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.

Whither Westchester? Part 2: The High Cost of Villaging

  CURRENT AFFAIRS

      Westchester residents pay the highest taxes of any county in the United States. That’s an incontrovertible fact. Why this is so—and why residents do nothing about it—is less obvious. As a result of living in an incorporated village, about a fifth of a million residents of Westchester villages pay four levels of taxation, one more than the rest of Westchester County.
      Croton is one of the twenty-odd communities that levy this extra layer of property taxes. The impact of four layers of taxation was acknowledged in the February 2010 Newsletter published by the Village of Croton-on-Hudson and intended to keep residents informed: “The property taxes each Village resident pays during the year are distributed to four entities--the School District, the Village (of Croton-on-Hudson), the Town (of Cortlandt), and the County (of Westchester).
      “The amount of your School, Town and County tax bill is based upon the Town’s assessment of your property value. Your Village tax bill is based on the Village’s assessment of your property. Village taxes are the second largest component of your yearly taxes, with the School taxes being first and the County and Town taxes representing smaller portions.” A significant piece of information in the above extract is, “Village taxes are the second largest component of your yearly taxes.” Curiously, when people rant about “big government,” they never take Westchester’s multi-layered government into account. But it is big government in every sense of the term, particularly because it has a now-superfluous layer of expensive and duplicative village government
In 1788, there were twenty towns and no incorporated villages and cities in the newly constituted Westchester County. Today, there are nineteen towns plus twenty villages in eight of these towns, and six cities independent of the towns. Three of the nineteen towns have organized themselves as anomalous town/villages. In the entire state that is New York with its 62 counties, there are 556 villages, and Westchester has 22 of them. One of the consequences of municipal incorporation was that every village soon acquired the appurtenances of business corporations—including an elaborate management structure. In fact, the heads of incorporated villages were originally called “President” until the title of Mayor was adopted to emulate the elected heads of cities.

Council-Manager Government 
Long after incorporation, Croton adopted the council-manager form of government, an outgrowth of government practices of the late 1800s and early 1900s. when political “machines” and the abuses of the Spoils System (“to the victor belongs the spoils”) blighted many municipalities. Under the council-manager system, all governmental authority rests with a governing board, except for certain duties that are assigned by law to the manager or administrator. The manager is hired by and can be dismissed by the entire board.
Under the council-manager form of government the body called a city council or village council, board of selectmen or board of trustees is responsible for the legislative function of the municipality such as establishing policy, passing local ordinances, voting appropriations, and developing an overall vision for the village or other entity. The elected body appoints a manager to oversee the administrative operations, implement its policies, and advise it. If the position of mayor exists, the duties are usually primarily ceremonial. Sixty-seven of New York State's villages have village managers/ administrators.
In Westchester, fourteen of its twenty villages and two of its three town/villages have adopted the council-manager form of government. These villages are Ardsley, Briarcliff Manor, Buchanan, Croton-on-Hudson, Dobbs Ferry, Hastings-on-Hudson, Irvington, Ossining, Pelham, Pelham Manor, Pleasantville, Port Chester, Rye Brook, and Tarrytown. The town/villages are Mount Kisco and Scarsdale.
Although the popularity of council-manager government has continued into the 21st century, the system as practiced has changed over time, particularly in communities that have grown more politically contentious. Their elected officials increasingly see themselves as political activists responding to a constituency and concentrating on narrow issues, rather than as trustees performing a public service and attending to the public welfare regardless of any political agenda, as in the traditional model. In Croton, far too much has been spent on outside planning consultants in a desperate attempt to increase revenues instead of reducing expenses. Ordinary common sense would have revealed an easy solution to Village problems: Dispense with its expensive, redundant and archaic village structure.

The High Cost of Villaging
The chief disadvantage of municipal incorporation is that in the 21st century Westchester’s villages are small and lack the potential for population growth. Too costly and outmoded to justify their continued existence, they add to the already-heavy tax burden. Consider the string of villages that stretches along the Hudson between Yonkers and Peekskill. So uniform are they in the aspect they present, a motorist driving north along the old Albany Post Road that links these villages is hard-pressed to discern where one village leaves off and the next village begins,  Each is also top-heavy with redundant management superstructure and identical police, fire, garbage collection departments and duplicated personnel and equipment.
One of these, Croton-on-Hudson, is a typical example of the council-manager form of government. The four members of the village’s board of trustees earn $3,000 annually for their services; the mayor is paid $5,000 annually. The disparity between policy-making village board salaries and that of the policy-executing village manager is startling ($17,000 vs. $163,200).
Let us now examine the true cost of managing as exemplified by the annual salaries of Croton’s village management under this system. The parenthesized dollar amounts are the raises over last year’s salaries awarded to nonelected, appointed management employees. 

Table 1: Cost of Croton’s “Top Management Team”
Village Manager: $163,300
Asistant Village Manager: $100,095
Village Treasurer: $115,015
Deputy Treasurer: $81,757
Village Clerk: $87,627
Deputy Village Clerk: $50,085

TOTAL OF ABOVE SALARIES = $597,781

The above six salaries totaling almost $600,000 are taken from the current budget for the fiscal year 2012-2013. Croton is a village with a population of 8,000 persons, a budget of $17 million and more than 80 employees. If we compare the currently budgeted management salaries to a reasonable public service salary yardstick—the salaries of the governors of the 50 states--surprising statistics emerge. The village manager of Croton-on-Hudson earns more than the governors of 44 states!
Just to put this statistic in perspective, the salary of the village manager of the village of Croton-on-Hudson with its population of a shade more than 8,000 persons is more than that of the governors of such important states as Illinois (pop. 12.9 million); Washington (pop. 6.6 million); Connecticut (pop. 3.5 million); Maryland (pop. 5.7 million); Ohio (pop. 11.5 million); Massachusetts (pop. 6.5 million); and 37 other states. (Only the governors of California, New York, Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia and Pennsylvania are paid more than Croton’s village manager.)
Croton’s Village Treasurer makes more than the governors of 27 states. Croton’s Assistant Village Manager earns more than 11 governors in the U.S. Croton’s Village Clerk makes more than three state governors. And even its lowly Deputy Treasurer makes more than the governor of the state of Maine. The following table tells the story.

Table 2: Salaries of U.S. Governors vs. Croton Management
California: $206,000
New York: $179,000
Michigan: $177,000
New Jersey: $175,000
Virginia: $175,000
Pennsylvania: $164,396
CROTON VILLAGE MANAGER: $163,200
Illinois: $155,600
Washington: $150,595
Connecticut: $150,000
Maryland: $150,000
Ohio: $144,830
Vermont: $143,957
Nevada: $141,000
Massachusetts: $140,535
Oklahoma: $140,000
Kentucky: $137,506
Wisconsin: $137,092
Georgia: $135,281
Florida: $132,932
Delaware: $132,500
North Carolina: $130,629
Iowa: $130.000
Mississippi: $122,160
Minnesota: $120,303
Missouri: $120,087
Rhode Island: $117,817
Texas: $115,345
CROTON VILLAGE TREASURER: $115,015
Alabama: $112,895
Hawaii: $112,000
New Mexico: $110,000
New Hampshire: $108,890
South Carolina: $106,078
Kansas: $105,889
Idaho: $105,560
South Dakota: $105,544
Nebraska: $105,000
Wyoming: $105,000
Utah: $104,100
CROTON ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER: $100,095
Montana: $96,462
Arizona: $95,000
Indiana: $95,000
Louisiana: $95,000
West Virginia: $95,000
Oregon: $93,600
North Dakota: $92,483
Colorado: $90,000
CROTON VILLAGE CLERK: $87,629
Tennessee: $85,000
CROTON DEPUTY VILLAGE TREASURER: $81,757
Arkansas: $80,848
Maine: $70,000

Some may point out that certain perks come with a governor’s salary—for example, the privilege of living in the executive mansion, usually a drafty old barn of a building through which gawking tourists regularly traipse. Governor Pataki so disliked living in the executive mansion in Albany, he chose to live in his house in Garrison, N.Y.
How does the current salary paid to Croton’s village manager stack up against salaries paid by other villages for the same job? Table 3 below shows the comparison. Note that the title may vary between village manager and village administrator in these figures arranged in ascending order.

Table 3. Salaries Paid to Village Managers in Westchester
     Dobbs Ferry: $79,029 (VC)
     Buchanan: $110,902 (VM, VC, VT)
     Briarcliff Manor: 116,966 (IVM)
     Tarrytown: $120,184 (VA)
     Ardsley: $130,534 (VM)
     Elmsford: $135,000 (VA, VC)
     Irvington: ($138,000 (VA)
     Pelham Village: $142,225 (VA)
     Pleasantville: $144,371 (VA)
     Hastings: $157,188 (VM)
     Ossining: $160,000 (VM)
     Croton-on-Hudson: $163,200 (VM)
     ---------------------------------------------------
Job Title Code: IVM=Interim Village Manager; VA=Village    Administrator; VC= Village Clerk; VM=Village Manager; VT=Village Treasurer.

Expressed in pocketbook terms. Croton’s village manager’s salary costs every man, woman and child in Croton $20.22 each year. In terms of the cost per household, the figure is $150.99. Interestingly, Croton (pop. 8,070) pays a larger salary ($163,200) to its village manager than does Ossining (pop. 25,060)--even though Croton is a third of Ossining’s size. Thus, compared to Croton’s annual per capita cost of its village manager of $20.22, Ossining’s is a mere $6.38.
Neighboring Buchanan’s village manager also performs the functions of village clerk and village treasurer for a base salary of $110,902. Croton spends a total of $566,015 for six persons to perform these same management functions. (Not shown in any tables are the very generous health and retirement benefits offered that continue for the lifetime of each retiree.)

Croton’s Overweening Generosity
Croton’s largesse as a village extends to other areas affecting taxation—namely the School Board and school taxes, the largest item. For example, the base salary of the former superintendent of Croton’s school system of only three schools and 1,685 students was $240,000 (plus a $20,500 tax-deferred annuity, a merit bonus of the maximum of $5,000 and a vehicle allowance of $7,200).
Contrast that salary with that of the superintendent of the Yonkers school system, with responsibility for 39 schools and 25,306 students--$235,000. Reflecting the School Board’s sudden awakening to costs, Croton’s new school superintendent receives $215,000 “and other benefits common to superintendent contracts in the county.”
Croton’s police chief, in charge of a 20-person department, receives a salary of $145,000, while Buchanan’s police chief is paid $109,000 to supervise a five-person police department. The salary of Ray Kelly, the head of the 37,000-person New York City police department, is $189,700.
Another source of taxpayer discontent is management’s practice of maintaining police departments at less than optimal strength. This results in expensive overtime practices that are often abused. Because their commuting populations empty many villages during daytime hours, the hitherto unanticipated prospect of paid fire department personnel may soon have to be considered to fill the gap left by daytime absences of volunteer firefighters.
Of Westchester’s twenty villages, fifteen have populations of less than 11,000. Thirteen of these twenty, including Croton, have populations of 8,000 or less.  Three of these twenty have populations fewer than 5,000. Yet all have the same top-heavy village structure administering budgets in the millions of dollars.
In New York City, agglomerations like Battery Park City; Peter Cooper Village, Stuyvesant Town, and Parkchester, not to mention entire square blocks of tall apartment houses on the Upper West Side, have similarly-sized populations. What if each of these had decided to incorporate as a village, with their own management, police, fire and sanitation departments? The result would resemble the chaotic picture of Westchester County villages today.
High taxes in small units of local government, such as villages, are also the result of ingrained practices that contribute to expenses. One is the method by which taxes are calculated by government. Politicians often run on platforms in which they promise to “run government like a business.” But businesses budget for the coming year by projecting the expected revenue (income) and adjust the next year’s expenses (payroll, number of employees. etc.) based on that projection. Local governments, on the other hand, project next year’s expenses (including payroll and benefits) and adjust the next year’s revenue (i.e. taxes) based on that projection. In effect, tax growth becomes a bottomless well that never runs dry.
In addition, local governments have made it a practice to give annual across-the board salary increases of two to three percent. What members of the Board of Trustees unfamiliar with the mathematical Rule of 72 don’t realize is that a three-percent raise each year will more than double a longtime employee’s salary in 24 years. This was the case with Croton’s previous village manager whose $196,340 salary in 2008 for “managing” a village of less than 8,000 persons was only slightly less than that of the governor of California, a state with a population of 36.5 million.
      We are all aware of  big government’s tendency to replicate itself, much like amoeba or paramecium splitting into two in a drop of pond water on a microscope slide. In 1970, when its population was 7,523 persons, Croton’s affairs were managed by a Village Manager, a Village Treasurer and a Village Clerk. By 2010, Croton’s population had grown by only 547 persons--an average growth rate of 14 persons a year.
Such a minuscule increase over the past 40 years can hardly have made a perceptible difference in the respective work loads of Croton's manager, treasurer and clerk. Yet, in recent years, the village in its munificence has provided each with a generously remunerated assistant. 
The salaries of these six individuals now total well over a half-million dollars a year. No wonder Croton’s village government has been unable to provide its citizens with meaningful tax reduction.

Village vs. Hamlet or CDP 

The inevitable question becomes, “What do villages offer that other communities, such as unincorporated hamlets and CDPs (Census-Designated Places), do not offer?” The answer is, “Little to nothing.” The Westchester community whose junior and senior high schools are consistently chosen as “best in Westchester” by U.S. News & World Report is not Croton but Edgemont. Before you say, “Edgemont—never heard of it,” you should know that Edgemont is not a village but an unincorporated hamlet in the town of Greenburgh, and has no top-heavy village superstructure and extra layer of village taxation.
Similarly, the community to which Croton residents most often aspire to relocate to for its quality of life and highly regarded school system is Chappaqua in the Town of New Castle. Again, Chappaqua is an unincorporated hamlet, not a village--but that only increases its attractiveness as a community, and removes the extra layer of village taxation.
Then there’s affluent Katonah, also a hamlet, one of three unincorporated hamlets in the Town of Bedford, and a destination for those seeking more-expensive homes. According to the Coldwell Banker Home Price Comparison Index, Katonah ranked as the most expensive housing market surveyed in New York. In the tri-state area, it is only surpassed by Greenwich, Conn., and Ridgefield, N.J. As residents of a hamlet, those who live in Katonah don’t have to worry about an annoying extra layer of village taxes despite their ability to pay.
Another example of a prosperous hamlet is Yorktown Heights in the Town of Yorktown, Its population closely matches Croton’s in size, but it is classified as a Census-Designated Place (CDP). Its residents get along very nicely without the burden—and onerous taxes—of an ultimately useless village superstructure.
Neither Edgemont, Chappaqua, Katonah nor Yorktown Heights seems to be suffering because of the absence of an elaborate village superstructure as a consequence of their failure to incorporate as villages. The quality of life in the Cortlandt hamlet of Montrose is no different from the quality of life in the village of Croton.
What advantage do Croton residents get from maintaining an elaborately structured village government with a budget of $17 million and more than 80 employees? The question inevitably becomes: Are we paying too much for what we get in return?

What Can Residents of Villages Do?
The Commission on Local Government Efficiency created by former Governor Spitzer to study ways to reduce the cost of government determined that a village is an inefficient and unnecessary form of government and should all be dissolved. There is a way for the twenty villages of Westchester County, including Croton, to throw off the yoke of village bureaucracy and lower their exorbitant taxes.
    Provision for the dissolution of villages is covered by New York State law and allows them to be absorbed by the town in which they are located. Reduction of taxes by dissolution of a village will make homes more affordable and make the community more attractive to new businesses. The people of a village like Croton must take only four steps to accomplish dissolution of its village structure. These are detailed in Article 19 of New York State’s Village Law and summarized on pages 72 and 73 of the Local Government Handbook, Sixth Edition (2009), published by the New York Department of State:

(1) A petition signed by at least one-third of the registered voters residing in the Village must be submitted to Croton’s Board of Trustees requesting that a proposition for dissolution be put before the voters on the next general election.
(2) A public hearing must be held to discuss the proposed dissolution of the Village of Croton.
(3) In cooperation with the Town of Cortlandt, the Croton Board of Trustees must develop a plan for disposition of Croton’s assets, payment of Croton’s debts, and the assumption of its services by the Town of Cortlandt. The plan will be part of the proposition of dissolution that will go before the voters.
(4) At the next general or special election, the voters will be asked to vote on the proposition of dissolution. If approved the Village must be dissolved according to the approved plan within one year.

That’s all there is to it. It’s as simple as those four steps outlined above. Other advantages will stem from dissolution of the village. Reduction of taxes will make homes more affordable and make the community more attractive to new businesses. There’s nothing revolutionary about the concept of dissolution. It would merely mark a return to the original town plan of Westchester’s founding fathers. Moreover, the Town of Cortlandt already performs for Town residents many of the Village services that would be transferred.
The chief benefits we get from living in the village of Croton and paying high village taxes are intrusive micromanagement of everyday life and the ability to say that we live in a village. Big deal! There is little that village government does in Croton that the Town of Cortlandt does not do—and does better. It should come as no surprise to learn that several other villages in New York State are in the process of dissolving.
Discontent with multi-layered, self-perpetuating anachronistic government and burdensome taxation for replicated services is spreading. Aside from turning incumbents out of office, what else can the people who live in the villages of Westchester do? They can strike a blow for freedom from oppressive taxes and unnecessary government by starting the simple process of village dissolution. Otherwise, they should stop complaining about high taxes and big government, and suffer in silence. Croton will still be Croton. Absent will be one whole layer of oppressive taxation—and what a great relief that will be.