If You Ask Me

MLK Sustainability Quote (?)

2012-01-16T23:24:00.006-05:00

I fear MLK is going to become like the Bible, or Adam Smith, or Mao -- you can find snippets to justify anything. If I take a sound-bite from the MLK archive and point it at the challenge of sustainability though, I hope the Karmic powers of social justice will not find fault. Here's the quote:

"The fact is that everybody in this country lives on welfare. Suburbia was built with federally subsidized credit, and the highways which take our white brothers out to the suburbs were built by federal money."

The message is equality and racial barriers, but generically, the point could be "there are hidden subsidies everywhere, and many of them amount to "perverse incentives". These are subsidies that work in opposition to societal goals. The highway subsidy exacerbated the economic disenfranchisement of minorities, but it also created our one and a half hour commutes, and, in tandem with the mortgage deduction (another subsidy), the excess of square footage that is contributing to our energy hangover. The cheap crap that I can buy because some workers somewhere, that have no power to negotiate or other job options, are paid next-to-nothing, is also subsidized, and so I buy more of it. Corporate subsidies are in the news every day now. The "free market" is an artificial construct; things are always skewed. So lets not freak out if somebody suggests we should tweak things a bit to encourage people to act in ways that increase our chances of survival. We created sprawl, and our huge footprint. We are obliged to fix it. The good news is that we can be creating sustainable, livable communities at the same time.

The Republican attack on voting

2011-10-04T08:35:00.000-04:00

"...Restrictive voting laws in states across the country could affect up to five million voters from traditionally Democratic demographics in 2012, according to a new report by the Brennan Center."

Can you say Jim Crow? Its time to speak up people; you're next!

Letter to the editor: Indian Point’s danger threat is real

2011-04-07T19:39:00.000-04:00

Thursday, 07 April 2011 00:00

To the Editors:

In J. D. Piro’s last column he reports that Nan Hayworth and Robert Castelli agree that “while safety is their paramount concern, the likelihood of a Japan-style tragedy at Indian Point is fairly low, since a tsunami hasn’t hit the North Atlantic coast since, well, never.” A simple googling of “nuclear accidents” will yield a seemingly endless list of disturbing events from just scary to breathtaking.

Major failures don’t have to involve a tsunami. Recent studies by Columbia University seismologists have revealed that fault lines near Indian Point have the potential to give rise to magnitude 7 earthquakes, higher than the design criteria used for the plant. The more basic fallacy here is that there could be some acceptable level of risk we are willing to take against worst-case scenarios for the metro region. No private company has the right to foist this unlimited risk on us. Ms. Hayworth is very free with references to the wonders of liberty and free markets as solutions for just about everything, yet we hear nothing from her about the corporate socialism represented by the legislative cap on liability provided to the nuclear industry by the Price Anderson Act (effectively making you their insurer).

Area towns, including Lewisboro (2004) and officials at all levels have demanded that we not relicense Indian Point. Mr. Castelli has been supportive of green energy initiatives; I hope he will come out clearly against Indian Point. Ms. Hayworth has a much larger leap to make to join her constituents.

DAN WELSH
South Salem, April 4

2011-03-26T00:39:00.000-04:00

Ledger: Board considers Complete Streets policy

Written by Jane K. Dove
Thursday, 17 March 2011 00:00

Spearheaded by Town Board member Dan Welsh, officials are taking a look at adopting a Complete Streets policy for the town of Lewisboro.

Mr. Welsh has long been an advocate of improving the livability of the town with bike paths, walking trails and other initiatives that would provide links both within and between hamlets.

Complete Streets is a national advocacy organization. “It is an approach to thinking about our streets and roads,” Mr. Welsh told The Ledger. “It is not by origin a government program, but its proponents are encouraging governments at all levels to adopt its principles. Its policies have been adopted in states, counties and towns.”

Mr. Welsh submitted a draft policy for Lewisboro at the March 14 Town Board meeting. Nadine Lemmon, a staff member with the Tristate Transportation Campaign, a proponent of Complete Streets, was on hand at his invitation to answer questions.

Mr. Welsh said the Trsitate Transportation Campaign works to create more sustainable, equitable and transit friendly communities in downstate New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and beyond.
Draft policy

In the policy drafted for review by the Town Board, Mr. Welsh said there is an increased interest and awareness of bike and pedestrian access and safety issues in Lewisboro.

“At its simplest, it is neighbors lamenting that their kids can’t bike around or walk to a friend’s the way they did when they were young,” he said. “More urgently, unsafe conditions at our major intersections have been studied and await improvements. I have prepared a resolution to establish a Complete Streets Policy in response to, and in support of, activity in this area.”

Mr. Welsh said such a policy would provide guidance as the town develops specifics and plans for addressing the deficiencies in the town’s road network and enhances the livability of the community. “Documentation such as this will provide a stronger base for requests made to the state to remedy conditions which negatively impact our residents and limit accessibility in streets and intersections,” he said.

Ms. Lemmon said the driving force behind the policy is that it takes into account all users of roads. She said it allows communities to direct their transportation planner and engineers to design and operate roads with safe access for all users, regardless of age, ability or means of transportation — walking driving or bicycling.
Board response

Town board members said they saw both positives and negatives.

“My concern would be making sure that the state roads, which are central to most of our hamlets and businesses, would benefit from this,” Town Board member Peter DeLucia said. “And if we do adopt something, we have to be very mindful of what happens afterwards. We also have economics to consider.”

Town Board member Frank Kelly said: “We do want a plan for pedestrians and bike access. We just have to figure out the best way to do it.”

Officials agreed that Lewisboro is a “bike-friendly” town and that safety issues for both bikers and pedestrians were an important concern.

At the end of the discussion, Town Board members agreed the policy was worth consideration. “Let’s send this on to the Planning Board and Kellard Sessions to see what they think of the concept,” Mr. Welsh said. “We can then discuss it again.”

Mr. Welsh said more information on Complete Streets is available at www.completestreets.org.

... and here's the resolution itself

2011-03-26T00:27:00.000-04:00

Resolution : End the Wars, Redirect Resources to Critical Needs

March 14, 2011 Lewisboro Town Board

Whereas, March 19, 2011 is the 8th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and October will be the 10th anniversary of the Afghanistan war, arguably the longest in U.S. history, and

Whereas, our country and community face the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression; and

Whereas, 58 cents of every tax dollar spent by the Federal Government on discretionary appropriations is spent to pay for past, present and future military expenditures;

Whereas, not including U.S. military forces presently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, our country maintains more than 350,000 troops stationed in 146 countries and a network of more than 800 bases in 63 foreign countries, which together cost more than $372 billion annually; and

Whereas, U.S. military spending is nearly equal to the total military spending of the rest of the world, and interest payments alone on the military portion of the national debt consumed $30.25 billion in 2009; and

Whereas, between FY 2001 and FY 2008, federal grants to state and local governments increased 0.57% for every 1% increase in total federal budget authority; yet, during the same period, federal military expenditures increased 1.47% for every 1% in total federal budget authority - 258 times the rate of increase in grants to state and local government; and

Whereas, for every $1 billion spent on the military 11,600 jobs are created, while for the same billion dollars 14,800 jobs are created in consumption derived from tax cuts; 17,100 jobs are created by investments in clean energy; 19,600 jobs are created by funding health care; and 29,100 jobs are created from spending on education; and

Whereas, the Pentagon budget was $297 billion when President Clinton left office, and the proposed 2011 fiscal year Pentagon budget was $708 billion, more than double, and military spending by other agencies raises that total to more than $1 trillion; and

Whereas, instead of making us safer, this massive misallocation of resources and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have created more enemies and actually increased the risk of terrorism, and have already cost the lives of over 5000 U.S. troops, wounding more than 100,000 others, and when future medical treatment for injured veterans, replacement equipment and armament, interest payments on the military portion of the debt, and other residual costs are factored in, by 2017 total expenditures are projected to run between $3 and $5 trillion; and

Whereas, this drain on the public treasury is bleeding our nation and forcing a choice between ever greater debt that will be borne by future generations or severe cuts in vital social programs and public services, resulting in government’s inability to meet the most basic needs of our people; and

Whereas, there is no military solution to the problem of terrorism, but terrorists have been effectively dealt with as a criminal justice problem, using police and intelligence methods, choking off finances, and through development assistance, education and other means to address the underlying grievances that are a seedbed for terrorism;
therefore,

Be it resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Lewisboro calls upon the Congress and the President to change course by ending the wasteful and unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, dismantling the global network of military bases, bringing all our troops and tax dollars home, and dramatically shifting our national priorities to meet human needs, restore vital social programs and public services, rebuild our nation’s deteriorating infrastructure, decaying inner cities and the still devastated Gulf Coast, thereby creating stable jobs at living wages for all who seek employment, and by putting our nation on an environmentally sustainable, ecologically responsible path that addresses the challenge of global warming and environmental degradation while reinvigorating our economy; and

Be it finally resolved, that our nation’s security can be more effectively enhanced by using our resources to address the causes of global poverty, hunger, disease, and under-development that are the seedbed for conflict, and by relying on diplomacy, development aid, and international cooperation rather than force of arms, war and military occupation to protect our national security and promote peaceful relations with other countries and peoples.

2011-03-26T00:14:00.001-04:00

Ledger: Welsh’s resolution: Raised and rejected

Written by Jane K. Dove
Thursday, 17 March 2011

Town Board members quickly shot down a resolution to “End the Wars, Redirect Resources to Critical Needs” presented by Town Board member Dan Welsh at the March 14 meeting.

The proposed resolution describes in detail the enormous financial toll taken by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and asks that the Town Board “call upon Congress and the President to change course by ending the wasteful and unwinnable wars … dismantling the global network of military bases, bringing all of our troops and tax dollars home, and dramatically shifting our national priorities to meet human needs.”

The resolution states that our nation’s security may be more effectively enhanced by using our resources to address the causes of global poverty, hunger disease and underdevelopment that are the seedbed for conflict.

Although the resolution was lengthy, Town Board members took only a minute to shoot it down.

“This is one of the most infantile and puerile things I have ever heard,” said Town Board member Frank Kelly, a decorated veteran of the war in Iraq.

Town Board member Peter DeLucia agreed. “The reason we have the freedom to sit here tonight and listen to this is because of our great armed forces. There is no way I would ever even consider seconding a motion on this.”

Supervisor Duffy said he was in agreement with his two colleagues. There was no rebuttal from Mr. Welsh.

Guest Column Re Budget Deliberations

2010-10-02T11:56:00.001-04:00

When you hear "somebody's got to be willing to make the tough decisions", you know the politics is getting revved up.

Guest column: Time to fix budget

Written by Dan Welsh
Thursday, 02 December 2010

A Town Board member’s vote on a budget is a matter of judgment. Where would the majority of residents come out on it? Are the compromises palatable? Is there something “good” which trumps something “popular”? When the majority of the Town Board voted to submit the “austerity budget” to public hearing last week, they apparently found that tax relief outweighed all other considerations. I (and Bruce Pavalow, though I do not purport to represent him here) found otherwise.

The price for achieving the proper “visuals” on this budget includes, among other things, the slashing of an already thin workforce, and cutting of essential services. I saw impacts to our fundamental obligations towards the safety of our residents, and the human reality of long-term dedicated employees and recognition of their status as important stakeholders in the process as tipping the balance against the drastic cuts. I also have strong reservations about the continued masking of financial deficits with temporary plugs.

I think there may be some difference in perception about what actually was sitting on the other side of the balance. My colleagues saw it as an increase that “we just can’t ask of the taxpayer after all they’ve been through.” Whether it’s 6.7% (the original tentative budget), or four-point-something that would have been the figure if we had restored some of the above-mentioned real people to the roles, it was just too much to ask of them. Maybe it’s hard to ask, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not the right thing to do. In absolute terms, those items may cost the average taxpayer roughly $60 a year. Non-wealthy folks that I know have made it clear that they would prefer a modest increase to service cuts that typically hit the average working stiff harder than someone better off.

My colleagues did not characterize it this way, but there are critics out there who want to draw parallels between our town workforce and the “bloated government” archetype as one might find described in a New York Post article on the MTA. Having lived through last year’s seven-month long budget process and the cuts that were made then, I can say that our small town government, made even smaller thereby, just does not harbor a lot of places where anything like bloat can lurk. That does not mean we don’t want to constantly be looking for ways to be more efficient, but we certainly are at the point where we should be trading in our budget machetes for budget paring knives. I feel this last session was one whack too many with the machete.
Perhaps most importantly of all, in placing a flat budget above all other concerns, my colleagues are not making adequate progress in eliminating the budgetary misdirection that is at the root of our financial troubles. There is about $430,000 of “Levy Money” (proceeds from the sale of the parcel left to the town in the deal establishing the preserve) being used to compensate for an operating deficit of the same size in this budget. The $75,000 reserve allowance cuts that deficit back to, call it $350,000. This is only marginally less than the operating deficit in the 2010 year. This means we are passing this problem largely on to the future to resolve. Unsustainable staff cuts are also a form of deferral. Eventually, we are going to have to staff to do the job, and at that time, we will have to pay for it. In my mind, we should at least be cutting this operating deficit in half, to $200,000. That means another $50 to $60 a household. In total, perhaps $150 from each taxpayer will restore services and move us towards fiscal stability. Put that in your scale and let the Town Board know which way it tilts. There is still time to fix things before the final vote.

Mr. Welsh is a Town Board member.

Clean Energy Finance for Lewisboro

2010-02-27T11:18:00.000-05:00

Thankfully, and maybe with the help of measured, non-ideological commentary like this from the Ledger, the Town Board voted to participate in this Northern Westchester Energy Acton Consortium program. It will take a while to develop, but I'm glad that Lewisboro chose to stay on the curve rather than behind it.

Editorial: Keeping the PACE

Thursday, 10 December 2009 01:30

Dan Welsh may soon lose his position as part of the majority party on the Town Board, but he has not lost his zeal for energy-saving initiatives. His latest proposal, to have Lewisboro join Bedford and other municipalities to qualify for state money to enable homeowners to retrofit their homes with energy upgrades, appears to be another “smart” idea the board needs to seriously consider.

New York’s PACE program — Property Assessed Clean Energy — eliminates the upfront costs for energy improvements by allowing taxpayers to pay for them over 15 to 20 years through an increase in their annual property taxes. More information regarding the proposal is needed, but the concept is sound and does not appear to burden the town in any way. Instead, it would merely serve as a medium for the state to deliver the money to residents who want to make the upgrades but lack the money to pay for them entirely now, and for the financing to be repaid. Makes sense, right? Well, so did the proposal to consider Smart Grid technology, with no commitment by the town. The outcome? The Town Board was the only one of 13 local municipality governing bodies to turn it down.

What makes this proposal’s standing in Lewisboro even more precarious is that some board members stated that the totality of their efforts must be focused on eliminating the deficit at the expense of other projects. The board has rightfully spent countless hours attacking the deficit and will continue to do so for months, but that doesn’t mean that all else be ignored, especially projects at no cost that save energy and lower residents’ utility bills.

Climategate may finally quiet those who were screaming that global warming is solely a manmade phenomenon that is occurring at an alarming pace, but that does not mean that the environment should be tread upon harshly. Instead, conservation efforts and green initiatives, such as this one, that come without burdening property owners deserve support by local governments to help ensure the environment remains protected for years to come.

Peace Pumpkin

2009-11-08T19:46:00.005-05:00

Try it - its not really that scary

Time to hit the streets again

2009-10-29T22:55:00.003-04:00

Every chance you get, question the madness

Rethink Afghanistan

Oct 1, 2009 Column Refuting Councilman Delucia's Column Critiquing Wetlands Law

2009-10-01T09:15:00.009-04:00

Guest Column: Wetlands proposal is sound

Written by Dan Welsh
Thursday, 01 October 2009

If you read Peter DeLucia’s column in The Ledger last week, you might come away with serious misunderstandings about the town wetlands law and proposed revisions to it. I believe it is important to point out the deficiencies in that column, that we might proceed with discussions on a sound footing and pass the proposed administrative upgrades that will save homeowners time and money while continuing to protect out water supply and home values.

First off, we should note that the current iteration of the code has stood up to four years of exhaustive and aggressive (and expensive) challenges in court. While there has been a good deal of press about these suits, the day-to-day reality is that those tasked with applying the law — the Planning Board and the wetlands inspector — have found the law to be quite functional, and it has achieved its central purpose. While there is always room for tweaking, the Town Board member’s cry of “unfair” is at minimum an unfortunate rhetorical choice.

Mr. DeLucia makes much of the fines, but in fact the intent of the code is to achieve compliance and protect the water supply, not to punish. Larger fines may be assessed when the violation is deemed “willful.” There have been two such cases in the past few years. The average fine for all others during the same period is $194. He supports his case for reducing fine levels by comparing Lewisboro’s maximum fine with Bedford’s minimum. Such jarring logical misadventures cannot be a useful contribution to the dialog.

Mr. DeLucia contends that the drafters of the proposed modifications did damage to the existing code by removing the wetlands map, though he is fully aware that the town has no wetlands map, and never did. At the meeting where the Town Board reviewed the draft modifications, respected neighbor Dean Travalino helped reconstruct the history. In its earlier version, the code indeed called for reference to a town wetlands map, but such a map was never prepared. The folks who brought us the existing code, apparently recognizing this, removed the references, except they missed one appearance of the term — in the definitions. The code never actually applies the defined term, so it is misleading to say it has been removed and the drafters of the proposed modifications should not be accused of doing something they did not do, and could not have done.

Wetland maps are not the panacea that Mr. DeLucia’s column makes them out to be. In every case where they are made available, they are provided as macro guidelines only, and site-specific determinations are always made by a trained wetland biologist. Developing townwide wetlands maps would be an extremely expensive project, would need constant updating, and would not provide the definitive demarcation that he promises to readers.

Mr. DeLucia devotes much effort to advocating that only wetlands of some minimum size be subject to regulation. While it is not obvious to me that we can know what size wetlands we can write off without putting our water supply at risk, the more immediate problem is that the package of modifications prepared for us was intended to bring time and cost savings to homeowners quickly while deferring complex issues that would delay enactment or perhaps even threaten it altogether. Setting a size for wetlands is clearly one of those complex issues since it requires expert technical input and there is a good likelihood that opinions may diverge. Again, Mr. DeLucia is well aware of this background.

The use of the term “window dressing” to describe a set of sensible updates to the wetland code prepared by dedicated volunteers does not establish a good environment for working through this task. I hope we can move these useful changes through the legislative process quickly so that homeowners may enjoy the benefits.

... and here is Councilman Delucia's original column; does he really want to open this up again, encouraging frivolous suits that will hurt the town?:

Guest Column: Lewisboro needs a fair wetlands law

Written by Peter DeLucia
Thursday, 24 September 2009

I appreciate the hard work put in by the supervisor’s task force in drafting proposed amendments to the town’s current wetland and watercourse code. Their goals, to make interpretation, compliance, and administration easier and to reduce expenses for homeowners, are those that I have been strongly advocating since first being elected four years ago.

However, after a review of the proposed revisions, it is clear that the more critically needed changes have not been included, and some of the proposed changes might actually be counterproductive.

For example, the current revisions remove the requirement that the town maintain a wetlands map. The town has never had more mapping capabilities than it has today. Additionally, the County Planning Department maintains wetland maps. Getting rid of the map requirement may save the town some money, but it certainly will not save homeowners any expenses. As with the state law and neighboring towns, the map serves as fair notice to homeowners of the presence of wetlands.

Doing away with the requirement that the town maintain a wetlands map is like doing away with the requirement to post speed limit signs on our highways. This is a fairness issue. How does a driver know he or she is speeding without a speed limit sign? How does a homeowner know that he or she is near wetlands without a map?

Generally, wetlands that don’t appear on a map are small, new, and often difficult to define, and usually artificially created by road runoff and other outside causes. Is it fair to then assess a fine for an unintentional violation? Lack of adequate notice is the reason that the Department of Environmental Conservation does not fine first offenders for inadvertent violations on wetlands that are not mapped, though they can be made to pay the cost of remediation.

Despite the revisions, the fines remain excessive. Drunk driving in New York carries a fine of $500, yet a first time wetlands violator can be subject to multiple fines of up to $7,500 each. In Bedford, the fines start at $250. While our current Planning Board has been fair in the administration of the law, the ordinance must be written to work no matter who is enforcing it. I would like to see a sliding scale of violations — nominal if the wetlands are not mapped and increasing after the first offense.

In addition, I remain uncomfortable with having planners, often already involved in the applicant’s permit application, act as a “wetlands court.” This is unfair both to the members of the board who must sit in judgment of their neighbors and to the applicants who deserve a hearing by an independent body. It is also contrary to my experience in hearings and enforcement at the county level, where we use independent hearing examiners to adjudicate health code violations.

Another concern is that under state law the “activities of farmers and other landowners” are exempt from local wetlands laws. Yet the new proposal contains a definition for “agriculture activities,” which would end this exemption for backyard farmers and horse owners. By contradicting the state law, this could render our entire local law invalid.

Also, the current proposal retains the controversial “clearance form,” which requires the wetlands inspector to come out and look at every project no matter how minor. This costs the town money by duplicating the efforts of the building department, and is an unreasonable intrusion on homeowners’ privacy.

Finally, if we intend to pass a law that increases protection for homeowners, provides certainty, and saves unwarranted expense, there needs to be a defined minimum size wetland area where the buffer regulations don’t apply. The state only regulates wetlands 12 acres or larger. In Pound Ridge, a watershed area and the only other local town with a 150-foot buffer, wetlands of less than one-quarter acre are exempt. Our local stormwater ordinance exempts area disturbances of fewer than 5,000 feet. Otherwise, we are back to the same illogical situation where a homeowner living on one acre with a small, seasonally wet depression three feet in diameter would be subject to an 150-foot buffer extending completely around this tiny “wetland” and effectively prohibited from doing anything on his or her property without a visit from the wetlands inspector and most likely incurring fees and other consulting costs.

I share the belief that the sooner the code is amended the better. However, without careful consideration of the changes outlined above, acting in haste will, at best, be just “window dressing” and more likely result in a further setback for the rights of Lewisboro homeowners.

8/20/09 Letter to Editor Re TB Votes Down Smart Grid

2009-09-19T23:08:00.000-04:00

Last Thursday, the Pound Ridge Town Board voted to participate in a grant application under one of the richest of the economic recovery program initiatives. They join 8 other Northern Westchester towns in this effort to obtain funds to enable their residents and the municipal government to invest and earn revenue in the new "green" economy on the Fed's nickel. If/when the grant is won, if a town deems the arrangements not in their interest, they can still opt out. After the program is launched, the town and residents are under no obligation to utilize the grant funds to purchase Smart-grid-enabled appliances or invest in other income-generating electrical control facilities. After purchasing Smart grid enabled items with federal support, there is no obligation to participate in the electric grid "calls”. And then finally, if they do offer to “shed load” on call, the risk that the commitment is not met is taken on by a third party "aggregator”. On the same evening that Pound Ridge became the 9th town to join in, Lewisboro voted against participation - for the second time. Lewisboro is the only town to bring this simple, risk-free resolution to a vote, and vote it down. My colleagues offered an agitated avalanche of reasons, mostly around the risk theme, why they would not join Supervisor Ed Brancati and myself in voting to make this program available to the town. I found these totally at odds with reality. Perhaps they will have more success explaining to the public.

7/30/09 Letter to Editor re Recycling Center

2009-09-19T23:04:00.001-04:00

[Printed as Guest Column] I suspect that there will be a number of letters complaining about the shutting down of regular operations at the recycling center. To some extent, I don't blame anyone for wanting to vent on this one; it certainly sounds bad. Lewisboro's recycling rate ranked near the bottom of the pile in statistics recently released by the County, so on its face, this would seem to be the wrong move at the wrong time. I believe however that this austerity move, just one of many large and small made in an effort to close the budget gap, could actually serve as the proverbial “kick in the pants” to push Lewisboro to the next level in sustainable waste management. A couple of weeks ago, 20-30 people from towns around the county gathered in Somers to hear Lewisboro’s Neil Cutler give an overview of options and best practices for managing and reducing the amount of material we send to landfills. Discussion followed, and the group intends to work on common approaches such as shared facilities and negotiating with carters for enhanced pickup options. I personally think that the key to increasing recycling rates is to expand the types of material we can put out on the curb and we will need the carters’ help with this. My carter only takes plastics 1 and 2 yet in some area towns they are already accepting 1-6. Maybe there could be periodic pickup of fluorescent bulbs or e-waste. Certainly mixed paper represents a large volume of the material going into our regular garbage and this could be recovered as well. The Lewisboro recycling center has been a great asset, but it has been taking two categories of material only – scrap metal and co-mingled glass and plastics. The latter is now taken by all carters, so in actuality, the only unique service we offered was the scrap metal. We are planning on opening up on a quarterly basis for this. We don’t know how it will all shake out exactly, but I feel certain that we will find ways to make it easier for residents to do the right thing with their waste.

3/26/09 Ledger Letter re Library Mailing

2009-09-19T22:22:00.004-04:00

The library’s “Building Project Update” mailing was a welcome addition to a dialog which should afford Lewisboro residents a better chance to inform themselves about the plan to move the Library to the Town Park. My 250 words permits a only limited response here. The mailing states that the 20 plus year-old master plan is a policy statement only, a set of guidelines. The implication, not fully expressed, is that the principles and findings therein are no longer applicable, or, somehow inappropriate in this situation. Preserving the hamlets is one of the key themes of the MP, and removing the library from Main St. South Salem is not consistent with that. The proponents of the move to the park may feel that the benefits they cite outweigh this negative impact, but it remains a negative impact by any reasonable standard, not at all diminished by the fact that the Master Plan is a plan, and not legislation.

A late nineties survey is declared to have defined the needs of the community. I hope the library will post the questions and response summaries on the library website to help us understand the basis for the project scope. These days, it is a rare project which is not obliged to submit itself to the realities of compromise. A series of discrete questions (e.g., “is the children’s area adequate?”) may yield an attractive wish list, but designing a project which optimally balances these with un-surveyed factors, budgets and current reality is another thing.

2/12/2009 Letter re Library Project Worksession

2009-02-13T09:05:00.002-05:00

I want to thank my colleagues on the Town Board, the Library Board and other participants for a good exchange last week in our work session on the library project. The thing that really stuck out for me was that, as much as it has been portrayed as being the best solution for the project, there was a marked lack of enthusiasm from the great majority of participants for the plan to move to the Town Park. The majority of the Board expressed the sense that keeping the library in the hamlet was the better option, yet ultimately voted 4-1 in favor of authorizing our engineering consultant to proceed with examination of the latest proposed site for septic, water and other details. Perhaps, understandably, this reflects a desire to be sensitive to the hard work done over the last decade, but we should be basing our decision on the larger picture; this plan fails to fulfill one of the key elements of the town's Master Plan - the preservation and enhancement our hamlets.

I'll say it again: if the library is to go anywhere, the only place that makes sense is at the heart of Cross River, as part of a larger effort to make that area realize its potential as a livable, functional hamlet, and a Town Center that Lewisboro never had. But, since a suitable plot and that larger plan are nowhere in sight, the best option now is to stay put. Design the project around the funding that is available now, put a second story on the front of the building, maybe do without the “multipurpose room,” and go forward – now.

12/31/08 Letter to Editor Re Misleading

2009-01-02T19:06:00.000-05:00

I don't for a moment think it was some conscious effort to create a ruckus where there wasn't, but anybody reading the "Narrowly Passes" headline and browsing the story would have to come to the conclusion that there were two diametrically opposed sides in the discussions. In reality, there was plenty of noise, but no disagreement on anything material. There will no doubt be opportunities to report on actual disagreement going forward. The Ledger deserved this poke.

Ledger Article was Misleading

Consciously or un, December 24th's “Town Budget Narrowly Passes” article was misleading, in that it left out any facts that would not support its narrow narrative. The headline and text seem to suggest that there is one faction fighting against rising costs while another treats these with indifference. For example, the article credits Mr. Delucia with a comment about moving to centralized purchasing, but if you check the minutes, you will find the first comment about this to have been made by Mr. Brancati. I am quoted once in the article, saying that I did “not want to hack away and risk hurting town programs”. Left out was the fact that I said we should continue to work on operation costs going forward into the new year, but that cutting more at this time without any additional facts would not be wise. Also left out, any reference to the substantial savings achieved by restructurings to our benefit packages initiated by the supervisor.

Both Mr Brancati and myself offered to continue with the line-item review if our colleagues wanted to do so, but our colleagues did not take us up on this. Lets face it, the two nay votes by my colleagues were political freebies – up or down, the budget would be unchanged. Voting no allowed them to lay claim to the populist fiscal position without any real downside. I do not begrudge them a bit of political posturing, but the Ledger should not be abetting this. Consciously or un.

and in response, this "Editor's note:

Although the article did not specifically mention Mr. Welsh when talking about reducing operation costs next year, it say that all of the board members agreed to review the town's organization next year to save money.

Noted, but this reference to "all the board members" does not alter the overall message in any significant way.

Statement re library at 12/4 Town Board work session

2008-12-29T19:16:00.000-05:00

It is now two years since the deal was made to move the library to the Park and we don't yet have a final resolution for the site location, let alone be anywhere close to breaking ground.

The proposed move would have tremendous impacts on the town and certainly on the hamlet of South Salem, and yet there has been no attempt to solicit public comment.

Though the library is operated as an independent entity, the majority of the funding of course comes from town taxes. Significant funds have already been spent. The details of the financial arrangements for the project have been reported to some extent I believe, but are not readily available for the public to review on either the town or library websites as far as I can see. As I understand those, the town has committed to cover some portion of construction overruns. We need to know the magnitude of our exposure, particularly in today's climate.

There is, and always has been, a less costly alternative to the Town Park - expansion at the original site. That alternative was shelved not because of irreconcilable technical obstacles, but due to human factors. It is quite possible that the passage of time may have mitigated those factors and this effective option may be pursued.

We need to know more, but from what I do know, it seems clear to me that keeping the library in South Salem hamlet is the most cost effective path to expansion. Moving it to the park will be costly and is contrary to the hamlet-centered planning philosophy set out in the town Master Plan and to the great preponderance of opinion on modern town planning.

I believe the Town Board therefore has a duty to take up discussion of the current status of the project, review the arrangements and financials, and facilitate a forum to collect resident input, and so I propose that these things be put on the agenda.

12/4/08 Letter to the Editor re AP Fields Commentaries

2008-12-29T19:06:00.000-05:00

Certain recent commentaries and letters have asserted that Supervisor Brancati was the "chief advocate" for the Legacy Fund/A.P. Farms proposal, and that he reversed himself by voting "no." In fact, Mr. Brancati worked hard to see that the case for this proposal got a fair airing. To make that happen required that he work with the County at various levels to make sure that preconditions for making the offer were attainable. Only by doing this would we even have had a chance to go through the process and see whether the project might be a net benefit to the town. Would our residents have been satisfied with anything less than such a good faith effort? This was not a case of "good guys" vs. "bad guys" -- it was an example of the supervisor doing his job by exploring all the options and putting them on the table. Mr. Brancati remained objective and uncommitted up until the vote. His statements were always measured, and he made it clear that the decision should be made on merits only. This is not "spin" -- it's all there in the public record.

On the whole, I have found the atmosphere on the town board this past year to be civil and productive. I do not expect us all to agree on everything. Nor do I expect critics to “go easy” on us -- but I do expect their comments to be reality-based, and well intentioned. That has not been the case thus far. I am hopeful that well-meaning colleagues and neighbors will direct the focus back to sensible and objective analysis, constructive ideas and cheers for the many doing the good and hard work.

Here to read if you wanna

2008-11-21T22:44:00.000-05:00

I guess low-level public officials like yours truly must have an obligation to hang the mental laundry out in public from time to time, eh? This seems like a good way to share my take on the context for some decisions or thoughts on issues that have been percolating. Beats letting people guess or depending on the kindness of chain emails I suppose. But one needs to take care that it doesn't become some kind of ego exercise! Like somebody really wants to read this stuff.