Unhappy Times in the Grand Duchy of Croton

OP ED

The British houses of Parliament observe a practice called “stating one’s interest” in which members reveal their connection to an issue before speaking on it. Let me state mine.

     I rise figuratively to express my deep disappointment with the current Democratic administration in Croton. Having turned 21 in 1939, I registered as a Democrat and proudly voted for FDR in the 1940 election. My record as a lifelong Democrat surely lends a measure of heft to my grievances. 

     Without taking the public pulse, this administration has pushed issue after issue in a high-handed, manorial fashion not seen since the Middle Ages in feudal Europe. The time has come for the serfs of Croton to express their displeasure at the repeated flouting of the principles of representative government.

     Here are a few examples of the indiscreet actions taken by this administration without adequate public discussion:

¶ Proposed cruel bow hunting of deer from tree stands in Croton parks while they were open to the public and even tested skills of bow hunters before legislation existed.

¶ Made ill-advised zoning changes in commercial areas under the guise of mixed use later deemed to be discriminatory by the monitor overseeing the 2009 settlement.

¶ Displayed ignorance of Croton’s zoning code by preparing to install already-purchased bike racks on sidewalks, and then red-facedly hastened to revoke the existing ban on sidewalk parking.

¶ Grossly underestimated costs of  the unnecessary redesign and reconstruction of a major thoroughfare to alleviate two brief weekday periods of heavy traffic that could be handled by merely staggering traffic lights.

¶ The same redesign project also damages local businesses by totally banning on-street parking to create bike lanes for a handful of seasonal bicycling commuters.

     A majority of trustees and the mayor are now falling all over themselves to accept the gift of the so-called Gouveia property plus an accompanying million dollars to be left in trust for the village pending the donor’s demise.

     The “gifted” property would not be immediately accessible to the public. The property’s tax burden, however, would instantly shift to village taxpayers because of Mrs. Gouveia’s demand to live on the property tax-free for the remainder of her life.

     Why the headlong rush by Croton officialdom to make the transfer happen when no firm plans exist for use of this veritable white elephant? The reason may be that this dubious “gift”--largely handled in off-the-record conversations with the would-be donor--is exactly what it appears to be: a sweetheart deal fraught with mendacity, misinformation and unanswered questions.

     The process has also been tainted by scare tactics tantamount to blackmail. There is no fairer word to describe the officially voiced suggestion that if Croton fails to accept Mrs. Gouveia’s terms, she will offer the property to an unidentified tax-exempt entity, such as a religious denomination.

     Croton lately seems to harbor more dark secrets than Peyton Place, novelist Grace Metalious’s notorious fictional community.

                                                                                                           

Shadow vs. Substance

OP ED

Six months ago in a letter in these pages describing my own experience in bicycling Croton’s streets, I pointed out that many states and communities had passed so-called bike laws setting reasonable rules for observance by bicyclists and motorists. New York State has no bicycle law, but it does have a helmet law that only requires a helmet to be worn by cyclists under 13 years of age.

I urged Croton to consider passing its own bike law. Unfortunately, a prophet is without honor even in his own village, especially when that village is so bureaucratically top-heavy and ponderous as to resemble a Hapsburgian principality in Mitteleuropa.

One might reasonably expect our village administration to demonstrate concern for safe bicycling in a meaningful way. Instead, by providing parking for bicyclists on sidewalks in contravention of existing law, this administration prefers a shallow scheme to encourage business in the Upper Village instead of genuine action to protect bicyclists and the public.

Croton can very easily regulate and promote the safe operation of bicycles through the exercise of its legal powers. And what would such local legislation include?

It would define bicycles as vehicles with the right to use streets and roads in Croton. It would also identify specific areas where biking would be forbidden.

Motorists must not sound loud blasts of a horn when driving behind bicyclists.

Motorists overtaking and passing bicyclists on the left would be required do so no closer than 3 feet. It would also require them to use caution when opening doors of parked cars. Being “doored” is a common hazard to bicyclists.

Bicyclists must obey traffic lights and signal turns or their intention to stop by means of hand signals. Failure to do this is the cause of most fatal bicycle accidents.

Bicyclists must give the right-of-way to pedestrians in crosswalks.

All bicyclists must wear protective headgear.

Wearing headphones on both ears by bicyclists would be prohibited.

Each bicycle must be equipped with reflective red taillight, rearview mirror, and bell or other attention-getting device. If operated at night, an illuminated headlight and taillight must be provided.

One might expect that Croton’s current administration would recognize the hazards in bicycling and make safety a top priority.

One might expect this—but one would be terribly disappointed.

When a Village Administration Holds Its Citizens in Contempt

OP ED

Good Lord, deliver us. Despite the lack of statistics on the number of bicyclists in Croton, this village seems mindlessly bent on encouraging bicycle parking on Croton’s narrow sidewalks. The vain hope is that this gesture will relieve automobile parking woes and give a boost to local businesses.

In a glaring example of political elitism at its worst, Croton has identified and marked sites on sidewalks in the Upper Village for placement of so-called bike racks, although “bat-winged hitching posts” would be a more fitting term for what they have in mind.

Lacking opposition, our single-party village board storms ahead, pathetically unaware that it is working at cross-purposes with the village code. It so happens that Section 197-1 of the code enjoins riding a bicycle on any sidewalk in Croton and specifically forbids the parking of any part of a bicycle on any sidewalk or curb.

It also so happens that Mayor Leo Wiegman was a trustee in 2005 and voted for Local Law No. 4 that added the sidewalk parking prohibition to the original code--a crucial fact he seems to have forgotten.

Isn’t anyone in this administration familiar with the laws they are charged with enforcing? Seymour Waldman, the respected former village attorney who kept Croton out of trouble for many years before being squeezed out by a Republican majority, would have spotted the goof instantly.

Having facilitated the violation of the village code to reinforce its green bona fides, the mayor and trustees will now scramble in disorderly haste to revoke legislation previously enacted in the interest of public safety.

Robotic Croton  boards have awkwardly backed into embarrassing situations in the past. The skate park disaster of bitter memory springs to mind. Before embarking on that costly venture, no effort was made to ascertain the number of skateboarders in the area who might use the facility. Instead, the village board caved in to what turned out to have been a small, highly vocal pressure group.

In a foolish attempt to make a recreational facility pay its own way, Croton set an exorbitant admission price, causing it to be poorly patronized. A white elephant from the outset, the skate park was quietly abandoned and its elaborate equipment sold for scrap.

The current village administration has similarly shown itself to have a collective tin ear and to be chronically short on common sense. Other recent examples include:

(1) The overweening favoritism shown to a farmers market at the expense of tax-paying local merchants. Croton rents the former skate park site to this for-profit organization at a ridiculously modest fee of $75 and throws in Village services at no charge. Yet a Croton resident must pay $275, almost four times as much, to rent Senasqua Park for a graduation party.

(2) The bizarre proposal by the Village to allow cruel bowhunting of deer in Croton’s parks and sanctuaries while they were being used by the public. This dangerous proposal met with such vehement resistance it was quietly quashed—but not before the impatient village administration jumped the gun by testing the skills of bloodthirsty bowhunters eager for official sanction.

(3) Innumerable expensive studies by consultants have been commissioned and found to be useless. The $100,000 station parking garage report is a prime example.

No heads rolled in elections following these fiascoes. Politicians regularly promise that they will “run government like a business.” Too often their business model turns out to be the famously bankrupt Lehman Brothers.