An Open Letter to the Mayor of New Rochelle:
Mayor Bramson
You recently posted on your web site that “the status and potential relocation of New Rochelle’s Public Works Yard on East Main Street has stirred a long-running and sometimes heated debate. With the release of a new, detailed and conclusive engineering study, that debate should now be over". With the development of the Echo Bay site promised many times before, there is the inevitable relocation of the public works yard to a new location. This new location has been identified as being on 85 Beechwood Avenue in the West End of New Rochelle. We live in this neighborhood! This is a congested area where many working class residents lived and work. It’s also where I-95 traverses overhead with thousands of cars spewing noxious fumes everyday. It is where children play and walk to their respective schools. In reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the City of New Rochelle produced , it was quite puzzling that the engineers did not look at any other residential open space in New Rochelle. Now with the Mayor and City Manager’s pronouncements, it smells like a done deal. A congested area would soon become even more congested and hazardous. Visualize if you will a huge salt dome, a fueling facility, a recyclables storage facility and a facility for city-owned and employee vehicles. Oh, yes, and plenty of sanitation and public works trucks. As these trucks rumble through our dilapidated streets, our children walk to Jefferson Elementary School or Isaac Young Middle School.
The Beechwood Avenue site mentioned in the DEIS will be more distress than any other neighborhood in New Rochelle. Now the neighborhood with dilapidated buildings and streets, odors and smoke from factories & auto shops, noise from trains and traffic congestion, or another neighborhood characteristic will be more stressful yet. I would argued that our local government needs to be more aggressive about understanding community viewpoints before proposing multi-million dollar potentially hazardous & unhealthy plans that could be resisted by our community.
In February 1994, President Clinton issued an executive order requiring "each federal agency [to] make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low income populations in the United States." In that same year, the New York State Board of Regents on Environmental Quality in Schools affirmed the right of all children to be taught in a safe learning environment and of children, parents, and school employees to know about environmental health hazards in the school environment. Can these same principles apply when you consider the relocation of the department of Public Works to the congested neighborhood of the West End of New Rochelle? There is a 62-acre parcel of land in the northern part of the city that would be more suitable. In the governmental rhetoric that proclaims our rich diversity of community, diversify the allocation of our public works to other parts of the city. Build a community park at 85 Beechwood Avenue. Get my drift!
Martin Sanchez,
New Rochelle, NY
Bob, the garbage fee was
Bob, the garbage fee was set-up as a fudge factor to get around New Rochelle’s origianl tax cap. It was never designed to pay for our garbage collection, it only existed to circumvent the tax cap in a previous (or should I say ongoing) financial fiasco.
Truthiness
Stephen Colbert has coined the word,”truthiness” and that seems to cover a paragraph or two about what seems to have been taking place in governance here over the past decade or thereabouts.
Corrobation abounds in examples that more than suggest a form of governance that has abandoned truth for fiction. Lamentably it might well not be an ethical problem as much as a competency problem. Recently, I have been confused more than I would like to be on this fine line.
So sufficient to say that truthiness is a vague notion here and whether by purpose or happenstance, Strome exemplifies this especially since he seems to be overburdened by arrogance, confused about place in government, done no favors by how he is positioned in council affairs as well as in daily City Hall dealings. The above postings reflect some of this and the Journal News article on Stephen Mayo’s action concerning his Article 78 suit brings this in fruition and compelingly makes the case that Chuck is running on empty if running at all.
In a nutshell, how can you be so audacious, so dismissive of city taxpayers to suggest that “we got it right” in 2012 concerning the actual line item budget on DPW.Does it mean the City fiscal managers got it wrong in prior years, did the Human Resource function somehow totally misrepresent the cost of this area in prior years? If we compared 2011 actual to 2012 forecast, would we see such a difference and be able to account for it? If we compared our per unit or voter cost to neighboring municipalities would we be somewhat in the ballpark in terms of per residence costs?
Of course Stephen is right. The destination has to be the general fund. I think Amodio esq. has a wealth of fertile ground to plow albeit as Stephen likly knows, Article 78 is a difficult legal hurdle to overcome but clearly we are talking about a tax and not a fee. Clearly many people with mortgages are being further victimized by an inability to get appropriate tax credit. And just as clearly, a system based on revenue receipts around fees is a recipe for failure. It is, clearly inept, incomplete, and cowardly expense management. If we are at a financial tipping point, do what must be done; let the chips fall where they may, reassess, cut exempt positions, do the necessary, but stop playing with people’s lives and their intelligence.
Chuck has done this before. He loves to cite a positiion that invites people to take him up on his claim that the budget is correct, and there is “no fat.” Well the fat is in the fire…. no one doubts your ability to add and subtract columnar results. That is hardly the issue. What is doubted is your ability to employ financial management.
But, cut him some slack, maybe lots of it. There is a mass confusion and actually a gulf, between what the City Code explictly states in Article X and XII (I believe) in terms of roles, relationships, and responsibilities. The readers should see for themselves. In a well-run city, this would not be remotely the case. The Code is our statutory rule of law and the facts are clear; we have a mayor who is actually a strong mayor, a City Council which does not understand or apply the fact that they are essentially a board of directors and that means they need to exercise both policy and oversight. They have investigative and subpoena power as well.
but these people are part-timers and perhaps that is part of the problem. Systemically, the Council Meeting forum is more form than substance. Like our MOUs they seem to dwell endlessly on the same topics and the real issues, such as the downtown business district development and the need to decentrailize the structural elements of government from 515 North to Main Street including an active precinct presence, is axiomatic in urban planning. the same is true of setting up some formal arrangement with the school district to begin the process of re-energizing, re-evaluating and gaining accountability of some sort. How can you communicate externally that this is a city worth investing in or living in, if two of the most important criteria are adrift?
Truthiness comes into play on all forms of governmental action. We have a mayoral control of the so callled community effort ot assist in the planning of the city. Suppposedly there was selection criteria for the “selectees,” but never published. Supposedly, their resumes match this criteria which I seriously doubt based on simple timing, closed door council meetings to discuss people who could serve, and much more. Check the 18, the disposition of their match, and you will likely learn it is analogous to a closed meeting held by coops or condo boards to judge applicants. The State has begun to see through this charade recognizing that non-related factor went into the final selection. It was not related solely to what really counts, the credit check and references, but other factors such as race, age of children, God Knows…. non-performance related as are the 18 folks selected for this committee; most of whom could not find Main Street with a GPS. Another rapidly dying political hayride.
Who should bear the responsibilty? Clearly the 7 members of the City Counci. I have rightly included the mayor in this lot feeling that his prescribed “ceremonial mayor role” is outside of this box, What isn’t is his City Hall place and his control of the management process. Strome sits at his right side at council meetings and, were this properly handled from the beginning, he would, at best, be occupying a chair against the wall or in the back of the room. After all, by form and design, the man reports to the City Council.
So, we have a Council with new members and relatively new members. Throw aside your political leanings and ideologies for a time and do what you are being elected to do. It is hard, you are part time and ideologically driven. But, at each meeting forget this majority/minority crap. Put it all in front of the tv cameras and build a record to run on and be held accountable for. Start simply by telling chuck strome that his performance in front of the Journal News reporter was an outright sin. It contradicts basic intelligence and views the City electorate as half-wits. There are plenty of people up in the North End who are beginning to question their political leanings and nothing is better than reviewing ones equity.
In closing, I do not blame the ceremonial mayor, I blame the mayor who runs the council. I think that if the formal arrangements in city governance remain as is, Chuck will need to take a vacation; temporarily or permanently. That is what the council is supposed to exercise authority on.
Martin nice post and you are correct.Having an ex City exempt staffer validate a decision already made, is simple. It likely is proper to move the yard, but perhaps there are better options in the North End. You only know if you are open to try. And, Stephen, you have a tough row to hoe, but you have taken a bold step that few of us would take. We admire you for being able to differentiate between a tax and a fee and that is just a part of it.
I am very proud of the TOTS posters who step up and actually reclaim their citizenship rights and their personhood by declaring that they are a functioning part of this City we all love. Stay the course!
My eleven year old get’s it!
I find it very telling the inability of the City Council and the City Manager to put everything on the table. It’s time for some things to go. If it’s not essential to everyday life than evaluate it and cut the position or program for the time being. When my eleven year old heard me talking about the garbage fee she said,” Dad why do you have to pay an extra fee to get the garbage picked up? I thought that is why you pay taxes? That is pretty stupid.” Her words not mine. If an eleven year old gets it, why can’t Chuck Strome and the City Council? By the way the $4.2 million is not the final cost. It’s an increase to the current fee so it is more like$ 5.6 million. I guess we will also have to hire a Deputy Fee Collector at $100K a year.
Bob, the garbage fee was
Bob, the garbage fee was set-up as a fudge factor to get around New Rochelle’s origianl tax cap. It was never designed to pay for our garbage collection, it only existed to circumvent the tax cap in a previous (or should I say ongoing) financial fiasco.
NO, NOT the North End.
Of course nothing of the sort would be put in the north end. That’s where the most votes are! However, we keep voting these same bums in year in and year out. Why? Another very important thing… why haven’t we fired the city manager yet?? It’s long overdue that we rid ourselves of him and his incompetence.
Careful, Govtruth!
Do you mean to actually hold someone accountable for their actions? How radical a notion in the friendly, diverse, anything-goes environs of New Rochelle! You are absolutely right to seek out good, old-fashioned blame for our city’s abject failure at development and administrative competence. While I have not made up my mind regarding the responsibility of the present city manager for our woes, I believe the exercise you are seeking is a necessary and good one.
How can our community year after year face declining tax revenues and diminishing levels of essential services and NOT try to find the cause, and if necessary, make heads roll. To do anything less is to fail our population in its right to an effective and accountable government. Just like a human organism that needs physical exercise and release; the New Rochelle “body politic” needs an opportunity to flex its muscles and exercise the sovereignty now enjoyed by all manner of banana republic, the 193 members of the United Nations etc.; it’s called self-determination! Find out what is wrong, and take steps to prevent a relapse; including termination of personnel AND programs.
Feeling the pain
Martin Sanchez’s concerns are completely legitimate and his outrage is thoroughly justified. I guess the rich “diversity” much-vaunted by the mayor’s “boomers” in some local editorial pages does not apply to distribution of the burden of municipal logistical services (like DPW operations, also; physical plant, maintenance and supply components of New Rochelle parks/recreation, EMS/public safety). Too bad.
A substantial city-suburb like New Rochelle is big enough and should be big-hearted enough to share the pain of making room for occasionally unpleasant but always necessary city services like public works. Unfortunately, the council majority is so lacking in compassion for the average person, so craven in its disregard for the needs of everyday folk who make the city hum and make it what it is (and carry a considerable share of the tax burden with little complaint) that It refuses to accept the necessity and see the propriety of all sections of town doing their part, “east side, west side all around the town.”
The presumption and disingenuousness of the mayor and council majority is so complete and pervasive, that you can observe its effects even in something as innocuous as a simple city budget. Anyone who has read the document for 2012 has to be struck by its pervasive opacity and contrivance. How else to comprehend the distorted rendering of revenue-raising through an unprecedentedly weird combination of taxes and “user fees.” And try to get through the document author’s budget message without squirming at the creepiness of its logical reasoning and even its choice of vocabulary.
So discomfiting is the experience of reading this tripe, that one cynic has suggested that the final total of revenue being sought (in sum, an approximate 15% increase) must have some other, bizarre purpose; at first glance, hidden from the comprehension of mere law-abiding, innocent mortals. And what creepy, covert purport could have inspired this cynic’s wild speculations? Why, building a sufficient reserve of cash in our decimated city treasury to FINANCE THE ESTIMATED $25 MILLION RELOCATION TO BEECHWOOD AVENUE OF CITY YARD! THAT’S WHAT!
West End Development
You can’t please everyone.
Development
Yes they have north of Eastchester Rd.
What it really boils down to
What it really boils down to is that it's the West End. They do not care about the West End or what happens there and this is not new. My family has lived in the West End since 1907 and it's always been the case. This is another thing they want to dump on us and it's not right.
Welcome ArtDeco!
Welcome ArtDeco! I enjoy reading your well thought out posts on Patch and I hope in the very near future to read lots of your writitngs here.