Sunday, November 17, 2013

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.


                                                                                                           

Saturday, April 27, 2013

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.

Saturday, April 20, 2013

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.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Unpersuaded by Untruths and Bad Counsel

OP ED

There comes to hand Georgianna Grant’s vituperative letter in the November 29 issue of The Gazette. In this defamatory missive, she refers to “a small fearful group of Harmon naysayers and prophets of doom” and characterizes their Article 78 action as an “expensive trumped-up lawsuit against legitimate rezoning” and as an “arrogant and presumptive insult to the rest of us.” Any so-called “insult” to Croton’s citizens was committed by the Planning and Village Boards.
Mrs. Grant goes on to counsel the Village Board to “countersue the plaintiffs both collectively and individually and hold them responsible for obstruction of the duly authorized zoning change.”
Mrs. Grant was a longtime trustee and voted for passage of the ridiculous Gateway Law, which contains the patently impractical FAR (Floor Area Ratio) chosen by Mrs. Gallelli and blessed by the Planning Board. It literally brought new development in Croton to a standstill in the eight years since its passage.
One reason Mrs. Grant and others are anxious to silence opponents is that a principal provision of the Harmon mixed-use proposal is a face-saving correction of the embarrassingly gross FAR error.
The numbers of the group are not small but legion. Mrs. Grant is proof incarnate that no one succeeds in making fools of themselves quite like public officials who prodigiously alter the facts and then go on to dishonor themselves by dispensing bad counsel.
It so happens that an Article 78 action is the only remedy prescribed by New York State law for citizens aware that proper procedures have not been followed in the passage of legislation. It also so happens that the group Mrs. Grant so maliciously defames has thus far prevailed in their prosecution of the Article 78 action.
What appalls in such stuff is not only that her facts are wrong but that her advice is stupid. Mrs. Grant foolishly counsels the Village to violate the civil rights of members of the opposition group by means of punitive countersuits. The Constitution’s protections of freedom of expression are beyond dispute so universal as to shield members of the opposition group from special scrutiny and sanction.
In today’s highly litigious atmosphere, one hesitates to imagine the result if lawmakers were allowed to countersue with impunity those citizens who bring charges of misfeasance to the attention of the courts.
If Mrs. Grant is serious in her concern over the undisclosed cost of defending improperly drawn legislation, her advice should be for the Village to ensure that what passes for planning in Croton is properly drawn up as prescribed by law. The Village should also eliminate the wasteful spending on consultants hired so frequently at the drop of the proverbial hat. The $100,000 paid for the totally useless joke of a station garage feasibility study is a glaring case in point.

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Article Index and Links


LATEST ARTICLES
Shadow vs. Substance
When a Village Administration Holds Its Citizens in Contempt
Unpersuaded by Untruths and Bad Counsel
Whither Westchester? Part 1: Irrational Complexity
Whither Westchester? Part 2: The High Cost of Villaging
One Weekend's Excellent Adventure: A Cautionary Tale
Going to the Dogs: Another Croton Folly


THE ANIMAL CRUELTY AS PUBLIC POLICY SERIES
A Naked Attempt to Politicize the Bow-Hunting Controversy
Conflicting Interests. Bullying and Official Cowardice
'There Is the Stench of Death About This Village Board'
The Truth About Bow Hunting
Butchers with Bows and Arrows
Don't Let Croton Become Westchester's Animal Cruelty Capital

OP ED
Shadow vs, Substance
When a Village Administration Holds Its Citizens in Contempt
Unpersuaded by Untruths, Rejecting Bad Counsel
Conscience and Cowardice in Croton
Farmers Market Chickens Come Home to Roost
Setting the Record Straight
A Call to Consumer Activism
It's about Time
Why the "Ins" Should Be "Outs"
Croton's Dubious and Costly Strategy of Delay
The Valor of Ignorance: Green Cheese, Gateways and Mixed Use
Croton’s Litany of Economic Body Blows
What’s Wrong with the Harmon Plan?
Bookstore No Cure for What Ails Croton
When Government Works Against a Community’s Best Interests
Strange Doings in the Name of Zoning
Painful Truths About Croton Planning
An Untapped Asset: Croton’s Rich History Could Be Its Salvation
Bob Elliott on Heritage Tourism
Putting the Gateway Law Under a Microscope
Mixed (Up) Use Coming to Harmon
The Natives Are Restless Tonight
The Coming Commercial Real Estate Disaster
Croton’s Cargo Cult Economics
Nothing Gained: A Critique of the Harmon Zoning Changes
Of Gimmicks and Slogans
Frankly, I’m Puzzled . . .

PLANNING The Backing-Into-Zoning-Change Series
Backing Into Zoning Change 1
Backing Into Zoning Change 2
Backing Into Zoning Change 3
Backing Into Zoning Change 4
Backing Into Zoning Change 5
Backing Into Zoning Change 6
Backing Into Zoning Change 7
Backing Into Zoning Change 8
Backing Into Zoning Change 9
Backing Into Zoning Change 10
Backing Into Zoning Change 11
Backing Into Zoning Change 12


PUBLIC DOCUMENTS (Large documents may take several minutes to load. Be patient.)
Judge Albert Lorenzo's Interim Decision EAF Assessment Form and Proposed Documents
In Their Own Words: The Complete Article 78 Exhibits
Let the Sun Shine In: The Haahs Station Parking Garage Contract
The Fat's in the Fire: Article 78 Petition and Memorandum

YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW
Frequently Asked Questions: The Freedom of Information Law
Frequently Asked Questions: The Open Meetings Law
Frequently Asked Questions: The Personal Privacy Protection Law

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Empty Promises: The Bike Lane to Nowhere

OP ED

In what passes for planning in this benighted village, Croton is once again backing into a deal in which it lacks control of the ultimate cost or consequences.
I refer to the proposed drastic overhaul of Croton Point Avenue to solve a traffic problem that arises briefly five mornings a week and recurs on five evenings—the latter without the pressure of having to catch a train.
The plan sacrifices on-street parking for businesses on the north side of the avenue and designates a short bike lane of doubtful utility along the south side. Typically, no study or survey was made to determine (1) the effect of this arbitrary design on businesses or (2) the potential number of users of such a bike lane.
It is imprudent to spend huge sums and deny everyone the right to park on certain village roadways at any time to create a fragmentary bike lane for a tiny number of seasonally commuting bike riders.
The village board should consider several other suggestions made at the recent public information session about this project, many of which could alleviate the current situation without expending millions of residents’ tax dollars.
A dozen years ago, recuperating from replacement of both hips, I decided to return to biking to build up my thigh muscles. An experienced cross-country bicyclist in my younger years, I felt competent to resume the sport. I bought a sleek new bike and helmet and set off on a daily ride through Croton’s streets. My skills quickly returned, but I soon discovered hidden dangers.
Automobiles and bicycles are not a good mix on Croton’s narrow streets. Parked cars make it impossible for bicyclists to keep close to the right-hand curb. And Croton’s curbside drains can be lethal for narrow-tired bicycles. Even more threatening were boorish drivers who came up close behind me and sounded an impatient peremptory blast of their horns for me to get out of their way.
The greatest threat came from drivers who lacked the ability to pass a moving bicycle without endangering the rider. After a couple of scary close calls with side mirrors, I decided to resume stationary biking at the Premier Athletic Club.
Many states and communities have passed bike laws that define bicycles as vehicles with rights to the roads and set reasonable rules for bicyclists and motorists. Colorado’s bike law, for example, requires drivers to pass bicycles no closer than three feet. The League of American Bicyclists recommends four feet.
Before it attempts to encourage biking by scattering unconnected stubs of bike lanes around willy-nilly, Croton should give some thought to protecting bikers from motorists or from themselves. New York’s rudimentary helmet law, for example, only requires that a helmet be worn by cyclists under thirteen years of age.
It should also make provision for theft-proof storage of bicycles. Readers of the Croton police blotter in The Gazette well know how risky can be daily parking of a bicycle at the station.
                                                                                                                       
                                                                            

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Conscience vs. Cowardice in Croton

OP ED

The explosion of outrageous blog comments by pseudonymous individuals is changing the public face of America and rapidly becoming a public scandal.
Initially, the Internet and the World Wide Web were welcomed as tools for instantaneous communication. In addition to speed and ease of messaging, they offered one other giant advantage.
From behind the shield of an anonymous communication, employees in government or business could report abuses or criminal activity and become whistle-blowers without fear of retaliation.  
Unfortunately, that bright hope largely failed to materialize. Instead, blogs, particularly those in smaller communities, have become cluttered with anonymous outpourings of denunciatory or abusive language. Almost laughably, insensitivity reaches an all-time apogee when bloggers extend condolences to bereaved family members and sign them anonymously with their pseudonyms.
Anonymity has played a distinguished role in our history. In 1787, as the new nation was writing its constitution, anti-Federalists using the pen names “Cato” and “Brutus” opposed it in letters to newspapers.
A flood of rebutting letters appeared in support of the proposed constitution, all signed “Publius.” Their authors are now known to have been Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. Eventually, a total of 85 letters were written under the Publius pseudonym. Unlike today’s unsigned blog comments, these were each carefully reasoned missives.
Today’s anonymous comments resemble a different breed of cat: namely, the old-fashioned poison-pen letter. The bane of small-town living, the classic poison-pen letter usually contained abusive, malicious or libelous statements and accusations about the recipient or about third parties.
Sad to say, judging by the comments on some blogs, America has become a nation of anonymous cowards hiding behind pseudonyms and assailing the character of their neighbors in electronic equivalents of the poison-pen letter.
The presumed shield of anonymity in such comments, however, is illusory. Three points should be remembered: (1) Electronic communications are forever and contain identifying marks that can be traced back to the originating computer. (2) Victims of electronic libel can easily sue for sizable damages and uncover the identity of the perpetrator by court order. (3) Anonymous bloggers who make libelous defamatory statements are foolishly putting their homes, bank accounts, automobiles and other valuable assets at risk.

The Scoop on “Scoop”
Using the Croton forum originated by the former North County News, someone in Croton hiding his identity behind the pseudonym “Scoop” has busied himself for the past year making scurrilous attacks on certain persons who are unhappy with the current village administration.
“Scoop’s” pseudonym is aptly chosen and fits the content of his comments. In our household, a scoop is used to pick up dog droppings. His male gender is confirmed by his harsh attacks on the opposite sex and his reference to them as “Ladies.” We can add “thief” to “Scoop’s” coward label. His newly adopted self-laudatory slogan, brazenly pilfered from the Fox News Network, is “Scoop reports. You decide.”
Two women, Pat Moran and Roseann Schuyler, have become repeated victims of “Scoop’s” vociferous defamatory attacks because of their campaign for greater openness in local government. Croton’s current administration is notorious for delaying responses to lawful requests for information and for exhibiting an extremely patronizing attitude toward residents.
The vehemence of “Scoop’s” contemptuous attacks on the Mses. Moran and Schuyler suggests malice, an important element in libel. His dogged persistence suggests that he is also guilty of cyberstalking and cyberbullying.
 His choice of victims reveals the abysmally low level of his self-protective instincts. “Scoop,” who probably couldn’t find his way to the nearest courthouse, has imprudently libeled two persons who are not only well-versed in the law but who have the added advantage of possessing the lawyer’s shingle.

“Scoop’s” Imaginary Silent Majority
More recently, “Scoop” launched an almost daily series of whining complaints about two local blogs that decline to publish his deprecatory comments. His claim is that unless these blogs accept his anonymous comments, they are only publishing “propaganda.”
In “Scoop’s” tiresome bleats he claims to speak for, or at the request of, Croton’s “silent majority,” a term widely used during the latter part of the 19th century as a euphemism for the honored dead of the Civil War. It was appropriated by Pres. Richard Nixon in a speech on Nov. 3, 1969, in which he said, "And so tonight to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans, I ask for your support."
Nixon's use of the phrase was an attempt to apply a label to those who shared his insecure fears and anxieties. His “silent majority” was largely made up of the dwindling number of Americans that supported the Vietnam War and did not participate in public discourse. Arrayed against such types was the other group, which included highly vocal students on college campuses, intellectuals, professionals and liberals.
“Scoop's” reference to Croton's silent majority is amusing. Apparently, he is unaware that both the concept and phrase are long since passé. Nixon’s silent majority of the 1960s was supplanted in the 1970s by "the forgotten middle class," by "angry white males" in the 1980s, by "soccer moms" in the 1990s, and by “NASCAR dads" in the 2000s.
Given the ubiquity of computer usage, it is hard to conceive of anyone in Croton so unable to communicate as to require the intercession of “Scoop.” Since the only genuinely silent majority in Croton lies in Bethel Cemetery, this benighted individual must be communicating with them by using a spirit medium.

Garrulous and Contentious
Croton is not only electronically the most voluble community in upper Westchester and southern Putnam counties; it is also the most conflict-ridden. Consider the following statistic. In October of 2007 the now-defunct North County News opened a series of local forums to replace its existing blog, then called the Blog Cabin. In the four and a half years since their inception, the forums of the municipalities of Cortlandt, Katonah, Ossining, Peekskill, Pleasantville, Putnam Valley and Yorktown have each racked up less than a hundred comments. Chappaqua and Mount Kisco originated no comments at all.
Contrast these low numbers with the Croton forum's astronomical output. In the same period, its contributors have posted close to 28,000 individual comments--a staggering statistic. Although many of these comments were public service messages, a major portion of the anonymous remarks are disparaging and intimidating personal attacks. Could there be something in Croton’s famous water that causes such venomous prolixity?
The sheer volume and intensity of deleterious comments must surely have an economic impact. Imagine the reaction of someone contemplating the purchase of a home in Croton or starting a retail business here and who stumbles on this outpouring of anonymous hate mail. The most likely outcome would be an instant decision not to move into such a squabbling community.
“Scoop” recently added a postscript to his repetitious demands for access to space on which to comment. It reads, In addition, the Silent Majority has asked me to add Robert Scott's Croton Local to the list of blogs that need to open up commenting.”
“Scoop’s” complaint is that unless these blogs accept his corrosive anonymous comments, they are only publishing “propaganda.” I would remind readers in general, and “Scoop” in particular, that no responsible newspaper will publish unsigned and anonymous letters to the editor for a very sound reason. Any newspaper or other medium that publishes defamatory statements can be found as guilty of libel as the author of those statements.
Mutual respect and civility are the cement that binds the disparate parts of our society together. If “Scoop” and other cowardly types who cloak themselves in the thin garment of anonymity would append their names to their bitter opinions and stop sailing under false colors, Croton could return to being a community in which adults do what we teach our children to do: take responsibility for their actions.

The Last Word
Croton Local is a journal of fact and opinion, my journal and my opinion, tinctured with a natural skepticism that has never descended to cynicism. I have no intention of opening its pages to every anonymous windbag and electronic bully that wants in.
I say to “Scoop” anent his demand for space to attack me in my own blog: You’ll get no free ride here. This is one party you are not going to crash. If dialogue is what you seek, I suggest that you head for a local pub.
And please stop your anonymous whining and your cowardly skulking around in the shadows. You give Croton a bad name. If certain Croton blogs make you squirm, there’s an easy solution: Go elsewhere for your reading matter. Alternatively, start your own blog.

Monday, March 5, 2012

Farmers Market Chickens Come Home to Roost

OP ED

      Our society has come up with too few improvements in the way it manages to govern, but it has marvelously perfected, while simultaneously coarsening, the techniques by which it insults the governed.
One of these is to simply deny the reality of the experience of its citizens, ignore their concerns and override their warnings. In a bare majority opinion, members of Croton’s planning board on January 10 encouraged the village board to approve a special permit for an indoor farmers market while voicing relatively mild concerns about parking and the impact on existing businesses.
Certain planning board members unequivocally expressed the personal opinion that an indoor farmers market within 200 feet of Zeytinia represented no competition and that adequate parking space would be available. One has to wonder how familiar they are with Croton’s checkered retailing history and whether they would express a similar opinion if someone wanted to open a hardware store a few doors from Croton Hardware.
Although the village code lists the situations in which a special permit must be obtained, it makes no mention about the scope or content of special permits. The only stipulation in the special permit granted to Community Markets, Inc., is designation of the area where employees must park. Yet nothing is said about the unloading (and re-loading) of produce from vendors’ trucks, the nature of the goods to be sold, and similar considerations.
More important, given the copious concerns expressed about economic impact and parking congestion, the village board foolishly failed to reserve the right to terminate the special permit at its discretion. Croton’s existing tax-paying merchants who deserved the village board's protection and the ignored public have again suffered from casual, tin-eared government.
One aspect of Croton's special permit process is questionable with respect to its propriety if not its legality:  Its practice of drawing up the text of a resolution of approval in advance of the special permit hearing. This ad hoc, one-size-fits-all resolution then becomes part of the special permit package handed to trustees in advance of the hearing. In other words, Croton will listen to citizens’ comments, but doesn’t give a damn about what they say. Its mind is made up in advance.
At the village board meeting of February 6, strident cautions were voiced by the public and by two trustees. Eloquently characterizing the proposed action as “parachuting in a supermarket,” trustee Casey Raskob broke ranks and joined a furious former mayor Gregory Schmidt in opposing the special permit. Trustees Galelli and Murtaugh, champs at rubber-stamping, predictably voted in favor of granting the special permit.
With the trustees deadlocked, Mayor Wiegman stepped in and voted in favor of issuing  the faulted special permit for the operation of a farmers market in the former Blockbuster store on Saturdays between February 11 and May 26, 2012. This vote makes him solely responsible for the shoehorning of a large group of unmistakably competitive retailers into this mini strip mall, already a planning abortion and a parking nightmare. In the face of this doubtful honor, one has to wonder how the mayor has the gumption to shop anywhere in Croton. Undoubtedly, voters will remember this should he have the temerity to run again.
Interviewed by Journal News reporter Robert Marchant for a March 4 story on the growing imbroglio, trustee Ann Galelli acknowledged the problem and, in a rare moment of candor for a politician, admitted responsibility. “We have to look into the nitty-gritty. We’ll explore everything, look into what’s in the leases, maybe street parking, whether there’s room for additional parking spaces.”
 “Exploring everything, looking into the nitty-gritty, what’s in the leases and whether there’s room for additional parking spaces” are the very heart of the matter. Ms. Galelli unwittingly ticked off the practical details that should have been specifically explored by the mayor and his cohorts before they rubber-stamped the now-embarrassingly toothless special permit.
As the putative author of the 2004 Gateway Law, perhaps Ms. Galelli would also oblige us and explain why that overtly anti-business law, which is still very much on the books, specifically bans parking lots anywhere in a Croton that sorely needs all the parking space it can muster.
In the meantime, bottom-line damage to local merchants and insult to the public weal continue apace every Saturday until May 26. Shame on those responsible for such a shabby, bottom-drawer performance. The only wisdom to come out of this unfortunate incident is its revelation of the doubtful protection afforded by special permits, especially those granted by tone-deaf public officials.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Setting the Record Straight

OP ED

The distortions of truth engaged in by proponents of zoning change in Croton are beyond belief and merit the attention of a truth squad. I will here attempt to perform that office.

In a letter to the editor in the February 22nd issue of The Gazette, one Virpi De Marchis, by admission not a resident of Harmon, bemoans its appearance and cites "abandoned buildings, wrecked cars, and vacant lots that not only look awful, but are lowering property values in the surrounding area.”

She continues: “Lower property values mean lower school tax revenue, which ultimately will lower the quality of our schools." This is arrant nonsense and reveals a willful distortion of the facts. I live in Harmon and know of no abandoned buildings.

As for the "wrecked cars," the Village itself is responsible for the storage in Harmon of vehicles involved in accidents. Croton could easily find a less visible site for the impoundment of such inoperable vehicles. This is an excellent example of this Village Board’s ability to speak out of both sides of its mouth. The impoundment is a violation of the Village’s own Gateway Law.

And as for empty lots, since when is undeveloped land an eyesore and government's responsibility?

Ms. De Marchis is obviously ignorant of the steps involved in determining school tax revenues. (1) The school district develops and adopts a budget reflecting future needs. (2) Revenues from sources other than the property tax (state aid, etc.) are subtracted from the budget. The remainder becomes the tax levy, which is raised through the property tax. (3) To determine the tax rate, the tax levy is divided by the total taxable assessed value of all property in the school district. Temporary up-or-down fluctuations in property valuations  in a neighborhood are not reflected by changes in individual tax assessments.

Hitler knew the value of the “big lie.” Another big lie frequently used by proponents of Harmon zoning changes is the charge that in engaging in court actions, opponents of the legislation are guilty of barratry--persistently instigating groundless lawsuits designed to bleed Croton white with legal fees.

It so happens that the actions brought are specified by law as the proper avenues to challenge the Village’s frivolities. Avoidance of so many blatant errors by Croton would have made citizen action unnecessary.

Those of every political stripe who oppose the misguided zoning changes have done nothing to disgrace Croton by pointing out the many errors committed in the name of planning. Yet, by its disastrous legal maneuvering and by opposing its own citizens so patronizingly, Village Board members have managed to do everything possible to disgrace themselves.



Saturday, February 11, 2012

A Call to Consumer Activism

OP ED

Croton's irrationally unbalanced administration speaks from both sides of its mouth. One side pretends to be concerned about the commercial health of the community's businesses. The other side repeatedly announces that the Village has made sweetheart deals that fundamentally damage the very businesses it claims to be its primary concern.

A case in point is the so-called winter farmers market about to open on Saturdays in the former Blockbuster store in the cramped little strip mall adjoining the earlier Z-shaped Van Wyck mall. There cannot be a more unseemly and inappropriate time or place for such an establishment in Croton. Navigating that strip mall’s tight little parking area requires nearly professional driving skills.

Croton residents looking for a way to express their displeasure at the high-handedly precipitous granting of a special permit based on no research by the Village can use the powerful weapon of the boycott. This would also demonstrate support for the taxpaying local retail businesses damaged by the Village's irresponsible action.

The boycott takes its name from Capt. Charles Boycott, a land agent for absentee landlords in Ireland. In 1880, after evicting tenant farmers from lands he controlled in western Ireland he attempted to recruit local farmers to harvest his crops. They refused and Boycott was forced to bring in workers from Northern Ireland. He also brought in police, but predicted violence never occurred. In the end, Boycott spent 10,000 Pounds to harvest 500 Pounds worth of crops. Irish nationalist leader Charles Parnell quipped that “it cost one shilling for every turnip dug from Boycott’s land.”

Extended boycotts have a long and honorable history, including the boycott of British goods by colonists during the American Revolution a century before and the boycott of British textiles led by Mahatma Gandhi in the 1920s. Gandhi also advocated that Indians spin their own yarns to make cloth. Other notable boycotts include the year-long Montgomery, Alabama, bus boycott in 1956 and the grape and lettuce boycotts led by Cesar Chavez in the 1970s. Notable, too, was the US-led boycott of the summer Olympic Games in Moscow in 1980

As a form of protest, the boycott is legal under common law and. can be highly effective. Abstaining from patronizing the farmers market by consumers and supporting established local businesses would also send an unambiguous message to Croton’s duplicitous administration.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Whither Westchester? Part 1: Cursed by Irrational Copmplexity

CURRENT AFFAIRS

      There are 3,141 counties or county equivalents (Louisiana calls them “parishes”) in the United States. Westchester has the unenviable record of paying the highest taxes of any of these tax-collecting entities in the nation. Not just in the state of New York, or the Northeast—the highest taxes among all of the nation’s 3,141 counties.
Why this should be so can be ascribed in part to the complexity of Westchester’s division into a bewildering array of governing or administrative units. The U.S. Bureau of the Census recognizes six cities, nineteen towns, twenty villages and forty-four hamlets or CDPs (Census-Designated Places). A CDP is a concentration of population identified for census purposes. These are the statistical counterparts of incorporated places such as cities, town and villages--populated areas that lack a separate municipal government, but that otherwise physically resemble incorporated places.
According to 2006 HUD data, the median income for a household of one person in the county was $75,427 and the median income for a family of four was $96,500. Westchester County ranks second in this category. Manhattan (New York County) is first among wealthy counties in New York State. Westchester is the seventh wealthiest county nationally.

Towns
Westchester
was organized as a county in 1788 and consisted of twenty large towns, and an uncounted number of hamlets—but no villages or cities. As a result of splits and recombinations, it now has nineteen towns.
Westchester’s towns have shown the greatest variability. Twenty years after it was created in 1788, Stephen Town, named after Stephen Van Cortlandt, changed its name to Somers to honor Richard Somers, a naval hero in the war against the BarbaryCoast pirates. (Locally, the name is pronounced “Summers,” rather than "Sohmers.”)
The town of Lower Salem became South Salem in 1806. The name was changed to Lewisboro in 1840 when John Lewis gave the town $10,000 to be used for schools.
Three years after towns in Westchester were organized in 1788, the town of New Castle was carved out of North Castle. Similarly, in 1845 the town of Ossining was created from the northern part of the town of Mount Pleasant.
Three communities have taken advantage of New York State law and have become town/villages. Scarsdale, originally a town dating from 1788, became a town/village in 1916. Harrison, a town also dating from 1788, became a town/village in 1977 to preclude the secession of the hamlet of Purchase as an incorporated village.
Mount Kisco, incorporated in 1875, was a village straddling the town line that separates Bedford and New Castle with portions of the village in each town, solved the problem by becoming a town/village in 1978. Briarcliff Manor, a village, has portions located in the towns of Ossining and New Castle.
The other two New York communities that are town/villages are Green Island in Albany County, a town/village since 1896, and East Rochester in Monroe County, which became a town/village in 1962.
    Table 1 below lists Westchester’s towns in order of their population with notes about name changes and dates of creation.

Table 1. Towns According to Population (2010 Census)
(All towns date from 1788, except as noted)
 1. Pound Ridge: 5,104
 2. North Salem: 5,104
 3. Mount Kisco: 10,877 (Originally part of the town of Bedford and New Castle, it became a town/village in 1978.)
 4. North Castle: 11,481
 5. Lewisboro: 12,411 (Original town of Lower Salem was changed to South Salem in 1806. In 1840, its name was changed to Lewisboro.)
 6. Scarsdale: 17,166 (One of the original towns, it became a town/village in 1916)
 7. New Castle: 17,569 (Created from the northern part of North Castle in 1791)
 8. Bedford: 17,355
 9. Somers: 20,434 (Created as Stephen Town in 1788, its name was changed to Somers in 1808)
10. Harrison: 27,472 (One of the original towns, it became a town/village in 1977
11. Mamaroneck: 11,977
12. Ossining: 5,406 (Town created in 1845 out of the northern part of the town of Mount Pleasant)
13. Eastchester: 19,554
14. Yorktown: 36,081
15. Cortlandt: 31,292
16. Mount Pleasant
: 26,931
17. Greenburgh: 42,863

Villages
During the 19th and 20th centuries, communities in Westchester County previously classified as hamlets and seeking a separate identity formally incorporated as villages. To Ossining goes the credit of being the first incorporated village in Westchester in 1813 , followed three years later by Peekskill. After the initial incorporation of these two villages, no other hamlet followed suit for 38 years until 1854.
After the Civil War, in the thirteen years between 1866 and 1879, eight communities, mostly along the Hudson River, decided to incorporate . A stagnant period of 12 years followed. In the nine years until the turn of the century, another eight villages made the decision to incorporate.
In the 20th century, incorporation was sporadic. The most recent addition to the list of villages was Rye Brook, formed in 1982 from an unincorporated section of the Town of Rye.
At present there are 20 incorporated villages in Westchester. A peculiar anomaly exists, however. Three of Westchester’s 19 towns are designated as coterminous town/villages--namely, Scarsdale, Mount Kisco and Harrison. For statistical purposes, however, the Bureau of the Census treats them as towns.
The detailed chronological history of village incorporation of the present 20 villages and three town/villages in Westchester is shown as Table 2 below.


Table 2. Villages by Dates of Incorporation
Early 19th Century

Ossining: 1813
Peekskill: 1816 (Became a city in 1940)
Pre-Civil War
Mount Vernon: 1854 (Became a city in 1892)
New Rochelle: 1857 (Became a city in 1889)
Post-Civil War
White Plains: 1866 (One of the original towns in 1788; both it and the village were incorporated as a city in 1916.)
Port Chester: 1868
Irvington: 1870
Tarrytown: 1870
Dobbs Ferry: 1873
North Tarrytown: 1874 (Changed name to Sleepy Hollow in 1996.)
Mount Kisco: 1875 (Incorporated as a village in the towns of Bedford and New Castle, it became a town/village in 1978.)
Hastings-on-Hudson: 1879
Late 19th Century
Larchmont: 1891
Pelham Manor: 1891
Mamaroneck: 1895
Ardsley: 1896
Pelham: 1896
Pleasantville: 1897
Croton-on-Hudson: 1898
Bronxville: 1898
20th Century
Briarcliff Manor: 1902
Tuckahoe: 1903
Elmsford: 1910
Scarsdale (One of the original towns in 1788, Scarsdale became a town/village in 1916.)
Buchanan: 1928
Harrison (One of the original towns in 1788, Harrison incorporated in 1977 and became a town/village to preclude secession by Purchase.)
Rye Brook: 1982


If you thought that villages by their very nature must necessarily be small, think again. Villages in Westchester can range between tiny Buchanan, with a population of only 2,230, to Port Chester’s surprisingly large population of 28,967. Five villages each outnumber the population of a city, Rye City, with a population of 15,720. The Village of Ossining, with a population of 25,060, vastly outnumbers the population of the remainder of the Town of Ossining (5,406). In fact, the populations of the Villages of Ossining and Port Chester now outnumber the population of the City of Peekskill. A total of seventeen villages in Westchester have populations greater than the towns of Pound Ridge or North Salem (5,104). The ranking of Westchester villages in order of population is shown on Table 3 below.


Table 3. Villages According to Population (2010 Census)
(Towns shown in parentheses)

  1. Buchanan (Cortlandt): 2,230
  2. Ardsley (Greenburgh): 4,452
  3. Elmsford (Greenburgh): 4,664
  4. Pelham Manor (Pelham): 5,486
  5. Larchmont (Mamaroneck): 5,864
  6. Bronxville (Eastchester): 6,323
  7. Irvington (Greenburgh): 6,420
  8. Tuckahoe (Eastchester): 6,486
  9. Pelham (Pelham): 6,910
10. Pleasantville (Mount Pleasant): 7,019
11. Hastings-on-Hudson (Greenburgh): 7,849
12. Briarcliff Manor (Ossining, Mount Pleasant): 7,867
13. Croton-on-Hudson (Cortlandt): 8,070
14. Rye Brook (Rye): 9,347
15. Sleepy Hollow (Mount Pleasant): 9,870
16. Dobbs Ferry (Greenburgh): 10,875
17. Tarrytown (Greenburgh): 11,277
18. Mamaroneck (Mamaroneck, Rye): 18,929
19. Ossining (Ossining) 25,060
20. Port Chester (Rye): 28,967


Cities
     Westchester’s six cities are the result of the outgrowth of the populations of incorporated villages, with one exception: Originally a town, Yonkers became Westchester’s first city in 1872 after sprawling rural portions of Kingsbridge and Riverdale were separated from it. Steadily growing since 1990, and now fourth in population among New York’s cities, Yonkers may yet dislodge Rochester and its declining population from third place. Mount Vernon incorporated as a city in 1892 and New Rochelle in 1899. Latecomers to the ranks of the county’s cities were White Plains (1916), Peekskill(1940) and Rye (1942).


Table 4. Cities According to Population (2010 Census)
(Dates of incorporation in parentheses)

1. Yonkers (1872): 195,976
2. New Rochelle (1899): 77,062
3. Mount Vernon (1892): 67,292
4. White Plains (1916): 58,853
5. Peekskill (1940): 23,583
6. Rye (1942): 15,720


Hamlets and CDPs
To the previously described bewildering array of towns, villages, town/villages and cities, we must also add nearly a half-hundred hamlets and population aggregations considered by the Bureau of the Census to be the equivalent of incorporated villages. These are listed in Table 5 below.


Table 5. Hamlets and CDPs
(Town names shown in parentheses)

Amawalk (Somers)
Armonk (North Castle)
Archville (Mount Pleasant)
Baldwin Place (Somers)
Banksville (North Castle)
Bedford Center (Bedford)
Bedford Hills (Bedford)
Bedford Village (Bedford) Despite the name, it is not an incorporated village. Chappaqua (New Castle)
Cortlandt Manor (Cortlandt)
Crompound (Cortlandt, Yorktown
Cross River (Lewisboro)
Croton Falls (North Salem)
Crugers (Cortlandt)
Eastview (Greenburgh)
Edgemont (Greenburgh, Yonkers)
Fairview (Greenburgh)
Golden’s Bridge (Lewisboro)
Granite Springs (Somers)
Greenville (Greenburgh)
Hartsdale (Greenburgh)
Hawthorne (Mount Pleasant)
Heritage Hills (Somers)
Jefferson Valley (Yorktown)
Katonah (Bedford)
Lake Mohegan (Yorktown)
Lincolndale (Somers)
Millwood (New Castle)
Montrose (Cortlandt)
Peach Lake (North Salem)
Pocantico Hills (Mount Pleasant)
Purchase (Harrison)
Purdys (North Salem)
Salem Center (North Salem)
Scarborough (Ossining)
Scotts Corners (Pound Ridge)
Shenorock (Somers)
Shrub Oak (Yorktown)
Somers (Somers)
South Salem (Somers)
Thornwood (Mount Pleasant)
Tompkins Corners (New Castle)
Valhalla (Mount Pleasant)
Verplanck (Cortlandt)
Vista (Lewisboro)
Waccabuc (Lewisboro)
Yorktown Heights (Yorktown)


In the second part of this study, we shall examine the high costs of Westchester’s irrational complexity and what can be done about them.