i am doing so much better today. my back is nearly 100%, thanks to the rest and recuperation made possible by steven working from home yesterday, and now i can fill you all in on my recent letter to the editor.
our mayor’s father, andy tkazyik, owns and operates andy’s place, a local restaurant. (here’s our mayor. he has his own wiki page (!!!) and — apparently — a highly developed sense of self-importance.) the mayor works at the restaurant. in his campaign materials, his employment at the restaurant was listed as his only job. in 2006 or 2007, before the most recent election, the mayor’s father offered the city $2500 for the purchase of two lots that are landlocked by the rest of the property on which andy’s place is located. the city rejected the offer, citing the assessment value of $6000 as the primary reason. andy wanted the property for next to nothing. (he plans to expand the restaurant’s parking lot.) After his son became mayor, andy offered the city an oh-so-generous $3000 for the same two lots. again, the city rejected the offer, and, again, the city cited the $6000 assessment value as the reason. mayor tkazyik is a republican. while he was elected, the republicans lost all but one seat on the common council. there are eight seats on the council; seven are held by democrats. the lone republican on the council represents the ward in which andy’s place is located.
this gets stupidly complicated, so i’ll review …
1. the mayor’s father owns andy’s place, a restaurant in the city. the mayor works at the restaurant.
2. about a year before the mayor was elected, the mayor’s father offered the city $2500 for two lots (landlocked by his business property) that are assessed at a value of $6000. the common council rejected the offer, saying it was too low.
3. in april 2008, after his son assumed office, the mayor’s father offered the city $3000 for the two lots. again, his offer was rebuffed as being too low.
4. the mayor is a republican. there is only one other republican elected to the city council. he represents the ward in which the lots are located. the other seven members are democrats. of course, everyone’s claiming “politics” on all sides.
when this all went down in april, steven and i thought the mayor’s dad tried to take advantage of his son’s position as mayor and failed. accusations of partisanship were hurled, and — we figured — that was that.
that is, until we learned not long after (from a knowledgeable, but to-remain-anonymous source) that although the mayor’s father owns the restaurant, it is the mayor, himself, who manages the day-to-day operations of the business. the mayor is no simple employee, as he likes to portray himself. this information put the proposed land purchase in a slightly different light: the mayor has a direct and immediate interest in the successful purchase of the lots. the conflict of interest became more concrete, but, again, we thought the matter was resolved.
then at a recent may 2008 council meeting, the council received a report from a public works official that it would cost the city $600 to clean the two parcels. apparently, the republican council member who represents the ward with the controversial lots wants the city to pay for clean up of the parcels … a sort of punishment for not accepting the $3000 purchase offer. note the city has owned the property for 28 years (nearly as long as the mayor has been alive) and in the years the council member has sat on the council, he has never proposed cleanup of the land, until now.
the council rejected the proposed cleanup. but the property remains a controversial issue. what the mayor and his father should have done was pay the $6000 to the city and, thereby, enjoy the city’s goodwill and completely avoid the appearance of impropriety and conflicts of interest. supporters of the mayor and his father claim hateful partisanship by the democrats, citing the property is not on the tax rolls and the democrats’ selfishness is robbing the city of needed revenue (according to our calculations: about $50 per annum). frankly, we think the tkayziks’ paltry offer robs the city of more … revenue and honorable leadership.
so i wrote a letter to the paper. here it is:
Mayor should focus on city, not Andy’s Place
In reference to the article regarding the proposed cleanup of the two land parcels adjacent to Andy’s Place (”City could spend to clean controversial parcels,” May 21), the public should keep in mind that, as the owner’s son, the mayor has been an employee of the business and has a vested interest in the future operations and purchase of said land.
Ultimately, though, the exact ownership and management structure of Andy’s Place is irrelevant because the proverbial “appearance of a conflict of interest” is blazingly extant in this issue, and while the mayor is young, I certainly hope he is not so wet behind the ears to recognize this fact. Mayor Tkazyik would be much wiser to spend the next four years providing substantive leadership to the city and worry about brokering land deals in his father’s name after he leaves office.
Further, the mayor’s efforts have placed council member Thomas Parise in the embarrassing and woeful position of partisan puppet on the Common Council. Mayor Tkazyik has an opportunity to stave off a sorry and shameful mark against his political legacy and by doing so, free the Common Council’s resources to address issues with wider impact on the common good of the city. I hope he makes the ethically correct choice.
the editors rewrote my opening paragraph, but otherwise left the letter completely alone. what is notable about the letter is that the poughkeepsie journal printed it at all. as one of our friends puts it, “the journal prints only two kinds of letters: the ones that say, ‘i love god and so should you!’ and ’roundabouts are bad’.”