OP ED
Croton today is on the brink of making a major decision. The subject at issue is mixed use. And what is mixed use? In Colonial America it was the way of life in towns and villages. It featured a tightly clustered mix of stores, houses, churches, local government buildings, and civic uses within walking distance of one another.
During the 19th century industrialization brought factories and commercial uses that were sources of objectionable noise and odors, and often were hazardous to public health. To protect residential property values, early zoning focused on separating uses and buffering them from each other to minimize nuisances. The movement to return to mixed use in urban areas was sparked by Jane Jacobs in her seminal 1961 work titled The Death and Life of Great American Cities.
Paradoxically, Croton’s existing zoning permits mixed use in the form of housing on a single floor above retail stores. Proposed legislation would more than double the amount of residential space available in commercially zoned areas as apartments above retail establishments and in ground-floor space behind them. I have been a vocal opponent of this legislation on many grounds:
(1) The total lack of research into the current retail picture in Croton. It may very well be that Croton needs less retail space rather than more.
(2) The failure of proponents to explore the impact of the legislation on the projected school population.
(3) The inadequacy of parking and the lack of outdoor space for children and pets. Because of higher densities in mixed-use developments and the commercial/office component, parking space requirements always exceed those of residential development.
(4) The total lack of adequate controls to protect the village. This mirrors the 2004 Gateway Law that bans fast-food restaurants without defining what constitutes a fast-food restaurant.
(5) The total lack of architectural standards. The only architectural requirement in the Harmon report was that the third floor within the roofline be designed as “dormers, or gables, or other architecturally pleasing design possibilities.” Even this vague and unsatisfactory requirement is missing from the proposed legislation.
(6) Technically naïve, the proposed legislation also provides for ground floor residential space behind retail space. Yet any first-year architectural student knows that retail and residential ceiling heights vary greatly and mixing them on one floor will impose additional design and construction costs. The large, high-ceilinged ground floor space without supporting columns needed for commercial uses may not be architecturally compatible with the smaller scale of walled residential space above it or behind it.
(7) Construction costs for mixed-use development currently exceed those for single-use buildings of similar size. Unanticipated architectural challenges include fire separations, sound attenuation, ventilation and egress.
(8) Mixed use developments are seen as too risky by many developers and lending institutions because economic success requires that the several different uses all remain in full occupancy. Short-term discounted cash flow has become the standard method of measuring the success of income-producing properties, making single-use properties more attractive for investment.
(9) There has been a total lack of cost analysis and feasibility studies, yet the legislation is touted as an economic panacea for Croton.
With so many issues still unaddressed, I urge all residents of Croton to turn out at the village board meeting on November 2 and demand an answer to the simple question, “Why the hurry and the mindless disregard of citizens’ legitimate concerns?”
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Putting the Gateway Law Under a Microscope
OP ED
The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and Croton’s 2004 Gateway law all have one quality in common: Very few people have read them. I urge residents to study the Gateway Law, which plays a fundamental role in proposed Harmon committee changes. It’s available on Croton’s website as part of its Zoning Code.
Let’s consider first how the Gateway Law defines and identifies what it calls its commercial gateways. These are clearly characterized as “the major entry points from surrounding municipalities and roads.” But ask Croton’s residents to list entry points under this definition, and they will invariably name four: the three exits to Croton from the north-south Expressway (Route 9). They will also definitely include Route 129 coming from the east.
Peculiarly, the Gateway Law identifies only three gateways. The first two are the Croton Point Avenue and the Municipal Place exits from the Expressway. The third is a most unusual choice: “the north end of the village along Albany Post Road (Route 9A).”
The reasons for excluding two very significant gateways that meet the Gateway Law’s own definition have never been satisfactorily explained. Unmentioned are the Senasqua Road gateway leading to the remnant Lower Village shopping area, and the similarly overlooked Route 129 gateway from Yorktown leading directly to the Grand Street shopping area.
The reason for including the Albany Post Road at the extreme north end of the village as a gateway into the Village is equally unclear. Few southbound motorists use it, preferring the Expressway. By any definition, the Senasqua Road exit is the first true gateway from the Expressway into the commercial areas of Croton. Yet Gateway Law framers ignored it.
Curiously, planners who claim to have the cure for what ails commerce in Croton have never seen fit to post a sign at the branching of Grand Street from Route 129 (Maple Street) directing motorists to “Business district” or “Shopping area.” Under the Gateway Law, the Grand Street shopping area simply does not exist.
New York State traffic statistics show that Route 129 (Maple Street) funnels two million vehicles through Croton annually. As if to underscore that Croton considers Route 129 a gateway, it has erected a very large sign on Route 129 near Jacoby Street at the entrance to the village.
Does this handsome sign bid welcome to motorists entering our fair village by pointing out Croton’s rich historical heritage? It does not. With the supreme lack of imagination so characteristic of Croton’s planning, it says, “Croton-on-Hudson. Incorporated 1898.” Before any makeover of the so-called Gateway Law is attempted, the glaring omission of two major gateways should be corrected.
The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and Croton’s 2004 Gateway law all have one quality in common: Very few people have read them. I urge residents to study the Gateway Law, which plays a fundamental role in proposed Harmon committee changes. It’s available on Croton’s website as part of its Zoning Code.
Let’s consider first how the Gateway Law defines and identifies what it calls its commercial gateways. These are clearly characterized as “the major entry points from surrounding municipalities and roads.” But ask Croton’s residents to list entry points under this definition, and they will invariably name four: the three exits to Croton from the north-south Expressway (Route 9). They will also definitely include Route 129 coming from the east.
Peculiarly, the Gateway Law identifies only three gateways. The first two are the Croton Point Avenue and the Municipal Place exits from the Expressway. The third is a most unusual choice: “the north end of the village along Albany Post Road (Route 9A).”
The reasons for excluding two very significant gateways that meet the Gateway Law’s own definition have never been satisfactorily explained. Unmentioned are the Senasqua Road gateway leading to the remnant Lower Village shopping area, and the similarly overlooked Route 129 gateway from Yorktown leading directly to the Grand Street shopping area.
The reason for including the Albany Post Road at the extreme north end of the village as a gateway into the Village is equally unclear. Few southbound motorists use it, preferring the Expressway. By any definition, the Senasqua Road exit is the first true gateway from the Expressway into the commercial areas of Croton. Yet Gateway Law framers ignored it.
Curiously, planners who claim to have the cure for what ails commerce in Croton have never seen fit to post a sign at the branching of Grand Street from Route 129 (Maple Street) directing motorists to “Business district” or “Shopping area.” Under the Gateway Law, the Grand Street shopping area simply does not exist.
New York State traffic statistics show that Route 129 (Maple Street) funnels two million vehicles through Croton annually. As if to underscore that Croton considers Route 129 a gateway, it has erected a very large sign on Route 129 near Jacoby Street at the entrance to the village.
Does this handsome sign bid welcome to motorists entering our fair village by pointing out Croton’s rich historical heritage? It does not. With the supreme lack of imagination so characteristic of Croton’s planning, it says, “Croton-on-Hudson. Incorporated 1898.” Before any makeover of the so-called Gateway Law is attempted, the glaring omission of two major gateways should be corrected.
Bob Elliott on Heritage Tourism
OP ED
Given that tourism is New York State’s second largest industry, I expected the broad plan I described last week to receive wide acceptance. As usual, a small coterie of anonymous proponents of the Harmon Plan pooh-poohed it, arguing wildly that it would not work. No respectable newspaper will publish unsigned, irresponsible comments. Initially, the plan only requires integrating Croton more closely with existing organizations to promote the new trend called “heritage tourism.”
I’d like to call a single expert witness in defense of tourism as a solution worth trying. Robert W. Elliott, seven-term mayor of Croton-on-Hudson from 1991 to 2005, and founder and past chairman of Historic River Towns of Westchester, a consortium of thirteen river communities from Yonkers to Peekskill. Under an inter-municipal agreement, this umbrella organization focuses on waterfront development, tourism and main street economics in a bottom-up approach to regional planning.
Bob Elliott authored the New York Conference of Mayors Sustainable Communities Initiative. He is the former Chair of the Hudson Valley Tourism Development Council and served as the Vice Chair of the New York Main Street Alliance. He has been the Director of Economic Development, as well as head of the Industrial Development Agency for Westchester County. Bob was also President of the Westchester Convention and Visitors Bureau. I’m sure readers will acknowledge his credentials.
On April 4, 2005, while still the mayor of Croton, Bob spoke on the subject of tourism at Buffalo’s Martin House Restoration. A five-building complex designed by Frank Lloyd Wright in his Prairie Style and built from 1903-05, this powerful architectural magnet attracts visitors from all over the country. No transcript exists of Bob’s presentation, but a Buffalo News reporter was there, and his news story captured some of the highlights.
Mayor Elliott described how communities in a picturesque 50-mile stretch along the Hudson River are working together, without being restricted by geographical or organizational divisions, with the objective of offsetting job losses and economic stagnation that have afflicted much of upstate New York. According to him, a major thrust of this “bottom-up approach to regional planning” has been the development of heritage tourism as an economic lifeline.
This makes eminent good sense, Bob pointed out. Tourism is the state’s second largest industry, and local governments (except in Croton) and groups are working together to promote the region’s history to older, middle-class travelers who constitute the primary market for heritage tourism. The special breed of “heritage tourists” stays longer, visits twice as many places and spends twice as much. “They’ve even come to see the Hudson itself as a tourist draw,” he added.
As part of his slideshow, he projected a color slide of the Half Moon on the screen, the brightly colored replica of explorer Henry Hudson’s little ship, under full sail. Above the photo, the caption read: “It’s the river, stupid.” He closed with, “It’s one aspect of regionalism that has been proven to work.”
The defense rests.
Given that tourism is New York State’s second largest industry, I expected the broad plan I described last week to receive wide acceptance. As usual, a small coterie of anonymous proponents of the Harmon Plan pooh-poohed it, arguing wildly that it would not work. No respectable newspaper will publish unsigned, irresponsible comments. Initially, the plan only requires integrating Croton more closely with existing organizations to promote the new trend called “heritage tourism.”
I’d like to call a single expert witness in defense of tourism as a solution worth trying. Robert W. Elliott, seven-term mayor of Croton-on-Hudson from 1991 to 2005, and founder and past chairman of Historic River Towns of Westchester, a consortium of thirteen river communities from Yonkers to Peekskill. Under an inter-municipal agreement, this umbrella organization focuses on waterfront development, tourism and main street economics in a bottom-up approach to regional planning.
Bob Elliott authored the New York Conference of Mayors Sustainable Communities Initiative. He is the former Chair of the Hudson Valley Tourism Development Council and served as the Vice Chair of the New York Main Street Alliance. He has been the Director of Economic Development, as well as head of the Industrial Development Agency for Westchester County. Bob was also President of the Westchester Convention and Visitors Bureau. I’m sure readers will acknowledge his credentials.
On April 4, 2005, while still the mayor of Croton, Bob spoke on the subject of tourism at Buffalo’s Martin House Restoration. A five-building complex designed by Frank Lloyd Wright in his Prairie Style and built from 1903-05, this powerful architectural magnet attracts visitors from all over the country. No transcript exists of Bob’s presentation, but a Buffalo News reporter was there, and his news story captured some of the highlights.
Mayor Elliott described how communities in a picturesque 50-mile stretch along the Hudson River are working together, without being restricted by geographical or organizational divisions, with the objective of offsetting job losses and economic stagnation that have afflicted much of upstate New York. According to him, a major thrust of this “bottom-up approach to regional planning” has been the development of heritage tourism as an economic lifeline.
This makes eminent good sense, Bob pointed out. Tourism is the state’s second largest industry, and local governments (except in Croton) and groups are working together to promote the region’s history to older, middle-class travelers who constitute the primary market for heritage tourism. The special breed of “heritage tourists” stays longer, visits twice as many places and spends twice as much. “They’ve even come to see the Hudson itself as a tourist draw,” he added.
As part of his slideshow, he projected a color slide of the Half Moon on the screen, the brightly colored replica of explorer Henry Hudson’s little ship, under full sail. Above the photo, the caption read: “It’s the river, stupid.” He closed with, “It’s one aspect of regionalism that has been proven to work.”
The defense rests.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
An Untapped Asset: Croton's Rich History Could Be Its Salvation
OP ED
Readers may be interested in the following transcript of a question-and-answer session I recently had with myself:
Q: Okay, Mr. Wise Guy, you’ve been critical of unneeded zoning changes, what’s your solution for Croton’s economic ills?
A: The answer has been right under our noses from the beginning: Old-fashioned tourism. Give people a reason to “Visit Historic Croton-on-Hudson.” and they’ll come in droves.
Q: What’s the first step?
A: We have the nucleus in Van Cortlandt Manor to cover the Dutch colonial period. The Village should acquire and restore the nearby original Harmon sales office. Make it a visitors’ center and a Croton Museum of History with permanent exhibits about Croton’s long history of boat building, railroading, brick making, and construction of the Old Croton Aqueduct and the Croton Dam.
Q: What comes next?
A: Special exhibits can be added, such as one honoring Croton’s African-American heritage. Revolutionary War cannoneer John Peterson, whose unerring aim began the downfall of British spy, Major John André, and playwright Lorraine Hansberry (“A Raisin in the Sun”) are both buried in Bethel Cemetery.
Q: What other attractions could there be?
A: Perhaps Metro North could be induced to establish a railroad (and trolley) museum here. (The Metro Enviro site would be ideal.) Croton should explore the possibility that the colorful replica of Henry Hudson’s ship, the Half Moon, could make Croton its homeport and wintering port.
Q: Isn’t Croton’s rich history already widely recognized?
A: Not at all. Historic sites are unmarked. Would you believe there’s only one marker in the village memorializing its historic past? Most Crotonites cannot name that lone marker. (It’s at the base of the hill on which Bethel Chapel stands.) There are more than a dozen houses in Croton associated with the Bohemian colony of artists and writers that flourished here during and after the First World War. Yet not a single marker identifies any of these houses, which would make a fine subject for a walking tour.
Q: How would you overcome Croton’s handicap of widely separated shopping areas?
A: That’s easy. In keeping with the image of a tourist-friendly village, Croton’s shopping areas could be gradually nudged toward specialization. For example, Grand Street could emulate Cold Spring’s Main Street and feature shops offering antiques and knickknacks. And attract customers to its restaurants.
Q: What about places where tourists can stay?
A: The big hurdle is lack of hotel space. For year-round tourism, a hotel/conference center with a river view could easily be built on a commercial site like the tire warehouse. The railroad’s fast express train service opens up the possibility that Metro North could promote tours to Croton from New York City as package deals.
Q: What should we do about the Gateway Law?
A: Cosmetic changes will do nothing to bring new business. We must stop excluding legitimate businesses. It’s positively un-American to convict a whole class of businesses without a trial. Let’s make Croton a village that genuinely welcomes businesses. We must halt any attempt to urbanize Croton. Don’t expand the Gateway Law. Get rid of it.
Q: What are the chances of such a plan coming to fruition?
A: Good, if Croton will stop bickering and recognize that exploitation of its history can be its salvation.
Readers may be interested in the following transcript of a question-and-answer session I recently had with myself:
Q: Okay, Mr. Wise Guy, you’ve been critical of unneeded zoning changes, what’s your solution for Croton’s economic ills?
A: The answer has been right under our noses from the beginning: Old-fashioned tourism. Give people a reason to “Visit Historic Croton-on-Hudson.” and they’ll come in droves.
Q: What’s the first step?
A: We have the nucleus in Van Cortlandt Manor to cover the Dutch colonial period. The Village should acquire and restore the nearby original Harmon sales office. Make it a visitors’ center and a Croton Museum of History with permanent exhibits about Croton’s long history of boat building, railroading, brick making, and construction of the Old Croton Aqueduct and the Croton Dam.
Q: What comes next?
A: Special exhibits can be added, such as one honoring Croton’s African-American heritage. Revolutionary War cannoneer John Peterson, whose unerring aim began the downfall of British spy, Major John André, and playwright Lorraine Hansberry (“A Raisin in the Sun”) are both buried in Bethel Cemetery.
Q: What other attractions could there be?
A: Perhaps Metro North could be induced to establish a railroad (and trolley) museum here. (The Metro Enviro site would be ideal.) Croton should explore the possibility that the colorful replica of Henry Hudson’s ship, the Half Moon, could make Croton its homeport and wintering port.
Q: Isn’t Croton’s rich history already widely recognized?
A: Not at all. Historic sites are unmarked. Would you believe there’s only one marker in the village memorializing its historic past? Most Crotonites cannot name that lone marker. (It’s at the base of the hill on which Bethel Chapel stands.) There are more than a dozen houses in Croton associated with the Bohemian colony of artists and writers that flourished here during and after the First World War. Yet not a single marker identifies any of these houses, which would make a fine subject for a walking tour.
Q: How would you overcome Croton’s handicap of widely separated shopping areas?
A: That’s easy. In keeping with the image of a tourist-friendly village, Croton’s shopping areas could be gradually nudged toward specialization. For example, Grand Street could emulate Cold Spring’s Main Street and feature shops offering antiques and knickknacks. And attract customers to its restaurants.
Q: What about places where tourists can stay?
A: The big hurdle is lack of hotel space. For year-round tourism, a hotel/conference center with a river view could easily be built on a commercial site like the tire warehouse. The railroad’s fast express train service opens up the possibility that Metro North could promote tours to Croton from New York City as package deals.
Q: What should we do about the Gateway Law?
A: Cosmetic changes will do nothing to bring new business. We must stop excluding legitimate businesses. It’s positively un-American to convict a whole class of businesses without a trial. Let’s make Croton a village that genuinely welcomes businesses. We must halt any attempt to urbanize Croton. Don’t expand the Gateway Law. Get rid of it.
Q: What are the chances of such a plan coming to fruition?
A: Good, if Croton will stop bickering and recognize that exploitation of its history can be its salvation.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Painful Truths about Croton Planning
OP ED
In planning Croton’s future, three indisputable facts cannot be changed:
(1) The Expressway has effectively made Croton a backwater by cutting it off from the flow of north-south automobile traffic, estimated at 40,000 vehicles a day. Each transit by a motorist bypassing our village at 55 mph means one less potential customer for Croton businesses.
(2) Croton lacks a single, centralized shopping area. Over the years, Croton planners allowed five widely separated and non-contiguous shopping areas to evolve, each heavily dependent on the automobile. Pedestrian traffic between the respective shopping areas is nonexistent because of their wide separation.
(3) Croton planners also allowed its downtown to be blighted with three giant supermarkets and their large, unsightly automobile parking areas. These encourage automobile usage and further discourage pedestrian traffic.
This may not be a picture of “the Croton we want.” Nevertheless, it’s the Croton we’ve got, and we must make the best of an unhappy situation. Planners must accept that the above special conditions make Croton different from other villages. I don’t care how many communities with centralized shopping areas our expensive hired consultants may have advised; they cannot overcome Croton’s atypical handicaps. Otherwise, any monies spent will be wasted.
Planners must stop treating Croton as a community with conventional planning problems. They should accept Croton’s unusual situation before plunging ahead with off-the-shelf, standard-issue solutions. Merely giving Harmon a hasty cosmetic makeover that violates common sense is not planning.
I have railed against the flawed 2004 Gateway Law now incorporated into the Zoning Code and against the proposed Harmon-inspired changes to it. Its proponents have stubbornly clung to flagrantly erroneous beliefs: (1) that planning efforts should be concentrated on a single shopping area at the expense of the other areas; (2) that there are three magical, mystical “gateways” to Croton; (3) that all motorists who enter Croton are here to shop, so Croton must be made pretty for such shoppers from other communities.
Every community has its delicatessens, pizza parlors, supermarkets, hardware store, branch bank, and post office supplying basic needs of its residents. Croton’s underlying problem is that it lacks a “magnet” store or stores that would attract customers from elsewhere. Briarcliff Manor's Chilmark shopping center, for example, has a Radio Shack. When I need an electronic gadget, I travel there. After a brief existence here, Croton’s sole magnet store, Blockbuster, is now in the process of closing.
The only businesses that manage to thrive here are those that supply basic needs—“the butcher, baker and candlestick maker.” Ironically, Croton’s Gateway Law specifically bans automobile dealerships and national chain fast food restaurants. Yet each of these categories represents a magnet business with the potential of attracting the very customers from other communities that Croton sorely needs.
The truth is Croton planners lack basic knowledge of the community so necessary for intelligent planning. Croton has no inventory of the stores, empty or occupied, in each of Croton’s five shopping areas. We have no idea of their sizes, amenities, and rental terms or even what they offer in the way of goods and services. Hard to believe, but no planner can identify how many delicatessens, restaurants, pizza parlors, or nail salons exist in Croton, nor can they tell me where they are located.
Equally nonexistent is a reliable, controlled census and projections of its school population and expected growth. Croton has no idea of the number of apartments that exist in the village, yet planners are contemplating adding more apartments in crowded human rabbit warrens. School taxes form the major portion of each taxpayer’s tax burden.
That planners in Croton should be actively engaged in planning for this village’s future despite their lack of fundamental knowledge about the nature and state of its current business and residential communities is staggering, to say the least. What Croton needs is more information, not more legislation.
Croton and other communities in Westchester have just been dealt a double whammy. One is the workforce legislation calling for mandatory affordable housing now awaiting the governor’s signature. The other is the agreement recently reached between the county executive and the federal government mandating affordable housing for minorities. The fact that Croton receives no credit for the impressive results achieved by the Croton Housing Network is only one of the many disquieting aspects of the wrenching changes.
Apparently unforeseen by the Village, the two events in quick succession came as a complete surprise. Until the questions they raise are answered, it would be suicidal for Croton’s present administration to push ahead mulishly in its headlong rush to expand the flawed Gateway Law by adding apartments whose need is highly questionable. Its first order of business should be to fill the enormous gap in information about the nature of the ventures that manage to thrive in the village and the future burdens on its school system.
In planning Croton’s future, three indisputable facts cannot be changed:
(1) The Expressway has effectively made Croton a backwater by cutting it off from the flow of north-south automobile traffic, estimated at 40,000 vehicles a day. Each transit by a motorist bypassing our village at 55 mph means one less potential customer for Croton businesses.
(2) Croton lacks a single, centralized shopping area. Over the years, Croton planners allowed five widely separated and non-contiguous shopping areas to evolve, each heavily dependent on the automobile. Pedestrian traffic between the respective shopping areas is nonexistent because of their wide separation.
(3) Croton planners also allowed its downtown to be blighted with three giant supermarkets and their large, unsightly automobile parking areas. These encourage automobile usage and further discourage pedestrian traffic.
This may not be a picture of “the Croton we want.” Nevertheless, it’s the Croton we’ve got, and we must make the best of an unhappy situation. Planners must accept that the above special conditions make Croton different from other villages. I don’t care how many communities with centralized shopping areas our expensive hired consultants may have advised; they cannot overcome Croton’s atypical handicaps. Otherwise, any monies spent will be wasted.
Planners must stop treating Croton as a community with conventional planning problems. They should accept Croton’s unusual situation before plunging ahead with off-the-shelf, standard-issue solutions. Merely giving Harmon a hasty cosmetic makeover that violates common sense is not planning.
I have railed against the flawed 2004 Gateway Law now incorporated into the Zoning Code and against the proposed Harmon-inspired changes to it. Its proponents have stubbornly clung to flagrantly erroneous beliefs: (1) that planning efforts should be concentrated on a single shopping area at the expense of the other areas; (2) that there are three magical, mystical “gateways” to Croton; (3) that all motorists who enter Croton are here to shop, so Croton must be made pretty for such shoppers from other communities.
Every community has its delicatessens, pizza parlors, supermarkets, hardware store, branch bank, and post office supplying basic needs of its residents. Croton’s underlying problem is that it lacks a “magnet” store or stores that would attract customers from elsewhere. Briarcliff Manor's Chilmark shopping center, for example, has a Radio Shack. When I need an electronic gadget, I travel there. After a brief existence here, Croton’s sole magnet store, Blockbuster, is now in the process of closing.
The only businesses that manage to thrive here are those that supply basic needs—“the butcher, baker and candlestick maker.” Ironically, Croton’s Gateway Law specifically bans automobile dealerships and national chain fast food restaurants. Yet each of these categories represents a magnet business with the potential of attracting the very customers from other communities that Croton sorely needs.
The truth is Croton planners lack basic knowledge of the community so necessary for intelligent planning. Croton has no inventory of the stores, empty or occupied, in each of Croton’s five shopping areas. We have no idea of their sizes, amenities, and rental terms or even what they offer in the way of goods and services. Hard to believe, but no planner can identify how many delicatessens, restaurants, pizza parlors, or nail salons exist in Croton, nor can they tell me where they are located.
Equally nonexistent is a reliable, controlled census and projections of its school population and expected growth. Croton has no idea of the number of apartments that exist in the village, yet planners are contemplating adding more apartments in crowded human rabbit warrens. School taxes form the major portion of each taxpayer’s tax burden.
That planners in Croton should be actively engaged in planning for this village’s future despite their lack of fundamental knowledge about the nature and state of its current business and residential communities is staggering, to say the least. What Croton needs is more information, not more legislation.
Croton and other communities in Westchester have just been dealt a double whammy. One is the workforce legislation calling for mandatory affordable housing now awaiting the governor’s signature. The other is the agreement recently reached between the county executive and the federal government mandating affordable housing for minorities. The fact that Croton receives no credit for the impressive results achieved by the Croton Housing Network is only one of the many disquieting aspects of the wrenching changes.
Apparently unforeseen by the Village, the two events in quick succession came as a complete surprise. Until the questions they raise are answered, it would be suicidal for Croton’s present administration to push ahead mulishly in its headlong rush to expand the flawed Gateway Law by adding apartments whose need is highly questionable. Its first order of business should be to fill the enormous gap in information about the nature of the ventures that manage to thrive in the village and the future burdens on its school system.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Strange Doings in the Name of Zoning
OP ED
Continuing a detailed study of the flawed Gateway Law to which zoning changes will be added, here are a few of the Law’s flaws that professional planners have already bestowed on us: (References to the Gateway Law hereafter will be to “the Law.”)
Flaw No. 1 is in the fallacious concept that if we “upgrade the image and strengthen the visual identity of the Village,” visitors will automatically come to Croton regardless of the nature of the merchandise or services its shops offer.
Flaw No. 2: In the Harmon area, the Law calls for new buildings to be “designed to enhance the district’s small-scale character.” But the character of the buildings in the vast urban renewal project and associated parking areas envisioned under the proposed zoning changes give the lie to the phrase “small scale.”
Flaw No. 3: The Law next mandates a very questionable scheme. Here’s what it proposes for Harmon: “To reinforce the area’s role as a 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.” Erecting a clock or a sculpture approved by the Planning Board with an incoming business footing the bill? I’m not making any of this up. It’s right there in the Law at 230-20.6-4
Because the avowed function of gateways is to give visitors “a sense of arrival,” why not a small Statue of Liberty with a variation on the Emma Lazarus sentiment carved into the base? “Give me your energized, your wealthy, your eager customers yearning to spend freely.” In other gateway areas, how about an impressive fountain, heroic statue or perhaps a miniature Arc de Triomphe? The sky’s the limit in beautifying Croton for new arrivals.
Flaw No. 4: In the Municipal Place area, the Law stresses the need for increased pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks, despite the fact that the layout and facilities of the area encourage and favor automobile usage. Pedestrian traffic is non-existent here, and it is still worth your life to try to cross Maple Street to get from one part of this gateway area to another on foot.
Flaw No. 5 is the designation of the North End area as a commercial gateway. In this area, a veritable Siberia for commercial development with no access from the Expressway, the Law is ultra-specific about prettification: “New development, landscaping and streetscaping shall be designed to preserve the district’s residential and rural feel from the village boundary line to Warren Road.”
The Law calls for sidewalks to be constructed on Warren Road from the village line south to Warren Road and west to the bridge over the Expressway. Preferential consideration is also given to site plans featuring “stone walls consistent with existing built walls along property lines to screen parking.” Street trees and shrubs should be planted on the east side of Route 9 and the west side of 9A (both are State roads and the designated roadsides are now heavily wooded) “to form a buffer between these roads and the North End gateway properties.”
In the course of human events, the power to write legislation controlling zoning in their immediate neighborhoods is not given to ordinary citizens. Section 20-3-E of the Village Code of Ethics calls for disclosure by public officials of any interest in legislation. It so happens that among the driving forces behind the passage in 2004 of the Gateway Law was an appointed Village official living on Briggs Lane off Warren Road, immediately adjacent to the North End gateway area. Because there was no disclosure, disqualification or recusal, it would seem that “somebody’s gotta lot of splainin’ to do.”
Continuing a detailed study of the flawed Gateway Law to which zoning changes will be added, here are a few of the Law’s flaws that professional planners have already bestowed on us: (References to the Gateway Law hereafter will be to “the Law.”)
Flaw No. 1 is in the fallacious concept that if we “upgrade the image and strengthen the visual identity of the Village,” visitors will automatically come to Croton regardless of the nature of the merchandise or services its shops offer.
Flaw No. 2: In the Harmon area, the Law calls for new buildings to be “designed to enhance the district’s small-scale character.” But the character of the buildings in the vast urban renewal project and associated parking areas envisioned under the proposed zoning changes give the lie to the phrase “small scale.”
Flaw No. 3: The Law next mandates a very questionable scheme. Here’s what it proposes for Harmon: “To reinforce the area’s role as a 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.” Erecting a clock or a sculpture approved by the Planning Board with an incoming business footing the bill? I’m not making any of this up. It’s right there in the Law at 230-20.6-4
Because the avowed function of gateways is to give visitors “a sense of arrival,” why not a small Statue of Liberty with a variation on the Emma Lazarus sentiment carved into the base? “Give me your energized, your wealthy, your eager customers yearning to spend freely.” In other gateway areas, how about an impressive fountain, heroic statue or perhaps a miniature Arc de Triomphe? The sky’s the limit in beautifying Croton for new arrivals.
Flaw No. 4: In the Municipal Place area, the Law stresses the need for increased pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks, despite the fact that the layout and facilities of the area encourage and favor automobile usage. Pedestrian traffic is non-existent here, and it is still worth your life to try to cross Maple Street to get from one part of this gateway area to another on foot.
Flaw No. 5 is the designation of the North End area as a commercial gateway. In this area, a veritable Siberia for commercial development with no access from the Expressway, the Law is ultra-specific about prettification: “New development, landscaping and streetscaping shall be designed to preserve the district’s residential and rural feel from the village boundary line to Warren Road.”
The Law calls for sidewalks to be constructed on Warren Road from the village line south to Warren Road and west to the bridge over the Expressway. Preferential consideration is also given to site plans featuring “stone walls consistent with existing built walls along property lines to screen parking.” Street trees and shrubs should be planted on the east side of Route 9 and the west side of 9A (both are State roads and the designated roadsides are now heavily wooded) “to form a buffer between these roads and the North End gateway properties.”
In the course of human events, the power to write legislation controlling zoning in their immediate neighborhoods is not given to ordinary citizens. Section 20-3-E of the Village Code of Ethics calls for disclosure by public officials of any interest in legislation. It so happens that among the driving forces behind the passage in 2004 of the Gateway Law was an appointed Village official living on Briggs Lane off Warren Road, immediately adjacent to the North End gateway area. Because there was no disclosure, disqualification or recusal, it would seem that “somebody’s gotta lot of splainin’ to do.”
Thursday, July 30, 2009
When Government Works Against a Community's Best Interests
OP ED
Governments often work in ways contrary to the interests of those who elected them and whom they profess to serve. Croton is an example of this. With local retail businesses struggling to survive, Croton’s government recently waived permit requirements for itself and cut a rent-free deal with a for-profit corporation. By installing a so-called “farmer’s market” on public property and providing village traffic control personnel without so much as a public hearing, Croton facilitated competition with local food businesses, making their survival more unlikely. All the while it sheds crocodile tears over the sad state of retail business in Croton.
The controversial Harmon plan is another glaring example. It proposes to make substantial changes in the flawed Gateway Law, a poor foundation on which to construct anything. A small army of critics is attacking these changes that will affect all Croton neighborhoods. I am one of them. The Gateway Law mandates that new development in the Harmon area be designed “to enhance the district’s small-scale character.” Yet an examination of the plan for Harmon proposed by the committee’s consultant reveals a gross departure from those guidelines.
For the three lots described as the Dodge property, the plan shows a building containing 24,800 square feet of total floor area. Such a building would enclose 289,325 cubic feet of space. By any standard, that’s one helluva bulky building. Behind this massive structure will be an equally large parking lot, illuminated at night, containing 47 parking spaces to serve 16 retail or professional units and some 40 residential units. Despite its enormous capacity, 47 spaces are admittedly inadequate for the building’s needs. The consultant’s solution is for parking spaces to be shared by residents and outsiders in what can best be described as an intricate game of musical chairs played with automobiles.
Unfortunately, too, the Harmon committee neglected to point out to the consultant that the corner lot was a site of historical significance—namely, Harmon’s first and oldest building, the original sales office of Clifford B. Harmon. Their totally unacceptable plan calls for its destruction.
I am a firm believer in the natural superiority of women. Studies have shown that women excel in a wide variety of areas: intelligence, physical and emotional health, sensory perception, sociability, and longevity, to name a few. As caregivers women are unsurpassed. I showed the consultant’s layout to my wife, Edith. It took her about three minutes of study to detect the fundamental flaw in the plan. “Where’s the open space? Where will the kids who will live in these apartments play?’ she asked. “Will their mothers caution them, ‘Go outside and play—but watch out for traffic. And don’t play in the parking lot. It’s dangerous with all those cars backing up.’?” The nearest of Croton’s too-few playgrounds is almost a mile away, my wife pointed out.
In the 1930s many small retailers got their start by “living over the store.” This gave them reasonable rent and a way to work long hours in the family delicatessen at street level. The Harmon plan is a bastardization of that concept. Croton’s planners seem bent on creating a veritable rabbit warren of retail stores, professional offices and barely habitable attic apartments. By injecting a large number of transient renters into a suburban commercial neighborhood, they will re-create an overcrowded urban landscape—the very conditions many Croton homeowners fled the city to escape.
Opponents of the Harmon plan have taken to calling the eventual result a “housing project,” an appellation that upsets proponents. I prefer to describe it as a “visual blight certain to be sparsely tenanted and a totally unacceptable slum.”
Governments often work in ways contrary to the interests of those who elected them and whom they profess to serve. Croton is an example of this. With local retail businesses struggling to survive, Croton’s government recently waived permit requirements for itself and cut a rent-free deal with a for-profit corporation. By installing a so-called “farmer’s market” on public property and providing village traffic control personnel without so much as a public hearing, Croton facilitated competition with local food businesses, making their survival more unlikely. All the while it sheds crocodile tears over the sad state of retail business in Croton.
The controversial Harmon plan is another glaring example. It proposes to make substantial changes in the flawed Gateway Law, a poor foundation on which to construct anything. A small army of critics is attacking these changes that will affect all Croton neighborhoods. I am one of them. The Gateway Law mandates that new development in the Harmon area be designed “to enhance the district’s small-scale character.” Yet an examination of the plan for Harmon proposed by the committee’s consultant reveals a gross departure from those guidelines.
For the three lots described as the Dodge property, the plan shows a building containing 24,800 square feet of total floor area. Such a building would enclose 289,325 cubic feet of space. By any standard, that’s one helluva bulky building. Behind this massive structure will be an equally large parking lot, illuminated at night, containing 47 parking spaces to serve 16 retail or professional units and some 40 residential units. Despite its enormous capacity, 47 spaces are admittedly inadequate for the building’s needs. The consultant’s solution is for parking spaces to be shared by residents and outsiders in what can best be described as an intricate game of musical chairs played with automobiles.
Unfortunately, too, the Harmon committee neglected to point out to the consultant that the corner lot was a site of historical significance—namely, Harmon’s first and oldest building, the original sales office of Clifford B. Harmon. Their totally unacceptable plan calls for its destruction.
I am a firm believer in the natural superiority of women. Studies have shown that women excel in a wide variety of areas: intelligence, physical and emotional health, sensory perception, sociability, and longevity, to name a few. As caregivers women are unsurpassed. I showed the consultant’s layout to my wife, Edith. It took her about three minutes of study to detect the fundamental flaw in the plan. “Where’s the open space? Where will the kids who will live in these apartments play?’ she asked. “Will their mothers caution them, ‘Go outside and play—but watch out for traffic. And don’t play in the parking lot. It’s dangerous with all those cars backing up.’?” The nearest of Croton’s too-few playgrounds is almost a mile away, my wife pointed out.
In the 1930s many small retailers got their start by “living over the store.” This gave them reasonable rent and a way to work long hours in the family delicatessen at street level. The Harmon plan is a bastardization of that concept. Croton’s planners seem bent on creating a veritable rabbit warren of retail stores, professional offices and barely habitable attic apartments. By injecting a large number of transient renters into a suburban commercial neighborhood, they will re-create an overcrowded urban landscape—the very conditions many Croton homeowners fled the city to escape.
Opponents of the Harmon plan have taken to calling the eventual result a “housing project,” an appellation that upsets proponents. I prefer to describe it as a “visual blight certain to be sparsely tenanted and a totally unacceptable slum.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)