent that will set an important precedent throughout the city, not merely in the Ellicott District.  For that reason, I ask each of you to proceed cautiously and to give careful consideration to this matter before casting a vote to approve or disapprove the request.

While I appreciate the request made by Council President Pridgen at the April 9th legislation committee meeting for a written opinion on a number of legal issues raised during that proceeding, it is imperative that this body receive objective legal advice which will provide you with a meaningful basis for rendering your determination.  With all due respect to Scott Billman, Esq., it is difficult to see how BURA’s general counsel – the person who prepared the “permission request” submitted to the Common Council and City Planning Board – is in a position to provide an unbiased and neutral assessment of the legality of the proposed designation.  [You may also wish to question whether the city’s law department is able to provide objective legal advice on this issue given the Corporation Counsel’s position as a member of BURA’s board of directors.]

I am available to answer any questions that you may have regarding this correspondence, as well as the legal and factual matters that I previously raised at the April 9, 2019 legislation committee meeting, and in my April 2, 2019 blog post:  https://withallduerespectblog.com/2019/04/02/proposed-linwood-lafayette-udaa-shamelessly-distorts-intent-of-law/.

Thank you.

Respectfully submitted,

Arthur J. Giacalone

Note:  If you believe that the issue of compliance with the letter and spirit of our laws, and the integrity of governmental decision-making, are critical issues for the City of Buffalo, I urge you to contact one or all of the members of our city’s Common Council: dpridgen@city-buffalo.com; dfranczyk@city-buffalo.com <dfranczyk@city-buffalo.com>; jgolombek@city-buffalo.com; cscanlon@city-buffalo.com; darivera@city-buffalo.com; rfontana@city-buffalo.com; uwingo@city-buffalo.com

With All Due Respect,

Art Giacalone