Backing Into Zoning Change 12

PLANNING

Projections of Croton’s growth abound. But has anyone looked at Croton’s population statistics over the past century? I was trained as a scientist. The first rule in science is to gather data so as to be able to deduce theories, reproduce the results of others or draw conclusions.

For the record, therefore, and for use by those who value and use statistics, I offer the following table. All figures, except for one instance that is noted, are verified population figures from the pertinent decennial U.S. Census. The drop down to single-digit percentage growth since 1970 may indicate that Croton is approaching population saturation, at least for a while. It will be interesting to see what next year’s 2010 census holds for Croton.

Croton-on-Hudson Population Statistics and Growth

1898: Croton-on-Hudson incorporates
1900: 1,533
1907: First lots sold in Harmon
1910: 1,806 (+273 = +17.8% )
1917-18: U.S in World War I
1920: 2,286 (+480 = +26.6%)
1930: 2,447 (+161 = +7.0%)
1932: Harmon, Mt. Airy absorbed by Croton
1940: 3,843 (+1,396 = +57.0%) (See Note 1)
1941-45: U.S. in World War II
1950: 4,837 (+994 = +25.9%)
1960: 6,812 (+1,975 = +40.8%)
1970: 7,523 (+711 = +10.4%) (See comment below)
1980: 6,889 (-634 = -8.1%)
1990: 7,018 (+129 = +2.9%)
2000: 7,606 (+588 = +8.4%)
2008: 7,919 (+313 = +4.1%) (See Note 2)
--------------------------------------
Note 1: The figure of 1,396 includes population growth in Croton, and the added population contributed by Harmon and Mt. Airy.
Note 2: July 2008 estimate. Source: city-data.com

The 1970 figure appears to be anomalous. No one in authority can explain the rise to a total population that would not be approached again for three decades. The drop off in the 1980 census is also puzzling, resulting in a net gain in population between 1960 and 1980 of only 77 persons, or one percent.. The consensus is that these widely swinging numbers represent changes in the designated election districts used to delimit the boundaries of Croton-on-Hudson for census purposes.

Backing Into Zoning Change 11

PLANNING

What Did Croton Taxpayers Get for Their $21,500? That was the amount spent on two Harmon reports? The answer is, “Not much.” $6,500 of it went to Saccardi & Schiff for a plan that includes the destruction of the oldest building in Harmon and for a controversial scheme for residents and customers to play musical chairs with parking behind a huge, blocky building that would replace the Village-created “eyesore” of the Dodge dealership.

Don’t let the Harmon committee tell you that this large building of nearly 25,000 square feet and its 47 parking spaces are only "suggestions" for what could occupy that space. Their intention clearly is to demolish the landmark Clifford Harmon former sales office. In their exhaustive 44-page recommendations to the Village Board, the building is shown in Appendix 2 as an “affected property,” and is glaringly absent from plans 4c and 4d. Why doesn’t the Harmon committee fess up and admit they were not aware of the building’s history?

Another $15,000 went to Danth Inc. for a report that claims Harmon is ripe for a host of businesses, based on its “unmet demands.” Among these are stores selling furniture, family clothing, women’s clothing, radio-TV-electronics, jewelry, sporting goods, used-merchandise, and full- and limited-service eating places. The report then winnows these and recommends for Harmon a cell phone store, a pet shop, stores offering knitting, women’s clothing, prepared meals, and full- and limited-service restaurants. Whew!

The report’s author was obviously unfamiliar with the study area and its retailing history. He says the nearest pet shop to Harmon is in Montrose, 4.7 miles away. Montrose has no pet shop. Choice Pets in Ossining, 3 miles away, is the nearest pet shop. Knitting? The Niddy Noddy, even with world-famous knitter Irene Miller at the helm, had to close. Women’s clothing? Remember the Import Corner, a lovely store? Same fate.

The Harmon committee obviously neglected to provide the author of the report with a copy of the 2004 Gateway Law banning fast-food restaurants. How embarrassing! He recommends a McDonald’s for Harmon, but points out that they would probably want to be closer to the Expressway. Another example of that law excluding revenue-producing businesses. And, despite the awkward presence of two shuttered Harmon restaurants, his report sees great hope for full-service restaurants there. Tell that to the owners of the Riverside Café and Tutto Bene.

All in all, this report is a huge disappointment. One has to wonder whether the Harmon committee believes that Croton taxpayers got $21,500 worth of sage advice from these two flawed reports. Our feeling is that we were gypped.

Backing Into Zoning Change 10

PLANNING

Ten Hurdles the Harmon Proposal Cannot Overcome. A Checklist

1. The Expressway. This limited access 9.2-mile highway bypasses Croton, leaving it cut off from the main north-south flow of traffic. Croton has never been the same ever since it opened in 1967. Some 40,000 vehicles detour around Croton daily at 55 miles an hour or more. Croton’s customer base is thus essentially reduced mostly to Croton’s population, approximately 8,000 persons.

2. Five widely separated shopping areas. These have their roots in Croton’s history, as described in Nos. 4 and 5 of this series. The lack of a single, cohesive shopping area creates special problems of geographical separation for Croton that can never be overcome.

3. Higher taxes for owners, more than 50% of which are school taxes.

4. Higher rents for renters.

5. Lack of a “magnet.” A bank or post office draws shoppers to a shopping area. Croton Commons, ShopRite and Van Wyck all have this added benefit. Harmon does not.

6. Less-than-ample traffic. “Traffic” in this sense refers to traditional foot traffic. Strolling shoppers are important to the economic health of shopping neighborhoods. Only Grand Street has a semblance of foot traffic and leisurely shopping. Harmon has no foot traffic, in part because of the presence of three of Croton’s four gas stations. The Harmon proposal will not give Croton a “downtown,” as candidate Restuccia claimed.

7. Inadequate parking. Finding parking spaces in some Croton neighborhoods is always a problem, notably Harmon, the Lower Village and Grand Street. The Harmon plan anticipates multiple use of parking spaces by residents and shop customers, a solution fraught with problems.

8. Competition. The huge Town Center and Jefferson Valley Mall and the smaller Beach, Arcadian and Chilmark complexes continue to give all Croton merchants competition. Newer Harmon merchants without an established clientele would suffer more than long-established stores.

9. Low level of community loyalty. For years, the Leo family owned The Video Connection in Croton Commons. When the Blockbuster chain opened a store nearby, The Video Connection tried to hang on. Did Croton residents support the local, family-owned business? They did not. They flocked to Blockbuster. The Video Connection closed soon after. So much for community loyalty.

10. Overly ambitious zoning. Croton may currently have too large an area zoned for commercial use, resulting in more retail spaces than there are potential tenants to fill them. This is a topic Croton has never wanted to explore, but perhaps it should do so now before it considers adding a large number of additional commercial retail spaces than are needed by its comparatively small customer base.

Backing Into Zoning Change 9

PLANNING

Let’s pause and review: The mantra of the Harmon committee, most of whose members live in Harmon, is “Build it and they will come.” Opponents say it should be “Build it and they won’t come.” Proponents of the divisive Harmon proposal admit they’re greedy for the bigger tax revenues new properties will bring. Fearing a depression is coming, critics say the concept slights other struggling areas of Croton.

Moreover, they point out, every Harmon property, occupied or unoccupied, is still yielding tax revenue. The proposal focuses on the former Dodge and Nappy’s properties. It foresees a developer purchasing them, demolishing the buildings (including a Harmon landmark) and erecting mixed-occupancy structures with ground-floor stores and an indefinite number of apartments on two floors above.

The fly in the ointment is the existing zoning law that must be changed. Opponents of the plan, including this writer, have pointed out that such spot zoning is illegal in New York. Why is the Village getting into the real-estate business and accommodating developers anyway? The Harmon committee cannot guarantee that tenants will show up. One of its members, Jeremy Ezra, 31, currently employed by a New York City real estate firm specializing in large commercial properties, has offered to assist in finding tenants. What the owners of barely profitable businesses elsewhere in Croton will think of this one-sided favoritism to Harmon is anybody’s guess.

With the first phase of new buildings nearing completion, the committee predicts individual property owners will begin to erect matching structures. The scenario goes something like this: I am the debt-free owner of a thriving store on South Riverside Avenue in Harmon, and I live above my store. Succumbing to the committee’s hype, I scrounge for credit and contract for a new building. Next, I close the store, sell off inventory and fixtures at a loss, lay off my two employees, move my household furniture to a storage facility, and rent a furnished apartment.

Fast-forward to the time when the replacement building is ready. After being without income for almost a year. I move into a new upstairs apartment, restock the store and try to entice former customers to return. It’s not easy. Because of my heavy debt load, I must charge higher prices. Kicking myself for ending up with a struggling business, massive mortgage, two empty high-rent apartments above mine, staggeringly higher tax bills—and a view of the new empty stores and apartments of the bankrupt developer across the street.

I have just one question for the Harmon committee: What planet do you people come from?

Backing Into Zoning Change 8

PLANNING

In 2004 Croton declared war on business. Not all businesses, just businesses certain people arbitrarily decided they didn’t want here. The attack weapon was the Gateway Law. Zoning laws usually specify permitted businesses or occupations. Croton turned common practice upside down. It designated five categories of undesirable businesses that any community wanting tax revenue would have gladly welcomed. Croton’s message: “Keep out!”

This 2004 law’s ban on parking lots was probably intended to prevent competition with the Village’s own lucrative station parking lot. Other exclusions foolishly targeted existing businesses—two local automobile dealerships and their storage lots. When the owner of the Dodge dealership discovered that if a fire destroyed more than 50% of his business, it could not be rebuilt, he moved his operation to the former Kayson property.

It turned out that Croton had shot itself in the foot by becoming a business-unfriendly community. Its punitive action actually created the empty Dodge dealership. Planners now call it an eyesore, and are pushing hard to eradicate it. For five years, Croton discouraged tax-paying businesses from coming here. Advocates of the Harmon scheme would have you believe that they can magically attract tenants to new apartments and storefronts in Harmon when existing facilities there are empty.

Other 2004 law prohibitions targeted businesses wanting to come to Croton. Its ban on drive-through windows was initially aimed at the Eckerd pharmacy chain. Eckerd wanted to buy the undeveloped Katz property, but the village said no to a planned drive-through window for prescription pickup. When the village attorney cautioned that it was unwise during negotiations to write a law solely directed at Eckerd, planners added fast-food restaurants to the list of banned businesses as cover.

Thoroughly disgusted, Eckerd decided it didn’t want to come to a community so openly hostile, and withdrew its offer for the Katz property. As TV hucksters say, “Wait, there’s more.” Another shot in the foot. After the Eckerd deal evaporated, the owner of the Katz property sued Croton, charging that the village had, by its actions, caused the purchase to fall through. Croton settled the suit by buying the property, thus taking it off the tax rolls.

Taxpayers are now the unwitting owners of a million-dollar white elephant yielding no taxes and worth less than what we paid for it. The village still doesn’t have a clue about what to do with its unintended acquisition. Such debacles are called “planning.” Meanwhile, we are being offered a snake-oil scheme that would destroy Harmon’s first and oldest surviving building.

Backing Into Zoning Change 7

PLANNING

My wife and I have lived in Croton for almost a half-century. In 1963, having returned from living in Turkey and tired of coping in a New York hotel, we bought the first house we were shown. It was in Harmon. We’re still in that house. Over the years I fell in love with Croton’s history and wrote extensively about it for The Gazette and in my own blog, Postscripts.

The Harmon Committee’s proposal has many faults. Chief among them is their intention to destroy a historic building. At the northeast corner of Benedict Boulevard and South Riverside Avenue stands a nondescript structure housing a nail salon. Under the Harmon Committee’s plan, it's slated for destruction. How sad if that were to happen. What stories it could tell. It was the very first building constructed in Harmon. It was the sales office from which Clifford Harmon peddled his lots to city dwellers seeking inexpensive homes in the country. It was once the Harmon post office. Some villages would have already restored it, and it would be serving as a visitors' center.

In the mistaken notion that a building spree during an economic downturn will cause customers and tenants to flock magically to Harmon, this committee that doesn’t give a damn about history wants to raze Harmon’s first building, erect a three-story monstrosity, pave the remaining area and make it a parking lot. What’s next? The Van Cortlandt Manor House?

The time has come to put a stop to this nonsense. Any village that forgets its past cannot have much of a future. I call on all who love Croton’s rich history to rise up in protest. I also have a message for the Harmon Committee. Its membership includes self-appointed chairman Kieran Murray, a developer hell-bent on remaking Harmon for his own purposes, and members Joe Biber, Jeremy Ezra, Julie Evans, Doug Wehrle, and Leo Wiegman. By their passivity and silence, members have given tacit approval to Mr. Murray’s frequent spontaneous outbursts of irrational rants and rages.

Those who love Croton’s history are not going to stand idly by and let this committee destroy Harmon’s oldest building through irresponsible planning. Our response is taken from the film The Searchers, now a classic in the Western genre. It’s John Wayne’s laconic line, “That’ll be the day.”

Backing Into Zoning Change 6

PLANNING

Imagine a situation in which two members of a jury in a high-profile trial announce that they had made their minds up even before the trial opens. Next, imagine these same two jurors trying to convince the public of the rightness of their premature verdict by advocating for it at every opportunity. A similar troubling ethical problem is on display in Croton right now.

Two trustees who have each sworn to keep an open mind before voting on any law have been advocating changes to an existing law even before the new legislation has been framed. Of even greater concern is that the two trustees, Ann Gallelli, whose relationship to the Harmon Committee was only to be as liaison, and Richard Olver, are now actively lobbying for their premature support of the Committee’s unilateral recommendations. They do this despite evidence that all of Croton is in economic doldrums.

It is interesting to note that both Ms. Gallelli and Mr. Olver live far from Harmon and from any personal consequences of their hasty decision-making. A case in point is Mr. Olver’s recent letter to The Gazette. After two patronizing paragraphs in which he tries to scare residents with exaggerated rumors and then knocks down the straw men he has erected, Mr. Olver offers such gems of wisdom as: “The experts tell us the current zoning is not attractive for business investment and vacancies and empty lots in Harmon confirm this. The zoning change would make Harmon more attractive for the smaller businesses and professional offices we need to revive the area.” He concludes with, “The Harmon proposals would encourage private development of new, tax-paying commercial and professional space. Now isn't that something that we all want?”

When I voted for Mr. Olver last year, I never thought he would turn into a snake-oil salesman. It was experts, Mr. Olver, who gave us those three ugly gigantic parking lots in downtown Croton. The inadequate current zoning to which you refer happens to be the disastrous Gateway Law of 2004 that Ms. Gallelli pushed so hard on--the law that has not attracted a single new business investor to Croton in five years. Who’s going to take the fall for that?

Moreover, Harmon is not unique in vacancies. And Realtor Dick Albert would dispute that Croton needs more professional space; he owns plenty of such empty space. Finally, if you think that high-rent stores and high-rent apartments in Harmon will be Croton’s salvation, I’ve got a big dam I’d like to sell to you.

Backing Into Zoning Change 5

PLANNING

Continuing the short history of Croton retailing: In the 1950s, the lower end of Route 129 (Maple Street) became home to the Van Wyck shopping complex, anchored by a Grand Union supermarket. The 1960s brought a competing A&P supermarket complex immediately opposite. Opening a new Croton post office next to the Grand Union in 1966 added to the parking problems of that complex. After the A&P decamped, the building was divided into small shops and called Croton Commons. This marked Phase 4 of Croton’s retail development.

In the fifth and final phase, the area south of Croton Point Avenue became the site of the most ambitious retail development in Croton history. Anchored by a ShopRite supermarket, it was built in the early 1970s, occupying space that previously had been a drive-in movie and a bowling alley. This latest supermarket complex and its massive parking lot only compounded the problems caused in Croton by the two competing shopping complexes facing one another across Maple Street. Eventually, it hastened their demise.

This village made a fatal planning mistake by shortsightedly adopting zoning that allowed supermarkets to be built in the very center of Croton, instead of at its periphery. Hard to believe, but at one time three giant supermarkets and their unsightly parking lots occupied the vibrant heart of the village. Add the giant station parking lot to the mix, and you have an example of what can happen when planning runs amuck: acres upon acres of parked automobiles, the ultimate malignant Automobile Age eyesore. Misguided planners took a workaday village whose richly layered architectural history from Early Georgian to Modern could easily be explored on a short walking tour and converted it into a planning nightmare, a disaster from which we may never recover.

By making automobile parking so central and accessible, planners not only caused congestive traffic problems, they effectively destroyed the “butchers, bakers and candlestick makers” in each of Croton’s original shopping areas. I call it “sudden death by supermarket.” As readers can deduce from these comments, I do not worship at the altar of the Great God of Planning. Hasty, ill-considered planning and zoning changes like those described above have caused more problems in Croton than they have solved. Those worried about the Harmon project should remember the havoc wrought by the Gateway zoning changes and the adage, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

Backing Into Zoning Change 4

PLANNING

It is almost impossible to understand Croton’s intractable planning and retailing problems without first understanding its retailing history. Croton has five separate, non-contiguous retailing areas, best described as “nodes.” The five areas, in the order of their creation, are (1) North Riverside Avenue, (2) Grand Street, (3) Harmon, (4) the lower end of Route 129, and (5) the retailing complex below Croton Point Avenue.

The first three of these developed to serve the basic needs of their surrounding residential neighborhoods. River travel antedated road travel in the Hudson Valley. Two “landings” (i.e., docks) at the foot of Grand Street and Brook Street attracted settlement. Successively called Collabaugh Landing, Cortlandt Town and Croton Landing, the area later became known as Croton’s “Lower Village.”

This first phase of Croton’s development thrived first on market sloops, then on steamboat commerce on the Hudson, and was augmented by railroad passenger and freight service after 1849, centered on what later would become Croton North station. Long before the Expressway opened in 1967, condemnation and construction essentially destroyed the Lower Village, leaving only an anemic remnant on the east side of North Riverside Avenue.

Another settlement, later called the Upper Village, came into being after stagecoach and mail service began on the Albany Post Road. It eventually became a regular stage stop, complete with inn and stables for horses. Residences and retail shops clustered nearby to supply basic goods. This marked the second phase of Croton’s development. Two steep roads, Upper Landing Road (now Brook Street) and Lower Landing Road (now Grand Street) connected the Upper Village to the Lower Village.

The third phase came after 1903, when real estate developer Clifford B. Harmon bought from the surviving Van Cortlandt heirs the land that became Harmon-on-Hudson, the original name of the new community he platted on the steep hills. Using advertising campaigns in New York City newspapers, he began selling building lots in 1907. Because Harmon was not within easy walking distance of Croton’s two original retail areas, shops opened along South Riverside Avenue to supply basic amenities to new arrivals who built homes in the growing community. Similarly, the Chapel of the Good Shepherd opened to take care the religious needs of Harmon’s Catholic residents.

Although the community of Harmon was absorbed by Croton in 1932, the Post Office Department continued to maintain a Harmon post office until the mid-1960s. So insular is Harmon, a few die-hard old-timers still insist that they live in Harmon, not Croton.

Backing Into Zoning Change 3

PLANNING

Unfortunately, Croton is not what entrepreneurs consider a hot prospect for retail investment. Since the Croton Expressway opened, our village has been a backwater, bypassed by a 12.9-mile stub of limited-access highway. Originally intended to be part of a superhighway along the east bank of the Hudson connecting the Tappan Zee Bridge with the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge, its purpose was to take traffic pressure off the Saw Mill and Taconic parkways.

The Croton Expressway was the only portion built. Unlike many other Hudson Valley post-industrial communities, Croton was suddenly relieved of the north-south traffic that once passed through on Riverside Avenue (formerly Route 9, now 9A). Motorists on the Expressway bypassing Croton at better than 55 miles an hour are oblivious to what its shops have to offer—or that it even has shops. With the Expressway’s diversion of through traffic a reality, Croton’s retail customer base was diminished, leaving Croton’s population as its shops’ principal customers.

This has had a significant effect on the kind and number of retail establishments that can start up and flourish here. It’s also the reason we should all shop locally lest more shops fail. Croton welcomed the Expressway, but paid dearly for the tradeoff in reduced retail business. Even in times of prosperity, total occupancy of Croton’s existing retail space has been difficult to achieve. According to the New York State Department of Transportation, the Expressway handles approximately 40,000 motor vehicles per day. Had they been traveling on Riverside Avenue, a fraction of these potential customers might have been inclined to stop and make purchases in shops along Riverside Avenue, including in Harmon.

In creating three gateways with the idea of welcoming motorists exiting the Expressway to shop in Croton, planners made a fatal error. They neglected to gather marketing data by stationing one person with a clipboard at each “gateway” for a day or two to ask motorists, “Are you coming to Croton to shop?” Had they done this they would have discovered that few cars exit the Expressway for the purpose of shopping. Wishful planning created imaginary gateways on paper to accommodate phantom motorcades of shoppers that will never appear. Proponents of zoning change and a revamped Harmon are simply closing their eyes to the existence of the Expressway and its attenuating effect on retail trade in Croton.

Backing Into Zoning Change 2

PLANNING

In 2004, an elaborate “Gateway Law” was concocted by consultants to rezone and make retail areas in Croton more inviting to new businesses. Its local sponsors assured us, “Pass it and they [new businesses] will come.” Well, we passed it, and five years later they haven’t come. And they won’t be coming. Apparently, no one noticed that the new law’s discriminatory zoning changes were actually inimical to new business.

Hardly a testament to the free-enterprise system, the Gateway Law definitely was not Croton’s finest hour. In fact, it has been a disaster. Yet the head of the ad hoc committee, Kieran Murray, calls this law “brilliant.” In what can only be described as the Sovietizing of Croton business, the Gateway Law shamelessly dictated what entities can and cannot operate here. Among the five banned categories were “fast-food restaurants”--although no definition of the term was offered.

When I quizzed then-trustee Georgianna Grant, my friend and a prime mover of this legislation, about what constituted a fast-food restaurant, she alluded to “Golden Arches” and said bluntly, “We don’t want places like McDonald’s or Burger King here.” Obviously, Croton emulates Humpty Dumpty in "Alice in Wonderland," who, pressed by Alice for a meaning, says, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean.”

Despite the Gateway Law’s prohibition of fast-food establishments, it was selectively enforced. Pizza parlors, a Dunkin’ Donuts, a Subway sandwich shop and the Mex-to-Go blossomed. All clearly fall under the rubric of “fast-food restaurants.” My beef isn’t with these establishments, a plus for any community, but with Croton’s deliberately anti-business legislation. In their misapplied zeal to brand certain legitimate businesses as taboo, the authors of the Gateway Law were curiously blind to socially undesirable businesses. Body-piercing salon? Yes! McDonald’s or Burger King? No! Brilliant, indeed!

We sowed the wind with the Gateway Law and inevitably reaped the whirlwind and are still reaping it. How many potentially tax-paying businesses were turned off by that Law’s unfriendliness to business can never be known. Instead of portraying Croton as snooty and anti-business, we should have welcomed any legitimate business willing to come here and invest its dollars in this community.

Croton can consider itself lucky that some national chain of fast-food restaurants with deep pockets hasn’t challenged this inequitable legislation in court as an unconstitutional denial of its due process rights. (For reasons why, see next installment)

Backing Into Zoning Change 1

PLANNING

Croton residents are being importuned to get behind legislation to rezone the Harmon area. Two-story mixed-use buildings are now permitted there. In essence, the change would permit three-story mixed-use with retail stores at street level and increased residential density on two stories above. The Democratic minority trustees are plumping for this plan, arguing that we will reap additional taxes from the change. But if anyone asks, “Why the hurry?” the answer is always the same: “The Committee has been working on this for three years.”

I find this argument hollow. “The Committee” is an ad hoc group, mostly made up of Democrats who are also residents of Harmon. By way of disclosure, I live at the northern margins of Harmon. I am a registered Democrat. I cast my first vote in 1940 for FDR, having turned 21 the year before. I was not aware that Harmon’s problems were unique or that its business climate was different from other retailing neighborhoods in Croton. I’m not a lawyer, but I do recall that under the law of New York (and other states) “spot zoning”--changing zoning to accommodate an individual or narrow group of individuals--is illegal. If spot zoning is illegal, “spot planning” that leads to an attempt at spot zoning should be discouraged. If we are going to spend taxpayers’ dollars for planning studies, as was done here, these should encompass all of Croton instead of addressing the problems of an individual neighborhood.

Moreover, if retail occupancy in Harmon is the most urgent problem requiring immediate resolution by the Village, then Croton is indeed in a bad way. I can think of a half-dozen more pressing problems that need attention. The truth is Croton’s residential taxpayers have been bearing a disproportionate share of the tax burden for almost 39 years. On June 21, 1970, Croton’s tax base became catastrophically unbalanced. I can identify the date so specifically because on that day Croton’s largest taxpayer, the Penn-Central Railroad, filed for bankruptcy protection. Croton residents have borne an unfair share of the tax burden ever since.

Instead of chasing will-o’-the-wisp instant panaceas, we ought to be hunkering down to see how the current recession/depression plays out in Croton and how many businesses (and residents) survive. So I, too, ask, “Why the hurry?”