Recently as the president of the Chandler Business Association he inserted himself in the local news by criticizing SMOC’s interest in buying a building on Chandler St. The T&G played up the controversy. WOMAG played it down. InCity Times...
Typical of the T&G, it's reporting was incoherent. But the contribution from WOMAG was enlightening, not for the facts, rather for the political gobbledygook from Councilor Rick and Mayor Joe. Politicians huh?
Noticeably missing from the controversy is D4’s Councilor Babs, as in Barbara Haller. Guess she's too busy farting around with a chicken ordinance to care about social services issues. Thought that was her forte?
But it’s really not about them is it? And it’s not about the CBA. It’s really just about Paulie Collyer, the guy who started the controversy. Heck, the gosh darn MLK Center doesn’t even belong to him, yet he wants to dictate who can buy it. Or for that matter who can use the sidewalks along Chandler St. Pretty ballsy eh?
So what's Paulie’s stake in all this? What’s he stand to gain or lose? The fact is, he has no stake whatsoever. The fact is Paulie doesn't even own a business in the city. Owns no real property - checked the assessor’s records, no Paul W. Collyer, no Mets Place, no Battenkill. Checked the State’s Registry of Deeds too. Na da.
Some folks may take umbrage at Paulie’s attempt to hinder a social service agency trying to bring its services to the urban core. I don't. He's entitled to an opinion. The louder the better. But for some unknown reason he thinks posting a sign on a building will influence the situation. Go figa.
It has to be clear to Paulie that the powers that be have no interest whatsoever in hindering SMOC. Why should they. It’s futile. SMOC has the law on its side. And an election is coming up.
A real businessman would be thinking about how to capitalize on the situation.
