The Republican attack on voting

"...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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.