CURRENT AFFAIRS
Fashions and technology change with time, but swindles, it seems, go on forever. In the late 19th century, a favorite con game was the Spanish Prisoner swindle. In this scam, a victim would be singled out and fed a story about a wealthy nobleman languishing in a Spanish prison. If the prisoner could be sprung from durance vile, the person paying his modest ransom would be made rich beyond the dreams of avarice. Occasionally, it was hinted that the prisoner had a beautiful and marriageable daughter. Film buffs may recall that in 1997 David Mamet wrote and directed an intricate confidence-game movie titled, The Spanish Prisoner.
In today’s electronic world, the hoary Spanish Prisoner scam has given way to a new breed of confidence games on the Internet. One of these involves a hidden bequest totaling millions of dollars lying unclaimed in a faraway country, often somewhere in Africa. Another new swindle can best be described as the Stranded Traveler scam in which a friend or acquaintance claims to be traveling abroad and to have left a case containing money, credit cards and valuable documents in a taxi and asks for the loan of a large sum.
The Scam Begins
Few of us have not been exposed in one way or another to this new electronic crime wave of messages that depend on identity theft and the gullibility of its victims. My own brush with identity theft began one recent Friday afternoon when I discovered the following message in my incoming e-mail mailbox with the subject title “Very Urgent”: (NOTE: Original punctuation and spacing errors in messages have been preserved.)
I am writing you in a tensed mood, I had traveled to Spain to visit a new researchers complex (Imperial College, Gallery Section, Barcelona) and unfortunately for me the hotel i lodged got razed by fire. I am so confused right now, I don't know what to do or where to go. I didn't bring my phones here and the hotel telephone lines were disconnected during the incident. So I have access to only emails.
Please can you lend me 960.00 GBP = (1,402.15 USD)for me to relocate to another hotel and also get another flight ticket. As soon as I get home I would refund it immediately.Please I need you to get back to me as soon as possible.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Thanks and Regards,
John Curran
At first glance, this might seem to be a reasonable request. I recognized the name and originating address (brainman2u@yahoo.com) as that of John Curran, the Peekskill City Historian. I have never met Mr. Curran. Although I once sent him an e-mail about historical errors I had found in the Peekskill Museum’s website, I cannot say that I knew him. In fact, our casual relationship would make me a rather unlikely candidate to be hit on for such a large emergency loan.
Moreover, there were several aspects of the message that did not ring true: For one, the initial amount was requested in British pounds and then converted to a dollar amount. But my research showed that the exchange rate between British pounds and US dollars of the message was not the current rate. The message’s pounds to dollars conversion rate of 1.4605729 was wrong. Someone had obviously taken the figure of 960 pounds and converted it to dollars using a rate no longer current. On June 25, the British pound had “soared,” and 960 British pounds would have been the equivalent of $1,446.29. The exchange rate quoted in the e-mail was several weeks out of date—a careless error on the part of the sender.
Research by me on the Internet revealed that the only area of scientific interest the Imperial College of London had in Barcelona was in symposia on blood chemistry. A local historian from Peekskill would hardly be attending such meetings. Also troubling to me was the unusual use of English words and phrases: “I am writing you in a tensed mood”; “the hotel I lodged got razed by fire”; and “flight ticket” for the more common “plane ticket.” Quite obviously, someone for whom English was not the first language had gotten hold of Mr. Curran’s e-mail address and, in effect, his identity.
Computer security experts advise ignoring and destroying all messages that ask for money, or that notify the recipient of a multimillion-dollar bequest or a huge lottery prize for which a nominal fee must be paid in order to collect the money. My own advice goes even further: It is to erase without reading all messages from senders whose names you do not recognize. Above all, recipients should never open any attachment or link to a strange message.
Because I could find no telephone number for Mr. Curran in Peekskill to alert him to the message, I decided to go along with what obviously was a scam. Responding to the message by sending a warning to Mr. Curran at the return e-mail address would have been futile. It was obvious that someone had obtained Mr. Curran’s password and mailing list, and had changed his password. In effect, Mr. Curran was now locked out of his own e-mail messages.
Accordingly, I decided to turn the tables on the identity thief and sent a return message telling “Mr. Curran” that I sympathized with him in his predicament, but added that few people had that much cash available, and the banks were now closed. I pointed out that if he had lost his passport, airline ticket and credit cards, my wife—who had worked for the State Department abroad--suggested that he go to the American consulate in Barcelona, and they would arrange to issue a new passport and help him in other ways. In the meantime, I would work on the problem of getting the money together for him.
In response, I received the following message under the subject heading of “My Hopes on you”:
Thanks, I would appreciate whatever you send to me. I am really elated. This is one experience I would not forget in a hurry, my bills are still piling up. Here are my details for western union transfer:
John Curran
Carrer Ribes, 71, Barcelona 08013
Please send me the full transfer details or attach the receipt when done. Thanks
I now had a street address in Barcelona--something to work on. Research on the Internet revealed that 71 Carrer de Ribes in Barcelona is the address of the Best Western Hotel del Teatro Auditori, near a well-known Barcelona concert hall. It is one of four Best Western hotels in that city, all popular with Americans.
In my response to this message on Sunday, I told “Mr. Curran” that he had many more friends than perhaps he realized. His “rescue fund” had been oversubscribed, and I would have $2,500 available to send to him the following day (Monday) after the banks opened, but he’d have to give me more specific delivery instructions.
I added that No. 71 Carrer de Ribes seemed to be the address of the Best Western Hotel del Teatro Auditori, so I guessed that meant he must have found lodging. I specifically asked him for the address of the nearest Western Union office to which to send the funds. I added, “We are anxious to get you home safely.”
I received the following response:
It is the Hotel and there is a western union outlet close by. If you send it I would be able to get the money from the western union outlet. Please send me a scanned copy of the receipt when done, it would facilitate an easy access to the funds. Please keep me in your prayers.
It was obvious that “Mr. Curran” was not about to designate a specific Western Union address to which the money should be sent. Although I doubt that Barcelona police would even bother, it was obvious that our “Mr. Curran” was not anxious to be confronted by a police detective when he called to pick up his remittance. In my response to this message, I again asked him to specify delivery details and to specify the amount needed. The following was his response late Sunday evening:
Thanks for your efforts. Please send the amount as it would cover all costs over here. Please send me the scanned receipt after sending it this morning as it would go a long way in ensuring I get the money without any problem. Thanks again.
The Trap Is Sprung
By Monday morning I knew the time was drawing near to bring this little charade to a close. Still unable to reach the real John Curran, I did a bit of Internet sleuthing and obtained detailed personal information about him that only an experienced Internet genealogical researcher could ferret out. I sent the phony “Mr. Curran” the following e-mail:
John: It took a little longer than I expected to get the money together. I have decided that $1,750.00 should be enough to cover all your expenses. This is $350.00 more than the amount you originally wrote that you needed. As you agreed, this money is to be repaid upon your return to the United States.
Before transmitting the money to you, however, I want to be sure that I am dealing with the real John Curran. Accordingly, I shall send you the sum of $1,750.00 via Western Union immediately in Barcelona if you will answer the following questions:
1. What is the name of the cross street nearest to the Museum?
2. What is your age?
3. What was your mother's maiden name?
4. What is the date of your father's death?
5. Where is your father buried?
These five simple questions involve information only you can know and should be easy for you to answer. They do not involve remembering credit card numbers or passport numbers or similar information you may have forgotten.
As they say in Chinese laundries, "No tickee, no shirtee."
Needless to say, all correspondence ceased with “John Curran,” supposedly a traveler from Peekskill stranded in Spain.
The real John Curran called me later that morning from the Peekskill Museum. “I understand you have been trying to reach me,” he said. He was already well aware of the commotion that had been stirred up in this part of Westchester by a flood of bogus e-mail messages from Spain.
It turned out that he had been moving to a new address that weekend, and could not be reached. Sheepishly, he admitted that he had caused the entire brouhaha by foolishly responding to a message purporting to be from his Internet service provider warning him that his service would be discontinued if he did not “re-register” his e-mail address and password immediately.
Of course, the moment he furnished his password, the scammer was able to change his password and thus deny him access to his own e-mail address. From that point on, all correspondence directed to Mr. Curran went right into the scammer’s hands.
I related the story of my “excellent adventure” to Mr. Curran. He was both pleased that the swindler had gotten his comeuppance and surprised that I had been able to uncover so much personal information about him and his family to trip up the scammer. I had to explain to him that there is more information on the Internet available to skilled researchers than most people realize.
He was also interested in what could be done about tracking down the culprit. I explained to him that trying to uncover the identity of the scammer would be difficult. The Spanish police would not expend much effort, especially since Mr. Curran had himself supplied his password to the scammer.
With unemployment in Spain hovering at 20%, I told Mr. Curran that the person he was seeking was probably an unemployed youth with a knowledge of English and familiarity with computers and the Internet. and a script and address list—one of thousands no out of a job.. At that very moment, he was probably pensively sitting at a café table somewhere in Barcelona, a cigarette dangling from his lips. From time to time, he would look up from the screen of his laptop and gaze toward the west, where lay a faraway country with streets paved with gold and where, for one brief moment, some easy money was almost in his grasp--or so he thought..
It turns out that Shakespeare was right. Even though the Internet and identity theft were five centuries in the future, in Othello, he has Iago say, “Who steals my purse steals trash,” and follows this with, “But he who filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him, and makes me poor indeed.”
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Going to the Dogs: Another Croton Folly
CURRENT AFFAIRS
In his novel A Walk on the Wild Side, Chicago writer Nelson Algren famously coined two memorable maxims: (1) “Never play cards with someone named ‘Doc.’” (2) “Never eat at a restaurant called ‘Mom’s.” To these twin insights I would add a third: “Never trust conventional wisdom. It’s usually wrong.”
To demonstrate just how wrong conventional wisdom can be, consider this: On July 21, 2008, in response to the urgings of a small group of dog owners spouting pseudo-science, Croton’s Village Board passed Local Law No. 4 creating an area at Black Rock Park where dogs could be allowed to run unleashed.
The assertions that had been made in favor of the establishment of a so-called “dog park” reflected conventional wisdom and were accepted by the Village Board without question. And, as so often is the case, conventional wisdom was wrong. For example, a frequently voiced statement went like this: “Dogs are descended from wolves. And wolves are pack animals. Therefore, dogs, being pack animals like the wolves they are descended from, need to run with a pack “
Dogs are indeed genetic wolves. The fatal flaw in the dog-park advocates’ argument, however, lies in their ignorance of the fact that in the wild, wolves don’t live in packs of unrelated wolves. Early research on the social lives of wolves was based on studies of captive wolf populations composed of unrelated individuals forced to live in enclosures. Captive wolves are almost never members of natural families. The image of wolf packs and alpha wolves promulgated by self-promoting dog-behavior “experts” is wrong and has no foundation in fact.
In no way do the relationships in wolf families resemble the actions of heterogeneous collections of unrelated wolves in captivity, nor do they have an alpha male who fights other wolves to maintain his dominance. The latter is a behavior worked out by captive wolves to overcome the artificial conditions of their captivity. Animal expert Temple Grandin characterizes such captive wolves (and this includes dogs brought to a dog park to socialize) as a “forced pack.”
The Truth About Wolves
Thanks to intensive research by animal biologists like Dr. David Mech (pronounced “Meech”) who made a 13-year study of wolves in the Canadian Arctic, the last stand of the wolves in the wild in North America, we now have detailed knowledge of the social interaction that takes place among wolves. In the wild wolves live the way humans do: in families made up of a mother, a father and their children, all clearly understanding their hierarchical familial relationships.
Wolves exhibit traits and characteristics that humans might emulate in their desire to live together amicably. So-called “wolf packs” are merely families consisting of a mom and a dad and their pups at various stages of life. In no way do wolf families resemble the assorted breeds and sizes and temperaments of dogs that might be found in a dog park. Wolves mate for life and are monogamous. Young wolves from previous breeding seasons support their parents in the training and raising pups of later litters.
Some dog-training manuals talk about “pack leadership” and tell new owners that they must establish themselves as the pack “alpha.” Such concepts are based on outdated captive wolf studies that imply a rigid, force-based dominance hierarchy. And they are hopelessly wrong. What every newly adopted dog or puppy needs is not for his owner to be a domineering alpha wolf but a foster parent to guide him or her in growing up to be a socially well-adjusted dog through patient, firm and loving training. Dogs were meant to be friendly companion animals, not cowering submissive slaves.
Another argument frequently heard from proponents of a Croton dog park was that dogs need exercise. Indeed they do. But the conventional wisdom of dog-park advocates holds that exercise can only be achieved by allowing dogs to run unleashed with other dogs. This is arrant nonsense. Veterinarians will tell you that a good brisk walk of an hour each day will give even large breeds all the exercise they need, and will benefit the dog walker as well. Dogs need people, play and the opportunity to explore and learn. Only people can satisfy those needs.
Common sense, practicality and economy would have dictated a different outcome. Instead of the present practice of forcing dogs to be walked on sidewalks or in streets, Croton could have imitated county and state parks and allowed dogs to be walked on leashes in Croton’s parks—provided that owners or walkers cleaned up after them. Fights between leashed dogs would be unlikely. Instead Croton opted for a dog park—or rather for its concept of what no reasonable person would call a dog park.
Fees and Fines
Croton, it seems, has never met a fee or a fine it didn’t like. This village simply cannot resist trying to extract additional revenue from residents at every opportunity. Once again exhibiting its usual marketing and pricing ineptitude, the Village Board added the requirement that resident users of the dog park, taxpayers all, pay a fee of $25. Also contributing to the low level of usage has been Croton’s restriction on admission to the park to dogs owned by Croton residents. Incidentally, the towns of Cortlandt and Ossining both operate dog parks that have no residency limitations.
A few neighbors of the proposed dog park had expressed early concerns about noise and other nuisances a dog park would bring. They needn’t have worried. Although the $25 fee has been rescinded, usage of the dog park has been extremely low.
One might say that Croton had once again shot itself in the foot. Apparently Croton learned nothing from its experience with the skate park of bitter memory. Responding to the importuning of a small number of parents and young people, and without doing any marketing research on potential usage, Croton created an elaborate skate park and hired an attendant. It then proceeded to doom its skate park with a intricate usage schedule and exorbitant fees. Usage dropped off quickly. Croton was soon left with a veritable white elephant slowly deteriorating from the effects of harsh weather.
A Travesty of a Dog Park
A well-designed dog park exhibits several basic characteristics: It is fenced on all sides and it provides separate areas for large dogs and small dogs. To describe Croton’s Black Rock dog park as minimal would be an insult to the minimalist movement. “Bare-boned and anemic" would be a better description. Croton erected a short length of four-foot high chain-link fence stretching from the Croton River to the base of the slope leading to Quaker Bridge Road, and called it a dog park. A small holding area with double gates allows dogs and owners to enter and exit without risking the escape of a dog. In addition to its small size, the Croton dog park also lacks a source of drinking water other than the river. Croton has managed to create a travesty of the dog park concept.
And an Accident Waiting to Happen
The major flaw in Croton’s Black Rock dog park is that no provision is made for separate areas for small dogs and large dogs. Not only do dogs come in all shapes and sizes, they come with a variety of dispositions and personalities.
Small dogs can be unexpectedly aggressive, and large dogs can be surprisingly laid back. But the combination of a large, aggressive dog and a small, timid dog is usually fatal. And the incendiary combination of two large and aggressive dogs engaged in a fight to the death is not a pretty sight. One reason groups of dogs in dog parks can act unpredictably is that most dog have lost the submissive behaviors and signals that allow wolves to live together in groups.
Although dog owners bring their dogs to dog parks to socialize, the chasing and nipping that sometimes occurs is incipient aggression and can turn into something more serious. Also, aggressive behavior on the part of large dogs toward smaller dogs may not be the result of aggression but what animal behaviorists call predatory drift, the ancient inclination to hunt small game as prey.
Not only is Croton’s single-enclosure dog park a travesty on a safe dog park, it is an accident waiting to happen. In this not completely enclosed area, a frightened small dog could easily be chased into the river and drown, or be chased up the hill and be killed by an automobile on Quaker Bridge Road.
The killing of smaller dogs in dog parks by other dogs has been reported many times in newspapers—but such reports are usually only carried locally and are not widely circulated. For an account of one such incident in a poorly designed dog park go to this link:
(2) Never reach for the collar of an attacking dog. You risk being severely bitten. And be careful about what you say to the owner of an aggressive dog; such owners are often also aggressive and unreasonable.
(3) Some dog owners make it a point to walk with a walking stick or a cane. But even being struck forcefully with a stick will not stop some vicious dogs.
(4) One of the most effective tools a dog owner can carry is pepper spray. A canister of pepper spray may legally be bought in New York State in drug stores and gun shops. A squirt or two in the eyes of even the most vicious attacking dog will take the fight out of him and causes no permanent damage.
(5) If you don’t have pepper spray, one technique is to step behind the attacking dog and grab him by his rear legs, lifting them off the ground. This will put him in a “wheelbarrow” position and render him less able to continue attacking your dog or you.
(6) In the final analysis, the best way to stop a dogfight involving your dog is not to put your dog in a situation where a dogfight can happen.
Croton's dog park at Black Rock appears to be the Village's best-kept secret. No mention of it is made anywhere on the Village's website, nor is any information given about its location, hours of operation or rules of use and behavior for owners and dogs. This hush-hush approach successfully limits usage of a facility that is tantamount to what lawyers call "an attractive nuisance." Nevertheless, the paucity of publicity about Croton's dog park does not excuse Croton of liability stemming from the operation of a badly designed dog park that is dangerously unsafe for dogs, especially smaller dogs.
Croton Landing would afford Croton the opportunity to create a bigger and better-designed dog park. But whether dog owners bring their dogs to the inherently dangerous Black Rock Dog Park or to a newer and larger dog park at Croton Landing, the cautions expressed in this essay should be observed.
Disclosure: I acquired my first companion animal, a German shepherd dog named “King,” at the age of ten. I still bear on my right wrist the wound scar that resulted when at age twelve I tried to deter a pit bull from attacking my dog.
My wife and I have lived with dogs, cats and other animals all our married lives. Our children have grown up with animals because we feel it is important for children to be aware that we share this planet with animals—after all, they were here first. I am familiar with the literature on dog psychology and dog behavior and have an extensive library of the subject.
My wife and I have never used the Croton dog park and we never will, with or without a fee. As dog owners, we consider it our duty to protect our dog from harm. It is irresponsible for owners, especially those who care about and expend considerable sums on examinations and inoculations, to expose a dog unnecessarily to other dogs whose owners may not share similar concerns for their dogs’ health or safety.
In his novel A Walk on the Wild Side, Chicago writer Nelson Algren famously coined two memorable maxims: (1) “Never play cards with someone named ‘Doc.’” (2) “Never eat at a restaurant called ‘Mom’s.” To these twin insights I would add a third: “Never trust conventional wisdom. It’s usually wrong.”
To demonstrate just how wrong conventional wisdom can be, consider this: On July 21, 2008, in response to the urgings of a small group of dog owners spouting pseudo-science, Croton’s Village Board passed Local Law No. 4 creating an area at Black Rock Park where dogs could be allowed to run unleashed.
The assertions that had been made in favor of the establishment of a so-called “dog park” reflected conventional wisdom and were accepted by the Village Board without question. And, as so often is the case, conventional wisdom was wrong. For example, a frequently voiced statement went like this: “Dogs are descended from wolves. And wolves are pack animals. Therefore, dogs, being pack animals like the wolves they are descended from, need to run with a pack “
Dogs are indeed genetic wolves. The fatal flaw in the dog-park advocates’ argument, however, lies in their ignorance of the fact that in the wild, wolves don’t live in packs of unrelated wolves. Early research on the social lives of wolves was based on studies of captive wolf populations composed of unrelated individuals forced to live in enclosures. Captive wolves are almost never members of natural families. The image of wolf packs and alpha wolves promulgated by self-promoting dog-behavior “experts” is wrong and has no foundation in fact.
In no way do the relationships in wolf families resemble the actions of heterogeneous collections of unrelated wolves in captivity, nor do they have an alpha male who fights other wolves to maintain his dominance. The latter is a behavior worked out by captive wolves to overcome the artificial conditions of their captivity. Animal expert Temple Grandin characterizes such captive wolves (and this includes dogs brought to a dog park to socialize) as a “forced pack.”
The Truth About Wolves
Thanks to intensive research by animal biologists like Dr. David Mech (pronounced “Meech”) who made a 13-year study of wolves in the Canadian Arctic, the last stand of the wolves in the wild in North America, we now have detailed knowledge of the social interaction that takes place among wolves. In the wild wolves live the way humans do: in families made up of a mother, a father and their children, all clearly understanding their hierarchical familial relationships.
Wolves exhibit traits and characteristics that humans might emulate in their desire to live together amicably. So-called “wolf packs” are merely families consisting of a mom and a dad and their pups at various stages of life. In no way do wolf families resemble the assorted breeds and sizes and temperaments of dogs that might be found in a dog park. Wolves mate for life and are monogamous. Young wolves from previous breeding seasons support their parents in the training and raising pups of later litters.
Some dog-training manuals talk about “pack leadership” and tell new owners that they must establish themselves as the pack “alpha.” Such concepts are based on outdated captive wolf studies that imply a rigid, force-based dominance hierarchy. And they are hopelessly wrong. What every newly adopted dog or puppy needs is not for his owner to be a domineering alpha wolf but a foster parent to guide him or her in growing up to be a socially well-adjusted dog through patient, firm and loving training. Dogs were meant to be friendly companion animals, not cowering submissive slaves.
Another argument frequently heard from proponents of a Croton dog park was that dogs need exercise. Indeed they do. But the conventional wisdom of dog-park advocates holds that exercise can only be achieved by allowing dogs to run unleashed with other dogs. This is arrant nonsense. Veterinarians will tell you that a good brisk walk of an hour each day will give even large breeds all the exercise they need, and will benefit the dog walker as well. Dogs need people, play and the opportunity to explore and learn. Only people can satisfy those needs.
Common sense, practicality and economy would have dictated a different outcome. Instead of the present practice of forcing dogs to be walked on sidewalks or in streets, Croton could have imitated county and state parks and allowed dogs to be walked on leashes in Croton’s parks—provided that owners or walkers cleaned up after them. Fights between leashed dogs would be unlikely. Instead Croton opted for a dog park—or rather for its concept of what no reasonable person would call a dog park.
Fees and Fines
Croton, it seems, has never met a fee or a fine it didn’t like. This village simply cannot resist trying to extract additional revenue from residents at every opportunity. Once again exhibiting its usual marketing and pricing ineptitude, the Village Board added the requirement that resident users of the dog park, taxpayers all, pay a fee of $25. Also contributing to the low level of usage has been Croton’s restriction on admission to the park to dogs owned by Croton residents. Incidentally, the towns of Cortlandt and Ossining both operate dog parks that have no residency limitations.
A few neighbors of the proposed dog park had expressed early concerns about noise and other nuisances a dog park would bring. They needn’t have worried. Although the $25 fee has been rescinded, usage of the dog park has been extremely low.
One might say that Croton had once again shot itself in the foot. Apparently Croton learned nothing from its experience with the skate park of bitter memory. Responding to the importuning of a small number of parents and young people, and without doing any marketing research on potential usage, Croton created an elaborate skate park and hired an attendant. It then proceeded to doom its skate park with a intricate usage schedule and exorbitant fees. Usage dropped off quickly. Croton was soon left with a veritable white elephant slowly deteriorating from the effects of harsh weather.
A Travesty of a Dog Park
A well-designed dog park exhibits several basic characteristics: It is fenced on all sides and it provides separate areas for large dogs and small dogs. To describe Croton’s Black Rock dog park as minimal would be an insult to the minimalist movement. “Bare-boned and anemic" would be a better description. Croton erected a short length of four-foot high chain-link fence stretching from the Croton River to the base of the slope leading to Quaker Bridge Road, and called it a dog park. A small holding area with double gates allows dogs and owners to enter and exit without risking the escape of a dog. In addition to its small size, the Croton dog park also lacks a source of drinking water other than the river. Croton has managed to create a travesty of the dog park concept.
And an Accident Waiting to Happen
The major flaw in Croton’s Black Rock dog park is that no provision is made for separate areas for small dogs and large dogs. Not only do dogs come in all shapes and sizes, they come with a variety of dispositions and personalities.
Small dogs can be unexpectedly aggressive, and large dogs can be surprisingly laid back. But the combination of a large, aggressive dog and a small, timid dog is usually fatal. And the incendiary combination of two large and aggressive dogs engaged in a fight to the death is not a pretty sight. One reason groups of dogs in dog parks can act unpredictably is that most dog have lost the submissive behaviors and signals that allow wolves to live together in groups.
Although dog owners bring their dogs to dog parks to socialize, the chasing and nipping that sometimes occurs is incipient aggression and can turn into something more serious. Also, aggressive behavior on the part of large dogs toward smaller dogs may not be the result of aggression but what animal behaviorists call predatory drift, the ancient inclination to hunt small game as prey.
Not only is Croton’s single-enclosure dog park a travesty on a safe dog park, it is an accident waiting to happen. In this not completely enclosed area, a frightened small dog could easily be chased into the river and drown, or be chased up the hill and be killed by an automobile on Quaker Bridge Road.
The killing of smaller dogs in dog parks by other dogs has been reported many times in newspapers—but such reports are usually only carried locally and are not widely circulated. For an account of one such incident in a poorly designed dog park go to this link:
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/features/mutts/blog/2008/06/death_at_a_dog_park.html
Anyone foolish enough to bring a dog to a badly designed dog park like Croton’s that fails to separate small breeds from large is asking for trouble. The dog parks created by the towns of Cortlandt and Ossining both have separate areas for small dogs and large dogs.
It’s surprising, too, that Croton dog owners blithely expose their dogs to the hazard of a dogfight and yet are totally unprepared when a dogfight occurs. All dog owners should know what to do to stop a dogfight. Here are six tips to remember:
(1) Screaming or yelling at a dog or dogs in a dogfight is ineffective.Anyone foolish enough to bring a dog to a badly designed dog park like Croton’s that fails to separate small breeds from large is asking for trouble. The dog parks created by the towns of Cortlandt and Ossining both have separate areas for small dogs and large dogs.
It’s surprising, too, that Croton dog owners blithely expose their dogs to the hazard of a dogfight and yet are totally unprepared when a dogfight occurs. All dog owners should know what to do to stop a dogfight. Here are six tips to remember:
(2) Never reach for the collar of an attacking dog. You risk being severely bitten. And be careful about what you say to the owner of an aggressive dog; such owners are often also aggressive and unreasonable.
(3) Some dog owners make it a point to walk with a walking stick or a cane. But even being struck forcefully with a stick will not stop some vicious dogs.
(4) One of the most effective tools a dog owner can carry is pepper spray. A canister of pepper spray may legally be bought in New York State in drug stores and gun shops. A squirt or two in the eyes of even the most vicious attacking dog will take the fight out of him and causes no permanent damage.
(5) If you don’t have pepper spray, one technique is to step behind the attacking dog and grab him by his rear legs, lifting them off the ground. This will put him in a “wheelbarrow” position and render him less able to continue attacking your dog or you.
(6) In the final analysis, the best way to stop a dogfight involving your dog is not to put your dog in a situation where a dogfight can happen.
Croton's dog park at Black Rock appears to be the Village's best-kept secret. No mention of it is made anywhere on the Village's website, nor is any information given about its location, hours of operation or rules of use and behavior for owners and dogs. This hush-hush approach successfully limits usage of a facility that is tantamount to what lawyers call "an attractive nuisance." Nevertheless, the paucity of publicity about Croton's dog park does not excuse Croton of liability stemming from the operation of a badly designed dog park that is dangerously unsafe for dogs, especially smaller dogs.
The agenda for a Village work session on March 22, 2010, stated that Croton’s Board of Trustees would consider moving its little-used dog park from Black Rock to Croton Landing. Nothing about its work-session dog-park decision was posted on the Village website. An inquirer at the Village office was later told that a decision had been reached to leave the dog park where it is.
In the absence of any reasons for this decision, one can presume that it was made because a dog park at Croton Landing would legally have to be open to dogs from everywhere. Dogs are innately curious about other members of the family Canidae, but never ask to see their “papers” or demand to know from whence they came.
In the absence of any reasons for this decision, one can presume that it was made because a dog park at Croton Landing would legally have to be open to dogs from everywhere. Dogs are innately curious about other members of the family Canidae, but never ask to see their “papers” or demand to know from whence they came.
Croton Landing would afford Croton the opportunity to create a bigger and better-designed dog park. But whether dog owners bring their dogs to the inherently dangerous Black Rock Dog Park or to a newer and larger dog park at Croton Landing, the cautions expressed in this essay should be observed.
Disclosure: I acquired my first companion animal, a German shepherd dog named “King,” at the age of ten. I still bear on my right wrist the wound scar that resulted when at age twelve I tried to deter a pit bull from attacking my dog.
My wife and I have lived with dogs, cats and other animals all our married lives. Our children have grown up with animals because we feel it is important for children to be aware that we share this planet with animals—after all, they were here first. I am familiar with the literature on dog psychology and dog behavior and have an extensive library of the subject.
My wife and I have never used the Croton dog park and we never will, with or without a fee. As dog owners, we consider it our duty to protect our dog from harm. It is irresponsible for owners, especially those who care about and expend considerable sums on examinations and inoculations, to expose a dog unnecessarily to other dogs whose owners may not share similar concerns for their dogs’ health or safety.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
The Valor of Ignorance: Green Cheese, Gateways and Mixed Use
OP ED
“This past year I formed an Economic Development Committee to investigate the possibility that Mount Airy is made of green cheese. We have looked into this and are now at a stage of being able to go forward with the sale of this cheese. What we want now is for the village to take the lead in marketing our plans and to get the public to buy into it. We want to encourage the public to take a big part in this process so as to avoid opposition down the road.”
The above satirical parody closely parallels a widely circulated sentiment expressed by a Croton trustee. It exemplifies the habit of Croton officials and planners to accept and vote on proposed legislation despite the lack of supporting data. Mount Airy may or may not be composed of green cheese, or cream cheese--but we would never know for sure unless we investigated what lies beneath the surface.
The lifeblood of sound and sensible scientific planning lies in the collection of observable and measurable evidence and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Instead, Croton has the annoying habit of denying reality and making decisions unsupported by data. These decisions are then represented as the product of serious scientific investigation to be “sold” to the public. An added paradox is that Croton planners insist on hiring consultants who, like them, fail to recognize the unusual nature of Croton’s commercial economy.
First, let’s explore the repeated denial of reality. Croton’s officials and planners have consistently closed their eyes to its unusual history and peculiar marketing geography, make it anything but typical of a lower Hudson Valley community. Consider the following facts of Croton's history and geography that make it unique from a planning point of view:
Croton’s Unusual Marketing Geography
First and foremost, unlike other typical Hudson River communities along the old Albany Post Road, Croton lacks a central shopping area or street. For example, a strolling shopper in Tarrytown can start at the Warner Library and walk south on Broadway lined with restaurants, shops and boutiques on both sides of the street. On reaching Main Street, a right turn leads to another street lined with shops almost all the way to the station.
Croton, on the other hand, is cursed with five shopping “nodes” reflecting separate periods of historic growth. Dating from the 17th century is the Lower Village node, established on the waterfront to serve sloop and market boat traffic. Much of the Lower Village was destroyed by the construction of the Expressway. A vestigial remnant exists in the form of shops along one side of Riverside Avenue
The Upper Village node was established in the 18th century to serve stagecoach traffic on the Albany Post Road. In the early 20th century, the Harmon node was created to serve Clifford Harmon’s development that opened in 1907 and offered low-cost country lots to city dwellers.
Two other nodes were added in the 1950s and early 1960s. The Van Wyck shopping center, anchored by a Grand Union supermarket, was quickly followed by what is now Croton Commons, anchored by an A & P as part of the fourth node. Reflecting suburbia’s dependence on the automobile, these were fronted by large, unsightly parking areas and associated strip malls to compete with the shops in the older three nodes.
A fifth node was established in 1966, this time a shopping center and strip mall anchored by a ShopRite supermarket with an adjoining equally unsightly parking area. In the ensuing competition for customers, ShopRite prevailed and drove the A & P and Grand Union away. The two closed supermarkets were simply too small by latter day standards, and had no room in which to expand.
The remarkable quality of Croton’s five nodes is that they are noncontiguous and have little foot traffic between them. For example, although such complexes as Harmon and the ShopRite complex and the Van Wyck and Croton Commons shopping centers are proximal, no one walks from one to the other. In addition, three nodes--the Upper and Lower Village and Harmon all have limited parking facilities, mostly of the on-street variety.
As a result of the insularity induced by these five separate nodes, there is considerable duplication of retail establishments in them, such as delicatessens, pizzerias and nail salons. A marketing geographer would say that Croton’s fractionated retail pattern is more appropriate to a city’s neighborhoods than to a small 3suburban village. Nevertheless, in all planning efforts, planners must treat these scattered neighborhood-serving nodes as part of a cohesive commercial marketing whole--something they have neglected to do.
Other Obstacles to Commercial Development
In 1923, the Westchester Park Commission bought Croton Point and created the 508-acre Croton Point Park. In one stroke the Village was stripped of its tax revenue forever. In 1970, Croton’s oldest and largest taxpayer was removed from the tax rolls with the bankruptcy of the ailing Penn-Central Railroad. This effectively shifted an additional large portion of Croton’s tax burden onto the backs of other businesses and residents.
To add to Croton’s commercial woes, the Croton Expressway was opened in 1967, intended to be part of a superhighway linking New York City with Beacon, N.Y. Not only did it destroy much of the Lower Village, this 9.2-mile stub of limited-access highway between Ossining and Peekskill changed the face of Croton’s economy and made it a backwater village. Traffic counts show that the Expressway now carries 40,000 vehicles a day past Croton’s five shopping nodes, depriving them of potential customers. No wonder that for the past 43 years, with the exception of ShopRite, the customer base of most Croton shops and businesses has been largely limited to local residents.
In addition to ignoring the reality of Croton’s marketing geography, Croton’s planners have supported, and officials have passed, two Soviet-style pieces of legislation inimical to free enterprise and based on no empirical and measurable evidence. These were a so-called Gateway Law in 2004 and a 2009 amendment to the Gateway Law enlarging its scope.
The Gateway Law
Despite the lack of observed data to show that Croton’s customer base had a large component of other than residents, Croton passed a Gateway Law creating arbitrarily chosen hypothetical “gateways.” At least one "gateway" was omitted. The main thrust of the law was that if certain commercial areas of Croton were made more attractive, businesses would prosper because potential customers would be encouraged to exit the Expressway. Although this was stated as a fact, no supporting evidence was offered.
The text of the law plainly shows that it was directed at nonresidents: “Croton-on-Hudson’s commercial gateways are the major entry points from surrounding municipalities and roads. The physical gateway areas are comprised of the roads and surrounding properties a motorist or pedestrian encounters when first entering the Village. These areas create a sense of arrival and connection to the Village, and establish an image and initial impression of the community.”
As part of the Gateway Law and at the insistence of some local residents with no qualifications as planners, certain businesses and features of business operation were specifically banned in the gateway areas of Croton. These included automobile dealerships and fast-food restaurants (a designation that was undefined, although national chain restaurants like McDonald’s and Burger King were the obvious targets). Also banned for no discernible reason were drive-in windows, a fixture of many businesses such as banks, even though studies show that these reduce the need for space-wasting passive parking.
Underscoring the dictatorial style of its edicts, the Gateway Law imposed an unusual and intrusive requirement on developers: “to reinforce the area’s role as a major gateway, the Planning Board shall encourage the design and placement of a distinctive gateway feature such as a clock or sculpture near the corner of Croton Point Avenue and South Riverside Avenue.”
Marketing geographers recognize the importance of certain types of stores in attracting customers. Called “magnet stores,” as the name implies these draw customers from a wider geographic area than the immediate community in which they are located. Briarcliff manor has a Radio Shack; Ossining has a pet shop. Until recently, Croton had one magnet store, Blockbuster. It closed not so much because of lack of local support but as a result of major changes in delivery methods of DVDs. It is worth noting that the very businesses that Croton so specifically bans--automobile dealerships and chain fast-food restaurants--are magnet businesses.
No data were collected or offered to support the assertive conclusions upon which the Gateway Law was based. Yet a few high school students with clipboards stationed at Expressway exit ramps to question motorists would have shown that most of the drivers exiting the expressway were either Croton residents or were headed directly to neighboring communities like Yorktown Heights. Only a few drivers would have been shown to be prospective customers of Croton’s shops and businesses, aside from those heading only to ShopRite.
It is also significant to note for the record that in the six years the Gateway Law has been on the books it has not encouraged a single new business to come to Croton. The absence of new investment may be the result of an awareness of Croton’s unfriendliness to business, reinforced by its overt xenophobia exemplified by a policy of limiting use of all parks to residents. Nonresidents can purchase the makings for a sumptuous picnic at one of Croton’s many delicatessens—but they better not expect to unfold a blanket on the grass of any Croton park.
This elitism and fear of strangers may have deeper roots. Today’s Harmon residents may be chagrined to learn that starting in April of 1907 advertisements for the new Harmon community bore the words, “Improved and restricted.” The word “improved” referred to the presence of sidewalks and water pipes already installed under the streets. The word “restricted,” however, was a code word meaning that Jews or African-Americans were excluded. Overt anti-Semitism and racism were common at the time in real estate transactions, hotel accommodations and colleges and universities.
Mixed-Use Zoning Changes
Similarly, despite the absence of studies showing the need for additional retail space or for apartments in commercially zoned areas, Croton enacted a law making changes that would extend the limits of the so-called Harmon gateway area and increase the number of apartments and apartment dwellers permitted in it and other gateway areas. Its stated purpose is to encourage wholesale changes in the commercial complexion of Harmon to increase tax revenue for the Village.
The driving force behind this legislation was a committee of volunteers largely composed of residents of the Harmon area. Two consultants hired to offer support for the proposed change rendered totally useless reports that have been swept under the rug by the law's sponsors. The Village’s monumental error in this affair was to allow a small pressure group to force it into incremental planning for one neighborhood instead of making plans for the Village’s entire commercial economy. Another error was to base changes on a desire to “sock it to” commercial property owners—a stance highly unlikely to attract risk capital to Croton.
In the lead-up to passage of the 2009 Zoning Code’s changes that effectively double the number of apartments permitted in commercial areas, no studies were made of the need for additional apartments, the number of existing apartments in Croton or the levels of current rents, although proponents of the legislation frequently bandied about terms like “market rents”.
To complicate the apartment picture, the former chairperson of the Harmon Economic Development Committee is on record as having told Village officials on March 8, 2008, that there were some 400 illegal accessory apartments in Croton, yet this verbal bombshell has gone unnoticed and uninvestigated. The Village continues to exhibit abysmal ignorance about the true apartment situation in Croton.
Croton is fortunate that a community-minded attorney, Patricia Moran, undertook to research the error-ridden 2009 law and to petition the N.Y. Supreme Court for redress under Article 78 on behalf of two concerned residents. The impressive body of research and its inescapable conclusions can be seen elsewhere on this site at
http://crotonlocal.blogspot.com/2010/04/in-their-own-words-complete-article-78.html
Everyone responsible for the shoddy piece of careless legislation should be ashamed of it. Instead of attempting to defend the Village’s actions, Croton should open negotiations leading to Ms. Moran’s employment as the Village Attorney to protect the Village’s interests.
Summing Up
Before any other changes are made under the guise of “planning,” Croton would be well advised to undertake the following projects:
1. With a view to determining the proper mix of commercial and residential properties, Croton should make an inventory of all commercial properties. Such a survey should record property location, size, amenities, assessment, occupancy or rental history, and availability of apartments in each commercial node. One objective would be to discover the proper mix of retail establishments for the respective nodes. Such a census is vital, especially since the possibility exists that Croton may actually have too many properties zoned for commercial/retail use.
2. The 2009 Zoning Code change increasing the number of apartments available in commercially zoned areas was justified on absurd claims, including the howler that the market for them included “city people desiring to dip a toe in country living.” Croton should also make an apartment inventory to determine the true size of Croton’s stock of apartments. Illegal apartments should be closed forthwith and fines assessed for violations.
Based on the results of the above-described market research projects, changes in the Zoning Code should be considered, including outright repeal of those sections and conclusions not supported by the evidence. In support of commercial enterprises, Croton should especially consider repealing those exclusionary provisions that show the community to be virulently unfriendly to business.
The lifeblood of sound and sensible scientific planning lies in the collection of data and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Until planners and officials in Croton pull up their socks and apply the principles of logic and the scientific method to decision making, they can expect to suffer the harsh light of fact-based criticism again and again.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
In Their Own Words: The Complete Article 78 Exhibits
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
The Article 78 Petition and Memorandum were accompanied by a series of exhibits comprised of the official documents supporting the allegations made by the complainants. These exhibits are lengthy and have been divided into two parts, as follows:
The Awful Truths: Article 78 Exhibits 1 to 25
More Awful Truths: Article 78 Exhibits 26 to End
Because of their length, the above links may take longer to load. Please be patient.
The Article 78 Petition and Memorandum were accompanied by a series of exhibits comprised of the official documents supporting the allegations made by the complainants. These exhibits are lengthy and have been divided into two parts, as follows:
The Awful Truths: Article 78 Exhibits 1 to 25
More Awful Truths: Article 78 Exhibits 26 to End
Because of their length, the above links may take longer to load. Please be patient.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Who’s Minding the Store?
CURRENT AFFAIRS (DEPT. OF UTTER CONFUSION)
This morning’s mail brought a new and lavishly illustrated booklet from Croton’s Recreation Department. Titled “Spring/Summer 2010 Recreation Programs,” this outwardly handsome product of the graphic arts is, to put it mildly, an absolute and unmitigated disaster. At a time when austerity should be the order of the day, why so much time and money are spent on an elaborate publication with such a short useful life is beyond comprehension.
In printing terms, this booklet consists of a single signature of ten folded and gathered sheets, self-covered (i.e., covered with the same paper as the text) and saddle-wired twice with staples from the outside to the inside of the fold. In my copy as received, pages 7, 10, 27 and 30 are missing. Pages 3, 6, 31 and 34 are each duplicated and substituted for the missing pages--but the duplicated pages are backed with the wrong folio numbers (i.e., page numbers), indicating that an error had been made in the original positioning of the pages on the offset plate negatives.
Believe it or not, the following is the incredible sequence of pages in the 40-page booklet as received by me: Front cover, inside front cover, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 3, 8, 9, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 31, 28, 29, 34, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 (inside back cover), and back cover. As popular wisdom holds, "You can't make this stuff up." Anyone else who has a copy of this booklet in this sorry state has a rara avis, a rare bird. Hang onto it--it's a genuine collector's item--and a testament to another local government goof.
As TV pitchmen say, ""Wait a minute, folks! That's not all!" If any Village department should know the status of Croton's parks, it is the Recreation and Parks Department. In addition to the above-cited printing errors, both versions of page 6 contains a serious misstatement. After listing the parks administered by the Recreation and Parks Department, including Croton Landing Park, the booklet adds the following cautionary note: “The use of the Village parks shall be limited to residents of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson who may be accompanied by a limited number of guests.”
No such exclusion of nonresidents can be made by the Village at Croton Landing Park. Because public monies were accepted by Croton or its development, nonresidents may use the park without restriction. This egregious error must be corrected as soon as possible, certainly before another edition of the booklet is printed. I suggest that Croton acknowledge this error about Croton Landing with a correction in the very next Village Newsletter. Greater care should also be exercised by the Village in the future to ensure that misinformation is not promulgated in its published materials.
One might even be so bold as to say that this booklet fiasco is another reason why Croton should consider dissolving itself as a village and be folded back into the Town of Cortlandt to avoid the excessively inefficient and expensive redundancy that now pertains in village government everywhere.
All things considered, for those old enough to remember the phrases, this booklet can hardly be called "a Ziegfeld production." In fact, it's not even "a Minsky production." And so I am compelled to ask again, “Who’s minding the store?”
This morning’s mail brought a new and lavishly illustrated booklet from Croton’s Recreation Department. Titled “Spring/Summer 2010 Recreation Programs,” this outwardly handsome product of the graphic arts is, to put it mildly, an absolute and unmitigated disaster. At a time when austerity should be the order of the day, why so much time and money are spent on an elaborate publication with such a short useful life is beyond comprehension.
In printing terms, this booklet consists of a single signature of ten folded and gathered sheets, self-covered (i.e., covered with the same paper as the text) and saddle-wired twice with staples from the outside to the inside of the fold. In my copy as received, pages 7, 10, 27 and 30 are missing. Pages 3, 6, 31 and 34 are each duplicated and substituted for the missing pages--but the duplicated pages are backed with the wrong folio numbers (i.e., page numbers), indicating that an error had been made in the original positioning of the pages on the offset plate negatives.
As someone familiar with printing, I can say that none of these errors is the result of the pages being accidentally bound in the wrong order. No specialized knowledge about printed materials is needed to recognize this misnumbering as printing errors. Anyone who has ever read a book knows that two sides of a printed page must bear successive page numbers. One has to wonder who paid for the PP&B (paper, presswork and binding) of the pages printed in error--Croton or the printer?
Believe it or not, the following is the incredible sequence of pages in the 40-page booklet as received by me: Front cover, inside front cover, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 3, 8, 9, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 31, 28, 29, 34, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 (inside back cover), and back cover. As popular wisdom holds, "You can't make this stuff up." Anyone else who has a copy of this booklet in this sorry state has a rara avis, a rare bird. Hang onto it--it's a genuine collector's item--and a testament to another local government goof.
As TV pitchmen say, ""Wait a minute, folks! That's not all!" If any Village department should know the status of Croton's parks, it is the Recreation and Parks Department. In addition to the above-cited printing errors, both versions of page 6 contains a serious misstatement. After listing the parks administered by the Recreation and Parks Department, including Croton Landing Park, the booklet adds the following cautionary note: “The use of the Village parks shall be limited to residents of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson who may be accompanied by a limited number of guests.”
No such exclusion of nonresidents can be made by the Village at Croton Landing Park. Because public monies were accepted by Croton or its development, nonresidents may use the park without restriction. This egregious error must be corrected as soon as possible, certainly before another edition of the booklet is printed. I suggest that Croton acknowledge this error about Croton Landing with a correction in the very next Village Newsletter. Greater care should also be exercised by the Village in the future to ensure that misinformation is not promulgated in its published materials.
One might even be so bold as to say that this booklet fiasco is another reason why Croton should consider dissolving itself as a village and be folded back into the Town of Cortlandt to avoid the excessively inefficient and expensive redundancy that now pertains in village government everywhere.
All things considered, for those old enough to remember the phrases, this booklet can hardly be called "a Ziegfeld production." In fact, it's not even "a Minsky production." And so I am compelled to ask again, “Who’s minding the store?”
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Your Rights Under the Law
Frequently Asked Questions About the Freedom of Information Law
The following is a suggested format. Delete any portions that do not apply:
TO: Records Access Officer:
(1) Please e-mail the following records, if possible (include as much detail about the record as possible, such as relevant dates, names, descriptions, etc.) :
(2) Please indicate the appropriate time during normal business hours for inspecting the following records prior to obtaining copies (include as much detail about the records as possible, including relevant dates, names, descriptions, etc.) :
Alternatively: Please tell me the cost of providing paper copies of the following records (include as much detail about the records as possible, including relevant dates, names, descriptions, etc.).
(3) If only certain portions of the requested records can be e-mailed to me, please reply by e-mail and indicate which portions that can be emailed and tell me the cost for reproducing the remainder of the records requested .
(4) If the requested records cannot be emailed to me due to the volume of records identified in response to my request, please tell me the actual cost of copying all records onto a CD or floppy disk.
(5) If my request is too broad or does not reasonably describe the records, please indicate in an e-mail what additional information you need. If appropriate, please tell me how your records are filed, retrieved or generated. If I must modify my request, please notify me by e-mail or by telephone at the following number (show phone number here).
If, for any reason, any portion of my request is denied, please tell me the reason for the denial in writing and provide the name, address and e-mail address of the person or agency to whom I should direct an appeal.
Name:
Address (if records are to be sent by mail).
What records are available?
All records are available, unless an exception allows an agency to deny access. Most of the exceptions are based upon the potential for harm that would arise from disclosure of the records. If such disclosure would be damaging to an individual or preclude a government agency from carrying out its duties, it is probable that some parts of the records may be withheld. Not all records are maintained electronically, and some records that are maintained electronically may not be available in a particular electronic format.
How long must I wait to get access to records?
When an agency receives a request, §89(3) of the Freedom of Information Law requires that it has five business days to grant or deny access in whole or in part, or if more time is needed, to acknowledge the receipt of the request in writing. The acknowledgement must include an approximate date indicating when an agency will grant or deny the request. The date must be reasonable under the circumstances of the request, and in most instances, it cannot exceed twenty additional business days. If more than 20 additional business days are needed, the agency must provide an explanation and a firm date within which it will grant or deny the request in whole or in part. That date, too, must be reasonable in consideration of the facts (i.e., the volume or complexity of the request, the need to search for records, or the obligation to review records to determine rights of access).
Because an electronic request may be sent at any time of the day or night, for purposes of determining the date of receipt and the required response time frame, an e-mail request is determined to have been received on the first business day on which it was received during normal business hours. For example, if an email request is sent at 6 p.m .on Tuesday, it is deemed to have been received at 9 a.m. on Wednesday.
A failure to comply with any of the time limitations imposed by law would constitute a denial of a request that may be appealed in accordance with §89(4)(a) of the Freedom of Information Law. That provision states that an appeal must be made within 30 days of the denial. The appeal should be made to the person designated by the agency to determine appeals or the chief executive of the agency.
The agency is required to respond to the appeal within ten business days of the receipt of the appeal by granting access to the records or fully explaining the reasons for further denial in writing. If a determination on the appeal is not rendered within ten business days, the failure to do so constitutes a denial of the appeal. In that circumstance, you may initiate a proceeding to challenge the denial of access under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
How much can I be charged for public records?
An agency may charge up to twenty-five cents per photocopy not in excess of nine by fourteen inches, or in the case of records that cannot be photocopied, the actual cost of reproduction (for example, photographs, computer discs, tape recordings, etc.), unless otherwise prescribed by statute. With few exceptions, an agency cannot charge for search or clerical time. An agency cannot charge for records transmitted via email.
Can I inspect records instead of paying the fees?
Yes. Any person has the right to inspect accessible records at no charge. If portions of the records may be withheld, however, the agency is permitted to require payment for redacted copies of records. If portions of electronic records can reasonably be redacted electronically, prior to disclosure, no payment can be required.
Does the Freedom of Information Law apply to computer records?
Yes. The term "record" is defined to include all information kept, held, filed, produced or reproduced by, with or for an agency, in any physical form whatsoever. Therefore, the Freedom of Information Law clearly applies to government records generated, received or maintained electronically.
Do I get to choose in which electronic format the records are sent?
If an agency has reasonable means to convert accessible records from one electronic format into another more desirable format, it must do so at your request.
Do I have to state a reason why I want public records?
No. A person requesting records cannot be required to provide a reason or indicate the intended use of the record might be. The only exception is if the purpose of a request is relevant is for a list of names and residence addresses. Only then is the agency authorized to seek assurance that the list will not be used for commercial or fund-raising purposes. The agency can deny access if it determines that a list will be used for those purposes.
I asked a local government official a question about his office, but he didn't answer. What can I do to make him answer?
The Freedom of Information Law pertains to records. It is not intended to be used as a vehicle for cross-examining government officials or employees. Therefore, an agency is not required to answer questions or to create a new record in response to questions. While agency staff may answer questions--and many do--that kind of service is independent of the requirements of the Freedom of Information Law, which deals with requests for existing records.
Do I have a right to know how government spends money?
Yes. Records reflective of government expenditures are generally available. Also, every agency is required to create a payroll record which indicates the name, public office address, title and salary of every officer or employee of the agency.
Can an agency deny my request because it is too broad or too vague?
Yes. An agency may reject a request that does not "reasonably describe" records. If the request is too vague to answer, the agency must seek clarification of the request, and when appropriate, indicate the manner in which records are filed, retrieved or generated. Also, the nature of an agency's filing or record retrieval system is relevant to whether a request reasonably describes records. If locating a record involves the equivalent of searching for "a needle in a haystack," the request may not reasonably describe the record. In that event, you should ask the agency for specific information about how its records are kept or filed.
Who is subject to the Freedom of Information Law?
Any New York State or municipal department, board, bureau, division, commission, committee, public authority, public corporation, council, office or other governmental entity performing a governmental or proprietary function is subject to the Law. Each of those governmental entities is an "agency." The courts are outside its coverage but often must disclose records under other provisions of law. The State Legislature is covered by the Freedom of Information Law, but is treated differently from agencies generally. Private corporations or companies are not subject to the Freedom of Information Law.
Who is required to receive and respond to requests via e-mail?
Every agency subject to the Freedom of Information Law, provided that it has the ability to receive requests for records from the public and transmit records by e-mail.
To whom should I direct my request?
A request should be directed to the "records access officer" of the agency, the person having the duty of coordinating an agency's response to a request. The request should reasonably describe the records in sufficient detail to enable the agency staff to locate the records. If the agency employs e-mail, an e-mail request may be made to the e-mail address designated by the agency for such purpose. The subject line of the e-mail should be clearly marked "FOIL Request." Be sure to retain a dated electronic or paper copy for your records.
The following is a suggested format. Delete any portions that do not apply:
TO: Records Access Officer:
(1) Please e-mail the following records, if possible (include as much detail about the record as possible, such as relevant dates, names, descriptions, etc.) :
(2) Please indicate the appropriate time during normal business hours for inspecting the following records prior to obtaining copies (include as much detail about the records as possible, including relevant dates, names, descriptions, etc.) :
Alternatively: Please tell me the cost of providing paper copies of the following records (include as much detail about the records as possible, including relevant dates, names, descriptions, etc.).
(3) If only certain portions of the requested records can be e-mailed to me, please reply by e-mail and indicate which portions that can be emailed and tell me the cost for reproducing the remainder of the records requested .
(4) If the requested records cannot be emailed to me due to the volume of records identified in response to my request, please tell me the actual cost of copying all records onto a CD or floppy disk.
(5) If my request is too broad or does not reasonably describe the records, please indicate in an e-mail what additional information you need. If appropriate, please tell me how your records are filed, retrieved or generated. If I must modify my request, please notify me by e-mail or by telephone at the following number (show phone number here).
If, for any reason, any portion of my request is denied, please tell me the reason for the denial in writing and provide the name, address and e-mail address of the person or agency to whom I should direct an appeal.
Name:
Address (if records are to be sent by mail).
What records are available?
All records are available, unless an exception allows an agency to deny access. Most of the exceptions are based upon the potential for harm that would arise from disclosure of the records. If such disclosure would be damaging to an individual or preclude a government agency from carrying out its duties, it is probable that some parts of the records may be withheld. Not all records are maintained electronically, and some records that are maintained electronically may not be available in a particular electronic format.
How long must I wait to get access to records?
When an agency receives a request, §89(3) of the Freedom of Information Law requires that it has five business days to grant or deny access in whole or in part, or if more time is needed, to acknowledge the receipt of the request in writing. The acknowledgement must include an approximate date indicating when an agency will grant or deny the request. The date must be reasonable under the circumstances of the request, and in most instances, it cannot exceed twenty additional business days. If more than 20 additional business days are needed, the agency must provide an explanation and a firm date within which it will grant or deny the request in whole or in part. That date, too, must be reasonable in consideration of the facts (i.e., the volume or complexity of the request, the need to search for records, or the obligation to review records to determine rights of access).
Because an electronic request may be sent at any time of the day or night, for purposes of determining the date of receipt and the required response time frame, an e-mail request is determined to have been received on the first business day on which it was received during normal business hours. For example, if an email request is sent at 6 p.m .on Tuesday, it is deemed to have been received at 9 a.m. on Wednesday.
A failure to comply with any of the time limitations imposed by law would constitute a denial of a request that may be appealed in accordance with §89(4)(a) of the Freedom of Information Law. That provision states that an appeal must be made within 30 days of the denial. The appeal should be made to the person designated by the agency to determine appeals or the chief executive of the agency.
The agency is required to respond to the appeal within ten business days of the receipt of the appeal by granting access to the records or fully explaining the reasons for further denial in writing. If a determination on the appeal is not rendered within ten business days, the failure to do so constitutes a denial of the appeal. In that circumstance, you may initiate a proceeding to challenge the denial of access under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
How much can I be charged for public records?
An agency may charge up to twenty-five cents per photocopy not in excess of nine by fourteen inches, or in the case of records that cannot be photocopied, the actual cost of reproduction (for example, photographs, computer discs, tape recordings, etc.), unless otherwise prescribed by statute. With few exceptions, an agency cannot charge for search or clerical time. An agency cannot charge for records transmitted via email.
Can I inspect records instead of paying the fees?
Yes. Any person has the right to inspect accessible records at no charge. If portions of the records may be withheld, however, the agency is permitted to require payment for redacted copies of records. If portions of electronic records can reasonably be redacted electronically, prior to disclosure, no payment can be required.
Does the Freedom of Information Law apply to computer records?
Yes. The term "record" is defined to include all information kept, held, filed, produced or reproduced by, with or for an agency, in any physical form whatsoever. Therefore, the Freedom of Information Law clearly applies to government records generated, received or maintained electronically.
Do I get to choose in which electronic format the records are sent?
If an agency has reasonable means to convert accessible records from one electronic format into another more desirable format, it must do so at your request.
Do I have to state a reason why I want public records?
No. A person requesting records cannot be required to provide a reason or indicate the intended use of the record might be. The only exception is if the purpose of a request is relevant is for a list of names and residence addresses. Only then is the agency authorized to seek assurance that the list will not be used for commercial or fund-raising purposes. The agency can deny access if it determines that a list will be used for those purposes.
I asked a local government official a question about his office, but he didn't answer. What can I do to make him answer?
The Freedom of Information Law pertains to records. It is not intended to be used as a vehicle for cross-examining government officials or employees. Therefore, an agency is not required to answer questions or to create a new record in response to questions. While agency staff may answer questions--and many do--that kind of service is independent of the requirements of the Freedom of Information Law, which deals with requests for existing records.
Do I have a right to know how government spends money?
Yes. Records reflective of government expenditures are generally available. Also, every agency is required to create a payroll record which indicates the name, public office address, title and salary of every officer or employee of the agency.
Can an agency deny my request because it is too broad or too vague?
Yes. An agency may reject a request that does not "reasonably describe" records. If the request is too vague to answer, the agency must seek clarification of the request, and when appropriate, indicate the manner in which records are filed, retrieved or generated. Also, the nature of an agency's filing or record retrieval system is relevant to whether a request reasonably describes records. If locating a record involves the equivalent of searching for "a needle in a haystack," the request may not reasonably describe the record. In that event, you should ask the agency for specific information about how its records are kept or filed.
Your Rights Under the Law
Frequently Asked Questions About the Open Meetings Law
What is a meeting?
The term "meeting" is defined as "the official convening of a public body for the purpose of conducting public business." As such, when a quorum (a majority of the membership of a public body) gathers for the purpose of discussing public business, the meeting must be convened open to the public, whether or not there is an intent to take action and regardless of the manner in which the gathering may be characterized.
Who is covered by the Law?
The Open Meetings Law applies to "public bodies." That term is defined to include entities consisting of two or more people that conduct public business and perform a governmental function for New York State, for an agency of the state, or for public corporations, such as cities, counties, towns, villages and school districts. Committees and subcommittees of these entities are also included within the definition. Consequently, city councils, town boards, village boards of trustees, school boards, commissions, legislative bodies, and committees and subcommittees consisting of members of those groups all fall within the framework of the Law.
How do I know if a meeting is going to be held?
The Law requires that notice of the time and place of all meetings be given prior to every meeting. If a meeting is scheduled at least a week in advance, notice must be given to the public and the news media not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. When a meeting is scheduled less than a week in advance, notice must be given to the public and the news media "to the extent practicable" at a reasonable time prior to the meeting. Notice to the public must be accomplished by posting in one or more designated public locations.
I attended a meeting; and the public body closed the meeting to the public, citing "personnel matters." Is this legal?
The Law provides for closed or "executive" sessions under certain circumstances prescribed in the Law. It is noted that an executive session is not separate from an open meeting but rather is a portion of an open meeting during which the public may be excluded. The Law requires that a public body take several steps to close the meeting. First, a motion must be made during an open meeting to enter into executive session; second, the motion must identify the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered; and third, the motion must be carried by a majority vote of the total membership of a public body.
Citing "personnel matters" is not a sufficient ground for going into an executive session. The motion to go into executive session should be more specific. For example, a motion could be made to enter into executive session to discuss "the employment history of a particular person." The person would not have to be identified.
It is important to point out that a public body cannot vote to appropriate public monies during a closed session. Therefore, although most public bodies (except school boards in most instances) may vote during a properly convened executive session, any vote to expend public monies must be taken in public. The Law also states that an executive session can be attended by members of the public body and any other persons authorized by the public body.
Can I speak at a meeting?
The Law is silent with respect to public participation. While it has been advised that a public body does not have to allow the public to speak, many choose to permit public participation. In those instances, it has been advised that a public body must treat all persons in a like manner. For example, the public body can adopt reasonable rules to ensure fairness; i.e., allowing those who want to speak a specific period of time to express their views.
I requested minutes of a village board meeting and was told that I could not have them until they were approved. Is this right?
No. The Law states that minutes of open meetings must be made available within two weeks of the meeting. Minutes of executive sessions must be made available within one week of the executive session. It has been suggested that if the minutes have not been approved, they may be marked "draft," "unapproved," or "non-final" when they are disclosed.
What is a meeting?
The term "meeting" is defined as "the official convening of a public body for the purpose of conducting public business." As such, when a quorum (a majority of the membership of a public body) gathers for the purpose of discussing public business, the meeting must be convened open to the public, whether or not there is an intent to take action and regardless of the manner in which the gathering may be characterized.
Who is covered by the Law?
The Open Meetings Law applies to "public bodies." That term is defined to include entities consisting of two or more people that conduct public business and perform a governmental function for New York State, for an agency of the state, or for public corporations, such as cities, counties, towns, villages and school districts. Committees and subcommittees of these entities are also included within the definition. Consequently, city councils, town boards, village boards of trustees, school boards, commissions, legislative bodies, and committees and subcommittees consisting of members of those groups all fall within the framework of the Law.
How do I know if a meeting is going to be held?
The Law requires that notice of the time and place of all meetings be given prior to every meeting. If a meeting is scheduled at least a week in advance, notice must be given to the public and the news media not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. When a meeting is scheduled less than a week in advance, notice must be given to the public and the news media "to the extent practicable" at a reasonable time prior to the meeting. Notice to the public must be accomplished by posting in one or more designated public locations.
I attended a meeting; and the public body closed the meeting to the public, citing "personnel matters." Is this legal?
The Law provides for closed or "executive" sessions under certain circumstances prescribed in the Law. It is noted that an executive session is not separate from an open meeting but rather is a portion of an open meeting during which the public may be excluded. The Law requires that a public body take several steps to close the meeting. First, a motion must be made during an open meeting to enter into executive session; second, the motion must identify the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered; and third, the motion must be carried by a majority vote of the total membership of a public body.
Citing "personnel matters" is not a sufficient ground for going into an executive session. The motion to go into executive session should be more specific. For example, a motion could be made to enter into executive session to discuss "the employment history of a particular person." The person would not have to be identified.
It is important to point out that a public body cannot vote to appropriate public monies during a closed session. Therefore, although most public bodies (except school boards in most instances) may vote during a properly convened executive session, any vote to expend public monies must be taken in public. The Law also states that an executive session can be attended by members of the public body and any other persons authorized by the public body.
Can I speak at a meeting?
The Law is silent with respect to public participation. While it has been advised that a public body does not have to allow the public to speak, many choose to permit public participation. In those instances, it has been advised that a public body must treat all persons in a like manner. For example, the public body can adopt reasonable rules to ensure fairness; i.e., allowing those who want to speak a specific period of time to express their views.
I requested minutes of a village board meeting and was told that I could not have them until they were approved. Is this right?
No. The Law states that minutes of open meetings must be made available within two weeks of the meeting. Minutes of executive sessions must be made available within one week of the executive session. It has been suggested that if the minutes have not been approved, they may be marked "draft," "unapproved," or "non-final" when they are disclosed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)